Australian Politics Forum

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Faith Ratchet
Reply #150 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 2:07pm

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 1:09pm:

I'm the one who has pointed this out to you a dozen times already. The reason I kept bringing it up is that you never responded and appeared confused about the meaning of Falah's statement.

umm.. ok - so you agree that there is no reason to believe that spousal rape is not a punishable offense. Falah's unsubstantiated statement notwithstanding.

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 1:09pm:

Falah and Abu have both gone into great detail about the punishment for rape and consensual sex, in many threads. For most crimes of interest, they have said what the punishment should be.

Right, so you acknowledge that Falah has not produced one shred of evidence for his claim that spousal rape is not a punishable offense. Right. Good, we're making progress.

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 1:09pm:

You keep insisting that common sense is relevant. It isn't. Islam forbids common sense.

I'm past getting shocked by these sort of ridiculous statements by you. But dare I ask for you to elaborate on this?

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 1:09pm:

Islam does not actually forbid hurting and abusing women though does it?

Yeah, actually it does. Reread the relevant passages I keep referring you to. Your statement here can only come from a misrepresented view of how a minority of muslims behave, and ignores the consistency between the quran and hadith, and the way the vast majority of muslim men treat their women.

In short, there is absolutely no basis for this statement apart from baseless prejudice.

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 1:09pm:

For example, would you consider it hurting and abusing women if a bunch of old men stoned a young girl to death for having consensual sex?

For example would you consider it "hurting and abusing men" if a bunch of men stoned a young man for having consensual sex? There are far more restrictions on a shariah court ordering the death of a woman for adultery than there are for men.

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 1:09pm:

How do you know this, given that it has never actually happened in Islam's 1400 year history?

What an absurd thing to say. I couldn't give you an example of anyone being punished for usury or failure to pay the zakat either - does that mean it is a fact it is not outlawed? Your absurdity has reached new heights, congratulations.

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 1:09pm:

It is because it indicates that Islam does not even consider it to be rape. It reinforces Falah's claim that spousal rape is not a punishable offence.

strawman. I never said islam considers it the same as regular rape - but that it clearly would be considered a form of terrible abuse, and should receive a punishment. I'm sorry you just wasted all those keystrokes on a completely irrelevant point.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49458
At my desk.

Re: Faith Ratchet
Reply #151 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 2:36pm

Quote:

I'm past getting shocked by these sort of ridiculous statements by you. But dare I ask for you to elaborate on this?

Sure. Shariah law is not subject to common sense. It is the law. Common sense is 'man's law' which is prohibited. Thus your argument that it is common sense that Islam forbids spousal rape carries not weight. Very little about Islamic law makes 'common sense'.

Quote:

Yeah, actually it does. Reread the relevant passages I keep referring you to.

No it doesn't. Like I explained (as well as Abu and Falah in their own way), those passages to not contradict the permission to beat and rape your wife, as Islam (and you) redefine rape and wife beating.

Quote:

and the way the vast majority of muslim men treat their women

We are not arguing about how Muslim men treat their women. We are arguing about Shariah law.

Quote:

For example would you consider it "hurting and abusing men" if a bunch of men stoned a young man for having consensual sex? There are far more restrictions on a shariah court ordering the death of a woman for adultery than there are for men.

I notice you didn't answer the question. Is that because like Abu and Falah, you will insist that Islam forbids hurting and abusing women 'except for all the situations where it permits it'
?

Quote:

What an absurd thing to say. I couldn't give you an example of anyone being punished for usury or failure to pay the zakat either - does that mean it is a fact it is not outlawed?

No. It means you don't know what you are talking about. I am hardly going to take your word over Abu and Falah, who have studied Islam in detail and given plenty of examples on various points.

Quote:

strawman. I never said islam considers it the same as regular rape - but that it clearly would be considered a form of terrible abuse, and should receive a punishment

Now this is getting interesting. So you concede that under Islam, spousal rape is not rape?

Given that it is the wife's duty to give it up and a sin not to do so, can you elaborate on why it is so 'clearly' a form of terrible abuse? Is this another example of you substituting what for you seems like common sense in place of reality?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

damien Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 639 Gender:	Re: Faith Ratchet Reply #152 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 4:51pm Rape is rape - whether within the confines of marriage or not. And that includes muslim marriages also. If they want sharia law, then let them go back where it is practiced.
Back to top	The Coalition won!! Now get over it!! IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Faith Ratchet
Reply #153 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:11pm

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 2:36pm:

Sure. Shariah law is not subject to common sense. It is the law. Common sense is 'man's law' which is prohibited. Thus your argument that it is common sense that Islam forbids spousal rape carries not weight. Very little about Islamic law makes 'common sense'.

