I am having trouble getting a straight answer on this one. In one post Gandalf insists that things are legal in Islam unless specifically forbidden. Yet in another he sends me on a wild goose chase to find the verse in the Koran that specifically permits rape. Then when he finds a verse to prove that rape is forbidden, it does not even use the word rape, and appears to reinforce the view that Islam punishes rape and consensual sex equally - ie any punishment meted out is for having sex, and whether the woman consented is pretty much irrelevant to the punishment.


polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 6:42pm:

Falah is right - you need to find a specific reference in the quran or hadith saying that spousal rape is ok before you can declare islam permits it.

freediver wrote on Aug 21^st, 2013 at 7:03pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 2:28pm: ian wrote on Aug 19th, 2013 at 1:13pm: Quite correct, Halal only applies to food. no it doesn't. Quote: Halal is an Arabic word meaning "lawful" or "permissible." The term covers not only food and drink, but also all matters of daily life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halal As to your question Soren, anything life sustaining is halal by default. It simply means "permitted". For anything to be haram, it must be specifically deemed as such. Didn't you previously insist that unless I can find a verse specifically permitting rape it must mean it is forbidden?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2013 at 5:28pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Aug 22nd, 2013 at 3:48pm: So where is the verse in the Quran that says rape is haram, please cite it for us. Islamic law comes from two sources - the quran and the hadith. In the case of rape, the quran gives the generalised proscription for the respect and equality of women. The specific outlawing of rape is found in the hadith of Abu Dawud Book 38, Number 4366: Quote:     Narrated Wa'il ibn Hujr:     When a woman went out in the time of the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) for prayer, a man attacked her and overpowered (raped) her.     She shouted and he went off, and when a man came by, she said: That (man) did such and such to me. And when a company of the Emigrants came by, she said: That man did such and such to me. They went and seized the man whom they thought had had intercourse with her and brought him to her.     She said: Yes, this is he. Then they brought him to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him).     When he (the Prophet) was about to pass sentence, the man who (actually) had assaulted her stood up and said: Apostle of Allah, I am the man who did it to her.     He (the Prophet) said to her: Go away, for Allah has forgiven you. But he told the man some good words (AbuDawud said: meaning the man who was seized), and of the man who had had intercourse with her, he said: Stone him to death.     He also said: He has repented to such an extent that if the people of Medina had repented similarly, it would have been accepted from them.

Is Freediver an obsessed Zionist?

Ironically enough, the topic came up in a discussion about whether halal was barbaric.

yes its very confusing.

Rape - as in forcing a woman into sex against her will - is specifically forbidden in the Dawoud hadith I quoted. This is a general proscription - backed up by the numerous references in the quran (as well as hadith) to treat women with equality and respect. Therefore, saying rape is permitted is obviously contradictory. Therefore to have any shred of credibility, such a claim would have to be supported by an "exception to the rule" - as it were - in islamic doctrine. No such exception exists, therefore the default position that ALL rape is strictly forbidden stands.

But it is not contradictory Gandalf. The point I was making about rape is not contradicted in any way by Dawood's verse. If anything it is supported by it. Other Muslims have made statements about Islamic law regarding rape that support my position. I think even you concede it was the orthodox view.

And the Koran is full of contradictions when it comes to the treatment of women. When it says to treat women with respect and equality, you are projecting onto it modern concepts of respect and equality which are contradicted at every step of Muhammed's journey. Islamic concepts of respect and equality are obviously very different to what these words mean in English.

If your only point is that rape and adultery are unjustly considered an equal crime, then thats fine. Thats your subjective position, I can't refute it. But I thought we were talking about whether or not rape is haram or halal - based on the (wrong) idea that rape is not specifically condemned and outlawed in islamic doctrine. It is.

Quote:

If your only point is that rape and adultery are unjustly considered an equal crime, then thats fine. Thats your subjective position, I can't refute it.

