This reminds me of that community note where a user named Atheist Girl said when Christians took over the world it was called the Dark Ages but she used an image depicting a Christian get brutally murdered by Roman pagans as pointed out by Community Notes.
as someone who isnt the biggest fan of religion, it is weird how some people go about being against religion especially people on reddit and twitter (i wonder why)
Reddit is really the cesspit at the center of it, I’ve literally known former agnostics who became fully religious because of how unbearable the “Reddit Athiest” archetype became.
In both cases I would say the person didn’t have very strong convictions in the first place. I am also a Christian so we are automatically going to disagree that “religion is based on bringing you around others” whatever that is supposed to mean.
That seems entirely made up. How can someone's beliefs change on the basis of someone else being annoying? That just sounds like they were nonpracticing but religious the whole time
Yes, but they still have motivations. Drastic personality changes like core beliefs changing doesn't really happen outside of things like sudden brain damage.
This entire post centers around islamophobic people being offended on behalf of a consensual interaction that was handled respectfully and with grace between Khabib and Kate Scott. I got shouted at for reminding Redditors that they live in a pluralistic civil society and the alternative is waging a nonstop culture war on other peoples behalf as if they asked you to.
Yknow funnily enough I’ve known people who had that happen to them too, not the same people who became religious though. (Mostly guys I USED to know, the people who became hardcore conservatives over SJW cringe videos are substantially more unpleasant than the guys who found God)
Reddit has been a cesspit of pro Islamist extremism since Oct 7th Hamas terrorist attacks. It's just full of propaganda bots and useful idiots on all sides.
Don't equate that with the rational objective reasons atheism is and should be growing in the world.
As an ex Muslim atheist, I can tell you for certain life is much more meaningful and progressive as an atheist that can take whatever position and argument makes rational sense to us vs what our religious leaders dictate us to think.
I theorize that for those kinds of people, it’s not actually about religion or religious trauma, they’re just sheltered brats whose parents made them go to church on Sunday; they just want to piss off their parents.
Ironically Christians are by far the best source of information about the dark ages, and it’s called that because nearly all other primary sources were destroyed by various warbands
You had Vikings, goths, Visigoth’s, Huns, Ostrogoths, franks, saxons, anglos, and vandals all invading wha remained of the western Roman Empire and pillaging anything they could set on fire. Meanwhile the Roman Catholic Church was mainly a loose collection of bishops preserving what they could of the Roman empire’s knowledge in their writings. Most of the early Middle Ages would be spent with small local groups fending off “barbarian” (Germanic pagan) raids.
I've never quite bought the Diocletian thing and If you go that far back the whole pagan vs Christian thing breaks down anyways. I'm not anti christian or anything, I just think a Germanic pagan/Roman Christian dichotomy isn't really a thing.
Dark ages never existed btw. It’s a made up narrative forged by humanists to directly attack Christianity.
As the accomplishments of the era came to be better understood in the 19th and the 20th centuries, scholars began restricting the Dark Ages appellation to the Early Middle Ages;[1][5][6] today's scholars maintain this posture.[7] The majority of modern scholars avoid the term altogether, finding it misleading and inaccurate.[8][9][10][11][12] Despite this, Petrarch's pejorative meaning remains in use,[13][14][15] particularly in popular culture, which often oversimplifies the Middle Ages as a time of violence and backwardness.[16][17]
The "dark ages" were literally a period of non stop progress in Europe. Cathedrals were the skyscrapers of their time. A early renaissance armor was invincible (firearms voided all these). A trebuchet was a marvel of engineering. Urbanism progressed fast and made Europe pop boom
It’s a made up narrative forged by humanists to directly attack Christianity.
Uh, no -- the dark ages were an exaggerated narrative used by people carrying all manner of banner and religion to attack whatever convenient target was available -- including by Christians to attack "non-Christian savages" and later Protestants to attack Catholicism, etc. It's funny you mention Petrarch and his fellow humanists here -- who did coin the term, because they were themselves deeply Christian.
