Quote:


Sure. It still seems odd that it even needs to be said.

Quote:


Can you point to the bit where Islam distinguishes rape and consensual sex in this context?

And you are still missing the point about the contradictory principles you apply to interpretting the Koran. When it suits you you insist that halal is the default. When this doesn't suit you apply the opposite principle - that precedents should be interpretted in the broadest possible manner. You appear to have invented the latter principle. The two principles are contradictory, especially when you start throwing in phrases like "deliberate lack of specificity".

Quote:


Trying to get you to address this point is getting tedious also.

Quote:


I realise you have been saying this. And I have been responding with two points that you keep dodging:

1) You appear to have invented this principle of interpretation, and in contradicts other principles. Instead of actually addressing this point you delve into hair splitting the examples I use to explain it to you, and coming up with your own examples that are nothing at all like the principle you have invented. Interpretting a general ban on alcohol as a general ban on alcohol is not the same thing as interpreting a precedent in the broadest possible way.

2) If it really did apply to situations where sex is permitted, you would have no trouble citing an example where the word rape has been used in that context. You would have no trouble citing examples where punishment was meted out in that context. You would have no trouble citing examples of all the effort Muhammed had to go to in order to change the culture of the time. You would have no trouble citing examples of Muhammed explaining the concept of consent. You would have no trouble citing examples of Muhammed explaining how the concept of consent can be applied in the context of slavery and duty. All these points you completely ignore, and it is getting very tedious attempting to get you to address them. I have lost count of how many times I have typed this out, only for you to ignore it.

It is especially galling when you cite orthodox Islamic jurors to back up your position when you know that they reject it.

Basically, your argument fails the common sense test. You are insisting that Muhammed imposed a major cultural change without any record being kept of it, except for a "deliberate" lack of specificity in an example of someone being punished for rape in the alternate context.

Your argument now appears to rest on ignoring the entire context in order to create ambiguity in the meaning, then interpreting that ambiguity however you feel like to fill the hole left by you ignoring everything else. For added measure , you throw in a bit of circular reasoning, arguing that it must be interpreted as broadly as possible because and Islam forbids rape in general, and by interpreting it as broadly as possible you prove that Islam forbids rape in general.

I am also having trouble understanding why you say the lack of specificity is deliberate. It seems bleeding obvious from the context that the rapist did not own the woman he raped, and only a desperate desire for self delusion could lead someone to read anything else into it.

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?

Quote:


A precedent is not the same as a statute just because you declare it to be so. It is the nature of the statement that is different.

Quote:


That is not the same as an example being a statute. It is still an example, and still comes with all the baggage of interpretation.

Quote:


Again you dodge the issue. How can you expect people to believe that you nare arguing honestly and ing good faith. This is what I actually said Gandalf:

Quote:


I was not asking you for an example that you imagine could apply to all contexts. I was asking for an example where it was actually used in a specific context.

Quote:


Gandalf, you are the one trying to invent the entire law around a single example. The difference betwen your position and mine is that your fails the common sense test and requires you to ignore the entire context. In this specific example, it is obvious that the rapist did not own the victim. It is not stated because it is obvious from the context, just as rape is obvious from the context, even though the word rape is not actually used.

Quote:


No Gandalf, there is a very long list of reasons why your position fails the common sense test, and mine does not. That is why you keep avoiding them.

Quote:


So you won't have any trouble citing an example of the Koran or hadith mentioning the woman's consent as necessary in the context of sex that is permitted? Most Muslims I have spoken to also reject the modern concept of love as a pre-requisite for marriage.

Quote:


Again, you are avoiding the issue that is actually being discussed.

Poor FD still doesn't understand that these questions miss the point entirely. Still, in the interests of good faith I will answer them anyway.

freediver wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 11:45am:


I don't believe so.

freediver wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 11:45am:


There is an example of Muhammad punishing a man for rape. We don't know whether it was his wife, or slave or another woman. Therefore it is equally valid to any of these scenarios.

freediver wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 11:45am:


Short answer - yes. Regarding slaves, islamic law is very clear on treating slaves properly. It makes little sense to tell muslims not to mistreat slaves, not beat them, be kind to them - but allow the rape of slaves.Regarding "duty to have sex" - as mentioned about 5 times already, the "duty" is on the man just as much as it is on the woman - relevant quotes have already been provided in a previous post.

freediver wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 11:45am:


See above answer. Again, ordering the humane treatment of slaves doesn't make sense if at the same time it allows the rape of slaves.

freediver wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 11:45am:


Correct - I'm glad you are finally beginning to understand it. Ending an age-old practice is best done with a phased approach - not a sudden outright ban.

freediver wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 11:45am:


already refuted. Feel free to desist repeating this lie.

freediver wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 11:45am:


I have already argued that this is not the case

freediver wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 11:45am:


Yes, and I'm sure that woman was totally in a consensual loving relationship with that man 

Still going? Ah I see, we're not even half way through...

freediver wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 11:45am:


