I'm a Muslim. Ask me anything!

[Anonymous]

Here is the problem with the rape/adultery law:

If a woman is raped, to get redress, she needs to identify and accuse her rapist. So now the woman has admitted she had sex (forcibly, against her will). But the rapist, like rapists all over the world, is going to deny it, or he's going to say she consented to it, or he claims he doesn't even know her. So she's now admitted she had sex, but unless she can provide 4 witnesses to the fact that it was rape, or the rapist admits it (unlikely), this rape is going to appear under the law to be consensual sex. And then, because this was supposedly "consensual" sex outside of marriage, both the victim and the rapist (unless he just denies it) are subject to 100 lashes.

Given these laws, why would a woman accuse her rapist, unless she has 4 witnesses? Without the 4 witnesses, she's admitted to having sex outside marriage, so she gets 100 lashes.

[Anonymous]

If what PP is saying is true I'm surprised people haven't taken justice into their own hands by doing something to the rapist.

[Anonymous]

She needs to show proof of force, but a rape kit and exam, and things like bruising, are evidence it was not consensual. She does not need 4 witnesses to prove this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She needs to show proof of force, but a rape kit and exam, and things like bruising, are evidence it was not consensual. She does not need 4 witnesses to prove this.

This sounds like progressive policy of a middle east government - could I ask where?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She needs to show proof of force, but a rape kit and exam, and things like bruising, are evidence it was not consensual. She does not need 4 witnesses to prove this.

Is this from an "islamic" government? I'm pretty sure the quran doesn't mention rape kits. But if this is from an "islamic" government, and not just a secular government doing its own thing, that's pretty good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She needs to show proof of force, but a rape kit and exam, and things like bruising, are evidence it was not consensual. She does not need 4 witnesses to prove this.

What if she is raped while incapacitated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She needs to show proof of force, but a rape kit and exam, and things like bruising, are evidence it was not consensual. She does not need 4 witnesses to prove this.

Is this from an "islamic" government? I'm pretty sure the quran doesn't mention rape kits. But if this is from an "islamic" government, and not just a secular government doing its own thing, that's pretty good.

From Hadith, she needs one piece of evidence. I mentioned rape kits because that's what we have today.

[Anonymous]

But in practice, don't many countries rely on the Quranic rules about consensual/nonconsensual sex, because these have scriptural authority? Whereas hadith are not always accepted as authoritative, as some PP above already mentioned.

The 4 witnesses thing, which comes from the Quran, is how it plays out in many countries today. Pakistan is an example that comes to mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But in practice, don't many countries rely on the Quranic rules about consensual/nonconsensual sex, because these have scriptural authority? Whereas hadith are not always accepted as authoritative, as some PP above already mentioned.

The 4 witnesses thing, which comes from the Quran, is how it plays out in many countries today. Pakistan is an example that comes to mind.

There is a whole system for interpreting Islamic law. In Sunni Islam, it's based on the Qu'ran and the Sunnah, and these two together have been interpreted by four major schools of law. Hanbali, Hanafi, Shafi, and Malaki. Shites are similar but there is only one major madhab (school of law) I'm familiar with. Jafaari.

With respect to Hadith, there are strict standards for interpretation. Some are strong with a direct chain of narrators. Some are weak with little evidence. So you can't just quote a Hadith you find on the Internet and take it as some sort of truth about Islam.

I can't speak for all Islamic states, but ones such as Egypt have based their legal code on the predominant madhab they follow. In their case, Hanafi. Saudi Arabia follow Hanbali. Hanbali madhab is very strict.

Shiites rely much more on ijtihad, or reasoning. So maybe that's what you are referring to? Many fatwas are issued by Shiite religious leaders.

I have no knowledge of Pakistani laws, so I don't know their basis or application.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"He was apparently a very compassionate human who married sometimes to help a family, never for lustful reasons."

Never? How do you know?