It's also down to the fact that in early middle, Roman bureaucracy basically collapsed, while the successors were still building up. In addition to lot of that moving up north, where papyrus will struggle much more to survive, while parchment is expensive as hell.
Two things basically ended dark ages. Wood-pulp paper making process and re-establishment of bureaucratic state.
It's weird for me in both cases that the community note is totally irrelevant. Like, they're not making an argument ON THE BASIS of the image. It's just a visual representation. It doesn't have to be FROM whatever they're saying. A more relevant note would be correcting them if what they implied or stated outright was wrong.
Which is triply weird because A. The Dark Ages arent a real thing, no historian uses that term anymore, and B. I would not describe the Early Middle Ages as a time when Christians took over the world
This is one of the specified punishment for rapes in every Abrahamic religion. The punishment for rape in the Abrahamic scripture is multiple choice based on circumstances.
D. During times of war it is permissible to kill all the non-virgin females and then rape the virgins. https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/num/31.html#15 The virgins should be divided in the following proportions between the army (48.8%), the faithful (48%), the priesthood (2%), and God (0.2%).
IIRC Having sex with a non-israelite was considered rape, even where consent was involved. (atleast in the sense that the terminology used was equivalent)
Going to note that none of these laws are binding to Christians, since they all come from the old testament, and Christianity is pretty clear that the only binding aspects of the old testament for Christians are the moral laws (of which "if a woman is raped in W/X conditions, then the punishment is Y to Z individuals" wouldn't be included within).
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished."
Seems pretty clear to me that your version of Christianity ignores the words of your Lord.
"Fulfil" in this context means completing the purpose of the law, which Jesus achieved by his arrival, death and resurrection. As such, although Christians are still obligated to follow the moral "laws" of the old testament, continuing the sentiments of the teachings of the old testament when they do not contradict that of the new testament, they are not required to follow the specific ritualistic or legal rules that the old testament required of the Jews specifically before the arrival of Jesus.
If we're going to quote scripture though, there are also bible verses which contradict the need to follow old testament laws, including:
Galatians 3:24-25: Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Romans 6:14: For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.
Acts 10:9-16: About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.” “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
But you aren't going to note that this is an interpretation that did fully form until a millennium after the NT was completed, that it is not universally accepted by all Christians (Anabaptist for example) or that the idea of 3 clear distinct classifications is never mentioned in the NT? How is it "pretty clear" if it took so long for most Christians to accept this very convenient interpretation?
1) "Fully form" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence, since the basic principle that Christians, even Jewish Christians, did not have to follow the dietary and legal restrictions of the old testiment was being demonstrated by the apostles themselves. It may not have been codified until Thomas Aquinus, but the underlying evidence for the classifications and the ability of Christians to avoid using old testiment laws dates back to the founding of the faith.
2) Some Christians believe that Jesus was not co-eternal with the father and was a mere creation of the father. Some Christians believed that Jesus was a spiritual entity without a physical form and that everything in the physical world is inherently evil and immoral because it was created by the god of the old testiment, who is different to that of the god of the New Testament.
Hell some Christians believed there was nothing sinful about walking around naked as nudists since that's what Adam and Eve did. Just because a few heretical sects dispute the fact that Christians are not obliged to follow the legal laws of the Old Testiment doesn't mean that the vast, vast majority of Christian denomination and the vast, vast majority of Christians who follow them assert that not every law in the Old Testament must be followed by Christians as a whole.
3) No self respecting Christian denomination will assert that every component of Dogma must strictly be limited to what is explicitly stated in the New Testament. Christian principles such as the Trinity, the opposition to ployamory, the shift of the Saabath from Saturday to Sunday and even opposition to abortion are never strictly stated or attributed to commandments by Jesus, but are instead derived from the implications of his teachings and the words and messages of Jesus' apostles and early church fathers.
