Thread: Is rape of non-believer women permitted under Islamic law?

I've been coming across this topic over and over again, various crimes committed by Muslim men against non-Muslim women ranging from forced prostitution to ordinary rape. Here's the latest article. I'll start compiling some of the old ones if I remember where I found them.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Autho...men_slaves.htm

http://islamicexpansionanddecline.bl...-polygamy.html

http://torchlight.typepad.com/torchl...-16-hours.html


I'm curious. Is this institutional to the religion? Does the Koran honestly permit (and/or encourage) it, or does it require a lot of revisionism for a Muslim to arrive at the conclusion that such behavior is allowable? Clearly there are wackos in every faith, but I'm starting to wonder if this particular issue might be more mainstream. Perhaps even endorsed directly by the holy book or Immams.

Here is a good article on the subject.

http://sheikyermami.com/2009/11/29/s...nage-in-islam/

As a child I had always recited verses that mentioned ‘right hand possessions’, but it was only a few years ago that I wondered what that meant. Looking through the related hadiths and tafseers (exegeses), I was shocked to learn that it referred to sexual slaves. It seems that widows and children of non-Muslim men, who were killed in battles waged by Muslims during the Islamic prophet, Muhammad’s time, were taken in as sexual slaves. (More than 70 battles were waged. All but one were offensive.)

In denial the way a child would deny his father is a rapist, I counselled fellow religious friends from the Muslims Student Association about the issue (I later realized that the MSA is an Islamic supremacist group with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi Arabia). I asked them innocently what the term ‘right hand possessions’ means in the Quran. The ‘brothers’ confirmed what I wished not to hear. And, with absolutely no shame about it and a grin on their faces, they told me it’s a matter that should never be brought up in front of kafirs (infidels).

More fodder for the propaganda fest; http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm.
And; http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm.
And for extra measure; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dena_Schlosser.

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

More fodder for the propaganda fest; http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm.
And; http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm.
And for extra measure; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dena_Schlosser.

Somehow I just knew somebody would use a thread about Muslim beliefs as an opportunity to bash Christians. The bible passages you quoted are not relevant to the way that Christians think and act in modern times. Dena Schlosser is simply insane.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

More fodder for the propaganda fest; http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm.
And; http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm.
And for extra measure; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dena_Schlosser.

Somehow I just knew somebody would use a thread about Muslim beliefs as an opportunity to bash Christians.

Not nearly as predictable as your own contribution to bash Muslims Harold. You should try contemplating Mathew 7, verse 3 a little more often.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Not nearly as predictable as your own contribution to bash Muslims Harold. You should try contemplating Mathew 7, verse 3 a little more often.

A question was asked. I provided the answer. Do you feel there is a different or more accurate answer?

Originally Posted by kojax

Is this institutional to the religion? Does the Koran honestly permit (and/or encourage) it, or does it require a lot of revisionism for a Muslim to arrive at the conclusion that such behavior is allowable?

They're also facing a somewhat big problem right now in Africa with people who follow Islam, in that lesbian woman are far too often becoming victims of "corrective rape."

Here's one example:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...ca?INTCMP=SRCH

A 13-year-old lesbian has become the latest victim of "corrective rape" in South Africa, prompting activists to call for direct retaliatory action.

The girl, who is said to be open about her sexuality, was raped in Pretoria last Thursday, a government spokesman said.

Campaigners say so-called corrective rape, in which men rape lesbians to "cure" them of their sexual orientation, is on the increase in South Africa.

Some fairly disturbing video is shown here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/vide...orrective-rape



Now, as I think should be clear to most everyone, this behavior against lesbians and the behavior noted in the OP is not behavior specific to Islam. As made abundantly obvious with the evilbible link above, the bible is chock full of rape supporting entries.

On top of that, rape seems pretty rampant in christianity as well given that so many priests have been raping little boys for so many decades. The point is, it's not specific to any religion or set of religious teachings, not just islam or christianity. It is, though, somewhat troubling that both holy books seem to treat it with such nonchalance and even direct support.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

The bible passages you quoted are not relevant to the way that Christians think and act in modern times.

Isn't it equally possible that the passages from the Qu'ran noted in this thread are not relevant to the way that most Muslims think and act in modern times, in the same way that you put forth this defense for people of your own ideological ilk? You didn't seem to note that valid alignment in the "accurate answer" you claim to have provided above.

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

More fodder for the propaganda fest; http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm.
And; http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm.
And for extra measure; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dena_Schlosser.

You can't really bash Christianity out of the Old Testament. If you do, you're really bashing Judaism, not Christianity. In multiple places in the New Testament it is made clear that the rules of the Old Testament are "complete" (null and void now), or were an inferior law.

The only relevant parts of the New Testament that can be taken as endorsing rape are the ones that tell slaves to obey their masters.

Originally Posted by inow

On top of that, rape seems pretty rampant in christianity as well given that so many priests have been raping little boys for so many decades. The point is, it's not specific to any religion or set of religious teachings, not just islam or christianity. It is, though, somewhat troubling that both holy books seem to treat it with such nonchalance and even direct support.

It's certainly true that it happens. No religion is able to exercise total control over its followers. However, those Christians who do it know full well that they are in open defiance of the religion.

If they don't, then it is because they never taken the trouble to study their own religion. I started this thread in order to ask whether the same can be said of Islam, and from my readings on the topic (the first two links I posted), it looks like it can't. The more familiar you become with the official teachings of the religion, the more entitled to rape non believers you would feel.

Khumus (female prisoners of war) is 1/5 of the spoils of war in a Jihad, and passages describe Muhammad himself directly or indirectly endorsing that.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Autho...men_slaves.htm

The hadith demonstrate that Muslims jihadists actually have sex with the captured women, whether or not they are married. In the following passage, Khumus is one-fifth of the spoils of war.

Ali, Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, just finished a relaxing bath. Why?

"The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and . . . Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus)."

What was Muhammad’s response to the person who hated Ali for this sexual act?

"Do you hate Ali for this? . . . Don’t hate him, for he deserves more than that from [the] Khumus. (Bukhari)"

Thus, Muhammad casually believes that slave women who are part of the one-fifth of the spoils of war can be treated like sexual property. Ali is a Muslim hero. He was the husband of Fatima, Muhammad’s daughter by his first wife Khadija. So why would the model prophet for the world scold his son-in-law for having sex with a slave-girl? After all, slaves are fair sexual game. The Quran says so.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Not nearly as predictable as your own contribution to bash Muslims Harold. You should try contemplating Mathew 7, verse 3 a little more often.

A question was asked. I provided the answer. Do you feel there is a different or more accurate answer?

I feel that we would make more progress at improving the world if we recognised that evil behaviour stems from the innate character of people and not from ideologies. The OP implicitly stereotypes Islam. I considered posting material such as that offered by GiantEvil that demonstrates similar distorted thinking from Judaism and Christianity. I chose not to because that simply enhnces the notion that an ideology is to blame and not human nature.

So rather than a different answer, or a more accurate answer, no answer at all would have been the preferred response. Instead you chose to take an answer from a spectrum of possibilities that was at the extreme end most prejudicial towards Islam.

I have a few specks of sawdust in my eye Harold, but you have a frigging California Redwood.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Not nearly as predictable as your own contribution to bash Muslims Harold. You should try contemplating Mathew 7, verse 3 a little more often.

A question was asked. I provided the answer. Do you feel there is a different or more accurate answer?

I feel that we would make more progress at improving the world if we recognised that evil behaviour stems from the innate character of people and not from ideologies. The OP implicitly stereotypes Islam. I considered posting material such as that offered by GiantEvil that demonstrates similar distorted thinking from Judaism and Christianity. I chose not to because that simply enhnces the notion that an ideology is to blame and not human nature.

The problem that is not that it creates anything (few religions create evil), but that the ideology takes what's already there and makes it legitimate. A large number of Muslims believe they are in a state of Jihad, and raping the enemy's women is an officially permitted part of Jihad. We're dealing with a faith that believes its own principles supersede secular law, so Muslims can honestly arrive at the conclusion that raping women is just another form of defiance against the system.

Human nature is not enough all on its own to keep a person in check. They need additional moral instruction, or at least fear of the law, to go with it. As long as we assume that a certain percentage of any population group is going to have sexually deviant inclinations, we also have to concern ourselves with what they are being told about right and wrong by their peers. Telling an already-deviant individual that they can join the Jihad and legitimize their behavior is a very very dangerous thing to do.

Has anyone bothered to closely examine the website offered up by Harold?
Well here's another page from the site; http://sheikyermami.com/who-is-sheik-yermami/.
Sheik Yer'Mami? Well gee, there's a legitimate "news" source and web reference right there.

And Kojax, haven't you learned about small sample size and sample bias by now? Or do you need inow to explain it to you again? He does a better job of it than myself.

Please note the words with which I prefaced my post, "More fodder for the propaganda fest"

It's a common tactic to distract attention from their own religions. Last week it was the post (I couldn't find it) with the link to violent literature in Mosque while completely ignoring that Islam and Christians largely share the same violent viewpoints in their respective versions of the OT stories.

This week it's about rape. The short answer is the penalty for rape varies between death and financial compensation--depending the legal interpretations and form of Islamic law. The practical problems is women's testimony usually don't hold the same level of credibility as a mans, so cases often get turned against the women with charges that are no less severe. I don't think it matters what the victims religion is.

(God's death sentence for masturbation would be more interesting)

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

Has anyone bothered to closely examine the website offered up by Harold?"

I have found that unless it is a technical matter it is best not to examine any of Harold's links too closely. I have high blood pressure and right wing propaganda induces even more problems than left wing propaganda.

I don't know why everybody is getting all huffy. It's a fact that the verses are in the Koran. Look it up yourselves. If you don't like Sheik Yerbouty, or whoever it was, then read the Koran itself. It is also true that the Bible has justification for slavery, and slaughtering of unbelievers. I have never denied that. It is pointless to ignore it.

None of this is of much importance. The important thing is what the adherents of the religion believe about the texts, and how they act upon it.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

More fodder for the propaganda fest; http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm.
And; http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm.
And for extra measure; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dena_Schlosser.

You can't really bash Christianity out of the Old Testament. If you do, you're really bashing Judaism, not Christianity. In multiple places in the New Testament it is made clear that the rules of the Old Testament are "complete" (null and void now), or were an inferior law.

The only relevant parts of the New Testament that can be taken as endorsing rape are the ones that tell slaves to obey their masters.

Now if only this were true, than things would be a lot safer for folks such as abortion providers, who are constantly being threatened and killed in the US by Christan groups who back their view point with the bible.

Also it would make the lives of people in the LGBT community like me much simpler, happier, and safer. The christian movements against gay rights are backing their bigotry with passages from Leviticus.

They dont look at the passages in the new testament which say the old testament is "null and void". And yet they are some of the first to say it is when people point out that Leviticus also calls eating shellfish and wearing mixed fiber cloths an abomination equal to a man laying with a man.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Now if only this were true that things would be a lot safer for folks such as abortion providers, who are constantly being threatened and killed in the US by Christan groups who back their view point with the bible.

Also it would make the lives of people in the LGBT community like me much simpler happier, and safer. The christian movements against gay rights are backing their bigotry with passages from Leviticus.

They dont look at the passages in the new testament which say the old testament is "null and void". And yet they are some of the first to say it is when people point out that Leviticus also calls eating shellfish and wearing mixed fiber cloths an abomination equal to a man laying with a man.

I have several problems with this. First, I don't think there is anything in the Bible that directly addresses the issue of abortion. In fact, some people who profess to being Christians do not have a problem with abortion. Likewise, some non-Christians also oppose abortion. So, your problem is not with the bible but with the people interpreting it. Secondly, you are assuming that your position on abortion is the morally correct one. An opponent of abortion could say that religion is preventing the deaths of millions of unborn children. So, you have again strayed from any objective "scientific study" by assuming your moral position is correct, then criticizing somebody with the opposite position.

Similarly on the gay rights issue, you cannot prove in a scientific way that you are correct and Leviticus is wrong. In addition, there are Christian denominations which do not find a problem with gay rights.

This is the problem I have with the majority of these threads on the "scientific study of religion" forum. There is nothing scientific about it.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Now if only this were true that things would be a lot safer for folks such as abortion providers, who are constantly being threatened and killed in the US by Christan groups who back their view point with the bible.

Also it would make the lives of people in the LGBT community like me much simpler happier, and safer. The christian movements against gay rights are backing their bigotry with passages from Leviticus.

They dont look at the passages in the new testament which say the old testament is "null and void". And yet they are some of the first to say it is when people point out that Leviticus also calls eating shellfish and wearing mixed fiber cloths an abomination equal to a man laying with a man.

I have several problems with this. First, I don't think there is anything in the Bible that directly addresses the issue of abortion. In fact, some people who profess to being Christians do not have a problem with abortion. Likewise, some non-Christians also oppose abortion. So, your problem is not with the bible but with the people interpreting it. Secondly, you are assuming that your position on abortion is the morally correct one. An opponent of abortion could say that religion is preventing the deaths of millions of unborn children. So, you have again strayed from any objective "scientific study" by assuming your moral position is correct, then criticizing somebody with the opposite position.

