Saturday, July 21, 2007

Bassam Zawadi on Rape: Part Three

Bassam, you never cease to amaze me. You try to answer an objection and only manage to show that the objection has far more warrant than anyone had imagined. In my previous post, I tried to clarify your position by drawing some analogies. Since you had claimed that a woman who doesn’t dress according to Muslim regulations is partly responsible if she is raped, I attempted to show that this sort of reasoning, if correct, would apply to other situations (implying that practically every victim of a crime is worthy of blame). To see if you really believe your claim, I asked whether you would agree with the following parallel claim:


“If you park your new car in the driveway, and it gets stolen, you’re partly to blame, since new cars entice people to steal them, and you didn’t cover your car with a tarp.”


Interestingly, I thought you would agree that a person who parks his car in his driveway deserves no blame if his car is stolen, even though the car might not have been stolen if it had been covered with a tarp. Instead, you responded by saying that this example doesn’t do justice to the case of a woman who rejects Muslim clothing regulations. You even say that women who don’t dress according to Islamic law have made themselves “easy targets” for rapists!


Bassam said:


How logically fallacious could David’s examples be.


First, regarding the car example.


David’s example should been more like this…


“If you park your new car in the driveway, and you forgot to lock the door as you usually do and openly left your latptop and wallet on the car seat where everybody could see it as usual and your car and belongings then got stolen and the law of the country clearly states that you are not supposed to do so then you’re partly to blame.”


So if the person on a continuous basis makes himself or herself an easy target for thieves (just many women might do for rapists) and continually ignore the law of the country which states that citizens must always lock their doors and hide their personal belongings (just as the law of God commands the woman to dress up modestly) then I argue that yes, the person is party to blame. HOWEVER, I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE PERSON DESERVES IT OR THAT THE CRIMINAL IS JUSTIFIED. WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT THE VICTIM COULD HAVE AVOIDED THE SITUATION BY TAKING CERTAIN PRECAUTIONS.


This is quite frightening, Bassam. Again, I assumed that you felt that a woman is to blame in the same manner as a man who leaves a shiny new car uncovered in his driveway. That is, they both leave something out in the open which might provide an evil person with an opportunity to do something wrong. (Notice, there’s no logical fallacy in what I said. I’ve taught logic courses in the past, Bassam, and I notice that you like to toss around these accusations without actually understanding them.) However, as your comment shows, you believe that a woman is far more culpable than I had imagined. Instead of comparing a woman in a miniskirt to a man who leaves something valuable where others may see it, you compare her to a man who leaves his car out in the open, unlocked, unguarded, with valuable possessions ripe for the taking! In other words, a man who leaves his valuables out in the open, where anyone can quite easily take them, is going out of his way to make the theft as easy as possible. And this is what you think about a woman who shows off her legs because she thinks they are pretty! You believe that she is doing everything in her power to make it as easy and as tempting as possible for a man to rape her! Needless to say, non-Muslims don’t generally feel this way, which is why we’re so repulsed by your comments. (And, given these comments, your claim that you aren’t saying that such a woman “deserves it” sounds hollow.)


Um Yaquub said that she would be frightened if you were her neighbor, and you took great offense at this. But you should try to understand the perspective of a person who hasn’t been taught since childhood that women who dress in a certain manner are (almost deliberately) making themselves “easy targets” for rapists. This would sound frightening to any woman.


You replied by saying that you wouldn’t want a Christian woman as a neighbor, since she might wear a miniskirt and tempt your son. But here we see a tremendous area of disagreement between our two camps. Human beings only learn to overcome temptation by confronting it and conquering it. I don’t want to keep my son locked in a room all his life just so he won’t sin. Rather, I want my son to achieve victory over temptation. All of my sons will grow up in the West, and they will certainly face temptation. But in the process, they will learn to deal with it. When a woman walks down the street in a miniskirt, my sons won’t go into a frenzy, because they will have learned to overcome their passions. The Muslim goal is to keep their sons from so much as seeing a woman. Then, when a Muslim teenager sees a woman without a burka for the first time (having been taught that such women have made themselves “easy targets” for rapists), he goes berserk, because he has never learned to control himself. (Indeed, I don’t see any emphasis in Islam on teaching Muslim men to control themselves. Instead, Muslim men learn how to control women.)


This is why there’s such a tremendous problem with rape among Muslims in the West. I can’t imagine why you don’t see it, when the problem can be seen in your own words above!


