Under Sharia, a rape victim must produce FOUR MALE MUSLIM WITNESSES who will testify to the rape. Otherwise, the guilt is assumed to be on the part of the victim.
And now, it appears that Iran’s ruling Mullahs are telling detained protesters of the recent “elections” that if they want to complain of being raped while in jail, they must produce FOUR MALE MUSLIM WITNESSES to prove it, or risk further punishment for sexual misconduct themselves.
If you’re not familiar with the origin of the FOUR MALE MUSLIM WITNESS policy in Sharia, it arose because one of Mohammed’s wives was accused of adultery. Mohammed happened to like that particular wife, and soon reported that Allah had revealed to him that such cases could only be prosecuted if there were FOUR MALE MUSLIM WITNESSES. Thus, he saved his favorite wife from punishment, and made it essentially impossible for Muslim women to ever prove rape in an Islamic court.
In Islamic countries, most women who allege rape are themselves imprisoned for adultery or fornication…. or worse.
Very convenient for the Iranian mullahs who want those protesters to be taught a lesson, both male and female, it seems.
Obama wants to negotiate with these guys without pre-conditions. Better keep the Secret Service really, really close.
August 19th, 2009 1:06 pm
I agree that if Iran’s mullahs have, indeed, required four witnesses to “prove” rape, it’s a gross violation and disregard for human rights and dignity. (It’s also un-Islamic.) I would, however, like to proffer a distinction between “Islam” and “Islamist,” and even further a distinction between Shari’a–which is, technically speaking, God’s law not contained (literally) in human’s written word–and fiqh, which are jurists’ rulings about how to apply Shari’a to particular cases. Strictly speaking, no person can “know” God’s law, which is considered to be in Heaven with God, but the jurist’s job is to interpret how the Qur’an and hadith should be applied (and which hadith are trustworthy is another question–the science of hadith verification has a long academic history, with some notable Muslim feminist scholars challenging some of the more notoriously anti-feminist among them). So when in Qur’an 24:2-5 it talks of the “four witnesses,” it is not commanding rape victims to produce four witnesses but rather *people accusing a woman of adultury* to find the four. The burden of proof fell to those who would, presumably, have not been a part of it (as, indeed, these verses have the historical context of A’isha being accused of adultery by the very men who had left her behind while traveling outside of Medina–she was escorted back by another man with whom they accused her of cheating on Muhammad).
However, taking this verse out of context and paring it with hadith of questionable veracity produces the kind of legal injunctions that ridiculously would require women to produce witnesses for rape. (There are other hadith in which Muhammad did not require anything other than the woman’s testimony to punish the rapist–by stoning, of course. [e.g., book of hadith by Sunan Abu Dawud]) So the problem is not (necessarily?) with Islam, but the way in which historically and traditionally (some) men seek to reinscribe their privilege through whatever means necessary–religious, political, social, etc. Not to be a broken record, but there are numerous examples of practicing, believing Muslims (men and women) who are attempting to point out these inconsistencies and radical disregard for human rights in the practice of Islam through governing authorities.
August 19th, 2009 1:40 pm
“There are other hadith in which Muhammad did not require anything other than the woman’s testimony to punish the rapist”
Kirsten, maybe you know: was this before, or after, the verses requiring multiple witnesses? As you know, the principle of abrogation applies, wherein Islamic jurisprudence has essentially ignored verses that are contradicted by later ones… for example the “sword” verses (later, usually from the Medina period) as opposed to the “peace” verses (earlier, usually from the Meccan period, but often quoted by Muslim apologists to an ignorant western press as proof of Islam’s tolerance). Yet Muslims know that essentially the sword verses take precedence now.
So, I’d be interested to know that “order of verses” prescribing various penalties and standards of evidence for sexual misconduct, rape, adultery, etc. Got some extra research time on your hands?
August 19th, 2009 5:47 pm
Well, the verse about four witnesses is in the Qur’an. [And it wasn’t about rape, it was about adultery–a key point for a lot of (modern) jurists emphasizing the un-Islamic view that rape victims require four witnesses.] The hadith is a different set of literature, though, and depending on a number of factors (primarily whether one is Sunni/Shi’a and which sect within them), one might weight the hadith differently. The hadith can never contradict the Qur’an, and if it does, it’s a false hadith. There are something like over 12,000 hadith, but only about 6,000 have been verified. The science of the hadith is complex, and the hadith are internally weighted based on things like who said it, how many people said the same thing (or similar enough), how close to the Prophet he was (before or after the Prophet’s death, etc.), its relation to Qur’anic passages… you can see that within the myriad sects of Islam, some would gravitate toward certain ideas over others. In some ways, the correlation might be about the canonization of the Apocrypha, but I’m not too big a fan of making such comparisons because it’s certainly not 1-to-1. (The only 1-to-1 type of correlation agreed upon seems to be the way Christianity views Jesus Christ as the living Word to the way Islam views the Qur’an as the living Word.)