No, you are way off. Common sense in this instance has nothing to do with distinguishing between divine law and man-made law, but rather how divine law is interpreted.

definition of common sense:
Quote:

Common sense is defined by Merriam-Webster as, "sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts."[1] Thus, "common sense" (in this view) equates to the knowledge and experience which most people already have, or which the person using the term believes that they do or should have. The Cambridge Dictionary defines it as, "the basic level of practical knowledge and judgment that we all need to help us live in a reasonable and safe way"

In this context, "common sense" merely refers to the "sound and prudent judgment" of what is understood by islamic law (ie "the knowledge and experience which most people already have [about islamic law]"). Thus islamic law outlaws abuse of women, therefore "common sense" dictates that this extends to the outlawing of abuse in the form of spousal rape.

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 2:36pm:

No it doesn't. Like I explained (as well as Abu and Falah in their own way), those passages to not contradict the permission to beat and rape your wife, as Islam (and you) redefine rape and wife beating.

of course they do. What planet are you on?? Don't abuse your women means don't abuse your women. Nothing you or falah or Abu have ever said even remotely hints that this is not the case in islam. Your point about wife beating says nothing about the permissibility of spousal rape. Your contention that islam redefines the definition of rape and abuse has no basis whatsoever other than your own prejudice.

Random interpretation of spousal rape from an islamic legal point of view:
Quote:

It is absolutely haram (unlawful) for a man to harm his wife. The Prophet ﷺ prohibited harming others in general,1 and intensified that prohibition for harming other believers.2 If one is taught to hold ordinary people – with whom one shares no special relationship – in such sanctity, then what of the person one is linked to in the “weighty, serious bond” of marriage (Qur’an 4:21); who is one’s “garment” (2:187), and who lives under one’s ri’aaya, care and shepherdship, as mentioned in a prophetic tradition?3 Allah has described marriage as a relationship of kindness, mercy and love (30:21), and commands men to deal with their wives in an honorable way (4:19). Rape, abuse, ill treatment, and inflicting harm – be it physical, verbal or psychological – are completely unacceptable in such a relationship.

It is true that the contract of marriage grants a husband the right to intimacy with his wife, and vice versa, however, this does not imply that one can seek to obtain this right violently or forcefully. Just as in any situation in which one has been deprived of one’s due rights, one must go through the proper channels to resolve the matter in a just and honorable way. At no time does it become permissible for someone to take it upon themselves to harm the other party in a misguided attempt to ‘take their right’.

Its simple common sense: islam forbids men to harm their wives, therefore spousal rape is forbidden.

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 2:36pm:

I notice you didn't answer the question. Is that because like Abu and Falah, you will insist that Islam forbids hurting and abusing women
'except for all the situations where it permits it'
?

My rhetorical question should have shown you how absurd your example is. Now I'll be the first muslim who speaks out against stoning - it has no quranical basis, and the basis in the hadith is questionable. That said, it is not an "abuse" of women per se - since it doesn't discriminate against women over men - in fact the conditions to stone a woman are far stricter than the conditions to stone a man. Contrary to popular perception, which presumes that mostly only women get stoned in adultery cases.

Look, I'll gladly argue in favour of banning stoning (which it virtually has been in the islamic world by the way), but this is a human rights issue - affecting both men and women (actually men more so, as explained above) - thus it is not an issue of "abuse" of women per se - not like rape and domestic violence.

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 2:36pm:

No. It means you don't know what you are talking about.

what don't I know? That not paying zakat and usury are forbidden in islam? What on earth are you talking about? What exactly is your point - that people who perform usury will not be punished under sharia law?

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Faith Ratchet
Reply #154 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 7:26pm

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 2:36pm:

I am hardly going to take your word over Abu and Falah, who have studied Islam in detail and given plenty of examples on various points.

LOL I see what you did there - you spend your ENTIRE (and I mean, literally entire) time here trying to prove how stupid Abu and Falah are - but then you ingeniously paint them as the most knowledgeable authorities on islam. Therefore stupidity and authority on islam go hand in hand - brilliant!!

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 2:36pm:

Now this is getting interesting. So you concede that under Islam, spousal rape is not rape?

