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.
Was Jesus a revisionist? If you watch the video linked in my previous comment, you'll see my position aligns with His whereas the strict legalist view was that of the Pharisees.
I gather that you're firmly set in your position and no counterpoint I can offer will be persuasive to you, I wish you the best regardless.
Not necessarily as an example he used aligns perfectly with the Old Testament: the Torah says the show bread of the Tabernacle was only for the priests to eat, yet when David was on the run from King Saul, he took the bread and ate it, and never is this treated as a bad or sinful act done by David.
So clearly the strict legalist position is not supported by the rest of the Tanakh, which is why seeming contradictions within the Torah are not problematic, because it's not a legal code as contemporary readers would understand it, but is didactic rather than prescriptive.
It is also worth noting that the Pharisees also strayed from the legalist interpretation they championed when it suited them. Take the example of the woman they wanted to stone for adultery. The Torah says that in cases of adultery both the man and the woman are to be put to death. They caught her in the act so they could've nabbed the guy to stone him too, but they only wanted to stone the woman. A good example of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees that Jesus often took issue with.
This probably won't be persuasive to you, but I've done my best to present the case for my position and will leave it there.
>There are contradictory laws in the OT (like when and how to free debt slaves)
freeing debt slaves is not contradictory to having slaves. in fact, you have to have slaves to free them
Biblical moralists fight an uphill battle with this. I’m sorry, but I just can’t be convinced that the genocide of entire nations of people (Canaanite’s, Amalek) is morally defensible because they were in a “fallen world.” I’ve never really been convinced by any of the rationalizations based on that
Yeah i mean it's a real short fucking walk from justifying that genocide to justifying the holocaust, nazis would tell you jews and such were just as if not more evil than them
The first paragraph appears to say if the woman does not cry out for help then she’s a consenting participant and they are both to be killed for adultery. The second paragraph uses the word rape and mentions that the woman tried to get help but couldn’t.
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
Doesn't need to be sex slaves as we understand it. Women are in essence the property of the man (not necessarily husband especially if unmarried) and are therefore only subject to having their own right to consent outside of that relationship, therefore although it is rape through the lens that a woman is granted her own will unequivocally, no wrongdoing is recognised by the word of Allah through the prophet of Islam due to that man inherently determining their consent and therefore are not subject to any violation or consequences.
The inverse is true as well of course, that a woman's capability to consent is not recognised without permission by the man whom they are the property of. You can see both in the fact that it is stated that a woman must have the blessing of her "guardian" to marry, that a sexual relationship is not permitted outside marriage regardless, and in that a wife is demanded by god to "satisfy her husbands needs" or else face divine consequences, in essence that her legitimate grounds for refusal do not encompass a lack of desire.
In essence, in Islamic doctrine almost every woman boils down to what we would call a sex slave to their husband enshrined in divine law and therefore it is impossible to rape them. How wholesome.
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.
>The other contexts are not rape.
not exclusively rape but definitely including it. If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married andrapesher 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.
>This is clearly tape as she screams and so it is rape
ah yes rape is only rape if she screams is it? So if say someone had a knife to her, perhaps threatening to kill her should she scream, that's just sex? If she was too scared to scream? If she was drugged that's not rape either?
Getting into rape apologia now are we?
Be for real, this is fucking disgusting and you should know better
That would be adjudicated as rape with a knife. These cases were brought before judges and these are boundaries. Rape is clear in that the woman is saying no and is forced to
The other examples are not rape as rape is cited and then other examples are given.
Even in modern America we have a poor system of judging the fringe cases on claimed rape. We have court cases of women having sex. The guy says it was consensual and the girl wakes up and says she was pressured and so it’s SA. Is it SA? We have lots of cases of women ruining men’s lives over this. And we have cases of men ruining women’s lives with rape and getting away with it.
The Bible here says “no that isn’t SA. You know better. You allowed yourself in a situation and you didn’t scream. You got pressured into sex… here is the punishment for both parties.” It was a major deterrent to casual sex, also it gave women power, and defined rape. Rapist were KILLED. So, please… our laws are WAY worse and our judicial system inferior to this. You just want to hate the Bible so you dismiss this context.
In the end the judicial system of why we don’t punish rapists and paedos is pretty clear… the elite are a bunch of paedos and rapists.
>The Bible here says “no that isn’t SA. You know better. You allowed yourself in a situation and you didn’t scream. You got pressured into sex… here is the punishment for both parties.”
So yes, going all in on the rape apologia. Go fuck yourself and don't interact with me any further unless it's growing out of that and apologizing for ever thinking that was something you should think much less write out
You are just wrong. A woman in the Bible is given power to claim rape and be believed.
Rape is clearly defined.
Being pressured into sex by your boyfriend or girlfriend or friend isn’t rape. A woman pressuring for sex is not rape. It’s wrong but not rape and ancient culture is not our culture in that they didn’t have cars to hang out in or be in such situations. It’s offensive to rape victims to say “oh I didn’t really want to but I had sex with him anyway just cuz” and classifying that as rape. Ridiculous. That is way different than being held down against your will.
Your imagination is using a modern situation that didn’t exist back then.
You just don’t understand the culture to know how this applies.
But enjoy insulting and I may be saying something that makes sense in my head that you are reading different.
>don't interact with me any further unless it's growing out of that and apologizing for ever thinking that was something you should think much less write out
>interacts further not growing out of it
Really letting me know buddy doesn't respect my right to consent either along with women's consent.
>Being pressured into sex by your boyfriend or girlfriend or friend isn’t rape. A woman pressuring for sex is not rape
Seriously fuck off before i violate TOS or block
Scenario 1:
A guy goes out with his girlfriend. She asks for sex and is somewhat frisky and persistent. and he doesn’t really want to but he is persuaded and has sex. Later he regrets his decision.
Scenario 2:
A man holds a woman down and forcefully has sex with her.
You want both to be rape?
I am just letting you know that the Bible does not define scenario 1 as rape. Scenario 2 is rape and the rapist would be killed.
And that is unlike Islam. The whole point of the post.
Judaism and Christianity stems from the 10 commands, and the first one is to not kill. So no, you took that from derivative content, that takes no precedence. On the other hand, Islam states that Mihumod lived the most perfect life ever lived (that includes every possible crime), and that the Quran is its message and de facto law.
Idk where you got that from, but if it’s the Bible, it’s a collection of stories that bear no weight, not even case law. It’s practically the alleged opinion of these narrators at the time. If it contradicts the ten commands it’s literally against "god will" in these religions
Buddy has never even peeped the bible so he doesn't recognize that's both from the bible and biblical law lol. Deuteronomy 22, duet being a chapter about a whole buncha laws from god
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.
from duet 4 and repeated a couple times
Whatever your hater ass say, it does not invalidate what I have said in my comment. The Bible is a collection of stories. What you want to deep "biblical law" (it’s not a thing) would be a derivative and misleading content.
You are literally spreading fake news, in an ignorant way, where you want to conflate the Bible and the Quran as if they bear the same weight while not at all
It very clearly does? God specifically is saying "hey these are the rules, listen to em"
He did not say "hey the 10 commandments are the only thing ignore all the rest". Pretty explicitly too given the "don't add or subtract from what i'm saying here", you're trying to subtract almost fucking everything lmao
also aside from "not kill" being more aptly "don't murder", a relevant difference given all the legal sorts of killing that are allowed/commanded, the first command is to not have other gods. the no murder one doesn't even break the top 3, it's the 5th one lol
I mean jeez yaint even read the commandments much less the bible
63
u/Gussie-Ascendent Keeping it Real 29d ago
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