OP here: Well, we don't know. As I said we are relying on hearsay from hundreds of years ago. But the same holds true for a Prophet of any religion. How do we know Jesus performed miracles? How do we know Moses parted the sea? How do we know Jesus was the savior? Religions are based on belief and actually blind belief, which is what faith is all about. If you choose to believe that Muhammad was lustful and consummated marriages with nine year olds because of his lust, so be it. That's your prerogative to believe that. As I mentioned, my grandmother married at 14 and this is was not unusual at all for her time. She died by the way at the age of 94 just last year. So we're talking about what life was like for girls 80 years ago in rural parts of Muslim countries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How do you feel when one of your clerics says that any Muslim can kill people for puttingllah in a cartoon, or the satanic verses, or a Turkish soap opera?

http://www.reuters.com/video/2012/03/09/reuters-tv-turkish-soap-operas-ignite-culture-war-i?videoId=231452645

OP here: I haven't checked this link (I will later, just don't have time right now). Honestly I wished that 'cleric' lived here in the U.S. so that he could be jailed for inciting imminent violence. This is Muslims' fundamental problem - we rely too heavily on the interpretation of rigid clerics and a poor translation of our holy book, the Quran. Much of the Quran is read out of context, and instead read literally, and interpreted by uneducated or ignorant individuals. They are not worldly. They have little or no interaction with society outside of their rural upbringing or Muslim societies. DH and I don't follow clerics from other countries. In fact, no Muslim should follow the word of these clerics. Jesus has been mocked in cartoons, and so has Muhammad. People who are publishing these are nonMuslim. How on earth can any Muslim impose Muslim rules and Muslim laws on nonMuslims and then feel they have the right to kill them for it? Again, outright ignorance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Islam impose a higher moral standard for how you treat other Muslims than for how you treat non-Muslims?

Not OP but Another Muslim poster: nope- a person is a person.

My grad school friend's roommate wouldn't shake my hand because as a non-believer I was unclean. I thought there were special tax rules and protected statuses for People of the Book vs. atheists and polytheists, too?

Was the Muslim a man or a woman? What are you? Muslims aren't supposed to shake hands of the opposite sex, but it has nothing to do with being unclean.

Muslims pay zakat.
Christians and Jews living in an Islamic state paid jizyah. Muslim rulers in India extended the tax on Hindus and Sikhs. I don't know if it exists anywhere today.

OP here: Muslims ARE allowed to shake the hands of the opposite sex. The Quran never, not once, states this is forbidden. Because the Quran states that there should be modesty between men and women, people have inferred it must mean there must be absolutely no touching at all between people of the opposite sex. This is ridiculous. It's just more ignorance that is rampant in our Muslim communities.

Can I ask what school of law you follow? Or are you a Qu'ranist? Because all four madhabs of Sunni Islam state it is impermissible for men and women to shake hands, with some very limited exceptions. If you are a Qu'ranist, that's fine. But that is a very small minority view of Islam. To call other Sunnis who follow the four major schools of law ignorant is just wrong.

OP here: You must be the Muslim that stated it is impermissible for men and women to shake hands. Are you Muslim? First of all, I honestly couldn't care less which freakin' madhab says what. The Quran takes precedence in importance and reliability over any madhab ruling and it is complete and provides the final say in all matters. The Quran does not prohibit any man or woman from shaking hands. It requires modesty and that's it. How on earth do Muslims stretch modesty to include forbidding shaking hands? For God's sake, we Muslims need to chill. This is total ignorance. Shaking hands isn't going to cause any man or woman to have sexual desires to bed that other person and if it does, that man or woman needs therapy, not extreme restrictions imposed on them.

Moreover, there are millions of Muslims that work in non Muslim countries and are reaping the benefits of working in nonMuslim countries but wearing 'western' attire and shaking hands with people of the opposite sex in order to continue reaping these benefits. If you don't like it, the best thing to do is to go back to a strict Muslim country where such strict rules are imposed and followed. But the U.S. is not the place for Muslims who believe in such things. Our culture here is just not conducive to practicing such a strict interpretation of Islam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's true that all major religions were very misogynistic when created, but most have become more gender-neutral in practice. Why hasn't Islam followed suit? Why can't women drive in Saudi Arabia? And I honestly can't believe that people on this board are defending the 'women's word is worth 1/2 of men's.' I believe in countries like Pakistan, you need 4 witnesses to report a rape. As if that ever happens.

I don't see anyone defending anything. Just trying to explain. Islam is very often practiced liberally. Mostly in the west, but also in the upper classes of many predominantly Muslim countries. Culture has a huge influence, and Indonesian Muslims practice Islam very differently than Saudis, for example.

It's not 4 witnesses for rape. It's 4 witnesses to prove adultery. Huge difference.

