Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

There IS a punishment for rape in Islam

Announcements Posted on
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by S'Class)
    That's OK. But I still don't see any mention of force or rape...
    They're some "excellent arab captive women". What more could you deduce from it? You think they'd consent to have sex with their captors before being sold for ransom?
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dragonfly07)
    They're some "excellent arab captive women". What more could you deduce from it? You think they'd consent to have sex with their captors before being sold for ransom?
    Firstly as I said it doesn't mention forced. Secondly a slave has many rights.

    They have to be treated kindly. They are not allowed to be hit. They have to be given the same quality and quantity of food and clothing as their master. They can buy themselves free. On top of this it is strongly encouraged to free slaves and is big a way of expiating for sins.

    Ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) manumitted a slave of his, then he picked up a stick or something from the ground and said: There is no more reward in it than the equivalent of this, but I heard the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “Whoever slaps his slave or beats him, his expiation is to manumit him.” Narrated by Muslim (1657).

    If this is how you are meant to treat your slave, how the hell are you allowed rape them??
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 35mm_)
    Exactly.
    That's bull. Why do I, a women in Islam not feel like a second class citizen? The only time I feel like a second class citizen is in this 'democratic' country.
    • 22 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vintage <3)
    That's bull. Why do I, a women in Islam not feel like a second class citizen? The only time I feel like a second class citizen is in this 'democratic' country.
    Because you're clearly not subjected to fundamentalist Islam.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 35mm_)
    Because you're clearly not subjected to fundamentalist Islam.
    There was no reference to 'fundamentalist Islam'.
    • 22 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vintage <3)
    There was no reference to 'fundamentalist Islam'.
    Ways Islam oppresses women:
    1- Husbands may hit their wives.
    The Quran in Sura 4:34 says:

    4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great

    2- A woman’s testimony counts half of a man’s testimony.

    The Quran in Sura 2:282 says:

    And let two men from among you bear witness to all such documents [contracts of loans without interest]. But if two men be not available, there should be one man and two women to bear witness so that if one of the women forgets (anything), the other may remind her. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 205).

    3- A male gets a double share of the inheritance over that of a female.

    The Quran in Sura 4:11 says:

    The share of the male shall be twice that of a female . . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 311)

    4- Husbands are a degree above their wives.

    The Quran in Sura 2:228 says:

    . . . Wives have the same rights as the husbands have on them in accordance with the generally known principles. Of course, men are a degree above them in status . . . (Sayyid Abul A’La Maududi, The Meaning of the Qur’an, vol. 1, p. 165)
    • 23 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    hardly the point

    we are talking about Shariah and its implementation. These hundreds of rape victims were prosecuted under Shariah, on the basis of their "confession", contrary to your statement that this has only happened "in Islamic history" only in a "handful of cases".
    It is the point because it's not a "shariah implementation" if it doesn't follow Shariah is it?

    I mean, is it Secular/Democratic values that only 6% of rape cases are convicted? Or that society is shook up that 96% of cases will go unreported?

    And you never read my post properly, I never said there's a handful of cases of rape, I said in the Early islamic history, maybe 1000 years, you could literally count it on your fingers the number of executions for apostasy.


    Punishment for apostasy (in any case, extremely rare) was not in practice enforced in later times and was completely abolished by the [Ottoman] Turks by a decree of the Ottoman government in 1260/1844.


    (The New Encyclopedia of Islam, by Cyril Glasse, p.54)


    (Original post by mariachi)
    The fact that Shariah was badly implemented in their case is totally beside the point
    That's the thing though, it wasn't Shariah, so how can you define it to be?

    (Original post by mariachi)
    I know. Your dawah (Islamic proselytism) on the dozens of forums and sites where you spend your time must keep you very busy.
    I'm guessing you probably skim posts or read 2 sentences and take that as its summary.

    I havn't been online at all in these past few days. Glad to know you still have this obsession though

    (Original post by mariachi)
    IClutching at straws
    Some irony in this one.

    I made the point; In around 30 years, no one has been executed for apostasy (leaving Islam). And so this excuse that "they're scared to leave Islam" is bull crap, especially when you consider countries like Turkey, Jordan etc.

    I do not know how many "apostates" start an anti-Shariah, anti-government movement, do you?