Bassam said: “Show me narrations that state that the Muslims RAPED their slave girls. I DON’T’ WANT YOUR INTERPRETATIONS OF THE SITUATIONS OR YOUR OPINIONS, SHOW ME THE PROOF. IF YOU DON’T THEN YOU ARE A LIAR AND YOU MUST RETRACT THIS STATEMENT AND APOLOGISE.”


This was a nice try on your part. You want me to show you a narration saying that Muslims “raped” their slave girls. But you know as well as I do that in Islam, a female captive is the property of her owner, and he is free to have sex with her (since Muhammad granted men this right in the Qur’an). Hence, Muslims don’t view sex with captives as “rape,” regardless of whether the captives consent or not. This, of course, is a significant area of disagreement between Muslims and the West. In America, we would say that any sexual act in which the woman does not consent is an act of rape. Muhammad’s teachings, however, have kept the Muslim world in horrible darkness.


Keeping in mind the fact that Muslims would not use the word “rape” in describing sex with unwilling women, it is quite easy to meet your challenge. I know that you are familiar with the women of Banu al-Mustaliq. Muhammad and his followers killed the men, then took the women captive. The Muslims were a long way from home, and they wanted to have sex with the women. However, they also wanted to sell the women into slavery, so they didn’t want to get the women pregnant. They therefore decided to practice coitus interruptus, where the man pulls out his penis before ejaculating in the woman. They brought the entire matter before Muhammad, who had no objections to the Muslims having sex with the women. Indeed, Muhammad’s only recommendation was that the men shouldn’t use coitus interruptus!


So what do we have here? Muhammad and his followers slaughter the men of Banu al-Mustaliq and take the women as captives. Soon, the Muslims are going to sell the women into slavery. But the men want to have sex with their captives first, since the Qur’an guarantees their right to do so. We know, then, that the Muslims had sex with these women, whose families had just been slaughtered by Muslims and who were about to become slaves at the hands of Muhammad. The only question for us is whether these women wanted to have sex with the men who had annihilated their husbands and fathers, or whether they didn’t want to have sex with these men. I think it’s obvious that the women of Banu al-Mustaliq wouldn’t have wanted to have sex with the Muslims, especially since the men were about to sell them into slavery (where they would likely be further sexually abused). Hence, Muhammad granted his men the right to have sex with women who would have been repulsed at the thought of having sex with their Muslim captors, and this qualifies as rape. Your challenge, Bassam, is easily met. (For plenty of references, see “Muhammad and the Female Captives.”)


On a different matter, you continue to argue that Isaiah 3:17 talks about women being raped because they were haughty. You claim that “most” modern versions translate the passage as “secret parts.” I have eighteen English translations of the Old Testament, and only nine of them translate the passage as “secret parts.” The other half use some variation of “laying the head bare.” You claim that the word “scalp” isn’t in the text, but I must point out that (and here’s the key) neither is “secret parts”! The passage simply refers to something being laid bare. Some translators conclude that the passage is saying that the women’s bodies will be laid bare, while others (more literally) translate the verse as saying that the women’s heads will be laid bare. Notice, Bassam, that this latter translation fits the context much better, and is therefore the preferred translation. The women were rejecting the teachings of God, and had even become proud of it. To show their high status, they were wearing all sorts of ornaments on their heads. It certainly makes sense to think that Isaiah 3:17 says that their heads would be laid bare. But regardless of what you think, you can’t use a clearly ambiguous passage to support your argument just because you want to feel better about the Muslim view that rape is okay in certain situations.


You also claim that I am here doing the same thing I accused you of doing when you wanted to deny Muslims their right to beat their wives. But the situations are hardly comparable. I pointed out that Isaiah 3:17 may be translated in various ways, and that the most literal translation of the verse (as well as many others) has nothing to do with women being raped. Is that the case with Surah 4:34? Do half of our translations say nothing about beating women? On the contrary, all of my English translations guarantee a husband the right to beat his wife if she gets out of line. But you ignore the obvious meaning of the verse simply because you know that it is extremely offensive (and, perhaps, because deep down you have a better moral outlook than Muhammad). Again, the two cases are not the same.


Bassam said: “David keeps saying ‘thanks to Muhammad’, yet he is never able to prove that it is so.”


Perhaps I’m not able to prove it to you, since you’re quite unwilling to see any problems in Muhammad’s teachings. But to any non-Muslim, it is quite clear that many of the problems we see in the Muslim world result from the teachings of Muhammad. For instance, when women are raped, they are rarely able to establish this in court. Why? Because Muhammad declared that a woman’s testimony is only half as valuable as a man’s. Hence, when a woman says, “That man raped me!” and the man says, “No, she’s just a prostitute,” the courts must give higher status to the man’s testimony. The woman, of course, goes to jail (or takes some lashes).