OP here: There are definitely a lot of rules that need to be further explained because they certainly make Muslims societies look paternalistic and oppressive to women. Some Shaira laws are indeed very oppressive to women. But if you just look at the Quran and not the Sharia the rules can be explained well. The requirement for witnesses was implemented in order to protect WOMEN. Sometimes men would accuse women of adultery. If the account of only one witness were to suffice what if that one witness was lying? Thus, four witnesses are required to bring a case against a woman accused of adultery. It makes it very hard to bring a case against a woman, let alone convict her then.

But whatever the origin, it leads to such difficult consequences. A woman cannot prove rape unless she has 4 witnesses. This is regardless of whether she is married, or one of the rapists is married. If she charges rape but can't produce the 4 witnesses, then she herself is charged with adultery and subject to a prescribed punishment, whipping or stoning, I forget which. Also, there is no such thing as rape within marriage.

No, a woman who alleges rape can not and should not be charged with adultery. I'm not saying this is not happening in some Muslim countries. I agree that the interpretation of laws is not often times in favor of women. This needs to change. Their societies are patriarchal and oppressive to women. But Islam was never meant to be. No where in the Quran will you ever find it saying that a woman who alleges rape should then be charged with adultery if she can't produce four witnesses. In the U.S., a woman who alleges rape need not produce four witnesses to bring the charge. However, how would she prove rape? She would have to prove it somehow in order to convict the rapist. It's only recently that we use DNA evidence. Prior to that the courts relied on physical evidence, placing the rapist and victim at the same time and place, character evidence, etc...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you view the Quran as the literal word of God as conveyed to Mohammed, or do you see it as being divinely inspired? Some of the other Abrahamic faiths have a similar tension: is the Bible the word of God, or is it divinely inspired.

OP here: The Quran is deemed to be the literal word of God as conveyed to Muhammad. Muhammad was an illiterate. The Quran's text is so poetic and clearly such a sophisticated Arabic that Muslims believe it could not have come from Muhammad himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Islam impose a higher moral standard for how you treat other Muslims than for how you treat non-Muslims?

Not OP but Another Muslim poster: nope- a person is a person.

My grad school friend's roommate wouldn't shake my hand because as a non-believer I was unclean. I thought there were special tax rules and protected statuses for People of the Book vs. atheists and polytheists, too?

Was the Muslim a man or a woman? What are you? Muslims aren't supposed to shake hands of the opposite sex, but it has nothing to do with being unclean.

Muslims pay zakat.
Christians and Jews living in an Islamic state paid jizyah. Muslim rulers in India extended the tax on Hindus and Sikhs. I don't know if it exists anywhere today.

OP here: Muslims ARE allowed to shake the hands of the opposite sex. The Quran never, not once, states this is forbidden. Because the Quran states that there should be modesty between men and women, people have inferred it must mean there must be absolutely no touching at all between people of the opposite sex. This is ridiculous. It's just more ignorance that is rampant in our Muslim communities.

Can I ask what school of law you follow? Or are you a Qu'ranist? Because all four madhabs of Sunni Islam state it is impermissible for men and women to shake hands, with some very limited exceptions. If you are a Qu'ranist, that's fine. But that is a very small minority view of Islam. To call other Sunnis who follow the four major schools of law ignorant is just wrong.

OP here: You must be the Muslim that stated it is impermissible for men and women to shake hands. Are you Muslim? First of all, I honestly couldn't care less which freakin' madhab says what. The Quran takes precedence in importance and reliability over any madhab ruling and it is complete and provides the final say in all matters. The Quran does not prohibit any man or woman from shaking hands. It requires modesty and that's it. How on earth do Muslims stretch modesty to include forbidding shaking hands? For God's sake, we Muslims need to chill. This is total ignorance. Shaking hands isn't going to cause any man or woman to have sexual desires to bed that other person and if it does, that man or woman needs therapy, not extreme restrictions imposed on them.

Moreover, there are millions of Muslims that work in non Muslim countries and are reaping the benefits of working in nonMuslim countries but wearing 'western' attire and shaking hands with people of the opposite sex in order to continue reaping these benefits. If you don't like it, the best thing to do is to go back to a strict Muslim country where such strict rules are imposed and followed. But the U.S. is not the place for Muslims who believe in such things. Our culture here is just not conducive to practicing such a strict interpretation of Islam.

Here's the thing. I agree with you in a lot of ways about how Islam can and should be practiced in accordance with the prevailing culture. But I do take issue with your calling millions of Muslims ignorant when they are following their school of law. It's like telling Christians they are ignorant in following the Nicene Creed. You could be a little more respectful in your answers and still get your point across.