    (Original post by mariachi)
    As the New Yorker wrote

    "Mahmoud Muhammad Taha is the anti-Qutb. Taha, like Qutb, was hanged by an Arab dictatorship; he was executed, in 1985, for sedition and apostasy, after protesting the imposition of Sharia in Sudan by President Jaafar al-Nimeiri. In death, Taha became something rare in contemporary Islam: a moderate martyr".

    http://www.newyorker.com/archive/200...060911fa_fact1

    Of course, in Sudan they threw the book against Taha. Almost always, in any case, the charge of apostasy is accompanied by the charge of blasphemy, and "sedition" or "spreading unrest in the land" etc are added, for good measure.
    Read above.


    (Original post by mariachi)
    As Ibn Warraq said "of course, in Muslim countries apostasy is usually linked to the related charges of unbelief, blasphemy and heresy. However these charges, whether upheld or not, clearly contravene several articles in the UDHR (Universal Declaration on Human Rights) of 1948, and the legally binding International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR] of 1966 to which 147 states are signatories. Article 18 of the ICCPR is very clear:
    1. I don't think anyone takes Ibn Warraq seriously, especially after his "origins of the Qur'an" book.

    2. You need to be careful where you get your sources from. That Answering-Islam article you linked with "variant differences" uses inaccurate/fake translations. When I get time I'll refute that.

    2. Muslims don't go by Civil/UDHR/ or whatever else. Our legistlation is the Shariah, anything else followed is due to its commonality.



    (Original post by mariachi)
    [1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

    2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice"

    http://www.iheu.org/node/1307
    :rolleyes:

    (Original post by mariachi)
    In any case, I see that, once again, you avoid the question of the thousands of cases in Iran (1988). Once again, do you consider that Jaafari Shias are Muslim or not ?
    Shia's are generally still considered Muslim, but strayed away from the message of Islam. The exception to this are those that commit blatant Shirk, which puts you out of the folds of Islam.

    (Original post by mariachi)
    However, I fully appreciate the wealth of your commitments, and feel free not to answer.

    "He who fights and runs away, will live to run another day"

    Best
    Or maybe he has a life, and he doesn't necassarily centre all his attention around a e-person named Mariachi?

    A guess?
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by musabjilani)
    Laws for apostasy and blasphemy aren't mentioned in the Qur'an either. Regarding rape, well, the criminality of rape outside of marriage probably flows directly from the general criminality of sex outside of marriage (but, of course, with no blame on the victim), or just from plain common sense. The criminality of marital rape is an extremely recent phenomenon and would probably not have made sense given seventh-century society and values, so I see no problem with it not being mentioned in the primary Islamic texts. There are, however, mechanisms built into Islam which allow for laws to be updated as society, values and morality evolve, and these mechanisms should be used to criminalize marital rape now that society has reached a point where it has recognized the immorality of the same.
    I didn't say prescribe law on the matter, but mention it explicitly as a sin, or even implicitly as a sin, with direct mention of the crime. This is true for Blasphemy and Apostasy, but not rape.

    And I find this quite hilarious. Are you saying then that Quranic Law, the law from Allah, is infact, subjective? Because I don't think you'll find many Muslims in agreement with you there.
    • 2 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    About Shariah and apostasy

    Perseveranze claimed that there have not been Shariah executions for apostasy for "over 30 years"

    (Original post by Perseveranze)
    It is the point because it's not a "shariah implementation" if it doesn't follow Shariah is it?
    excellent

    I may find thousands of cases of Shariah executions for apostasy, but you will say "oh, this is not correct implementation of Shariah, so these cases don't count"

    brilliant

    That's the thing though, it wasn't Shariah, so how can you define it to be?
    clutching at straws. If a sentence is pronounced by a State authority in the name of Shariah, to all effects it is a Shariah sentence.

    Who are you to decide what is Shariah and what is not Sariah ? It is totally irrelevant what your (or my) personal opinion is : what counts is the legal definition given by the authority which emits the sentence. Shariah authorities emit Shariah sentences.

    I havn't been online at all in these past few days. Glad to know you still have this obsession though
    really ? you posted Thursday evening on this very same thread

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...1#post36759371

    probably posted by telepathy
    I made the point; In around 30 years, no one has been executed for apostasy (leaving Islam).
    I'm sorry, but this is simply not true. Also, you are (surreptitiously) backtracking. You had posted that no one has been executed for apostasy "for over 30 years", not "in around 30 years". You tried to modify that later on.