And, again, we know that Muhammad allowed Muslims to have sex with their female captives, regardless of whether the captives were willing or not. This is certainly relevant to the way many Muslims view rape in the world today. Muhammad showed how infidels were to be treated. Is it a surprise that Muslims rape infidels today?


Bassam said: “You can check Sunan Abu Dawud, Book Book 38, Number 4366 in which the Prophet commands a rapist to be killed.”


I had a reason for asking you to share the details of this rape, Bassam. And yet you left out the details. Notice (1) that the woman was a Muslim in good standing, (2) that she was raped while praying, and (3) that the man confessed that he had raped her. No one is saying that Islam does not punish rapists who confess that they have raped good Muslim women during prayer. What we are saying is that Islam has practically nothing to say about a Muslim who rapes a non-Muslim (or even a Muslim) woman and denies his crime. In fact, in the Muslim world, it is the woman who will typically be punished in such situations.


If you’d like to continue, Bassam, I’d be happy to. We can have “Bassam Zawadi on Rape,” Parts Four, Five, and Six. But hopefully you are learning that, at least in the eyes of people who are able to critically evaluate Muhammad’s commands, Islam is full of offensive, repulsive, horrendous teachings.

11 comments:

allison said...

First of all, I looked for the author. Is it you, David Wood?

The author says that Islam is full of "horrendous teachings." That is a bigoted thing to say. Of course you don't believe in Islam, but Islam is not made to accomodate the individual. The individual is supposed to submit to Islam. Islam means "peace" and it also means "submission" so when you submit to the rules, it is a protection for you.

For example, in Islam, the price of stealing is to have your hand cut off. Everyone obeys this law in Saudi, so the shopkeepers can leave their shops unlocked and go to the mosque to do their prayers. In Canada, I know a man in a wheelchair was trying to roll across the country and he had things stolen on his trip through Toronto. It's sad isn't it? That is the state of morality in a Christian-dominated country. The punishment is meant as a deterent. The Holy Prophet said that if his own daughter, Fatima, stole, he would follow the law as given to him. If you, out of your hatred, think that he was hard hearted, think again. His heart was soft for mankind, but his statement indicated to everyone that he would not apply the law only to the poor (as happens in America and elsewhere) and his own family would be exempt from these rules.

At the end of your rebuttal to Bassam, you blame the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. What are you blaming the Holy Prophet for? He conveyed to us the rules sent down by Allah. He didn't make them up himself. If you truly think he did it, please write ten chapters like the Holy Quran and post it on the web here for your reply. It is impossible.

In English, we have an old saying that I am sure you have heard of "don't shoot the messenger." The reason Islam emphasizes that the best of prophets was a mere messenger is to avoid the deification of the prophet as Christians have done with Jesus. Here in Georgia, I asked one Christian if she believed that Jesus is the son of God and she replied: "No Ma'am, we believe he is God." What confusion there is in Christianity. Then again, you find others who are called "Unitarians" because they believe in the "unity of God." Islam has no such difficulties. Every Muslim believes that God is the all powerful and that a messenger is the servant of God, whose job is to convey what God tells him to convey.

Please speak respectfully of Mohamed, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. He was not the LAST prophet of God. He was "Khatam an nabeen," which means the "Seal of Prophets" or the "best of prophets." There have been 124,000 prophets who have come to the world and of all those, the prophet Mohamed, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, was the best. That is no small regard by your God and my God for His Messenger.

Even if you didn't like Bassam's arguments, you lose points in debate when you leave logic and start throwing insults out of your hatred for Islam. Did Bassam insult the prophet Jesus? I doubt it. All Muslims show respect for Jesus, peace be upon him, because he was a respected prophet of God.

If you cannot show a minimum amount of respect for your opponent's prophet, you shouldn't attempt to argue with him.

The life of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, was exemplary, so it pains me no small amount that you should dump so much filth on his name and reputation when you imply that every dispicable rape should be his responsibility. What nonsense is this? The Holy Prophet (pbuh) is dead, so he is not responsible for any criminal act by men who don't follow the law of Islam. He is only responsible for what he did in his life time.

Lisa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lisa said...

Allison:

You ask why Muhammad is scrutinized so closely and blamed for the problems of Islam. “Don’t shoot the messenger” — he’s just the messenger of Allah.

