There are numerous misconceptions regarding the issue of marital rape and the manner in which it is handled under an Islāmic framework. The misunderstandings of ḥadīths, traditional positions, and definitions have led to harmful misrepresentations that necessitate laying forth a nuanced explanation void of inaccuracies and ill-researched statements. The article, as such, aims to elaborate upon and elucidate how rape was traditionally addressed, defined in classical juridical works, relates to marriage, the rulings that are relevant thereto, along with the ḥadīths that are frequent points of contention and how the Western paradigm is different and inferior compared to the manner in which the crime is dealt with in the Islāmic tradition.
The word used in the Arabic language to refer to rape is ightiṣāb, which means to “take something wrongfully by force”. Regarding ightiṣāb against a woman, and in the context in which it is generally applied in classical juridical works, it refers to forcefully taking a woman’s honor by engaging in intercourse without her consent. It is a well-established crime in Islām with there being agreement that it is Ḥarām.1 There is no ikhtilāf2 concerning it being a crime, but rather a khilāf on the exact punishment that is to be imposed on the perpetrator.
Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr (رَحِمَهُ الله) said,
وَلَا نَعْلَمُ خِلَافًا بَيْنَ الْعُلَمَاءِ أَنَّ الْمُسْتَكْرَهَةَ لَا حَدَّ عَلَيْهَا
We do not know of any difference of opinion among the scholars [concerning] that there is no punishment upon the one who was coerced (i.e., raped).3
To further highlight the differences that exist with regard to additional punishments that many jurists apply, he writes:
وَاخْتَلَفَ الْفُقَهَاءُ فِي وُجُوبِ الصَّدَاقِ عَلَى الْمُغْتَصِبِ فَقَالَ مَالِكٌ وَاللَّيْثُ وَالشَّافِعِيُّ عَلَيْهِ الصَّدَاقُ وَالْحَدُّ جَمِيعًا
There is ikhtilāf among the jurists concerning whether the [payment of the] dowry will be imposed on the rapist. Concerning this, Mālik, al-Layth, and al-Shāfiʿī said that the [payment of the] dowry will be upon him, combined with the ḥadd.4,5
Imām Mālik (رَحِمَهُ الله) stated:
قال يحيى: وسمعت مالكا يقول: الأمر عندنا في الرجل يغتصب المرأة بكرا كانت أو ثيبا. أنها إن كانت حرة فعليه صداق مثلها. وإن كانت أمة فعليه ما نقص من ثمنها. والعقوبة في ذلك على المغتصب .ولا عقوبة على المغتصبة في ذلك كله. وإن كان المغتصب عبدا، فذلك على سيده. إلا أن يشاء أن يسلمه.
In our view the man who rapes a woman whether she is a virgin or not, if she is a free woman he must pay a “dowry” like that of her peers, and if she is a slave he must pay whatever has been detracted from her value. The punishment is to be carried out on the rapist and there is no punishment for the woman who has been raped, whatever the case.6
Shaykh Salmān al-Bājī (رَحِمَهُ الله) writes:
الْمُسْتَكْرَهَةُ لَا يَخْلُو أَنْ تَكُونَ حُرَّةً أَوْ أَمَةً فَإِنْ كَانَتْ حُرَّةً فَلَهَا صَدَاقُ مِثْلِهَا عَلَى مَنْ اسْتَكْرَهَهَا وَعَلَيْهِ الْحَدُّ وَبِهَذَا قَالَ الشَّافِعِيُّ وَهُوَ مَذْهَبُ اللَّيْثِ وَرُوِيَ عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ – رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ
In the case of a woman who is forced (raped): if she is a free woman, the one who forced her must pay her a “dowry” like that of her peers, and the Ḥadd punishment is to be carried out on him. This is the view of al-Shāfiʿī, and it is the view of al-Layth, and it was also narrated from ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (رَضِيَ ٱللَّٰهُ عَنْهُ).7