    In any case, I quoted two examples of executions which negate your claim, one in Saudi Arabia (1992), one in Sudan (1985).

    "On 3 September 1992 Sadiq 'Abdul-Karim Malallah was publicly beheaded in Al-Qatif in Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province after being convicted of apostasy and blasphemy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom...y_and_apostasy

    "Mahmoud Mohammed Taha, ( 1909 – 18 January 1985; Arabic: محمود محمد طه) also known as Ustaz Mahmoud Mohammed Taha, was a Sudanese religious thinker, leader, and trained engineer. He was executed for apostasy at the age of 76 by regime of Gaafar Nimeiry" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Mohammed_Taha

    Two sentences of people who have been executed for apostasy, in the last 30 years. You tried to quibble and deny this simple reality, by remarking that these people were not executed for apostasy only (which means of course, moving the goalposts). Yes, Malallah had also thrown stones at the police and was also accused of blasphemy.Taha had been politically active, organizing a political party, opposing Shariah etc

    Shame on you. There is no harm in being wrong : we all make errors. We should, however , have the intellectual honesty of admitting it. Negating evidence is just proof of insecurity, a dishonest intention and a fuzzy mind.

    I do not know how many "apostates" start an anti-Shariah, anti-government movement, do you?
    totally irrelevant.

    What is relevant is that these two persons were executed for a series of crimes, which included apostasy. Apostasy, under Shariah, carries a death sentence. It is therefore, all by itself, sufficient in order to motivate an execution.

    As I said, people sentenced for apostasy are usually charged also with other crimes, which may also carry a death sentence : almost always they are also accused of blasphemy, and frequently also of "spreading mischief in the land" "waging war against Allah" or whatever else . If you had wanted "apostasy only" executions, you should have stated it.

    1. I don't think anyone takes Ibn Warraq seriously, especially after his "origins of the Qur'an" book.
    this is a ridiculous "ad hominem" attack. In any case, if you had read "his" book, you would know that it consists mainly of studies by some of the most respected Western scholars of early Islam, such as Noldeke, Caetani, Jeffery, Rippin etc. Ibn Warraq only wrote the introduction. 25 pages out of 400. But of course you didn't read it.

    2. You need to be careful where you get your sources from. That Answering-Islam article you linked with "variant differences" uses inaccurate/fake translations. When I get time I'll refute that
    oh, please do. In any case, you just need to go to islamic-awareness, you will find there a ready-made "refutation" http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...aat/green.html ... years of happy copy-pasting for you. Lucky guy.

    2. Muslims don't go by Civil/UDHR/ or whatever else. Our legistlation is the Shariah, anything else followed is due to its commonality.
    the "Muslim" States which have signed the agreements are bound by them. Your personal opinion on the UN, the UNDHR, the ICCPR, is vastly irrelevant.

    Shia's are generally still considered Muslim, but strayed away from the message of Islam. The exception to this are those that commit blatant Shirk, which puts you out of the folds of Islam.
    excellent

    therefore, the thousands of death sentences for apostasy meted out by Shariah courts in Iran in 1988 against communists, are Shariah sentences. Your argument collapses entirely, even by your own standards. (These executions would still have been Shariah sentences, even if you had denied that Shias are Muslim, of course).

    So, congratulations.

    Or maybe he (Perseveranze) has a life, and he doesn't necessarily centre all his attention around a e-person named Mariachi?
    as I said :

    "He who fights and runs away, will live to run another day".

    Best.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    I didn't say prescribe law on the matter, but mention it explicitly as a sin, or even implicitly as a sin, with direct mention of the crime. This is true for Blasphemy and Apostasy, but not rape.
    Well I guess it is what it is, but whether or not the Qur'an categorically talks about rape being a sin is pretty irrelevant since the fact that it is a sin is otherwise well-established in Islam.