It is punished equally. This is an objective statement. The only subjective bit is to conclude from this that Islam considers them equal.


Quote:

But I thought we were talking about whether or not rape is haram or halal

Actually the point was whether or not halal is the default.


Quote:

based on the (wrong) idea that rape is not specifically condemned and outlawed in islamic doctrine. It is.

Can you find the verse that specifically prohibits raping one of your slaves? Can you find the verse that specifically prohibits raping one of your wives? Given that the verse you insist prohibits rape in all contexts does not distinguish between rape and consensual sex and does not even mention rape, you appear to be violating Allah's command not to make illegal what Allah has permitted for you. What is specifically outlawed in Islam is having consensual sex with women you are not permitted to. Where Islam permits sex, it considers it a man's right and a woman's duty. This, combined with the permissibility of slavery and domestic violence makes a general prohibition on rape non-sensical. That is why you are at a loss to explain how the concept of consent works in the context of slavery.

Whats interesting is that the hadith describes the rape of a woman who is not identified as any specific type of woman - not a wife, not a slave, not a free woman. I interpret the generic description of this case as outlawing rape of all women. Why make a separate ruling for every type of woman, when you can simply say "don't rape any women?"


freediver wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 7:21pm:

Can you find the verse that specifically prohibits raping one of your slaves?

The relevant hadith on rape can refer to any rape - raping of a slave, raping a free woman by another man, or raping by the husband. How can you say that ruling doesn't apply to slaves? You can't - since that woman could have been a slave - there is nothing that indicates she wasn't. 


freediver wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 7:21pm:

the verse you insist prohibits rape in all contexts does not distinguish between rape and consensual sex and does not even mention rape

No. The relevant hadith describes a situation in which a woman is taken against her will and forced to have sex - very clearly. Would you object to a non-islamic law that stated that any man who forces a woman to have sex with him, against her will, shall be severely punished - as somehow wrong because the word "rape" is not mentioned? That would make no sense. It makes even less sense to describe such a decree as only punishing the man for unlawful sex - not rape.



Also, while I previously said the quran says nothing specific on rape, I have since found verse 4:19:


Quote:

O you who have believed, it is not lawful for you to inherit women by compulsion. And do not make difficulties for them in order to take [back] part of what you gave them unless they commit a clear immorality. And live with them in kindness. For if you dislike them - perhaps you dislike a thing and Allah makes therein much good.

'inherit' = marriage = lawful sex.


freediver wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 7:21pm:

Where Islam permits sex, it considers it a man's right and a woman's duty.

This is simply not true. Quran verse 2:187 states in relation to husband-wife relations -  "They are garments for you and you are garments for them". This, backed up by the hadith that states "and your wife has a right over you " is universally recognised by scholars as referring to both the husband and wife's sexual needs. As Qurtubi states: "She has over him the same right of sexual cohabitation he has over her", and Yusuf Ali:


Quote:

Men and women are each other’s garments i.e. they are for mutual support, mutual comfort, and mutual protection, fitting into each other as a garment fits the body. A garment also is both for show and concealment.

and the North American Islamic Society:


Quote:

It is also emphasized in Islam that a husband should not deny his wife’s physical needs. Both of them are related to each other, as Allah says in the Qur’an, “They are a garment for you and you are a garment for them…” (Al-Baqarah: 187) A husband who without any genuine reason neglects his wife’s needs is as sinful as a wife who neglects her husband’s needs without any excuse. The husband and wife both should care for each other in all matters, whether they are moral and spiritual or financial and physical. The relationship between the husband and wife should be based on what the Qur’an says, “love and compassion” (al-Rum: 21).”  ( fatwa by Mufti Muzammil Siddiqi at Islamonline.com)

http://www.answering-christianity.com/karim/women_rights_for_sex.htm

freediver wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2013 at 10:35pm:

I am having trouble getting a straight answer on this one.