وكذلك الوطء عن إكراه ال يوجب الحد
Intercourse due to compulsion does not require the ḥadd (for the one who was compelled).8
The opinion of the Ḥanafīs is that the Ḥadd is to be carried out upon the perpetrator but he is not obliged to pay the dowry. Abū-l-Walīd al-Bājī writes:
وَقَالَ أَبُو حَنِيفَةَ وَالثَّوْرِيُّ: عَلَيْهِ الْحَدُّ دُونَ الصَّدَاقِ
And Abū Ḥanīfa and al-Thawrī said, “The ḥadd will be upon him without the dowry.”9
Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr quoted the same opinion from Abū Ḥanīfa, Abū Yūsuf, Muḥammad al-Shaybānī, and al-Thawrī.10 He writes:
وَقَالَ أَبُو حَنِيفَةَ وَأَبُو يُوسُفَ وَمُحَمَّدٌ وَسُفْيَانُ الثَّوْرِيُّ عَلَيْهِ الْحَدُّ وَلَا مهر عليه
And Abū Ḥanīfa, Abū Yūsuf, Muḥammad, and al-Thawrī said that the ḥadd will be upon him and not the Mahr (dowry).11
The view of the Ḥanbalīs is that the Ḥadd is to be carried out upon the perpetrator and he would be obliged to provide the woman a “dowry” appropriate for a woman of her status. The same opinion was transmitted from Ibn Jurayj. Maʿmar transmitted the same opinion from al-Zuhrī and Qatādah is reported to have said the same.12
The notion that the woman is to be punished for being coerced into intercourse is nothing short of a misconception or a deliberate lie on the parts of those who wish to propagate anti-Islāmic rhetoric. Al-Buhūtī writes:
(وَإِنْ أُكْرِهَتْ الْمَرْأَةُ عَلَى الزِّنَا أَوْ) أُكْرِهَ (الْمَفْعُولُ بِهِ لِوَاطًا قَهْرًا أَوْ بِالضَّرْبِ أَوْ بِالْمَنْعِ مِنْ طَعَامٍ أَوْ شَرَابٍ اضْطِرَارًا إلَيْهِ وَنَحْوِهِ) كَالدِّفْءِ فِي الشِّتَاءِ وَلَيَالِيهِ الْبَارِدَةِ (فَلَا حَدَّ) لِقَوْلِهِ – صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ – «رُفِعَ عَنْ أُمَّتِي الْخَطَأُ وَالنِّسْيَانُ وَمَا اُسْتُكْرِهُوا عَلَيْهِ» رواه النسائي
And if the woman is coerced into intercourse/sodomy by being beaten or by having her access to food or drinks prevented, for example, there will be no Ḥadd upon her, for the Prophet (ﷺ), said, “My Ummah has been forgiven for their errors and for their forgetfulness and for what is forced upon them” (Nasāʾī).13
وَالْعَمَلُ عَلَى هَذَا عِنْدَ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ مِنْ أَصْحَابِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَغَيْرِهِمْ أَنْ لَيْسَ عَلَى الْمُسْتَكْرَهَةِ حَدٌّ
And this is to be acted upon for the Companions of the Prophet (ﷺ) and others beside them, in that there is no ḥadd for the woman who is raped.14
There is agreement among the scholars concerning this point, with Ijmāʿ cited by many. Ibn Rushd, to provide another example besides Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, writes:
وَلَا خِلَافَ بَيْنَ أَهْلِ الْإِسْلَامِ أَنَّ الْمُسْتَكْرَهَةَ لَا حَدَّ عَلَيْهَا
There is no difference between the Muslims concerning [the point] that there is no Ḥadd upon the one who was raped.15
The rapist, across the madhāhib,16 is largely treated as a fornicator or an adulterer (with some imposing a dowry on the unmarried rapist as an additional punishment, as discussed). If he is married, he is to be stoned; he is to be lashed otherwise. It is important to clarify that the payment of the dowry upon the perpetrator is a fine—one that he must pay to a free woman due to coercing her into that which can only be committed within the confines of a valid marriage. This does not, by any means, imply that the one raped is to marry the rapist, as many liars may be inclined to accuse.