Welcome to islamic law. It the same case for a whole heap of restrictions in islam. For anyone with an ounce of common sense, it makes perfect sense.

freediver wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 11:45am:


I believe its called the principle of common sense.

freediver wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 11:45am:


Because no one disputes that it was rape - not even you. And it is not obvious at all that the rapist didn't "own" the victim. Notice there is a distinct lack of detail regarding what the relationship was between the two?

freediver wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 11:45am:


Because it makes sense. But thats not the point - the point is that it *IS* non-specific, and therefore there is no reason why it *CAN'T* be used universally. Explain to me if you can (ooh better not "avoid" this one FD - might make you a hypocrite  ) - why a judge cannot make a conviction against a husband when his wife complains of being taken by force - citing the sunna (islamic law) about the prophet convicting a non-descript man taking by force a non-descript woman?

Oh by the way, where in the hadith anywhere is there any mention of unlawful sex? Note how it says the prophet passed judgment on the man who had "intercourse" with the woman (in another version, it is "assaulted" the woman) - *NOT* who had "illegal intercourse". Can I now apply your same logic and argue that if (as you keep insisting) the man was convicted for unlawful sex, and not rape, shouldn't there be some shred of evidence that this was the case? Please feel free to consider this a particularly important point to respond to FD.

freediver wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 11:45am:


To ensure that every possible rape scenario is not left out.

gandalf wrote: Quote:


Well gandalf, because I am still convinced that women are discriminated against by muslims look at their lot in modern life e.g. blamed and killed or mutilated if they are raped, denied education, forbidden to talk to men alone, referred to as cat's meat deserving of rape by Australian muslim mufti etc.etc.

I am more than convinced that oppression of women is endemic throughout islamic society because it is enshrined in islam religion and culture due to  the qur'an and  hadith teachings which denigrate women:

Quote:


As far as I'm concerned the present day treatment of women women by muslim men coupled with the qur'an and hadith teachings are proof of the derogatory attitude of islam towards women.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 8:34pm:


So where did you establish there is even a law prohibiting rape?
There is nothing in the Quran that forbids rape, if we look at books that came over 200 years after the Quran we find some verses yet they are not from allah they are from men with flaws who passed down sayings of the prophet like a series of chinese whispers for over 200 years before someone other than allah put them in a book.
Muslims claim the Quran is perfect, allah says he perfected Islam in 5/3 so why do muslims need the hadith which came over 200 years after the Quran?

Quote:

So what was this legal punishment that Mo waived?

Quote:

Umar was a Caliph which was the highest rank in Islam even higher than Grand Mufti Gandalf.
Umar flogged a rapist and exiled him according to the law.

Take note of this part Gandalf-
Quote:

It seems Bukhari was right, a womans word is equal to half that of a man.

If we go back to the Quran with 24/13 what does that say about witnesses?
www.quran.com/24/13

The hadith is evidence Islamic laws are man made and have stuff all to do with Mohammad's imaginary friend in the sky called Allah.

Would you mind pointing out the fake ones for us?

Yes please. I googled that verse attributed to Tabari and got 374000 results.

freediver wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 12:58pm:


Correct. Whats that you were saying about circular reasoning again?

If you want to put it that way - then islam doesn't recognise rape in the "conventional" way either. It does however have a universal principle that says attacking and forcing women (any women) is not on. You seemed willing to accept that rape - as in forced sex outside the bounds of where sex is permitted - is recognised in islam - yet funnily enough you have never explained how the relevant hadith makes that distinction.

freediver wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 12:58pm:


No I refuted your claim that islamic law *ONLY* says that sex is a man's right and a woman's duty. I quoted you several verses that state that sex is a woman's right and a man's duty also. Marriage in islam is based on mutuality.

freediver wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 12:58pm:


Please explain to me how it is obvious what the relationship between the victim and perpetrator was. Answer with specific reference to the text of the hadith.

freediver wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 12:58pm:


And yet a reference to aliens would have been irrelevant to determining who raped who, and what this ruling applies to. A reference to the relationship between the victim and perpetrator would have been pretty relevant to substantiating your otherwise baseless claim regarding who raped who - no?

freediver wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 12:58pm:


You have given me exactly zero reasons why there is any good reason to take your word that this is definitely a specific rape scenario - when there is nothing - repeat nothing - in the hadith to indicate that there is any indication of what the relationship between the victim and perpetrator was.

freediver wrote on Aug 31^st, 2013 at 12:58pm:


The arabic word for illegal intercourse is "zina" (زنا‬‎). ‫ Nowhere in the hadith is that word mentioned - I already checked the original arabic. But here it is - double check for me if you want:
http://www.sunnah.com/abudawud/40/29

Another task for you - explain how convicting a man for having "intercourse" (going by the translation provided) - not "illegal intercourse" - on what basis do you conclude that this is only applicable for sex outside marriage (zina) - when there is no mention of the word, and no hint whatsoever that this was *EXCLUSIVELY* a case of (in your words) "sex where sex is not permitted?"