In Islam, Muhammad is a perfect model of character for each Muslim to follow. He is, after all, the “Seal of the Prophets,” you said. Being such, he must have excellent character in order for Allah to use him for such a high purpose. He’s not perfect, of course, being human; but he’s as close as you can get. Am I understanding correctly? Please tell me if I am wrong.

Having been given such high expectations, he should be able to withstand critique. If he is such a great role model, as is claimed, why can’t we examine his life closely to see if he really is who he said he was — or what others claim he was? Since so many people are basing their moral code on his moral code, we have the right to judge that code and determine if it is truly moral. In the same way, we have the right to judge his actions to see if he lived a moral life in the first place, since so many claim that he is the perfect model.

After all, Jesus (whom you say you respect) told us to watch out for false prophets. “By their fruit you will recognize them,” He said (Matthew 7:16). Does the fruit of Muhammad’s life prove that he is a true prophet of the one true God? Don’t take someone at their word without observing their words and actions as well. This goes for Allah claiming to be God as much as it goes for Muhammad claiming to be God’s prophet. Does God send His angel to choke someone to get his attention, leaving that person terrified afterwards? Does a prophet of God struggle with thinking he’s demon-possessed or crazy, contemplating suicide? Personally — and this is my opinion — that sounds more demonic than godly.

Don’t be surprised when Christians reject Muhammad. He has the antichrist spirit: “Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist — he denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also” (1 John 2:22-23). I know you don’t accept that as truth, but understand that Christians do. How can you expect them to respect your prophet when he blasphemes their God and Savior?

You may point out that Christians are not supposed to judge others. Indeed not. God is the Judge. But if someone claims to come from God, we are supposed to judge the spirit involved: “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). I’m sure you well know that you can’t trust just anyone.

Also, those who teach others will be held more accountable, judged more strictly (James 3:1), because of their influence on others. Muhammad was a teacher in that he taught others Allah’s ways. Therefore, he will be subjected to stricter judgment for what he did. Each person is accountable for his own sins, but by influencing someone else to sin, you indirectly take part in his sin and thus add to your list.

Allison, why do you claim that David has thrown out logic? Can you, or Bassam, refute what he’s written rather than make personal attacks and avoid the points he and others make? Can you prove that he has thrown out logic in his argument? Just because someone criticizes Islam, it doesn’t mean they’ve thrown out logic. I happen to agree with his point that we are supposed to learn self-control (part of the fruit of God’s Spirit, by the way). Sin and temptation are a part of this world. Do your best to avoid it, but also learn to overcome it (by God’s power) because there will be times when that’s all you can do.

One of the differences between Christianity and Islam is that Christianity offers a change of heart that seeks to do what’s right out of love while Islam tries to force morality on the people (often regarded as legalism). The God of Christianity does not force anyone but asks that people will follow Him out of genuine love (before the cup of sin is full and He must pour out His wrath because He is a holy God). The god of Islam forces everyone into submission in one way or another, whether as a Muslim or as a dhimmi.

Also, just so you know, your challenge to write ten chapters like anything in the Quran is pointless. Not everyone thinks the language (as in wording) of the Quran is beautiful or perfect. That is purely subjective and no proof that Muhammad didn’t make it up himself (although I personally do think he was inspired by outside sources — just not the type you believe).

In the end, we’ll probably have to agree to disagree. But thank you for being willing to share your thoughts.

Bassam said...

David said…

I’ve taught logic courses in the past


Those poor students of yours.

David, I rephrased what you said and stated that the woman is compared to the person who CONTINOUSLY IGNORES THE LAW about securing your property and thus gets affected.

Let me give you another example…

David forgot his wallet at the restaurant. Therefore, someone took advantage and stole David’s wallet.


Now, is David partly responsible for his wallet being stolen? YES! David was careless and did not take proper care of his belongings, therefore he suffered the consequences. Does this mean that David should be punished for the crime? NO! The thief will. HOWEVER, David’s carelessness let the situation occur.

Similarly, I am saying that the woman’s immodest dress could let the situation occur. She is partly responsible for what occurred; however that does not mean that she is to be punished.

I don’t see how there is anything repulsive in what I am saying. Can you deny that the woman’s sexuality did not play a role? Your car example is fallacious. Because the car example is not that someone simply leaves his car out for people to see. No, if someone stole the car because someone forgot to lock it then that person is partly responsible for his carelessness. However, if someone put an alarm system and locked his door and someone still stole the car then it is not his fault for he did all that he was able to do. Similarly, if a woman who is properly covered is raped, then she is not responsible in any way for she did all she was able to do in regards to dressing modestly. But a woman who doesn’t plays a role in enticing the individual.