Of course, there are certain conditions that are to be fulfilled if the ḥadd is to be implemented. As is the case for fornication and adultery in general, either four male witnesses must be present or the perpetrator must confess to the crime. However, if there is evidence that does not fit the ḥadd requirements and there is sufficient evidence to prove that there was some form of coercion and misdemeanor on the part of the accused, then the judge can impose a taʿzīr.17 The screaming of the woman, signs of struggle, and evidence of physical harm can be considered sufficient for a discretionary punishment to take effect.18
These details were provided solely to demonstrate that classical scholars have properly defined the term and have discussed the applicable punishments. It is therefore incumbent to stress that the Islāmic tradition does not remain oblivious to this reality and that it has acknowledged the aspect of coercion. Ibn al-Qayyim makes the element of force rather clear when he states, “As for if he had forced her, then this is a type of abuse as compulsion into sexual intercourse is abuse. Indeed, such intercourse is carried out in the manner of a criminal offense, so for this reason he is not absolved from a fine or legal punishment.”19
An Apparently “Problematic” Ḥadīth, its Explanation, and Context:
Before addressing the ḥadīth that has been a rather contentious point in interfaith polemics, we should first briefly discuss what marriage means for a Muslim. What we must appreciate is that, in Islām, marriage is the purest of bonds a human can have with another. The case in a marriage is as though one was designed for another—to withstand suffering, share joy, and complete one another. When Allāh describes Ḥawā (Eve) as being created from the rib of Ādam, it is to emphasize that Ādam is incomplete without his spouse. It goes on to show mutual dependency, with each completing the other and filling the gaps and weaknesses and shortcomings the other may have. It is worth stressing that their roles and their responsibilities are different, as are their respective biological makeups, natures, shortcomings, and strengths. These differences serve to facilitate a form of mutual dependency and make a more productive, pragmatic, and lasting bond between the spouses. Both divide their roles, responsibilities, and tasks to be more effective. It also caters to their strengths and r weaknesses. This, in turn, leads to a communitarian society that understands the need for communication and does not fear responsibility. The Qurʾān makes this understanding apparent across multiple verses:
وَالَّذِيۡنَ يَقُوۡلُوۡنَ رَبَّنَا هَبۡ لَـنَا مِنۡ اَزۡوَاجِنَا وَذُرِّيّٰتِنَا قُرَّةَ اَعۡيُنٍ وَّاجۡعَلۡنَا لِلۡمُتَّقِيۡنَ اِمَامًا
And they say, “Our Lord, let our spouses and children be a source of joy for us, and keep us in the forefront of the righteous.”20
رَبَّنا وَأَدخِلهُم جَنّاتِ عَدنٍ الَّتي وَعَدتَهُم وَمَن صَلَحَ مِن آبائِهِم وَأَزواجِهِم وَذُرِّيّاتِهِم ۚ إِنَّكَ أَنتَ العَزيزُ الحَكيمُ
Our Lord, and admit them into the gardens of Eden that You promised for them and for the righteous among their parents, spouses, and children. You are the Almighty, Most Wise.21
وَمِن آياتِهِ أَن خَلَقَ لَكُم مِن أَنفُسِكُم أَزواجًا لِتَسكُنوا إِلَيها وَجَعَلَ بَينَكُم مَوَدَّةً وَرَحمَةً ۚ إِنَّ في ذٰلِكَ لَآياتٍ لِقَومٍ يَتَفَكَّرونَ
Among His proofs is that He created for you spouses from among yourselves, in order to have tranquility and contentment with each other, and He placed in your hearts love and care towards your spouses. In this, there are sufficient proofs for people who think.22
A marriage is the cornerstone of a society, which is why its preservation and functionality are given particular emphasis in the Sharīʿa. With this in mind, let us move on to the ḥadīth that is the center of this discussion:
إِذَا دَعَا الرَّجُلُ امْرَأَتَهُ إِلَى فِرَاشِهِ فَلَمْ تَأْتِهِ فَبَاتَ غَضْبَانَ عَلَيْهَا لَعَنَتْهَا الْمَلاَئِكَةُ حَتَّى تُصْبِحَ
When a man calls his wife to bed and she does not go, consequently leaving him angry; she passes the night with the angels cursing her until morning.23
There are two approaches that may be taken with regards to the explanation of this report. The first is in regards to the language employed in the report. Two other narrations offer vital details. The first has the wording هاجرة فراش زوجها (Hājiratan Firāsha Zawjihā) and the second has the wording فتأبى عليه (Fataʾbā ʿAlayh).24 The former wording is nuanced as it shows her deliberately avoiding the marital bed—almost as though she leaves it and moves to another distant place; and the latter indicates that refusal without due cause. When combined together these would give the meaning that the wife has deliberately refused the husband’s call to intimacy without a valid reason, thus causing him pain.
Even if the textual nuance is to be ignored, it would still be necessary for the Ḥadīth to be understood in the context of an Islāmic marriage; in other words,taking into account the responsibilities of both the husband and the wife. The sexual needs and wants of a person under an Islāmic framework can only be fulfilled in a legally recognized relationship that would allow intimacy to take place. As such, certain responsibilities are placed upon both of them so that both their needs can be satisfied. The wife is allowed to refuse if she is tired, unhealthy, carrying out her obligations, or if it would harm her. However, it is a responsibility upon her to satisfy her husband, as is the responsibility of the husband to satisfy his wife.