So, it seems that the jurists giving out fiqh that require four witnesses for rape are utilizing the Qur’anic passage about adultery in conjunction with other hadith. Yes, abrogation applies–within the Qur’an. With the hadith literature, it becomes much more tricky because it depends on the trustworthiness of the author, date and report of the Prophet’s sayings. The other tricky thing is taking things verse-by-verse as opposed to section by section, or theme by theme when applying the principle of abrogation. One of my favorite Muslim jurists, Khlaled Abou El Fadl, has written here about this… he mentions his response to the principle of abrogation and where and when to apply it near the end of the selection.
I have to do a little more research to respond to the abrogation of the verses about peace with the verses about the sword–mostly to see what the history of the interpretation of the term “non-believer” is. It is my understanding that the Prophet himself saw Jews and Christians (the “People of the Book”) as believers, but the succession of jurisprudence after the Prophet’s death began to interpret “believer” as “Muslim believer.” It’s a question of Arabic translation, and even which copy of the Qur’an survived (since it began as a recitation and was transcribed toward the end of the Prophet’s life…and there was disagreement over which versions of the text were going to be used). I have notes on all this somewhere, if I could just find the notebook….
August 19th, 2009 9:43 pm
Of course, the “logic” is that a women who alleges a rape, but cannot prove it, has just confessed to adultery. With the confession, no witnesses are required. Some estimate up to 75% of the women in prison in Pakistan are there for having MADE a rape charge they could not prove by Sharia standards. And note that if the accused rapist is married, then the rape IS adultery, and to prove the adultery (required to prove the rape, NO?), we’re back to the Koranic standard of four male pious Muslim witnesses.
Of course, this has no bearing on the Koranic attitude towards rape of non-Muslim women, which is rather loose, especially those captured in warfare. Essentially, they become property to be used as desired, a Koranic injunction that many modern Islamists are only too happy to follow.
I think the issue for Muslims who want to become part of modern society is that a post-modern reading of clear texts may make scholars feel better about it, but it has no effect on the population from which Islamists are recruited. They read the words, or they are taught them by rote, and the meaning seems clear to them. When it appears that, indeed, Muhammed appears to have behaved precisely in the way that a clear (not post-modern) reading of the texts encourages, it’s going to be a hard sell to tell a true believer that it doesn’t mean what it says.
Re: Muhammed seeing Jews as “believers” to whom the sword verses don’t apply, there are some pretty clear stories of extermination of entire Jewish enclaves/villages… because they would not submit to him, not because they attacked him. These are not consistent with the notion that “people of the book” were considered to be immune to the logic of the sword verses, the infamous “triple choice.”
Convert, submit (be a good dhimmi, live with the limitations that implies, and pay the jizya) or die.
Understand, I am no Islamic scholar, and am totally willing to be educated. But the people I’ve read who ARE Islamic scholars seem to be saying what I’m repeating here.
August 20th, 2009 1:52 am
Speaking strictly historically, there’s a lot of violence in Islamic history that must, indeed, be grappled with in the context of Islam. Obviously, and perhaps this goes without saying but here I am saying it anyway, the same goes for most other cultures/religions’ histories. And I’m not even talking the major ones like the Crusades or the Nazi extermination of the Jews or what-have-you. (e.g., there’s been more literature recently among the LDS community to grapple with the Mountain Meadows Massacre.)
But I’m not trying to red herring my way out of your point about a very violent Islamic history; I’m just not willing to say that it is the religion that dictates it any more than it was the religion that dictated other slaughters. By this I mean to say more generally that I don’t think religion exists apart from a particular instantiation of it–there is no “true” or “original” uncomplicated religion. Christianity has been divided from the get-go (Paul’s rebuke of Peter in Acts comes to mind as well as the patristic literature regarding the divinity of the Son and Spirit up through Augustine). Religion can’t exist outside people’s experience of it. (Please, everyone, note that I’m not saying we created God or anything.)
Of course, the difference I think you’re pointing out with comments about (post)modernity is that jurist rulings and laws implemented in the name of God that fly in the face of human rights are *still* being perpetuated. But I return to my point that I don’t think it’s only because of religion. I think power — more precisely, the abuse of power — will utilize any means necessary to regenerate and reinforce itself. Islamist regimes and terrorist groups recruit with propaganda about the West coupled with monolithic and oversimplified interpretations of the Qur’an. If there’s one thing my Islamic profs have drilled into my head, it’s that there is no “true Islam” — it was never a unified movement or organization after the death of the Prophet. But I think the U.S. for its part has also constructed and utilized an oversimplified version of Islam in order to mobilize for war (both in Iraq and Afghanistan). [A side note is how often women get bandied about as symbols to fight for and protect on both sides of the war–one scholar has gone so far to say that women *are* weapons of war. Wartime rape is not uncommon in any culture’s past–and the sexual degradation in prison camps like Abu Ghraib certainly do not excuse the West as somehow more “evolved” than Islamist forces.)
