Islamic Justice: girl lashed for being raped; rapist pardoned

[.lava]

Unfortunately, our Muslim friend has become unresponsive.

TC

your skills of assuming is impressively wrong. i was actually typing my words for you, you silly goose


.

 

[.lava]

Is that a yes or a no?

TC

you haven't answered my question either. i asked first, answer then. how could you prove a rape if there was no physical damage?



.

 

[Thought Criminal]

your skills of assuming is impressively wrong. i was actually typing my words for you, you silly goose


.

I don't mean that you went silent, I meant that your statements did not respond to my arguments. I've asked direct questions that you've dodged instead of giving me a simple answer.

Does it take four male witnesses to prove a woman was raped?

Does a woman who accuses a man of rape subject herself to punishment?

Is a man allowed to beat and rape his own wife?

These are the kinds of questions I've asked, but you're not answering.

TC

 

[Thought Criminal]

you haven't answered my question either. i asked first, answer then. how could you prove a rape if there was no physical damage?



.

Incorrect.

I suggested having three male witnesses (as opposed to four), and asked if that would be sufficient to convince you.

TC

 

[kai]

There is no unified Islam, either, but each sect believes that it is correct. All of these versions of Sharia come from Islamic scripture and doctrine. They differ in interpretation, as all religious beliefs do.

TC

Thats right so any Muslim that gives his or her opinion on this incident carries about as much weight as a non Mulsims interpretation. Except to enlighten people to the fact there is not true Islamic state or true Sharia at this moment in time.

 

[Thought Criminal]

Thats right so any Muslim that gives his or her opinion on this incident carries about as much weight as a non Mulsims interpretation. Except to enlighten people to the fact there is not true Islamic state or true Sharia at this moment in time.

If someone says they're Southern Baptist, we would understandably conclude that they endorse their sect's beliefs unless they said otherwise. For example, we would conclude they were probably against equal rights for gays. In the same way, if someone says they're Muslim, we would understandably conclude that they endorse their sect's beliefs unless they said otherwise. For example, we would conclude that they were probably in favor of Islamic law.

If someone announces membership in a group but then immediately disassociates themselves from a particular aspect, this protects them from guilt by association. It does nothing for the group, though.

TC

 

[.lava]

Atheism is morally neutral: it says nothing about what is right or wrong to do. On the other hand, religions such as Islam make vast moral claims. This turns a factual error - theism - into a moral one.

morally neutral?...bite me! so as an atheist you are morally neutral, so what are you defending here exactly?

In the case of Islam, there are many examples of how it is immoral towards women, gays, non-Muslims and so on. But to understand its errors, you need to be an objective and independent thinker, which is the opposite of submitting yourself. You need to be an adult who makes their own decisions, not a child who obeys their parents.

i see no errors in Islam itself. i see error in applications.

you need to be a free thinker which is opposite of submitting yourself? wow that sounds logical, isn't it? this is illogcal though if you know what submission is. you can't submit yourself if you do not know what or whom you are submitting to. you got to ask questions, you got to use your intellect which Qur'an invites people to more than dozen times. but ignorance of people are being abused as i tried to say before. leaders scare them so some Muslims consider simply asking questions as having doubts. not all questions raise from doubt. i ask my physics teacher questions too but i don't doubt rules of physics. i just try to have a better understanding. besides, what's point of having free will, conscience and intellect if you don't use them?

This is a great burden, and not everyone is willing to take it on. Instead, they trade the childhood authority figure of the parent for the equally childish authority figure of God, as explained by those who speak for God. In this way, they submit themselves to a life of intellectual slavery.

TC

well, first of all you don't believe in God. therefor i need you to explain me how come you say such a thing as "speaking for God"



.

 

[.lava]

Incorrect.

I suggested having three male witnesses (as opposed to four), and asked if that would be sufficient to convince you.

TC

you said not all rape incident leave physical damage and under Sharia it is difficult to prove it. so i ask you this:

in your nation or anywhere on Earth where people live under other rules...how is it a rape proved without physical damage?



.

 

[kai]

If someone says they're Southern Baptist, we would understandably conclude that they endorse their sect's beliefs unless they said otherwise. For example, we would conclude they were probably against equal rights for gays. In the same way, if someone says they're Muslim, we would understandably conclude that they endorse their sect's beliefs unless they said otherwise. For example, we would conclude that they were probably in favor of Islamic law.

If someone announces membership in a group but then immediately disassociates themselves from a particular aspect, this protects them from guilt by association. It does nothing for the group, though.

TC

Ok but if someone says their a Christian it doesn't make them a southern baptist or mean that they have even heard of them.