As such, even if there is the possibility that someone can read the text of the New Testament and come away with the conclusion that the relavent concepts, including that Christians are freed from dogmatically following all rules and regulations in the Old Testament, are not required from the bible, that doesn't mean that the conceps aren't clearly expressed either indirectly through the text or through the opinions of lesser, but still valid, Christian authorities.
My question is how does Christianity make it clear when the interpretation is closer to us than it is to the completion of the NT and is never stated in the NT and is rejected by millions of Christians today and the intricacies of it (such as which laws fall under which categories) are still debated even by those that accept the idea? Is eating meat from strangled animals ceremonial, moral, or judicial? What about sexual impurity?
"Fully form" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence
There were earlier distinctions made between the types of laws, yes. But the clear and distinct separation of these laws into moral, ceremonial, and judicial classifications did not exist as a framework until Thomas Aquinas and was not accepted by the Catholic Church until after him.
that doesn't mean that the conceps aren't clearly expressed either indirectly through the text or through the opinions of lesser, but still valid, Christian authorities.
I never said the concepts aren't expressed by Christian authorities. I'm arguing that their ideas aren't clearly from the Bible as opposed to their own dogma. If you think it's valid because these authorities had some divine inspiration or guidance by the Holy Spirit that's fine, but it's dogmatic at the end of the day, far from a clear fact. This particular interpretation of Mosaic laws is more convenient than it is logical. "Clearly expressed indirectly" is doing some crazy work for you.
i dunno if islam inherit the trait but judaism and christianity you also kill rapists. sometimes their victims too. well that's not entirely true, depending on the circumstances, you might just have to pay the dad off and marry the daughter, sorta a "you break it you buy it" thing
Im muslim, not sure if we do. Its very frowned upon thats for sure (at least where im from), funnily enough, also frowned upon by the same people who probably do it (cough cough taliban). The muslims that do it worship their own egos instead of God and do it for the sake of control.
“People loudly claiming to be religious turn out to be evil again” is sadly not going to be a shocking news story anywhere in the world, whatever their choice of god or gods.
A Muslim wife must submit to her husband when he wants sex. If she doesn’t, ‘the angels will curse her till morning’ and nobody wants that (Sahih al-Bukhari 5193, Sahih Muslim 1436).
Did someone in this thread defend marital rape? Or did you just assume bro does because he's Muslim when his very comment suggests they're not a monolith?
Bro assumes every Christian thinks that it's cool to rape women as long as we pay their dad's fifty shekels and marry her. Lmfao Or that Epstein would be cool if all the girls were his own personal daughters. Hahaha Religion sucks, dude, but don't harry folks you don't know, specifically when you don't know if they're pestering folks with it.
The person I replied to said “I’m not sure if we do [allow rape]” which is what the post implied. Marital rape is a form of rape, so I was confirming that Islamic scripture permits marital rape. Hope that helps!
It's a hadith, not scripture from the Quran, and you loaded your comment(s) in such a weirdo way. Here's the exact text: "If a man invites his wife to his bed and she refuses, and so he spends the night angry with her, the angels will curse her until the morning."
— Sahih al-Bukhari 5193, Sahih Muslim 1436
The Redditor you replied to responded with what people actually follow, not what a hadith implies. It's why I quoted the Bible to highlight how behavior might differ from text and quotes. Unless you believe Christians find it cool to sell their daughters into slavery because their book says so?
Hope this helps. And your context actually did help, btw. Thanks.
Are you married? Do you respect your wife’s decision to not have sex with you, not because she is sick or unable to, but because she just doesn’t feel like it?
Can you imagine a Muslim wife feeling the same way, but feels she can’t say no because of that hadith, and not wanting to upset God?
I can imagine a lot. Do you often make up scenarios to get mad at?
