Prophet Muhammad and Rape

[GoodSpeak]

Rapists are protected by Islamic law. The word of a woman, or any number of women, is not taken. For a conviction, four adult, male, Muslim witnesses are needed. In many Muslim countries the woman is punished instead; because she has claimed rape she has admitted to sex and can be punished. For example there are about 500 women imprisoned in Pakistan under these hudud laws.

And america is the "bad guy."



Yee-ah.


Source: http://renewedheart.com/jesus_101.htm

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

Rapists are protected by Islamic law. The word of a woman, or any number of women, is not taken. For a conviction, four adult, male, Muslim witnesses are needed. In many Muslim countries the woman is punished instead; because she has claimed rape she has admitted to sex and can be punished. For example there are about 500 women imprisoned in Pakistan under these hudud laws.

And america is the "bad guy."



Yee-ah.


Source: http://renewedheart.com/jesus_101.htm

The problem facing the Muslim world is the same that faced the Christian world a few centuries ago--it needs to modernize itself, and discard the most flagrantly misogynist aspects of its belief system. That is the ultimate solution to the "war on terrorism." The only way to defeat a philosophy is with a better philosophy, and that philosophy will ultimately have to come from within Islam itself.

[Pete C]

Don't hold your breath.

[Brian Olewnick]

I strongly recommend an article in the current Harper's by an American who spent a year, through this past April, living in Fallujah among the Sunni. The cultural differences between their core beliefs and those of your average Westerner are astounding in many respects.

[bluenoter]

Rapists are protected by Islamic law. The word of a woman, or any number of women, is not taken. For a conviction, four adult, male, Muslim witnesses are needed. In many Muslim countries the woman is punished instead; because she has claimed rape she has admitted to sex and can be punished. For example there are about 500 women imprisoned in Pakistan under these hudud laws.

That may or may not be a fair, accurate description even out of context, but consider the source--a fundamentalist Christian website, much of which is devoted to interpreting current events as proof that we're in the "end-times." The home page:

http://renewedheart.com

[Al in NYC]

Of course Muslims are hardly the only ones...

There's stuff like this from the Old Testament, a document that is scripture to Jews, Christians, and Muslims:

Deuteronomy 22:
23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death-the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

[clinthopson]

The cultural differences between the Moslem world and the West are so vast that any crudase to change "them" is doomed to failure.

The first failure dates back to the 12th century and we (meaning the governments of the West) still haven't learned.

Certainly idiots like Shrub will never get the message.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Al in NYC

Of course Muslims are hardly the only ones...

There's stuff like this from the Old Testament, a document that is scripture to Jews, Christians, and Muslims:

Deuteronomy 22:
23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death-the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

OK, but I think we need to compare the disparity in the time periods.

This Scripture is thousands of years old now. And no matter how old the Islamic faith is, we live in more enlightened times. Rape is just plain not justifiable. Besides, the New Testament abhored such practice and preached quite a different set of moral standards regarding the treatment of women. Today's church is changed even more so in it's view of women.

Islam has not, or at least for those who practice the fundamental and/or radical form of it.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by bluenoter

That may or may not be a fair, accurate description even out of context, but consider the source--a fundamentalist Christian website, much of which is devoted to interpreting current events as proof that we're in the "end-times." The home page:

http://renewedheart.com

OK.

Would you be willing to believe a Muslim website?

To wit:


Hijaab for women

Hijab for women is mentioned in the following verse:

“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons” [Al-Qur’an 24:31]

The extent of hijab for a woman is that her complete body should be covered. The only part that can be seen, are the face and the hands up to the wrists. If they wish to cover, they can even cover these parts of the body. However some Islamic scholars insist that even the face should be covered.

Hijab prevents molestation

The reason why Allah has prescribed Hijab for women is given in the Qur’an in the following verse of Surah Al-Ahzab:

“O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, most Merciful.” [Al-Qur’an 33:59]

The Qur’an says that Hijab has been prescribed for women so that they are recognised as modest women and this would prevent them from being molested.

Example of twin sisters

Suppose two sisters who are twins and who are equally beautiful, walk down a street. One of them is wearing the Islamic Hijab i.e. the complete body is covered except for the face and the hands up to the wrists, and the other twin sister is wearing mini skirt or shorts.

