Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Saltwater Nomad

Muslims Against Sharia?

Recommended Posts

Salaam,

 

Forced and under age marriages do nothing but legitimise rape. Marrying a woman to the Quran deprives her of having the choice to marry and raise a family and would I be wrong to assume by the point 4 that there is some custom banning female inheritance?

 

And also upon you

 

Rape is not allowed in Islam, marrying the Qur'an is not found in Islam and females have right to inheritance. You don't need four witnesses to prove that somebody has raped you, if you can find it out through other means(like modern ones) then the rapist will be put to death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

:sl: / Greetings

 

With regard to this topic, here are two perspectives on the Woman's Protection Bill from Pakistanis themselves, one from a law expert and the other from a mufti. I think it is important we hear their perspective, rather than listening to the media alone.

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetislamonline(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1164545897953&pagename=Zone-English-Living_Shariah%2FLSELayout"]Women's Protection Bill: Perceptions and Realities[/url]

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yethudoodordinance(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/taqi-usmani-article-english.htm"]The Reality of the Woman's Protection Bill[/url]

 

:sl: / Greetings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam,

 

1.Adultery= sex outside of marriage. Normally used only to refer to extra-martial affairs, not sex between two single people although the strict definition covers that as well. It is neither a criminal nor a civil offence in common law countries.

 

2.rape= A person (A) commits rape if he intentionally penetrates the vagina, mouth or anus of another person (B) with his penis and B does not consent to the penetration and A does not reasonably believe B consents. (Sexual Offences Act, (UK) 2003 s1(1) ).

There is no 'marriage exception' to this rule, therefore A may be guilty of raping B even if they are married (R v R (Marital rape) 1991)

 

3.illicit relationship= erm, isn't this just adultery? Therefore, no crime

 

4. extra marital relationship= erm, see above. Really not difficult to break down though. It's any relationship where a person (A) is having a relationship with a person (B) who is not A's husband/wife/civil partner.

 

In terms of statistics, the last three are obviously not collected because they do no constitute crimes of any discription. Rape statistics are notoriously unreliable do due very different definitions of rape and massive disparities in the reporting of rapes. (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3074845.stm"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3074845.stm[/url] covers this issue and also provides some statistics. For example, in the UK in 2003 the test of consent was changed with the introduction of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

 

 

EDIT: Freedslave, thanks for the links. Will read.

 

 

Peace and Love,

 

DARLA

Edited by darla_1753

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If in fact Islamists do take over Pakistan it will be interesting to see how the world deals with the nuclear problem that creates. I really do hope there is a very good contingency plan in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam,

 

Frank, isn't called the DPRNK option? also known as 'stick our heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist whilst'?

 

Peace and Love,

 

DARLA

 

ps: DPRNK= North Korea for those not up on their international acronyms :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oops, sorry, I posted that after only reading page 1.

 

Can I add to the definitions... in my state the sexual offences act was overhauled in the '90s and the definition of rape (as it's still colloquially called - I think it's now technically called illegal sexual penetration) includes digital (ie fingers, not computers :sl:) and other forms of penetration. Therefore women can be (and have been, I think) guilty of 'rape'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Illicit relations perhaps refers to things like closeness of relationship (I think marriage between first cousins in permitted in my state) and age (the age of consent is 16 for both heterosexuals and homosexuals - it used to be higher for homosexuals in some states) but at age 16 there are restrictions on how old the partner can be. Not over 21, I think but I could be wrong. Sex with anyone or any thing which cannot give informed consent is illegal. Eg permanently or temporarily (drunk) mentally deficient people, animals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam,

 

In Britain there are 4 principle sexual offences: Rape, Assault by penetration, Sexual Assault and causing sexual activity without consent

Rape (defined above) s1(1)

 

Assault by penetration (which would cover Frank's stuff). Basically, 'penetration of the vagina or anus by A to B with a 'part of his body or anything else'. s2(1).