    (Original post by Steevee)
    And I find this quite hilarious. Are you saying then that Quranic Law, the law from Allah, is infact, subjective? Because I don't think you'll find many Muslims in agreement with you there.
    You'd be surprised. Well, specific injunctions from the Qur'an itself perhaps not so much, but the rest of what is collectively termed Shariah and is derived from secondary sources, which includes, incidentally, the punishment for rape, since, as we seem to have established, the Qur'an doesn't categorically talk about it, are seen as fluid concepts by several Muslims, including very prominent thinkers, and pretty much all liberals.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by musabjilani)
    Well I guess it is what it is, but whether or not the Qur'an categorically talks about rape being a sin is pretty irrelevant since the fact that it is a sin is otherwise well-established in Islam.



    You'd be surprised. Well, specific injunctions from the Qur'an itself perhaps not so much, but the rest of what is collectively termed Shariah and is derived from secondary sources, which includes, incidentally, the punishment for rape, since, as we seem to have established, the Qur'an doesn't categorically talk about it, are seen as fluid concepts by several Muslims, including very prominent thinkers, and pretty much all liberals.
    But do you not find it interesting that Mohammed took the time to explicitly mention so many crimes, and yet to find Rape a crime you have to interpret different verses and try to apply them to the context. I mean, the Quran says Theft is wrong, Idol worship and Polytheism is wrong, it says adultery is wrong and apostasy is wrong, it says murder is wrong, it says slavery is ok. And yet, if you want a ruling on rape you have to put together some verses about sexual morality, some about theft and so forth.

    I understand Shariah. But your implication is that Quranic verses infact have no objective value, and are merely to be interpreted with the times. Which seems to me to be a claim Muslims are very vocal at opposing. After all, the Quran is supposed to be perfect and timeless. You see, it seems to me, Muslims will make the claim that the Quran is perfect and timeless, and yet when it suits them, change the meaning of a verse, or rather it's 'interpretation' to suit their needs, and then merely claim that it was human imperfection that blinded them to the true meaning all along. Kind of like with issues of slavery. It's crafty really, but equally, pretty transparent. Because of course Muslims will always believe your side of the story, and even when we call you out on it, it is only those who already oppose you that will see the truth behind it.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    I think that your view makes a lot of sense.

    no sensible person could expect a 7th century text to foresee how society would evolve over 1400 years.

    in the 7th century, to beat your disobedient wife was just normal common sense. To have sex with your slave girls was pretty much what any decent slave-owner would do.
    I believe that the principles embodied in the text did not only foresee the evolution of society over the next several centuries, but, in many ways, sparked that progress. I'm not sure how familiar you are with medieval Muslim history, but the Muslim intellectual tradition was for a long time deeply rooted in ancient classical thought. However, it was the Qur'anic empirical spirit that caused Muslim thinkers to clash with abstract Greek thought, and out of that clash precipitated concrete, empirical, positive science. The science that is today the backbone of all progress in society. So before judging the Qur'an with the arrogance of the civilization it helped us acquire, we should take a long, hard look at its contributions to the high ground we're claiming credit for.

    You might look at certain Qur'anic injunctions and think that they are below your standards, but do not forget that those very injunctions sparked the intellectual movement which, in turn, sparked Europe's Renaissance and helped give you those standards to begin with.

    (Original post by mariachi)
    The problems come when society changes rapidly and considerably. In those conditions, it becomes next to impossible to stick to the letter of the 7th year text : you have to resort to interpretative/linguistic acrobatics, in order to somehow accommodate it.

    The Quran is, in character, more of a literary text, rather than a legal manual : therefore, there are only a limited number of verses which are blatantly unjustifiable in our times (like the "wife-beating" ayah, or the ayah which authorizes as a punishment the "cutting of hands and feet on opposite sides", or the execution of war prisoners etc etc).
    No acrobatics are required, just an understanding that while the spirit of Qur'anic Law is eternally relevant, it's possible that its letter might not be.

    (Original post by mariachi)
    The problem arises much more frequently with the thousands of Muhammad's sayings (ahadith) and the jurisprudence (fiqh) derived from it.

    The jurisprudence "solidified" (in its main lines) around 900-1000 CE, and contains many, many detailed rules. It deals in detail with issues like execution of apostates,marriage, divorce, physical punishments, the treatment of non-Muslims, the political, economic, fiscal organization of the State. A good part of it, IMHO, is hopelessly, terminally outdated.
    Of course it is. It was made centuries ago, for societies that lived centuries ago, to solve problems that existed centuries ago, and to give Islamdom the direction it needed centuries ago.