It is interesting that you have such little idea of what is being argued here. My understanding is that according to islam, "rape" (from a jurisprudence point of view) is forced fornication - and fornication is sex outside of marriage. Does it mean that forced sex in marriage (we'll call it spousal rape - even though it is technically a term that islamic jurisprudence would not recognise) - is not a form of abuse which is punishable? No. Have I ever in this thread or elsewhere argued that 'spousal rape' as an abuse and a punishable offense hinges on it being part of the technical definition of "rape" in islamic law? No.

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 2:36pm:

Given that it is the wife's duty to give it up and a sin not to do so, can you elaborate on why it is so 'clearly' a form of terrible abuse? Is this another example of you substituting what for you seems like common sense in place of reality?

Because as I've pointed out upteen number of times before, the fact that the wife is duty bound to "give it up" to the husband, *DOES NOT* in any way shape or form follow that the husband has a right to force his wife if she doesn't comply.

And as I've also pointed out before, the husband is *ALSO* obliged to 'give it up' to the wife whenever she wants it. Funny how that doesn't seem to elicit a hysterical *OMGZZZZ - ISLAM PERMITS WOMEN TO RAPE THEIR HUSBANDS!!!111* response.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Faith Ratchet
Reply #155 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:22pm

Karnal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 10:08am:

Soren wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 12:51am:

Karnal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 12:41am:

Soren wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 11:51pm:

What are you trying to express, PB? I can see you are on the mental lav again, purple faced, trying to pass a turd but bugger knows what you are trying to pass, other than you and whoever packed it for ya.
Aperient? Have two.

You really don’t understand it, do you? I’ll give you a clue - jihad does not mean carpet-bombing an enemy.

Fighting in the name of Allah means submission, letting go.

Read your quote again.

One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihad died the death of a hypocrite.

Do you think it mean fight with weapons OR desire an inner struggle and meditation (jihad)?

It can mean both those things. Mohammed taught in a time of relentless tribal war. He taught soldiers and their families using ideas they would understand. War is a metaphor for life, and vice versa. Death is mentioned constantly because it was so commonplace and ordinary.

Your reference goes on to say a few passages on, "the martyrs are of five kinds": those who die of plague, cholera, are drowned, buried under debris, and those who "die fighting in the name of Allah".

When these passages say dying in the way of Allah, they don’t mean fighting an enemy, they refer to intent and purity of heart. It says, "If a person dies (while performing his duty), his meritous activity will continue" after death.

Yes, soldiers who faught with Allah in mind could be saved, but it applies equally to any activity - Mohammed also uses women and domestic duties as examples.

You know how I know this? I just read your Hadith reference. Thanks, old boy. Excellent referencing there.

I’m giving you homework. I want five passages read by tomorrow. I’m sure you’ll find some doozies too.

Thanks, PB, so many words, so little smacking honesty. Jihad means cutting off a guy's head on youtube. Does it mean other things, like hyperventillating over what dress to wear to Mardi Gras and the meaning of wiping your arse with this hand or that? Sure it does. It doesn't exclude any decision made in the name of Allah.

And so it doesn't exclude head hacking. Spiritually speaking.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 96663

Re: Faith Ratchet
Reply #156 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:32pm

Gandalf, don’t do it. Freediver comes across like Gerard Henderson having a big sulk. Believe me, anyone reading these pages who can see which way the wind blows.

The knuckleheads are not the mainstream by any stretch. Most can read these posts and make up their own minds. No one’s reading Yadda’s posts, the old boy reads like porn for 7 year olds, and anyone can see Freediver gave up listening whenever Abu miffed him.

Since then, Abu’s given up the chase. Kill me now. Poor old Abu’s got a thread devoted to wherever he is. Anywhere but here, that’s where I would be.

No one can satisfy FD. He’s notched two up on his belt. No one can get him. He can keep this going for months. Years. He’ll get you too if you buy into his forensicly boring game.

But that doesn’t mean anyone agrees. It just means he’s got his own skewed way of looking at these things. You won’t change it with logic - Freediver’s blind to it. He’s made up his mind.

But if you’re patient and nice, he’ll change. They all do in the end. People can’t resist niceness, you know.

Logic? Forget about it.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:38pm by Karnal »

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 96663

Re: Faith Ratchet
Reply #157 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:53pm

Soren wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:22pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 10:08am:

Soren wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 12:51am:

Karnal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 12:41am:

Soren wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 11:51pm:

What are you trying to express, PB? I can see you are on the mental lav again, purple faced, trying to pass a turd but bugger knows what you are trying to pass, other than you and whoever packed it for ya.
Aperient? Have two.