This ḥadīth is used by critics to argue that marital rape is allowed in Islām. However, the report clarifies that the curse of the Angels will befall her on the condition that the husband goes to bed angry, given that, from a juridical perspective, she is denying intercourse without a valid reason. One should take note, in addition, that the report nowhere mentions that the husband, should his wife refuse to engage in intercourse, force himself upon her. Muftī Muḥammad ibn Ādam al-Kawtharī (Founder and chief Muftī of Dār al-Iftāʾ Leicester), in his Guidelines to Intimacy in Islām, explicitly writes:
Two points, however, are worth considering here:
Firstly, the husband’s right to demand intercourse does not mean that he is allowed to force himself over his wife for sexual gratification. The Ḥadīth mentions the husband “sleeping in a state of anger” and “being displeased” demonstrating the fact that the husband should restrain himself from forcing himself aggressively over her and hurting her. Had this been allowed, surely Rasūl-Allāh would have permitted it for the husband. If the wife is menstruating or has postnatal bleeding, she is ill, physically unable to have intercourse, exhausted, emotionally drained or sexual activity is detrimental to her well-being, then she no longer is obligated to comply with her husband’s demands for intercourse. Rather, the husband is required to show her sympathy by understanding that she may be unable to have intercourse.
Allāh Ta’āla tells us in Sūrah Baqarah: “On no soul does Allāh Ta’āla place a burden greater than it can bear.”25 It is often observed that a husband will demand his wife to fulfill his sensual needs, disregarding the fact that she is extremely ill and not physically capable of doing it. Some threaten their wives with divorce, and support their behaviour by quoting Aḥādīth.26 It is important to understand that if the wife is not in a state to engage in sexual activity and has a genuine and Islāmically valid reason, but the husband forces her, then he will be sinful. We as husbands need to realise that our wives are also human beings, and not machines that can be switched on and off whenever we desire!
Secondly, the wife’s duty to make herself available applies in normal situations. When she has a valid excuse she may refuse. But to refuse, because she wants to use sex as a weapon is not permitted in Islam. For her to simply say “I am not feeling up to it” is not a justified reason.
In the end, these matters are best resolved through mutual understanding, regard for one another, love, gentleness and putting one’s spouse before oneself.27
The Islāmic principle is unlike that of consent. In Islām, legally recognized intercourse (within the confines of a valid marriage) is valid as long as there is no harm whatsoever caused to the wife. Al-Buhūtī writes:
وَلِلزَّوْجِ الِاسْتِمْتَاعُ بِزَوْجَتِهِ كُلَّ وَقْتٍ عَلَى أَيِّ صِفَةٍ كَانَتْ … مَا لَمْ يُشْغِلْهَا عَنْ الْفَرَائِضِ أَوْ يَضُرُّهَا فَلَيْسَ لَهُ الِاسْتِمْتَاعُ بِهَا إذَنْ لِأَنَّ ذَلِكَ لَيْسَ مِنْ الْمُعَاشَرَةِ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَحَيْثُ لَمْ يَشْغَلْهَا عَنْ ذَلِكَ وَلَمْ يَضُرُّهَا فَلَهُ الِاسْتِمْتَاعُ
It is the right of a husband to enjoy his wife at any time no matter her condition… as long as he does not distract her from her obligations or harm her. In that case, he may not enjoy her since that is not living with her honorably. If he does not distract her from those duties or harm her, then he may enjoy her.28
As the quote illustrates, the husband can enjoy his wife as long as there is no harm and, palpably, forced intimacy harms the recipient of the abuse. And there is no reason in this case to view mental harm differently from its physical counterpart. Although coercing one’s spouse into intercourse is very likely to physically harm her, even if we consider the isolated hypothetical of no major or even minor physical harm being inflicted upon the coerced, the aspect and the likelihood of her undergoing psychological trauma consequently cannot be ignored, and nor is there any particular reason as to why the prospect of mental harm should be ignored.
