Here's an interesting two-part experiment. It can be conducted by anyone at all, regardless of religious persuasion or lack thereof.
Part 1: Choose a Muslim neighbor, friend or colleague, and ask three simple questions. Although the answer to the first question might appear obvious, ask it anyway, "Are you a Christian?" Without hesitation she will reply she is not a Christian but a Muslim.
Question number two: "Christians believe that Jesus is God and died on the cross for our sins, so I assume you don't believe that. Is that correct?" Again without embarrassment she will inform you she does not believe Jesus is God, nor did he die on the cross for our sins.
Now the final question: "Could you give me a few reasons you don't believe that?" She won't have to think a minute before giving them. They will probably include the fact that Islam does not believe Allah can be associated with any created being, no individual can bear the sins of another, and the Quran says that Jesus did not die.
Now it's time for part 2. Ask a non-Muslim the same questions but with a slight twist, "Are you a Muslim?" When he says that he is not, continue with, "Muslims believe that Muhammad was a Prophet from God, so I guess you are saying you do not believe he was a Prophet. Is that right?"
Chances are you will already sense some discomfort, some hesitation in the reply. Your interlocutor might explain that he is an agnostic, that he knows Muslims believe Muhammad is a Prophet, or that he's not really sure. If he does agree that he does not believe Muhammad to be a Prophet, proceed with question number three.
"Could you give me a few reasons why you don't believe Muhammad was a Prophet of God?" I doubt if one American in a hundred could give an intelligent, cohesive reply.
If you do carry out this experiment, I'd love to learn the results. Leave a comment or send me an email.
PS - There are variations to the experiment. For example, ask the Jewish professor of religious studies at your local university (or any Jewish friend) if she is a Christian. When she replies she is not, confirm it is correct that she does not believe Jesus was God and learn her reasons. Then ask her if she is a Muslim. Again when she replies she is not, confirm it is correct she does not believe Muhammad was a Prophet of God, and again inquire about her reasons. The purpose of the experiment would be to see if she was as forthright in her second response as she was in her first.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Perspectives on life so far.
email me:
email:
staringattheview@gmail.com
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2011
(56)
-
▼
March
(13)
- Izzaldin Abuelaish and a Palestinian Activist
- The Experiment
- Quranic Numerology
- Homegrown Terrorism and Deradicalization
- Yasir Qadhi and America as Abyssinia
- A Model for Middle East Dialogue - and why it won'...
- Dishonesty!
- I Shall Not Hate by Dr. Izzaldin Abuelaish
- Coexistence: How Egypt Can Succeed Where Muhammad ...
- Muslims, Moses and the Raids of Muhammad
- Missing the Forest for the Trees
- Article Two of Egypt's Constitution
- Loonwatch and Defending Muhammad
-
▼
March
(13)
- Quotable Quotes:
- "The problem with Christians is they aren't as good as Jesus. But thank God most Muslims are better than Muhammad." - Wafa Sultan
"The more Muslims learn about Muhammad, the more likely they are to leave him behind." - Rashid (al-Hayat TV)
Manji Irshad to Ayaan Hirsi Ali: "Why did you leave Islam? Why don't you join us to become a Muslim reformer?" Ayaan's response: "I couldn't live with the dichotomy for five minutes."
"Today there can be considerable pressure upon non-Muslims not to investigate the primary sources of Islam for themselves, but to refer all their questions about Islam to a Muslim expert." - Mark Durie
"I oppose Islam for the simple reason that Islam opposes me." - Pat Condell
"Most Muslims believe in the Prophet they wish had existed. Muslims who follow the Muhammad who really existed have last names like Aulaki, Zawahiri, and Bin Ladin." - staringattheview
"I am a Muslim by default, but I don't believe. Many books tell me how to be a Muslim, but none tell me why I should be a Muslim." - a young Arab man
105 comments:
Yes but what happens if you ask Muslims if Jesus is a great prophet?
~srk
SATV,
Another good--and prudent--question to ask is Do you think people who criticize Islam should be punished?
"Yes but what happens if you ask Muslims if Jesus is a great prophet?"
Yes, jesus is a great prophet, but muslims are not in the business of saying which prophet they prefer or which prophet of god is greater than the other.
All prophets from the first Adam to noah , jacob , abraham moses, david solomon are all great and important in their own way.
Muslims respect and love each prophet equally. But muslims focus or concentrate more on mohammed because he is last prophet/messenger of god for the muslims.
I mean loving and respecting jesus doesnt mean muslims should open up the bible read it and follow the bible, even though some verse in the bible might be from god such as 'hear o israel your lord is one'.
One of the 6 pillars of faith is believing in ALL the prophets/messengers of god. If a muslim says i only believe in mohamed and not jesus or moses, than they disbelieved in god and is no longer muslim.
"Another good--and prudent--question to ask is Do you think people who criticize Islam should be punished?"
hmm, yeah some muslims dont like criticisms. But there are many muslim vs christian ...muslim vs athiest debates online you can watch.
Usually they criticise and object to things like women not being allowed to drive for example in a muslim country (saudi arabia) yet that has nothing to do with islam.
Or some injustice in a muslim country, which is under dictatorship.
usually criticisms from athiests are good, but from christians i wanna say you shouldnt be throwing stones in a glass house.
If you say jesus/christianity is peaceful and better than islam which is evil and has lots of killing and murder in it than be prepared for the same accusation against jesus/christianity.
Criticism of islam should not be punished ofcourse. There is no punished in the quran for criticising islam.
"Could you give me a few reasons why you don't believe Muhammad was a Prophet of God?"
One good reason is - who said so? If the source for their answer is "It says so in the koran", don't forget that the whole koran is based on one person's say-so. Moreover, that person was a pedophile, a murderer, a promoter of murdering, a slanderer, etc.
To Anonymous at March 29, 2011 3:47 PM
1. Based on stats I've read the majority of Muslims wants those who criticize Islam to be criminally prosecuted and punished. There is also some vigilante activity. Therefore it is reasonable to ask a Muslim about his/her feelings about such criticism before getting into it. Same way you would ask anyone else before getting into a sensitive topic if you are in a one-on-one in-person discussion.
On the criticisms of Saudi women not being allowed to drive, and of corrupt dictators, this is not what I meant by criticism of Islam. By Islam I mean the core beliefs as found in the Quran and Sahih Hadith, as well as the more common elements of Islamic law.
Re glass houses, Christians are tied to the Bible, which has nasty things in it, whereas it is difficult to pin atheists to any particular document. A common tactic Muslims and Christians use against atheists is to try and tie the alleged problem of godlessness to the atrocities of Stalin and Mao. But atheists can (and do) easily reject Stalin and Mao and disagree with them entirely. But religious people who are tied to a book are stuck with everything in the book, even if they don't agree with all of it.
"There is no punished in the quran for criticising islam."
The Qur'an is clear that to criticize Islam and Allah is a terrible crime, the worst thing one can do (like other forms of disbelief). At least it threatens punishment in hell for this. There is no clear direct statement in the Qur'an itself that simply says that someone should be killed or put in prison etc., for mere blasphemy. However, there are some sections that do deal with it in an indirect or unclear manner. First there are real corporal punishments for slander. This sets a precedent that can be used, with other information from the hadith, to form a policy. Second there is killing ordered for the leaders of disbelief who revile the religion (9:12), though the matter is complicated because this is only one item in a list of grievances. Third there are general statements about punishing "corruption" (5:32-33) and killing for a just cause and so forth that leave the door open for including blasphemy in that category. Fourth, the Qur'an contains general commands for Muslims to command the right and forbid the wrong, as well as statements that Allah uses the believers to keep the corrupt disbelievers in check, otherwise the world would be full of corruption (2:251). Fifth, there is reference to the "wisdom" (3:164) that goes with the scripture and this is often taken as a reference to the hadith, and there (in the Qur'an) are commands to follow and obey Muhammad, which requires hadith. Sixth, the Qur'an repeatedly says it confirms the Torah and Gospel, and the Torah has the death penalty for apostasy. The Qur'an even says that slaying and being slain is a matter that is binding on Muslims, based on the Torah, Gospel, and Qur'an (9:111).
When we get to the hadith, we find Muhammad ordering assassinations of those who criticized him or who tried to warn others about him. We also find direct commands to kill those who insult a prophet, or who criticize or question the Qur'an. Hence Islamic law takes into account all of the above information and has harsh penalties including death for those who criticize or insult Islam.
"and the Torah has the death penalty for apostasy."
I meant "for blasphemy".
its all about interpretations. I dont believe criticizism of quran/islam is a crime in shariah law.
"The Qur'an is clear that to criticize Islam and Allah is a terrible crime, the worst thing one can do (like other forms of disbelief). At least it threatens punishment in hell for this."
your mixing things here, you can attack/criticise but there is no early punishment, no punishment from islamic goverment. Ofcourse if you are a non-believer then hell is promised. Disbelieving in god is a crime, but its god that will judge you and put you in hell. On earth islamic goverment has no authority to judge and and hand out punishment on those who disbelive.
So YES god/quran threatens punishment, but criticism is still allowed.
"First there are real corporal punishments for slander."
which verse of the quran?
"Second there is killing ordered for the leaders of disbelief who revile the religion (9:12)"
This is the verse:
And if they break their oaths after their treaty and defame your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief, for indeed, there are no oaths [sacred] to them; [fight them that] they might cease.9:12
I dont see killing ordered here, all i see is some people broke their treaty and so it was allowed to fight back.
As for the remainder of your post, i suggest websites like loonwatch.com ( i know you dont like it or didnt like danios articles)
many people did ask questions like yours in debates which you can watch online.
"But religious people who are tied to a book are stuck with everything in the book, even if they don't agree with all of it."
I agree, thats why christians/jews are in big trouble, because they either have to accept all the bible/torah completely or reject all of it. If they cherry pick they have to concede the bible/torah is corrupt/changed no longer words of god.
Where as to attack mohamed you are getting your stuff from hadith which may or may not be true...authentic-unauthentic etc..
I would say pretty much the hadith is like the bible. Anything that is good i would take , anything that is bad i wont take.
"direct commands to kill those who insult a prophet, or who criticize or question the Qur'an"
well whats more insulting than children throwing stones at mohammed or a non-muslim , throwing rubbish at prophet mohamed daily , then finding out one day that there was no rubbish thrown at him, he goes and visits that person finding out that person is sick and helps her/him.
You would expect the prophet to kill her or kill the 2nd caliph omar bin khatab , before he was muslim he was on his way to kill mohammed when he accepted islam.
"But religious people who are tied to a book are stuck with everything in the book, even if they don't agree with all of it."
yes i agree.
"When we get to the hadith, we find Muhammad ordering assassinations of those who criticized him or who tried to warn others about him."
hadith authenticity can be debated.
"We also find direct commands to kill those who insult a prophet, or who criticize or question the Qur'an."
Where? if hadith then as i said it could true/authentic or false. We can never know. People threw rubbish and stones at the prophet they were not killed. Even today many criticise islam, one shia imam said : i object to people bombing themselves and then next minute having tea/dinner with prophet mohamed in heaven. That was harsh criticism. He said that in muslim country , i didnt see anyone killing him or punishing him according to shariah...
The rest has been answered elsewhere...including loonwatch.com and other sites.
To Anonymous immediately above:
"Where? if hadith then as i said it could true/authentic or false. We can never know."
Direct orders to kill blasphemers cited by David Bukay at Middle East Forum (from Sunan Ibn I Majah), and by Aisha Bewley quoting al-Shifa.
http://www.meforum.org/article/1000
Why Do Muslims Execute Innocent People?
"Whoever curses a Prophet, kill him. Whoever curses my Companions, beat him."[7]”
[http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/alshifa/pt4ch1notes.htm - 7]
----
As for Muhammad's precedent-setting orders to kill those who criticized or insulted him, these are well-known and established in the hadith and it would be superfluous to cite them here. But here is an example of a compilation of some sources (looks like a work in progress):
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Freedom_of_Speech#Punishment_for_Blasphemy
"We can never know."
Not relevant. The problem is that the Islamic laws regulating blasphemy are built on the assumption of authenticity. Everyone is stuck with this nonsense because some Muslims insist on imposing these penalties against blasphemy today, and others are afraid to resist it. Besides, there's enough in the Qur'an that, when you take into account abrogation of the early verses saying "argue in a way that is better" etc., someone who is determined to extract a blasphemy law out of it can probably find enough material. And to that I would add 33:57, 33:60-62, 9:73-74, to the verses I've already cited in this regard. (This is not to say that someone arguing against a blasphemy law doesn't also have material to draw upon from the Qur'an. They indeed have a case. But those who want the blasphemy penalty are generally backed up by thugs, vigilantes, angry mobs, and clerics, not just hadiths and Islamic law.
Besides, if you want to jettison the Hadith as of uncertain status, likewise the Qur'an can be jettisoned. To suggest that the hadith, but not the Qur'an, can be jettisoned, is a case of special pleading.
"Even today many criticise islam, one shia imam said : i object to people bombing themselves and then next minute having tea/dinner with prophet mohamed in heaven. That was harsh criticism. He said that in muslim country , i didnt see anyone killing him or punishing him according to shariah..."
But he's not criticizing Islam as such. He is merely criticizing one interpretation that is not necessarily a mainstream view. Moreover, the question of whether a Muslim audience views any particular bombing as Islamically justified remains uncertain. Probably most Muslims now disagree with bombings wherein Muslims kill themselves. But they may have less of a problem with bombings where there is no "suicide" component and the only people killed are non-Muslims.
"The rest has been answered elsewhere...including loonwatch.com and other sites."
I've read many articles at Loonwatch and I do not think they address these issues adequately. That, after all, is not their focus. They are focused on instances of anti-Muslim bigotry and persecution, but also on making trumped up and false accusations against some Islam critics like Robert Spencer. They don't focus on the excesses coming from Islam itself.
You asked, "Could you give me a few reasons why you don't believe Muhammad was a Prophet of God?"
One good reason is - who said so? If the source for their answer is "It says so in the koran", don't forget that the whole koran is based on one person's say-so. Moreover, that person was a pedophile, a murderer, a promoter of murdering, a slanderer, etc.
That's a great, short answer, straight to the point.
"Everyone is stuck with this nonsense because some Muslims insist on imposing these penalties against blasphemy today."
I agree.
"Besides, if you want to jettison the Hadith as of uncertain status, likewise the Qur'an can be jettisoned. To suggest that the hadith, but not the Qur'an, can be jettisoned, is a case of special pleading."
The quran is binding on muslims, muslims take all that is in the quran not cherry pick. Now the hadith i would say its like the bible, many contradictions, some hadith that go against the quran etc..
so i can disregard and cherry pick and choose which hadith to believe in.
So yes hadith can be jettisoned.
"I've read many articles at Loonwatch and I do not think they address these issues adequately."
well your opinion..lets agree to disagree.
But i will continue to posts links(loonwatch) which i believe answers the issue/question.
You may not like it , but others can see and read for themselves.
"if you want to jettison the Hadith ..."
Just jettison Muslimhood or islam
I personnally wouldn't suggest the everyday person try such an experiment and here is my reason why: It will backfire on you. Being a former muslim, I know dawah committees wait for opportunities such as these.
