This is a caption

This is a caption
Mohammad Mohabbai

Sexual violence and harassment is one of the injustices that has always been imposed on women; but does such a thing exist in the sexual relationships between husband and wife? And has sexual violence been prescribed in Islamic law and Iranian laws? These questions are the subject of this essay. In this essay, we will examine and evaluate empowerment, the conditions and limits of empowerment, and the relationship between empowerment and sexual violence. The result of this study shows that neither the husband nor the wife has the right to force or dominate the other in empowerment. Therefore, the lack of coercion by the husband and wife in this matter shows that domination in this regard is an unjust violence.

The history of oppression and injustice in all tribes and nations has been against women, and the dignity and honor of women as equal human beings to men (as stated in the Holy Quran, superiority is only based on piety) has never been given to her. Therefore, there have been many movements and movements around the world to support women’s rights and to achieve the true value and position of women, and it continues to this day to eliminate any violence and oppression based on gender. In this regard, observing moderation and avoiding any extremism and exaggeration is necessary for any reform movement.

Islam, fourteen centuries ago, at a time when humanity was being trampled upon and women were suffering more than men, raised the voice of human rights and declared that women are not only commodities, but also have equal worth, dignity, and rights as men. However, the existence of certain customs and traditions in some Muslim communities, as well as incorrect interpretations of religion, have led to some injustices being attributed to religion by malicious or ignorant individuals.

1- Empowerment

The term “empowerment” has been used in jurisprudence in two general and specific meanings. The general meaning of empowerment is the acceptance of the husband’s responsibility in managing the family institution; whether as the head of the family or as the responsible and head of the household, depending on the differences in the principles regarding the husband’s authority over his wife.

Empowerment is a specific concept that does not have vague or complicated meanings, and for this reason, scholars do not have any disagreements in defining it. The owner of the Islamic laws states in this regard: “Empowerment means removing barriers between husband and wife (for establishing communication) in a way that there are no limitations in terms of time and place.”

One of the contemporary scholars defines empowerment as: “The state of readiness (of a woman) for pleasure upon the request of her husband and vice versa.”

Of course, the lack of time constraints does not cover legitimate excuses and customary necessities. The consensus of jurists is that these excuses are only valid in specific times and places, outside of cases of obligation. In fact, specific excuses create conditions for meeting sexual needs in any possible and customary situation. Legal scholars have also referred to both bases of excuses, general excuse being the acceptance of the husband’s authority over the family and respecting his will in managing the family, while specific excuse pertains to the sexual relationship between the wife and husband and fulfilling his legitimate requests in this regard. Therefore, it is not an absolute necessity to fulfill all requests, but it must be within the limits of what is legitimate, and its judgment is based on time and place, according to customs and morals. Therefore, if the husband’s requests are immoral and unconventional, they will not be considered legitimate.

Considering the issues that have been raised, empowerment is a two-way process. Unfortunately, in society and among renowned scholars, only the empowerment of women by their husbands is discussed. While empowerment is a universal concept and even in sexual matters, it includes both women and men. However, because the male perspective is more prominent, men often consider themselves more entitled to empowerment and sometimes resort to violence.

2- Forcing communication?!

With the removal of obstacles, both men and women are obligated to empower each other. Now, if they fall short in this regard and are not willing to empower each other, does the wife or husband have the right to forcefully establish a relationship with each other? Or has religion and law considered other measures for this deviant behavior towards a wife or husband? The use of force and domination, just as it is not permissible in normal interpersonal relationships in terms of their rights, is also not allowed in family relationships and neither Islam nor the foundation of family and the behavior of spouses towards each other approves of such a method. The reasons for this prohibition are explained below:

a) Origin of the absence of guardianship

In any issue, if there is not sufficient evidence to prove it, or if there is doubt, one must refer to principles. One of the important and accepted principles in interpersonal relationships according to jurisprudents is that no person has control over the life and property of another, unless it has been established for them by law or religious authority. This is a self-evident principle. The owner of the jewels says: “The lack of control of one person over another after reaching maturity and adulthood is self-evident and necessary, even if it is in the interest of that person.”