Lemme guess - you are having a conversation wiv da bruvvers. Yes?

Quote:

Whats interesting is that the hadith describes the rape of a woman who is not identified as any specific type of woman - not a wife, not a slave, not a free woman.

Well obviously you are not allowed to rape other people's wives. Or sex slaves.


Quote:

I interpret the generic description of this case as outlawing rape of all women. Why make a separate ruling for every type of woman, when you can simply say "don't rape any women?"

Why indeed. It is Islam that has different rules for your wives, for your sex slaves, and for the women you are not allowed to rape.


Quote:

The relevant hadith on rape can refer to any rape - raping of a slave, raping a free woman by another man, or raping by the husband. How can you say that ruling doesn't apply to slaves? You can't - since that woman could have been a slave - there is nothing that indicates she wasn't.

Again you are missing the point completely. You are not allowed to rape other people's slaves. Only your own.


Quote:

No. The relevant hadith describes a situation in which a woman is taken against her will and forced to have sex - very clearly.

And the man is punished - very clearly - for having sexual intercourse with her. The hadith says nothing at all about the issue of consent, except to point out that in this case the illegal sexual intercourse also happened to be rape.


Quote:

Would you object to a non-islamic law that stated that any man who forces a woman to have sex with him, against her will, shall be severely punished - as somehow wrong because the word "rape" is not mentioned?

My objection is that this is the closest thing you can find in all of Islam to a rule against rape.


Quote:

That would make no sense. It makes even less sense to describe such a decree as only punishing the man for unlawful sex - not rape.

I am not claiming that either. What I am claiming is that this verse does not contradict the orthodox interpretation of Islam - that raping your wife or sex slave is not a punishable offence.


polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 8:39pm:

Also, while I previously said the quran says nothing specific on rape, I have since found verse 4:19: Quote: O you who have believed, it is not lawful for you to inherit women by compulsion. And do not make difficulties for them in order to take [back] part of what you gave them unless they commit a clear immorality. And live with them in kindness. For if you dislike them - perhaps you dislike a thing and Allah makes therein much good. 'inherit' = marriage = lawful sex.

:o

This does not say that it is illegal to rape your wife. Islam permits slavery. Does that count as compulsion?


Quote:

This is simply not true. Quran verse 2:187 states in relation to husband-wife relations -  "They are garments for you and you are garments for them"

Great. Thanks for clearing that up Gandalf.

FD, three simple questions:

1. Prove to me that the hadith refers only to punishing the man for unlawful marriage outside marriage - as opposed to assault and rape.

2. If your objection to this piece of evidence is that it is not specific enough to rape - explain to me how the hadith could have been more clear that what was happening was the rape of a woman

3. Please provide evidence for your claim that raping one's slave is permitted - and that this legal precedent does not apply for the rape of slaves by their owners.

True Colours wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2013 at 10:36pm:

Is "True Colours obsessed with islam"?

Quote:

1. Prove to me that the hadith refers only to punishing the man for unlawful marriage outside marriage - as opposed to assault and rape.

It could mean he was killed for having sex on the road, blocking traffic. It is your example, not mine. You are the only one claiming that it proves anything.


Quote:

2. If your objection to this piece of evidence is that it is not specific enough to rape - explain to me how the hadith could have been more clear that what was happening was the rape of a woman

I am also not claiming that there is any confusion about what happened.


Quote:

3. Please provide evidence for your claim that raping one's slave is permitted - and that this legal precedent does not apply for the rape of slaves by their owners.

The orthodox view is that rape in these contexts is not a punishable offence, and this precedent simply does not contradict that. Islam permits the beating of slaves. Muslims consider sex with slaves to be the owner's right. No Muslim can explain how the concept of consent even works in the context of slavery. The reason no Muslim can ever explain this is that during Muhammed's entire reign of rape and pillage, he never felt the need to clarify that after you chop a man's head off and take his wife home with you, you must get her consent before having sex with her. The precedent does not apply to the rape of slaves by their owners because it is not an example of the rape of a slave by their owner. Only delusion could lead a Muslim to believe that the absence of a specific precedent is due to Muhammed never needing to clarify the issue. After all, Muhammed himself took women as sex slaves after killing their husband.

Your position fails the common sense test and is a rejection of your own principle that halal is the default. Islam specifically permits sex in this context, and never (ever) mentions consent.

freediver wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 8:09am:

It could mean he was killed for having sex on the road, blocking traffic. It is your example, not mine. You are the only one claiming that it proves anything.

You are the one claiming he was stoned for no other reason than having sex outside marriage. Heres a tip - if you're gonna playthe burden of proof game, suggest you don't make stupid claims of your own that you can't support.


freediver wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 8:09am:

I am also not claiming that there is any confusion about what happened.

No, you're just saying the assault and rape part - clearly described in the hadith - had nothing to do with the sentencing  :P

Quote:

You are the one claiming he was stoned for no other reason than having sex outside marriage.

Are you now claiming that you do not know whether he was punished for rape or non-permitted sex?


Quote:

Heres a tip - if you're gonna playthe burden of proof game,

It is your evidence Gandalf. It does not say what you claim it says. It's a bit rich for you to turn common sense on it's head and demand that I prove that it says what it says.


Quote:

No, you're just saying the assault and rape part - clearly described in the hadith - had nothing to do with the sentencing

Are you claiming any different? This is your evidence Gandalf.

freediver wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 7:21pm:

Are you now claiming that you do not know whether he was punished for rape or non-permitted sex?

lol no.


freediver wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 7:21pm:

It does not say what you claim it says.

Of course not  ::) A story about a woman being assaulted and forced to have sex with a man against her will, and the prophet ruling that the man be punished for that isn't a story about rape being a punishable offense.

You can keep playing this childish game, but I'm done with this bullshit

You are saying that it is a general prohibition on rape in all contexts and also that it contradicts the orthodox Islamic view that rape is not a punishable offence wherever sex is a man's right.

It does neither of these things. It conforms entirely with the orthodox Islamic view on sex and rape.

I am not disagreeing with you about the details of the incident described. I am pointing out that your extrapolation is completely unfounded.

freediver wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 9:27pm:

the orthodox Islamic view that rape is not a punishable offence wherever sex is a man's right.

rubbish. Whose your source - lemme guess Falah?

Rape is listed under the category of violent crime in islamic fiqh.

As far as I'm concerned marital rape falls under this. There is no reason to think otherwise.

There are plenty of reasons to think otherwise. Here are just a few:

Muslims who actually know about Islamic law claim that it is not a punishable offence.

Muslims claim that where sex is permitted, Islam considers it a man's right and a woman's duty. They also believe that the only consent required is God's - ie not the woman's.

Despite building an empire through a process of rape and pillage, and even taking female slaves himself after beheading their treacherous husbands, Muhammed never felt it necessary to explain that you have to obtain their consent before having sex with them.

Muhammed even explained some situations where you were not to have sex with your wife. Absence of consent was not among them.

There is not a single known case, in all of Islam's history, of someone being convicted under Islamic law of raping a woman he was permitted to have sex with (ie a slave or wife).

There is not one verse in the Koran or hadith specifically forbidding rape where sex is permitted.

There is not one verse in the Koran that even distinguishes rape and consensual sex in te context of sex that is permitted. There are plenty of verses that imply it is only natural for a Muslim man to chop of a non-Muslim man's head then have sex with his wife shortly after. Again, none of these verses even mention consent.

The one verse you have given as evidence of rape being forbidden in other contexts does not even use the word rape to describe the crime that was committed or the crime that was punished. The man was stoned to death for having sexual intercourse. The fact that the woman was raped appears to be inconsequential.

Other than not punishing the victim, there is nothing at all in Islamic law that recognises the consent of the woman involved as having any relevance at all.

Rape and pillage was the culture of the time. It is absurd to claim that Muhammed suddenly changed that culture without uttering a single word about it or punishing a single person, or breaking down the cultural beliefs that facilitate rape - eg that sex is a man's right and a woman's duty.

No Muslim has ever been able to explain to me how the concept of consent can be applied theoretically or enforced practically in the context of slavery - it simply does not make sense.

By your own admission, halal is the default, and you must not forbid what God has permitted you.

Those are all the reasons to think rape is permitted where sex is permitted. The only reason to think it is not permitted is that Gandalf desperately wants to believe that an example of Muhammed punishing a man for raping a woman he was obviously not permitted to have sex with must be interpreted as broadly as possible, despite all the reasons not to.

Yes I've read it all before FD. You're just rehashing the same nonsense you've been spouting for about 5 years.

Oh by the way...


freediver wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 7:22pm:

Muslims who actually know about Islamic law claim that it is not a punishable offence.

muslim FD - singular. This claim comes from a single muslim you talked to on the internet. Amrite?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 25^th, 2013 at 10:30pm:

Yes I've read it all before FD. You're just rehashing the same nonsense you've been spouting for about 5 years.

Perhaps the forum name should be changed from "Islam" to "Is spam"

Quote:

Yes I've read it all before FD. You're just rehashing the same nonsense you've been spouting for about 5 years.

Apparently it is necessary. This is what you posted:


Quote:

Rape is listed under the category of violent crime in islamic fiqh. As far as I'm concerned marital rape falls under this. There is no reason to think otherwise.

That is hardly true is it? The truth is there are very few reasons to accept your interpretation of that hadith, and none that are based on Islamic doctrine. There are many reasons to accept the orthodox (and bleeding obvious) interpretation. Here they are again for you:

Muslims who actually know about Islamic law claim that it is not a punishable offence.

Muslims claim that where sex is permitted, Islam considers it a man's right and a woman's duty. They also believe that the only consent required is God's - ie not the woman's.

Despite building an empire through a process of rape and pillage, and even taking female slaves himself after beheading their treacherous husbands, Muhammed never felt it necessary to explain that you have to obtain their consent before having sex with them.

Muhammed even explained some situations where you were not to have sex with your wife. Absence of consent was not among them.

There is not a single known case, in all of Islam's history, of someone being convicted under Islamic law of raping a woman he was permitted to have sex with (ie a slave or wife).

There is not one verse in the Koran or hadith specifically forbidding rape where sex is permitted.

There is not one verse in the Koran that even distinguishes rape and consensual sex in te context of sex that is permitted. There are plenty of verses that imply it is only natural for a Muslim man to chop of a non-Muslim man's head then have sex with his wife shortly after. Again, none of these verses even mention consent.

The one verse you have given as evidence of rape being forbidden in other contexts does not even use the word rape to describe the crime that was committed or the crime that was punished. The man was stoned to death for having sexual intercourse. The fact that the woman was raped appears to be inconsequential.

Other than not punishing the victim, there is nothing at all in Islamic law that recognises the consent of the woman involved as having any relevance at all.

Rape and pillage was the culture of the time. It is absurd to claim that Muhammed suddenly changed that culture without uttering a single word about it or punishing a single person, or breaking down the cultural beliefs that facilitate rape - eg that sex is a man's right and a woman's duty.

No Muslim has ever been able to explain to me how the concept of consent can be applied theoretically or enforced practically in the context of slavery - it simply does not make sense.

By your own admission, halal is the default, and you must not forbid what God has permitted you.

Those are all the reasons to think rape is permitted where sex is permitted. The only reason to think it is not permitted is that Gandalf desperately wants to believe that an example of Muhammed punishing a man for raping a woman he was obviously not permitted to have sex with must be interpreted as broadly as possible, despite all the reasons not to.