Asking a clueless non-muslim why he/she doesn't think that Muhammad is a Prophet will only cause them to go in search of answers(because they don't know). They will ask the Muslim girl in class they never really paid attention to, go to the shining Islamic dawah sites, ask their cousin's Muslim boyfriend, or call up the local Masjid. The inquirer will always be put in touch with a sister/brother that is more knowledgeable, they will be invited to events at the Masjid, or if the inquirer is Christian, their church will be invited to a special dinner/presentation just for them so they can see who Muslims really are.
All the Muslims I have known are good people despite their faith in a tragic belief system. Thus the reasons for these types of dawah programs are based on their sincere belief that they are trying to show people to guidance. So asking a person why they don't believe Muhammad is a Prophet just gives ample opportunity to a Muslim to open the door wide open for their guidance.
Any time the media assualts Islam, masjids prepare for dawah because of the influx of calls they will receive from people wanting to understand. There are lectures and books that teach about dawah so a Muslim can answer the person who says "can I ask you a question?"
To Ano9nymous at March 30, 2011 1:44 PM,
You say you don't cherry pick from the Qur'an and that you take all of it and it is binding on Muslims. Are you sure about that?
24:2, flogging, with 100 stripes, those who commit zina.
5:38, cutting off the hand of the thief.
4:34, wife beating.
I could go on. My point is, surely you reject these verses? If so, you are picking and choosing and rejecting based on your own standards and preferences.
"You say you don't cherry pick from the Qur'an and that you take all of it and it is binding on Muslims. Are you sure about that?"
Yes.
I do not reject the verses you posted.
For the wife beating verse , there are different interpretations.
Many christians do reject and cherry pick, for them either they become athiest or accept the bible is corrupted not perfect and no longer the word of god.
To Anonymous immediately above:
"Yes.
I do not reject the verses you posted."
Let me see if we understand each other here. Are you saying that you want people who commit zina to be flogged with a hundred stripes? You are aware that this is a very harsh punishment that can even kill some people?
And how much would a person have to steal for you to say that the verse 5:38 applies, and the thief's hand must be cut off?
What are the other interpretations of 4:34, wife beating, based on?
"Are you saying that you want people who commit zina to be flogged with a hundred stripes?"
Yes, its not what i want, its what god wants, we follow the quran. First the crime must be proven ofcourse , if you read the following verse it says if they repent then god is merciful and the person is forgiven.
It would be difficult to prove a person committed adultery/fornication unless the crime is done in public.
All muslims accept quran and its laws. You may object to it, but muslims dont.
"And how much would a person have to steal for you to say that the verse 5:38 applies, and the thief's hand must be cut off?"
I've researched and read different interpretations to that verse. In saudi arabia for example if it is serious theft and caught 3 times then you get the punishment(i believe). I dont see that many people without hands, in fact the only person i ever heard/watched on tv loosing his hand was a man in nigeria who asked for a hand to be cut off.
So even though many believe in cutting of hands for theft, how many you seen on tv or read about that have lost their hands?
I think the details is upto the islamic goverment to sort out.
"What are the other interpretations of 4:34, wife beating, based on?"
http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/Women/wife_beating.asp
Now the interesting thing is, many non-muslims know about all these issues you bring up. Yet many are converting to islam.
Even when you insist that there is death sentence in islam for aspostasy, many non-muslims know about it and yet still choose islam.
"Could you give me a few reasons why you don't believe Muhammad was a Prophet of God?"
Many reasons but the most evident is the portrayal of heaven as a mere expansion of the vulgar misogyny Islam perpetuates on the world. A selfish, bizarrely prudish orgy is the Ultimate Divine? What, no PlayStation? It's simply too puerile to be taken seriously. Apparently there is no heaven for women either, and certainly they already have hell on earth. Muhammad created a boys club whose member's dedication to the exegesis of their scriptures is only equaled to their mind boggling oblivion to the pointlessness of the task. You cannot make a saint out of a sow's ear. You cannot make the sacred out of the profane.
To the Anonymous at March 31, 2011 9:49 PM,
[quoting me]"Are you saying that you want people who commit zina to be flogged with a hundred stripes?"
[you reply] "Yes, its not what i want, its what god wants, we follow the quran."
But you want what you think god wants, otherwise you would disagree with 24:2 and reject it.
"First the crime must be proven ofcourse , if you read the following verse it says if they repent then god is merciful and the person is forgiven."
Let me first say that I think the legal authorities have no business physically punishing people or jailing them etc. simply for having sex before marriage or even when one partner in a marriage has an affair. The victim in the adultery cases can get a divorce.
I find 24:2 to be barbaric and abhorrent.
To the issue of being forgiven...
The passage following 24:2 contains two examples of this repentance. 24:5 refers to those who repent and withdraw their accusation of zina, not to those who are alleged to have committed zina. And according to the notes of Muhammad Asad and Yusuf Ali, in Islamic law the punishment of whipping for slander goes ahead anyway. The slanderer is forgiven in the eyes of Allah and in terms of the admissibility of his/her testimony in future cases.
24:8 refers to repentance for a woman who denies the accusations of zina that her husband made against her, if she states it four times plus once more. However, this does not pertain to the case where there are four different witnesses. Also, if there is additional evidence that she committed zina (e.g., a pregnancy, or a confession from the male who committed zina with her), she can still be punished. And obviously this would not apply in the case where an unmarried woman is accused of zina, since she doesn't have a husband.
This is especially troubling since if a woman is raped and goes to the Islamic authorities, they may end up accusing her of zina, taking her accusation of rape as a confession of zina to be used against her. If the perpetrator of the rape does not confess, she would need four male Muslim witnesses to the act of rape itself to confirm her accusation. As another recent case in the UAE has shown, this is a real problem today.
"It would be difficult to prove a person committed adultery/fornication unless the crime is done in public."
In cases of gang rape, four of the Muslim male perpetrators can all lie. There's your four "witnesses."
Anyways, these rules of evidence are absurd, and in some Islamic countries many rapes go unpunished because of them, and many rape victims are in jail because of them.
"All muslims accept quran and its laws. You may object to it, but muslims dont."
I disagree. I think that, whatever Muslims say, there are some that do not actually follow everything in the Qur'an. As you yourself note in the next point, cutting off the hand of the thief is not something that is rigorously followed, even though it is stated clearly in the Qur'an.
re 5:38, you agree with it, and that's about all I was asking. The popularity of the punishment today is not relevant to this point, though I did make use of it to challenge your other claim that (all?) Muslims accept the Qur'an.
re 4:34, the verse simply should be rejected; there is no excuse for a husband hitting a wife because he "fears rebellion" from her.
"Now the interesting thing is, many non-muslims know about all these issues you bring up. Yet many are converting to islam."
People do all kinds of crazy things for all kinds of crazy reasons. Some people convert under pressure or without adequate information. This hardly proves the validity of Islam.
"But you want what you think god wants, otherwise you would disagree with 24:2 and reject it."
I dont know what you mean here, please elaborate. I dont reject 24:2.
"Let me first say that I think the legal authorities have no business physically punishing people or jailing them etc. simply for having sex before marriage or even when one partner in a marriage has an affair. The victim in the adultery cases can get a divorce."
Well again, muslims believe in quran and follow its laws. you might think goverment has no business, but in a muslim country people get their laws from quran. Athiests/christians or non-muslims wont be subject to those laws.
You may not like it, but muslims accept it, otherwise they wouldnt be muslims would they? or they would be like christians ...only in name paying lip service, eating pork drinking alcohol while bible/quran prohibits pork (alcohol quran only)
What YOU want is muslims to be like christians in the west, to eat pork, to disobey the laws in the quran/bible..and at the same time still claim to be christians/muslims.
Egypt is now free, if it wants egypt to be islamic country with shariah law its their choice, they are free to vote, they have democracy, same goes for Tunisia.
If you read the quran, you will understand that you can repent and ask forgiveness from many sins.
"This is especially troubling since if a woman is raped and goes to the Islamic authorities, they may end up accusing her of zina, taking her accusation of rape as a confession of zina to be used against her"
Yes its a major problem in islamic countries. A woman is minding her own business, a man rapes her, she goes to the police, she then is accused of zina. It is not only against shariah law not to help her but also against common sense!
"she would need four male Muslim witnesses to the act of rape itself to confirm her accusation."
Thats not true. First we need to differentiate between what shariah law says and what islamic goverments do now today.
It is common sense to take dna, investigate the rape claim etc.. pretty much like they do in the west.
"As another recent case in the UAE has shown, this is a real problem today."
yes here http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/brisbane-woman-sues-uae-hotel-20110329-1cedw.html
"//When she reported the assault to authorities, she was jailed on an adultery charge and spent eight months in prison because it is illegal in the UAE to have sex outside marriage.//"
I didnt know whether to laugh to cry. In the above case you dont even need shariah law but just common sense. So its not just the implementation of shariah law is wrong, but common sense is out of the window.
In this case she shouldnt have been charged with sex outside marriage, as there is no proof. And secondly dna should have been taken and the rape claim investigated.
"In cases of gang rape, four of the Muslim male perpetrators can all lie. There's your four "witnesses.""
Again, in the above case, dna evidence could be taken. The problem you have and i have is that as you say rape goes unpunished and even when rape is proven its usually the raped women that goes to jail or flogged while the rapist is free !
So these corrupt regimes like saudi arabia where some royals drink and fornicate yet are not punished and are untouchables, while the poor people suffer.
"whatever Muslims say, there are some that do not actually follow everything in the Qur'an"
True, some muslims dont follow the laws of the quran, some islamic goverments dont follow shariah.
I said this before there isnt any 100% proper free democratic islamic country.
So you would have an imam approving of child marriage and banning pork/alcohol while those in power the royals/goverment people drink and fornicate without shariah law being used against them.
"Some people convert under pressure or without adequate information. This hardly proves the validity of Islam."
Many non-muslims in the west who convert, didnt convert because of pressure or coercion.
As for those who convert without adequate information as you say, well they have the internet, they have tv with all the islamophobia glen beck and anti-mosque protests and islamic extremist hearings etc..
yet they choose islam.
ah i written alot, and now all gone, sorry if i didnt answer some issues you brought up.
"As another recent case in the UAE has shown, this is a real problem today."
yes as seen here http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/brisbane-woman-sues-uae-hotel-20110329-1cedw.html
Its sad state the islamic world is in.
"//When she reported the assault to authorities, she was jailed on an adultery charge and spent eight months in prison because it is illegal in the UAE to have sex outside marriage.//"
In the above case, we see severe injustice, no common sense, not even the right implementation of shariah law. sex outside marriage was not proven, the rape was not investigated, dna evidence was not taken etc...
In this case the suspects should have been interviewed, she said her drink was spiked, so maybe there is cctv footage?
So going to the police because you've been raped, and then finding your self jailed for other crime which has not been proven is....unbelievable. But what would you expect from corrupt islamic countries with no freedom of speech and no human rights?
"ah i written alot, and now all gone, sorry if i didnt answer some issues you brought up."
Very well then. I will close by clarifying something here:
[quoting me] "she would need four male Muslim witnesses to the act of rape itself to confirm her accusation."
[your reply] "Thats not true. First we need to differentiate between what shariah law says and what islamic goverments do now today."
What I should have wrote, as I indicated in my previous paragraph about zina, was that, yes, additional evidence may be considered besides four witnesses. However, my objection is that the four witnesses criterion is used at all, since as you can see from the recent examples there are problems when an Islamic authority insists on requiring four witnesses. It does happen.
Its 4 witnesses not 4 MALE witnesses.
so could be male or female witnesses.
24:4)- ‘and those who launch a charge against a chaste woman, and produce not four witnesses, (to support their allegation) flog them with eighty stripes and reject their evidence ever after, for such men are wicked transgressors.’
so a woman accused of adultery well, the islamic state/goverment / prosecutor would have to bring 4 witnesses to prove the crime of adultery.
But rape is different, if 4 or 7 gang rape a woman, then how can she be accused of adultery and sent to jail without proving adultery took place.
There is NO need for 4 witnesses for the rape. All that suffices is like the west , dna-investigation etc..
And ofcourse the 4 who rape would lie and say they didnt rape.
The 4 witnesses you have problem with is when someone is accusing a person of adultery.
If a woman is raped, she DOES NOT need 4 witnesses to support her case that she has been raped. Evidence and investigation must take their course.
So it all comes down to the corrupt islamic goverments.
I mean that woman in the news, she wasnt muslim. So i dont know why she's been charged with adultery.
Unless ofcourse the law of the land - secular law was used to charge her.
To Anonymous:
Your responses are typical to Muslim rationale which causes you to come up with many "reasons" for justifying inhumanity so you can continue to believe Islam is the truth.
Like most instances involving adultery, I find it interesting that you are not stating that the men who were guilty in this case deserves to be flogged if they are unmarried and killed if they are married. This is almost routine in sex-outside-of-marriage cases. Men will argue about the witness requirement but at the end of the day, don't bother to issue the injunction against the perpertrator. Most times, it is just the woman who is punished.
I've seen a ruling worded so that it seems as though only women are to be punished in such cases when in fact it is both sexes. Yet, muslims don't stand up for the law to applied to men. And don't hand me that garbage about corrupt Muslim countries or misinterpretations about Islam. Muslim men in non-Islamic countries abuse women all the time and it is deemed okay.
Verse 24:1-22 was revealed in the case of Aisha and that is when the requirements of witnesses came about. These were revealed as a matter of convenience to save Muhammad's wife. Scholars routinely say that some of the Quran is revealed for specific people, others for the whole ummah. This verse is not applicable in the ladys situation although there are differences of opinion and other verses that relate to punishment.
Either way, it shows that it is better to let a person go free because of the impossibility of producing four witnesses. Yet Muslims race to prosecute women with the statement of one man and let him run free.
So, if it were your daughter would you be a proud Muslim and state you must believe in the whole of the Quran when she is about to be beaten, or worse stoned, for a crime she didn't commit? And on top of that the guy runs free? If it were your mother at the hands of this fate, would you feel like Islam is a wise and just religion? Or would you struggle with your eman because you know the punishment is wrong, false, inhumane and how could Allah decree such a thing?
I already know what will happen. If there is a smidge of light left in your heart, you will struggle with your eman because you're trying to balance faith with an oppressive belief. You will smile grimly and continue to pacify yourself with things like "this only in corrupt Muslims countries" or "we really should be merciful" You will numb your soul with "they misunderstood the ayat". Give up the ghost. Be honest with yourself and admit that Islam is a lie.
-Eve
To Anonymous at April 1, 2011 3:55 PM,
"Its 4 witnesses not 4 MALE witnesses."
Cite your sources please.
The Reliance of the Traveller says: O-24.9
"If testimony concerns fornication or sodomy, then it requires four male witnesses (O: who testify, in the case of fornication, that they have seen the offender insert the head of his penis into her vagina)."
Sheikh Muhammad Saleh Al-Munajjid wrote:
"[...]The punishment for rape in Islam is the same as the punishment for zina (adultery or fornication), which is stoning if the perpetrator is married, and one hundred lashes and banishment for one year if he is not married.
Moreover, Ibn `Abdul-Barr (may Allah bless his soul) said
The scholars are unanimously agreed that the rapist is to be subjected to the hadd punishment if there is clear evidence against him that he deserves the hadd punishment, or if he admits to that. Otherwise, he is to be punished (that is, if there is no proof that the hadd punishment for zina may be carried out against him because he does not confess and there are not four witnesses, then the judge may punish him and stipulate a punishment that will deter him and others like him). There is no punishment for the woman if it is true that he forced her and overpowered her. (Al-Istidhkaar, 7/146).[...]"