Similarly on the gay rights issue, you cannot prove in a scientific way that you are correct and Leviticus is wrong. In addition, there are Christian denominations which do not find a problem with gay rights.

This is the problem I have with the majority of these threads on the "scientific study of religion" forum. There is nothing scientific about it.

So you are very much opposed to general statements of observation based on how
Christians behave.

At no point did I say each and everyone of Christian faith behaved/believed this. however the smaller group which does is extremely active and vocal.

In regards to abortion, the question is when does a grouping of cells become a person? At least in my area the pro-life ads often include passages or references to the bible.

If one looks into the reasoning for things like the "NOM" bus tours that happen each summer and the attack ads that are produced each time a gay rights issue comes up. Much of the time the supporting reasoning is based on the opinion that the bible says it is wrong.

And yet you make the exact same type of generalization that I did when it comes to Islam and a negative statement made, and have been very defensive about it.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

So you are very much opposed to general statements of observation based on how
Christians behave.

At no point did I say each and everyone of Christian faith behaved/believed this. however the smaller group which does is extremely active and vocal.

Your comment was in response to a remark about blaming Christianity based on the Old Testament. And so your response appeared to be putting blame on the bible, rather than the particular group you disagreed with.

In regards to abortion, the question is when does a grouping of cells become a person? At least in my area the pro-life ads often include passages or references to the bible.

Which is an interpretation of a group of Christians, and not necessarily traceable to the biblical text itself, which was the context of the discussion.

If one looks into the reasoning for things like the "NOM" bus tours that happen each summer and the attack ads that are produced each time a gay rights issue comes up. Much of the time the supporting reasoning is based on the opinion that the bible says it is wrong.

It is true that there are anti-homosexual texts in the bible. It is also true that you disagree with those parts of the bible. We are getting rather far from any science discussion.

And yet you make the exact same type of generalization that I did when it comes to Islam and a negative statement made, and have been very defensive about it.

If you are referring to this thread, it started as a simple factual question about what is in the Koran. By the standards of the "scientific study of religion" forum, this was remarkably fact-based. People didn't like the answer and so came buzzing like hornets to defend Islam with an attack on the bible using an et tu quoque fallacy. Things went downhill from there. Apparently nothing negative must ever be said about Islam without giving equal time to the anti-Christian view.

Perhaps you are referring to the other thread about the faith healers. I suppose I was "very defensive" if that means reading page after page of Christian-bashing, with no redeeming science content, without reacting. Then somebody had to throw in a gratuitous dig about how Christians are hypocrites because they would want to intervene if Muslims did the same thing. This in spite of the fact that there weren't any Christians participating in the thread at all, let alone discussing what Muslims do.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

People didn't like the answer and so came buzzing like hornets to defend Islam with an attack on the bible using an et tu quoque fallacy. Things went downhill from there. Apparently nothing negative must ever be said about Islam without giving equal time to the anti-Christian view.

Are you reading a different thread than the rest of us? I just looked and cannot see where this has happened. Can you please share a quote or two of specific comments which led you to this conclusion?

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by Harold14370

People didn't like the answer and so came buzzing like hornets to defend Islam with an attack on the bible using an et tu quoque fallacy. Things went downhill from there. Apparently nothing negative must ever be said about Islam without giving equal time to the anti-Christian view.

Are you reading a different thread than the rest of us? I just looked and cannot see where this has happened. Can you please share a quote or two of specific comments which led you to this conclusion?

Giant Evil posted a link to an "evil bible" web site. This serves no purpose in answering the original question about the koran. It was posted for the purpose of starting a food fight, and demonstrating that the Bible is just as bad as the Koran. This is an et tu quoque fallacy because it attempts to defend what's in the koran, by saying "you're another" evil religion. Then Ophiolite says I have a plank in my eye, meaning I am guilty of something of which I am accusing someone else. That's another "et tu quoque."

People didn't like the answer and so came buzzing like hornets to defend Islam with an attack on the bible using an et tu quoque fallacy.

Okay, so I have read this thread, and I do not see anyone really defending Islam. I have not been active in this debate until this point so, I'm looking at this like an outsider. All I see is people making a comparison between two similar religions. Both have rules, and practices that no one in modern times feels obliged to follow, or is no longer applicable. Harold, you seem to be really overreacting to this comparison. You seem to be of the mindset that if you're not with us, you're against us. I'm sure that if any of these users was really trying to attack Christianity, they would be a lot more vicious. All they did was show similarities to another similar monotheistic religion. Stop being so sensitive, you don't seem to mind them tearing apart Islam, but soon as someone brings up the bible you pull out your cudgel.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I don't know why everybody is getting all huffy. It's a fact that the verses are in the Koran. Look it up yourselves. If you don't like Sheik Yerbouty, or whoever it was, then read the Koran itself. It is also true that the Bible has justification for slavery, and slaughtering of unbelievers. I have never denied that. It is pointless to ignore it.

None of this is of much importance. The important thing is what the adherents of the religion believe about the texts, and how they act upon it.

Finding out whether, as a fact, the Qur'an contains verses advocating rape in any context, would involve reading the whole thing. I am not going to read the whole Qu'ran. I am going to deduce, due to the Qu'rans similarity to the Christian OT Bible, that indeed the Qu'ran does contain verses advocating rape in certain context's.
There now, I agree with Harold that everyone is guilty, except in this case the atheist's. But I will, with my third paragraph, implicate at least one of those in the advocacy of antisocial and unethical philosophy's.

And now to agreeing with Harold's second point. It is important that any text be examined critically, and it is the responsibility of the individual examining the text to provide the criticality.
Let's take for example Mein Kampf, which literarily has as much panache as Bertrand Russels and Alfred North Whiteheads Principia Mathematica. I actually tried to read Mein Kampf once, I made it maybe, two or three pages, then realized it was exceedingly boring.
But I digress, my point is that a person who read's Mein Kampf from an acritical, or faith based, point of view is then going to be classifiable as a Nazi. Where however, reading Mein Kampf from a critical point of view makes one a dedicated historian.

For another example let's go to Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Which I have read, except for the bulk of the sixty page plus John Galt single character monologue. I got two or three pages into that and then decided to count pages to see how large that particular piece of gristle was, when I counted over sixty pages I decided to eat around that overlarge unpleasantry.
As I am digressing, I would also like to mention that Miss Rand had involved herself in an extramarital affair. Which under Leviticate or Sharia law would have earned her the death penalty. She was also a publicly avowed atheist. Admittedly, Miss Rand's writing style is superior to Adolf Hitler's by a long shot.
Now, back to my original point. The uncritical acceptance of all Miss Rand has to say would lead a person to believe that, a sociopathic unconcern for the wellfare of other human's is the surest method for achieving the most utopian society possible. However, a critical examination of Atlas Shrugged lead's a person to the inescapable conclusion that even the most blatantly static fictional characters can have blisteringly hot sex.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Giant Evil posted a link to an "evil bible" web site. This serves no purpose in answering the original question about the koran.

Agreed, but it was a useful addition to the discussion showing something comparable in another major world religion. If someone brings up Austrian economics, it's not out of the realm of acceptability to make a comparison to something in the Keynsian school. As noted already above, you seem to be way overreacting and appear to be hypersensitive to offense where none was necessarily intended.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

It was posted for the purpose of starting a food fight

What allows you to know the motivations of another human being? I'd like to learn this trick you're performing. Also, why immediately assume malice when another completely viable possibility is to assume the poster was merely attempting to add context and clarity to provide a broader picture?

In all honesty, Harold, it seems like you're mad because you weren't allowed to bash Islam without other religions being inserted into the conversation. I am fairly certain that's not your point or intent, but that's how it reads.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

and demonstrating that the Bible is just as bad as the Koran. This is an et tu quoque fallacy because it attempts to defend what's in the koran, by saying "you're another" evil religion.

Except, nobody was defending what's in the qur'an, nor did any one say "you're another evil religion." Since you seem to enjoy calling folks out for logical fallacies, perhaps you should avoid arguing against a strawman in your own posts.

Here is the post which seems to have set you off on this ill-founded rant:

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

More fodder for the propaganda fest; http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm.
And; http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm.
And for extra measure; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dena_Schlosser.

I'm just not seeing where anyone defended what's in the qur'an, nor where they called christianity another evil religion (although the second was at least somewhat implied by the content of the links).


I will make this simple request to you once again since you ignored it the previous time I made it of you.

Please use the quote feature this site provides to show explicitly the text put forth in this thread which has caused you to make this assertion that someone was defending the mentions of rape in the islamic holy book. Suggesting that the same happens in the christian bible cannot be logically, rationally, nor reasonably interpreted to mean that the poster is defending what is in the qur'an.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Then Ophiolite says I have a plank in my eye, meaning I am guilty of something of which I am accusing someone else. That's another "et tu quoque."

It's only a fallacy of tu quoque if he's using it in support of an argument or claim. "Because Harold is a bigot with strange views about muslims and politics, he cannot be trusted to share accurate information." That would be a tu quoque fallacy. It's not a valid argument, and is a logical fallacy.

However, in this instance, Ophiolite's comment was little more than a valid observation of your behavior in these threads, and did not serve as the foundation of an argument or assertion about the validity of your stance. If I observe that a poster appears hypocritical and is guilty of the same thing for which they're admonishing others, it's not a fallacy to point that out. It's simply an observation, and one (especially in this instance) which is fairly easy to support and defend.

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Giant Evil posted a link to an "evil bible" web site. This serves no purpose in answering the original question about the koran.

Agreed, but it was a useful addition to the discussion showing something comparable in another major world religion. If someone brings up Austrian economics, it's not out of the realm of acceptability to make a comparison to something in the Keynsian school. As noted already above, you seem to be way overreacting and appear to be hypersensitive to offense where none was necessarily intended.

It's funny how nobody posts "useful comparisons" to Islam or any other religion in the many threads about the evils of the Christian religious beliefs. Or, if I do it, I have a plank in my eye. Furthermore the evil bible angle has already been done to death here.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

It was posted for the purpose of starting a food fight

What allows you to know the motivations of another human being? I'd like to learn this trick you're performing. Also, why immediately assume malice when another completely viable possibility is to assume the poster was merely attempting to add context and clarity to provide a broader picture?

Well for one thing, it was prefaced by some statement about a propaganda fest.

Please use the quote feature this site provides to show explicitly the text put forth in this thread which has caused you to make this assertion that someone was defending the mentions of rape in the islamic holy book. Suggesting that the same happens in the christian bible cannot be logically, rationally, nor reasonably interpreted to mean that the poster is defending what is in the qur'an.

I inferred it from the context. There was no reason to attack me other than because people didn't like what I posted about Islam. Therefore I conclude they were defending Islam.

However, in this instance, Ophiolite's comment was little more than a valid observation of your behavior in these threads, and did not serve as the foundation of an argument or assertion about the validity of your stance. If I observe that a poster appears hypocritical and is guilty of the same thing for which they're admonishing others, it's not a fallacy to point that out. It's simply an observation, and one (especially in this instance) which is fairly easy to support and defend.

An observation about my behavior, if not an et tu quoque fallacy, is at least an ad hominem argument, which is off topic of the thread. If you are pointing out someone's hypocrisy, you are engaging in and ad hominem argument. Even a hypocrite can have a valid point.

Here is how the discussion should have happened among logical people who are not consumed with anti-Christian or anti-religion derangement complex:

a. You agree with the interpretation of the Koran that I posted. You either state your agreement, or hold your peace.
b. You disagree with the interpretation. You post an alternate viewpoint.
c. You agree with the interpretation, but think I am a jerk. You either state your agreement, or hold your peace, then send me a PM telling me I am a jerk.
d. You disagree with the interpretation and think I am a jerk. You post an alternate viewpoint then send me a PM telling me I am a jerk.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

It's funny how nobody posts "useful comparisons" to Islam or any other religion in the many threads about the evils of the Christian religious beliefs.

Interesting point. I would guess that's because most posters here are more familiar with christianity than with islam, but I take your point.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Furthermore the evil bible angle has already been done to death here.

It's an incredibly useful link. It's like you're getting frustrated with people for linking to a physics site. If the data there is useful and aggregated, it makes sense to link to it regularly.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Harold14370

It was posted for the purpose of starting a food fight

Originally Posted by inow

What allows you to know the motivations of another human being? I'd like to learn this trick you're performing. Also, why immediately assume malice when another completely viable possibility is to assume the poster was merely attempting to add context and clarity to provide a broader picture?

Well for one thing, it was prefaced by some statement about a propaganda fest.

I don't think you've successfully addressed the question I put to you, but won't belabor it.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by inow

Please use the quote feature this site provides to show explicitly the text put forth in this thread which has caused you to make this assertion that someone was defending the mentions of rape in the islamic holy book. Suggesting that the same happens in the christian bible cannot be logically, rationally, nor reasonably interpreted to mean that the poster is defending what is in the qur'an.

I inferred it from the context.