You really don’t understand it, do you? I’ll give you a clue - jihad does not mean carpet-bombing an enemy.

Fighting in the name of Allah means submission, letting go.

Read your quote again.

One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihad died the death of a hypocrite.

Do you think it mean fight with weapons OR desire an inner struggle and meditation (jihad)?

It can mean both those things. Mohammed taught in a time of relentless tribal war. He taught soldiers and their families using ideas they would understand. War is a metaphor for life, and vice versa. Death is mentioned constantly because it was so commonplace and ordinary.

Your reference goes on to say a few passages on, "the martyrs are of five kinds": those who die of plague, cholera, are drowned, buried under debris, and those who "die fighting in the name of Allah".

When these passages say dying in the way of Allah, they don’t mean fighting an enemy, they refer to intent and purity of heart. It says, "If a person dies (while performing his duty), his meritous activity will continue" after death.

Yes, soldiers who faught with Allah in mind could be saved, but it applies equally to any activity - Mohammed also uses women and domestic duties as examples.

You know how I know this? I just read your Hadith reference. Thanks, old boy. Excellent referencing there.

I’m giving you homework. I want five passages read by tomorrow. I’m sure you’ll find some doozies too.

Thanks, PB, so many words, so little smacking honesty. Jihad means cutting off a guy's head on youtube. Does it mean other things, like hyperventillating over what dress to wear to Mardi Gras and the meaning of wiping your arse with this hand or that? Sure it does. It doesn't exclude any decision made in the name of Allah.

And so it doesn't exclude head hacking. Spiritually speaking.

Read you own quote or don’t post. I did.

You’re different to Freediver, so I can say this. You have a curious mind like a 7 year old. Yes, it struggles beyond black and white, but deep down, it understands the hollowness of the game. It’s just programmed to follow daddies like Roger Scruton - like a row of ducklings.

But you still have potential. You don’t know this. The armour of self-loathing is so strong. But if you are able to shed this, you have much ability to give and share.

I believe you’ll get there, old boy, but we both know you have some travelling left to do.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Faith Ratchet
Reply #158 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 9:01pm

Muslim fvckwit: "Oh, they don't get us. Fuggedaboutit."

It's the essential characteristic of their madness so they don't see it : there is no reasonable argument that they can mount, only special pleading. And if anyone doesn't get sucked in by the special pleading, it's all "Gerard Henderson having a big sulk' and the like.

From a western perspective, believing in Islam is a mental disability. It is a marvel of incoherence. It suits its adherents perfectly.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Faith Ratchet
Reply #159 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 9:10pm

Karnal wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 8:53pm:

Read you own quote or don’t post. I did.

You’re different to Freediver, so I can say this. You have a curious mind like a 7 year old. Yes, it struggles beyond black and white, but deep down, it understands the hollowness of the game. It’s just programmed to follow daddies like Roger Scruton - like a row of ducklings.

But you still have potential. You don’t know this. The armour of self-loathing is so strong. But if you are able to shed this, you have much ability to give and share.

I believe you’ll get there, old boy, but we both know you have some travelling left to do.

Marvellous, PB. Know thyself: you are forever lurking and sniffing at the bottom, so to speak, and now you are trying to condescend?
Not even ironic. smacking idiotic.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49458
At my desk.

Re: Faith Ratchet
Reply #160 - Jan 13^th, 2013 at 9:25pm

Quote:

of course they do. What planet are you on?? Don't abuse your women means don't abuse your women. Nothing you or falah or Abu have ever said even remotely hints that this is not the case in islam.

What about the example of Muhammed pardoning a man whose wife complained about him beating her until her skin turned green with bruises? Does that count as a hint?

Quote:

Your point about wife beating says nothing about the permissibility of spousal rape.

I agree that it doesn't. Rather, I was using it to counter your argument, which was that discouraging 'abuse' of women means that spousal rape is illegal. However if it does not even preclude wife beating, it is a bit of a stretch to try to interpret it even more broadly to preclude spousal rape.

Quote:

Your contention that islam redefines the definition of rape and abuse has no basis whatsoever other than your own prejudice.

But you just argued yourself that Islam redefines rape. You also go on to redefine abuse.

Quote:

Now I'll be the first muslim who speaks out against stoning - it has no quranical basis, and the basis in the hadith is questionable.