Even if we concede that classical fiqh literature has not quite addressed the prospect of ensuing psychological harm, one would need to prove why ‘harm’ must be restricted to its physical form, particularly in light of classical texts that did not do so. Ibn Rajab al-Ḥanbalī, for example, in his work Jāmiʿ al-ʿUlūm Wa-l-Ḥikam, writes, concerning the report that harm is neither to be caused nor is it to be returned,
Whenever someone makes a bequest for an inheritor, or for a non-inheritor with an amount greater than a third, then what he has bequeathed may only be executed with the agreement of the other inheritors, whether or not he intended to cause some harm. As for in the when he intended to cause harm by means of his bequest to a non-inheritor of more than a third of his estate, then he is guilty of wrong action by his intending such harm, but as to whether or not his bequest is rejected if it is clearly established that he has done so and so and he confirms it, Ibn ʿAṭiyyah narrates of Mālik that it must be rejected. Some say it is an analogical deduction of the school of Aḥmad.
In the same commentary, Ibn Rajab goes on to provide another example:
Mālik took the position that someone who took his wife back before the expiration of her ʿIddah term and then divorced her without having touched her [in intercourse], that if he had intended to harm her by prolonging her ʿIddah, then the ʿIddah would not recommence from the beginning but she would continue on from however much of it [the ʿIddah] had already taken place.
And a third:
As for the second, which is the prevention of a neighbor from benefiting and profiting from his property, then if that [his property] will be harmed by the one who benefits from his property that he has a right to refuse it, such as for example, someone who has a weak wall which is not able to have timber cast into it.
Ibn Rajab’s examples clarify that harm does not carry a restricted meaning. The excerpts also, however, discuss the principle of sadd al-dharāʾīʿ, a principle in uṣūl al-fiqh that declares that an action, although it may originally be permissible, be made impermissible if it entails harm or the commission, or the potential of committing a prohibited action. (The sale of weapons during wartime, for example, has been declared impermissible by certain scholars, as doing such may entail further sedition.) Relevant to this principle is the legal maxim that a greater harm is eliminated by [tolerating] a smaller one (الضرر الأشد يزال بالضرر الأخف).29 What further bolsters the stance against marital rape is the presence of yet another maxim that posits that averting harm takes precedence over securing a benefit. If one, thus, treats securing intercourse as a benefit, it follows that the benefit cannot be secured through coercion as that will entail harm. Even then, if it was somehow secured through that manner, historically speaking, although we have no reports, to our knowledge, of such occurring within the confines of a marriage, harm cannot set a precedent (الضرر لا يكون قد من). In simpler terms, the notion that a harm has been committed historically does not in any way justify committing it in the contemporary.
Force, itself, in sexual intercourse is viewed as a form of abuse. As Ibn al-Qayyim had mentioned, “As for if he had forced her, then this is a type of abuse as compulsion into sexual intercourse is abuse. Indeed, such intercourse is carried out in the manner of a criminal offense, so for this reason he is not absolved from a fine or legal punishment.”
Even though Ibn al-Qayyim’s statement provided is not perfectly relevant to the topic at hand, the fundamental principle that we can derive from it is general and indeed applicable to this situation. Muḥammad ibn Ādam al-Kawtharī himself, based on the principle, makes it explicit that despite the fact that the wife will be sinful if she refuses to respond to the husband’s call to bed without a valid reason, her being sinful does not imply that the husband possesses the right to force himself upon her.
The Qurʾān stresses that one ought to live with his spouse in kindness and fairness. If an individual, therefore, dislikes his spouse, he should know that the Qurʾān commands to, “Live with them in accordance with what is fair and kind: if you dislike them, it may well be that you dislike something in which God has put much good.”30 The verse conveys a fundamental principle in our interactions with our spouses that we must uphold—that we honor their rights and treat them with that which is good and honorable. Marriage is a blessing from Allāh, the wisdom behind which is to instill joy, harmony, tranquility, and contentment. It will merely serve to damage that wisdom and objective if a concession is granted for coercion. The Messenger (ﷺ) told his ummah, “The most complete of believers in faith are those with the best character, and the best of you are the best in behavior to their women”,31 thus leaving no doubt as to what the principles should be that should govern interactions between spouses.
To summarize, the harm principle in regards to marital rape is rather straightforward: a husband has the right to enjoy his wife provided that he does not harm her and does not abuse the exceptions given to her as highlighted. “Harm” encompasses both physical and mental harm that may result due to his actions. Furthermore, as explained, the thorough love and affection that Islām wishes to instill between spouses would be eliminated if one undergoes such coercion, whether it be on a frequent basis or not . The case for the prohibition of marital rape, therefore, based on these factors is quite clear.
