Who Told Vorderman People Care What She...
News2 mins ago
7 More Pakistani Men, Found Guilty Of Child Grooming.
63 Answers
https:/
It is reported that the seventh man who is guilty of rape cannot be named for legal reasons, any one know how this can be?
It is reported that the seventh man who is guilty of rape cannot be named for legal reasons, any one know how this can be?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
VE: I'm saying that Mohammed himself, the perfect model of conduct for all Muslims, was a serial rapist, and that the holy scriptures of Islam endorse the rape of non-Muslims.
BB: Now, if that IS true, it is disturbing and enlightening. Sources and references, please (because I do appreciate that the crimes perpetrated by the followers of Christ weren’t modelled on his behaviour!).
I'll try, Bainbrig.
One of the best known victims was the seventeen year old Safiyah. She lived in a fortified Jewish territory called Khaybar sixty miles north of Median which was captured by Mohammed in 628 AD. Here's an account taken from a biography of Mohammed called "The Sealed Nectar" which I bought at my local Islamic book shop.
"The Marriage to Safiyah.
...Safiyah, whose husband .Kinana nin-Abul-Huqaiq was killed for treachery, was taken captive and brought along with other prisoners of war. After the permission of the Prophet was sought Dihya Al-Kalbi chose one of them and she happened to be Safiyah. The other Muslims, however, advised that Safiyah , being the daughter of th chief of Bani Quraizah and Bani Nadeer [two Jewish tribes living at one time in Medina], should be married to the Prophet, who agreed... invited her to Islam, freed and took her as wifeon her embracing Ilam. The wedding feast consisted dates, fat and barley, and was held on his way back to Medina."
To which narrative I'll add this: her husband had been beheaded at the end of the siege after, according to some Islamic sources, being tortured by having a fire lit on his chest. And not forty-eight hours before her "marriage". And another thing: her father Huyai bin-Al-Akhtab had been beheaded along with all the adult males of the Bani Quraizah tribe when the tribe had surrendered to Mohammed the previous year. So she would have been sixteen then.
BB: Now, if that IS true, it is disturbing and enlightening. Sources and references, please (because I do appreciate that the crimes perpetrated by the followers of Christ weren’t modelled on his behaviour!).
I'll try, Bainbrig.
One of the best known victims was the seventeen year old Safiyah. She lived in a fortified Jewish territory called Khaybar sixty miles north of Median which was captured by Mohammed in 628 AD. Here's an account taken from a biography of Mohammed called "The Sealed Nectar" which I bought at my local Islamic book shop.
"The Marriage to Safiyah.
...Safiyah, whose husband .Kinana nin-Abul-Huqaiq was killed for treachery, was taken captive and brought along with other prisoners of war. After the permission of the Prophet was sought Dihya Al-Kalbi chose one of them and she happened to be Safiyah. The other Muslims, however, advised that Safiyah , being the daughter of th chief of Bani Quraizah and Bani Nadeer [two Jewish tribes living at one time in Medina], should be married to the Prophet, who agreed... invited her to Islam, freed and took her as wifeon her embracing Ilam. The wedding feast consisted dates, fat and barley, and was held on his way back to Medina."
To which narrative I'll add this: her husband had been beheaded at the end of the siege after, according to some Islamic sources, being tortured by having a fire lit on his chest. And not forty-eight hours before her "marriage". And another thing: her father Huyai bin-Al-Akhtab had been beheaded along with all the adult males of the Bani Quraizah tribe when the tribe had surrendered to Mohammed the previous year. So she would have been sixteen then.
Bainbrig, I forgot t add the Koranic endorsement of rape. There are many, all pertaining to women who are bought or captured as slaves.
Here's one - Sura 4:23 saying who can and can't marry and have sex with:
"...Forbidden too are married women unless they be your slaves.".
I'll add some "expert" commentary on this verse. It's taken from the commentary on the Koran by the highly regarded Maududi and will, I hope, give you an insight into how modern day conservative Muslims think. One reason why I like to read Maududi's interpretation of the Koran. Also he had considerable influence on post-Independence Pakistan and the "Sharization" of the constitution and judiciary under General Zia (the one who hanged Benazir's dad). Check his Wiki entry. He also founded the Jamaat-i-Islami group to promote Islamic values. This group I think provided the founding members of the notorious lobby the British Council of Muslims in nineties.
Anyway, enjoy.
"Those women who become prisoners of war, while their unbelieving husbands are left behind in the War Zone, are not unlawful because their marriage ties are broken by the fact that they have come from the War Zone into the Islamic Zone. It is lawful to marry such women, and it is also lawful for those, in whose possession they are, to have sexual relations with them. There is, however, a difference of opinion as to whether such a woman is lawful, if her husband is also taken a prisoner along with her. Imam Abu Hanifah ... is of the opinion that the marriage tie of such a pair would remain intact but Imam Malik is of the opinion that it would also break.
As there exist many misunderstandings in the minds of the people concerning the slave-girls taken as prisoners of war, the following should be carefully studied:
(1) It is not lawful for a soldier to have conjugal relations with a prisoner of war as soon as she falls into his hands. The Islamic Law requires that all such women should be handed over to the government, which has the right to set them free or to ransom them, or to exchange them with the Muslim prisoners in the hands of the enemy, or distribute them among the soldiers. A soldier can cohabit only with that woman who has been formally given to him by the government.
...
(6) The maximum limit of four has not been prescribed for slave-girls as in the case of wives for the simple reason that the number of female prisoners of war is unpredictable. The lack of limit does by no means provide a license for the well-to-do people to buy any number of slave-girls for licentious purposes.
(7) The proprietary rights over a slave, male or female, as given to a person by the government are transferable like all other legal proprietary rights.