Exactly. You inferred it. That doesn't mean it happened. You couldn't even find a single quote to support your position.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by inow

However, in this instance, Ophiolite's comment was little more than a valid observation of your behavior in these threads, and did not serve as the foundation of an argument or assertion about the validity of your stance. If I observe that a poster appears hypocritical and is guilty of the same thing for which they're admonishing others, it's not a fallacy to point that out. It's simply an observation, and one (especially in this instance) which is fairly easy to support and defend.

An observation about my behavior, if not an et tu quoque fallacy, is at least an ad hominem argument, which is off topic of the thread.

I apologize, but I misspoke in my previous post. I made the flawed assumption that tu quoque was equivalent to ad hom, but they are not. My comments applied to ad hom. I maintain my position that it was a valid observation, though.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

If you are pointing out someone's hypocrisy, you are engaging in and ad hominem argument. Even a hypocrite can have a valid point.

They can have a valid point, true, but calling them out for hypocrisy in their position is valid, as well.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Here is how the discussion should have happened among logical people who are not consumed with anti-Christian or anti-religion derangement complex:

So, would it be a logical fallacy to call you out yet again for engaging in the exact same behavior for which you're admonishing others?

Originally Posted by inow

So, would it be a logical fallacy to call you out yet again for engaging in the exact same behavior for which you're admonishing others?

Absolutely. I'm a hypocrite. So what? I will here point out that no one other than myself has actually addressed the thread topic.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I will here point out that no one other than myself has actually addressed the thread topic.

Have you never seen a thread topic evolve after an answer is provided, especially when that answer is provided in the very first reply?

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

And Kojax, haven't you learned about small sample size and sample bias by now? Or do you need inow to explain it to you again? He does a better job of it than myself.

Not sure what you mean by sample size in this case. I am actually quite a specialist on the Bible, especially the New Testament. There's no "sample size" about it. I pretty much know where to find everything in the whole book (at least the New Testament). I used to be quite a student back when I believed it.

Unfortunately, however, I don't know the Koran at all.

Please note the words with which I prefaced my post, "More fodder for the propaganda fest"

Oh. Yeah I didn't notice that. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Now if only this were true that things would be a lot safer for folks such as abortion providers, who are constantly being threatened and killed in the US by Christan groups who back their view point with the bible.

Also it would make the lives of people in the LGBT community like me much simpler happier, and safer. The christian movements against gay rights are backing their bigotry with passages from Leviticus.

They dont look at the passages in the new testament which say the old testament is "null and void". And yet they are some of the first to say it is when people point out that Leviticus also calls eating shellfish and wearing mixed fiber cloths an abomination equal to a man laying with a man.

I have several problems with this. First, I don't think there is anything in the Bible that directly addresses the issue of abortion. In fact, some people who profess to being Christians do not have a problem with abortion. Likewise, some non-Christians also oppose abortion.

The closest I think you'd get are certain passages describing how God knows the prophet Jermiah "from the womb", or John the baptist jumping in his mother's stomach when she meets pregnant Mary.

There's also an indirect admonition against coitus interruptus (in the old testament), where a fellow gets killed by god for employing it as a means to avoid impregnating his deceased brother's wife (whom he was required to marry after his death).

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

This week it's about rape. The short answer is the penalty for rape varies between death and financial compensation--depending the legal interpretations and form of Islamic law. The practical problems is women's testimony usually don't hold the same level of credibility as a mans, so cases often get turned against the women with charges that are no less severe. I don't think it matters what the victims religion is.

(God's death sentence for masturbation would be more interesting)

Apparently the standard of evidence is that 4 men must have witnessed the rape to occur.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Qu...e_adultery.htm

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

More fodder for the propaganda fest; http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm.
And; http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm.
And for extra measure; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dena_Schlosser.

You can't really bash Christianity out of the Old Testament. If you do, you're really bashing Judaism, not Christianity. In multiple places in the New Testament it is made clear that the rules of the Old Testament are "complete" (null and void now), or were an inferior law.

The only relevant parts of the New Testament that can be taken as endorsing rape are the ones that tell slaves to obey their masters.

Now if only this were true, than things would be a lot safer for folks such as abortion providers, who are constantly being threatened and killed in the US by Christan groups who back their view point with the bible.

Also it would make the lives of people in the LGBT community like me much simpler, happier, and safer. The christian movements against gay rights are backing their bigotry with passages from Leviticus.

They dont look at the passages in the new testament which say the old testament is "null and void". And yet they are some of the first to say it is when people point out that Leviticus also calls eating shellfish and wearing mixed fiber cloths an abomination equal to a man laying with a man.

Yeah. I wish it were true too. Hypocrisy abounds throughout the religion, but I don't blame Jesus for it.

I do blame Muhammad for endorsing the practice of rape, however. (Or Khumus, that taking of women captives as sex slaves.)

Widely out of context Kojax. It was however a right according to Mohammad to use their slaves, as their property, for sex. While that was absolutely true, we shouldn't ignore that much of American colonial laws in the South were much the same with women having little to no recourse for the sexual abuses of their masters. (Much like Jefferson...though it might have been love...hehe)

Now that I think about it this entire thread is rather rediculous namely because there IS NO ONE Islamic law and most of the answers would confuse the multiple schools of Islamic law. Furthermore most of the law followed by Muslims are a combination of Islam and the traditions that were adopted much later. I applaud you Kojax for at least going to the source and asking "what would (or did) Muhammad do"

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I will here point out that no one other than myself has actually addressed the thread topic.

Have you never seen a thread topic evolve after an answer is provided, especially when that answer is provided in the very first reply?

Yes, they evolve, and usually in an off-topic direction. We have barely scratched the surface in discussing Islamic law. As a matter of fact, Lynx Fox says there are multiple schools of Islamic law, so it is too complex to even discuss. However, surely we could discuss the laws of major Islamic countries and what they say about rape.

If anybody thinks it's relevant we could discuss rape law of the secular governments in which there are Christian majorities, since there are no Christian theocracies any more. I'm pretty sure it's just illegal in the western democracies, though.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

It was however a right according to Mohammad to use their slaves, as their property, for sex. While that was absolutely true, we shouldn't ignore that much of American colonial laws in the South were much the same with women having little to no recourse for the sexual abuses of their masters.

How dare you defend islamic sanctioned rape and suggest that colonial america was just as bad. How did I know that someone was going to come into this thread to bash colonial america? The examples you provided are not relevant to the way people in america think and act in modern times. This is the problem I have with the History... and Politics... and Military Technology... and Philosophy... and Education... and Business & Economics... and Introductions... and Art & Culture... and the General Discussion forums. There is nothing scientific about it. [/parody]

Originally Posted by Harold14370

However, surely we could discuss the laws of major Islamic countries and what they say about rape.

Indeed, we could, but perhaps better to do so in the politics forum?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

If anybody thinks it's relevant we could discuss rape law of the secular governments in which there are Christian majorities...

Indeed, we could, but perhaps better to do so in the politics forum?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

since there are no Christian theocracies any more.

I'd caution you against making this claim while hoping to remain accurate. If one refuses to unnecessarily restrict the term "theocracy," we can quickly see that there are still to this day many governments wherein christianity (or one of it's sects) is the official or state religion, and additionally several more where christianity is given explicit protection in their constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy#Roman_Catholic


Also, I should probably mention how Vatican City renders your above statement wholly moot.

To the OP...

Rape of slaves was allowed. It's possible that nonbelievers could be taken as slaves. Ergo, yes... the muslim teachings allow it.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery

Only children of slaves or non-Muslim prisoners of war could become slaves, never a freeborn Muslim.[3] They also consider manumission of a slave to be one of many meritorious deeds available for the expiation of sins.[4] According to Sharia, slaves are considered human beings and possessed of some rights on the basis of their humanity. In addition, a Muslim slave is equal to a Muslim freeman in religious issues and superior to the free non-Muslim.[5]

In practice, slaves played various social and economic roles from Emir to worker. Slaves were widely employed in irrigation, mining, pastoralism and the army. Even some rulers relied on military and administrative slaves to such a degree that they seized power. However, people do not always treat with slaves in accordance with Islamic law. In some cases, the situation has been so harsh as to have led to uprisings such as Zanj Rebellion.[6] However, this was usually the exception rather than the norm, as the vast majority of labour in the medieval Islamic world consisted of free, paid labour.[7] For a variety of reasons, internal growth of the slave population was not enough to fulfill the demand in Muslim society. This resulted in massive importation, which involved enormous suffering and loss of life from the capture and transportation of slaves from non-Muslim lands.[8] In theory, slavery in Islamic law does not have a racial or color component, although this has not always been the case in practice.

<snip>

The Qur'an includes multiple references to slaves, slave women, slave concubinage, and the freeing of slaves. It accepts the institution of slavery. It may be noted that the word 'abd' (slave) is rarely used, being more commonly replaced by some periphrasis such as ma malakat aymanukum ("that which your right hands own"). The Qur'an recognizes the basic inequality between master and slave and the rights of the former over the latter.

<snip>

The Qur'an also recognizes concubinage.[18][19] A master may make his female slave as his concubine and, if she is a Muslim, he can marry her.[20] Abstinence however is said to be a better choice.[14] The Qur'an urges, without commanding, kindness to the slave[21] and recommends, their liberation by purchase or manumission. The freeing of slaves is recommended both for the expiation of sins[22] and as an act of simple benevolence.[23] It exhorts masters to allow slaves to earn or purchase their own freedom (manumission contracts)."[18]

Slaves are mentioned in at least twenty-nine verses of the Qur'an, most of these are Medinan and refer to the legal status of slaves. The legal material on slavery in the Qur'an is largely restricted to manumission and sexual relations.[14] According to Sikainga, the Qur'anic references to slavery as mainly contain "broad and general propositions of an ethical nature rather than specific legal formulations.

And, perhaps more to the point:

In Islamic jurisprudence, slavery was an exceptional condition, with the general rule being a presumption of freedom (al-'asl huwa 'l-hurriya — "The basic principle is liberty") for a person if his or her origins were unknown,[2] though enslavement was sanctioned by God as punishment for unbelief.[37] Lawful enslavement was restricted to two instances: capture in war (on the condition that the prisoner is not a Muslim), or birth in slavery.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Widely out of context Kojax. It was however a right according to Mohammad to use their slaves, as their property, for sex. While that was absolutely true, we shouldn't ignore that much of American colonial laws in the South were much the same with women having little to no recourse for the sexual abuses of their masters. (Much like Jefferson...though it might have been love...hehe)

But then we're comparing the USA's past with present day Islam.

Now that I think about it this entire thread is rather rediculous namely because there IS NO ONE Islamic law and most of the answers would confuse the multiple schools of Islamic law. Furthermore most of the law followed by Muslims are a combination of Islam and the traditions that were adopted much later. I applaud you Kojax for at least going to the source and asking "what would (or did) Muhammad do"

If even one school supports the practice, that would be sufficient cause for alarm, wouldn't it? Unless it's a tiny backwater sect with next to zero followers.

I'm looking at this as a "guy yelling 'fire!!!' in a crowded theater" type of problem. The freedom of religion and speech extends right up to the point where it can be shown to pose a physical danger to somebody. I don't think any religious preacher can be left unaccountable if they're telling their followers it's ok to rape local women because they're following the wrong god.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoutin...rowded_theater

The case that made the "fire in a crowded theater" concept popular was this one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

Here the accused was on trial for advocating that people dodge the draft, a much less dangerous idea than raping women. The current version of the rule is "Imminent Lawless Action" where the prosecution has to establish that a form of speech will likely lead to a breaking of the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

What are the odds, in any large gathering of people, that there isn't at least one individual in the audience who is already predisposed toward sexually predatory behavior? What effect is it likely to have for a respected leader of their community to tell them that it is excusable for them to indulge in such behavior, provided they are careful not to attack other Muslims?

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Widely out of context Kojax. It was however a right according to Mohammad to use their slaves, as their property, for sex. While that was absolutely true, we shouldn't ignore that much of American colonial laws in the South were much the same with women having little to no recourse for the sexual abuses of their masters. (Much like Jefferson...though it might have been love...hehe)

But then we're comparing the USA's past with present day Islam.

Not true, it's a comparison of past Islam which allowed sexual abuse of slaves, to Southern Colonial America the majority of Christians either sanctioned or turned a blind eye to the sexual abuse of slaves.

Today because because slavery doesn't legally exist in the current US or any nation of Muslims it might provide context but for the most part doesn't represent current conditions or thinking.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Today because because slavery doesn't legally exist in the current US or any nation of Muslims it might provide context but for the most part doesn't represent current conditions or thinking.

What does "for the most part" mean and how extensively does it represent current conditions or thinking?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Today because because slavery doesn't legally exist in the current US or any nation of Muslims it might provide context but for the most part doesn't represent current conditions or thinking.

What does "for the most part" mean and how extensively does it represent current conditions or thinking?

Simply the vast majority of today's Muslims and Christians don't accept slavery anymore; they've rejected that part of their respective scriptures.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Simply the vast majority of today's Muslims and Christians don't accept slavery anymore; they've rejected that part of their respective scriptures.