And if you read the Reliance of the Traveller on the qualifications of witnesses, you will see that normally they must be Muslim. Non-Muslims are considered fasiq, legally corrupt.
Again, the only reason this "four witnesses" idiocy is even still a factor is because of Muhammad and the Qur'an. The rules of evidence for rape are compromised because of this adherence to a completely irrational requirement. (And again, I did not say the four witnesses was the only requirement or that other sources of evidence are not brought to bear. I was clear about this in my previous posts. The point is the "four witnesses" craziness should not even be a consideration, but those who insist on applying the Qur'an and Sunnah to the law are responsible for causing this mess).
you said: "Cite your sources please"
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2006/does-islam-require-four-witnesses-for-rape/
http://www.guidedones.com/metapage/gems/adultery.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliance_of_the_Traveller
"// from wiki: also commonly known by its shorter title Reliance of the Traveller) is a classical manual of fiqh for the Shafi'i school of Islamic jurisprudence.//"
As you know there are 4 mathhabs, the above is shafi'i school of thought. So its not binding like the quran.
Lets make this simple:
1.A person who accuses a woman of adultery would need to produce 4 witnesses. Quran 24:2-5
NOT 4 Male witnesses but 4 witnesses whether male or female.
2. A woman raped doesnt NOT need to produce 4 male witnesses, lol..if she can I would ask those 4 (male in your eyes) witnesses why did they watch her being raped and not help her?
As I said earlier dna and other evidence suffices.
You are posting what some shiekh says or imam says or citing references from imams long time ago.
Shariah law is not static, the core important laws from the quran are static. So for drink-driving or consuming alcohol you could get 6 months in prison or 1000 fine. Depends on the islamic goverment. Today you have many (so-called) islamic countries. So one muslim country would punish you for drinking , another wouldnt or punish you with small fine based on their shariah/ijtihad/law that their goverment came up with.
Ofcourse there isnt proper islamic free democratic country. So some would insist on stoning for adultery/rape(the victim of rape!) based on hadith while dismissing the Quran.
To Anonymous above,
Again, to be clear, I did not say that four witnesses was the only requirement. I'm saying that this requirement is still in place in some Islamic countries and it is due to their adherence to the Qur'an and Sunnah and Islamic law.
The only way one can get rid of it is by rejecting that passage in the Qur'an (24:2-23) or declaring that it is no longer relevant or applicable.
The sources you quote don't provide evidence denying the four witnesses requirement for zina or rape. As noted in my quotes, the rules of evidence for rape and zina are the same, and this includes a four witnesses requirement.
You said the witnesses did not have to be male. False. The four witnesses have to be male according to my source. You provide no source that says the four witnesses can be female.
As for the other schools of jurisprudence, cite me an example where they abolish the four witnesses requirement.
"2. A woman raped doesnt NOT need to produce 4 male witnesses, lol..if she can I would ask those 4 (male in your eyes) witnesses why did they watch her being raped and not help her?"
Again, you are simply making statements without any evidence whatsoever to back up your claims. The reality is that the four witnesses requirement is still used in some Muslim countries, and there are women who were raped who are in jail for zina because they could not provide witnesses. That's the reality.
Islamic countries do not use your own personal private subjective conception of Islam. Just because you wish something were true, doesn't mean that it is true. Stop presenting your own personal opinions as somehow representative of mainstream Islam.
"Again, to be clear, I did not say that four witnesses was the only requirement."
You kept repeating 4 Male witnesses, so you concede it could be male or female witnesses.
"The sources you quote don't provide evidence denying the four witnesses requirement for zina or rape"
They do provide evidence. I deny you need 4 witnesses for rape. But accusing a woman of zina YOU DO need 4 witnesses.
"You said the witnesses did not have to be male. False. The four witnesses have to be male according to my source. You provide no source that says the four witnesses can be female."
My source is the Quran, you provided imam shafi school of thought/jurispudence as your source. And I said to you it is that imam's opinion and not binding.
My quran doesnt say you need 4 MALE witnesses, but the source you provided does say that. So who i believe your source or Quran?
"As for the other schools of jurisprudence, cite me an example where they abolish the four witnesses requirement."
I dont have to, I just use my common sense and Quran. So what if some sheikh says 4 male witnesses?
Its not binding. But if the sheikh is part of the corrupt islamic regime then ofcourse it becomes part of shariah law.
I told you before we got to differentiate what quran says what hadith says and what imams/sheikhs says.
I do not believe in stoning to death for adultery, yet many imams believe that and its part of shariah law in some muslim countries. There is no stoning to death penaltly in Quran. Yet some people / goverments will follow what hadith/imam says and not follow the Quran & common sense.
""The reality is that the four witnesses requirement is still used in some Muslim countries, and there are women who were raped who are in jail for zina because they could not provide witnesses. That's the reality.""
Yes, you said that many times, and I agreed with you many times. So if i say to you a woman doesnt need to provide 4 witnesses (let alone 4 male witnesses), you will not believe me and you will cite me some references and show me some links like that woman who was raped and then jailed.
As I said before, all so-called islamic regimes are corrupt.
But YOU insist on 4 Male witnesses for rape when the quran doesnt say so. But the Quran does say 4 witnesses (Male or Female) IF YOU ACCUSE a woman of being unchaste (adultery/fornication).
"Islamic countries do not use your own personal private subjective conception of Islam. Just because you wish something were true, doesn't mean that it is true."
Yes i agree, islamic countries since they are oppressive non-democratic regimes would come up with their own laws whether its islamic or not, shariah law or not. While the royals/those people in power fornicate and drink whisky, its the people that suffer from unjust unislamic laws.
"Stop presenting your own personal opinions as somehow representative of mainstream Islam."
Exactly, there are many different opinions, schools of thought /jurispudence.
If an islamic country has stoning to death as punishment for adultery, then they are doing it according to their own understanding of islam. But IF YOU come up to me and say if there is stoning punishment for rape or adultery in Islam am gona say NO.
So if you give a false statement about islam or quran, i will reply to that. But if you change the subject into What some islamic country does or its shariah laws then i wont deny that.
Our discussion is like this:
You say :- death sentence for apostasy and stoning to death for adultery in islam/quran.
I will then say:- nooo! there is no death sentence for the above your statement is false and untrue.
You will then say: well here are some sources (from hadith or from some imam) and then you will continue to show examples of it in places such as saudi arabia , iran, afghanistan.
I will then say:- they are corrupt regimes unislamic.
You will then say:- Stop giving me your own opinions and you do not represent mainstream islam!
======
oh by the way i dont wanna spam the place with links and references etc.. Quran comes first, hadith is just secondary. If there is stoning to death in hadith or your 'Reliance of Traveler' book then I wont follow it , i follow the noble quran.
and ofcourse i could provide links to loonwatch but u hate that site..
Anonymous,
Again, you continue to misrepresent my statements, claiming that I said things that I never said.
You are attempting to stick only to the Qur'an, but the Qur'an requires interpretation. You say the four witnesses can be female. Fine, show me proof. But you haven't, or can't. The Qur'an, as is often the case, is unclear. Look, it doesn't really matter to me whether the witnesses are male or female. My main objection is the silly requirement that there be exactly four witnesses. But the authoritative sources I've seen say four male witnesses.
Anyways, we agree on this much: The Qur'an requires four witnesses to prove an accusation of zina. I say that's absurd, unjust, and arbitrary...don't you agree?
"You kept repeating 4 Male witnesses, so you concede it could be male or female witnesses."
Ah, no, what I'm saying is that where my sources are specific, they say male witnesses. It's not me saying that, but rather the Islamic authorities are saying that. The Qur'an itself is unclear on the issue.
"My quran doesnt say you need 4 MALE witnesses, but the source you provided does say that. So who i believe your source or Quran?"
The Qur'an doesn't say a lot of things. You keep talking about a punishment for rape. The Qur'an doesn't mention a punishment for rape. You have a problem here!
"So if i say to you a woman doesnt need to provide 4 witnesses (let alone 4 male witnesses), you will not believe me and you will cite me some references and show me some links like that woman who was raped and then jailed."
Again, that's not correct. Present a respected jurist or scholar in the Islamic world who has said the "four witnesses" (whether for zina or rape) can be women, and I will accept that there is some variation of opinion on the matter. I respond well to evidence.
"But YOU insist on 4 Male witnesses for rape when the quran doesnt say so."
No, no. The imams, scholars, etc., say this in terms of their understanding. I'm quoting them. Neither I nor they are saying that the Qur'an itself gives this requirement for testimony to rape. It's their interpretation based on the overall Qur'an, plus Sunnah, plus past Islamic legal precedents and scholarly reasoning.
"If an islamic country has stoning to death as punishment for adultery, then they are doing it according to their own understanding of islam. But IF YOU come up to me and say if there is stoning punishment for rape or adultery in Islam am gona say NO."
Why don't you say "No" to them?
They are doing it based on hadith and past precedent such as from the Torah. The Qur'an is not complete and the verses of stoning for adultery got lost or destroyed...at least according to the hadith! You want to drop the hadith, that's your business, but mainstream Islamic scholarship still uses it and Islamic law depends heavily on it.
"So if you give a false statement about islam or quran, i will reply to that."
What false statements about "Islam"? (And note, again, "Islam" for the mainstream is not just the Qur'an but is also the Hadith and Sira and Islamic law).
"But if you change the subject into What some islamic country does or its shariah laws then i wont deny that."
It's not changing the subject. The only reason I'm talking about this at all is because (a) the problems with Islam's laws concerning illegal sex and rules of evidence are occurring today, and (b) you keep denying that this has anything to do with what you believe to be true Islam in your own perspective.
"You say :- death sentence for apostasy and stoning to death for adultery in islam/quran."
I didn't say either of those things. I believe what I said was that a case could be made to support the apostasy penalty, but the clear statements are in the Hadith.
"Quran comes first, hadith is just secondary. If there is stoning to death in hadith or your 'Reliance of Traveler' book then I wont follow it , i follow the noble quran."
Qur'an says to follow the scripture and the wisdom (3:164). Why doesn't it just say scripture?
"and ofcourse i could provide links to loonwatch but u hate that site.."
It's not a scholarly or authoritative source.
From Bewley, Maliki jurisprudence,
The Risala of 'Abdullah ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (310/922 - 386/996)
A Treatise on Maliki Fiqh (Including commentary from ath-Thamr ad-Dani by al-Azhari)
"37.23. Conviction for illicit sex (zina)
37.23a. Establishment of guilt
The hadd for illicit sex is only carried out when proven by confession, clear pregnancy, or the testimony of four free men who are adult and of good character who see the actual act, like a kohl stick entering a bottle.
[ If someone confesses to zina, even once, that obliges the prescribed hadd. Clear pregnancy is proof when the woman has neither husband nor master. The third form of establishing guilt is the testimony of four free men who must see the act of penetration in illicit sex.
[Hashiyya: In the case of confession, it must be someone whose confession is valid by his being adult, sane and not compelled.]"
"37.27 A Kitabi rapist
If a Christian rapes a Muslim woman he is killed.
[ Or a Jew. When the rape is proven by four witnesses because this action violates their contract. When one of them breaks the contract, he is killed.]
[If he rapes a Kitabi woman married to a Muslim, there are two positions about whether he is executed. If he marries a free Muslim woman and she does not know that he is a dhimmi, she receives no hadd and there is disagreement about killing him. If she knows that he is a dhimmi but does not know that it is forbidden for her to marry a dhimmi, she receives no hadd. He is not killed, but is punished severely. Four witnesses to the actual act are required, and the child has the mother's deen, not that of the father. He must pay the bride-price to her.]"
"37.29. The one who carries out the hadd punishment on slaves
A master imposes the hadd punishment for illicit sex on his slave or slavegirl is she becomes pregnant or if there is other evidence in the form of four witnesses, or confession. But if the slavegirl has a free husband or her husband is the slave of someone else, the hadd punishment is only carried out on her by the ruler."
"38.3b. Acceptable witnesses
One only accepts the testimony of reputable witnesses.
[ Being reputable ('adala) is not that a man is investigated for obedience so that no act of disobedience sullies it because that is impossible and only the true are capable of it. What is meant is he usually is obedient to Allah and avoids wrong actions.]
[Someone who is 'adl is free, Muslim, sane, adult, free of iniquity, debarment due to foolishness, and free of innovation. Innovation includes Mu'tazilites and Kharijites. Al-Qarafi said, "In our view, 'adala is Allah's right from the judge. He is only permitted to give judgement with reputable witnesses. Ash-Shafi'i said, "Since it is Allah's right, even if the litigants agree to accept the testimony of an unbeliever or one with whom Allah is angry, the judge is not permitted to give judgement on that basis." Ibn al-Qasim said that.]"
http://bewley.virtualave.net/RisShahadat.html
"they say male witnesses. It's not me saying that, but rather the Islamic authorities are saying that. The Qur'an itself is unclear on the issue."
Exactly, what i'm trying to tell you is that i can think for myself and decide for myself, in islam we dont have a pope, just because you cite a source an imam from shafi school of thought who says it has to be 4 Male witnesses doesnt make his word true and binding.
It is a different matter if an islamic goverment uses that source to justify their law when 4 male witnesses are needed. In a proper free democratic islamic society, the people decide not the imam or oppressive ruler.
In saudi arabia i remember there was a sheikh who said if a man and woman want to work together in the same room, the muslim woman can suckle the men. That fatwa based on just hadith. Backward thinking..The fatwa was retracted i believe.
"My main objection is the silly requirement that there be exactly four witnesses. But the authoritative sources I've seen say four male witnesses."
It is silly to you, but not to muslims. Muslims accept the quran. Its from god. So you have a problem with what god says in terms of how to lead our lives.
Some secular atheists believe in capital punishment, others dont and believe its barbaric, who is right who is wrong? So if you believe some laws in the Quran are 'silly' or 'barbaric' then thats your opinion no point in discussing further.
"Anyways, we agree on this much: The Qur'an requires four witnesses to prove an accusation of zina. I say that's absurd, unjust, and arbitrary...don't you agree?"
Yes, to accuse a woman of zina/being unchaste you require 4 witnesses. I agree. As for this law for being absurd unjust or arbitrary no ofcourse not(i do not agree). God created us, god knows whats best for us. If you buy a computer or ipad etc.. it comes with a manual, our manual is the Quran. God created us we follow what god says not what some man/woman says is good for us.
"The Qur'an doesn't say a lot of things. You keep talking about a punishment for rape. The Qur'an doesn't mention a punishment for rape. You have a problem here!"
I believe you brought up rape as well, many others say that if a woman is raped she needs 4 male witnesses to prove she was raped. And that woman who was raped and jailed you provided as example which happened recently.
So yes the Quran doesnt mention a punishment for rape. What is your objection/problem here? Are you telling me that because there is no punishment mentioned in Quran for rape, then there is really no punishment for rape in islam and that if a woman is raped in an islamic country, then the attacker gets not punishment and is free to go because the Quran doesnt have punishment for rape!! ?
"Present a respected jurist or scholar in the Islamic world who has said the "four witnesses" (whether for zina or rape) can be women, and I will accept that there is some variation of opinion on the matter. I respond well to evidence."