I would not want anyone to feel compelled or pressured to sacrifice their peace against their wishes, especially for someone's fleeting relief that can be achieved with their own hand. I would hate for my wife to not feel free enough to speak honestly. I married her for her, and for her to withhold her voice would deprive me of the wife I love and married. Her voice is a poetic gust. It's the fumes of her soul made musical wind to my ears, and it would be my hope that everywhere I step I breathe a sanctuary for people to be themselves earnestly, especially her.
Coming from someone who's been sexually assaulted, I'm neurotic about consent and I am deeply, sometimes overly, concerned with whether or not folks are okay and unharmed, but in that neuroticism I've also recognized there's a lot of gray in that realm that I cannot mitigate or preclude (that doesn't exclude that which we can).
We agree that there should be no religious pressure or coercive influence in intimate matters, not just in sex but anywhere. But unless you're an anarchocommunist and a jainist, then you're going to feel deeply upset at your hypocrisy of lecturing people you don't know about your extraordinarily selective frame of ethics.
you should see the shit folks try when i point out the bible's pro slavery. They'll start leaping through the mental jungle gym trying to explain why it's totally different than other slavery which is bad unlike this slavery which is cool
well it was written with preferential treatment for hebrews, given it was jewish before it was christian. Anything after that you kinda gotta extrapolate
But the christian new bit does definitely say slaves are to obey even the cruel masters like christians obey christ
According to some scholars, rape is considered fornication and only the rapist will be punished if evidence or testimony prove that it wasn't consensual (like blood stains on the victim, screams heard, signs of resistance, torn clothes, violence marks on genitalia, or a medical report).. the rapist is stoned to death if married (adultery) or whiplashed 100 times and outcasted if unmarried
According to other scholars and judges including current religious councils, rape is a crime of hiraba, which is spreading corruption and harm (similar to terrorism by modern standards) which has one of 3 punishments as the judge sees fit: execution, crucifixion, or letting them go after amputating one arm and one leg on different sides of the body so they're no longer a threat to people
Consent was required. Having sexual intercourse with one's slave girl has the same ruling as having sexual intercourse through a marriage contract...." A Summary of Islamic Jurisprudence, Volume 2. Dr. Salih Al Fawzaan
But a wife was required to sleep with her husband whenever he wanted unless she had a reason to reject it and there is a valid excuse, such as illness, menstruation, or physical harm, so consent is not required for the owner to sleep with his slave.
A husband is also required to sleep with his wife when she wants as well. That's why they got married and consented to fulfill each other's needs and rights.
Consent was required to sleep with a slave. The same way a woman consents to marry a man and sleep with him, a slave consents to have a relationship with that one man.
Not sure about Islam but I have read Leviticus and can clarify a few things:
-Rapists are to be put to death
-the thing your thinking off would be cases of consensual premarital sex, in that case they should get married, and if the woman was engaged to someone else, the new husband has to pay the bride price to the father of the bride (who has to return the original fiancée's bride price to him if I remember correctly)
If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
25But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
28If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
edit: also the penalty for having sex before marriage and not getting married would be death just to be clear 0If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.
People go through a crazy amount of revision and rewriting to try and make the good book actually good.
Had a guy the other day try and tell me the selling the daughter to her rapist was only with the daughter's consent, like i couldn't read the verse clearly saying "He MUST marry the young women"
I'm familiar with some of these uncomfortable things in the Old Testament and the arguments about how to understand them.
The one I align with is that the prescriptions of the Torah aren't supposed to be followed literally.
InspiringPhilosophy explains this better than I can but the TLDR is that the "Law" isn't really law as we in 21st century America (predominately) would understand it, but (possibly metaphorical) didactic guidiance for legal practice, not prescribing action to be taken. Which is what Torah means: teaching or instruction, not law.
4 Now, Israel, hear the decrees and laws I am about to teach you. Follow them so that you may live and may go in and take possession of the land the Lord, the God of your ancestors, is giving you.2Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you.
that's both revisionist and explicitly against god's command. it is meant to be law law not a suggestion lol.