    (Original post by mariachi)
    In other words, "modern" Islam has a huge work in front of it, if it wants to resume a positive role in human development, after a stasis of centuries : however, the first step would be to abandon, once and for all, the idea that the Quran is the "literal" word of God.
    Again, there's no need to abandon the idea that the Qur'an is the literal word of God. All we need to understand is that the Qur'an was not revealed to you or me, it was revealed to the Prophet (pbuh). It does not instruct you or me to establish certain laws, it instructed the Prophet (pbuh) to establish those laws. Fourteen centuries ago. And the general instruction to Muslims to look at the Prophet (pbuh) as an example doesn't mean to establish the same laws as he was instructed to establish, but to achieve with our laws what he sought to achieve with his. This, combined with the understanding that Qur'anic principles must be understood by looking at Qur'anic injunctions in their proper contexts and then new laws must be created proper to our modern contexts, should be sufficient for all required modernization.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    But do you not find it interesting that Mohammed took the time to explicitly mention so many crimes, and yet to find Rape a crime you have to interpret different verses and try to apply them to the context. I mean, the Quran says Theft is wrong, Idol worship and Polytheism is wrong, it says adultery is wrong and apostasy is wrong, it says murder is wrong, it says slavery is ok. And yet, if you want a ruling on rape you have to put together some verses about sexual morality, some about theft and so forth.
    TBH I never really thought about that before because it never occurred to me that the criminality of rape would ever be challenged.

    (Original post by Steevee)
    I understand Shariah. But your implication is that Quranic verses infact have no objective value, and are merely to be interpreted with the times. Which seems to me to be a claim Muslims are very vocal at opposing. After all, the Quran is supposed to be perfect and timeless. You see, it seems to me, Muslims will make the claim that the Quran is perfect and timeless, and yet when it suits them, change the meaning of a verse, or rather it's 'interpretation' to suit their needs, and then merely claim that it was human imperfection that blinded them to the true meaning all along. Kind of like with issues of slavery. It's crafty really, but equally, pretty transparent. Because of course Muslims will always believe your side of the story, and even when we call you out on it, it is only those who already oppose you that will see the truth behind it.
    It's not about changing what the Qur'an says or means when it suits you, it's about understanding that a static interpretation of the Qur'an would be inconsistent with the Qur'an's own view of the world as a dynamic, continuously evolving existence. Laws have to be dynamic, and Islam itself realized the need for this dynamism and created the institution of Ijtihad to accommodate it. This isn't something I came up with to win a debate on TSR! It's a philosophy that has been carefully worked out by several Muslim thinkers, a philosophy that allows the Qur'anic message to stay current in a world of perpetual change.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by S'Class)
    Firstly as I said it doesn't mention forced. Secondly a slave has many rights.
    If you want to talk about slavery that's for another time.

    It's obvious that the "holy books" don't mention consent because they're completely unconcerned with it.

    They keep mentioning "possessing" women, "owning" women and "doing things" to women, with no regard to what the woman wants because it's irrelevant. In that particular era women were like cattle. Your argument is about as strong as saying that, when you kill cattle, the cattle absolutely consents to being killed because NOWHERE IN THE QURAN does it mention the cattle's consent.

    Also, according to islam, you're allowed to "have sexual relations" with married slave women, again without mentioning consent. Go on and say that the married women consented to being abducted and made into sex slaves. If you try to defend that then I have nothing more to say to you, you're a disgusting person.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GrahamRodney)
    Indeed there is a punishment for rape under Islam. You have to marry the rapist.

    See http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...zBS_story.html
    "Morrocan Law" Not islamic...
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nadooo)
    That's why the two most dangerous countries in the world for women are Afghanistan and Pakistan? Somehow, I don't imagine Paris to be as nasty as Kabul or Lahore. Enjoy your child brides, paedophilia, sex trafficking, marital rapes, genital mutilations, stonings and lashings. :rofl:
    I completely disagree with that pakistan statement you have never been there to know. I researched the reason behind your statement and the only thing I could find was women earn 82% less then men in pakistan.
    Afghanistan well not like the taliban follow islam properly and whos government is in charge? Karzai ? aint he the west's bum chum?
    • 2 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    I didn't say prescribe law on the matter, but mention it explicitly as a sin, or even implicitly as a sin, with direct mention of the crime. This is true for Blasphemy and Apostasy, but not rape.