I know you don’t always like it when people send you to books for the answer to your questions, but I’m gonna quote Farid Esack here because I think it’s poignant: “Furthermore, all interpretative activity and conclusions are located in a particular context. It is therefore impossible to speak of a universal interpretation of a Qur’anic text. All interpretative activity and “meaning” are thus, of necessity, also tentative and no tafsir or ta’wil is value free. Any reading of the Qur’an is eisegetical before it is exegetical: eisegesis is really the flip side of exegesis rather that [sic] a distortion thereof.” (The Qur’an: A User’s Guide, 143)
Obviously, Islamist regimes that employ the use of (what they deem) Shari’a reject such views of Qur’anic interpretation. And you’re right, that it’s hard to get people to read sacred texts “correctly.” (A favorite of mine–and by favorite, I mean NOT AT ALL favorite–is when churches try to pass off topical, superficial sermons as biblical teaching. It does the same thing–takes a sacred text out of its particular historical context and inserts a particular meaning where it might not belong–with no regard to the integrity of the text.) Esack’s point is that perhaps the reason such interpretations are “clear” is because of something the reader/interpreter already brings to the text. Each ayah is said to have both exoteric and esoteric meaning, and one Qur’anic scholar of tafsir around 750 A.D. (about 100 years after Muhammad) went so far to say that tafsir is what humans can know about the Qur’an and ta’wil is what only God can know.
Most modern-day traditionalists think that those using ta’wil to interpret are just rejecting obvious meanings to place their own meanings in the text, but scholars like Esack are quick to remind people that the interpretative distinction between exoteric and esoteric that was so respected and taken quite seriously at and around the time of Muhammad has been collapsed into each other and the only thing left is the “obvious.”
I think that Islamic scholars attempting to talk about and highlight the complicated history of Qur’anic interpretation are trying to do so outside the academic setting as much as within it. This is, imho, a necessary part of fighting for and protecting people’s freedoms. It can’t be just whose army has bigger and better guns, or who can create the most laws–change, real change, has to come in people’s mindsets, too. Most my friends who are Islamic scholars feel they’re fighting battles on two fronts: one against a fundamentalist Muslim movement that seeks to conquer or destroy everything in its path and one against the West who unproblematically assumes that all Islam is bad.
August 22nd, 2009 8:45 am
Kirsten
Thanks for your well-informed comments. Your participation here is helpful and thought-provoking, please continue to engage whenever you have the time!
I’d like to respond to a couple of points you made in your last post:
You said:
You are correct, but I find little or no equivalence between forcing naked prisoners to form human pyramids in order to take their pictures, and, say, the gang rapes and murder perpetrated on Chinese women by Japanese soldiers during WWII. Sure, both episodes can be very broadly placed under the umbrella of “war time offenses of a sexual nature”, for the purposes of discussion, but beyond that any comparison is just silly (I am NOT saying you are silly!) The problem with your statement is not the truth of what you say, it is the linking of two things by comparison that tends to imply some degree of equivalence where most would say none exists.
And what most western folk see for themselves in the course of news reporting from Iraq – admittedly incomplete and with its own biases – is beheadings of prisoners by those who fight in the name of Islam and are then venerated vs cheerleader formations in the buff, followed by recrimination and punishment of those involved. So while I agree with you that such actions on our part are not excused, clearly there are some foundational cultural/religious differences that produce widely differing outcomes in behavior. Maybe the term “more evolved” is not a good one. On the other hand ask anyone who they would choose if told they were going to be captured and held as prisoner by either US or Islamist forces.
You said:
I’m sure this is a terribly frustrating situation for these scholars. But as along as there are virtually no other Islamic voices to be heard, as long as no significant Islamic condemnation of these fundamentalists is forthcoming the future is very likely going to continue to be very frustrating. For many interpret that virtual silence as tacit approval of the fundamentalists and further cements the opinions that Islam IS monolithic. I don’t think using the word “unproblematic” is quite fair. It is an opinion formed absent any substantive evidence to the contrary. By comparison, when someone commits an act of violence in the name of Christ (like the murder of an abortionist doctor) it is never long before loud voices of condemnation can be heard from the Christian community. I believe this indicates there is something absolutely foundational in the two faiths that lead to such differing outcomes.
August 25th, 2009 1:48 am
Hey, amuzikman. I feel weird calling you that. But now I feel awkward if somehow ‘amuzikman’ is actually your name or a play on your name. Anyhow, hello!
I don’t think the comparison between Abu Ghraib and wartime rape is silly at all. Both are instances of sexual assault. Would you say that comparing attempted rape to an actual rape is *silly*? Certainly they’re not the same degree–that’s why there’s a difference in sentencing if convicted. But both are equally a crime. What happened there wasn’t just a “naked human pyramid”–they were forced to act out scenes of domination as though they were animals, and there were unreleased pictures that allegedly show rape or attempted rape. (Check here, and Fox News reported on it here, too.)