Comparison with Consent Law:
In most cases, consent law is presumed to be legally and practically more robust by the questioner who has his own perceptions as to how marital rape is handled under an Isāmic framework. To begin with, marital rape was outlawed by European countries in the late 20th century. At the time a husband was not held accountable for any coercion that he may have made his wife undergo. In the United Kingdom, for example, marital rape was deemed an offense by the House of Lords in the case of R v. R in 1991. The entire concept is relatively recent and the accusation that Isām is backwards because it supposedly “allows” marital rape is ludicrous.
Consent itself has no proper or single legal definition, but can be described as a vocal and explicit refusal to engage in sexual intercourse. It should be noted that consent laws differ depending on the nation. For example, intoxicated consent is invalid in the United States but voluntary intoxicated consent is valid in the United Kingdom. It is best to refrain from delving into too many details to keep the article concise and general. But to elucidate further , in the UK, marital rape occurs when the wife makes an explicit, stern, and vocal refusal to engage in intercourse.32 However, unlike what some may believe, consent is assumed in a relationship of permanence (such as marriage) by the courts and the only way it can be negated is in the aforementioned manners. Reluctance, unsubstantiated fear, or generally any circumstance that does not negate intercourse will not be considered a violation of assumed consent by a court.33
Islām, on the other hand, recognizes harm which is itself not a vague concept given that it is a physical reality and cannot be denied based on legal jargon. “Harm” is a more well-defined and practical measure of abuse than a verbal negation that can only be applied given certain conditions. Islām, too, assumes consent as a given in a marriage and only deviates from it when harm is involved. Needless to say, “force” is a well-defined term in Islāmic law—especially as it directly leads to harm. It relates to rape in general, and consent law when it comes to rape can give rise to numerous circumstances that lead to injustice.
If a woman agrees to intimacy with a male after a few hours in a bar in the United States and the two engage in intercourse—despite the fact that it was willful and did not involve any force—the man may be held liable for rape in a court of law if the matter is brought against him.34
The Islāmic principle of harm and the concept of coercion and as to what constitutes it is clearer than the concept of consent as it exists in the Western tradition. Marriage, in Islām, is one which is built upon mutual understanding, dependency and love and it is therefore the responsibility of both the husband and the wife to keep these principles in mind in order to abstain from that which challenges the function or the sanctity of their relationship. Islām is not in need of anything—let alone empty, unsubstantiated criticisms from proponents of an inferior system—beyond its more than 1400-year-old tradition that tackles these issues much more competently than modern, secular law.
- Ḥarām: Prohibited
- Ikhtilāf: Difference of opinion
- Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, al-Istidhkār, 7/146
- Ḥadd: Lexically, the term refers to “limits”, but it refers to Capital Punishments when used in juridical works
- Mālik b. Anas, Al-Muwaṭṭāʾ, 2/734
- Al-Muntaqā Sharḥ al-Muwaṭṭāʾ, 5/268
- Al-Kāsānī, Badāʾiʿ al-Ṣanāʾiʿ, 7/34
- Abū al-Walīd al-Bājī, Kitāb al-Muntaqã Sharḥ al-Muwaṭṭāʾ, 5/269
- Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, al-Istidhkār, 7/146
- Al-Istidhkār, 7/146
- Al-Buhūtī, Kashshāf al-Qināʿ, 6/97
- Al-Tirmidhī, 17:22:1453
- Ibn Rushd, Bidāyat al-Mujtahid, 4/223
- Madhhab: School of thought; Madhāhib: Pl. Madhhab
- Taʿzīr: Discretionary punishment
- Al-Istidhkār, 7/146
- Ibn al-Qayyim, Iʿlām al-Muwaqqiʿīn, 2/21
- Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 16:143, and Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 67:127
- Riyāḍ al-Ṣāliḥīn 281
- Qurʾān, 2:286
- Pl. of “Ḥadīth”
- Ibn Ādam al-Kawtharī, Guidelines to Intimacy in Islām, pp. 23-24
- Al-Buhūtī, Kashshāf al-Qināʿ, 5/188
- Hashim Kamali, “Sharīʿah Law: An Introduction,” Oneworld Publications, pg. 147
- Jāmiʿ at-Tirmidhī, 1:7:1162
- William Wilson, Module Guide on Criminal Law, Chapter 8
- Sexual Offence Act 2003
- 10 U.S. Code § 920 – Art. 120. Rape and sexual assault, Section 3 (A)