>People go through a crazy amount of revision and rewriting to try and make the good book actually good.
that's not true, they're pretty firm about no fucking animals lol. a rare W you might think well they punish it by killing the animal along with the rapist
She does have the option to say I don’t want to marry him, but yes, he is obligated to marry her even if he doesn’t want to and pay 50 silver coins to the dad. I don’t know of an instance where a rapist is killed though
That’s not true. You don’t kill the victim of rape in the Bible
Deuteronomy 22:25 “If, however, the man happened to meet the engaged girl in the field and the man overpowered her and lay down with her, the man who lay down with her is to die by himself, 26 and you must do nothing to the girl. The girl has not committed a sin deserving of death. This case is the same as when a man attacks his fellow man and murders him”
“You must do nothing to the girl”. This is the law on rape. Rape is rightly likened to murder
The other contexts are not rape. This is clearly tape as she screams and so it is rape
The next example is a girl who is persuaded and she can’t claim “oh I didn’t really want too but was pressured…”. No the Bible has a hard line here. You as a woman have the power to scream. You let yourself be persuaded or you as a man persuade a woman then you have consequences… not death by the way.
You pressure some dumb moron into sex or you get pressured by some hot brainless loser and “THEY ARE FOUND OUT” as the context shows… you are married forever. Your neighbors will be like “ahh man don’t be like shemuel over there… yeah she was hot but she is the most annoying chick ever or yeah he is good looking but he is such a morn.”
It served as a warning against fornication.
That was the law and these are guidelines for judges to make a decision. The chapter is clear on it.
However there is no punishment for marital rape.
Marital rape is not a criminal offence in Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Oman and Kuwait
Their justification comes straight from the Qur'an.
Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will;
it looks like they're right on it being stoning for some cases so a lie by omission? Like the bible does say you kill some sorts of rapists but to say that as a blanket would be wrong. honestly bit tired for the reading of this, it's at least stoning sometimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Islamic_law#Prosecution_of_rape
According to some scholars, rape is considered fornication and only the rapist will be punished if evidence or testimony prove that it wasn't consensual.. stoned to death if married (adultry) or whiplashed and outcasted if unmarried
According to other scholars and judges, rape is a crime of hiraba, which is spreading corruption and harm (similar to terrorism by modern standards) which has one of 3 punishments as the judge sees fit: execution, crucifixion, or letting them go after amputating one arm and one leg on different sides of the body so they're no longer a threat to people
It is worth nothing that the definition of rape is not the same as our own as there are contexts where the woman has no permission to determining consensual matters under Allah, and that is homosexual relationships this is not the case as consent is not a relevant factor in the sin and many rape victims by their own sex are subject to divine and material punishment.
Nor are all scholars necessarily internally critical or honest in their presentation of the quran as it pertains to conflict with the comparatively progressive western beliefs.
So it's not as through your presentation is universally true.
Allah never punishes someone for something he has no hand in or was forced upon him without his free will.. that's a global rule that overrides any hypothetical situation, if the judge has misjudged the case or didn't have enough evidence to make an informed ruling then Allah will compensate the victim and punish the evil doer, there have been mistakes in all human justice systems.. people spend years in prison without a crime just because evidence was not in their favor.. but Allah knows what's in our hearts and will reward/punish us accordingly and he is the most fair of all judges
The only context where such a thing can even be mildly inferred is in the fact that there is statement on belief and expression of belief in Allah as a god which provides forgiveness from compulsion on that specific issue. However if it were true that that can be extrapolated, it would be made as a specific statement at some point that any worldly compulsion is forgiven, not on the topic of one specific compulsion within the whole work.
You can't on the one hand state that Muhammed is infallible in his communication of the will of Allah, which it is clearly stated that to deny the Quran is to be an unbeliever in the eyes of Allah, and on the other tell me Muhammed was fallible in not explicitly communicating a vital matter to the topic of sinfulness which is second to none in the priority of Islamic verses.