Do you have any data on the vastness of the majority?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Simply the vast majority of today's Muslims and Christians don't accept slavery anymore; they've rejected that part of their respective scriptures.

Do you have any data on the vastness of the majority?

Why do you want to play a silly game?

But lets look at a few number of acceptability, say by the UNODC, which puts the slave trade number at 2.5 million.
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/trafficking...t_2006ver2.pdf

So from that you could say with near certainty that those practicing slavery is a very low number compared to the population of Christians or Muslims. So you could call the difference, say far more than 99% the vast majority if you wish.

We also know it's illegal in every nation (I think), particularly those with the majority of Christians or Muslims.

It's a reasonable conclusion that far more that a simple majority of Christians or Muslims don't support slavery.

As anecdotal evidence, with the exception of one Christian KKK member who tried to solicit me in East Texas one time I've never known someone who advocates slavery. No one that I've met in Jordan, Iraq, or Kuwait suggested supporting slavery. It's hard to find opinions of it's support even on the internet in public statements (though a few on this forum come close). What's your experience?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Do you have any data on the vastness of the majority?

It's big. Majorities have that sort of intrinsic characteristic. Really big. Even if you were a fast walker you would have to stop to defecate several times before you got round it. That's how big it is. Bigness is as vastness does, as Forest was fond of saying.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Why do you want to play a silly game?

It's just that I'm looking for some facts and you seem to be just offering an opinion or guess.

But lets look at a few number of acceptability, say by the UNODC, which puts the slave trade number at 2.5 million.
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/trafficking...t_2006ver2.pdf

So from that you could say with near certainty that those practicing slavery is a very low number compared to the population of Christians or Muslims. So you could call the difference, say far more than 99% the vast majority if you wish.

We also know it's illegal in every nation (I think), particularly those with the majority of Christians or Muslims.

It's a reasonable conclusion that far more that a simple majority of Christians or Muslims don't support slavery.

Not necessarily. A simple majority in every country could result in the practice being illegal in every country.

As anecdotal evidence, with the exception of one Christian KKK member who tried to solicit me in East Texas one time I've never known someone who advocates slavery. No one that I've met in Jordan, Iraq, or Kuwait suggested supporting slavery. It's hard to find opinions of it's support even on the internet in public statements (though a few on this forum come close). What's your experience?

I doubt if someone in Jordan, Iraq, or Kuwait supported it, that they would tell you about it.
I have no experience in the matter, other than what I read in the news.
The experience of CBS reporter Lara Logan may give some hint of the attitudes of some Muslims in Egypt. She was sexually assaulted by a group 200 or so men, and was saved by a group of Muslim women. The mob seemed to think she was Jewish. This would indicate to me that a fair number of Egyptian men think they have some kind of right to sexually assault non-Muslim women. If it was just a mob gone crazy, they would have assaulted the women in burkas as well.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_855101.html

No I offered a study on the matter of slavery which even rereading your post was the topic at hand.

"I have no experience in the matter, other than what I read in the news. "
Indeed. You haven't lived with them, or worked with Muslims. I doubt you've read the Koran nor spoken more than a word or two of Arabic. Perhaps I'm completely wrong, but you seem to be like most Americans who revel in cultural ignorance and only read tid bits that support your preconceptions never really seeking any real information nor taking a serious interest. But you seem more willing to accept the one example, draw your biased opinions from it, and then put it forth as proof of something which weighs more than studies about the subject. Of course many Arabs are just as ignorant of Christians, both openly critical of each others differences while sometimes in violent denial of their strong similarities. But as a Arabic idium translates to: '"The camel can't see his own hump,"

Gang rapes happen all over the world, that doesn't mean it's accepted by the culture or part of the religion they follow.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Widely out of context Kojax. It was however a right according to Mohammad to use their slaves, as their property, for sex. While that was absolutely true, we shouldn't ignore that much of American colonial laws in the South were much the same with women having little to no recourse for the sexual abuses of their masters. (Much like Jefferson...though it might have been love...hehe)

But then we're comparing the USA's past with present day Islam.

Not true, it's a comparison of past Islam which allowed sexual abuse of slaves, to Southern Colonial America the majority of Christians either sanctioned or turned a blind eye to the sexual abuse of slaves.

Today because because slavery doesn't legally exist in the current US or any nation of Muslims it might provide context but for the most part doesn't represent current conditions or thinking.

Muslims have never felt ok about enslaving other Muslims, so if you live in a country where everybody is Muslim, it would be difficult to support a slave trade. By necessity, the slaves must be foreigners.

To put the problem in context :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_...obal_situation

Saudi Arabia isn't any more guilty than a number of other countries, but it certainly participates.

Also there's this:

http://www.realcourage.org/2009/11/e...omen-in-egypt/

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/05/en...-in-egypt.html

Apparently Egyptian Muslims have been abducting attractive Coptic Christian women, raping them, taking pictures and then threatening to show the pictures to their families if they don't marry them and convert to Islam.

I certainly don't think all Muslims are capable of this behavior, but some groups within the larger whole certainly are, even to the point of institutionalizing it, and I hate to think those groups can't be targeted just because they call themselves a "religion", or point out that other Muslim groups (other than themselves) are better behaved.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I have no experience in the matter, other than what I read in the news.
The experience of CBS reporter Lara Logan may give some hint of the attitudes of some Muslims in Egypt. She was sexually assaulted by a group 200 or so men, and was saved by a group of Muslim women.

I'm familiar with this story, Harold, and suggest that it had much more to do with a mob mentality than any religious teachings.

The mindset was much more like what we see in the pictures at the following link than something stemming from a book:

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/201...in_crisis.html



Here... You can listen to her in her own voice on the matter: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7364550n


I acknowledge that culture played a role here, but I don't think it's valid to assume this is about Muslim culture, instead indicators suggest it's related to Egyptian culture. The interview explicitly states this. Further, this is just one example, and you often berate others when they use one example to criticize christianity. Please stop being hypocritical.

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I have no experience in the matter, other than what I read in the news.
The experience of CBS reporter Lara Logan may give some hint of the attitudes of some Muslims in Egypt. She was sexually assaulted by a group 200 or so men, and was saved by a group of Muslim women.

I'm familiar with this story, Harold, and suggest that it had much more to do with a mob mentality than any religious teachings.

The mindset was much more like what we see in the pictures at the following link than something stemming from a book:

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/201...in_crisis.html

I didn't notice anybody in the Greek riot raping and tearing someone limb from limb because of their religion.

Here... You can listen to her in her own voice on the matter: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7364550n


I acknowledge that culture played a role here, but I don't think it's valid to assume this is about Muslim culture, instead indicators suggest it's related to Egyptian culture. The interview explicitly states this. Further, this is just one example, and you often berate others when they use one example to criticize christianity. Please stop being hypocritical.

I'd call it more like 200 to 300 examples, as that is the number of people in the mob who participated. That's not your garden variety gang rape. There's definitely something wrong there.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I didn't notice anybody in the Greek riot raping and tearing someone limb from limb because of their religion.

Well, not in those pictures, but that wasn't my point. As I thought should be obvious, my point is that a mob mentality is likely the primary driver in the Lara Logan issue. Or, at the very least, it wasn't the fact that the quran is a book those people read. It was the circumstances which led to that awful event.

Did you really think I was suggesting that the Greek riot resulted in rape behavior, or are you just being willfully ignorant and obtuse to make some vain point in the discussion?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I'd call it more like 200 to 300 examples, as that is the number of people in the mob who participated. That's not your garden variety gang rape. There's definitely something wrong there.

Ok. You have a different opinion. You think that the horrible event which happend to Lara Logan happened because there was a bunch of muslims running around Tahrir square. I do not think the religion of the people involved was their primary motivation, but instead the mob mentality and adrenaline and chaos surrounding the situation. I suppose we will just have to disagree.

I don't like to go against my own thesis, but Lara Logan's experience could have been racism pure and simple. Rape of women who find themselves alone is not uncommon in African genocides. I don't know why it would be unlikely in a mob situation. Just shows people are backwards.


The institution of Khumus, and rape-conversions are more my focus, because they're institutional.

Originally Posted by kojax

The institution of Khumus, and rape-conversions are more my focus, because they're institutional.

Yeshu and Paigambar were the first visionary to have created ethical reasoning in the tribes, living in food scarcity regions to own the captive women (or virgins), by taking wife or enslavement and thus bring them under urgently needed protection.

... and thus bring them under urgently needed protection.

Protection from what? Other men like themselves? This makes no sense to me.

Unless "protection" is another word for control or ownership, maybe. Sounds like rationalising your own bad behaviour after the event and turning it into a virtue. It's something most of us do from time to time trying to persuade ourselves that we really are good people despite our obvious failings - but other people should call this out as bad behaviour and not go along with the pretence. There is a very similar instruction to Jews in the Old Testament - after killing all the men and boys and married women, Numbers 31:18 (King James version)
"But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

There is no reason to think this was anything other than legislating the traditional behaviour of conquering soldiers anywhere at any time in history. To pretend that it is ethically justified in any way is just silly. The fact that this particular version of bad behaviour is common in practically every society we know about does not make it right, it just makes it predictable.

Originally Posted by adelady

... and thus bring them under urgently needed protection.

Protection from what? Other men like themselves? This makes no sense to me.

Unless "protection" is another word for control or ownership, maybe. Sounds like rationalising your own bad behaviour after the event and turning it into a virtue. It's something most of us do from time to time trying to persuade ourselves that we really are good people despite our obvious failings - but other people should call this out as bad behaviour and not go along with the pretence. There is a very similar instruction to Jews in the Old Testament - after killing all the men and boys and married women, Numbers 31:18 (King James version)
"But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

There is no reason to think this was anything other than legislating the traditional behaviour of conquering soldiers anywhere at any time in history. To pretend that it is ethically justified in any way is just silly. The fact that this particular version of bad behaviour is common in practically every society we know about does not make it right, it just makes it predictable.

Yes. Behavior of winner soldiers (including winner women) is universal. Yet behavior of majority of American soldiers differs than that of soldiers of some African General. Behavior of Indian Army, when comes to dealing social problems, is comparatively better than Pakistani Army. This comes out of spread of ethics among society.

Killing males was necessary as winners were looters and had no use of the land they won. Mostly they were not soldiers of some big kingdom to flourish and progress on. They didn’t need slaves for mining, farming, canalizing etc. They were the product of such time and region where two meals a day might be a luxury. Killing males saves food.

Killing women was necessary because they might give birth to the children of killed ones. Why share food with them when you have virgins. Plus adult enemy woman might be dangerous.

Old testament instructs to hurry and take and declare possession of the woman child before she is raped by the colleagues. Immediate ownership of woman child was as good as saving her life. Plus she could reproduce for the owner after some time.

They always made wars. When they lost, some of them could run away and survive to take revenge. Thus they were always short of women. Curb of spread of venereal disease in the group was important.

We should credit them both (Yeshua and Paigambar) for sowing ethic seeds successfully in that region and time. Teaching ethical behavior against lawless enemy needed great virtue which both had.

I used to be a practicing muslim and I am a woman. In all my time as a Muslim, I never heard any serman or teaching from anyone that suggested rape of anyone was allowed. I don't remember all of what I read in the Qu'ran though I did read the whole thing. I read it before I was muslim. If I had come across anything that seemed to have condoned rape I doubt seriously that I would have been inclined to convert anyway.

That being said, hadith rules a lot of Muslim belief probably more so than the Qur'an itself. It was being taught hadith that drove me away from the religion. I don't know what hadith said about non muslim women in regard to rape but I do know this much. It is commonly taught to Muslims in sermons and general teachings, whether supported by the Qur'an or not, that a woman's testimony in court is worth 1/4 of a man's, meaning that it takes the testimony of 4 women to match that of 1 man. Also a married muslim woman is NEVER under ANY circumstance allowed to refuse to have sex with her husband. So if she is obedient to this commandment, her husband can never, technically, be guilty of rape. What constitutes marriage varies between sects, whether shiite, sunni, or sufi, and women are not generally allowed, whether supported by scripture or hadith or not, to choose who she is married to. If her parents agree to marry her off to someone she rarely can refuse. and is at risk in some muslim countries, sometimes in free countries, of being killed if she refuses to marry who her parents agree to marry her to. The poorer the family the woman comes from the more danger she is in of being forced into marriage, even at a very early age. Even my former mother in law was forced into marriage at the age of 13 because, well she was a very unpleasant girl and her parents wanted rid of her. she never improved she is unpleasant to this day and her husband ended up divorcing her.. but i really shouldn't get into that.