Before i answer the above you made a mistake. in brackets you said (whether for zina or rape), see you keep mentioning rape. A victim of rape DOES NOT need 4 witnesses.
Only for accusation for zina.
----
You said it yourself, the quran doesnt specify whether male or female witnesses. So why do you need a respected scholar's answer? If i dont agree with a scholar i dont have to follow him/her and its not legally binding.
I'am no scholar myself, but if a sheikh/imam says 4 male witnesses he will have to provide evidence and reasons on WHY the 4 witnesses needed to accuse a woman of being unchaste needs to be 4 MALE witnesses, when the Quran mentions just witnesses no specific gender.
"No, no. The imams, scholars, etc., say this in terms of their understanding. I'm quoting them. Neither I nor they are saying that the Qur'an itself gives this requirement for testimony to rape. It's their interpretation based on the overall Qur'an, plus Sunnah, plus past Islamic legal precedents and scholarly reasoning."
Exactly, it is their interpretation that is the problem and that is your objection in all things. It all comes down to the oppressive US supported regimes. Do you know al-azhar sheikhs appointed by (now gone) mubarak? Most imams/shiekhs who speak for goverment or payed by islamic goverments can never say anything against goverment.
Islamic world today is backward, backward in science/techonology and backward in justice & freedom. Imams cant think forward and only open up books of what an imam said 1000 years ago.
So I say no, there is no requirment for 4 male witnesses, but you will say yes there is that requirment according to the imam/source etc... I told you before of this :-
you say : ...
I say: .....
So we agree the quran doesnt say that but the imams/other sources say that.
"Why don't you say "No" to them?
They are doing it based on hadith and past precedent such as from the Torah. The Qur'an is not complete and the verses of stoning for adultery got lost or destroyed...at least according to the hadith! You want to drop the hadith, that's your business, but mainstream Islamic scholarship still uses it and Islamic law depends heavily on it."
Well, I am saying No to you because i am talking to you and you brought up your arguments! Also i have to reiterate, islamic regimes are corrupt and undemocratic no freedom of speech there, you cant say anything against the president/royal dictator let alone give your opinion on a law or how the country is run.
In a free democractic islamic society, the people will vote and discuss islamic law and criticise some islamic law (if it is unislamic and unjust, not the core ones from the quran)
If for example afghanistan becomes a free democratic islamic country, and choose quran as constitution and shariah law, i'm sure the parliament/ people by vote would ban stoning to death for zina and other unjust laws.
You say quran is not complete, again your opinion, i dont know why you say that, but its different subject altogether. You say the verses in the quran for stoning got lost or destroyed, again your opinion not a statement of fact. Your not happy with stoning being in the hadith you wish also for it to be in the quran so you can use it against muslims? :P
so yes i can drop some hadith, and yes islamic scholarship depends on it. But if some hadith are going to push us backwards not forward , then we shouldnt take on those hadith. Because hadith even though some are 'authentic', the issue is authentic to whom? to some imam who collected it 200 years later after mohamed? And what about hadith that is contradictory or that goes AGAINST the Quran?
So there needs to be reform, the imams/sheikhs need to stop being backward. Imams when radios and tv's were invented produced fatwas banning them, i'm sure there is some imam out there that has produced a fatwa banning internet and computers lol.
So what is the solution? well in my opinion freedom and democracy. People vote for shariah law, then people vote for whether they want stoning to death punishment for adultery or not. If the people vote then regardless whether i or you think its barbaric or not its their law its democracy and they voted for it.
Till then its the royals/shiekhs/imams/ along with the oppressive regimes that control the islamic world.
"I didn't say either of those things. I believe what I said was that a case could be made to support the apostasy penalty, but the clear statements are in the Hadith"
No, you didnt get me. I meant you will say this 'x' ...then i will say that...then you will say this 'x' ... etc... I wasnt putting words into your mouth.
"Qur'an says to follow the scripture and the wisdom (3:164). Why doesn't it just say scripture?"
I follow the quran, the quran also says ask those who have knowledge , the quran says to think and ponder etc...
So what wisdom is there when the people of knowledge (imams/sheikhs) put women behind jail for being rape victims while the people in power fornicate and drink their beer and are not punished according to islamic law?
"It's not a scholarly or authoritative source.(loonwatch)"
it is scholarly some articles references and evidence are given.
In the end we have to agree on some things.
1.There is no requirment for 4 MALE witnesses in the QURAN. there may be in other sources in hadith or what some 'imam' says but in the QURAN there isnt. AGREE or DISAGREE???
2.There is NO stoning to death sentence for zina in the QURAN. AGREE or DISAGREE?
3.A woman who has been raped, DOES NOT require 4 witnesses to prove the allegation it is not mentioned in the QURAN. AGREE or DISAGREE?
Starting from the end of your last comment:
"1.There is no requirment for 4 MALE witnesses in the QURAN. there may be in other sources in hadith or what some 'imam' says but in the QURAN there isnt. AGREE or DISAGREE???"
The is a requirement for four witnesses to an act of illegal sex (zina), but it does not explicitly say male. It also does not explicitly say female. It also elsewhere says a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man, so you would have to consider that if you are dealing with only the Qur'an.
"2.There is NO stoning to death sentence for zina in the QURAN. AGREE or DISAGREE?"
Agreed that it doesn't explicitly say it. The Quran is an incomplete and often vague book. However, as we've been discussing, it talks about the penalty of 100 stripes (without mercy) for zina. 100 stripes (or even less than that) can kill, and this has been proven (e.g., see the recent case of the girl in Bangladesh who died of this punishment). And in any case, mainstream Islam uses the Hadith.
"3.A woman who has been raped, DOES NOT require 4 witnesses to prove the allegation it is not mentioned in the QURAN. AGREE or DISAGREE?"
As I said, the Qur'an has no penalty for rape, so the question of the number of witnesses is moot--unless rape is considered under the category of zina, as some do interpret it to be.
So you agree on all 3 points I mentioned above.
"just because you cite a source an imam from shafi school of thought who says it has to be 4 Male witnesses doesnt make his word true and binding."
I've cited Shafi'i, Maliki, and possibly Hanbali (Al-Munajjid?) schools. I will now add Hanafi:
From the Hedaya (note the interpretation of the Qur'an here):
“Evidence is of several kinds, that of four men, as has been ordained in the Qur’an; and the testimony of a woman in such a case is not admitted’ because… “in the time of the Prophet and his two immediate successors it was an invariable rule to exclude the evidence of women in all cases inducing punishment or retaliation”; and also because the testimony of women involves a degree of doubt, as it is merely a substitute for evidence, being accepted only where the testimony of men cannot be had; and therefore it is not admitted in any matter liable to drop from the existence of doubt. (Hedaya 1982, 353-54 bk. 21, chap. 1)”
-quoted on p. 120 in Asifa Quraishi's chapter Her Honor
An Islamic Critique of the Rape Laws of Pakistan from a Woman-Sensitive Perspective
In Windows of faith: Muslim women scholar-activists in North America
By Gisela Webb (Ed.) (2000) Syracuse University Press
----------------
"It is a different matter if an islamic goverment uses that source to justify their law when 4 male witnesses are needed. In a proper free democratic islamic society, the people decide not the imam or oppressive ruler."
You mean you're okay with this if people vote in a sharia system that requires four male witnesses, 100 stripes for fornication, stoning for adultery, etc.? I ask, because recent polls show most Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan, for example, want adulterers to be stoned to death.
[quoting me] "My main objection is the silly requirement that there be exactly four witnesses. But the authoritative sources I've seen say four male witnesses."
[your reply] "It is silly to you, but not to muslims. Muslims accept the quran. Its from god. So you have a problem with what god says in terms of how to lead our lives."
I say it's "silly," but that is an understatement. The rule is a real problem and is totally unnecessary. It has no place in proper rules of evidence. As I said, the only reason it's ever included is because it's mentioned in the Qur'an and thus some pious Muslims think they have to take it seriously.
"So if you believe some laws in the Quran are 'silly' or 'barbaric' then thats your opinion no point in discussing further."
Strictly speaking I consider the laws in question to be immoral and unjust. These sorts of things need to be discussed, though I won't press you.
"God created us, god knows whats best for us. If you buy a computer or ipad etc.. it comes with a manual, our manual is the Quran. God created us we follow what god says not what some man/woman says is good for us."
The Qur'an is not precise, complete, or explicit enough to be that kind of manual. And what about the contexts? To study the contexts of the verses, you need Asbab al Nuzul, which is based on the Hadith and Sira, otherwise the meaning is often unclear.
"So yes the Quran doesnt mention a punishment for rape. What is your objection/problem here?"
If the book is to be a primary source of law, then it is woefully inadequate for not explicitly including a punishment for rape as distinguished from zina. It goes on and on about the hellfire punishmnets for polytheism, but not for real-world punishments for rape. That's a problem. But there is an even bigger problem: The Qur'an allows sex with, and therefore rape of, "right hand possessions" i.e., captive and slave girls (4:24, 23:1-6, 70:29-30). Even Muhammad is allowed this (33:50). It may not be called rape there, but that's what it is.
If Egypt and Pakistan have free and fair elections, with freedom of speech and debating laws...and then come up with stoning to death for adultery, then thats their choice. I may not agree with it, but they voted for it. Similar to US states, some states have capital punishment some dont.
The law by the way would be for muslims only. If the law is for atheists jews and christians also then we have a problem, because shariah law is for muslims
unless ofcourse stoning to death for zina becomes part of secular law in which muslim and non-muslim citizens are punished for adultery.
You say recent polls show...? can you give me links? I dont know if egypt wants stoning to death for adultery. Well Egypt is free now, lets see if they implement stoning to death and see if they implement against christians and other non-muslims in egypt.
In an islamic country, if a muslim is drinking alcohol with a christian friend, then that muslim will be punished under shariah.
But if both the muslim and christian are drunk and disorderly, then the christian is punished for 1 crime only for being drunk and disorderly while the muslim is punished for 2 crimes one for consuming alcohol second for being drunk&disorderly in public.
Under shariah law in islamic country, I want to see christians judged according to their own law(bible) jews to their torah and atheists to secular law.
So in short not 1 law for everybody but different laws for different people.
"Are you telling me that because there is no punishment mentioned in Quran for rape, then there is really no punishment for rape in islam and that if a woman is raped in an islamic country, then the attacker gets not punishment and is free to go because the Quran doesnt have punishment for rape!! ?"
Well, you are the one arguing for Qur'an-only, are you not? To find an explicit punishment for rape, you have to go to the Hadith.
"Before i answer the above you made a mistake. in brackets you said (whether for zina or rape), see you keep mentioning rape. A victim of rape DOES NOT need 4 witnesses."
Again, that's what those scholars interpret who put rape under the general category of illegal sex (zina) and use the same rules of evidence re the four witnesses requirement. Not me. I would reject all of the Qur'an and Hadith as inappropriate and unnecessary.
"So what is the solution? well in my opinion freedom and democracy. People vote for shariah law, then people vote for whether they want stoning to death punishment for adultery or not. If the people vote then regardless whether i or you think its barbaric or not its their law its democracy and they voted for it."
So you're okay with stoning adulterers to death if people vote in favor of it?
"And what about hadith that is contradictory or that goes AGAINST the Quran?"
Again, that is special pleading. There is no evidence that the Qur'an is more valid that the sahih mutawatir hadiths.
"If for example afghanistan becomes a free democratic islamic country, and choose quran as constitution and shariah law, i'm sure the parliament/ people by vote would ban stoning to death for zina and other unjust laws."
I doubt that. I suspect that most adult male Afghans would vote for stoning for adultery. I would not have imagined this several years ago, but since I've seen the recent polls from several Muslim countries, including Pakistan, I would not be surprised if this is also the case for Afghanistan.
And Afghanistan is already under sharia to a considerable extent, and this is confirmed in their interim constitution.
"You say quran is not complete, again your opinion, i dont know why you say that, but its different subject altogether."
Well, it lacks a law and punishment for rape. It requires extra-Qur'anic sources for interpretation, context, etc.
"You say the verses in the quran for stoning got lost or destroyed, again your opinion not a statement of fact."
It's not my opinion. I have no clue about it. I'm just telling you the standard line based on the hadith, which states that there were verses of stoning but they got lost or destroyed.
"Your not happy with stoning being in the hadith you wish also for it to be in the quran so you can use it against muslims? :P"
No, I'd rather that Muslims rejected Islam as a package, but failing that, I'd be satisfied if they were more like Christians in the modern West who don't follow the laws of the Old Testament, respect separation of religion and state, and so on.
"Strictly speaking I consider the laws in question to be immoral and unjust. These sorts of things need to be discussed, though I won't press you."
yes...discussion/debate is good. But we'll go around in circles. You believe some laws are barbaric/unjust according to your own beliefs or what you think is right or wrong. Muslims refer to the quran.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/12/testimony-of-rape-victim/
http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/10/weak-sauce/
and YES , at the bottom of the articles you can see the references, evidence, its scholarly.
=======================
Footnotes
refer back to article 1. Robert Spencer, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), 74-76. ISBN 0-89526-013-1
refer back to article 2. http://www.renaissance.com.pk/Julrefl12y4.html#1.
refer back to article 3. al-Tahir al-Haddad, Muslim Women in Law and Society: Annotated Translation of al-Tahir al-Haddad, 38. ISBN 0415418879, 9780415418874
refer back to article 4. Muzammil H. Siddiqi is the President of the Fiqh Council of North America
refer back to article 5. http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1203515453417&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaEAskTheScholar
refer back to article 6. Jamal Badawi is a member of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) Fiqh Council.
=============================
Muslims allowed non-Muslims (such as Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, etc.) to have their own religious courts to settle matters of arbitration, including and especially family and personal law, something which I found interesting in relation to the modern day issue of Sharia courts in Canada.
Imam al-Shafi’i, founder of one of the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence, wrote about non-Muslims:
If one of you or any other non-believer comes to us for judgment, we shall adjudicate according to the law of Islam. But if he does not come to us, we shall not intervene among you (lam nu’rid lakum fima baynakum wa baynahu).
(Imam al-Shafi’i, Kitab al-Umm, 4:118)
Not only did Muslims historically allow non-Muslims to drink alcohol, consume pork, and the like, but they also tolerated matters which the Islamic religion considered repugnant. To illustrate just one such example: a certain Zoroastrian sect engaged in a practice known as self-marriage; a man would marry his own mother or sister. Such marriages were explicitly forbidden in the Quran and considered repugnant to the Muslims; classical scholars opined that such a thing was more offensive to Islam than “even homosexual relationships.”
"Similar to US states, some states have capital punishment some dont."
Not for adultery.
Links to polls:
http://pewglobal.org/files/2010/12/Pew-Global-Attitudes-Muslim-Report-FINAL-December-2-2010.pdf
"About eight-in-ten Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan (82% each) endorse the stoning of people who commit adultery; 70% of Muslims in Jordan and 56% of Nigerian Muslims share this view."
You say:
"shariah law is for muslims"
It also regulates the behavior of non-Muslims, such as expressions about Islam, leaving Islam, proselytizing, marriage, etc.
"Under shariah law in islamic country, I want to see christians judged according to their own law(bible) jews to their torah and atheists to secular law."
Jews judged according to the Torah!? Are you crazy?
No, there should be one law for everyone, based on modern principles and in keeping with the UN Declaration of human rights (not the Cairo Declaration, and not sharia). Religion should be a personal matter not a legal or political matter.