To be a Muslim would indeed lead me to believe that they were in favour of Sharia but not necessarily any version of Sharia that is extant today.Once you understand the diversity in Sharia from Saudi to bangladesh you understand the generalistaion.

 

[Thought Criminal]

morally neutral?...bite me! so as an atheist you are morally neutral, so what are you defending here exactly?

I never said I was morally neutral. I'm not. In fact, I try to be morally good. But atheism, in itself, is morally neutral. It has no moral value whatsoever. It doesn't tell us to do good or bad or anything at all. It's just a lack of belief in God.

i see no errors in Islam itself. i see error in applications.

Very bad. What you're doing here is giving Islam a permanent excuse. Whatever you find in it that you must admit is bad, you can claim is just a bad application. It make Islam unfalsifiable, therefore worthless.

you need to be a free thinker which is opposite of submitting yourself? wow that sounds logical, isn't it? this is illogcal though if you know what submission is. you can't submit yourself if you do not know what or whom you are submitting to. you got to ask questions, you got to use your intellect which Qur'an invites people to more than dozen times. but ignorance of people are being abused as i tried to say before. leaders scare them so some Muslims consider simply asking questions as having doubts. not all questions raise from doubt. i ask my physics teacher questions too but i don't doubt rules of physics. i just try to have a better understanding. besides, what's point of having free will, conscience and intellect if you don't use them?

A free thinker holds beliefs but is not loyal to them. When the available evidence changes, so do the beliefs. But a True Believer, such as yourself, doesn't so much hold beliefs as they are held by their beliefs. They are prisoners to their commitment to keep on believing, no matter what the evidence says.

well, first of all you don't believe in God. therefor i need you to explain me how come you say such a thing as "speaking for God"
.

While children obey their parents (as well as other guardians and authority figures), adults can't obey God, simply because God doesn't exist. Instead, they obey those who claim to speak for God, such as imams.

The role of priests as substitute parents for infantilized adults is even more obvious in Christian terminology, where they are addressed by the title of "Father". In short, religion is based on taking a child's view of the universe - dominated by their creator who they must obey - and imposing on adults to control them.

TC

 

[Kerr]

you haven't answered my question either. i asked first, answer then. how could you prove a rape if there was no physical damage?



.

By talking to the victim, for example. Rape does not need to be brutal enough for physical damage to appear, know cases where that has happened, including one where someone very close to me was the victim. It does not make it less of a crime.

 

[Thought Criminal]

By talking to the victim, for example. Rape does not need to be brutal enough for physical damage to appear, know cases where that has happened, including one where someone very close to me was the victim. It does not make it less of a crime.

I would also suggest talking to the accused. See if they have a credible alibi, if they stick to their story or keep changing it, if they admit to means, motive and opportunity, and so on.

It's not trivial to prove rape, but it doesn't take four male witnesses, either.

TC

 

[nameless]

how could you prove a rape if there was no physical damage?



.

to prove a rape, it requires only 5 witnesses, isn't It, lava?

 

[Kerr]

I would also suggest talking to the accused. See if they have a credible alibi, if they stick to their story or keep changing it, if they admit to means, motive and opportunity, and so on.

It's not trivial to prove rape, but it doesn't take four male witnesses, either.

TC

Of course. I am just more concerned about the victim, partly due to the situation I half mentioned about... basically I am biased because someone close to me was raped.

 

[Thought Criminal]

Of course. I am just more concerned about the victim, partly due to the situation I half mentioned about... basically I am biased because someone close to me was raped.

Of course.

TC

 

[.lava]

I never said I was morally neutral. I'm not. In fact, I try to be morally good. But atheism, in itself, is morally neutral. It has no moral value whatsoever. It doesn't tell us to do good or bad or anything at all. It's just a lack of belief in God.

i am sorry but i don't believe that a human being could be himself without any beliefs. even if you say that there is nothing right or wrong that would be the right thing for you to believe. so...

Very bad. What you're doing here is giving Islam a permanent excuse. Whatever you find in it that you must admit is bad, you can claim is just a bad application. It make Islam unfalsifiable, therefore worthless.

excuse for what?

A free thinker holds beliefs but is not loyal to them. When the available evidence changes, so do the beliefs. But a True Believer, such as yourself, doesn't so much hold beliefs as they are held by their beliefs. They are prisoners to their commitment to keep on believing, no matter what the evidence says.

again, you're assuming. assuming as if i have evidence against Islam. well, i don't. evidences would not change anyway. otherwise they would not be evidence, don't you think?

so, you are not that free thinker when it comes to religion, are you? you are a prisoner to your commitment to keep on disbelieving, no matter what the evidence says...