Do you support the death penalty, just with a different method?

Quote:

That said, it is not an "abuse" of women per se

See, you also redefine abuse when it suits you.

Quote:

since it doesn't discriminate against women over men

So it is only abuse if it is discriminatory abuse? You are not making much sense gandalf.

Quote:

Look, I'll gladly argue in favour of banning stoning (which it virtually has been in the islamic world by the way), but this is a human rights issue - affecting both men and women (actually men more so, as explained above) - thus it is not an issue of "abuse" of women per se

You say per se a lot. Is this code for you still haven't made up your mind?

Quote:

not like rape and domestic violence

So hitting a woman is abuse, but pelting her with stones until she is dead is not abuse?

Quote:

what don't I know? That not paying zakat and usury are forbidden in islam? What on earth are you talking about? What exactly is your point - that people who perform usury will not be punished under sharia law?

My point is that not being able to give a single example undermines your claims of credibility. Abu and Falah gave lots of examples.

Quote:

LOL I see what you did there - you spend your ENTIRE (and I mean, literally entire) time here trying to prove how stupid Abu and Falah are

I don't think stupid is the correct term.

Quote:

but then you ingeniously paint them as the most knowledgeable authorities on islam

I merely painted them as more knowledgeable than you.

Quote:

Therefore stupidity and authority on islam go hand in hand - brilliant!!

You may have a point there.

Quote:

It is interesting that you have such little idea of what is being argued here. My understanding is that according to islam, "rape" (from a jurisprudence point of view) is forced fornication - and fornication is sex outside of marriage.

The other Muslims put it that fornication is when both participants are unmarried, and it is adultery if one or both are married.

Quote:

Does it mean that forced sex in marriage (we'll call it spousal rape - even though it is technically a term that islamic jurisprudence would not recognise) - is not a form of abuse which is punishable? No.

Actually, the specific question was whether Islam considers spousal rape to be rape. You appear to be saying no.

Quote:

Have I ever in this thread or elsewhere argued that 'spousal rape' as an abuse and a punishable offense hinges on it being part of the technical definition of "rape" in islamic law? No.

I agree. You did well to avoid that for so long, and understandably so. But I would still appreciate a straight answer. These things have a horrible way of resurfacing with the claim that I did not understand it previously.

Quote:

And as I've also pointed out before, the husband is *ALSO* obliged to 'give it up' to the wife whenever she wants it. Funny how that doesn't seem to elicit a hysterical *OMGZZZZ - ISLAM PERMITS WOMEN TO RAPE THEIR HUSBANDS!!!111* response.

I am curious. Abu and falah also made this argument. Is that part of the "it is not abuse if it is not discriminatory" argument?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Faith Ratchet
Reply #161 - Jan 14^th, 2013 at 4:13pm

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 9:25pm:

What about the example of Muhammed pardoning a man whose wife complained about him beating her until her skin turned green with bruises? Does that count as a hint?

Presumably you are referring to Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 72, Number 715 (you can google it). Interestingly, while there is mention of the abuse and bruising, nowhere does it say the prophet pardoned him for that abuse.

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 9:25pm:

I agree that it doesn't. Rather, I was using it to counter your argument, which was that discouraging 'abuse' of women means that spousal rape is illegal. However if it does not even preclude wife beating, it is a bit of a stretch to try to interpret it even more broadly to preclude spousal rape.

It does preclude wife beating. See this is the problem you get when you try and relate the arabic term "daraba" as being equivalent to "wife beating" as we understand it in the English lexicon.

Just one take on the use of daraba in verse 4:34:
Quote:

Regardless of the English word given to this term, Lisan al-‘Arab and Lanes's Lexicon states that "daraba does not necessarily indicate force or violence."
Because of its different meanings, daraba is a complex word to translate. Some of its meanings are: to travel, to get out, to strike, to beat, to set up, to give examples, to take away/ignore, to condemn, to seal, to cover, to explain, to turn away (from), etc. (Crescent Life).

One interesting interpretion of the controversial verse 4:34 is that it is actually a prescription for the prevention of domestic violence when tensions are high. This is achieved by commanding men to take steps towards 'anger management' to ensure that they don't lose control and lash out violently. This includes firstly airing his greivance to his wife (admitting there is a problem) after which the second step is to physically separate himself from his wife. After this, the last resort is where the "daraba" statement comes in.