And if only Abu Ghraib was the worst of it. There’s the whole situation of the sexual and religious degradation of detainees at GTMO through the use of female interrogators and fake menstrual blood. There are reports of sexual harassment and assault among members of the US military, although taking into account that the number that get reported are probably far fewer than actually happens if it mirrors the way sexual assault and abuse get reported among civilians. And there have been cases of rape on the part of US soldiers overseas as well. I’m not suggesting that such practice is tacitly or otherwise approved by the “powers that be” in the US Armed Forces as a tactic of war. But the abuse of power is definitely comparable–whether it’s the “comfort women” for the Japanese troops in WWII, the mass rape of women in the Darfur conflict recently or in Bosnia-Herzegovina a decade ago, or the sexual assault within the US Armed Forces or by the US Armed Forces to those outside it.
I agree that Western media–regardless of which network–has their own biases. But I’ve seen numerous news segments or articles over the years (especially since 9/11) that do actually interview Islamic scholars or other Muslims denouncing such tactics. The problem isn’t that Muslim communities are silent, the problem is not enough people are listening. Here’s one example. Here’s an older example. Here’s an international example. The substantive evidence is in print, on camera…. With whom does the responsibility lie to construct informed, well-rounded opinions and beliefs about these things? I contend that every individual is responsible to be a critical thinker. If one suspects that the mainstream media isn’t giving one the whole picture, one seeks out the sources that do–provided one wants to look at the situation contextualized–taking into account *all* sides before making judgments. Actually, I think that’s at least in part what Phil’s purpose is here–to talk about things he doesn’t see covered properly if at all.
There are certainly different things foundational to both faiths. I’ve been mostly intrigued by the Christian versus Muslim definition of justice–in fact, Christ at many times in the gospels actually reverses contemporary notions of what is “fair”–the whole basis of Christianity is that because of Jesus’s death and resurrection, people don’t have to get what they deserve. However, I just can’t agree that Muslims don’t care or aren’t outspoken enough in denouncing violence. The problem goes back to the war on two fronts: on the one hand, you have a general populace that typically doesn’t (care to) know or understand the basics of your faith, and on the other, you have fundamentalist Muslim communities that cry “Traitor!” if anyone critiques Islamist politics or tactics.
Another issue entirely, however, is in agreeing about what constitutes “deserving” in Islam. Who are the innocent? Who are believers? These are the tough questions that certainly have not been agreed upon within the Muslim world let alone outside of it… but they’re critically engaging nonetheless.
August 27th, 2009 4:44 pm
Kirsten, the third sentence here seems to contradict the second. You admit that rape is not an instrument of state policy on the part of the US, but it manifestly is on the part of other cultures (and the Koran seems to actually recommend the rape of women taken in battle… the “woman in your hand” is allowable “booty”, both meanings intended). That means the abuse of power is definitely NOT comparable, except in the sense of comparing a specific incident to another. A rape happens in each case. But it is certainly not comparable in terms of the numbers. US soldiers who do this are prosecuted when caught. That tends to restrict the numbers, and it at least provides SOME justice to the abused. You said, “I’m not suggesting that such practice is tacitly or otherwise approved by the “powers that be†in the US Armed Forces as a tactic of war.” Are you suggesting that rape by USA service personnel is anywhere NEAR as common as that done by non-Western armies?
When was the last time you heard of a Muslim soldier or jihadist prosecuted for raping, say, a captured USA female service person, let alone another Muslim woman?
I think this is another moral equivalence argument that doesn’t really stand.
I’m planning a new post on the issue of Muslim denunciations of terrorism, to which I hope you’ll respond in your usual thoughtful way.
August 27th, 2009 8:23 pm
“Under Sharia, a rape victim must produce FOUR MALE MUSLIM WITNESSES who will testify to the rape. Otherwise, the guilt is assumed to be on the part of the victim.”
Actually, no. Sharia has no prescribed punishment for rape – only for adultery.
August 27th, 2009 9:06 pm
Tell it to the Sharia courts in Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, who are obviously less well informed than you about the teachings of Islam.
Just curious, “…”, did you read ANY of the foregoing discussion before commenting?
August 27th, 2009 9:28 pm
Kirsten
Thanks for the response. I will, however, stand by my first comment. I believe ANY serious attempt at equivalence in comparing what happened at Abu Ghraib and the systematic mass gang-rapes and murder of Chinese women at the hands of Japanese soldiers in WWII can only be described as silly. (and it goes FAR beyond the abuse of “comfort women” – watch this and this). It is not simply a matter of degree, like the example you provided. It is a profound and deep cultural difference, with a wide and yawning gap in between. Surely there have been rapes in other wars perpetrated by other soldiers who fought under different flags, even some sadly by U.S. soldiers. But our culture denounces such actions whether in war time or not, we have NEVER celebrated or condoned it in any way, something we saw with Japan in WWII and we now see with this rabidly violent and vicious brand of Islam.
(Perhaps another time we can discuss the concept of law that rewards criminals if they fail to accomplish what they set out to do. In my opinion attempted rape should carry the same penalty of rape if intent can be proved. I think the same should be true of murder and attempted murder. Incompetence in crime should not be rewarded.)
