Thread by @IbneKhan01

Yesterday an article was published by the New York Post which informs us of the wishes of certain individuals to decriminalise consensual incest and the arguments put forth.

Let us have a read and analysis of this.

Here we see that appeal is made to the argument of them being consenting adults.

According to modern-day secular, and mostly western, belief, for a relationship/marriage to be acceptable, it must be according to their ideas of:

1. Consent

2. Adulthood

This are the reasons why same-sex relationships/marriages are completely acceptable according to such a belief system and worldview, as both are in fact present in same-sex relationships/marriages as both partners are adult and consenting.

Now, the reason why these two criteria are required, is because they imagine that these two remove any notion of harm.

The modern secular principle in general is that as long as one is not harming anyone, they are free to do as they please.

According to them, only if these two criteria are met can a relationship/marriage be free from harm and thus in conformity with their fundamental principle that is used as a criteria and standard.

This is indeed the argument used in order to legitimise same-sex marriages etc.

The question now arises, as pointed out by individuals such as Richard Morris, that if these two factors are found in an incestual relationship, such that both are adults and are consenting, then naturally according to the modern-day fundamental principle, it should be accepted.

One could argue that this could cause birth defects in any possible children, but it is not necessary that they even seek to have children. What if they always make use of contraception, or perhaps have gone through permanent birth control?

What objection could possibly be raised from the modern western paradigm?

Thus we see that such an ideology has no consistent argument against incest, if both boxes are ticked, then who has the right to object?

Let us now look at the principles of what constitutes a legal marriage/relationship in the sharīáh, the principle of doing as you wish without harming others, and the two criteria for a marriage/relationship to fit that.

1. A legal marriage/relationship in the sharīáh is fixed by Allāh and His Rasūl ﷺ. Those marriages/relationships which are made illegal by them are illegal, and those made legal by them are legal.

Examples of illegal (invalid) marriages in the sharīáh:

Same-sex

Between a Muslim woman and a disbelieving man

Those of apostates with anyone of any religion

With certain relatives, related via blood, marriage or breast-feeding

A woman marrying more than one man

Other examples too may be given, however we can see that despite both parties being consenting adults, their marriage is simply not valid and is illegal. The same is the case for sexual relationships;

two people can be consenting adults however without legal marriage or legal possession of the female by the male, their relationship is still forbidden and illegal.

This demonstrates that the sharīáh does not hold these two conditions for something to be legal.

The principle in the sharīáh is that even if there is no apparent harm in an action, even then it is forbidden and illegal if Allāh and His Rasūl ﷺ hold it to be so.

This transcends beyond the discussion of marriage and relationships, across all fields of life.

This is why, in normal circumstances, drinking one sip of alcohol is forbidden and illegal, despite is not causing any apparent harm to any human.

Thus, this principle of do as thou wilt unless it causes harm, has no importance in the sharīáh.

Whilst it is true that harming oneself and others is forbidden in the sharīáh, and to avoid doing so is a legal maxim, this does not mean that those things free from apparent harm are by default permissible and legal.

2. Now let us discuss the two-fold standard used to assess if a marriage/relationship is harmful, which consists of:

a. Consent

b. Adulthood

The second is an extension of the the first, as it is argued that a legal minor cannot consent.

It is obvious that even if these two criteria are met a marriage/relationship can be harmful for a number of reasons, such as abuse.

However, it is not necessary that these two are met for there to be an absence of harm.

In the sharīáh, neither are conditions for a nikāh or sexual relationship of a male with his legally possessed female slave.

Whilst it is true that we do not have legal slaves according to the sharīáh in this time, this is mentioned for the sake of principles and criterion.

Let us briefly look at both in light of the sharīáh.

a. Consent

According to the sharīáh, consent is not a requirement for all marriages. There is agreement of the scholars that the marriage contract of a minor male and a minor female conducted by their legal guardian is valid.

Furthermore, only the Hanafī school unanimously requires the consent of a sane pubescent (adult) virgin female, the Mālikī and Shāfiyī schools permit fathers to conduct the marriage contract of their sane pubescent (adult) virgin daughters without their consent.

Other examples can be given in terms of marriage without consent, such as the case of the insane pubescent (adult) males and females.

Therefore, consent of the one being married is not necessary at all times, however, the consent of their legal guardian is necessary in such.