Around the corner there is a hooligan who is waiting for an opportunity to tease a girl. Whom will he tease? The girl wearing the Hijab or the girl wearing the mini skirt or shorts? Dresses that expose more than they conceal, are an indirect temptation to the opposite sex for teasing, molestation and rape. The Qur’an rightly says the hijab prevents women from being molested.



Source: http://www.islamicvoice.com/november.99/religion.htm


Now then...this sounds to me like a justification, don't you agree?

[GoodSpeak]

In Islamic law, rape is considered adultry:

"In cases of adultery, shari'ah resorts to particularly drastic measures. Rape creates an especially difficult burden of proof for the victim. Shari'ah law only provides for punishment in cases of adultery, if both parties admit to have committed the "crime". If this is not the case, four independent witnesses have to be found; however, the witnesses must be male. In cases of rape, shari'ah rules that a rapist is to be punished with 100 lashes, if unmarried, or with death by stoning, if married, since this would then constitute adultery.

A pregnancy as a result of rape first of all counts as evidence of adultery committed by the woman. The rape victim then has to prove that she really was raped. In case the man - which is very likely - denies that he has raped the woman, the woman has to name four male witnesses to prove the rape. In case the woman does not find these four male witnesses - which again is very likely - she will be charged with slander."

The victim carries the burden of proof

"In the case of rape it may thus happen - and in most cases this is what seems to happen - that the victim has to prove that she was raped. One can argue about moral attitudes. In our world it sometimes, too, is difficult to find a consensus of what is right and what is wrong. In the West, too, until a couple of years ago, a rape victim had difficulties to assert herself in court. As in: She must have provoked it with her behaviour. Here, too, there are contentious issues concerning the burden of proof and the rule of presumed innocence to the disadvantage of the victim. However, this does not lead to the death penalty for the women. And even, if one believes that s/he has the right to judge over the morality of someone else, the type of punishment, i.e. death by stoning, remains absolutely unacceptable. Regardless of the fact that it should be the rapist who should be punished in the first place, and not vice versa.

Shari'ah even prescribes the size of the stones with which the convict is to be killed: not too small, because then they would not cause death, but not to large either, because then the convict probably dies as soon as the first stone hits. By the way, the Qur'an does not even have that kind of punishment for adultery: The Qur'an speaks of 100 lashes and that is that, though cruel enough (see Sura 24,2 and 24,3).

At the beginning of 2002, four stoning verdicts against women in Islamic states were announced: two in Nigeria, one in Sudan and one in Pakistan. Each woman had been charged with adultery."

BTW...here's the info on slander:

"For the crime of slander, shari'ah prescribes a punishment of 80 lashes. On top of that, the woman will be charged with adultery, and is thus threatened with the death penalty, if she is married. In case, she is unmarried, the "adultery" counts as immoral behaviour and is punished with 100 lashes. This is at least what the criminal code of January 2000 of the Nigerian state Zamfara says."

Source: http://www.ishr.org/activities/campa...g/adultery.htm

The law is severely stacked agianst the woman...no matter how you care to slice it.

[walto]

"the Old Testament, a document that is scripture to Jews, Christians, and Muslims"

While I generally agree with this, I'm not too sure about the standing of Deuteronomy, since, as I understand it, "The Prophet" eventually came to believe that the real carrier of the flame was Ishmael, Abraham's second son, a guy not much discussed anywhere in the Old Testament, never mind its later books.

[mke]

Originally Posted by clinthopson

The cultural differences between the Moslem world and the West are so vast that any crudase to change "them" is doomed to failure.

When I see a woman wearing a scarf with Chanel stamped on it, I tend to think Huntington wrong.

Originally Posted by bluenoter

That may or may not be a fair, accurate description even out of context, but consider the source--a fundamentalist Christian website, much of which is devoted to interpreting current events as proof that we're in the "end-times." The home page:

http://renewedheart.com

Brother Goodz, I'm afraid Rita is right, unless this appears on the Dean blog or MoveOn.org it simply cannot be believed.

Even your more recent posted sources are completely insufficient.

[GoodSpeak]

Hm.

Then I suppose the unmarried young woman who was found guilty by an all male tribunal in Pakistan of improper behavior for being seen with a male, not her brother or father, [then subsequently raped by those men as punishment] never happened.

The 60 Minutes piece done a few months back regarding a woman who was repeatedly raped by her uncle then sentened to death for adultery because she had his baby never happened either.


