freediver wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 9:20am:


Of course, thats just me all over right? 

...Anyway, rather than me going through and giving you the same responses all over again, why don't you respond to the last question of my last post? That seems to be the crux of the matter here.

How can a rapist be convicted when the woman needs 4 male muslim witnesses if he does not confess to the crime?

The word of a female cannot convict a man for rape.
Quote:


Mohammad said a woman's mind is deficient therefore their word is equal to half that of a man.

Muslims like to claim Islam gave women rights.

Baronvonrort wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 7:07pm:


rubbish. Show me the quote where it says this.

The only instance where a woman's testimony is worth half of a man's is in the case of witnessing financial transactions and contracts.

Also its complete baloney that 4 witnesses are needed for a rape conviction. The quranic verse refers to when men accuse women of adultery.

Little known fact: No proof is required in islam when a woman claims rape. They are taken at their word. However convicting an accused man of rape is another matter - but does *NOT* require 4 witnesses. But the 4 witness issue only pertains to the issue of men accusing women of adultery/fornication. It is obviously a ridiculous requirement to make - and deliberately made to be so - that is, to make it nigh impossible for a man to prove an accusation made against a woman for committing adultery/fornication. If a man makes such an accusation against a woman, and is unable to produce the witnesses, then he is liable to the charge of falsely accusing someone - a serious crime in its own right.The whole intention of this is to severely dissuade men from making malicious attacks against a woman's honour.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 8:15pm:


I am not arguing that it is inadequate to rule against rape. I am saying it only applies where Islam recognises rape and where Islam recognises the need for a woman to consent to sex for the sex to be legal. Hence the questions I asked above that you insist are less important than this little strawman of yours.

This is not rocket science Gandalf. I shouldn't be explaining this to you over and over again.

moses wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 4:13pm:


Is this true Gandalf? If so it is yet another example on a very long list where I have taken the word of many Muslims on an issue only to find out later that it is a complete fabrication.

It is things like this that make it hard for me to take Muslims seriously when they insist I should cut them more slack because they are debating honestly and in good faith.

moses wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 4:13pm:


Why don't you quote 24:8 moses - which says the wife can do exactly the same thing (ie swear 4 times) as testimony that he is lying?

24:8 and 24:9 applying to women mirrors exactly 24:6 and 24:7 for men. Yet further proof that the quran is even handed with the treatment of men and women.

freediver wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 5:51pm:


See above comment. Do you feel just a bit silly opting to blindly join the conga line - rather than do the most rudimentary investigation for yourself - which would have quickly revealed this claim as the outrageous lie that it is?

Thanks Gandalf.

Can you also explain the verse you posted above that appears to state that the punishment for rape is a fine?

The wikipedia article on hudud lists illegal sexual intercourse but not rape (specifically). How do you figure out the bride-price of a rape victim, or how much the value of a slave has been diminished by her being raped? Also, for the case where the rapist is a slave, why does the verse qualify it with unless the master wishes to surrender the slave?

Can you point to the verse that states that rape is forbidden in a general sense? Can you explain how interpreting in the broadest possible way an example where a rapist is given the same punishment as for consensual sex is the same as interpreting a general prohibition on alcohol as a general prohibition on alcohol? Wouldn't a closer scenario be a man being punished for turning up to the mosque drunk, and you insisting that this is a universal ban on alcohol, despite Muhammed insisting that it is a man's right to drink alcohol and a woman's duty to serve it to him?

Can you explain how Muhammed managed to outlaw rape in the situations where Islam considers sex to be a man's right and a woman's responsibility, without ever referring to it specifically? It's not as if the issue would have never arisen, given the rampant rape and pillage towards the end of Muhammed's career, all the Islamic laws that appear to condone and facilitate rape, and the culture of the time.

Can you give an example where Muhammed used the term rape in the situation where sex is permitted? You attempted to back up your position earlier by pointing out that orthodox islamic jurists have concluded that rape falls under the category of unlawful violence. Did any of those jurors ever use the term rape in the situation where sex is permitted? You seem to have placed a great deal of emphasis on the categorisation of rape as violence, but for some reason it is impossible to get you to even acknowledge the question of whether Islam categorises sex without the woman's consent as rape in situations where sex is permitted.

Also, how do you deal with the issue of consent in the context of slavery and a duty to have sex?