At least they talk about it. International Business Times touched on it:
Popular Turkish Muslim televangelist Ahmet Mahmut Ünlü wants to set the record straight by refuting the comments made by noted Islam expert Ali Riza Demircan, who claimed that “advanced oral sex” was a forbidden act under the Islamic religion. Ünlü says the Quran does not stipulate anywhere that oral sex is illegal.
“Do not invent a lie on behalf of Allah,” Ünlü, known more commonly as Cübbeli Ahmet Hoca, told viewers of his televised sermon, according to Turkish newspaper Hürriyet Daily News. “Brothers, let’s speak frankly: [Islam’s] Shafi’i sect allows this act, as it considers human semen a clean substance,” he said, adding that though the Hanafi sect does claim that semen is dirty, the act of oral sex is not.
Last week, a conversation about religion between television host Pelin Çift and Demircan deviated when Demircan delved into what sexual practices were deemed haram — or forbidden — under Islam during a program on a state-run television channel. Demircan declared “advanced oral sex” was one of them, along with anal sex and other “sadistic sexual acts.” Demircan said that engaging in these acts, even between married couples, is considered haram for Muslims.
Reportedly, his co-host on the show had some problems with the topic, reports the Hurriyet Daily News:
Speaker Pelin Çift burst into laughs when she confronted with the sudden bombardment of sexual references during the talk on religion which had been progressing somberly by that time.
“You see, Sister Pelin, you had been talking so comfortably. Now you are not able to ask a question,” Demircan told the speaker as she laughed.
“Do you know what my problem is?” the theologian continued. “For God’s sake, my hodja, what’s your problem?” Çift answered.
Pinar Tremblay at AL Monitor troubles herself to go a little further:
The most popular reaction, however, came from another Islamic personality, Robed (Cubbeli) Ahmet Hoca. A senior figure in the Ismail Aga religious order, Ahmet Hoca is known for his love of the limelight and controversial remarks. …
Ahmet Hoca’s blessing of oral sex generated another round of satirical exchanges on social media, and before one could declare the discussion over, Demircan came back with a personal retort against Ahmet Hoca, saying, “After the TRT program, I received several thank you notes and prayers. I am delighted to contribute to the understanding of what is forbidden. This is a crucial matter as it leads to conflict among couples and even to divorce. When we speak of what is forbidden, I understand those in denial, those who are engaged in extramarital affairs, gays, lesbians, erotic site owners and [sex toy] salespeople to be disturbed, but I don’t understand short-sighted Muslims. Are they disturbed by being reminded what is forbidden in Islam because they are committing these sins?” …
Indeed, these sexual debates offer intriguing clues about the social, economic and political values in contemporary Turkish understanding of religion. As the marketplace of religious orders has grown, televangelists or sheikhs from these orders have become much more tolerated in the public domain.
Al-Monitor contacted several theologians and government imams from the Religious Affairs Directorate (RAD), but they were unwilling to comment. One scholar said, “You should not write about oral sex. It will hurt your reputation.” When asked how respected religious elders can discuss the issue so freely, the scholar replied, “They are all men, occasionally a few older women. Young women should not speak about these matters.”
Indeed, the scholar has a point. Speaking about sexual matters in Turkey is another field, like security and military politics, reserved for men. Although it may seem progressive to be talking about sexual matters in public, it is more an issue of men preaching to younger men and women about what is permissible, not an open debate. Hence, all women are pretty much expected to do is giggle nervously and look sheepish or shell-shocked. The host Cift is an exquisite example of the immature standard set for women in this regard.
So for all the discussion of oral sex (although apparently never really defined), the role of women remains as the passive recipient.