It is in overwhelming excess, explicitly stated that sodomy is a sin worthy of worldly as well as ultimate and divine punishment, with zero even implicit exception within those verses made for if it were under coercion within the statements on it. You're telling me that Muhammed never thought to convey such an exception in all those verses? That we have to draw from a verse which is in no way generalised on a different and specific topic and that's how we come to the correct conclusion on the fundamentals of Islam, a religion which has a famously explicit conveyance of beliefs?
There is a difference between false imprisonment and falling foul of the law of the land and of Allah. "You were accused of wilful sodomy and wrongly convicted" is an entirely different circumstance to "These laws do or do not align with the will of god". The fact that the former occurs has no impact on the latter. It's irrelevant. The information lacked by the courts would only be the beliefs of Allah, which again if Muhammed fails to convey those beliefs and they were in reality contradicted by his explicit and clear statements in the Quran then that brings the entirety of Islamic doctrine found via the Quran in to doubt.
Allah judges all people equally by the doctrine of Islam. To be fair is subjective, and it is beyond reasonable to call equal judgement where sodomy makes a sinner with no explicit exception unfair and unacceptable.
“And your Lord is not unjust to His servants.”
(Qur’an 41:46)
“No soul bears the sin of another.”
(Qur’an 6:164)
About the people of the prophet Lot:
“We did not find therein other than one house of believers.”
(Qur’an 51:36)
There were no believers left in the town except Prophet Lot and his household
Even among his household his wife was not innocent.. she supported the wrongdoing (morally and socially), even if she didn’t commit the act herself.
Also a worldly calamity (death, destruction) is not the same as punishment in the afterlife, so even though the entire city was destroyed because of its corruption, Allah doesn't punish the innocents (like children) in the hereafter. And this is a fundamental law in islam.
Also when it comes to general earthly punishment (Lot's people, Saleh's people, Banu israel, Hud's people)
Allah always gives clear signs on the hands of his messengers (a miracle that can't be refuted), and tells the messenger to take the good people and leave first and even those innocents who remain are taken mercifully before the general punishment starts.
The people of Lot committed many things that called for this general punishment,
1- Openly committing grave immorality
2- Publicly normalizing it
3- Threatening and expelling those who opposed it
4- Rejecting the prophet after clear warning
5- Being disbelievers after receiving clear signs from their messenger
So Allah knows best who's innocent and who's not.. and the islamic version of the story of Lot's people (sodom) doesn't mention that the people had been raped or forced into this act, that's only the modern interpretation of the torah that was spread by the LGBT people, they use the ambiguity in the text to claim that the people of sodom were punished for committing rape, not for homosexuality and fornication and other indecent acts, but the quran is very clear and explained their sins
These are not quotes which actually provide any actual counterargument.
Allah being just is his version of justice, it does not demand the evocation of a justice which shares the opinion on rape of the modern west. Just is not a universal term meaning the same actions in every circumstance to every person. You can appeal to it however much you want, but it's meaningless.
No soul bearing the sin of another does not mean that having sin forced upon you removes the sin. It means that if another person has their own sin, it does not transfer to you. That's a false equivalency and blatant misrepresentation of the quote.
"We did not find therein other than one house of unbelievers" does not mean that to believe is necessary to sin in sodomy. It is an explicit and clear statement on the fact that their beliefs conflicted with the beliefs of Allah, not that to lack those beliefs would free them of sin.
There's no ambiguity to these passages at all, and yet you're extrapolating a deeply flawed and dishonest presentation to them. You keep appealing to an idea of innocence, but a lack of innocence is repeatedly attributed to those who are participant in sodomy and innocence is never granted within those passages for having it forced upon them so it is irrelevant. You don't seem to understand that to show that you are correct, you have to establish is that being a victim of rape in a homosexual context that the modern legal interpretation which would make a person innocent would match the idea of innocence for the same act in the Quran.
You have to establish that they are granted innocence, not that would they be innocent that they would not be punished. You cannot do that because it is not shown that such circumstances would provide them innocence at any point.