Everyone should play by the same set of rules.
"Well, you are the one arguing for Qur'an-only, are you not? To find an explicit punishment for rape, you have to go to the Hadith."
There is the problem. I told you before you seem to forget. Anything good and that doesnt go against the quran (i am talking about hadith here) i accept. Quran comes before hadith.
So you think just I have to go to hadith to find punishment for rape. Well thats not true, and you're wrong in the way you think.
I'm sure you know ijtihad or what imams do when they come up with fatwas. Hadith is not necessary.
I mean there was no human cloning when quran was sent to mohamed or at the time of prophet mohamed. So how do we know today if cloning humans is ok in islam? go to hadith?
What i am telling you is that the punishment/laws could be decided by the imams/politicians in parliament etc..
Ofcourse not all laws come from the quran. Things such as traffic laws, do you go to jail for speeding how many points you get on your license...how many months or years in prison you get for driving while drunk or do you pay a fine for driving without a license according to shariah law?
So for the sake of argument rape i believe should be punished by 20 years in prison. Some might agree some wont. There would be debate adjustments amendments etc...like any functioning free democractic society.
"I would reject all of the Qur'an and Hadith as inappropriate and unnecessary."
Ofcourse you would, since you are an atheist. Mainstream muslims accept quran and hadith. But the problem is some accept hadith as if it is the infallible word of god. Some believe in hadith which might go against the Quran.
"So you're okay with stoning adulterers to death if people vote in favor of it?"
No, not ok with it. But in a free democratic society if people vote for this then that is their choice. If they no longer want to live by that (stoning to death for adultery) then they can repeal the law.
I SAID:- "And what about hadith that is contradictory or that goes AGAINST the Quran?"
YOU SAID: "Again, that is special pleading. There is no evidence that the Qur'an is more valid that the sahih mutawatir hadiths"
Well your talking to me a muslim, so the Quran is the word of god for me, perfect never changed. So quran is word of god while hadith, written some time later collected by imams asking around for hadith. For a muslim we dont know if hadith is really authentic, while Quran we believe in it 100%. For you whether hadith or quran is not valid or true, for us Quran is true, hadith just secondary nothing would happen if it were to disappear from the face of the earth.
"I'd be satisfied if they were more like Christians in the modern West who don't follow the laws of the Old Testament, respect separation of religion and state, and so on."
well yeah as an atheist you would want me to be atheist as i would you to be muslim. Christians who dont follow the old/new testament, well if the bible tells them not to eat pork and they eat it, then they are sinning and some acknowledge that they dont follow bible laws so are they really christian?
Many are not practising christians so why call yourself christian? As for muslims some dont want separation of religion and state, some want islamic country (not like iran / saudi)
so who are you to infringe upon their right of self-determination and freedom and democracy?
"It also regulates the behavior of non-Muslims, such as expressions about Islam, leaving Islam, proselytizing, marriage, etc."
Professor Sherman Jackson of the University of Michigan writes:
[Freedom of religion] did not preclude the countenance of non-Muslim beliefs and behaviors that violated Islam. This applied not only to “soft disagreements,” for example, pork consumption, but to practices deemed by Muslims to be downright morally repugnant.
One example in this regard will have to serve…This was the institution of “self-marriage” practiced by Zoroastrians (al-Majus)., who were protected minorities under the Muslim state. Such marriages being repugnant under the law of Islam, the question arose as to whether they should be recognized or not…
Such practices [ruled Islamic jurists]…are to be recognized under two conditions: (1) That the religious minorities who engage in them not present their case to a Muslim court [but to their own courts]; and (2) that these religious minorities believe the practice in question to be permissible according to their religion. If a religious minority either seeks the judgment of the Muslims or does not accept the marriage in question in its own religion, the Muslim authorities are not to recognize them…
Despite [their] own moral indignation…Muslim authorities were to recognize such incestuous marriages…[Muslim authorities] did not consider granting Zoroastrians (and other religious minorties) the right to maintain marriages that were condemned by Islam to be a violation of an optimally functioning “Islamic State.”
"Jews judged according to the Torah!? Are you crazy?"
yes why not? it happened before in islamic spain and the islamic caliphate. But I understand what you mean by 'are u crazy'. But its jewish law their law, if some jews dont like it they can convert to atheism.
Here is another good link i recommend http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/08/dr-sherman-jackson-western-views-of-shariah/
//For the next three weeks (I left on June 19) Egyptian papers teemed with coverage of what was developing into a constitutional crisis — demonstrations, letter-writing, rallies, the whole nine. Those who supported the secular character of the Egyptian state — Muslim or Christian — argued that in the name of equality(Muslims are free to divorce and remarry) and human rights (marriage is a fundamental right) the Coptic Church should either issue the licenses or be forced to do so by the state. The most interesting position, however, was that of the Church itself. In addition to religious freedom it invoked sharî’ah in its defense! Time and again, Church officials publicly invoked such sharî’ah maxims as, “When confronted with People of the Book (Jews and Christians), adjudicate among them on the basis of their own religion.” The Coptic patriarch, Pope Shanoudah III, even went so far as to quote the Qur’ân directly in his weekly sermon: “Let the People of the Bible adjudicate according to what God revealed therein. And whoever does not adjudicate in accordance to what God reveals, they are among the corrupt” (5: 47).//
"No, there should be one law for everyone, based on modern principles and in keeping with the UN Declaration of human rights (not the Cairo Declaration, and not sharia). Religion should be a personal matter not a legal or political matter.Everyone should play by the same set of rules."
Well you're imposing your views and beliefs on others. Will you force your 'separation of church and state' on me? Will you force your 'modern' principles on me.? Will you force the same set of rules on everybody?
"Anything good and that doesnt go against the quran (i am talking about hadith here) i accept. Quran comes before hadith."
Define "good". You seem to be using your own standards to judge an ambiguous book (the Qur'an), and selecting the parts you like and rejecting the parts you don't like.
"So you think just I have to go to hadith to find punishment for rape. Well thats not true, and you're wrong in the way you think."
There is no explicit punishment for rape in the Qur'an. Why not?
"I'm sure you know ijtihad or what imams do when they come up with fatwas. Hadith is not necessary."
Well, they use hadith. Other than that, they are using their own standards.
"I mean there was no human cloning when quran was sent to mohamed or at the time of prophet mohamed. So how do we know today if cloning humans is ok in islam? go to hadith?"
Mainstream Islam still uses the Hadith, yes. Decisions about new technologies would have to be at least consistent with principles inferred from the Quran and Hadith and past Islamic legal precedents and practices. The old principles are applied to the new situation.
But these texts, especially the Qur'an, are out of date and were not written with a true foreknowledge of what society would become like in the future. The Qur'an is out of date, was written in a different time with a specific people in mind (even if it claims to be universal), and is of little practical use in today's world.
"What i am telling you is that the punishment/laws could be decided by the imams/politicians in parliament etc.."
The why depend on the Qur'an at all? There is no evidence that Allah exists, and there are moral problems with the Qur'an.
"Ofcourse not all laws come from the quran. Things such as traffic laws, do you go to jail for speeding how many points you get on your license...how many months or years in prison you get for driving while drunk or do you pay a fine for driving without a license according to shariah law?"
And to deal with all of these detailed aspects of life, it is necessary to use sources other than the Qur'an, though Muslims continue to rely on the Qur'an for general principles, rules of evidence, nature of the punishments, etc.
"So for the sake of argument rape i believe should be punished by 20 years in prison. Some might agree some wont. There would be debate adjustments amendments etc...like any functioning free democractic society."
Why wasn't a penalty for rape mentioned in the Qur'an?
"No, not ok with it. But in a free democratic society if people vote for this then that is their choice. If they no longer want to live by that (stoning to death for adultery) then they can repeal the law."
That is rule according to the whims of the masses. You need a constitution and a legal system that puts some constraints on this, otherwise the society could be overly affected by the latest whims and fashions of the society. And if you want to stop the stoning to death for adultery penalty, you are going to have to write things into the constitution that prohibit parts of sharia, either through specific or general declarations. One can expect resistance from the traditionalists.
"For a muslim we dont know if hadith is really authentic, while Quran we believe in it 100%."
Uncertainty occurs in at least two ways here: The hadith have grades of validity or reliability; and the Qur'an is often vague and incomplete and gives rise to rival interpretations. Moreover, the Qur'an itself is widely understood to encourage, if not require, the use of extra-Qur'anic sources. Calls to follow and emulate (33:21, 3:31) and obey (4:65, 4:80) Muhammad, plus reference to al-hikmah in addition to the scripture (3:164), seems to require use of hadith. Calls to consult with the People of the Book, and stated confirmation of the previous scriptures, again, seem clearly to refer to extra-Quranic sources.
That said, I don't believe that Muslims truly believe 100% of the Qur'an. First of all, many Muslims have not even read it all, and secondly much of it is unclear, and thirdly how can one retain a critical knowledge of everything in it? And what about the issue of interpretation? People can believe different, sometimes opposite, things about the same ambiguous statement.
"hadith just secondary nothing would happen if it were to disappear from the face of the earth."
There would be no need for the five daily prayers, for starters.
"well yeah as an atheist you would want me to be atheist as i would you to be muslim."
Of course I, like most people, think I'm correct in what I believe on this issue. That said, it doesn't matter to me much at all whether or not someone is a theist, atheist, or agnostic. What I'm more concerned about are real policies, such as sharia, jihad, negative influence of religion on science education and research.
"so who are you to infringe upon their right of self-determination and freedom and democracy?"
Everyone to some extent, except perhaps hermits, has a justified interest in what other people are doing insofar as what they do may cause harm, restrict freedom or cause unfairness. If someone advocates throwing people in jail (or worse) for criticizing Islam, while at the same time demanding that Islam can be discussed positively and promoted and defended in public, then yes, I like another citizen, have a right to oppose this, and support measures that will impose certain laws and protections of free expression in regards to religion and politics. If I support laws against rape, or murder, or theft, then I am imposing something on others.
People are trying to impose things on each other on a normal basis. The questions in any particular instance of "imposition" concern whether it is fair, just and justified, harmful or helpful, etc.
The quotes from Sherman Jackson confirm the general idea that dhimmis under Islamic rule were permitted to regulate their own affairs according to their own religions...provided that these did not come in to significant conflict with Muslims or the "Islamic State". The quote also happens to highlight the fact that there was some variation in how the dhimma laws were applied. This would depend to some significant extent on the content of pact or contract initially attained between the dhimmis and Muslims.
However, some laws were much more common and were imposed on non-Muslims, such as restrictions and prohibitions on (a) criticism of Islam, Muhammad, and Muslims; (b) non-Muslims proselytizing to Muslims; (c) marriage between a non-Muslim man and a Muslim woman. In addition, there were double standards favoring Muslims over non-Muslims in the prosecution and punishment of various crimes.
[quoting me] "Jews judged according to the Torah!? Are you crazy?"
[your reply] "yes why not? it happened before in islamic spain and the islamic caliphate. But I understand what you mean by 'are u crazy'. But its jewish law their law, if some jews dont like it they can convert to atheism."
For one thing, the laws of the Torah require believers to commit what we (in the modern West) would now rightly consider to be murder, e.g., killing blasphemers, apostates, "witches," homosexuals, adulterers, etc. And yet in the Hadith, Muhammad required the Jews to carry out stoning to death of adulterers.
On the example of Copts in Egypt apparently appealing to sharia, I'd have to know more about the background of that particular issue before commenting, and I don't have time. The question remains whether the Copts were wise to say what they said, and it appears that what they said what ill-advised in the larger scheme of things. Of course they can't exactly come out against sharia either, otherwise they would be massacred.
On the issue of "imposing" one's beliefs on others, see my previous comment. It all depends on whether it can be justified. As a general rule, I wouldn't agree with imposing anything unless it was to prevent some real harm, unfairness, etc.
Some other problems in the Qur'an somewhat related to the above discussion:
2:282 one man’s testimony has the weight of that of two women
4:11, 4:176 A Muslim male must inherit double what a Muslim female inherits
2:221 marriage between a Muslim and a polytheist is forbidden
2:222 Menstruation is an illness/pollution/the menstruating women are unclean/impure
4:3, 4:24 a Muslim man can have up to 4 wives at one time and an unlimited number of concubines
4:15 women who commit “lewdness” must be imprisoned for life
33:50-51 Muhammad could have more wives than other men
33:53 Muhammad’s wives were not allowed to remarry after his death
24:31, 33:59 dress code, Muslim women must wear covering in public
22:2 On the Last Day, pregnant women will suffer miscarriages, and nursing mothers will abandon/forget their infants
"Define "good". You seem to be using your own standards to judge an ambiguous book (the Qur'an), and selecting the parts you like and rejecting the parts you don't like."
You didnt understand me, anything good in the HADITH i accept, any HADITH that goes against the Quran i refuse. So yes i have my own standards and I use my own brain and common sense. Its a different
matter if you want to talk about what other imams/scholars say. But me as an individual I can accept and reject any hadith BUT BUT not the QURAN, I cannot reject any verse from the QURAN.
So cherry picking hadith but no cherry picking in the quran. So in a free democracy with freedom of speech, I would vote for the hadith which allows stoning to death for adultery to be taken out of shariah law.
"There is no explicit punishment for rape in the Qur'an. Why not?"
Dont know, as I said earlier its upto us to decide the punishment using the quran/sunnah. Similar to traffic laws etc..
"Well, they use hadith. Other than that, they are using their own standards."
Yes other than the Quran/hadith/sunah...they are using their own standards, understanding, knowledge, wisdom, research etc...
What should happen then is all these scholars and imams give their views and opinions and evidence/reasoning for their arguments and then put up in parliament. So politicians/imams/scholars decide punishment for rape. If the people dont like the proposal/law then they can vote against it. After all if the people dont like anything and hate the goverment then i'm sure the egyptians/tunisians etc... would rise up against and revolt.
"Decisions about new technologies would have to be at least consistent with principles inferred from the Quran and Hadith and past Islamic legal precedents and practices. The old principles are applied to the new situation."
Yes, consistent with Quran first, then others follow hadith/sunah/legal precedents etc.. but i dont like the bit you said at the end 'old' principles applying to the new situation. This is the problem islamic world has, i said before imams, scholars, muslims are opening up books written 1000 years ago and always looking backward. New technologies , new ideas must be taken in, what we face today is different than what people faced at the time of prophet mohammed or medieval times.
So if legal precedent says stoning to death, then the people can vote to repeal it. If the goverment doesnt listen then they can rise up like tunisia/egypt/bahrain.
"But these texts, especially the Qur'an, are out of date and were not written with a true foreknowledge of what society would become like in the future."
your opinion, muslims regard it as perfect, complete.
"The Qur'an is out of date, was written in a different time with a specific people in mind (even if it claims to be universal), and is of little practical use in today's world."
again your opinion, its not out of date for muslims, the laws in the quran are for all time, god created us, HE knows whats best for us, not you.
"The why depend on the Qur'an at all? There is no evidence that Allah exists, and there are moral problems with the Qur'an."
there is no evidence that allah exists you say?..another non-fact statement. your opinion. Its best to say YOU and I dont have 100% proof without a shadow of doubt that god exists or god does not exist.