(8) The handing over of the proprietary rights over a slave-girl to a man formally by the government makes her as much lawful for him as the giving of the baud of a free woman to a man by her parents... Therefore, there is no reason why a man who does not hold marriage in detestation should hold sexual intercourse with a slave-girl in detestation.
...
(10) It should also be noted well that if a military commander temporarily distributes female prisoners of war among the soldiers for sexual purposes, or permits them to have sexual relations for the time being, such an act shall be unlawful and there is absolutely no difference between this and fornication, and fornication is a crime according to the Islamic code."
You can see from (10) and the last sentence in (6) that Islam does have high ethical standards pertaining to sex.
Here's one - Sura 4:23 saying who can and can't marry and have sex with:
"...Forbidden too are married women unless they be your slaves.".
I'll add some "expert" commentary on this verse. It's taken from the commentary on the Koran by the highly regarded Maududi and will, I hope, give you an insight into how modern day conservative Muslims think. One reason why I like to read Maududi's interpretation of the Koran. Also he had considerable influence on post-Independence Pakistan and the "Sharization" of the constitution and judiciary under General Zia (the one who hanged Benazir's dad). Check his Wiki entry. He also founded the Jamaat-i-Islami group to promote Islamic values. This group I think provided the founding members of the notorious lobby the British Council of Muslims in nineties.
Anyway, enjoy.
"Those women who become prisoners of war, while their unbelieving husbands are left behind in the War Zone, are not unlawful because their marriage ties are broken by the fact that they have come from the War Zone into the Islamic Zone. It is lawful to marry such women, and it is also lawful for those, in whose possession they are, to have sexual relations with them. There is, however, a difference of opinion as to whether such a woman is lawful, if her husband is also taken a prisoner along with her. Imam Abu Hanifah ... is of the opinion that the marriage tie of such a pair would remain intact but Imam Malik is of the opinion that it would also break.
As there exist many misunderstandings in the minds of the people concerning the slave-girls taken as prisoners of war, the following should be carefully studied:
(1) It is not lawful for a soldier to have conjugal relations with a prisoner of war as soon as she falls into his hands. The Islamic Law requires that all such women should be handed over to the government, which has the right to set them free or to ransom them, or to exchange them with the Muslim prisoners in the hands of the enemy, or distribute them among the soldiers. A soldier can cohabit only with that woman who has been formally given to him by the government.
...
(6) The maximum limit of four has not been prescribed for slave-girls as in the case of wives for the simple reason that the number of female prisoners of war is unpredictable. The lack of limit does by no means provide a license for the well-to-do people to buy any number of slave-girls for licentious purposes.
(7) The proprietary rights over a slave, male or female, as given to a person by the government are transferable like all other legal proprietary rights.
(8) The handing over of the proprietary rights over a slave-girl to a man formally by the government makes her as much lawful for him as the giving of the baud of a free woman to a man by her parents... Therefore, there is no reason why a man who does not hold marriage in detestation should hold sexual intercourse with a slave-girl in detestation.
...
(10) It should also be noted well that if a military commander temporarily distributes female prisoners of war among the soldiers for sexual purposes, or permits them to have sexual relations for the time being, such an act shall be unlawful and there is absolutely no difference between this and fornication, and fornication is a crime according to the Islamic code."
You can see from (10) and the last sentence in (6) that Islam does have high ethical standards pertaining to sex.
AOG - // ndy-hughes
/// There is a climate of suspicion and fear around communities comprised of people who have roots outside Europe, and this is perpetuated and stoked by the media and this is another
example. ///
What do you suggest, that if certain crimes are committed by those "who have roots outside Europe" they should not be reported by the media, just in case it might "create a climate of suspicion and fear" against those certain communities? //
If I had suggested that, my post would have read -
" I suggest that if certain crimes are committed by those "who have roots outside Europe" they should not be reported by the media, just in case it might "create a climate of suspicion and fear" against those certain communities."
The fact that my post did not say that, is because that it is not my position.
I don't suggest that the media should not report the crimes, it is the way in which those reports are slanted, towards the fears and inecurities of the recipients, that I find objectionable. Reporting facts is the media's job, slanting it towards their readerships sells papers - the two are mutually exclusive.
/// Fear sells newspapers, that is a sad, but true fact. ///
// They also make people aware of impeding dangers, that does not necessary create fear, but awareness. //
Awareness and fear are two distcintly different reactions to a set of facts and information.
Awareness is necessary, but fear sells papers.
/// There is a climate of suspicion and fear around communities comprised of people who have roots outside Europe, and this is perpetuated and stoked by the media and this is another
example. ///
What do you suggest, that if certain crimes are committed by those "who have roots outside Europe" they should not be reported by the media, just in case it might "create a climate of suspicion and fear" against those certain communities? //
If I had suggested that, my post would have read -
" I suggest that if certain crimes are committed by those "who have roots outside Europe" they should not be reported by the media, just in case it might "create a climate of suspicion and fear" against those certain communities."
The fact that my post did not say that, is because that it is not my position.
I don't suggest that the media should not report the crimes, it is the way in which those reports are slanted, towards the fears and inecurities of the recipients, that I find objectionable. Reporting facts is the media's job, slanting it towards their readerships sells papers - the two are mutually exclusive.
/// Fear sells newspapers, that is a sad, but true fact. ///
// They also make people aware of impeding dangers, that does not necessary create fear, but awareness. //
Awareness and fear are two distcintly different reactions to a set of facts and information.
Awareness is necessary, but fear sells papers.
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV11 mins ago
Assisted Dying, Here's Where It...
News15 mins ago
ChatterBank17 mins ago
Jokes20 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.