Sorry to say David, but you have not logically defeated my argument.

David said…

This would sound frightening to any woman.


Then follow the Islamic dress code and have no fear J. Plus, why would you be frightened by me? If that is my opinion, why would that scare you? Am I going out telling people to go rape women who don’t dress properly? Do you think, I am the kind of person who would just laugh at the rape victim and say that she deserves it? The problem with you David, is that you probably still understand what on earth I am trying to say.

David said…

Human beings only learn to overcome temptation by confronting it and conquering it. I don’t want to keep my son locked in a room all his life just so he won’t sin. Rather, I want my son to achieve victory over temptation. All of my sons will grow up in the West, and they will certainly face temptation. But in the process, they will learn to deal with it. When a woman walks down the street in a miniskirt, my sons won’t go into a frenzy, because they will have learned to overcome their passions. The Muslim goal is to keep their sons from so much as seeing a woman.


Yes, I understand where you are coming from. People need to overcome temptation rather they like it or not. But what I am telling you is that Islam makes this easier by offering practical solutions. Basically I could then argue “Why don’t the police just let all the drug dealers go loose. We should let the people overcome their temptation and just say no to drug dealers’ However, the police would rightfully argue back that there would be some people who will not be able to control their temptations and take the drugs because of how it was made easy for them. They would also argue that these people could eventually harm the society even though most of the society reject drugs. Similarly, the same thing with allowing women to go out and wear as they please. There must be restrictions and an Islamic state will enforce it and reduce temptation and problems. Yes, we must overcome temptation. However, if there is something that we can do to ease the situation then why not opt for it? That doesn’t mean we go out looking for it and then try overcoming it. I think (and correct me if I am wrong) that you are getting this faulty reasoning from the story of Jesus overcoming the temptation of the devil at the mountain . If you are interpreting that story to mean that we should purposely go out to places of temptation and try to over come it then you are either misinterpreting the story or the Biblical Jesus is a horrible example to follow. Either way, one would logically agree that it is best to minimize opportunities to sin as much as possible and Islam offers that while Christianity doesn’t and this is a clear advantage of Islam over Christianity.

David said…

This is why there’s such a tremendous problem with rape among Muslims in the West. I can’t imagine why you don’t see it, when the problem can be seen in your own words above!


Islam offers the solution to this problem and unfortunately the Muslims are not taking it and that is marriage if you are able to do so. If one is not able to do so then one should fast in order to purify his soul and weaken his physical desires. This is the advice of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him (again practical solutions, something your false religion doesn’t offer. Your religion is just all talk and no actions) but unfortunately sinful Muslims are not following it.

David said…

This was a nice try on your part. You want me to show you a narration saying that Muslims “raped” their slave girls. But you know as well as I do that in Islam, a female captive is the property of her owner, and he is free to have sex with her (since Muhammad granted men this right in the Qur’an). Hence, Muslims don’t view sex with captives as “rape,” regardless of whether the captives consent or not.


David it seems like your jealous that I can show rape in your scriptures but you cant do the same thing in my religion, therefore you come up with ignorant statements such as this.

First of all, Islam only says that it is permissible for one to have sex with his slave girl, NOT RAPE THEM. If someone can rape his slave girl then that means someone can rape his wife and we all know that a Muslim man can’t do that http://www.authenticsunnah.org/karim/no_marital_rape.htm .

Your arguments regarding Islam condoning raping slave girls is refuted here http://www.authenticsunnah.org/karim/no_rape_of_female_slaves.htm

You don’t take into account Islamic teachings that severely rebuke those who abuse those under their authority (slave girls included).

You don’t do justice by understanding Islamic teachings properly.

You have to understand that it is your Bible that clearly teaches rape. Visit this link http://www.answering-christianity.com/karim/part_3_d.pdf and read pages 9 to 24 and clearly see how your Bible taught that it was okay for men to rape their slave girls.



David said…

But regardless of what you think, you can’t use a clearly ambiguous passage to support your argument just because you want to feel better about the Muslim view that rape is okay in certain situations.


I have emailed the author of the article and he said he will refute your weak response in an upcoming article. Once it is finished, I will send it to you.

As for the Muslim view that rape is okay in certain situations, I wish besides blabbing nonsense you could actually prove it.