I would also have to take exception with your description of “degradation” as being an example of equivalence, as well as your inclusion of of unreleased photos and “alleged” rapes, sexual harrassement and phrases of “if it mirrors…” Some of this is simply speculation and even were I to grant you that it is all true (which I don’t) it still wouldn’t add up to a comparable “abuse of power” in my opinion.
I appreciate your comments regarding the issue of personal responsibility in becoming well informed on an issue prior to forming an opinion. (If only more voters had heard and heeded your words before last November’s elections…but I digress.) But I distinctly remember members of various media saying they welcomed the opportunity to give voice to Muslim denunciation of the violence on the part of the fundamentalists as far back as 9/11. I also remember them saying such voices were very difficult to find and speculation arose that dissenting voices may have stayed silent due to fear. In any case I will read the links you provided on the subject. I do find it rather hard to believe that such dissenting voices would be so hard to find if they were at all significant.
August 27th, 2009 9:37 pm
Amuzikman, I think you intended to put a couple of links in the last post that didn’t make it.
August 27th, 2009 9:59 pm
I just wasn’t finished yet. 🙂
August 27th, 2009 10:08 pm
Yeah. Me either.
August 28th, 2009 7:29 am
Tell it to the Sharia courts in Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, who are obviously less well informed than you about the teachings of Islam.
I wasn’t aware you took them as authority. Because, you know, I wonder why you bothered trying to use the Quran/Hadith. Why not just invoke what Pakistani courts do and call it all Islamic?
And since you invoked Saudi Arabia, here’s what an Islamic scholar said in the country’s most widely read English newspaper (Q&A):
http://www.ourdialogue.com/answers/articles.php?action=show&showarticle=780
“This view seems very strange, because it applies the evidence required to prove an accusation of adultery to a totally different offense, which is rape…Rape, on the other hand, is an assault by a man on a woman. It should be proven in the same way as any other type of assault. If someone stops a car, beats the driver, steals his money and takes away the car, we do not require the victim to produce four witnesses…”
Just curious, “…â€, did you read ANY of the foregoing discussion before commenting?
Yes.
And note that if the accused rapist is married, then the rape IS adultery
This is pathetic. By your logic, in the US, if a couple have signed a prenuptial stating that if one commits adultery, he/she is not entitled to any settlement in a divorce. Then if, say, the woman gets raped, you’re suggesting that the court can rule it as an adultery and allow her to get nothing?
Adultery and rape, in legal contexts, are typically mutually exclusive.
Of course, this has no bearing on the Koranic attitude towards rape of non-Muslim women
Obviously not, because the Koran doesn’t discuss rape – be it against Muslim or non-Muslim women.
especially those captured in warfare.
Again, those verses don’t particularly permit rape.
Essentially, they become property to be used as desired
Nope. Even slaves and those captured in wars have rights granted to them. Nowhere is the right to rape them granted.
and the Koran seems to actually recommend the rape of women taken in battle… the “woman in your hand†is allowable “bootyâ€, both meanings intended
That’s simply an interpretation you’re imposing on it, and isn’t exactly supported.
See this:
http://www.ourdialogue.com/answers/articles.php?action=show&showarticle=3218
When was the last time you heard of a Muslim soldier or jihadist prosecuted for raping, say, a captured USA female service person, let alone another Muslim woman?
Strawman.
August 28th, 2009 10:01 am
Instead of responding to everything you said, “…”, I’ll just highlight a bit.
I said:
Your reply:
“Isn’t exactly supported?”
That doesn’t seem like a particularly powerful denial, somehow.
Simlarly, I referred to the notion of women as booty and available for the pleasure of the Islamic captor, “especially those captured in warfare.”
You said:
“don’t particularly”? How comforting.
BTW… calling something a strawman doesn’t make it a strawman.
There IS no pure “Sharia” court anywhere that is apart from some national manifestation of it. So when I speak of “sharia” in a certain place, you can of course claim it isn’t really sharia, but that begs the point. “Sharia” courts are doing what they do in the name of Islam, and by its authority. Do you deny that huge numbers of women are in prison in Pakistan for alleging rape they could not prove with four male Muslim witnesses?
Another way to measure this is what we see here:
Wow, those Saudi men must be really, really moral compared to the Japanese and Americans. Or, a more likely alternative: rape is almost impossible to prove, and no one dares to allege it. If you’re alleging rape by a married man, particularly, you are accusing him of adultery AND rape, by definition, and if the charge is not sustained, those who charge the rape are themselves prosecuted. See the same link above for more.
And now for your own strawman: I am totally uninterested in what Saudi spokesmen say in English for western consumption. I am interested in what they say in their own language to their own people, and in what their practices actually ARE.
August 28th, 2009 12:26 pm
Maybe your English is a bit poor, but “don’t particularly” still equates to “doesn’t”.
When you start quibbling over words, it tends to show where you stand in the whole discussion.
BTW… calling something a strawman doesn’t make it a strawman
And this statement doesn’t negate a strawman.