While the poor treatment of women is common in countries with Islamic populations it is not necessarily part of the Qur'an. There is one culture that I know of where the people are mostly Muslims but their common method of getting married is in violation of what most Muslim clerics preach and I have never seen any hadith or ayat that supports it. Most Muslim scholars that I have experience hearing from assert that hadith and Qur'an demand that a female cannot be taken as a wife without the expressed consent of her father. And that for a man to touch any non-related woman that he is not married to, even to shake her hand, is a terrible sin. So in this case, rape would be a violation of Islam and the following practice showcased in the video below is also a violation of Islam, the religion that the people in the video claim to follow.

http://www.vice.com/vice-news/bride-...gyzstan-part-1

Rape is against the law in Pakistan and while I lived there, there was a case of a woman who had been gang raped in a village near Peshawar, an area that is still very tribal near the Afghan border. She managed to make it to Rawalpindi where she filed charges against the men who committed the crime. The men all admitted that they had sex with her but claimed she was willing. One of the officials had the wisdom to ask the men if any of them were her husband and they all said no. Seeing the bruises and cuts all over the woman the court declared her to be innocent of willful fornication, and convicted the men of rape. The woman was taken into protective custody to ensure she would not become the victim of honor killing. I don't know if the men received a fitting punishment or not. I don't recall mention of it at the time. If I understand correctly, (I can't find any article online, it was reported on the news in Pakistan at the time), the woman was sent to the UK and granted political asylum. This turned out to have a slightly reasonable ending for this particular woman but it only happened because she had the courage to run and the luck to succeed. Most women do not fare so well.

I can't say that any religious texts of Islam condones the behaviors I have witnessed. I certainly never saw anything in the Qur'an that would support such things, but I did not read hadith because I blanketly rejected hadith because the Qur'an orders Muslims not to add anything to the Qur'an or take anything from it. Following hadith, in my opinion is a violation of Islam. But in general, hadiths (though there is debate between schools of though over which hadith is valid and which is not) are generally accepted as vitally important to the religion as it is practiced today.

This is in no way intended to defend or bash Islam. It is intended to be a report of observations from intimate experience with Islamic faith and a foreign culture that is prodominately Muslim.

I agree with Ophiolite that instead of bashing any faith as being to blame for these behaviors, we should be looking at human nature. We live in a mostly Christian country and yet we have rapes happening on a daily basis. Many rapists, and criminals in general, will claim to be Christian. I do not believe in anyway, that Christianity is to blame for their criminal behavior. I believe some people are simply predisposed to violence and dominating those who are weaker than themselves. Those people will find a way to justify their behavior. Many will use religion, some will attempt to use faulty science and what they believe to be logic, such as some modern white supremacists.

Above post. The best ever post. Complete thoroughly.

Mohammad Paigambar was a great leader, a far great visionary who considered emancipation of a slave to be a highly meritorious deed.

Except as an aftermath of battle, rape was rare. He stopped it by many measures. He never left the battle ground until the complete booty including women was collected and distributed by law of the time.

Originally Posted by uday yadav

Above post. The best ever post. Complete thoroughly.

Mohammad Paigambar was a great leader, a far great visionary who considered emancipation of a slave to be a highly meritorious deed.

Except as an aftermath of battle, rape was rare. He stopped it by many measures. He never left the battle ground until the complete booty including women was collected and distributed by law of the time.

During my practice of Islam, the idea of slavery in modern times never came up. I probably overlooked the idea of slavery mentioned in the Qur'an because I had been accustomed to the idea that it existed in the past. The Bible also mentions slavery and slavery was part of recent US history. Since I was accustomed to the idea that most modern Christians don't follow old customs, it is conceivable that I assumed modern Muslims also abandoned slavery as a norm. I don't recall ever meeting any people who owned slaves or who were slaves, but I am aware of child slavery in Pakistan. It is something that is kept quiet and will be denied by anyone you ask, maybe out of ignorance, maybe out of shame. But no one that I ever met, openly and shamelessly condoned it. It seems to be part of a dark underworld that the majority of Muslims do not want to believe exists. There is a sex trade in most every society. Even in the US. It is a reasonable comparison to consider many prostitutes to be sex slaves considering many of them have their life threatened if they do not "work" and present their pimp with their earnings. They are kept compliant under threat and/or by way of addiction to drugs which only the pimp will supply. So in that regard, slavery does actually still exist. Anytime a person is forced to do something under threat of severe bodily harm or death, that person becomes a slave. Anytime a person's freedom to leave a particular lifestyle is prevented by the will of another person under threat of bodily harm or death, that person becomes a slave. So this can apply to prostitutes under the control of pimps, gang members who wish to leave the gang, spouses who cannot leave an abusive marriage.

Originally Posted by seagypsy

Anytime a person's freedom to leave a particular lifestyle is prevented by the will of another person under threat of bodily harm or death, that person becomes a slave. So this can apply to prostitutes under the control of pimps, gang members who wish to leave the gang, spouses who cannot leave an abusive marriage.

It could also apply to people who are not allowed to leave their religion.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by seagypsy

Anytime a person's freedom to leave a particular lifestyle is prevented by the will of another person under threat of bodily harm or death, that person becomes a slave. So this can apply to prostitutes under the control of pimps, gang members who wish to leave the gang, spouses who cannot leave an abusive marriage.

It could also apply to people who are not allowed to leave their religion.

This is true.

Is Witch Burning permitted in Christian-ish law?
Is burning alive another Christian that happens to think there's a small detail different about the same invisible man in the clouds that says love thy neighbor permitted by christian law?
Did Jesus say "the Pope shall Wear a pointy hat and drive around in a bullet proof Pope mobile" and "thou shall not use ultra-thin Trojan condoms"?
Did jesus say "Women shall not have a right to vote for almost 2 thousand years"? And was women not having the right to vote part of Christian law?
Was human slavery in the good old days of the colony part of Christian-y law?
Did Jesus say "No gays in the military, it removes the dignity out of killing men women and children" was the no gay in the military a Christian law?
In Saudi Arabia if you are a foreigner whose parked car is rammed by a local 14 year old driver, you are at fault, end of story, is that an Islamic Law?
In Iran there are no gays as you know, the same way there are no rape in some other Islamic countries (because victims dare not admit it), is this cultural or really religious, if that is not the case in other Islamic countries?
Did Jesus say "thou shall drop atomic bombs to incinerate thy enemies, torture them in gitmo without a trial, shower civilan populations with Agent Orange and depleted uranium, generously use land mines and submunitions so that kids can be blown to chunks years later"?

Oh, I almost forgot, waiting in line, for pete's sake, what a foreign and strange concept for the not-quite-up-to-renaissance-level-uncivilized, I wonder if Islamic law says theres no waiting in line, but thy shall push your way through a line at the airport (and bring your goat too, whats good in the 1660 is good enough in 2000), if this happens in one islamic country and not in another then I guess its an Islamic law.


hum, on the other hand, I not sure, maybe Im blowing the religion angle out of proportions

Originally Posted by Harold14370

It could also apply to people who are not allowed to leave their religion.

Is this Muslims should be ashamed of?

It seems today that both were liberal to their disciples in making wars, genocide, slavery, rape after taking wife, child abuse. Why did anyone think of changing religion?

Originally Posted by uday yadav

Originally Posted by Harold14370

It could also apply to people who are not allowed to leave their religion.

Is this Muslims should be ashamed of?

I think it is.

It seems today that both were liberal to their disciples in making wars, genocide, slavery, rape after taking wife, child abuse. Why did anyone think of changing religion?

Who do you mean by "both"?

Why did anyone think of changing religion? Because they thought about it and made a decision. Don't they have a right to do that?

I wish some one else that is more expert than me answer this question, but seemingly

there is no one here.

Your answer clearly is:
No.

And the reason:
Islam like some other ideologies is a way, a way of training in a way, that is supposed
the best for all human being not only belivers.
As is much familier word rather than any other words from the other resources (not clear from who and where,
and not clear the authencity of that )is:
"Our prophet is merci for all the world."
It means not only for belivers.

So the prophet is considered as a teacher of all in diferent degrees and even for unbelivers.
They should give a way for trainnig humanbeings spirit and growing it up.
Any action should be so, the subject that you proposed or any criminal action is not in this circle, clearly it is not true
since there are too non- muslims and the other non beilvers in Islamic socities and if it was the rule they should immigrated long times ago.

What you see is the affection of some historical events and not islamic rules and some personal desires.
Clearly in the wars it intensified and in the peace when the jurispedence rules these crimes disappear.

You could see the same situatin in all the world and under any other religion and any other ideology. Thats unfortunate events is
much a result of war and going to savageness because of the wars not ideologies.Sometimes they affects the laws but again in sufficiently peaceful periods
these laws be changed and they come back to its rigth place.

Anyhow, Islam is a way of peace in the first step and as a priority, thats a way, for this purpose, and some few main principals that all knows.The goal is growing up spiritualities and something that they say reaching to god or absorbing in god as ultimate goal.

Any rule is good if it supports the above, and it is bad if it make them weak. The logic is clear and personally I think so natural.

I hope some one more expert complete the above words, I said mostly what did I learn from childhood.

Originally Posted by farzad didehvar

I wish some one else that is more expert than me answer this question, but seemingly

there is no one here.

Your answer clearly is:
No.

And the reason:
Islam like some other ideologies is a way, a way of training in a way, that is supposed
the best for all human being not only belivers.
As is much familier word rather than any other words from the other resources (not clear from who and where,
and not clear the authencity of that )is:
"Our prophet is merci for all the world."
It means not only for belivers.

I don't believe that, though. I think I have a right not to believe that.

So the prophet is considered as a teacher of all in diferent degrees and even for unbelivers.
They should give a way for trainnig humanbeings spirit and growing it up.
Any action should be so, the subject that you proposed or any criminal action is not in this circle, clearly it is not true
since there are too non- muslims and the other non beilvers in Islamic socities and if it was the rule they should immigrated long times ago.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Yes, there are non-muslims in Islamic societies. Do you think they should all leave?

What you see is the affection of some historical events and not islamic rules and some personal desires.
Clearly in the wars it intensified and in the peace when the jurispedence rules these crimes disappear.

You are not making yourself clear. War has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

You could see the same situatin in all the world and under any other religion and any other ideology. Thats unfortunate events is
much a result of war and going to savageness because of the wars not ideologies.Sometimes they affects the laws but again in sufficiently peaceful periods
these laws be changed and they come back to its rigth place.

No, you could not see the same situation under other religions. Islam is the only one I know of in modern times where apostates are killed.

Anyhow, Islam is a way of peace in the first step and as a priority, thats a way, for this purpose, and some few main principals that all knows.The goal is growing up spiritualities and something that they say reaching to god or absorbing in god as ultimate goal.

Killing apostates is not a way of peace.

Any rule is good if it supports the above, and it is bad if it make them weak. The logic is clear and personally I think so natural.

I hope some one more expert complete the above words, I said mostly what did I learn from childhood.

No, it is not good.

Killing apostate?
Hey man, I live in Iran and I know many apostste around me. No one of them are killed
for being apostate. No one harm them, if they do not try to change the others mind so emphatically and stressfully.
Even in this case they have levels to what to do.
Any how their meaures are their own measures not liberl meaures.
Of course being apostate means making restrictions specially in jobs as a burucrate.
Thats it, not what you said, and even such cases(The maximum ones) all the time was and is under their own debates, that I do not know the detailes of it.
It needs specialists.

It is good for you to read the history of spain,and different eras of Islamic civilization in different areas, if you wish to know the reality and comparing the other religions.The measure of tolerence in Islamic civilization is not comparable to any other old civilzation, except perhaps Indus.

You are overwhelmed by some information and propagandas that some give you from a part of a sect in Islam.
A sect that is made not too much long ago, and was supported by westerners, and it is ratherly a political case.
The major sects in Islam is Sunnit and shieas(At least 1200 years) and even majority of the first sects do not know this sect from themselves.

Originally Posted by farzad didehvar

Killing apostate?
Hey man, I live in Iran and I know many apostste around me. No one of them are killed
for being apostate. No one harm them, if they do not try to change the others mind so emphatically and stressfully.

Wikipedia says you're wrong:

The majority of Muslim scholars hold to the traditional view that apostasy is punishable by death or imprisonment until repentance.

According to US think tank Freedom House, since the 1990s the Islamic Republic of Iran has sometimes used death squads against converts, including major Protestant leaders. Under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the regime has engaged in a systematic campaign to track down and reconvert or kill those who have changed their religion from Islam.^[77]

Apostasy in Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even in this case they have levels to what to do.
Any how their meaures are their own measures not liberl meaures.

What? I don't understand what you wrote. What measures are you referring to?

Of course being apostate means making restrictions specially in jobs as a burucrate.

Why do you say "of course" apostates are discriminated against in jobs? Why shouldn't they have the same rights as everybody else?

Thats it, not what you said, and even such cases(The maximum ones) all the time was and is under their own debates, that I do not know the detailes of it.
It needs specialists.

It is good for you to read the history of spain,and different eras of Islamic civilization in different areas, if you wish to know the reality and comparing the other religions.The measure of tolerence in Islamic civilization is not comparable to any other old civilzation, except perhaps Indus.

You are going all the way back to the Spanish Inquisition to find another example as bad as modern day Islam. Good grief, that was back in the middle ages. Ancient history.

You are overwhelmed by some information and propagandas that some give you from a part of a sect in Islam.
A sect that is made not too much long ago, and was supported by westerners, and it is ratherly a political case.
The major sects in Islam is Sunnit and shieas(At least 1200 years) and even majority of the first sects do not know this sect from themselves.

No, you are overwhelmed by propaganda. Which sect are you referring to that was supported by westerners?