 

Sexual Assault: (A person (A) commits and offence if he intentionally touches B, the touching is sexual, B does not consent and A has no reasonable belief in consent) s3(1)

 

Causing sexual activity without consent: A intentionally causes B to engage in an activity, the activity is sexual, B does not consent, A has no reasonable belief in B's consent. s4(1)

 

Given the disparity between Frank's state's definition of rape and the UK definition (two countries with a legal system based on common law), it's hardly surprising that in other countries rape statistics differ as well. Some countries won't acknowledge non-consensual marital sex to be rape, for example and let's not get started on ages of consent.

 

Peace and Love,

 

DARLA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam,

 

ahamed, in the Uk there were two principle cases on marital rape in the C20th. The first was in the 1970s and upheld the old common law idea that there couldn't be rape within a marriage as in getting married a woman provided 'perminant consent' to her husband for the duration of that marriage. This was considered simply to be too shocking by 1991 and so R v R (marital rape) removed the marriage exception to rape. Now, if a wife says no at any point and the husband continues, it is rape. The act of marriage is no longer considered to give continuing consent.

 

Just in case you didn't know, our law in the UK is based both on statute (;laws made in parliament) and common law (law made in the courts which will then bind future decisions).

 

Peace and Love,

 

DARLA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If in fact Islamists do take over Pakistan it will be interesting to see how the world deals with the nuclear problem that creates. I really do hope there is a very good contingency plan in place.

 

if you met these 'islamists' then i can guaratee you that most of them will treat you better than your own son.....especially if they find that ur a non-muslim :sl: unless ofcourse ur spying :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much the same happened here as well. Also, to get slightly off the topic, there is no longer the legal concept of "born out of wedlock" here. Whether or not your parents are married makes no difference in the eyes of the law nor, in fact, in the eyes of the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if you met these 'islamists' then i can guaratee you that most of them will treat you better than your own son.....especially if they find that ur a non-muslim :sl: unless ofcourse ur spying :sl:

 

I doubt it. I think Salman Rushdie is a great writer (really, I'm not just saying that to be provocative), I strongly disapprove of restrictions on sexual activity between consenting adults of any gender, I don't like the idea of pre-determined roles for women and men, I would fight to stop a caliphate (or any other religious system of government) being established in my country and I am proud of the way humanity has managed to free itself from superstition since the Enlightenment.

 

And the idea that people who regard executing an 'adulterer' as doing them a favour might get atomic weapons fills me with dread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace.

 

no offense to anyone here, but in my experience pakistan stands far and away the most extreme country i have ever visited. Of all countries, including iran and where i went in africa, none would i like to live in less than pakistan.

 

none also did i receive more respect for simply being 'English'. The British built the railways, the modern infrastructure, and if the rest of pakistan is like quetta and lahore, then what was built is slowly collapsing due to lack of infrastructure investment due to ludicruous military spending. But the British also never 'captured' the tribal areas, not with all their military superiority (afghanistan also - pity certain historical lessons are never learned), and this left them as pockets - very very strong pockets - of highly feudal societies able to resist central govt control when the britemp collapsed.

 

it is often important to realise that IRL it is very rare to have matters clearly delineated into good/bad, in this situation the Islamists are generally more moral than the feudal elements, the secularists, although being more 'pro-liberty' than the Islamists are more corrupt financially and politically, and the feudalists beleive they are "defending conservative values", and no doubt beleive that 'progress' will destroy their societies. Pakistan is a LONG way away from a moden, pluralistic society, and it is highly in doubt that there will be any strong movement toward libertarianism in the forseeable future.

 

it was a good thing to be reminded in this thread that there are worst things than a hard-line Islamic rule. As bad as the Taliban were in afghanistan, they were still 'better' in many ways than the warlords.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace.

 

Mr Frank, Society is formed by masses. And masses have different views. So are you representing a society or your views are your personal opinion.

Do you like that your wife, sister, mother, aunts and your nears and dears should also follow your views.

 

Implement your views on your nears and dears first.

 

I hope our friend will take it in positive way.

Thanks

Edited by ahamed_sharif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×