There IS no pure “Sharia†court anywhere that is apart from some national manifestation of it. So when I speak of “sharia†in a certain place, you can of course claim it isn’t really sharia, but that begs the point.
I didn’t suggest there was. However, if 90% of Christians claim the Bible says something that it simply doesn’t, I’d consider it wrong to suggest that Christianity claims it. Just because over half of Americans thought there was a connection between Saddam and the WTC attacks doesn’t make it so.
Do you deny that huge numbers of women are in prison in Pakistan for alleging rape they could not prove with four male Muslim witnesses?
I don’t deny it, merely because I have not looked into it. You, however, have not exactly supported this assertion. As such, it is quite suspect.
Wow, those Saudi men must be really, really moral compared to the Japanese and Americans. Or, a more likely alternative: rape is almost impossible to prove, and no one dares to allege it. If you’re alleging rape by a married man, particularly, you are accusing him of adultery AND rape, by definition, and if the charge is not sustained, those who charge the rape are themselves prosecuted. See the same link above for more.
You’re merely presenting a possibility without providing any evidence to support it. You’re essentially saying that one possibility conflicts with your view of human nature, hence another possibility must be the case. First, there’s not a low likelihood that your understanding of human nature is flawed. Second, even if it isn’t, you’re simply assuming one possible alternative. Third, you’re providing nothing to back up the assertion, beyond “makes sense to me!”
And yet again, you fail to realize that rape and adultery are not the same. People charged with rape are generally not charged with adultery. And no, it is not by definition in any legal sense that I’ve ever seen. Heck, even Webster’s dictionary disagreed with you:
“voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband; also : an act of adultery”
And now for your own strawman: I am totally uninterested in what Saudi spokesmen say in English for western consumption. I am interested in what they say in their own language to their own people, and in what their practices actually ARE.
Then talk about actual practices and leave religion, the Koran, and the Hadith out of it. You’re trying to have your cake and eat it. When it suits you, you invoke evidence from there. When it fails you, you claim irrelevance.
Oh, and interesting that you suddenly declare him to be a spokesperson who’s writing for Western consumption (despite the newspaper being a domestic one, and despite any evidence suggesting he’s a spokesperson).
And how good is your Arabic, BTW? Ma ism shahruk? While we’re at it, how’s your Urdu? Pashtu? Punjabi? Swahili? Bahasa?
August 28th, 2009 12:49 pm
If most “sharia” courts practice what I’ve outlined here, I suggest you direct your emails to them instead of trying to convince ME that sharia doesn’t require four male muslim witnesses to prove rape. I’m easy game. Simple-minded American, remember? I only speak English. So I take those national sharia practitioners at their own word, about what they say their practice is. But I CAN read translations, and I do, on occasion. And they often conflict with what the English spokesmen are saying to western media. There are plenty of websites with English translations of Islamic media. Perhaps you believe they are lying.
I hope you WILL look into the state of incarcerated women in Pakistan, who have alleged rape, and been jailed for making the allegation.
You said,
What I said is that people MAKING THE CHARGE OF RAPE are the ones who are charged with adultery, if they can’t prove the rape. Further, the making of the charge is taken as an admission of sex outside of marriage, so that four witnesses are not required to prove the charge of adultery against the one making the charge of rape, but they are still required to PROVE the rape was done by the one who did it.
Which tends to explain the very low rate of rape conviction in Saudi Arabia, of course.
It’s just laughable that a married man committing rape is not also committing adultery. Do you really want to make that claim?
You said:
I am reporting what the people who set policy in sharia countries say about their own justification in the Koran and the Hadith. You may disagree with them. Take it up with them, if you wish. The interpretation commonly put on the Koran and the Hadith by Muslims who say they are practicing sharia is certainly a valid topic, and if I point to the same verses they do, it’s not MY interpretation that is at issue, it is theirs.
So: are you saying the Saudi mouthpiece you quoted is NOT an apologist for Saudi practice, speaking to western ears only? I don’t have to “prove” it. I believe it because no Saudi says anything publicly in English, for media consumption, when he isn’t talking to the west and essentially defending Islam.
Just curious: do you find in the Koran or Hadith any verse that says it is a sin for a Muslim to lie in another language to infidels for the sake of defending the good image of Islam? And do you find any history of those who have done such things being condemned and punished under sharia?
Oh, and one further curiosity: do YOU speak all those languages you listed? And why do you post anonymously?
August 28th, 2009 4:45 pm
If most “sharia†courts practice what I’ve outlined here,
Something that’s not been established.
It’s just laughable that a married man committing rape is not also committing adultery. Do you really want to make that claim?
As per the definition of adultery in the English language, yes. I make that claim. I’m not the one who came up with the language.
Take it up with them, if you wish.
You keep saying that. Perhaps you should practice what you preach.
So: are you saying the Saudi mouthpiece you quoted is NOT an apologist for Saudi practice, speaking to western ears only?
Yes, for the simple reason that I have no evidence that suggests what you say.
I believe it because no Saudi says anything publicly in English, for media consumption, when he isn’t talking to the west and essentially defending Islam.