Find a better refrence rather than wiki. Living some monthes here, could open your eyes to the facts to good and bad.
I dont want to support or to reject anything here, bu8t the reality of these societies is too far from your
imaginations and readings.
Raping non beivers, killing apostates,... none of them is seen here and there are clearly apostates and non belivers and Christians, Jews,
... here. What did I say is:It is so long time that all these people live here, in the atmosphere you design it is impossible it would be so.I never
said who leave or who remain!How did you think so?
What I said is:Your ideas your readings contradicts the facts.
Yes it is written by some that apostates will be killed, but where are these killed people?They should be hundred thousands in the case that your picture is true.
The picture by you and the facts has no adoptness.Thats it.

Originally Posted by farzad didehvar

Find a better refrence rather than wiki. Living some monthes here, could open your eyes to the facts to good and bad.
I dont want to support or to reject anything here, bu8t the reality of these societies is too far from your
imaginations and readings.

No offense, but I would rather believe a source which lists references than some random guy on the internet.

Raping non beivers, killing apostates,... none of them is seen here and there are clearly apostates and non belivers and Christians, Jews,
... here. What did I say is:It is so long time that all these people live here, in the atmosphere you design it is impossible it would be so.I never
said who leave or who remain!How did you think so?

What did you mean then? I gave you the chance to clarify what you were saying.

What I said is:Your ideas your readings contradicts the facts.
Yes it is written by some that apostates will be killed, but where are these killed people?They should be hundred thousands in the case that your picture is true.
The picture by you and the facts has no adoptness.Thats it.

Why would there be hundreds of thousands, if they would be killed or suffer other punishment. They would probably prefer to remain quiet than suffer the fate of someone like Salman Rushdie.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by uday yadav

Originally Posted by Harold14370

It could also apply to people who are not allowed to leave their religion.

Is this Muslims should be ashamed of?

I think it is.

It seems today that both were liberal to their disciples in making wars, genocide, slavery, rape after taking wife, child abuse. Why did anyone think of changing religion?

Who do you mean by "both"?

Why did anyone think of changing religion? Because they thought about it and made a decision. Don't they have a right to do that?

Both means Christianity and Islam.

This prohibition might have come up when Paigambar was battling his innumerable battles and wanted to keep check on traitors and deserters.

Spread of idea of right to freedom is new. It is hampered by those who use it for their selfish interests.

Originally Posted by uday yadav

Both means Christianity and Islam.

It seems you are indulging in an "et tu quoque" fallacy. Because someone else did something similar at some time or another, then that justifies whatever you are doing.

This prohibition might have come up when Paigambar was battling his innumerable battles and wanted to keep check on traitors and deserters.

Well there are always some battles going on somewhere or another, aren't there?

Spread of idea of right to freedom is new. It is hampered by those who use it for their selfish interests.

Who is using it for a selfish interest? Give me an example.

(I cant delete my posts)

The thread starts with a clear question, but later we go to different various questions.
Each of them needs a thread if some one is inetrested in it.
The question is the question of thread.
The answer is :
For sure not, we have Islamic society that is ruled by jurispedence of Islam and before this time also
jurispedence had the major role in their laws, and from ancient time non muslim minority ethnical groups lived there and they
had not such problems. If they had they never remained here.I know some of this people, they speak to me, they never had such problems.
If you wish to know more, there are diaspora of Iranians in any part of the western world so many of them think and live just like you, you can ask them if you are interested in.The problem of minorities it is not as harsh as you said.Any way, No where is paradise.

This the fact. My first explanation was why they(we) think so and what is the reason behind and in the back ground.

Then you go to the another problem:

First of all, why we should go in this thread to this problem, if some problem arise the better way is to open another thread.

Second, any how we enter so, the most authentic resource of Islam is quran and what is written there is:
لا إِكْراهَ فِي الدِّينِ قَدْ تَبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ»[5] [البقرة:256]

This is the 256 verse of chapter baghareh in quran and so known verse among us, it is better you find the exact meaning yourself, but it says there is no force in the belief and religion you
choose.
I know no verses in quran that propose the other idea. I evaded to enter this subject, just because I know some but I am not expert, thats the reason I try to stop time by time.

Originally Posted by farzad didehvar

from ancient time non muslim minority ethnical groups lived there and they
had not such problems. If they had they never remained here.I know some of this people, they speak to me, they never had such problems.

You have changed the subject from punishment of apostates to the more general topic of religious tolerance. However, since you brought it up, the mere fact that non-Muslim people have not all left, does not mean that they are treated fairly. Don't you think they would like to have equal rights to practice their religion?

This is the 256 verse of chapter baghareh in quran and so known verse among us, it is better you find the exact meaning yourself, but it says there is no force in the belief and religion you
choose.
I know no verses in quran that propose the other idea.

I dont like to get into theological discussions. I just look at the way people behave and judge them on that basis. If they are killing or otherwise punishing apostates, then that is what they are doing.

I evaded to enter this subject, just because I know some but I am not expert, thats the reason I try to stop time by time.

Everybody is an expert on what they themselves believe. Try to think for yourself.

Harold,

This is a thelogical forum(Scientific study of religion, it is not the forum of studying religiouse people), and the thread itself about Islamic law, not the situation of muslims .They are related subjects but not the same.That discussions about how people behave is related to some, sociology, History or political affaires and forums.
Any how "to be fair or not in a society" and what did you saied are two completely different subjects.
If you said in country X the behaviour of society to women is not fair since their outcome for the same job is lesser,
is so different to say that they are torturing some group of women.

The case of the thread is a type of torturing and horrible situation and a humanitirian crisis, not simply "they are not faire".

Anyhow the answer to the question clearly is "No".

Originally Posted by farzad didehvar

Harold,

This is a thelogical forum(Scientific study of religion, it is not the forum of studying religiouse people), and the thread itself about Islamic law, not the situation of muslims .They are related subjects but not the same.That discussions about how people behave is related to some, sociology, History or political affaires and forums.
Any how "to be fair or not in a society" and what did you saied are two completely different subjects.

Sociology and history are valid ways to study religion in a scientific way. You do have a point, in that the OP asks about Islamic law, not the behavior of Muslims. However, I don't think you have fully answered the question.
Different Muslim scholars have interpreted the texts differently. It is a fact that Ayatollah Khomeini issued a death order against Rushdie, and there are a lot of Muslims who would like to carry out that order, such that Rushdie has to live in hiding.
To answer the question of "what does Islamic Law say", or any other religious law, is not a simple thing to do. You can't just look in one religious text and find the answer, because usually the there are more than one source (Quran, Hadiths, Old Testament, New Testament, and the writings of various religious leaders) which form the basis for belief. It also matters how the religion is being taught, and which parts of the texts are emphasized, which influences what the adherents of a religion believe.
If you want to find out what a certain group of people actually believe, then it is practically useless to look at their holy texts. You have to observe what they do.

If you said in country X the behaviour of society to women is not fair since their outcome for the same job is lesser,
is so different to say that they are torturing some group of women.

The case of the thread is a type of torturing and horrible situation and a humanitirian crisis, not simply "they are not faire".

Anyhow the answer to the question clearly is "No".

No, that is not clear, since others have interpreted the texts differently than you have.

Aperior to any other text in Islam is Quran. Even hadith is under the shadow of quran, specially the authencitity of it. The ifrst measure is Quran, after quran and discussions about it, the others that you have said come in the middle.

Rushdi problem is something quite different, the problem is not apostasy, the problem is not that he was critical of some points, the problem was: he had a totaly destructive insultive manner. He didnt argue, he narrates a story.

I remember well, in the first reactions in Iran, they try to neglect it, but the demostration starts in the other countries, and the situation went in a way that there was no choice, and neglecting wasnt the way.

Rushdi had two major problems:

1. If he had any point he should make an open discussion in a logical form, not misusing litterature.
He had this chance. In fact instead of arguing and give permission to the others to answer him he starts
a insultive manner.

2. He is from india and pakistan originally, he knew well what will happen by his book. He knew well the sensitivities
of the Islamic societies specially in Indian continent.

Personally I know him guilty, Rushdi as an intelectuall and as a person who knows well his society is a guilty one.
His action was a political action to make more and more tensions. He terorized the Islamic societies.

Possibly there are better reactions to what he did, but these reactions must be provided well and before the time of what will happen. I see no point in physicaly punish such people, they should be punished by showing their real face.Physically ounishing them, make us far from their reality.

Now, we should know that these reactions are dangerouse reactions, fatal ones.
So they should be considered as a terrorizing.If you or any other person have any question or you are critical of some points in Islam or Islamic societies, make you point in a logical arguable form.

Thats not terorizing, thats criticizing.

Our zone time is different, and our vacation besides my limited access to internet.It is why sometimes I reoly late.

Originally Posted by farzad didehvar

Aperior to any other text in Islam is Quran. Even hadith is under the shadow of quran, specially the authencitity of it. The ifrst measure is Quran, after quran and discussions about it, the others that you have said come in the middle.

That is your interpretation, but many Muslims take the hadith quite seriously, and believe apostates should be killed or forced to recant.

Rushdi problem is something quite different, the problem is not apostasy, the problem is not that he was critical of some points, the problem was: he had a totaly destructive insultive manner. He didnt argue, he narrates a story.

I remember well, in the first reactions in Iran, they try to neglect it, but the demostration starts in the other countries, and the situation went in a way that there was no choice, and neglecting wasnt the way.

Rushdi had two major problems:

1. If he had any point he should make an open discussion in a logical form, not misusing litterature.
He had this chance. In fact instead of arguing and give permission to the others to answer him he starts
a insultive manner.

Understood. You do not like the book. There are a lot of books I don't like, either.

2. He is from india and pakistan originally, he knew well what will happen by his book. He knew well the sensitivities
of the Islamic societies specially in Indian continent.

Personally I know him guilty, Rushdi as an intelectuall and as a person who knows well his society is a guilty one.
His action was a political action to make more and more tensions. He terorized the Islamic societies.

I don't see how you can call writing a book terrorizing. That is a bit of hyperbole, isn't it? Didn't the Islamic societies have the option of simply not reading the book, and thereby avoid the "terror"?

I think now our discussion goes to a rigth track.
If some one insult the others the reaction of them come back to their sensitivities, and what will come and happen
later, based on your experience.
Sometimes you neglect him, and sometime you see the aftermath of neglecting is horrible, based on the situation it is possible
that the wiset reaction would be to do something more(Sometimes).
Look, here if some one starts to speak in a vulgar style, he will be omitted. Such people should be critisized by their taking action.

Clearly in our world there are clear sensitivities, why we are not able to condemn people who aimed such sensitivities in a court?
Why no one is able to force them to find a better language for their ideas specially about these specific problems?
Our world wide constitutions has problem and suffers from that.


There is a problem in European country that speaking about it in any form is prohibited, and there is this insultive manner that any one can do it and it is legal, (If I remember well, Rushdi gave a reward for this booK?Not so? I dont remeber well)

This is a double standard. Freedom should be in all cases, and the restriction should be on the form of what you propse, the language.

Consider this scenario:

Muslim alleged the supposed court against some one like Rushdi, they(judges) see the problem, the judge says:

Your language is considered as offensive, the book should be out of the hands, except some for some research places and people who wish to research about,
change your litteratute, and expose your idea in a rigth way. Means, In a logical discussable way.We give you any facility to do that, since we wish to see
is there anything important and notable in your idea or not.The people will judge about that.

Something like this will provide the freedom in speach, not what is happening now.






Anyhow It is a problem in society and in practical situation not a theological problem.
Rushdi is alive, but we see the results of what he did.
Rushdi is alive and many are dead as a result of what he did.

Originally Posted by farzad didehvar

I think now our discussion goes to a rigth track.

I disagree, because I have understood little or nothing of what you have written here. Maybe it is a language barrier.

If some one insult the others the reaction of them come back to their sensitivities, and what will come and happen
later, based on your experience.
Sometimes you neglect him, and sometime you see the aftermath of neglecting is horrible, based on the situation it is possible
that the wiset reaction would be to do something more(Sometimes).
Look, here if some one starts to speak in a vulgar style, he will be omitted. Such people should be critisized by their taking action.

Clearly in our world there are clear sensitivities, why we are not able to condemn people who aimed such sensitivities in a court?
Why no one is able to force them to find a better language for their ideas specially about these specific problems?
Our world wide constitutions has problem and suffers from that.

Why should anyone force them to find a better language?

There is a problem in European country that speaking about it in any form is prohibited, and there is this insultive manner that any one can do it and it is legal, (If I remember well, Rushdi gave a reward for this booK?Not so? I dont remeber well)

This is a double standard. Freedom should be in all cases, and the restriction should be on the form of what you propse, the language.

Consider this scenario:

Muslim alleged the supposed court against some one like Rushdi, they(judges) see the problem, the judge says:

Your language is considered as offensive, the book should be out of the hands, except some for some research places and people who wish to research about,
change your litteratute, and expose your idea in a rigth way. Means, In a logical discussable way.We give you any facility to do that, since we wish to see
is there anything important and notable in your idea or not.The people will judge about that.