    And I find this quite hilarious. Are you saying then that Quranic Law, the law from Allah, is infact, subjective? Because I don't think you'll find many Muslims in agreement with you there.
    The problem of not having "rape" specifically defined as a precise crime is that "zina" (illegal sexual intercourse), while still technically accurate, does not however really fit. As we have shown, prosecuting "rape" via "zina" can have perverse effects.

    The least we can say is that, since "zina" has to be proved by confession and/or 4 witnesses, most of the cases wil not fall under hadd (obligatory punishment), but under tazir (judge's discretion) .

    And here, it's really anybody's guess what would happen, what proof standards would be requested, what would be the range of punishments. Punishment could be very severe or very light, according to the judge's discretion.

    If an armed threat is involved, on the basis of Shariah the rapist (considered as a "moharreb" - one who wages war on Allah) could either find himself crucified, or with hands and feet cut off on opposite sides, or simply "exiled from the land" - but this is a separate case.

    In any case, there is very, very little "certainty of law", and IMHO far too much is left to the judge's discretion.

    Best
    • 2 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Study)
    not like the taliban follow islam properly
    I dream that, one day, someone will tell me who follows Islam properly and where

    whenever I criticize the Islam I can see around me, I am told that what I criticize is not "true Islam"

    slowly, I am reaching the conclusion that "true" Islam is simply an abstract concept : it doesn't exist in reality and has never existed, except in the narrations about Muhammad and the rashidun (rightly-guided) Caliphs

    Best
    • 2 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by musabjilani)
    I believe that the principles embodied in the text did not only foresee the evolution of society over the next several centuries, but, in many ways, sparked that progress.
    I don't think anyone denies the contributions made by Islam to world culture and the fact that Muslims developed a viable society and political system.

    The problem is not "the next several centuries" after Muhammad. It's the fact that, after about 1200-1300, research, innovation, intellectual freedom in the Ummah deteriorated severely. The Arab Caliphate actually never recovered from the Mongol invasions.

    The Ottoman Caliphate ran its own course, but it also entered a serious downward spiral after 1700.

    For Westerners, it is very strange to witness that this "failed" religion/ideology is now suggested as a viable guideline for the future : irrespective of the admiration we may have for its past achievements.

    No acrobatics are required, just an understanding that while the spirit of Qur'anic Law is eternally relevant, it's possible that its letter might not be.
    I also think that, for Muslims, this should be the starting point.
    Again, there's no need to abandon the idea that the Qur'an is the literal word of God. All we need to understand is that the Qur'an was not revealed to you or me, it was revealed to the Prophet (pbuh). It does not instruct you or me to establish certain laws, it instructed the Prophet (pbuh) to establish those laws. Fourteen centuries ago. And the general instruction to Muslims to look at the Prophet (pbuh) as an example doesn't mean to establish the same laws as he was instructed to establish, but to achieve with our laws what he sought to achieve with his. This, combined with the understanding that Qur'anic principles must be understood by looking at Qur'anic injunctions in their proper contexts and then new laws must be created proper to our modern contexts, should be sufficient for all required modernization.
    this, unfortunately, sounds very convoluted. However, I don't see how else someone could seriously continue following and practicing Islam in our time.

    Best
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dragonfly07)
    If you want to talk about slavery that's for another time.

    It's obvious that the "holy books" don't mention consent because they're completely unconcerned with it.

    They keep mentioning "possessing" women, "owning" women and "doing things" to women, with no regard to what the woman wants because it's irrelevant. In that particular era women were like cattle. Your argument is about as strong as saying that, when you kill cattle, the cattle absolutely consents to being killed because NOWHERE IN THE QURAN does it mention the cattle's consent.

    Also, according to islam, you're allowed to "have sexual relations" with married slave women, again without mentioning consent. Go on and say that the married women consented to being abducted and made into sex slaves. If you try to defend that then I have nothing more to say to you, you're a disgusting person.
    Of course there is no consent when taking them - they are prisoners. I'm talking about having sex with them. Here, I listed how you are meant to treat your slave, and that's why you can't rape them. Also, slavery isn't exclusive to women, it seemed that you were implying that.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: April 14, 2012
New on TSR

Find out what year 11 is like

Going into year 11? Students who did it last year share what to expect.

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.