These are the facts. Women are constantly subjected to these horrors in Islamic countries. Personally, I fail to understand the focus on the source as the only means of refutation. I gave a Christian source and an Islamic source.


Stay tuned...I'll find a news source tonight.

I gave a Christian source and a Islamic source.

Sorry Brother Goodz, not good enough.

Keep diggin............

[lynn]

[QUOTE=GoodSpeak]Besides, the New Testament abhored such practice and preached quite a different set of moral standards regarding the treatment of women. Today's church is changed even more so in it's view of women.
QUOTE]

You tell me where the Church has changed so much on it's view toward women. Each fundamental/orthodox religion in the modern epoch has basically treated women as possessions of the household. The Catholic Church denies women equal status to men in every possible way. Which church are you referring to. Equal status to women when out with the destruction of the of the egalitarian aggrerian civilizations that existed prior to what we might consider modern civilization that saw the emergence of partiarchal societies around 5000BC.

No woman on this planet has it easy. Each culture has it's own set of rules for repression.

(pardon my spelling. dictionaries are still packed away)

[crawjo]

[QUOTE=lynn]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

Besides, the New Testament abhored such practice and preached quite a different set of moral standards regarding the treatment of women. Today's church is changed even more so in it's view of women.
QUOTE]

You tell me where the Church has changed so much on it's view toward women. Each fundamental/orthodox religion in the modern epoch has basically treated women as possessions of the household. The Catholic Church denies women equal status to men in every possible way. Which church are you referring to. Equal status to women when out with the destruction of the of the egalitarian aggrerian civilizations that existed prior to what we might consider modern civilization that saw the emergence of partiarchal societies around 5000BC.

No woman on this planet has it easy. Each culture has it's own set of rules for repression.

(pardon my spelling. dictionaries are still packed away)

The Catholic Church hasn't, until only recently (last 30 years or so), been any more conservative with regard to gender roles than the societies in which it exists, including the United States. Aside from the Catholics, however, there are many Churches that now ordain women (including the Anglican Church.)

But Goodspeak's larger point is entirely valid. Whatever gender inequalities still exist in our society today, they absolutely pale in comparison to what you see in the Islamic world. Remember that if you lived in many of these countries you would be forced to conceal yourself almost completely when out of doors, no matter how hot it was, and you would have basically no legal rights. This is not the case in Western societies, and whatever its own failings, the Churches, including the Catholic Church, certainly do not preach the brand of misogyny that is commonly found among fundamentalist Muslims. Indeed, for centuries the Catholic Church was a source of empowerment for women, especially in countries like Mexico that were dominated by a patriarchal mindset. The Virgin Mary in all her manifestations (particularly the Virgin of Guadalupe in Mexico) has allowed women a degree of moral authority that is completely missing from Islamic cultures. My studies of the Catholic Church in Mexico during the 1920s reveal that women were especially active in the political sphere, and they achieved this (relative) degree of power through ecclesiastical, rather than secular, institutions.

[john williams]

Another simplistic, ignorant, hate-filled and reactionary thread.

Excerpt from
Shattering Illusions
Western Conceptions of Muslim Woman
by Saimah Ashraf (e-mail: saimah@leland.stanford.edu)Saimah is a 1997-98 Stanford Boothe Prize for Excellence in Writing winner


...Traditionally, Judeo-Christian women were thought to be inferior to men and were given a low status in society. These negative attitudes toward women arose because Judaism and Christianity placed such a heavy emphasis on Eve's role in the expulsion from Paradise. Because Eve, rather than Adam, was the first to be seduced by Satan and eat fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, she supposedly caused the fall of mankind. Therefore all women, as the descendants of Eve, were thought to be evil and morally weaker than men (Sherif 2). In the Bible, there are several references to women in this uncomplimentary light: "I found more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare" (Ecclesiastes 7:26-28). "No wickedness comes anywhere near the wickedness of a woman. . . .Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die" (Ecclesiastes 25:19,24). Early church fathers such as St. Tertullian reiterated these negative concepts of women by making statements such as, "Do you know that you are each an Eve?. . . . You are the Devil's gateway. . . .You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert even the Son of God had to die." In Christianity, women carried the extra burden of causing the death of Christ, as Tertullian points out (Sherif 2). Because Adam and Eve passed on their sin to all future generations, Jesus had to purge humankind from this "original sin" by sacrificing his life (Sherif 2). Thus, by causing the fall of man, Eve also caused the death of Christ. In the Jewish tradition, women receive no less harsh treatment. Because of Eve, all women have to face punishment on Earth including pregnancy, pain in childbirth, menstruation, and subjugation to men (Sherif 3). Orthodox Jewish males still recite in their daily prayers: "Blessed be God King of the Universe that Thou has not made me a woman . . . . Praised be God that he has not created me woman" (Menahot 43b)....