Something like this will provide the freedom in speach, not what is happening now.






Anyhow It is a problem in society and in practical situation not a theological problem.
Rushdi is alive, but we see the results of what he did.
Rushdi is alive and many are dead as a result of what he did.

No, many are dead as a result of what fanatical killers did.

Originally Posted by farzad didehvar

I think now our discussion goes to a rigth track.
If some one insult the others the reaction of them come back to their sensitivities, and what will come and happen
later, based on your experience.
Sometimes you neglect him, and sometime you see the aftermath of neglecting is horrible, based on the situation it is possible
that the wiset reaction would be to do something more(Sometimes).
Look, here if some one starts to speak in a vulgar style, he will be omitted. Such people should be critisized by their taking action.

Clearly in our world there are clear sensitivities, why we are not able to condemn people who aimed such sensitivities in a court?
Why no one is able to force them to find a better language for their ideas specially about these specific problems?
Our world wide constitutions has problem and suffers from that.


There is a problem in European country that speaking about it in any form is prohibited, and there is this insultive manner that any one can do it and it is legal, (If I remember well, Rushdi gave a reward for this booK?Not so? I dont remeber well)

This is a double standard. Freedom should be in all cases, and the restriction should be on the form of what you propse, the language.

Consider this scenario:

Muslim alleged the supposed court against some one like Rushdi, they(judges) see the problem, the judge says:

Your language is considered as offensive, the book should be out of the hands, except some for some research places and people who wish to research about,
change your litteratute, and expose your idea in a rigth way. Means, In a logical discussable way.We give you any facility to do that, since we wish to see
is there anything important and notable in your idea or not.The people will judge about that.

Something like this will provide the freedom in speach, not what is happening now.






Anyhow It is a problem in society and in practical situation not a theological problem.
Rushdi is alive, but we see the results of what he did.
Rushdi is alive and many are dead as a result of what he did.

Are you seriously equating a suspension from an online forum to a fatwa? A death warrant? A cash award for your murder? Social out-casting is one thing. Killing is something all together different. I used to be Muslim and during that time I was appalled at the idea that Muslims had no backbone at all. The idea that Muslims were too sensitive to teasing. Ayatollah needs to grow up. So what he wrote a book. Maybe I should too. Do you realize that the fatwa on his head gave him more notoriety and fame than his book did?All the Ayatollah did was draw more attention to it. Actually, this thread makes me want to go and buy his book and read it to see what all the fuss is about. It would seem the Ayatollah isn't/wasn't very smart.

Harold, if some one here try to insult the others here, the manager of site will ban him.
The reson is his offensive behavior.Of course they give him the other chance, to speak
in a better language.
The same logic works in the societies.

All what did I say in the last post is:
"The prevailing ideas now is liberal democracy, and in this case the potentials of this ideology is not used,
like to have such institutions".
Another point is:

Rushdi knew well what will happen, he knew well muslim societies , why did he do that?

Giving weapon to people is not forbidden, but if you do that so many will be killed as the result,
so, why should we do that?
If you do, you should have some real reason.
What was Rushdi reason?
What did he want to say, in this price?

Originally Posted by farzad didehvar

Harold, if some one here try to insult the others here, the manager of site will ban him.
The reson is his offensive behavior.Of course they give him the other chance, to speak
in a better language.
The same logic works in the societies.

No, it is different. The web site is privately owned. The owner of the web site makes up his rules about insulting behavior. Nobody owns society in general. If somebody wants to start their own web site to insult someone, they can do that. That is what freedom of speech is all about.

All what did I say in the last post is:
"The prevailing ideas now is liberal democracy, and in this case the potentials of this ideology is not used,
like to have such institutions".
Another point is:

Rushdi knew well what will happen, he knew well muslim societies , why did he do that?

I don't care why people do things. They are allowed to do it. It is called freedom.

Giving weapon to people is not forbidden, but if you do that so many will be killed as the result,
so, why should we do that?
If you do, you should have some real reason.
What was Rushdi reason?
What did he want to say, in this price?

You cannot compare writing a book to killing people. That is totally different. Writing a book doesn't hurt anyone. If you don't like the book, don't read it. I don't like the things you are writing here, but I don't want to go to Iran and kill you.

Now, you know that people in America believe in freedom of speech. It is almost like a religion with us. So why are you trying to pass laws to restrict our freedom of speech? You are just going to make us all angry.

I am not really angry, I am just trying to make a point.

Harold,

you didnt get the gist of the argument. The problem is:
Why we have such a regulation in some places(like this forum)?
What is the philosophy behind that?



Answer: In order that everything be ordered.


If we think that it is not so, and by putting aside this regulation
we are able to do something sufficiently positive we will put it aisde, but if that is not so, we put
this regulation.Unles we will have chaos.
Putting aside such regulations in world wide sense, about problems like this, helped to grow mobbish actions in each side.
In these conditions simply oportunists profit too much.(Again in both sides).
And this helps to cover the realities and facts.
By the way, please, answer more patiently.

Regulation must be within reason, lest those regulated become revolting subjects.


Personally, I'm a bit chaotic. I accept very little regulation. Others may be more tolerant.


The purpose of regulation is not necessarily one of order, but also can be one of profit and control. When weighing regulations against each other, one must ask whether or not the regulation that may bring about a certain order may also bring about more harm than good.
Your argument that regulation is simply a means of order pales when compared to the many different methods of enforcing regulations across the globe. Observing these comparisons, it's plain to see that many regulations are dependent upon motives, rather than concern.

Originally Posted by farzad didehvar

Harold,

you didnt get the gist of the argument. The problem is:
Why we have such a regulation in some places(like this forum)?
What is the philosophy behind that?



Answer: In order that everything be ordered.


If we think that it is not so, and by putting aside this regulation
we are able to do something sufficiently positive we will put it aisde, but if that is not so, we put
this regulation.Unles we will have chaos.

My ancestors came to America because they didn't like the regulations. If the whole world is over regulated, there will be no place anybody can be free. The chaos is not due to people freely exercising their rights to free speech. It is because of tyrants who cannot tolerate other people expressing their ideas.

Putting aside such regulations in world wide sense, about problems like this, helped to grow mobbish actions in each side.
In these conditions simply oportunists profit too much.(Again in both sides).
And this helps to cover the realities and facts.
By the way, please, answer more patiently.

The mobbish action is on the part of the mobs. You are blaming the victim for the crime.

Harold you said:
My ancestors came to America because they didn't like the regulations.

Yes, since they didnt like the regulation in Europe, but they made the other regulations.Their owns.
Sometimes more free than before sometimes more harsh.
Arent puritans among your ancestors?
Havent you one of the most powerful police in the world rigth now?
Arent you free to move your feasst, till you didnt strike the others face(Please correct the statement).
So regulations cant be disappeared, you can change them, sometimes eliminate them, sometimes make new ones.
It depends on the situation.

Originally Posted by farzad didehvar

Harold you said:
My ancestors came to America because they didn't like the regulations.

Yes, since they didnt like the regulation in Europe, but they made the other regulations.Their owns.
Sometimes more free than before sometimes more harsh.
Arent puritans among your ancestors?
Havent you one of the most powerful police in the world rigth now?
Arent you free to move your feasst, till you didnt strike the others face(Please correct the statement).

Yes, you are free to move your fist as long as it doesn't strike someone else in the face. Are you saying that writing a book is equivalent to hitting someone in the face?

So regulations cant be disappeared, you can change them, sometimes eliminate them, sometimes make new ones.
It depends on the situation.

Yes it does depend on the situation. What situation do you think justifies eliminating freedom of speech and freedom of the press? The fact that religious fanatics threaten violence? No, I don't think that is sufficient justification.

Originally Posted by uday yadav

Spread of idea of right to freedom is new. It is hampered by those who use it for their selfish interests.

You don't think the idea of dictatorship is also hampered by those who use that institution for their own selfish interests?

Or the idea of religious fundamentalism? Certainly some fundamentalists do very well for themselves financially and socially by their actions. You don't think any of them are abusing it?

Are you honestly naive enough to believe that there is no such thing as greed in Islam? It only exists everywhere else?

Do you think the men who are kidnapping Coptic Christian women to force them into marriage are kidnapping the ugly ones?

Originally Posted by farzad didehvar

Rushdi knew well what will happen, he knew well muslim societies , why did he do that?

Giving weapon to people is not forbidden, but if you do that so many will be killed as the result,
so, why should we do that?
If you do, you should have some real reason.
What was Rushdi reason?
What did he want to say, in this price?

What does it matter if he "knew what will happen?" How do you know he wasn't hoping that something good would also happen, in addition to the bad things?

There are very few choices we can make in life which have only good results. Sometimes we have to weigh the good against the bad.

Besides that, why should knowing what another person will do make me the one responsible for the outcome? That other person could control my life by telling me that if I do anything to defy their will they will kill some small child. For the rest of my life I would have to obey their will. If I ever did defy their will, and they did kill that small child, I suppose you would say it was me who committed murder?

Kojax,

I am a muslim, and we trained to love our prophet too much, for belivers it is so insultive and even for nobelivers it is insultive, so
by knowing our societies the result was clear. Some thinks that was programised, it is possible and considerable.
By the way, I remeber there were unbelivers that cry for that.
Rushdi knew this fact too. For a muslim the result is clear, specially Rushdi that was known in Islamic countries, no doubt he knew what
would be happened.S
So harold, in this situation, writing this book, specially by a muslim root individual was harsher than hitting the face for belivers.
I undesrtand that you are from western culture and you have your view and you do not know exactly our view, but about such problems there are ways.
Look, just after this book and some similar problems Talebainsm and alghaedeh type of thinking, has grown so fast.

A question: Isnt it better to follow this discussion in another thread?

Originally Posted by farzad didehvar

Kojax,

I am a muslim, and we trained to love our prophet too much, for belivers it is so insultive and even for nobelivers it is insultive, so
by knowing our societies the result was clear. Some thinks that was programised, it is possible and considerable.
By the way, I remeber there were unbelivers that cry for that.
Rushdi knew this fact too. For a muslim the result is clear, specially Rushdi that was known in Islamic countries, no doubt he knew what
would be happened.S
So harold, in this situation, writing this book, specially by a muslim root individual was harsher than hitting the face for belivers.
I undesrtand that you are from western culture and you have your view and you do not know exactly our view, but about such problems there are ways.
Look, just after this book and some similar problems Talebainsm and alghaedeh type of thinking, has grown so fast.

A question: Isnt it better to follow this discussion in another thread?

Tell me something. How did Muhammad (saw) react to children and non-believers of all ages, throwing rotten fruit and stones and dung at his face as he peacefully traveled through Mecca? Were these people not insulting to the prophet and the religion that he was bringing? Did he declare that these people be put to death? NO. He said to leave them be. The only thing insulting to Islam today is Muslims and the way they twist and distort a religion intended to bring peace. Muslims are a disgrace to Islam not non-believers and apostates. "There is no compulsion in religion! But we will kill you if you don't respect it. "What does Islam say the fate of hypocrites will be?

I am an atheist after my experience as a Muslim. My religion today is American Nationalism. Your religion and your words here defile and insult my religion. Perhaps a death warrant would be justified against you since that is your logic. Do you agree?

Originally Posted by farzad didehvar

So harold, in this situation, writing this book, specially by a muslim root individual was harsher than hitting the face for belivers.
I undesrtand that you are from western culture and you have your view and you do not know exactly our view, but about such problems there are ways.

I understand your view. I simply disagree.

Look, just after this book and some similar problems Talebainsm and alghaedeh type of thinking, has grown so fast.

A question: Isnt it better to follow this discussion in another thread?

There is not much point in starting another thread. Our discussion is not leading anywhere.

I undesrtand that you are from western culture and you have your view and you do not know exactly our view, but about such things there are ways.

Well, we in Western countries are quite familiar with our own blasphemy laws which are still on the books in some places, even if they're not used very much. We also had/have censorship of books and films which violate/d our views about what is wrong or indecent or treasonous or hateful. For the most part, we have tended to relax most of these for adults - but we still insist on ratings for films and games depending on how (un)suitable we consider them to be for children of various ages.

At the same time as reducing regulations on what adults can read or view, our societies have progressed a long way towards regulating things that are essential for people's lives rather than for their behaviour and their beliefs. Like food safety laws, building regulations to ensure that things don't fall down and kill people, sanitation and chemical safety laws prohibiting people from exposing others to danger from wastes of various kinds, road safety laws.

So if you want to talk about "regulating" what does and doesn't happen in different societies, you need to take into account these differences in attitude. Some societies that take a great deal of interest in people's public dress, private behaviour or personal beliefs seem to many westerners to be careless about the physical well-being of those same people. I realise that there is a strong element of fatalism among many Muslims, but that seems very wrong to most of us in other countries - you can reduce the death toll on the roads and in the hospitals and in industry. You can control how (un)safe buildings and various activities are. So why do you expend so much time and effort on controlling other private, personal activities? Like reading.