By the way David, what do you think of Genem’s statements in the other comments section? Where he says that since Israel played the harlot they deserved to be raped and that the women of Bablyon deserved to be raped since the men of Babylon raped the women of Isaelites? Do you support these disgusting statements? Its amazing how you dare lecture Muslims about morality while you and your fellow Christians follow a book that show a man flirting with this lover and talk about her breasts (song of songs) and how women deserved to be raped because misguided men from their tribe raped other women. Don’t lecture me on morality man. Loool.


As for the beating translation. Your memory fails you. I am not talking about Surah 4:34 (since the conditions of wife beating have been explained and are not immoral) but your argument regarding the Prophet hitting Aisha. I told you that I looked at the commentary of that hadith and also saw the Arabic and told you that the word means ‘to push’ or thrust lightly and this was given by the top hadith scholar, Imam Nawawi. But instead you stubbornly stuck to the English translation. You argued that Aisha was hurt, but a light thrust on a woman’s chest could hurt her for various reasons e.g. having current chest problems, etc.

David said…

Because Muhammad declared that a woman’s testimony is only half as valuable as a man’s. Hence, when a woman says, “That man raped me!” and the man says, “No, she’s just a prostitute,” the courts must give higher status to the man’s testimony. The woman, of course, goes to jail (or takes some lashes).


Well that is only during financial situations David. Because in other situations the woman’s testimony is equal to that of the man (e.g. surah 24:6-10) Read this for more info http://islamic-answers.com/is_one_male_witness_equal_to_two_women_witnesses___ and so much for the testimony of the women in the Bible http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/the_testimony_of_women_in_the_bible_

Why can’t you see that it is your Bible that humiliates women? http://www.authenticsunnah.org/karim/women_are_cursed_in_bible.htm

David said…

What we are saying is that Islam has practically nothing to say about a Muslim who rapes a non-Muslim (or even a Muslim) woman and denies his crime. In fact, in the Muslim world, it is the woman who will typically be punished in such situations.

David, if a man is caught raping a woman or committing any crime against any person in the society and it is proven against him then he is to be punished. If a Muslim steals from a non-Muslim he still gets his hand cut off. This goes for everything else (even though many Muslims have argued that a Muslim cannot be executed for killing a non-Muslim. But that does not mean that he goes scott free). Therefore, raping a non-Muslim woman by a Muslim man if proven then he is to be punished. Now David said…


Muslim who rapes a non-Muslim (or even a Muslim) woman and denies his crime.

Each situation is unique and depends on the evidence. If the situation is only left to ‘a person’s word against the other’ then where is the evidence? I mean, even in other situations and cases is a person’s word enough by itself? I don’t think so. You have to look at several things like witnesses, DNA evidence, etc… Because then any woman could simply lie and falsely accuse men of raping them. Where is the justice to men then?


What does your religion say? JESUS DIED FOR THE SINS OF THE RAPIST, IT’S ALL GOOD!!!! Is that what your religion says or does it prescribe punishments to rapists in order to protect the women in our societies? Or is it the ‘love of Jesus’ that would soften the hearts of the rapists and not make them commit their crimes? Give me a break man. Islam is practical, your false religion’s teachings might work in a non existent utopia.

David said…

If you’d like to continue, Bassam, I’d be happy to. We can have “Bassam Zawadi on Rape,” Parts Four, Five, and Six. But hopefully you are learning that, at least in the eyes of people who are able to critically evaluate Muhammad’s commands, Islam is full of offensive, repulsive, horrendous teachings.

I have actually had enough of you for now. You are wasting my time. I need to attend to more important thing such as updating my site more regularly and dealing with more serious arguments unlike yours. I will be refuting the well known Christian missionary argument that Islam supposedly endorses your false book and other arguments. So don’t expect me to post on your site for a while since I won’t waste my time here.

If you ever want to debate me on audio over topics like ‘Did Jesus claim to be God?” ‘Is Christianity the Truth’ ‘Is Islam the Truth?’ then please email me at b_zawadi@hotmail.com and inform me. I won’t be visiting your site anymore so I wouldn’t know unless you tell me.

Take care David.

Bassam said...

Dear Allison


I won't be following your comments here on the site since I am not wasting my time coming here anymore. So if these guys ever confuse your head with nonsense then please email me at b_zawadi@hotmail.com and I will help you out.

Take care

ree said...

You know, David, as much as I agree with you about the repulsiveness of Islamic teachings, I can also see why Muslim's aren't convinced by our arguments. I think that, as long as they associate contemporary Western civilization with Christianity, they won't be able to see the superiority of Christ over Mohammed, because as repulsive as Islam is, the culture we've created in the West is repulsive as well.