...I don't understand why, in the West, Muslim women are clumped into one large group and viewed as homogenous clones of one another, while their Christian and Jewish counterparts are rarely ever stereotyped in this way. Many people don't realize, due largely to biased media interpretations, that there are a large variety of Muslim women around the world, from areas such as the Middle East, South Asia, South East Asia, Yugoslavia, Northern Africa, and the Southern parts of the former USSR, just as there are Christian and Jewish women in various countries

For instance, one probably wouldn't classify a Mexican woman with a French woman, though both may be Roman Catholics and hold the same beliefs. In the same way, American Muslim women are different from Pakistani Muslims, who are different from Saudi Muslims. In these three countries, women are accorded different rights and privileges because of the government and customs in the area. For example, many American Muslim women are discriminated against because they cover their heads; Pakistani women have political rights but are often exploited by men; Saudi women have no public role, yet they are "protected" by Saudi men.

The negative stereotypes of Muslim women probably arise from this varying treatment of women. The Western media, for some reason, latch on to a few examples of unjust behavior in the Islamic world, brand Islam as a backwards and "fundamentalist" religion, especially in its treatment of women, and ignore that it was the first religion to accord women equal rights. While Christian and Jewish women were still considered inferior, the originators of sin, and the property of their husbands, Muslim women were being given shares in inheritance, were allowed to choose or refuse prospective husbands, and were considered equal to men in the eyes of God. However, through time, slowly changing customs, and the rise of male-dominated, patriarchal nation-states, Muslim governments began placing restrictions on women which had no grounds in the Quran, the Islamic holy book; or the hadith, the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. On the other hand, Christian and Jewish women in the West have slowly been awarded rights not called for in the biblical tradition....

I can't think of any country that really treats Muslim women the way they are supposed to be treated as stipulated in the Quran and hadith. Most Muslim countries' approach to women falls between the two extremes of complete oppression and encouragement to behave like Western Judeo-Christian women, which is certainly not what Islam intended. I have dealt, to some extent, with the former case and believe that most people who read this paper will sympathize with the plight of these Muslim women. Their solutions might involve the "modernization" or "Westernization" of these women, but this is not at all what I am advocating. It's true that Western Judeo-Christian women have achieved freedom and independence for themselves, but has this necessarily been beneficial for them or society? One look at the ever-rising statistics for rape, sexual harassment, divorce, broken homes, latch-key kids, teenage pregnancies, and AIDS cases in the West indicates that something is definitely not right in society. Is it just coincidental that many of these issues became actual problems only after the Sixties' Sexual Revolution and feminist movement arose? Are these social problems just part of a growing trend in modern society or do they have some direct correlation to "women's liberation?" These are some questions we need to ask ourselves before we prescribe the "Western remedy" to any other society. The last thing Muslim women need to add to their problems at this point is more problems. Rather, the solution for achieving true freedom, independence, and happiness must come from within from the teachings of the Prophet, from the depths of the Quran, and from the wealth of rich Islamic tradition.
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywo...hattering.html

[crawjo]

You haven't been paying attention, JBW. We're talking about fundamentalist Muslim sects, and not treating them as one homogenous entity. Take your self-righteousness somewhere else.

[clinthopson]

Originally Posted by crawjo

We're talking about fundamentalist Muslim sects, and not treating them as one homogenous entity.

Fundamentalists of all persuasions are cut from the same cloth. I believe there's a lot of fundamentalist Christians who would stone a woman to death if they thought they could get away with it.

[GoodSpeak]

[QUOTE=lynn]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

Besides, the New Testament abhored such practice and preached quite a different set of moral standards regarding the treatment of women. Today's church is changed even more so in it's view of women.
QUOTE]

You tell me where the Church has changed so much on it's view toward women. Each fundamental/orthodox religion in the modern epoch has basically treated women as possessions of the household. The Catholic Church denies women equal status to men in every possible way. Which church are you referring to. Equal status to women when out with the destruction of the of the egalitarian aggrerian civilizations that existed prior to what we might consider modern civilization that saw the emergence of partiarchal societies around 5000BC.