I realise this may be a bit foreign to you and I may have expressed these ideas a little too bluntly, but if you can make allowances I'd be pleased if you'd take some time thinking about the idea of different perspectives on what is and isn't more important for a society to concentrate on.

seagypsy and adelady,your narration about our prophet is true, we have the other narration of his behaviour that shows much moretolerence, even about a person who wishes to kill him and terorize him and his hospitality about him.The first phrase of you, is just true. But our discussion is the other dialouge.The problem is: we consider the situation as it exists not as it should be.Rushdi knew these points.The problem is: we should have a calm atmosphere to show and to see the truth as it is.The truth and facts similar to what did you say.Taking actions similar to what Rushdi did, take this chance from us. When I say ban this book in public, it doesnt mean you cant read that. You can read it as a researcher.But when you read this book in this case it is pointed as insultive and completely under discussion.Like some marks in wikipedia(underdebate for these reasons 1&2&3).

Originally Posted by farzad didehvar

seagypsy and adelady,your narration about our prophet is true, we have the other narration of his behaviour that shows much moretolerence, even about a person who wishes to kill him and terorize him and his hospitality about him.The first phrase of you, is just true. But our discussion is the other dialouge.The problem is: we consider the situation as it exists not as it should be.Rushdi knew these points.The problem is: we should have a calm atmosphere to show and to see the truth as it is.

By a calm atmosphere, you mean that people should give in to terroristic threats, so that no one will be killed.

The truth and facts similar to what did you say.Taking actions similar to what Rushdi did, take this chance from us. When I say ban this book in public, it doesnt mean you cant read that. You can read it as a researcher.But when you read this book in this case it is pointed as insultive and completely under discussion.Like some marks in wikipedia(underdebate for these reasons 1&2&3).

Your solution is not acceptable. It requires a censor to decide who is qualified to read the book, and to put in the disclaimers. That defeats the purpose of freedom of speech.

Originally Posted by farzad didehvar

seagypsy and adelady,your narration about our prophet is true, we have the other narration of his behaviour that shows much moretolerence, even about a person who wishes to kill him and terorize him and his hospitality about him.The first phrase of you, is just true. But our discussion is the other dialouge.The problem is: we consider the situation as it exists not as it should be.Rushdi knew these points.The problem is: we should have a calm atmosphere to show and to see the truth as it is.The truth and facts similar to what did you say.Taking actions similar to what Rushdi did, take this chance from us. When I say ban this book in public, it doesnt mean you cant read that. You can read it as a researcher.But when you read this book in this case it is pointed as insultive and completely under discussion.Like some marks in wikipedia(underdebate for these reasons 1&2&3).

Many consider the Qur'an to be insultive. Should it also be banned except for researchers?

seagypsy,

Do not got to falacy please. The point is clear.
"If you have any point, say it in such a way that it would be debatable".If
you do not that and simply you attak the sensitivities you should as must change
the style of your discussion, all of this is for having a rigth conclusion.
We speak about people and their activities.

Harold you said:
It requires a censor to decide who is qualified to read the book, and to put in the disclaimers.

Clearly thats not true.Anyone could read that, but by considering that is there any point about or not

Anyhow, the logics are clear and your views. Specially our discussions are under an umberalla of political problems.
Clearlt it diverted to these points.Rigth now, that is an impass.

Originally Posted by farzad didehvar

seagypsy,

Do not got to falacy please. The point is clear.
"If you have any point, say it in such a way that it would be debatable".If
you do not that and simply you attak the sensitivities you should as must change
the style of your discussion, all of this is for having a rigth conclusion.
We speak about people and their activities.

I think Seagypsy did make a point, and in a way that is debatable. Some people do find certain passages of the Quran insulting. There is no need to repeat them here. Just go to any anti-islamic web site. Maybe those web sites are banned in Iran, but just look up the passages that talk about Jews, etc.
From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_antisemitism:

It has been argued that the conventional Muslim epithets for Jews, apes, and Christians, pigs derive from Quranic usage. Lewis adduces three passages in the Quran (^{[Quran 2:61]}, ^{[Quran 5:65]}, ^{[Quran 7:166]}) used to ground this view.^[

By your logic, insulting text should be banned, except for scholarly study. Please explain why this should not apply to the referenced passages of the Quran.

As I know there is a story about some jews that as a result of their own work(they didnt act as god says)
they change to pigs. It is not anitisemitism.S
Since in the time of what did happened, jews considered as real follower of god.The reason was their sin.
and apes about christian??? could you adreess me? I know this verse that christian saints considered as important people, and considering more christians for their saints. Also christians jews and zarastorian and some other religions are considered as acceptable somehow.

But my point is something else.

Originally Posted by farzad didehvar

As I know there is a story about some jews that as a result of their own work(they didnt act as god says)
they change to pigs. It is not anitisemitism.S
Since in the time of what did happened, jews considered as real follower of god.The reason was their sin.
and apes about christian??? could you adreess me? I know this verse that christian saints considered as important people, and considering more christians for their saints. Also christians jews and zarastorian and some other religions are considered as acceptable somehow.

But my point is something else.

If your point is something else, you have not made that point clear.

Sure, you can argue that the passages of the Quran are not anti-semitism. I don't care. The point is that some people take it that way and they are offended. This is the exact basis on which you argue for banning The Satanic Verses.
I could also argue that The Satanic Verses is not anti-Muslim. In fact, that argument has been made here.
The Satanic Verses controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One of the lawyers involved, Geoffrey Robertson QC, rehearsed the arguments and replies made when 13 Muslim barristers had lodged a formal indictment against Rushdie for the crime of blasphemous libel: it was said that God was described in the book as “the Destroyer of Man”, yet He is described as such in the Old Testament and the Book of Revelation, especially of men who are unbelievers or enemies of the Jews; that the book contained criticisms of the prophet Abraham, yet the Islamic, Christian and Jewish traditions themselves see Abraham as not without fault and deserving of criticism; that Rushdie referred to Mohammed as “Mahound”, a conjurer, a magician and a false prophet, yet these remarks are made by a drunken apostate, a character with whom neither reader nor author has any sympathy; that the book insults the wives of the Prophet by having whores use their names, yet the wives are explicitly said to be chaste and the adoption of their names by whores is to symbolise the corruption of the city then being described (perhaps symbolising Mecca in its pre-Islamic state); that the book vilified the companions of the Prophet, calling them “bums from Persia” and “clowns”, yet the character saying this is a hack poet hired to write propaganda against the Prophet and does not reflect the author’s beliefs; that the book criticised Islam for having too many rules and seeking to control every aspect of life, yet while characters in the book do make such remarks these cannot constitute blasphemy since they do not vilify God or the Prophet. This case led to the abolition of the crime of blasphemy in English law

So, the way it appears to me is that you are asking for special consideration for the Quran, which you are not giving to other writings. The only basis you have given for the special consideration is that extremists will be offended and start killing people.

1. What is the point?
The point is:

"Rigth now there are some a few clear problems, how to solve them by potentials of liberal democracy ideas as prevailing idea
in the world?
The rigth answer is not saying "potentially we have the other problems", to paralyize the ability of this prevailing idea.When
we do this we open the way for everything and chaos.

2.About jews the stance point of muslim is clear and all muslim knows:

Ancient jews are ancient muslims, the muslims before jesus and The prophet of Islam. Their problems, positive nad negative are considered as
the problems of Muslims in that time.Nowadays they are a ethnical group with an acceptable religion.

Muslim knew these points well. The problem is not jew at all. The problem is about a country in the name of Israel, no matter their settlers are
jew or any other ethnicity. For musli it is similar that some people come and occupy one of your states ousted people and then they claimes our ancestors are
Indian that they immigrate from here to forexample mexic, and now we come back.
I dont enter this subject more, simply I wish to show we havent any problem with jewish ethnicity. What you see is overwhelming of propagandas that sometimes affects the muslims themselves.
Do not forget that Algha'edeh and Talebaanis made mainly by western power for different various reason. They are not original muslim groups.They are not traditional, too.They occupied afghnistan by helping westerners and some regional governments.

These exteremist sieze the power just after taking some action similar to what Rushdi did.
What see gypsy said is interesting, as he said she was for a period muslim, I dont go to any personal affaire, but it shows a sympathethis manner between two society that is vanished, mostly in a programized way, not accidenatally.

Originally Posted by farzad didehvar

1. What is the point?
The point is:

"Rigth now there are some a few clear problems, how to solve them by potentials of liberal democracy ideas as prevailing idea
in the world?
The rigth answer is not saying "potentially we have the other problems", to paralyize the ability of this prevailing idea.When
we do this we open the way for everything and chaos.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Who said "potentially we have the other problems"?

2.About jews the stance point of muslim is clear and all muslim knows:

Ancient jews are ancient muslims, the muslims before jesus and The prophet of Islam. Their problems, positive nad negative are considered as
the problems of Muslims in that time.Nowadays they are a ethnical group with an acceptable religion.

How arrogant of you to decide what is an "acceptable religion."

Muslim knew these points well. The problem is not jew at all. The problem is about a country in the name of Israel, no matter their settlers are
jew or any other ethnicity. For musli it is similar that some people come and occupy one of your states ousted people and then they claimes our ancestors are
Indian that they immigrate from here to forexample mexic, and now we come back.
I dont enter this subject more, simply I wish to show we havent any problem with jewish ethnicity. What you see is overwhelming of propagandas that sometimes affects the muslims themselves.
Do not forget that Algha'edeh and Talebaanis made mainly by western power for different various reason. They are not original muslim groups.They are not traditional, too.They occupied afghnistan by helping westerners and some regional governments.

These exteremist sieze the power just after taking some action similar to what Rushdi did.
What see gypsy said is interesting, as he said she was for a period muslim, I dont go to any personal affaire, but it shows a sympathethis manner between two society that is vanished, mostly in a programized way, not accidenatally.

You have dodged the question, and you are not responding to any of the points I made in my previous post. No one was discussing Israel, Al Qaeda, or the Taliban. Why did you suddenly change the subject? Can't you think of any reason we should not ban the Quran?

Harold,
You said quran seems to me is so.
Firsdt of all ypou bring in to center another problem instead of dsolving the first one.
Istead of solving a problem you propose the other problem, as you say in your culture, "tu quoque" fallacy .

Second, I am not arrogant, it is the point of view of an ideology to the other ideology, as forexample a liberal
possibly is not somehow a Democrat ( in the exact meaning of the word), but he knows his idea acceptable.

The last word of you, means:
""So, the way it appears to me is that you are asking for special consideration for the Quran, which you are not giving to other writings. The only basis you have given for the special consideration is that extremists will be offended and start killing people. "

is in the line. Yes for this resean, but more than that to stop a dangerouse game that killing people by exteremist is a part of that.

Originally Posted by farzad didehvar

Harold,
You said quran seems to me is so.
Firsdt of all ypou bring in to center another problem instead of dsolving the first one.
Istead of solving a problem you propose the other problem, as you say in your culture, "tu quoque" fallacy .

By "first problem" I assume you mean the problem of blasphemy, which Muslims find offensive. Your solution is censorship of the offending material by governments around the world. The "other problem" is passages in the Quran which other people find offensive. It is not a tu quoque fallacy to point out that your "solution" to the problem may result in the censorship of your own religious material.

I have also pointed out an opinion by legal scholars that says there was nothing in The Satanic Verses which anyone should have found offensive. Therefore your proposed solution may not have achieved the results you expect.

Second, I am not arrogant, it is the point of view of an ideology to the other ideology, as forexample a liberal
possibly is not somehow a Democrat ( in the exact meaning of the word), but he knows his idea acceptable.

But you think there are religions which are not acceptable, correct?

The last word of you, means:
""So, the way it appears to me is that you are asking for special consideration for the Quran, which you are not giving to other writings. The only basis you have given for the special consideration is that extremists will be offended and start killing people. "

is in the line. Yes for this resean, but more than that to stop a dangerouse game that killing people by exteremist is a part of that.

Why not just stop killing people?

First of all what did I say is not censorship, it is "marked as offensive" or more exact "considered as offensive"
"Considered possibly as offensive" so it shouldnt be in public to be propaganded, but any one could find texts
if he wishes, for example in some liberary, by knowing that it is under debate, and there is a special debate for that,
if he wishes he could follow that too, to know does writer make any point or not?What was his real purpose.
It is not first time that we have such considerations, we have similar problem about halucast, and about it
there is a real censorship in many western countries that are under liberalism measures.
It is much more rational these problems, the problems that makes real harsh problems in societies be under a
unified regulation, before the situation get worse.

The centeral idea is not restriction although there is a weak form of restriction in purpose idea.
The centeral idea is:

When you purpose something that realy has an impact we should permit the others have discussions about it.
This needs your discussion have at least two points:

1.Be logical
2.As less offensive as possible.

Rushdi words contradicts both of them, and it leads any discusion to an impass so it is insultive and it close the way to a real discussion.
Much more worse is the result of his words, as we discussed.


He should be in front of a special court, a court that has nothing to do with executing, taking in prison,.... .

A court of intelectuals.

What did you do as an intelectual?As an academic award winner. What was the result of your work?

An open court that juries will be the people in the world.A court that possibly never be ended.