I was just directed from another blog to the following article by Peter Leithart about viewing Islam as a Christian heresy and a judgment of God. According to this view, Islam is a kind of parody of the worst of Christendom, and it's well worth reading.

ree said...

Oops, I forgot to link the article. Let's see if this works. Mirror of Christendom

ree said...

Hmm. It doesn't seem to be. Anyway, the url is
http://www.marshillaudio.org/resources/pdf/Leithart.pdf

Sunil said...

Allison,

>> The individual is supposed to submit to Islam.

Is "submission" such a trivial thing that one can submit without a critical review of whether one is submitting to the best/ideal or not? Especially when we can clearly see many things that are and can be a lot better than the actions/teachings/prescriptions put forth by Muhammad (and claimed as from God)?

>> For example, in Islam, the price of stealing is to have your hand cut off. Everyone obeys this law in Saudi, so the shopkeepers can leave their shops unlocked and go to the mosque to do their prayers. In Canada, I know a man in a wheelchair was trying to roll across the country and he had things stolen on his trip through Toronto. It's sad isn't it? That is the state of morality in a Christian-dominated country.

Since David Wood gave the example of how in Islamic countries the rape victim gets flogging etc (apparently this does not make you say “It's sad isn't it”), you want to give this counter example? David Wood's example is directly related to Islam and the value it gives to women witness etc, but the example of stealing you gave in Canada is not related to Christianity. Do you have to search for examples by scratching the at the bottom end of moral lapses to find a resemblance/match (so that you can feel better about the kind of things going on in Islamic countries)? Why don’t you seek/search the highest of moral standards given to us by Jesus/NT (as claimed in Christian worldview) and see how your doctrines/standards/prescriptions fare?
Punishment should be proportionate to crime and experts will tell you that the efficiency of law enforcement (with appropriate deserving level of punishment) is a better deterrent for crime than unwarranted extremity of punishment.

>> Here in Georgia, I asked one Christian if she believed that Jesus is the son of God and she replied: "No Ma'am, we believe he is God." What confusion there is in Christianity. Then again, you find others who are called "Unitarians" because they believe in the "unity of God." Islam has no such difficulties.

Presence of a different view (Unitarians) among people who still want to claim themselves to be “Christians” does not mean that the search for Truth can be given up and blindly pick something else that comes along the way. The question is, what is the Truth? And what is the highest order of Revelation that has been given to us and what are the highest moral values, doctrines, ideal, standards, principles given to us. The Christian claim is that the highest order of Revelation is seen in Jesus/NT, in which we see the highest order of moral values, standards, doctrines, more advanced and profound and deeper understanding of the nature of Oneness of God (giving us more profound understanding of Love, Holiness of God, Unity in diversity, Love/relationship, Relational aspect in the basis of Morality, God’s Redemption etc) and so on. The strong historical reliability of the events surrounding the life/teachings/message of Jesus, the crucifixion, resurrection, establishing of early church in first century by Jesus and his anointed disciples/apostles etc, provides a means of verification. For a review of historicity, you may refer http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html and http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html .

Bassam said...

David as promised...

http://islamic-answers.com/isaiah_3_17___foreheads_or_secret_parts__

GeneMBridges said...

Bassam,

For all the bluster in that article, you are STILL begging the question. For starters, you used only ONE commentary...Commentary on the Old Tetament by C. F. Keil & F. Delitzsch, Vol. VII, Isaiah [ William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids Michigan 1980 ], p. 143-144 .

Now, I happen to like that commentary. It's a classic. However, it is also dated from 1866 - 91, decades before the modern translations you dislike so much came into use! The version you are using is a reprint.

You even noted in your article: By the Middle Ages there was already a dispute among biblical scholars over whether the word referred to the females' genitalia or to a part of their heads,

But NEVER have you actually presented material from the other side of that dispute! Instead, you have selected that which satisfies your need to raise an objection. So, you are STILL begging the question! Please, don't accuse David of being "illogical," when clearly you're violating one of the key rules of logical argumentation repeatedly.

I'd also add that you and Allison have yet to tell us which laws of logic David has violated. Assertions are not arguments.

What you need to do is do some research into why the NASB, for example, disagrees with the KJV/ESV and why text critics and Biblical scholars have taken the positions they take. Part of the answer lies in the manuscript choices and the sense of the words...none of which you bothered to cover.

You stated:

The Biblical Lord obvious supports the disgusting view that: "women who act and dress seductive need [ or deserve ] to be punished with rape"

To the casual Muslim reader, it looks like you're saying that His Law condones rape, but where is that to be found in the Law?

