Islamic Justice: girl lashed for being raped; rapist pardoned

[.lava]

If I'm wrong, correct me. Were you not indoctrinated in Islam from early childhood?

TC

you're wrong, i am not



.

 

[Thought Criminal]

you're wrong, i am not



.

Ok, so which religion were you indoctrinated in before you were converted to Islam?

TC

 

[Thought Criminal]

i really need to stop talking now cos your question makes me naughty. yep, that is my weakness, feel like i wanna mock you but i am not allowed to mock people

is CNN wrong? is CNN wrong? :areyoucra is CNN wrong?...:angel2:


.

Rather than use a single source, try this: Pakistans Islamic Sharia law requires female victim of rape to have four male witnesses, or she faces prosecution for adultery. « LawReader

TC

 

[.lava]

Rather than use a single source, try this: Pakistans Islamic Sharia law requires female victim of rape to have four male witnesses, or she faces prosecution for adultery. « LawReader

TC

let me put it this way...according to Qur'an, to claim someone committed adultery, there must be four witnesses


.

 

[Thought Criminal]

let me put it this way...according to Qur'an, to claim someone committed adultery, there must be four witnesses


.

So if a woman is raped by a (married?) man in front of only three witnesses, he gets off without punishment?

TC

 

[.lava]

Ok, so which religion were you indoctrinated in before you were converted to Islam?

TC

what's this? OK, define your favorite word here...indoctrinate...and tell me, must religion be involved to indoctrinate children? people who follow no religion don't have effect on their kids? if yes, how so?



.

 

[Thought Criminal]

what's this? OK, define your favorite word here...indoctrinate...and tell me, must religion be involved to indoctrinate children? people who follow no religion don't have effect on their kids? if yes, how so?



.

As a practical matter, I don't think religions can be successful without childhood indoctrination. Indoctrination is not education, it is the opposite. It is forcing someone to believe.

On the other hand, atheism is just the default stance; we are born into it. There is no need to teach anything.

TC

 

[.lava]

So if a woman is raped by a (married?) man in front of only three witnesses, he gets off without punishment?

TC

rape is a crime. adultery is a sin. when two people commit adultery both agrees. in rape, someone forces the other physically. therefor rape is not equal adultery



.

 

[kai]

I don't know that there really is a fact of the matter regarding whether their actions were truly Islamic. I know that some Muslims say it was and at least some say otherwise, but I have no basis for deciding which ones are correct. There are primary and secondary scriptures, plus years of divergent traditions, and I can imagine a plausible case made for both sides.

What's important here is that these actions were not merely done by Muslims but in the name of Islam, which means it reflects on all Muslims who do not disavow them. So If a Muslim tells me that they find those actions reprehensible and deny that they are allowed (much less required) by Islam, then that's enough information to let me decide that this particular Muslim does not share the blame. However, it tells me nothing about other Muslims, and less than nothing about whether the blameless one was correct.

TC

OK that about as good as it gets

 

[kai]

No, there would not necessarily be physical damage. Rape is sex without consent, not sex with physical force. If a man tells a woman that he will kill her if she doesn't have sex with him, she may well be scared enough not to resist, but that doesn't mean she consented. After all, it was under duress.

In any case, the relation is that, to the extent that Sharia makes it hard for a woman to prove rape, it penalizes the victim.

TC

Then you would have to address the particular version of Sharia that is relevent to this incident in Bangladesh. I cant find out much about it really.

 

[Thought Criminal]

rape is a crime. adultery is a sin. when two people commit adultery both agrees. in rape, someone forces the other physically. therefor rape is not equal adultery



.

Is that a yes or a no?

TC

 

[Sunstone]

What's important here is that these actions were not merely done by Muslims but in the name of Islam, which means it reflects on all Muslims who do not disavow them. So If a Muslim tells me that they find those actions reprehensible and deny that they are allowed (much less required) by Islam, then that's enough information to let me decide that this particular Muslim does not share the blame. However, it tells me nothing about other Muslims, and less than nothing about whether the blameless one was correct.

TC

That may be your standard, but I think it's an unusual standard for people to apply to folks of their own religion. For instance, I don't see many Christians assume that other Christians support Fred Phelps unless those other Christians expressly denounce Phelps. But under your standard, every Christian who did not denounce Fred Phelps to you would share in whatever you blamed Fred Phelps for, no?

 

[Thought Criminal]

Then you would have to address the particular version of Sharia that is relevent to this incident in Bangladesh. I cant find out much about it really.

If you look at the links I posted, it becomes clear that this is about Sharia, not Bangladesh.

TC

 

[kai]

heres a rather worrying article about women in Pakistan

Article: "Rape and Hudood Ordinance: Perversions of Justice in the Name of Islam"

 

[Thought Criminal]

heres a rather worrying article about women in Pakistan

Article: "Rape and Hudood Ordinance: Perversions of Justice in the Name of Islam"

Ah, good link. This article touches on all the key points, including the need for four male witnesses, the practice of blaming the rape victim, and the notion that this version of Sharia is a "misapplication".