We depend on Quran, because we need god, we need to follow the laws HE given us. On matters where god hasnt given us laws or told us what to do, it is upto us to use the Quran hadith sunnah research wisdom brains common sense voting etc..So for traffic laws for example we'd use common sense parliament voting. No need for quran or hadith.
"And to deal with all of these detailed aspects of life, it is necessary to use sources other than the Qur'an, though Muslims continue to rely on the Qur'an for general principles, rules of evidence, nature of the punishments, etc."
Yes, for other aspects of life not mentioned in quran we will use other sources...parliament, voting, common sense, debate etc...an example you could hack a computer, now what is the punishment for hacking computers in the quran? none , now you will say to me why didnt god mention a punishment for hacking or for rape or for speeding and passing a red light ! the quran would be a huge book if it contained every detail.
So muslims govern themselves in these matters. So if we use dna evidence for rape or other crimes are muslims going against quran or allah since quran doesnt mention dna OR are we gona use science technology and common sense. I think its the latter.
"you are going to have to write things into the constitution that prohibit parts of sharia, either through specific or general declarations. One can expect resistance from the traditionalists."
yes conservatives, traditonalists etc..tough to convince them. Lets watch what happens in Tunisia and Egypt. The egyptians for example voted recently to keep the constitution with some changes. they didnt change article 2 which said the principle source of legislation is islamic jurisprudence. So i say this again WHO are you to infringe upon their SELF-DETERMINATION, freedom and demoracy and choice? And who are you to impose yourself and your views forcefully upon them?
When they voted democratically with free and fair voting/referendum.
19 March 2011: The constitutional referendum was held and passed by 77.27%....http://referendum.eg/84-slideshow/158-2011-03-20-19-09-58.html
As for writing things in consitution or laws prohibiting parts of shariah. I think Bin Ali of Tunisia did that, he banned hijab and polygamy. So against shariah, hopefully now that Tunisia is free they can write their own laws , not the 'whims' of a dictator. I suspect they will wont go against quran/shariah. So things like stoning to death, yeah they can take that out of shariah, its not in the quran, and i agree with that, but if you gona ban things in the quran the core laws, then well...if it is fre and fair elections freedom and democracy and that is what the people want in a country then their choice. So if Tunisia had a referendum now and free & fair elections and they kept the ban on hijab and polygamy, then good for them their choice, who am I to force myself upon their rights and self - determination.
"That said, I don't believe that Muslims truly believe 100% of the Qur'an. First of all, many Muslims have not even read it all, and secondly much of it is unclear, and thirdly how can one retain a critical knowledge of everything in it? And what about the issue of interpretation? People can believe different, sometimes opposite, things about the same ambiguous statement."
I think we talked about this, we're going around in circles. Muslims do believe 100% of the quran. If you dont then you are no longer a muslim or you're just paying lip service. There are ofcourse muslims who drink and eat pork, it doesnt mean they dont believe the quran when god says dont eat pork or drink alcohol. its just they are sinning, just makes them bad muslim. For these muslims who acknowledge they are doing wrong according to quran and are open about it and are rejecting the quran then i would say them why are you still a muslim?
Yes many muslims havent read it all, what is your point? they may have not read it but are reciting the verses when they pray their daily prayers. Many have memorised the whole quran, including children as young as 7-8. As for the issue of interpretation, well i said it before, imams/scholars/shiekhs/politicians/wisemen/the people all debate discuss and then vote (in free and fair elections in a democracy). So i may not agree with stoning interpretation and i will argue its not the quran. Someone else will argue they want stoning to death punishment, since it is in the Hadith (though not in the quran) and so which interpretation to follow, well let the people vote and decide! In singapore for example, you get capital punishment for carrying very small amounts of drugs, tough harsh but their law. So when people believe different things, (such as for capital punishment/against capital punishment) it is the people that will decide.
[On the dhimma]
"has been answered , i refer to you to these 2 links"
Those Loonwatch articles don't adequately address the issues and points that are likely to be raised in objection by critics (including a few I had just pointed out but which you did not address). Loonwatch is writing for an agreeable, not a skeptical or critical, audience. Historically, living under the dhimma was grueling, onerous, and dangerous for non-Muslims. Today, remnants of the dhimma laws still exist in many Islamic countries today.
"there is no evidence that allah exists you say?..another non-fact statement. your opinion. Its best to say YOU and I dont have 100% proof without a shadow of doubt that god exists or god does not exist."
It's not my opinion. It's an observation: In almost 1400 years, Muslims haven't provided any evidence to support the claim that Muhammad received revelations from Allah or that Allah exists. When I say evidence I'm referring to scientific, empirical evidence, evidence that would force even a skeptic to say, "Okay! There's Allah. I see him/can detect him with these instruments. Let's record this, take measurements, and write up the report!" If you say X exists, that means you can in some way show that with observational or experimental evidence. And you establish a physical record of the event. Then you try to replicate the observation or experimental result to show that it exists. Not so with "Allah."
On the other hand if you are saying my claim is not a statement of fact, then to correct me you are going to have to provide physical evidence that Allah exists. Otherwise, my statement stands: There is no scientific evidence that Allah (or any other god) exists.
And there is not only the absence of evidence to support the claim that Allah exists, but there is the evidence that shows that Islam was derived from earlier sources (chiefly Christianity, Judaism, and Arabic tribal polytheisms), which in turn were derived from earlier sources. Virgin birth, tales of a flood, and so on, these things can be traced to earlier myths. And in the Qur'an, we find lots evidence from earlier sources, including inappropriate things like verses from the Qur'an which are actually from mere commentary in the Talmud (not the Torah)...see Answering-Islam and other sources online. Some scholars think Islam developed as a Christian heresy, as there were some Christian groups around that time who, for example, rejected the idea that Jesus was divine and the Son of God. In other words, there is some evidence to support the theory that Islam is a myth founded on earlier myths, with some modification.
"There are some fights here and there between some people, but usually good relations, most muslim and copt have problem with the regime."
How did Egypt go from being Christian majority to Muslim majority? (I may well ask how any number of countries went from being non-Muslim- to Muslim-majority).
"now what is the punishment for hacking computers in the quran? none , now you will say to me why didnt god mention a punishment for hacking or for rape or for speeding and passing a red light ! the quran would be a huge book if it contained every detail."
No, I don't think a guide book of principles for living, including some basic laws and social and political policies, would have to be that detailed. Certainly many people find the Greek philosophers or for that matter the New Testament to contain valuable principles. But what I'm saying is that the Qur'an is really missing some major things. How can you have a book that deals with some crimes, but doesn't deal with rape? This is quite conspicuous when you consider that zina (fornication or adultery) is mentioned, but not rape specifically. And yet rape is clearly the worse of the crimes. So why didn't "Allah" include something on rape and skip the part about zina?
And while we're at it, why didn't Allah abolish the institution of slavery?
The answer to these questions I think begins with the realization that we are dealing with an ancient text written by ancient people who did not necessarily have the same values we have today regarding slavery and rape.
"Today, remnants of the dhimma laws still exist in many Islamic countries today."
where for example ?
"And while we're at it, why didn't Allah abolish the institution of slavery?"
I asked myself that as well. There are many questions like why is prophet mohamed the last prophet, which prophets/messengers of god did god send to the aztecs incas mayans olmecs native americans native australians etc..
since god says he sent a messenger/prophet to every nation. So you gota do your own research. Ask questions etc... which you are and i am doing as well.
At the end of the day it all comes down to whether you wanna impose/force your set of rules / beliefs/ system on others or not. Muslims want to live by the Quran, will you allow them yes or no ?
One question i would like to ask you and give your opinion :
http://www.quranmiracles.com/articles.asp?id=47 (oceanography)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iram_of_the_Pillars (archaeology)
are the above good for science?
iram city..mentioned in quran not known then discovered. Making that verse which mentions iram true.
barrier between seas/water mentioned in quran.....
Hi, Anonymous April 1 12:25 here, now with a name to avoid confusion.
Wow! Greenforest and Anonymous Muslim, that's a lot of hours - proving my point:
it's "a boys club whose member's dedication to the exegesis of their scriptures is only equaled to their mind boggling oblivion to the pointlessness of the task."
And ignoring my, as well as former muslima Eve's comment.
Greenforest - there is no punishment for rape in the Quran because there is no such thing as rape, the woman was asking for it. It's quite noble of you to try and argue the point however.
I was just debating/discussing with greenforest, answering too many questions from different people cant do that.
If i was discussing with a christian then i wouldnt be talking about mohamed or shariah law etc.. since i would just use science against the christian.
As for your points and questions, i'm sure its answered some where in in the comments. Also www.loonwatch.com is enough for you as well.
Any particular reason on why you left islam?
To Anonymous above:
Cathy was referring to "former muslimah" "Eve" April 1, 2011 5:18 PM, to whom you did not respond.
Well, that's it for me, until next time. Thanks for the discussion. On the "Islamic science" stuff, yes, I'm familiar with those types of claims but it doesn't add up to proof of Allah's existence or Muhammad's claims to prophecy (if the self-described "Praised One" actually existed).
Cathy,
"there is no punishment for rape in the Quran because there is no such thing as rape, the woman was asking for it."
On the rape punishment not being in the Qur'an, I think that is a major problem for Muslims to consider. I've seen many interpret 5:33 (under the category hiraba) as giving the penalties for rape, and there is a penalty (stoning to death) for some instances of "rape" of free women in the Hadith. There is Islamic jurisprudence dealing with rape, so it's not true there was no conception of rape in Islam. Still, as far as I've gathered, there were no penalties for Muslim men raping their "own" non-Muslim slaves and captives though.
Greenforest,
Thanks for the reply.
The concepts of fornication and adultery seem to be understood in Islam. I would like to ask Quotable Quotes whether or not there is a word in Arabic specifically for rape rather than fornication or adultery.
No matter, we can argue back and forth over Qur'an or Hadith and how many witnesses are needed ad infinitum, but the idea that men themselves are responsible for their actions regarding sexual acting out does not exist. Women are always blamed because men cannot control themselves. So if Muslim men cannot control themselves why do they think that their belief system has any validity in the civilized world?
Cathy,
"I would like to ask Quotable Quotes whether or not there is a word in Arabic specifically for rape rather than fornication or adultery."
In case QQ doesn't see your question, I'll give an answer based on what I've read:
1. The main Arabic word for rape according to the online dictionaries I consulted is ightisab اِغْتِصابُ
This was also used by Sheikh Munajjid quoted in one of my above posts to "Anonymous":
"[Muhammad Saleh Al-Munajjid wrote:] The Arabic word ightisab (rape) refers to taking something wrongfully by force. It is now used exclusively to refer to transgression against the honor of women by force."
There are apparently other words for rape also. The sensagent dictionary gives this for rape (verb or noun):
v
إغتصاب, إنتهك, غنائم, يَسْلُب ويُدَمِّر, يَغْتَصِب, يُهاجِم جِنْسِياً
n
إعْتِداء جِنْسي، إغتِصاب, إغتصاب, إغْتِصاب, رابين, سَلْب وتَدْمير, لّفت
http://www.lexicool.com/arabic-dictionary-translation.asp
Pakistan's legal term for rape is zina-bil-jabr (zina by force).
2. While there are different terms for zina and rape, the concepts are still related in Islamic jurisprudence. The concept of a woman's "honor," and of theft or theft by force is also related.
3. Rape has been dealt with under the categories of hirabah and fasad, the punishments for which are mentioned in 5:33. That is of course interpretation. The Qur'an itself says nothing about a penalty for rape. Rather the jurists and scholars read all kinds of things into "fasad" and "hirabah" based on hadith and their own interpretations.
"No matter, we can argue back and forth over Qur'an or Hadith and how many witnesses are needed ad infinitum, but the idea that men themselves are responsible for their actions regarding sexual acting out does not exist."
The rape penalties show that men are held accountable under some circumstances, but I agree with your point that Islam still blames the woman for being raped--unless she is dressed in conformity with Islamic dress codes and makes a loud display of resistance, even fighting to the death, against the rapist.
"Women are always blamed because men cannot control themselves. So if Muslim men cannot control themselves why do they think that their belief system has any validity in the civilized world?"
When a "belief system" is as lucrative and as advantageous as it is to Muslim males, while at the same time there are deadly penalties should anyone voice objection to any part of it, it hardly matters whether they think it is true. I'm convinced that many Muslims know that what they are doing is a scam, but the fact that people are aware that they are involved in a scam does not necessarily deter them from continuing to engage in said scam.
And yes, the woman is to some degree blamed, and the male perpetrator to some degree absolved, if she is not sufficiently in conformity with Islamic rules. This is partly why non-Muslim women, especially in the dar-al-harb, are considered fair game by Muslim male rapists. What's happening in Western Europe shows this to be true.
Greenforest, thanks for your reply. Quite interesting about the Arabic vocabulary.
Muslim men have a racket, they have all their domestic needs taken care of by essentially their personal slaves and it's totally sanctioned by their book. So yes, why would they want to give it up? The downside is never having a genuine relationship with a woman. They cannot be in touch with their anima, they must brutally reject any kind of vulnerability. This is in part the reason for so much violence in this honor/shame culture. There is no genuine sense of self worth but a bottomless need for validation.
All rules, even holy ones, have been broken by those who claim to adhere to them. This is human nature. Many people look for justification in a written law rather than having wisdom or mercy. In conversations with Muslim apologists, they take great pains to point out verses justifying their positions but seem to me to have no real feeling for right and wrong nor for taking responsibility of their actions. If it's in the book, it's good, if it's not in the book, it's bad. Even if it goes against common sense or common decency, Muslims defend it. (The recent UN murders are a perfect example.)
Getting back to the original questions posed by the post, for me one of the great things about the teachings of Jesus was that he told people to examine their conscience (remove the plank from your own eye) as well as look to the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law (the widow's mite). Thinking is involved. Taking responsibility is involved. These are two qualities well suited to establishing a civilization, in particular a democracy. Muslims can only have a theocracy or an autocracy.
"Moses has revealed the existence of God to his nation, Jesus Christ to the Roman world, Muhammed [peace be upon him] to the old continent…"
"I hope the time is not far off when I shall be able to unite all the wise and educated men of all the countries and establish a uniform regime based on the principles of Quran which alone are true and which alone can lead men to happiness." - Napoleon Bonaparte as Quoted in Christian Cherfils, 'Bonaparte et Islam,' Pedone Ed., Paris, France, 1914, pp. 105, 125
Annie Besant
"I often think that woman is more free in Islam than in Christianity. Woman is more protected by Islam than by the faith which preaches monogamy. In Al'Quran the law about woman is more just and liberal. It is only in the last twenty years that
Christian England has recognized the right of woman to property, while Islam has allowed this right from all times. It is slander to say that Islam preaches that women have no souls". (The Life and Teachings of Muhammed, 1932)
Cathy,
Anonymous did not address our questions because we are lacking in intelligence and the ability to debate:
"a creature who is brought up in adornments(wearing silk and gold ornaments i.e. women) and who in dispute cannot make herself clear?43:18"
Our place isn't amongst the field of debate, it is in the kitchen and bedroom. Therefore our comments do not deserve a response. :-/
I think it has been addressed many times, if you care to scroll up and look at the previous comments, you will see for yourself.
As for rape existing in islam or the word for rape in arabic, greenforest answered for you and has been discussed earlier.