Since it seems I'll have to do the heavy lifting for you - yet again - I'll simply quote a typical atheistic objection, since they make this same claim (and rarely if ever use the passages you're using, I might add).

I consider the following commands evil: your God declared that a slave is the property of another man (Exodus 21:21). A female captive in war was forced to be an Israelite man’s wife (Deuteronomy 21:10-14). If a virgin who was pledged to be married was raped, she was to be stoned along with her rapist (Deuteronomy 22:23-24), while if a virgin who was not pledged to be married was raped, she was supposed to marry her rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).

Now, here's the problem with each:

“If a virgin who was pledged to be married was raped, she was to be stoned along with her rapist (Deuteronomy 22:23-24).”

Either this atheist is too ignorant of the law in question to know what it means or else he is prevaricating.

This is a case of consensual sex, not rape. That is clear from the contrast between 22:23-24 and 25-27, which is a case of rape.

In the case of consensual sex between a woman who was already engaged to another man and a man who was not her fiancé, this was equivalent to adultery, and both parties were executed.

A rape victim was not executed. To the contrary, if you actually read other OT rape laws, such as the very next case law (e.g. 22:25-27), you will see that the rape victim was deemed to be innocent—in cases where rape could be presumed—whereas the rapist was executed.

Once again, this illustrates the fact that women had civil rights under the Mosaic Law. Far from an “honor killing,” it was the man, and not the woman, who was killed.

i) In the final case, the rapist must compensate the rape victim by providing the ancient equivalent of alimony.

And that’s more that Loftus ever did for the stripper he dumped as soon as she became inconvenient. It’s quite understandable why promiscuous men like Loftus revile OT laws that hold men accountable for their sexual indiscretions.

ii) Finally, we need to read this law in concert with the parallel case law in Exod 22:17. Marriage was not obligatory in this situation.

That’s the nature of case law. A particular case law does not address every possible situation or attendant detail. You need to compare one case law with another.

So, contrary to what you have stated in your article, we have women's rights established and raped condemned under the Law.

What you are arguing is NOT a case of God commanding His covenant people to rape, but declaring that the price of apostasy for these women is commensurate with their sins! It's a case of equal justice; if one is in a state of apostasy (which you didn't bother to address), you will be treated like a pagan.

In that era, if one was not part of the covenant community, there was no protection from God outside of common grace. If one apostatized, then the penalty was to be treated as if you were not part of the covenant community.

The text selected tells of this very thing. The women's behavior is also a poetic metaphor (which you duly noted) and image of the apostasy of the whole nation of Israel. God raises up a pagan nation (Assyria/Babylon) to conquer them - because of their apostasy. Consequently, things that happen to apostates and pagans are brought upon those who act like apostates and pagans.

And in the Law, the perpetrator of a rape is to be stoned. In this text, the point is that those who act wickedly toward the Lord's people will themselves be treated wickedly by foreign invaders. Just as in the case of the men God ordained to kill Jesus, however, the rapists in this case will not go unpunished. God will judge them as well, despite the fact that he uses their wickedness for his own ends - and the rest of Isaiah (which you continue to avoid discussing) shows that God does exactly that.

You're pretty much violating the 9th commandment in your descriptions about what the text is teaching on this, and that puts you in quite the pickle since Islam purports to worship the same God as YHWH.

Let us not forget that you're the one who's religion commands that a man who steals should have his hand removed by force, whereas the Law of God makes the thief repay the victim his loss and then more! Where is the exacting justice in that? That's overkill. In the Bible it's "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," not "an eye for a gaze" or "a hand for stealing."

What you seem to doing is arguing that since God decrees evil things, He is suborning rape, but that's not so. What he's doing is punishing the wicked by allowing wickedness to come upon them, and then punishing the perpetrators of that wickedness further down the historical road. That can only be done if God is not condoning rape and is merely using it as a tool and is upholding the rights of women. Why? Women (and all members of the covenant community) only enjoyed "rights" under the Law, and that was contingent on their faithfulness. They forfeited those rights by apostatizing. Where's your argument that women have intrinsic "rights" apart from the covenant and faithfulness to it?

You've also implicitly made the old Arminian argument that if God decrees evil He is to blame. However, responsibility is a necessary but insufficient condition for blame. The sufficient condition requires a motive. The motive here was to bring judgment on apostasy, and those sins committed by the pagans do not go unpunished.

We Christians, particularly us Reformed Christians, are very comfortable with such things. For example, Acts tells us that the crucifixion of Jesus was foreordained, predestined by God.