Quote:


No problem gandalf. See I have this handy wiki where I have documented these things. Otherwise people like you and Falah pretend you never said these things (yes it did happen many times, and was the reason I started the wiki articles). As it turns out, despite going to extraordinary lengths to accuse me of lying and pretend that Islam does not permit spousal rape, he did at one stage admit to it:

falah wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 12:16pm:


As a gesture of good faith, I have updated the wiki entry on rape so that this is the first link after the reference to spousal rape.

Do you understand now why I don't take his hyperbole seriously, and why i am so skeptical when both you and he 'strongly imply' something without actually saying it?

Quote:


Apparently Falah fell for this also.

If a woman refuses sex to her husband then she has wronged him. Afterall, it would cost her nothing to do so.

Quote:


Sure he put it 'nicely', but he did not actually say it, did he? What he actually said was that beating your wife is not the appropriate way to force her into having sex with you, because Islam requires you to leave the bed before beating her. Noice.

Quote:


I have already. The italics above is from the post #8 you referred to.

Quote:


I have not seen Abu contradict him. I think he may have even backed Falah up. Now that you mention it, I do not think you have directly contradicted him either. You have gone to great lengths to insult me and create the impression that you believe me to be wrong and to criticise me on 'procedural' issues, but you are yet to state clearly that Islam does in fact punish spousal rape. Funny that. A skeptical person might be lead to believe you are deliberately trying to deceive me.

Quote:


His name is Falah. I have discussed the issue at length with several Muslims, hence the wiki entry with links to several discussions. In my opinion this is a far more valuable resource, because of all the subtle ways you can mislead people with brief statements (and in your case, lengthy diatribes - well done for not directly addressing the issue yourself). Your own unwillingness to give a straight answer on the issue reassures me that I am on the right track.

Is any of this sinking in Karnal?

Karnal wrote on Jan 7^th, 2013 at 11:09am:



Indeed. Pat Condell is saying the same thing (says it better, but it's the same thing).
It is your racism, Karnal, that holds back the tinted races, Palestinians uppermost among them.
You are a racist, PB, like Foucault and Said and millions of other doctors' wives like them and like you.

Quote:


Can you 'interpret' this for me?

Forced sex in marriage is not a punishable offence in Islam.

Quote:


He is not merely saying that the punishment is not defined. He is saying it is not punishable. Can you tell the difference? I realise the politically correct interpretation is to assume he means that Shariah law forbids spousal rape and punishes it appropriately, but what do you think he is actually saying?

Quote:


I don't believe he said that either.

Quote:


He said what he believes in plain English. "Forced sex in marriage is not a punishable offence in Islam." Every other time he appeared to contradict this, he did not actually contradict it. I am not sure what higher standard there can be for what Falah believes. Why are you going to such absurd lengths to interpret it to mean something else? It is not like there is any ambiguity to the statement.

Quote:


What about the truth karnal? How do you feel about that? Would you lie in order to wage jihad on 'knuckleheads'?



gandalf:


Quote:


That's what I thought at first too. Perhaps he does not see rape as harmful? In another thread he described sexual slavery as liberating for the victim.

Quote:


It is the wifes duty. There are plenty of threads where he has argued that having sex costs her nothing as well as being her duty, so why would she deny this to her husband?

Quote:


Of course you reject it out of hand. But I would still be interested to know your views on Islamic law on this matter. After all that is the main issue here - not how you or Falah personally feel about it. Falah obviously feels a fair bit of cognitive dissonance too, hence he tirades of abuse.

Quote:


I have asked you a few times already in this thread what your view is. That would be a good place to start.

Quote:


I encourage you to use such sources in forming your own opinion regarding Islamic law. My interest is what Muslims believe Islam to be, not a spiritual quest to uncover the secrets of Islamic wife beating.

Quote:


I see. I thought you were referring to the bit about it being a sin to refuse sex, rather than to the source of the permissibility of spousal rape. I stand corrected. Just out of interest, is there a punishment for committing such a sin? For example, is this one of the Islamic justifications for wife beating? Having to leave the marital bed first is not actually an argument against this.

Quote:


Are you familiar with Abu's 'Islam does not exist' retort? I feel a bit silly using it myself, but here you go:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_of_Non-Muslims#Islam_doe...