Yes, Saudis who speak English are rare, and if they speak it to any entity other than the media or to a Western audience, and don’t defend Islam, they’ll get executed or something, right?
Am I really arguing with someone who has such a simplistic of a whole nation? Really?
Just curious: do you find in the Koran or Hadith any verse that says it is a sin for a Muslim to lie in another language to infidels for the sake of defending the good image of Islam?
For “defending the good image of Islam”? I do know of “valid” reasons to lie provided by the Islamic framework. The one you mentioned is not one that I’ve come across. Feel free to enlighten me. Otherwise, it is a sin to lie.
And do you find any history of those who have done such things being condemned and punished under sharia?
If by such things you mean “lying”, then I’m not aware of Shariah actually dictating any punishment for it – unless it leads to harm (e.g. violation of contract, death due to negligence, etc). But no, in general, lying, while forbidden, is not in general punishable by the state.
You may not know this, but Shariah does not dictate a punishment for all sins.
do YOU speak all those languages you listed?
I’m not the one with the constraining attitude that only cares what people say in certain languages. I see no reason to know them.
And why do you post anonymously?
For many reasons, not the least is wanting to focus on the subject matter rather than the identities of the people involved.
Not that I’m hiding myself well. Your WordPress is logging my IP, which I’m making no attempts to mask.
August 28th, 2009 4:55 pm
And which I would not reveal, of course.
I don’t take up the “proper” interpretation of Sharia with Sharia courts because my interest is in educating westerners, not re-directing Muslims who will ignore me anyway.
Still laughing over the “rape not being adultery” thing… It’s like claiming that you don’t have sex when you rape someone.
Just for interest: see if you can name, say, an even dozen Saudis who have seriously criticized Saudi Arabia in English, in the western press, and have gone back to Saudi Arabia after that.
If you can, we’ll talk.
August 28th, 2009 9:22 pm
I don’t take up the “proper†interpretation of Sharia with Sharia courts because my interest is in educating westerners, not re-directing Muslims who will ignore me anyway.
Then I’ll claim the same intent.
Still laughing over the “rape not being adultery†thing… It’s like claiming that you don’t have sex when you rape someone.
Feel free to continue to fight the English language.
Just for interest: see if you can name, say, an even dozen Saudis who have seriously criticized Saudi Arabia in English, in the western press, and have gone back to Saudi Arabia after that.
I won’t bother doing the legwork, but will merely refer you to http://www.arabnews.com – the English language newspaper that you accused of being targeted for Western audiences. Look at the articles over the years, and you’ll find plenty of criticism of various aspects of Saudi Arabia. In English. Not much criticism of the royal family, I’ll grant, but certainly occasional criticism of what the Shariah courts’ (as you call them) rulings.
August 28th, 2009 9:48 pm
“…”, I’ll try again. The Oxford Dictionary defines adultery as
The placement of “voluntary” refers to the married person, not the person who is not their spouse. That means that when a married man commits rape, he automatically is committing adultery because his act is “voluntary” with regard to himself, though not with regard to his victim. Which is why so many Sharia courts have held that the standards for proving rape presuppose those for proving adultery.
It is simply impossible to commit “typical” rape without having sex, and that is a voluntary act on the part of the rapist, and if he is married, it is adultery.
Last try. If you can’t see this, it will probably not be fruitful to pursue other logical discussion with you, because you deny that if A = B and B = C then A = C.
It is a syllogism:
1) Adultery is voluntary sex on the part of a married person outside of marriage.
2) Rape is sex, among other things.
3) The commission of a rape by a married person is “voluntary sex on the part of married person outside of marriage” and so it is adultery.
Do you TRULY not see this? Or are you just laughing into your hand at the funny American trying to educate you?
Regarding the link you sent, I’ll check it out. But questions: who would read an English Saudi newspaper except westerners? What Saudi would write for such a paper, except one who wanted to talk to westerners? Do you expect us to believe the Saudi secret police don’t read it, and in essence approve what goes into it, since there isn’t exactly a free press there?
So I’ll be very interested to see what “criticisms” of Sharia, or terrorism, or the Saudi government it may contain.
August 28th, 2009 10:02 pm
I said:
You said:
Not so. You are arguing with ME about the “incorrect way” (according to you) that Sharia courts evidently do interpret the Koran and Hadith, specifically with regard to allegations of rape.
Yet all I am doing is observing what they do, and connecting the dots, while you seem simultaneously to disagree with their interpretation, while criticizing me for pointing out just what that interpretation is.
You are not educating westerners… you are complaining about the ignorance (according to you) of national interpretations of Sharia as they exist on the ground, and you are complaining that westerners notice.
August 28th, 2009 10:28 pm
…
The terms, “isn’t exactly supported” and “don’t particularly” in fact do NOT equate with the word, “doesn’t”. Sorry. And in the context of this discussion the difference is quite significant and profound.
The word, “doesn’t” is an absolute. It is a statement of finality that neither welcomes or accepts more than one conclusion. It is a contraction of the two words, “does not”. it is a word that leaves no possible other interpretation or “wiggle room” as we sometimes say.