The following 22 fundamental laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran state: “The dignity, life, property, rights, residence, and employment of individuals are protected, except in cases where the law permits otherwise.” Therefore, in times of doubt about personal guardianship over another person, the principle of non-guardianship of one over the other must be established. Therefore, the first principle in the relationship between husband and wife is whether or not the husband has the right to use coercion, the principle of non-guardianship of the husband in this matter.

b) Famous origin

With a general look at the verses of the Holy Quran, one can find the answer to this question. In the verses related to family relationships, emphasis is placed on good behavior and intimacy, and the word “al-ma’ruf” is frequently used. In one verse it says: “And live with them in kindness.” Paying attention to the meaning and content of the verse provides an answer to the question posed. This verse presents two situations for the relationship between husband and wife; one is to hold on and the other is to let go, and both are tied to kindness and goodness. It says: either live with your wife with purity and intimacy, or let her go with kindness and goodness. In one interpretation it is stated: “Just as holding on to a wife is tied to kindness, meaning that returning and holding on should be based on purity and intimacy, separation is also tied to kindness; meaning that separation and divorce should be free from any undesirable actions such as seeking revenge

The interesting thing is that even in the case of divorce and leaving a woman, the Almighty God orders kindness, generosity, and loving behavior. What’s even more interesting is that He advises men that if they want to pressure a woman into divorce and take back some of her dowry, that dowry will not be considered lawful for them. And in the end of the verse, He introduces these laws as the limit of knowledge and calls violating them injustice and oppression. “Do not harm them in order to restrict them” – in this verse, He forbids any kind of harm or damage to women. “So hold onto them in kindness or let them go in kindness, and do not hold onto them for harm, lest you transgress” – meaning, either keep them with dignity or let them go with dignity, and do not keep them for the purpose of causing harm.

The Constitution

The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran deprives husbands of such authority. As stated in Article 40: “No one can use their rights as a means of harming others or encroaching upon public interests.”

As forced relationships can have severe physical, mental, and emotional consequences, Article 40 of the Constitution rejects such actions that cause harm to others. Therefore, the statement that some make, “Empowerment gives the man the right to have sexual relations with his wife without considering her physical and mental readiness,” is rejected. Firstly, it goes against Article 40 of the Constitution. Secondly, it contradicts the verse “Live with them in kindness.” Thirdly, if the wife does not give consent, for a valid reason or without reason, the husband does not have the right to force her, and instead, he has a specific obligation to fulfill, which he must act upon. Some contemporary scholars believe that just as a man may not always be ready for sexual relations, a woman may also not be ready due to mental preoccupations, illness, etc. This goes against humanity and is considered a form of abuse. Therefore, if judicial authorities are indifferent towards a husband’s deviant sexual

3- A proposal for amending the enforcement law.

According to the law and regulations, husband and wife have rights and responsibilities towards each other. Among them is the concept of “tamkin”, which means fulfilling each other’s sexual needs, and it is a shared duty between husband and wife. Fulfilling this duty correctly not only protects them from indecency, but also ensures the health and well-being of society. According to the law and regulations, and the emphasis of the Holy Quran, the standard for the behavior of spouses towards each other is to be based on good manners and kindness. In fact, “tamkin” in the law and constitution means maintaining ethical conduct in order to preserve the health and well-being of the family and society. Any form of violent behavior is not only not permitted by the law, but is also explicitly prohibited by religious texts. In the words of Ayatollah Motahhari, good behavior and avoiding harm towards one’s spouse is a general principle in the realm of marital rights. Therefore, any form of

“In case of the husband’s refusal to pay the wife’s rights, such as avoiding paying alimony, inability to enforce court orders, or failure to fulfill other duties such as conjugal relations, the wife can seek divorce from the judge and the judge can force the husband to divorce.”

Furthermore, considering the points mentioned, it becomes clear that forcing someone to do something is not desirable from a rational, religious, and customary perspective; therefore, it is suggested:

It is mandatory to empower the husband, who exists in the judicial system, and even though for years such a verdict has been issued in courts, it should be invalidated. Because such a verdict is devoid of any legal evidence and is also impossible in practice.