"a creature who is brought up in adornments(wearing silk and gold ornaments i.e. women) and who in dispute cannot make herself clear?43:18"
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=10&ID=12885&CATE=88
"//A second argument presented in these verses is less of an intellectual argument, and more of an emotional one. Often emotive statements are more likely to move the listener than a dry logical statement.
Daughters were clearly inferior to sons, in the eyes of the Arabs, as in most traditional societies. Life was tough and families had need for physically strong sons that would bear the burdens of life and see to the well being of the family. Life was also violent, and families and societies were in need of men to defend them against their enemies.
Life was a constant struggle against unjust rulers and systems, and families were in need of able sons that could stand before a crowd, be taken seriously and argue to attain justice or fight ferociously if denied. This is why, as mentioned in the above quoted verses, when they were given the news, termed good news in the Qur'anic expression 'bush-shira', that they had a daughter, they would get enraged.//"
"Our place isn't amongst the field of debate, it is in the kitchen and bedroom. Therefore our comments do not deserve a response."
The above verse shows how the arabs viewed women and how the arab pagans buried their daughters alive since they wanted sons. So god is challenging the arab pagans.
If it was true what you say, i wouldnt be talking to you would I?
Also there many non-muslims who consider women to be inferior and many other non-muslim societies who view women's job only to be in kitchen and clean.
"If it's in the book, it's good, if it's not in the book, it's bad. Even if it goes against common sense or common decency, Muslims defend it. (The recent UN murders are a perfect example.)"
As I said earlier to greenforest, islamic world is backward today. Many muslims accept common sense and deceny. What you're showing here is look at these muslims doing some evil acts therefore all muslims are bad.
"Muslims can only have a theocracy or an autocracy."
If muslims want theocracy or islamic caliphate who are you to deny that? If through democracy muslim world votes for islamic caliphate or shariah law , who are you deny their democracy freedom and their right of Self-Determination?
"or me one of the great things about the teachings of Jesus was that he told people to examine their conscience (remove the plank from your own eye)"
"I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" (Gospel of Matthew 10:34)
Hosea 13:16 (King James) Samaria will bear her guilt because she has rebelled against her God.
They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.
To Anonymous,
Quotes like this don't prove what you are trying to claim, i.e., so-and-so said some warm and fuzzy things about Islam, ergo Islam is true and right.
In these quotes or attributed quotes, Beasant and Napoleon don't claim that Islam is true or morally the best. They provide no scientific evidence that Islam's claims are true, nor that their claims about Islam are true. Nor do they provide any support for their rather vague impressionistic statements about the morality of Islam.
Neither Besant nor Napoleon became Muslims. If they thought it was true, why didn't they convert to it? Couldn't this just be the usual kind of political and social posturing that we see from some Westerners who, utterly ignorant of Islam, makes all sorts of wonderful claims about it? Like George Bush saying "Islam is peace", while the wreckage of the Twin Towers was still smoldering?
There is also the issue of coercion. Since both Besant and Napoleon in their work were exposed to situations where they were at risk of being killed by fanatical Muslim mobs and vigilantes for criticizing Islam or Muhammad, or otherwise their work being severely compromised, then what they say about Islam has to be taken with this in mind.
Have you read what Besant said about Hinduism? Have you read what she said about the Moplah Riots? Have you read about the Theosophical Society, Krishnamurti, etc.? This all gives a very different picture than what you are suggesting with the quotes.
former Muslimah,
Thank you for the reply. Yes, sadly, you are correct. But we can be grateful to know otherwise and appreciate the wisdom and contributions of all women.
Anonymous,
It seems Greenforest has replied with his (?) formidable skills while I was composing my reply. And since great minds often think alike, we address the same issues with your quotes. Conversely we have our own points to bring since we are not merely cutting and pasting from the same websites.
The sources you choose to quote from are so arbitrary. Are we supposed to be impressed that you can find 2 random quotes from Western people that are positive toward Islam? Let's look deeper into the motivation of these people.
Napoleon had quite a cynical interest in Islam - he compared his conquest of Egypt with that of Alexander the Great who had made a pilgrimage to the sacred oracle at Amun, an important god of the Egyptians, which had declared him the divine pharaoh. Napoleon attributed Alexander's success to appeasing the locals by paying homage to their gods and saying he himself should have made a pilgrimage to Mecca, arrogantly assuming he would have been accepted as their rightful ruler by Muslims. Additionally, Napoleon's motivation to join forces with Muslims was fueled by his hatred of the British, not by his respect of Allah.
As for Annie Besant, she was a Theosophist, i.e. a polytheist, a supporter of Krishnamurti, who also supported Hindu rule in India in her work for India's independence. And really, who cares about the right to own property when you don't have the right to leave the house? Let alone being judged solely in the hereafter as to how well you pleased your husband.
But that's the kind of cut and paste stuff you get when bolstering your argument no actual thinking.
You will not convince anyone who has basic reading skills on the exalted status of women in Islam. Translations of arabic, complicated explanations of verses are not even needed, one simply has to read a newspaper, or watch the news on TV to see how badly women fare in any of the 56 Islamic nations.
"Women are always blamed because men cannot control themselves. So if Muslim men cannot control themselves why do they think that their belief system has any validity in the civilized world?"
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/04/rampant-sexual-harassment-of-women-in-the-west/
http://streetharassment.wordpress.com
//a creature who is brought up in adornments(wearing silk and gold ornaments i.e. women) and who in dispute cannot make herself clear? Quran 43:18//
"Our place isn't amongst the field of debate, it is in the kitchen and bedroom. Therefore our comments do not deserve a response. :-/"
A second argument presented in these verses is less of an intellectual argument, and more of an emotional one. Often emotive statements are more likely to move the listener than a dry logical statement.
Daughters were clearly inferior to sons, in the eyes of the Arabs, as in most traditional societies. Life was tough and families had need for physically strong sons that would bear the burdens of life and see to the well being of the family. Life was also violent, and families and societies were in need of men to defend them against their enemies. Life was a constant struggle against unjust rulers and systems, and families were in need of able sons that could stand before a crowd, be taken seriously and argue to attain justice or fight ferociously if denied. This is why, as mentioned in the above quoted verses, when they were given the news, termed good news in the Qur'anic expression 'bush-shira', that they had a daughter, they would get enraged.
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=10&ID=12885&CATE=88
"And yes, the woman is to some degree blamed, and the male perpetrator to some degree absolved, if she is not sufficiently in conformity with Islamic rules. This is partly why non-Muslim women, especially in the dar-al-harb, are considered fair game by Muslim male rapists. What's happening in Western Europe shows this to be true."
---
Other times riding the bus (I was there as a college student / tourist for 2 weeks) I was approached & bothered by men and even teenage boys. I found the only thing they “respected” was if I was the property of another man… I bought & wore a cheap “wedding” ring for most of my trip. I didn’t feel too good about it – esp. since they weren’t respecting me but some fictional non-present male – but at least they left me alone with no work on my part.
http://streetharassment.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/the-only-thing-they-respected-was-if-i-was-the-property-of-another-man/
To Anonymous at April 5, 2011 6:40 PM,
I suggest you pick a name or post one at the top of your comments, as this is getting rather confusing. And the point you are making is not clear.
In Northern and Western European countries the majority of rapists are Muslim males even though Muslims still comprise only a very small percentage of the overall populations. Moreover, at least some of these rapes that I've read about are extremely vicious and violent, with the non-Muslim women's faces being slashed, beaten, and bloodied. Some of these Muslim men claim outright that it's okay to rape non-Muslim women.
The Loonwatch article about sexual harassment in cities in the West fails to adequately address the issue of rape, instead focusing mostly on verbal sexual harassment on the street. (By the way, in the West, young men do get verbally sexually harassed on the street too by young women, but sexual harassment by men against women is, of course, more common and probably more threatening). Since much of this happened in major cities in recent decades, the question arises as to whether Muslim males are more likely to engage in this type of sexual harassment as compared to non-Muslim males. The above-mentioned rape phenomenon in Europe suggests this may be the case. That is precisely the question Loonwatch would have to address, but they don't address it. They just seem to assume that because some actions took place in the West, they must be committed by non-Muslims. Most major cities in North America, for example, have large Muslim populations.
Sexual harassment is indeed an ongoing problem in the West and elsewhere, but I doubt that Loonwatch cares about this, as much as they do about using it as an opportunity to obfuscate the issue, deflect attention off of Islam, and blame the West. For them, if they can't make Islam look good, they'll change the focus and try to make Islam critics and the West look bad.
Loonwatch also raises the example of Lara Logan. Well, let me ask this: When was the last time, anywhere in the West, where a major media organization journalist was grabbed, in public, and sexually assaulted (raped?) by a hoard of crazed men (who specifically made reference to the fact that Logan was non-Muslim?) The fact remains that Egypt is an incredibly dangerous place for non-Muslim women.
Again, Islam critics aren't saying Muslim males are the only ones committing rape and sexual harassment. They aren't denying that sexual harassment is a major problem. Rather, they are claiming that, at least in the West, Muslim men commit more rapes than would be expected from their percentage of the population. In addition, they are saying that Islam in some cases specifically allows rape in terms of marital rape, as well as rape of women who do not conform to Islam codes of dress and conduct, or in some cases where four witnesses cannot be found, and so on. Let's also not forget that the Qur'an itself has no penalty for rape, and that the Qur'an and Hadith allow Muslim males to rape non-Muslim women taken a slaves or captured as "war booty."
Of course the West has issues with sexual harassment, we don't claim that the West is perfect. However, the vast majority of interactions between men and women in the West consist of ordinary, civilized things like speaking with a bank teller, chatting with your cab driver, getting help at a shop, commenting on the newspaper your fellow commuter is reading, chatting with another parent as you wait for your kid outside school. The kind of stuff that would shame my family if I lived in an Islamic country. I'm not afraid of men I meet in the course of a day in New York City. I've been subject to whistles when walking by construction sites and have had to turn down some over aggressive come ons, but that's part of life. We don't live in a gender apartheid state and we trust and expect men to act like gentlemen and for the most part they do. When it comes to crime, I know that my rights will be protected by the police, they will follow up with scientific forensics and any perpetrators will be subject to the law.
Hello Greenforest and Cathy, perhaps you'd both be interested in a short article by Raymond Ibrahim on the topic of slave girls in the Koran:
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/7425/islam-slave-girls-animals
- JustBob
Thanks, JustBob. I do remember that article by Raymond Ibrahim.
There are a number of issues that Islam critics raise, but which the Islam apologists (e.g., Loonwatch, etc.) don't want to address. The rape of non-Muslim female captives, slave girls, and female servants, is something the Islam apologists avoid.
I remember this story http://www.examiner.com/christian-worldview-in-national/michael-brea-decapitates-mother-with-sword, a man beheads his mother with a sword while reading from the bible. And this other story http://articles.cnn.com/2009-02-16/justice/buffalo.beheading_1_police-station-new-york-tv-station-orchard-park?_s=PM:CRIME
is a muslim man beheading his own wife. So islamophobes would say look at the muslim killed his wife according the quran which says beat your wife yet it was the christian man who was holding the bible and reading from it and saying repent to his mother while stabbing/beheading her.
So in conclusion, there are extremists in every community. You are focusing on the crimes of muslims, when you could also focus on the crimes of followers of christianity , judaism etc..
This will turn into a game of posting links of news about what some muslim did or what some christian did..
So if you continue to mention about what crime some muslim did in some country or post links of honor killings, then i wont deny that BUT in return i would post links of what some christian did or athiest did etc..
greenforest said
"Let's also not forget that the Qur'an itself has no penalty for rape, and that the Qur'an and Hadith allow Muslim males to rape non-Muslim women taken a slaves or captured as "war booty.""
you yourself said lets end this, we have discussed the above. Yes there is no penalty for rape but in shariah law there is. If it is true quran allows muslims to take non-muslim women as slaves where then is my slave ? As for muslim males being allowed by quran to rape non-muslim women , where does is say that I as a muslim am allowed by quran to rape non-muslim women, why arent the westerners non-muslim women living in middle east for example not raped?
Why arent the rapists freed, under shariah law and claim that quran allows rape ?
"Again, Islam critics aren't saying Muslim males are the only ones committing rape and sexual harassment. They aren't denying that sexual harassment is a major problem."
Exactly, and what my point is that i am not here to defend the crimes that muslims commit. You and cathy and others are posting examples of crimes committed by muslims, and you are saying its because of islam or their culture that allows them to do this which is silly. We can see there are other rapists/murderes of other religions. Furthermore we discussed this as I said the islamic world is corrupt and backward and needs to improve. And I think here is what we differ at, I dont believe that Islam as a religion its the muslims the followers that are at fault , were as I suspect you and others like you believe its Islam at fault and its best for muslims to leave islam. Now that said , if you continue to post propaganda and post links to crimes commited by muslims such as rape and claim there are many muslim rapists , because islam allows it , so as to take over the world, then that is false and not true. I would then post links such as those from loonwatch, not just for you or cathy to read but for the other audience/readers of this blog comments.
So its propaganda from you and propaganda from me !
Cathy said
"I've been subject to whistles when walking by construction sites and have had to turn down some over aggressive come ons, but that's part of life."
I agree, its part of life. But when you or other people write stuff like muslims rape because there is no punishment for rape in islam or muslims dont respect women because of islam, then we have a problem here. Nobody who has common sense would defend rape or abuse of women. I see rape and beating of women in islamic country and the same in western countries. Many would read the verse in the quran which says beat women and end up assaulting their wife, similarly you find the same kind of verses in the bible and christians who take it literally.
If you are going to attack/criticise islam and claim muslims did crime 'X' because of their quran , then the same should be said of followers of other religions. I reiterate, you dont deny that there is abuse of women in the west and i dont deny the abuse of women in islamic countries. So why dont we leave it at that?
Was it you or Greenforest that mentioned the UN killings (because of burning quran) and similar other events, I mean i could say what about the 1 million + iraqis killed by the west? what about the thousands in afghanistan? So my issue here is the double standards, this websites explains it best http://whatiftheyweremuslim.com/
--hmm sometimes i post my comment and it doesnt appear, seems i have to refresh the page--
To Anonymous at April 6, 2011 1:54 PM,
You continue to obfuscate, deflect, and deny. There is no penalty in sharia law for Muslim men who rape the female captives and slaves that their "right hand possesses". They are allowed to do it, because the Qur'an gives them permission. (I've already cited the verses, so go look).
The reason we criticize Islam is that it poses a major threat to safety, security, and basic freedoms worldwide. Murder, rape, terrorism, slavery, fraud and extortion, killing of "blapshemers", killing of "apostates," killing of those who try to persuade Muslims to change their beliefs, subjugation of women, subjugation of non-Muslims, immigration and demographic jihad...all of these things cluster together under the category "Islam." Hence, it is entirely appropriate and justified to criticize this 1400-year long massive cult of death, deception, and destruction known as "Islam." When Muslims, in significant numbers, stop doing these things, stop the jihad, stop the sharia, then I'll stop criticizing them.
I publish my comments , read it and then refresh the page, only to find it all gone. what i posted was the second half of my post.
Cathy said
"I've been subject to whistles when walking by construction sites and have had to turn down some over aggressive come ons, but that's part of life."
I agree, its part of life. You find abuse of women everywhere in the world, so why blame Islam for the abuse women recieve in muslim countries?