Coming to the matter of a relationship outside of marriage. The only relationship outside of the boundaries of marriage recognised to be legal in the sharīáh is that of a male with his legally possessed female slave.

It is apparent that her consent is not a requirement, as when a legal slave was purchased, there was no requirement for the buyer to ask her if she wanted to be purchased, rather it was the choice of her previous master.

Similarly, if she has been captured at war and then distributed by the ruler, then she is not consulted as to if she wanted to be captured or not, nor is she consulted as to who she is given to.

Therefore, there is no requirement for the consent of the female slave.

This concludes evaluation of point a; that in the sharīáh consent is not a necessary component of each marriage/relationship, and does not necessarily distinguish legal from illegal nor good from bad.

b. Adulthood

As mentioned earlier, this is based on the idea that a minor cannot consent, which is an idea that the sharīáh agrees with, however it disagrees with the age at which one reaches adulthood and also the fact there is no obstacle for marriage in absence of adulthood.

Firstly, the age at which one reaches adulthood in the sharīáh differs to the fixed chosen age of the secular humanist belief system, i.e. 18.

In the sharīáh, one reaches adulthood by reaching puberty, and puberty is known to be reached via one or more physical signs.

These signs must take place between 9-15 lunar years in females and 12-15 lunar years in males. If such signs are not displayed then upon reaching 15 lunar years they are considered to have reached puberty and hence reached adulthood.

According to the secular humanist standard of 18, anyone under the age of 18 is a child, which contradicts reality wholly as there is a huge difference between a 16/17 year old and a 6/7 year old, to consider them both to be in the same category is absurd.

Thus, we see that a girl may reach puberty at 9 lunar years and thus be considered a woman from that age if she has reached puberty; half the age that modern secularists impose.

Secondly, as seen earlier, not having reached adulthood is not an impediment to marriage, or a sexual relationship.

The marriage contract of minor males and females is valid and legal in the sharīáh, without their consent as minors cannot do so, when done by their guardian.

As for sexual intercourse with the spouse, then puberty/adulthood according to the sharīáh is not a condition for it, rather it is permissible and legal for an adult female to have intercourse with her minor husband,

likewise for an adult male to have intercourse with his minor wife, with the condition that the minor is physically able to engage in intercourse such that it does not cause them harm, according to the majority whereas the Hanbalīs fix an age of 9 lunar years for a female.

Similarly, it would be legal and permissible in the sharīáh for a man to have sexual intercourse with his minor female slave, with the same condition of being physically suitable to endure intercourse without harm.

Thus adulthood makes no difference to a marriage/relationship.

Rather, just as with consent, that if a marriage/relationship forbidden by the sharīáh occurs between two consenting individuals/parties, then it still remains illegal.

In the same manner, if marriage/relationship forbidden by the sharīáh occurs between two adults,

then it still remains illegal.

The fact that the two individuals may be consenting adults has no affect on the illegality of a forbidden act, similarly the absence of consent and adulthood of two individuals has no affect on the legality of a permissible act.

Conclusion

Thus, when we are asked as to why we consider something impermissible and immoral, we reply that it is because the sharīáh has declared it to be so when we ask the secular humanist, then there is no real standard besides emotions and feelings along with

a claimed adherence to the principle of avoiding harm, or else they would all happily accept incest just as they accept promiscuous sex between unrelated adults as consistent secular humanists such as Richard Morris do.

For indeed, from their belief system and paradigm there is nothing to prevent such an action from being considered acceptable and legal. They should leave this inconsistency and allow people to have the right to do what they please within their boundaries or else it is inequality

On the other hand we have a clear and manifest guide, revealed by the Creator upon the Best of Mankind, upon him be peace, which is permanent and fixed throughout time until the Last Day.

It does not behoove Muslims to adopt such principles which contradict their religion,

and cannot even prohibit immoralities such as incest, same-sex marriage, female polyamory, cuckolding and the like.

Thus, consent of the individual and adulthood are not of importance to us when judging a marriage/relationship, rather the standard is the sharīáh.

The secular humanist/liberals are mere slaves to their desires, whereas we are slaves of Allāh and then of His Messenger ﷺ, we accept their rulings and judge by what they have declared.

ibnekhan01.wordpress.com/2021/04/18/con…