Unfortunately, our Muslim friend has become unresponsive.

TC

 

[kai]

If you look at the links I posted, it becomes clear that this is about Sharia, not Bangladesh.

TC

There is no unified "sharia" its different in whichever society applies it. In this case a village in Bangladesh.

 

[Thought Criminal]

There is no unified "sharia" its different in whichever society applies it.

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

 

[Thought Criminal]

That may be your standard, but I think it's an unusual standard for people to apply to folks of their own religion. For instance, I don't see many Christians assume that other Christians support Fred Phelps unless those other Christians expressly denounce Phelps. But under your standard, every Christian who did not denounce Fred Phelps to you would share in whatever you blamed Fred Phelps for, no?

That's not a great example, because Phelps is recognized as an extremist, so we don't expect most Christians to agree with him. A better example would be telling me you're a Southern Baptist without immediately saying that you support equal rights for gays, I would be right to assume that you oppose them, as that is the official stance of your church.

TC

 

[.lava]

As a practical matter, I don't think religions can be successful without childhood indoctrination. Indoctrination is not education, it is the opposite. It is forcing someone to believe.

On the other hand, atheism is just the default stance; we are born into it. There is no need to teach anything.

TC

as a practical matter, you can not make people believe in things unless they have a heart for it to follow. each person follows his own path according to his desires. that is why some religious use and abuse name of religion to justify their very own actions as if their desires and weakness was required and fed by religion. they try to hide behind religion. yet if you knew your religion well enough then you can easily distinguish what's right and what's wrong. yet if you are not then you'd be depending on certain people who have desire to lead people in the direction they want, in the exact direction where they have benefits from. and you are wrong. purpose of religion is not worldly. but today, everything about religion seems to be a worldly matter. even religious who give fatwas and lead masses do not think of God, instead they paly God and make up laws. their fight, their goal is also worldly but religion is not, is not supposed to be. noone would turn to anything that does not love him back. everyone wants love and wants to be loved. now there is a whole picture with everything in it like all the laws, punishments, pain, pleasure, heaven, hell....etc everything, except for love. so how many options are there? your parents were loving and caring Muslims...then how could you hate Islam? but still, you could be an atheist but you would not hate Muslims either.
your parents were loving and caring atheists, then how could you say atheism leads people to cruelty? you would not but it is possible their angle was not satistying for you and you'd search more for your own and maybe convert to relgiion with respect to love of your parents. you would not hate or betrayal their compassion but still you would chose your own path and i happens if you think it never happens, you should seek more.
maybe your parents were cruel, injust and loveless Muslims....then no matter how you were indoctrinated by so-called Islamic stuff, you'd be pushed away from it. or you would hold on to it even more because of your love for God but you would stay away from your family. or maybe you would hate everything about religion. you would hate it so much so you would do anything that religion says it is wrong, just to improve your path against it. rebel comes right after oppression so you might turned out to be someone else that you consider as yourself but you'd simply be a reaction to oppression rather than being yourself truely.
i am sure there are more and more options. truth is you can not make an acceptable generalization on this one. anything is possible and it is all depend on individual himself



.

 

[Thought Criminal]

as a practical matter, you can not make people believe in things unless they have a heart for it to follow. each person follows his own path according to his desires. that is why some religious use and abuse name of religion to justify their very own actions as if their desires and weakness was required and fed by religion. they try to hide behind religion. yet if you knew your religion well enough then you can easily distinguish what's right and what's wrong. yet if you are not then you'd be depending on certain people who have desire to lead people in the direction they want, in the exact direction where they have benefits from. and you are wrong. purpose of religion is not worldly. but today, everything about religion seems to be a worldly matter. even religious who give fatwas and lead masses do not think of God, instead they paly God and make up laws. their fight, their goal is also worldly but religion is not, is not supposed to be. noone would turn to anything that does not love him back. everyone wants love and wants to be loved. now there is a whole picture with everything in it like all the laws, punishments, pain, pleasure, heaven, hell....etc everything, except for love. so how many options are there? your parents were loving and caring Muslims...then how could you hate Islam? but still, you could be an atheist but you would not hate Muslims either.
your parents were loving and caring atheists, then how could you say atheism leads people to cruelty? you would not but it is possible their angle was not satistying for you and you'd search more for your own and maybe convert to relgiion with respect to love of your parents. you would not hate or betrayal their compassion but still you would chose your own path and i happens if you think it never happens, you should seek more.
maybe your parents were cruel, injust and loveless Muslims....then no matter how you were indoctrinated by so-called Islamic stuff, you'd be pushed away from it. or you would hold on to it even more because of your love for God but you would stay away from your family. or maybe you would hate everything about religion. you would hate it so much so you would do anything that religion says it is wrong, just to improve your path against it. rebel comes right after oppression so you might turned out to be someone else that you consider as yourself but you'd simply be a reaction to oppression rather than being yourself truely.
i am sure there are more and more options. truth is you can not make an acceptable generalization on this one. anything is possible and it is all depend on individual himself



.

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.

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.

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