--hope this appears this time..--
sorry, some of my posts are not appearing, i publish and close page only to come back later and find my comments did not appear
greenforest said
"There is no penalty in sharia law for Muslim men who rape the female captives and slaves that their "right hand possesses". They are allowed to do it, because the Qur'an gives them permission"
There is penalty for rape in shariah law. But there is no penalty for rape in the Quran. You earlier said there is no penalty for rape in THE QURAN and i agreed on that with you.
"is that it poses a major threat to safety, security, and basic freedoms worldwide. Murder, rape, terrorism, slavery, fraud and extortion, killing of "
I could say the same of USA and Israel.
Anonymous,
To solve the technical problems you will probably have to enable third party cookies on your browser, and probably have to sign in. I too had numerous problems. But I've been able to post with no problems since I sign in at another blogger site, open another browser window and comment here.
"There is penalty for rape in shariah law."
Yes, but not for a Muslim master having sex with his right hand possessions. Also, rape in marriage is permitted.
"I could say the same of USA and Israel."
If you accept that it's okay to criticize them, then in fairness you would have to accept criticism of Islam.
"Yes, but not for a Muslim master having sex with his right hand possessions. Also, rape in marriage is permitted."
1. Right hand possession issue i post this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma_malakat_aymanukum
The quran says :
24:33 states, ..But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to the one being forced).
the quran also says:
4:24
And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.
4:25
And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women, then [he may marry] from those whom your right hands possess of believing slave girls. And Allah is most knowing about your faith. You [believers] are of one another.So marry them with the permission of their people and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable. [They should be] chaste, neither [of] those who commit unlawful intercourse randomly nor those who take [secret] lovers. But once they are sheltered in marriage, if they should commit adultery, then for them is half the punishment for free [unmarried] women. This [allowance] is for him among you who fears sin, but to be patient is better for you. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
also this link is good http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12719
So you say there is no punishment for those muslim men who have sex with what their right hand possesses?I say you're wrong. Because from the above verses we see you should ask permission of the slave and her family the quran clearly says desiring chastity not unlawful sexual intercourse..So we see there was slavery and captives from war in arabia. The quran was giving the captives/slaves rights.
So I dont see where the quran says to muslim masters you can rape your slaves/captives (right hand possesses), also today there are no slaves or captives. There is still some kind of slavery though in mauritania and sudan etc..
2. You said rape in marriage is permitted, where does it say you can rape your wife in the quran?
"If you accept that it's okay to criticize them, then in fairness you would have to accept criticism of Islam."
Criticism is good, I didnt say you cant criticise islam or your attacks & criticism is too much. All I said was if you remember that I will use the same strategy christians use when they post their attacks on islam. Its bit harder with atheists as they dont have a holy book, but we can criticise their ideology. The communists in china for example are persecuting the christians and the muslims in eastern region. The chinese gov is forcing/persecuting the people to adopt the state's prefered 'religion' atheism.
Go back to the comments, see how many times i agreed with you, that there are problems in the islamic world its backward with no freedom and democracy etc..My answers/comments will be different between christians & atheists.
If a christian criticises prophet mohamed i will criticise and attack their biblical prophets. Giving them a taste of their own medicine. Since some have double standards and attack mohamed while not applying the same criteria/criticism to their prophets.
"Yes, but not for a Muslim master having sex with his right hand possessions. Also, rape in marriage is permitted."
1. Right hand possession issue i post this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma_malakat_aymanukum
The quran says :
24:33 states, ..But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to the one being forced).
the quran also says:
4:24
And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.
4:25
And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women, then [he may marry] from those whom your right hands possess of believing slave girls. And Allah is most knowing about your faith. You [believers] are of one another.So marry them with the permission of their people and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable. [They should be] chaste, neither [of] those who commit unlawful intercourse randomly nor those who take [secret] lovers. But once they are sheltered in marriage, if they should commit adultery, then for them is half the punishment for free [unmarried] women. This [allowance] is for him among you who fears sin, but to be patient is better for you. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
also this link is good http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12719
So you say there is no punishment for those muslim men who have sex with what their right hand possesses?I say you're wrong. Because from the above verses we see you should ask permission of the slave and her family the quran clearly says desiring chastity not unlawful sexual intercourse..So we see there was slavery and captives from war in arabia. The quran was giving the captives/slaves rights.
So I dont see where the quran says to muslim masters you can rape your slaves/captives (right hand possesses), also today there are no slaves or captives. There is still some kind of slavery though in mauritania and sudan etc..
2. You said rape in marriage is permitted, where does it say you can rape your wife in the quran?
"If you accept that it's okay to criticize them, then in fairness you would have to accept criticism of Islam."
Criticism is good, I didnt say you cant criticise islam or your attacks & criticism is too much. All I said was if you remember that I will use the same strategy christians use when they post their attacks on islam. Its bit harder with atheists as they dont have a holy book, but we can criticise their ideology. The communists in china for example are persecuting the christians and the muslims in eastern region. The chinese gov is forcing/persecuting the people to adopt the state's prefered 'religion' atheism.
Go back to the comments, see how many times i agreed with you, that there are problems in the islamic world its backward with no freedom and democracy etc..My answers/comments will be different between christians & atheists.
If a christian criticises prophet mohamed i will criticise and attack their biblical prophets. Giving them a taste of their own medicine. Since some have double standards and attack mohamed while not applying the same criteria/criticism to their prophets.
^ Anonymous, do you at least agree Muslims during the prophet's time and after were able to have sexual relations with their unmarried slave girls, but they just couldn't rape them?
- JustBob
well yes probably it happened. We have to differentiate between what the quran says and what the arabs did.
The Arabs pagans buried their daughters alive in the sand because they wanted sons instead of daughters. They also took captives/slaves from the other tribes they fought.
So in arabia killing the men(during war) and keeping the women as slaves were part of their life.
The quran put in rules and laws to follow, so the above verses you can see you shouldnt force the slaves into prostitution or illegal sex. And the quran says you should marry them and pay their dowry. The children are then free and herself free.
Islam was changing the arabian society, to stop them engaging in slavery and abusing women and burying babies alive as soon as they were born you would have to invade and conquer the whole arabian peninsula. So bit by bit rules & laws where followed till slavery ended.
here is a good video of how arabs treated women before islam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFoocsp2rOU
@5:50mins an arab says "we buy them(women) feed them,use them,discard them"
"woman equal to us? everyone laughs hahaha"
So you see thats what Islam came to demolish and erase. Slavery, alcohol, burying babies alive all of that was gradually erased.
There were probably also some muslim arabs drinking alcohol,before and after the quran prohibited it. A whole society was being changed.
Anonymous, do you agree that the Koran and hadith allow Muslims to have unmarried sexual relations with their slave girls?
- JustBob
JustBob
I already answered your question.
If you have some verses which says you can have unmarried sexual relations then pls post the verse.
To Anonymous,
Again, I suggest you pick a name or post one at the top of your posts, as it is difficult to follow the exchange.
"So you say there is no punishment for those muslim men who have sex with what their right hand possesses?"
That's correct. 4:24, 23:1-6, 70:29-30 all give the Muslim master not only permission to have sex with his wives but also his "right hand possessions" --captive women and girls, slave women and girls, concubines, etc. Sex with war captives is rape, sex with slaves is rape.
The verses you cite don't say anything to prohibit a Muslim master from having sex with his own "right hand possessions," i.e., the women that he owns according to Allah's divine permission. That 's rape. And it is clear from that descriptions in the hadith that this would have been rape, and this is also clear in the Islamic law of jihad. And the hadith are clear that a Muslim wife who does not have sex with her Muslim husband when he wants it is "cursed by the angels" until morning. But of course, based on your above pattern, you will project 21st century modern non-Muslim Western values onto ambiguous or irrelevant verses of the Qur'an and imagine that it says something that it does not. You will then reject whatever hadith that you dislike, such as those that describe Muslims raping non-Muslim female captives all under the supervision and permission of Muhammad.
Your beloved "God" Allah says he burns, tortures, and destroys those who don't believe in him. Clearly, Allah fits the profile of a psychopathic criminal, who would have no problems with raping and allowing rape of women and girls. The author(s) of the Qur'an clearly had no problem with rape, as long as it occurred with wives or slave girls.
"Your beloved "God" Allah says he burns, tortures, and destroys those who don't believe in him."
Whats wrong with god punishing people. After all he created them. You believe in god you get your reward from god, if you dont then god punishes you.
As for rape and jihad and jihad-raping etc.. your opinion you have your own interpretations. We're going around in circles lets leave it at that.
Anonymous
You wrote;
"Whats wrong with god punishing people. After all he created them."
That's a non-sequitur.
"You believe in god you get your reward from god, if you dont then god punishes you."
Again, you provide no substantive moral argument as to why you believe people ought to be burned and tortured if they don't believe Islam.
"As for rape and jihad and jihad-raping etc.. your opinion you have your own interpretations. We're going around in circles lets leave it at that."
It's not merely my opinion against yours. The hadith are clear that Muslim men can rape non-Muslim female captives. Islamic law of jihad allows them to do this. The Qur'an allows them to do this. You on the other hand use modern Western non-Muslim values in regards to rape, while at the same time you want to maintain your belief in Islam, so instead of dropping your belief in Islam you try to read these modern interpretations into an ancient ambiguous text and jettison whichever hadiths you don't like.
Yes, i told you before I can throw out any hadith I dont like. I told you hadith is not from god its not binding.
As for modern interpretations (of the quran) I dont think things like pork / alcohol being prohibited will ever change, those core laws of the quran wont need to be changed. But we just need a little bit of common sense and justice.
An example I can give is, in most muslim countries when a man divorces his wife, the man gets automatic custody of the children. Even if the Father is useless and abuses the children.
So yeah I'll maintain my belief , just as you would yours.
By the way do you have a good muslim vs atheist debate video link?
I enjoyed these 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c5-vVwJ2eQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI9owlpOQl0
Hello Anonymous, even if you cherry-pick Hadith, what is your interpretation of verses 23:1-6, 70:29-30 Greenforest provided?
Do these passages not make a distinction between a wife and a non-married slave girl?
Your copy-paste I think only offered a forced commentary on verse 4:24.
hello bob,
I think loonwatch.com is enough for you.
JihadBob,
Anonymous is apparently confused about the verses he cites (24:33, 4:24, and 4:25).
The Qur'an very clearly allows Muslim men to have legal sexual relations in two contexts, namely, within marriage with his wives, and outside of marriage with those females whom his right hand possesses.
24:33 tells Muslim male owners of female slaves not to force them into prostitution. That is, these Muslim masters are not allowed to force their slaves to have sex with other men for the purpose of making money or profit. I should also add that according to the hadith, Muslim masters are not allowed to have sex with slaves owned by other masters.
4:25 nowhere says that Muslim master cannot have sex with his slaves and captives.
4:24 nowhere says that a Muslim master cannot have sex with his slaves and captives.
Anonymous is grasping at straws. The Qur'an says that Muslim masters can have sex with their own slaves/captives/ right hand possessions, and nothing Anonymous says can change this fact.
The point is there are no slaves today (i'm sure you would bring up slavery in mauritania/sudan).
These verses deal with the arabs when islam came.
You obviously dont like my interpretations & the fact i 'jettison' hadith as you say.
So why dont you go ask an imam or ask questions through islamic sites?
Or are you gona tell me you've asked/researched enough about Islam/Quran?
"There are no slaves today" is a weak argument. So long as the ayat are in the Quran the possibility is always there.
It is a Muslim's duty to see Quran spread in every corner on the earth whether voluntarily through dawadh or by force through jihad. Many Muslims do not FEEL they should force Islam on anyone else yet it is an obligatory duty on them all. What they feel and think doesn't supersede the Quran.
With that being the case, there are Muslims who uphold the Quran to the letter and are waging Jihad against others. If they succeed in their Jihad againnst Non-Muslim countries you can bet your bottom dollar they will be taking the women as captives.
That means your co-workers wives, your friends wives, people(I guess) you care wives will be taken and divided among the Muslim victirs. Because your God allows them to, they will have no problem having sex with them AGAINST THEIR WILL.
And you will have to stand by, watch it happen, and support it. It is in the Quran so you can not wager the "some hadith I accept, som I do not" argument. Perhaps you will even be able to pick out a few concubines for yourself since being Muslim allows you to do whatever you want to mankind in the name of God.
Greenforest, thank you for your explanation on the passages in the Koran that allow for Muslim masters to dally around with their slave girls.
Do you know of any Koranic passage(s) that allow(s) Muslims to take humans as booty/slaves in the first place?
The point is there are no slaves today (i'm sure you would bring up slavery in mauritania/sudan).
Hello anonymous. That is exactly our point. Where slavery is completely legal or where slavery or close offshoots of slavery occur under the noses of the authorities (the Gulf Arab states), this should be a serious issue for many Muslims to confront.
I say this not because slavery is occurring in the periphery of the Islamic world, but because slavery exists in many parts of what is considered the heart of the Islamic world - Saudi Arabia, Sudan, etc.
I can't imagine a similar situation in parts of the heart of the West (say Germany or Canada) without much awareness being raised and action taking place.
To me, it seems Muslims prefer to sweep issues which they perceive make Muslims or Islam look bad under the rug rather than addressing issues openly and candidly.
From that approach, Westerners are even more turned off by the Muslim world where once it was a few countries but now is a conspiracy involving many Muslims who would rather cover up for the practices of their coreligionists (even if they perhaps despise these practices themselves) than to have the dirty laundry of their 'household' exposed for all to see.
JihadBob,
"Do you know of any Koranic passage(s) that allow(s) Muslims to take humans as booty/slaves in the first place?"
Yes. 9:5, 8:67-71, 47:4, 33:26-27, 33:50-52.
9:5 "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."
Acquiring slaves also comes under the general category of spoils or booty (e.g., Sura 8, also see 8:41, and 48:19-21, though in these instances slaves/captives aren't mentioned explicitly in the text).
As we've already seen, several verses allow Muslim men to have non-Muslim female captives and slaves and provide regulations for dealing with them, so we can conclude that Allah approves of this--especially when he calls it lawful.
Verse 24:31 mentions "male attendants" (slaves) who lack sexual desire, and these are the non-Muslim eunuch slaves whom Muslim masters acquired to look after and guard their harems.
In addition, many verses confirm the principle of slavery as something that is due to Allah's will and control over all things, i.e., that some people are given more than others.
Also, 2:178 confirms the notion that slaves are not considered legally egual to freemen.
There is of course much more information in the Hadith and Sira, as regards to acquiring slaves either through warfare, trade, gift-giving, etc. Apologists will claim that the Qur'an calls on Muslims to release slaves under some circumstances. That's true. However, there is no question that the Qur'an approves acquiring new captives and slaves through jihad warfare.
Ibn Qayyim, in (chapter) Zad al- Ma’ad, Regarding His Guidance With Respect to Prisoners of War
p.319
“And the correct opinion which is based upon his guidance and that of his companions is that the Arabs may be taken as slaves and it is permissible to have sexual intercourse with the slave women from among them without it being conditional upon their embracing Islam.”
[cites Malik and Bukhari]
The Reliance of the Traveller:
O-9.13
"When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled."
O-9.14
"When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph (def: o-25) considers the interests (O: of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner's death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.
If the prisoner becomes a Muslim (O: before the caliph chooses any of the four alternatives) then he may not be killed, and one of the other three alternatives is chosen."
Post a Comment