“Don’t particularly” on the other hand is a statement that is anything but absolute. it is vague, and intentionally so. It can mean implied but not actually stated, suggested but not ordered, favored but not directed. It carries a lack of specificity and clear definition. The term is intentionally general and leaves considerable room for interpretation and differing opinions.
Now you can insert all the sarcastic comments you like about how well harmonicminer does or does not knows the English language – that’s fine. And you can accuse him of “quibbling over words” as much as you like. But words have meanings, specific meanings. And in this case your jabs appear as little more than a smokescreen to obfuscate the fact that harmonicminer pointed out your response was a tepid denial of very specific accusations concerning the Koran and rape of non-Muslim women.
There is another saying that describes this situation – “The devil is in the details”. And when you attempt to trivialize or gloss over an important word distinction it tends to show where YOU stand in the whole discussion!
August 29th, 2009 7:55 am
I have to say, as a fairly regular reader here, that it was really sad to see the great, interesting, well thought out dialogue with Kirsten derailed by Dave. Can we get back to the original conversation?
August 29th, 2009 8:28 am
Regarding the link you sent, I’ll check it out. But questions: who would read an English Saudi newspaper except westerners? What Saudi would write for such a paper, except one who wanted to talk to westerners? Do you expect us to believe the Saudi secret police don’t read it, and in essence approve what goes into it, since there isn’t exactly a free press there?
Like, you know, the only people who read English are Westerners. What – Saudis would get executed if caught doing it? And non-Westerners simply choose not to read English papers?
You know, rather than respond to it further (which I more or less have in earlier posts), I’m going to merely highlight this for the absurdity that it is. I think your words speak for themselves.
Not so. You are arguing with ME about the “incorrect way†(according to you) that Sharia courts evidently do interpret the Koran and Hadith, specifically with regard to allegations of rape.
Would that not be educating? Besides, I’m not making comments about how Shariah courts interpret stuff. You’re the one who has made all the allegations regarding their interpretations. I’m talking about Shariah, as described by the Koran and Hadith. You’re merely taking my comments and stating “That’s not how the Shariah courts do it” – without really supporting that statement properly. And then you’re concluding that my goal is to discredit Shariah courts. It isn’t.
Yet all I am doing is observing what they do, and connecting the dots, while you seem simultaneously to disagree with their interpretation, while criticizing me for pointing out just what that interpretation is.
I’m also disagreeing with your conclusions. Look at all my comments and see how often I’ve said something like “has not been established” to things you’re stating more or less as facts.
You’re also likely suffering from observation bias. You only get to see what goes wrong, and not what goes right. Then when a number of the same types of things go wrong, you assume it is the norm and a uniform interpretation of the law. Using your methodology, if I looked at solely the abuses that have occurred in US courts over certain periods, I’d have to conclude that the US constitution, and the whole US model of justice is flawed and to be actively guarded against.
You are not educating westerners… you are complaining about the ignorance (according to you) of national interpretations of Sharia as they exist on the ground, and you are complaining that westerners notice.
Nope. I’m complaining that you’re drawing conclusions and providing scant evidence for it.
I’m also complaining that you’re taking examples from a few countries and generalizing to generic Shariah courts.
@amuzikman:
And in this case your jabs appear as little more than a smokescreen to obfuscate the fact that harmonicminer pointed out your response was a tepid denial of very specific accusations concerning the Koran and rape of non-Muslim women.
OK. How about I just outright say that the verses he quoted do not grant permission to rape? Better?
This is really silly. I would have thought the burden of proof for something like this would be the person who actually made the claim. The verses he quoted do not state that one can rape. I haven’t seen any verse or Hadith that says one can rape – in any circumstances, and no one over here has shown me any.
August 29th, 2009 9:46 am
Sam… I don’t think “…” is “Dave”. What I’m willing to say without compromising the apparent desire for anonymity on the part of “…” is that the email address is on a French domain.
Doesn’t matter either way. I’m done. Unless someone else would like to continue the conversation we began.
Kirsten, if you’re still reading (what, are you consumed by sick self-hatred or something?), I am curious about one thing: doesn’t post-modern thinking deny that the text means much without an interpretive community? And doesn’t it boil down to an “originalist” approach to deny that Sharia prescribes four male Muslim witnesses to prove rape, because that’s not what the Prophet and his immediate community “intended”? Isn’t the goal of such attempts to deny the validity of current national interpreters of Sharia, because they don’t follow the “real” meaning of the text?
And isn’t the “interpretive community” that is engaged in this project limited to a tiny number of obscure academics and a few feminist activists, whose goals, while very laudable, have no chance of denting the huge majority of Sharia jurists who have actual power, and who see things the other way, as part of their own “interpretive community”?
And, exit question: am I correct in my perception that nearly all of those engaged in this “originalist” project for Sharia are specifically opposed to such thinking when it comes to interpreting the US Constitution, or the Bible?
Just curious….
😉