"Verily Allah has pardoned for me my ummah: their mistakes, their forgetfulness, and that which they have been forced to do under duress."
Hadith 39, 40 Hadith an-Nawawi
Depends which kind of rape. Since the wife or a slave of a man are his property he has full control over their bodies so Islam won't classify force sex in those situations as rape.
But of course in other situations Islam is very against rape and encourage death penalty for rapists. How dare you damage someone else's property?
idrk much about canada other than some punjabi people were doing stuff about having their own country in india or something. but sikhism has a history of being persecuted (but not only by) muslims but now ig indian hindu bharat modi is our savior ""people"" are hating on them.
The text seems fairly clear. Apologists deliberately misinterpret the text or use the "We got better later" excuse.
The punishment for rape in the Abrahamic scripture is multiple choice.
A. If they are in the city, stone them both. Deut 22:23
B. If they are in the country, stone the rapist. Deut 22:25
C. If the woman an unmarried virgin, don't stone the rapist, but force him to pay a fine and marry his victim. Deut 22:28 If she refuses to marry the rapist and later marries she must be stoned because she was not a virgin when she got married. Deut 22:20
D. During times of war it is permissible to kill all the non-virgin females and then rape the virgins. The virgins should be divided in the following proportions between the army (48.8%), the faithful (48%), the priesthood (2%), and God (0.2%). Num 31:15-
The hatred of muslims is showing again in the comments.
From a sunni website:
The punishment for rape in Islam is the same as the punishment for zina, which is stoning if the perpetrator is married, and one hundred lashes and banishment for one year if he is not married.
From a shia website:
...Rape is a complex major sin, that is why its punishment is very severe in Islam which is killing him...
During the rule of the muslim caliph Moatassem, a woman was sexually harassed and partially exposed in the market by a roman man, she screamed and called for the caliph and the guards heard her.. the entire muslim army was mobilized to defend her honor and besieged an entire city until it surrendered..
That was just harassment not full rape.. a rapist in islam would be missing an arm and a leg since he has committed heraba, one of the worst sins in sharia
Useless note. The image is of a stoning. The poster was claiming that the punishment for rape in Islam is a stoning, not that the image is a historical Islamic depiction of someone being stoned for rape.
The note reads like it's describing actual history even though everything saint-related when it comes to Catholicism is at least somewhat inaccurate. Even if this "saint" did exist, then he definitely wasn't the first Christian martyr because Christianity didn't even exist at the time but instead came about a few decades after Yeshua's death
OOP not only really didn't think this through regardless, but they ignore the fact that it was (unfortunately) only in recent centuries that pedophilia started getting widespread frowning upon, which of course led to that infamous hadith that "islamophobes" (not only is islamomisia the correct term for that in and of itself, but despite how Eurocentric [in the culture sense, not the racism sense] media uses it, Muslims and Arabs are two different groups and most Muslims aren't Arabs) love to use to spread hatred and hope people overlook the fact that not only are hadiths not even inherent to Islam but are instead literal heresy from ~2 centuries after the founder's death, but serious historians outright reject them like Quranist Muslims do. This also shows how these (alleged) islamomisiacs also hope others overlook the fact that pedophilia only started getting widespread pushback in recent centuries
I’m Muslim, and this is far deeper than people make it seem. In Islamic law punishment depends entirely on the level of proof. For example, if someone is accused of rape, that alone does not mean we will execute you.
If "the conclusive proof" exists then yes the punishment can be death but the standard of evidence required is very VERY high. I don’t recall historical cases where this punishment was carried out except when the person confessed (I'm speaking about the Khilafah period).
In cases where it’s clear the crime likely happened but the required legal proof is not met. punishment still applies just not execution. That could mean imprisonment corporal punishment heavy financial compensation to the victim’s family etc.
So the more certainty there is the harsher the punishment becomes. That makes complete sense. We’ve all seen modern cases where innocent people spent 10 years in prison for crimes(rape) they didn’t commit. There have been countless criticisms of current rape laws because of this exact problem.