Quote:


You say this in every single post Falah. I respond in every post and explain why this is not the case. Simply repeating yourself is not a rational counterargument. Instead it gives the impression that your interest here is spin rather than truth.

Quote:


1) Falah does not actually contradict himself. He goes to some length to explain his views.

2) See above

Quote:


And Falah has explained that wife beating is not abuse. Obviously I disagree with him, but they are his views and you are yet to contradict them. I am hardly going to go on a guru hunt when there is no apparent disagreement among Muslims on this forum.

keeping it short:

1. I didn't enter this discussion with the intention of proving anything about islamic jurisprudence, but rather to point out that *YOUR* claims contained in the wiki articles are baseless and outrageous.

2. I have given my opinion on what islamic law says about spousal rape and rape in general - ie it is strictly forbidden. Why you would sit there and claim I have refused to give it is just bizarre.

3. Of course Falah contradicts himself when he says there is no punishment for spousal rape - then in the same breath says abuse of women is strictly forbidden (and therefore presumably requires punishment). Are you seriously suggesting spousal rape is not a form of abuse?

4. I'd be careful with casually referencing arabic words that you don't fully understand the meaning of. My understanding is that the word that has been translated as "beating" actually has no English equivalent. From what I can gather, the word is roughly equivalent to when you poke someone with your finger as a form of extremely mild admonishment - or in this case poking with something similar to a toothbrush. What is clear is that it is not supposed to bruise or even hurt. It seems quite disingenuous to label this a "beating" as we understand the word.

Freediver, your wiki smacks of your contempt of Islam and Muslims. I have no problem with that in itself - you have made it repeatedly clear how you feel about it often enough. The thing is, the articles contain false information that you are too lazy to actually check the validity of yourself. There is a wealth of information out there, yet you choose to selectively reference two members of your board who make no claim to Islamic scholarship. If that wasn't bad enough, you twist their words to suit the purposes of your own beliefs. Have you ever thought of just reading the Quran youself?

Why ask questions about something that you're already staunchly opposed to believing anything positive of? You are a close-minded anti- Islam propagandist who perpetuates lies and misinformation on the platform you've built for yourself. It's your right, I guess - this is after all your stage - but it's pretty sad and ugly. The ignorants read the wikis you put so much effort into and believe them. And that sucks for the people who are at the receiving end of their (and your) bigotry.

Karnal wrote on Jan 7^th, 2013 at 10:37pm:

Ah, so you are a muslim lady, after all....

Dr Mohamed, I presume.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 2:16pm:


Do you think? If only.

The ignorants have as much interest as anyone else.

When Freediver writes something useful and positive, I’ll be the first to read and enjoy it.

At the moment though, the only person reading Freediver’s self indulgent rants is Freediver. I gave it a go - alas, I’d rather read an algebra textbook for all the sense it makes to me.

Maybe there are specialist anti-Muslim enthusiasts out there who love this sort of stuff, I don’t know.

I think you need to be Freediver to see the value in this one.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 9^th, 2013 at 10:35am:



There may be something in that - or as you put it, on the surface, that sounds very reasonable.

But there is a central element to the debate between Muslims and non-Muslims and that is the notion of context itself.

For Muslims like Abu and Falah et al, Islam is the context as well as the topic. For FD et al, Islam is the topic but most definitely not the context. So when someone who rejects Islam's credibility or harmlessness responds to a Muslim's point about Islam (made in the context of being Muslim, Islamic), it will always be out of context as far as the Muslim party is concerned. The point was made in the context of Islam but is taken outside that context (in the different context of secularity or Christianity or whatever, also rejected by the Muslim himself. )

Speaking for myself, my central motivation is to undermine and reject the Islamic mindset that is evident in the actions and utterances of Muslims and their apologists who do act and speak in the context of Islam. They speak out of a context that is, to their minds, credible, noble, benevolent, desirable. Not for me, however.   I do not want Islam to become my context because I think it is incredible, malevolent, repulsive.

It's a clash of contexts. The only possible way of coming closer together is if both sides speak out of a different, neutral context. So a Muslim and a non-Muslim can be great team mates or work mates or the like.

When speaking about religion and politics (with Islam it's the same, being a 'whole way of life'), the two sides could come together only if Islam itself was de-contextualised - which is not something devout Muslims will do, so this option is out.

So we have a coupla of universally recognised great Muslim footy players but no universally recognised great Muslim thinkers.