As explained:
Quote:

Next, Arabic lexicon demonstrates that the word translated "chastise," i.e. daraba, employs definitions like "to heal," having nothing to do with violence. While daraba may also mean, "to strike," the proper scope of "strike" is best understood through Prophet Muhammad's example. Prophet Muhammad explained that for that man incapable of controlling his anger -- the first two required restrictions notwithstanding -- any act, such as a "strike," must heal and "not so much as to leave a mark."

Even if this can be interpreted as a physical strike (which is debatable), it simply cannot be compared to our notions of domestic violence.

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 9:25pm:

So hitting a woman is abuse, but pelting her with stones until she is dead is not abuse?

Good gracious, sometimes I think you act obtuse deliberately. I think anyone reading my point would have no trouble understanding the difference. Stoning is abuse asfaic - I have made my opposition to stoning abundantly clear. But it is entirely different to domestic violence and spousal rape - which is all about mysoginy and power over women. If stoning was exclusive to women - or even biased against women, then you may have a point - but it is not. Women are stoned not because they are women, but because they are fornicators/adulterers (whatever the right term is). Unlike the reason why women are beaten by their husbands.

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2013 at 9:25pm:

Actually, the specific question was whether Islam considers spousal rape to be rape. You appear to be saying no.

Let me spell out the flaw here my confused friend. 'Rape' is an English word. In arabic there are different words - obviously. They are not always equivalent. So the arabic word that we interpret to the English 'rape' is evidently not as comprehensive as the English word: it only refers to a specific type of forced sex - fornication and/or adultery. So you can imagine how silly it would be to demand why a word that means say "forced adultery" or "forced fornication" cannot be applied to a situation of forced rape between husband and wife. It is, quite simply, semantically nonsensical.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49458
At my desk.

Re: Faith Ratchet
Reply #162 - Jan 14^th, 2013 at 6:29pm

Quote:

Presumably you are referring to Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 72, Number 715 (you can google it). Interestingly, while there is mention of the abuse and bruising, nowhere does it say the prophet pardoned him for that abuse.

How else would you interpret it?

Quote:

Even if this can be interpreted as a physical strike (which is debatable), it simply cannot be compared to our notions of domestic violence.

Like Muhammed, many modern wife beaters are skilled at causing pain without leaving a visible bruise. Only some are of the violent stereotype like the guy pardoned by Muhammed for allowing his wife to complain about the beating. Abu and Falah liked to play the same trick of defining wife beating by some absurd stereotype, thereby defining anything that does not fit the stereotype as not wife beating. Just like spousal rape is not rape under Islam.

Quote:

But it is entirely different to domestic violence and spousal rape - which is all about mysoginy and power over women.

So stoning a cheating child bride to death is not about misogyny and power over women?

Quote:

Women are stoned not because they are women, but because they are fornicators/adulterers (whatever the right term is).

Adulteres. Fornicators get 100 lashes, according to the others. Abu used to get quite upset with me for getting this incorrect.

Quote:

So the arabic word that we interpret to the English 'rape' is evidently not as comprehensive as the English word: it only refers to a specific type of forced sex - fornication and/or adultery.

How convenient.

Quote:

So you can imagine how silly it would be to demand why a word that means say "forced adultery" or "forced fornication" cannot be applied to a situation of forced rape between husband and wife.

Is there another word for spousal rape? Like 'spousal rape' for example? Or does Islam define it out of existence?

Quote:

It is, quite simply, semantically nonsensical.

Can you give me the semantically sensible word for it please?

Also, are there two different words for forced fornication vs forced adultery, or does Islam have one word for rape that is identical to ours except that it excludes raping your spouse or concubine? It seems to me that as well as spousal rape not being considered a crime in and of itself (even by you), it is so 'normal' to Islam that there is not even a word or term for it.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20027 Canberra Gender:	Re: Faith Ratchet Reply #163 - Jan 14^th, 2013 at 7:01pm lol freediver, you speak to me as if I know arabic. I don't. Thats why I'm not so stupid as to make arrogant assertions about what definitely means what in a language I don't understand.
Back to top	A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said: Quote: Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms. IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49458 At my desk.	Re: Faith Ratchet Reply #164 - Jan 14^th, 2013 at 7:18pm Quote: So you can imagine how silly it would be to demand why a word that means say "forced adultery" or "forced fornication" cannot be applied to a situation of forced rape between husband and wife. On another note, I think this backs up my argument that Islamic law equates rape and consensual but illegal sex.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged