Australian imprisoned for being raped in the UAE

An Australian woman was raped in Dubai and she reported it to the police. Instead of arresting the rapists, the police arrest her for "adultery". (Under UAE's sharia law, "a rape cannot be convicted without four adult Muslim male witnesses".) She is convicted and spends 8 months in prison.

Islam truly is a vile and disgusting plague on humanity.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...ed-arab-emirates/story-fndo45r1-1226457979944

http://au.news.yahoo.com/sunday-night/features/article/-/17094076/abandoned/

Not more than any other belief system in the world that is misused by people.
People speaking "In the name of ..." rarely asked the entity if it's ok to speak in its name.

Sharia law not Islam.

This is not "misused". This is what the central, authoritative texts say.
Kudos to everyone who disregards those texts.

Can you find me a Muslim who thinks sharia is not essential to Islam?
If so, can you get this person to go on television and say "I reject sharia as unIslamic". Tell me how long until the death threats come in.

What about those bastards who misuse Scientology and corrupt its message of sanity? They are not true scientologists.

Absolutely governing by the book.

No authoritative cleric Islamic cleric or scholar has a reasoned argument against these laws, based on the Quran and the words and deeds of Muhammad.

The arguments against the law are reasoned and humanitarian arguments that don't carry the same weight once you accept the authority of the Quran and Muhammad.

The Islamic law that we characterize as being "against rape" is actually against "unlawful sex".
Consent doesn't play a part.

There is no concept of rape in marriage in the thoughts of the Quran and Muhammad.
There is no concept of raping a sex slave or captured infidel.
These sex acts in these contexts are lawful, regardless of consent.

Illicit sex, not unconsensual sex or coerced sex, is the offence as per Sharia.
It's a bit kind to glorify that concept with the term "rape".

What a dumb argument. I am a christian and despise the crusades. Yep, those were bad times.
Death threats? In past times- I could've been crucified for stating the above.
Point. Also, consider a bit.

Oh, are we in the middle ages again? You can get killed, today, for rejecting the concept of Sharia, if you are a muslim.

You know this, don't you?

We're talking about the present.

Guess what, Einstein. If there were countries where the constitution was the bible and they insited on the right to punish rape victims, you would probably support me in criticising them. You would, wouldn't you? But you think Muslims don't deserve to advance into the enlightenment that rescued people from theocracy? You're no help.

Anon, could you knock off the "all Muslims are bad people" shtick?

It's dull and bigoted, and you're doing it in too many different threads.

If you think the Qu'ran has a monopoly on Bad Rules then you need to read the Old Testament.

Always the sign of a straw man argument.



It is possible to disagree with laws - even religious laws - without painting everyone who believes in that religion with the same "nazis! nazis!" brush.

Like Lisa McPherson, she must have pulled it in.

Does the NoI go in for the application of Sharia law? If so, another point on which Scientology and their particular flavour of Islam would seem to coincide.

No, "we" are not in the middle ages, however in certain countries you can be killed. Saudi Arabia for example. There is no choice in accepting the concept- it is imposed.

Champion effort at missing the point.

I appreciate the irony of misrepresenting disdain for retrograde theocratic laws as saying "all Muslims are bad", followed up by a reference to "straw man". Rounded of with a tu quoque, as if that proved the point.

Letting bigoted Islamic theocratic lies about the benign nature of rape-loving sharia, or pretending those lies are true is being a bigot. And I would love to have a debate with you if you wish to assert anything further on who is a bigot.

If you could point to a bigoted statement that I made, or one in which I denigrated Muslims as an "evil empire", I would be glad to retract it and not make such a statement again.

I don't like Muslims being stoned. I don't like Muslims being raped. I don't like Muslim rape victims being punished. All these things are mandated by laws I cannot assent to. People who misrepresent disdain for theocratic laws as bigotry are no help.

Why is this (almost) always the first response to any criticism of Islam? I said nothing about "any other belief system". It was a pointed criticism of one, but no defense of any other. If you are not outraged by the fact that a woman was punished for being raped (under Islamic law), but do not have the wherewithal to criticize the system that brought forth that law, then you are a sad excuse for a human being.

Yeah, but, if you criticise a harmful ideology based on people claiming to speak for god, that means that you hate the victims and you are a bigot. Can't you just understand that all ideas are bad and good? How can you criticise the basis of Sharia when there are people crashing cars, every day? And other religions are bad too. Equally bad. And Good. In exactly the same way. [Except Scientology. It's worse. No, they don't stone rape victims, but they do lie and claim that people who criticise their ideology are religious bigots. Which they are. Because other religions all do exactly the same things, so why criticise scientology.] And the worst bigots against Scientology are those who use evidence, fax, and dox, because it makes their bigotry that much more annoying.

So can't you just let people say that Sharia and Scientology are beautiful blessed things that work for a lot of people and leave it at that? Focussing on the harms rather than celebrating the glorious beauty of the architecture and rituals is , I don't know, so critical.

That is right.
Well said.

Did you see this recent story?


Boston bombers’ mosque recommended men beat their wives

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/12/boston-bombers-mosque-recommended-men-beat-their-wives/#ixzz2TEUgx3Rj

This site is updated regularly - http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Where I found the above story.

I suppose that is a rhetorical question, but it is a good question that probably needs a lengthy answer.

Some of the reasons might be that:

1.
(a) Good people hate bigotry, and hate being associated with bigotry.
(b) There is a popular, misinformed presumption that criticism of Islamic dogma must entail bigotry against Muslims. (The Saudi government, the OIC and other groups have spent vast fortunes to advocate that criticism of Islamic dogma is the same as bigotry. COS tries the same).
(c) Good people like underdogs, and mistakenly take Islamic ideology for the underdog.
(d) Therefore good people are mentally prepared to disdain critics of Islam.

2.
So, how can good people justify this disdain for critics, when called for evidence to support their solidified and pre-conceived notion that critics are bigots? Misrepresenting the critic's factual statements as implied bigotry is win, all the way. The tu quoque fallacy ("other things are bad, too") is a very handy justification to jump to, in the absence of evidence. Therefore if you are criticising Islam instead of any other thing in the world, you are a bigot.

None of which really accounts for the fact the most trenchant criticism of Islamic dogma comes from the most victimized and well-informed - the former Muslims.

Why doesn't sharia say that a woman can beat her husband if she fears disobedience? If beating is a good strategy, wouldn't that be equitable, and demonstrate equality in the eyes of God?

Not one woman had a hand in writing these rules.

IMHO the problem with some of the posts ITT is some of them are flat out bigoted anti Islamic hate speech. Makes it hard to focus on legitimate discussion/ rants. Muslims are people too. American Muslims are American , they don't like bombings any more that I do. As for quoting bloody parts of the Koran/ my god read the Old Testament. Meditate on the Crusades

But back to rape. Saudi sucks especially against women who can't drive or go to the grocery store. Rape as 'adultery' is classic Saudi shit. So is stoning,

No sane person would have much of an interest in the "bloody parts of the Koran" if actual present day followers didn't have such an interest and didn't present "the bloody parts" as the word of God and a suitable basis to decide to beat women, punish rape victims, or any of the other acts you dislike in the 21st century. The Old testament is not the constitution of any nation. The Koran is. The Crusades, the attempt to recover formerly Christian lands invaded by the Islamic empire is interesting to contemplate. Now lets contemplate about punishing rape victims in the 21st century as orthodox 21st century nation-governing Koran requires. Why should you pretend that things that are different are the same?

Saudi's suck? Ok. Why? What do they and the UAE take as the legitimate origin of their laws?

Would you allow any criticism of the commands of the Quran as immoral? Would that be "hate speech"?

There are a few domestic christians who hold such beliefs. Funny enough, they are probably part of our involvement with Israel and by extension the Crusades and it's legacy in the middle east.

Watch out anyone who desires to use anon as a personal army for misogyny.

I will make you regret that I was ever taught to read.

You know, I would say that "Saudis" suck is hate speech. Quite unlike saying the Saudis follow and are subject to barbaric laws.

Saudis are people, too.

Are you saying that a few domestic Christians who have adopted the Quranic approach to wife-beating is something to do with the ancient Crusades, that were a failed endeavour to recover the Christian lands of the Middle East from the Islamic empire that earlier invaded them?

The domestic christians I am referring to have wife-beating built in independently of islam. Check out 7 mountains/dominionism. Has nothing to do with Islam except they are hoping that this clash with islam is the conflict that brings the apocalypse.Problem is, apocalypic Islam wants the same thing.

We had to destroy the planet to save it. At least all those dead people will be happy in their respective heavens and will provide a stupid excuse for any further crusade/jihad/revenge trip.

It all has it's underlying pathology roots in the hate fest that was the crusades. Lrn 2 hstry.