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


lol no.

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


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

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


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.

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:


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

Quote:


Apparently it is necessary. This is what you posted:

Quote:


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.