No woman on this planet has it easy. Each culture has it's own set of rules for repression.

(pardon my spelling. dictionaries are still packed away)

For one, women are not forced to cover their heads in church. Secondly, they are allowed to speak in church, and become elders. Further, the clergies in this country have recruited then ordained more women in the last two decades than ever in the church's history.

Lastly, none of the aforementioned religions condone abject abuse, manipulation and rape of any woman for any pseudo justification. Islam does.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by clinthopson

Fundamentalists of all persuasions are cut from the same cloth. I believe there's a lot of fundamentalist Christians who would stone a woman to death if they thought they could get away with it.

Maybe.

The decided difference would be they don't act on it. Islam does.


Hundreds of women are behind bars awaiting execution for being rape victims or adulterers in Islamic countries.

My point in all this is, maybe we need to stop all this "blame America" song-and-dance and take a long, hard look at what those accusing us are doing to their own people.


Islamic countries aren't the victims they claim to be...they are the victimizers.

[mke]

GoodSpeak,

While you may have a point, it'd be nice if you stopped throwing terms about so loosely. eg.:

"The decided difference would be they don't act on it. Islam does."
"Islamic countries aren't the victims they claim to be...they are the victimizers."

Further, I would argue that judging your own behaviour against the behaviour of those you deem less civilised than yourself is rather pointless.

My point in all this is, maybe we need to stop all this "blame America" song-and-dance and take a long, hard look at what those accusing us are doing to their own people.

Brother Goodz, I believe I'm begining to love you.

[clinthopson]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

My point in all this is, maybe we need to stop all this "blame America" song-and-dance and take a long, hard look at what those accusing us are doing to their own people.


Islamic countries aren't the victims they claim to be...they are the victimizers.

I don't blame America for the world hating us but I sure as hell blame our arrogant policies for creating the hatred.

Islamic fundamentalists are no doubt the cause of most of their misery, but from here it looks like the majority of the population goes along with it.

Never the twain shall meet.

[walto]

"For one, women are not forced to cover their heads in church. Secondly, they are allowed to speak in church, and become elders. Further, the clergies in this country have recruited then ordained more women in the last two decades than ever in the church's history."

You should check out what goes on in orthodox Jewish synagogues--never mind among the Bialystoker Hasids.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

I've been trying to understand the point of this thread.

Is it that because Islam is repressive towards women they deserve to have their countries invaded and occupied by non-Islamic governments? Or in the case of the Palestinians, driven off their land so that the State of Israel could be created? Or that when we capture Islamic soldiers during a time of war we can treat those prisoners in ways we wouldn't tolerate American prisoners being treated?

Over the last few weeks I've been reading testimonies from people who were alive during the aftermath of WWII. There were positive comments by Germans who were POWS here in the States and ordinary German citizens about their treatment by American GIs. Maybe one of the reasons post-war Germany was so successful was because Americans practiced what they preached.

Call me idealistic or even naive, but when you state a philosophy of fairness, freedom, liberty, the respect for the individual your actions should reflect that philosophy. It seems to me that Americans who believe in that philosophy should be willing to make its elected leaders live up to its standards.

So, because Islam treats it's women like shit we should ignore the prisoner abuse in Iraq?

[crawjo]

The difference is that when America fails to live up to its ideals, people notice, because they are our ideals.

When Islamic fundamentalist countries fail to live up to their ideals, it is probably a good thing, because their ideals suck ass. Notice I said "fundamentalist."

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by mke

GoodSpeak,

While you may have a point, it'd be nice if you stopped throwing terms about so loosely. eg.:

"The decided difference would be they don't act on it. Islam does."
"Islamic countries aren't the victims they claim to be...they are the victimizers."

I see.

You have an issue with descriptive language or adjectives?

It's an opinion with which you are free to disagree.

As to the rest...I don't see the connection.

Originally Posted by mke

Further, I would argue that judging your own behaviour against the behaviour of those you deem less civilised than yourself is rather pointless.

OK.

When did I rape someone?

Your post makes absolutely no sense.








next...

[moneyp]

What does the Koran have to say about snuff pornos?