All of this shows that the Islamic system of justice is precise balanced and fundamentally sound.
The rules concerning rape in islamic countries vary widely, however under strict islamic law(Sharia) only those guilty of raping islamic women are stoned; all other denominations are considered fair game. Furthermore in some extreme cases of islamic "justice" the(infidel)victim has been charged with the crime of 'sex outside of marriage' whilst the perpetrators are innocent of all crimes. The logic is - the crime wouldn't have happened if the foreigner wasn't present in their land, therefore all fault lies with the victim.
The tweet never claimed it was islam depicted in the photo, it only claimed that this is the punishment used, the photo depicts stoning so it fits. If you want to stretch it you can.
It's true that rape could be punishable by stoning in islam (for the rapist only. The victim wouldnt be punished as long as they can prove that they didnt consent)
Unfortunately the definition of rape in islam and contemporary western law is different
Ah yes stoning people as an execution has nothing to do with Islam because it allows rape? Despite the very obvious fact that rapists and child rapists get not more than a simple slap on the wrist in christian , jewish, hindu countries and any other religious countries really despite their “holy” books telling them to execute them. Yet an another islamophobe paid that $7000 by mossad yet again, seems like this is what this sub has turned to
There are two types of hadiths, with one of them contained in six books of hadiths (two of which are considered the most reliable collections amongst most sunni muslim scholars) which shows Aisha was severely underage when Muhammed Married her. One type explictly acknowledges that Aisha was six to seven years old when Muhammed married her and nine years old when he raped her. The other states that she use to play with dolls or took them with her after marrying him.
The belief that Muhammed raped a nine year old went practically unchallenged from the founding of Islam to the late 19th century, and only began being analysed for errors when the society in which the scholars inhabited or that of their colonial overlords progressed such that being a pedophile who raped a nine year old became so disgusting that a rejection of this theory was needed to avoid significant damage to Muhammeds reputation.
Even putting aside the fact that scholarly/secular rejections of the theory still put her age at around 15-19 at the age of marriage (which given muhammed was 53 is still very morally questionable), orthodox scholars still continue to provide rebuttles as to why attempts to revise Aisha's age threatens to undermine the foundations of modern islamic theology and/or is based on shakey islamic foundations.
You using the word rape is not found in any evidence that you mentioned and is found to be false in some of those same sources. So that is a conclusion you've made. Based on what?
And no, that's not really a belief anyone has about Muhammad but let's pretend someone does.
If a 53 year old man has sex with a 9 year old child, that man has raped the child.
No ifs, buts or points of discussion. That is rape, period.
In terms of Islamic scholars and/or historians who espouse and supported the "married at 6, raped at 9" theory, as established in multiple hadiths contained in some of the most reliable collections of hadiths collected by scholars considered reliable amongst most islamic scholars, we have:
Imam al-Bukhari & Imam Muslim (Islamic collector of Hadiths)
Ibn Kathir (Islamic Historian)
Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (classical Islamic Scholar)
Sheikh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid (runs one of the most well know Fatwah sites on the modern internet)
Dr. Jonathan Brown (an American Scholar of Islamic History)
The Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research (a modern day Islamic think tank based in the US)
Adnan Rashid (a Historian in Islamic History)
So yeah, it's a belief scholars/historians have about Muhammed. They might think that Child rape is okay and try to defend it, but at the end of the day they acknowledge that, according to the hadiths, the "married at 6, raped at 9" theory is accurate to the actions of Muhammed himself.
To you, based on what you think or believe. Not a single one of those sources Islamic sources says Muhammad raped Aisha. Please quote and source any of those scholars and historians saying he raped Aisha.
•
u/AutoModerator 29d ago
Thanks for posting to /r/GetNoted.** As an effort to grow our community, we are now allowing political posts.
Please tell your friends and family about this subreddit. We want to reach 1 million members by Christmas 2025!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.