While children obey their parents (as well as other guardians and authority figures), adults can't obey God, simply because God doesn't exist. Instead, they obey those who claim to speak for God, such as imams.

some Imams speak for God, some Imams speak for satan. as a belief in a god could not creat a god, your disbelief in God would make God vanish away. but as i said before, no need to discuss over this. you should be respected as i should be. you don't believe there is God so every single negative detail you coincide here and there is used by your mental system to approve your disbelief. i get that

so adults can't obey God. would that make me a teenager or a baby again?


.

 

[Thought Criminal]

f

i am sorry but i don't believe that a human being could be himself without any beliefs. even if you say that there is nothing right or wrong that would be the right thing for you to believe. so...

You seem to have trouble understanding me. I said very clearly that, while atheism itself is morally neutral, I am not. I do have beliefs about morality, but they have nothing to do with God. Morality is about us, anyhow, so there's no role for a God.

excuse for what?

Excuse for the fact that Islam supports immorality. Whenever you see this, you can pretend that Islam is perfect, but its practitioners are not. In fact, neither is perfect.

again, you're assuming. assuming as if i have evidence against Islam. well, i don't. evidences would not change anyway. otherwise they would not be evidence, don't you think?

Of course you have evidence for Islam being immoral. I know you do because I presented it. Islam allows a husband to beat and rape his wife. If that's not immoral, what is?

so, you are not that free thinker when it comes to religion, are you? you are a prisoner to your commitment to keep on disbelieving, no matter what the evidence says...

My commitment is towards a believing the evidence. Since there is no evidence for God, this leads me to remain an atheist. But I have no commitment to atheism itself.

some Imams speak for God, some Imams speak for satan. as a belief in a god could not creat a god, your disbelief in God would make God vanish away. but as i said before, no need to discuss over this. you should be respected as i should be. you don't believe there is God so every single negative detail you coincide here and there is used by your mental system to approve your disbelief. i get that

All imams say they speak for God, since it's their job to interpret the Quoran and tradition. In reality, they speak only for themselves, When an imam says something great, they have themselves to thank. And when they say something horrible, they have themselves to blame. Of course, when you follow these people, you have only yourself to blame for handing over your free will to a fake.

No, I don't think theism deserves any respect at all. Falsehoods should not be respected. I will not pretend otherwise.

so adults can't obey God. would that make me a teenager or a baby again?

Nobody can obey God, because there is no God. Instead, they obey the people who claim they speak for God. In this way, they become like children again. But where a child, especially a young one, may lack the intelligence and judgement to make all their own decisions, the adult has no excuse. By analogy, it's fine for infants to wear diapers but shameful for adults.

I'm going to go in a bit. Perhaps we'll pick this up another time. But if so, you must learn to read more carefully.

TC

 

[.lava]

By talking to the victim, for example. Rape does not need to be brutal enough for physical damage to appear, know cases where that has happened, including one where someone very close to me was the victim. It does not make it less of a crime.

i am sorry to hear that. i never said it was less of a crime. please stop this. it is not even my intention to make it look like less criminal as i ask how it is proven when there was no physical damage. here once a woman was drugged and raped. there were no physical damage but there was a video type where you can see she was not even awake. as a result man is arrested. i mean this kind of stuff. with today's technology you would not need witnesses to find out if someone was raped or who is the rapists. therefor i find it illogical people here keep asking about witnesses. but there could be incidents where a woman can't prove she was raped.

if it is possible to make sure simply by talking to victim, then it requires educated people to talk to victim. they must be experts


.

 

[Thought Criminal]

i am sorry to hear that. i never said it was less of a crime. please stop this. it is not even my intention to make it look like less criminal as i ask how it is proven when there was no physical damage. here once a woman was drugged and raped. there were no physical damage but there was a video type where you can see she was not even awake. as a result man is arrested. i mean this kind of stuff. with today's technology you would not need witnesses to find out if someone was raped or who is the rapists. therefor i find it illogical people here keep asking about witnesses. but there could be incidents where a woman can't prove she was raped.

if it is possible to make sure simply by talking to victim, then it requires educated people to talk to victim. they must be experts


.

We keep bringing up the idea of four male witnesses because, according to some versions of Sharia, these are required in order to prove rape.

TC

 

[kai]

We keep bringing up the idea of four male witnesses because, according to some versions of Sharia, these are required in order to prove rape.

TC

why don't you start a new thread about Sharia your perceived view of sharia or whichever country is using a versiojn of sharia or about Rape in Bangladesh or wherever . Instead of badgering Lava.