Islam and Libyan Rape

IITYWYBMAD

I'm profoundly touched by the plight that Libyan people have to go through at this moment, and politics aside, my thoughts are with the people.

It is with huge concern that I read the following on the BBC website:

"Time is against us," says Nader Elhamessi from the Libyan aid agency, World for Libya.

A foreigner cannot go in there with a clipboard and a translator and get a response”

Hana Elgadi Aid worker

"For the moment pregnancies can be disguised, but not for much longer. Many fathers will kill their own daughters if they find out they have been raped."

"It is killing done with love," says Ms Elgadi. "They believe they are saving the girl."

This is on the back of the (supposed) pressure from Islamic sources on the shame of being violated? Another quote from the story reads:

She says fatwas - Islamic clerical rulings - have already been made, which sanction abortion in circumstances such as rape.

Given my complete ignorance of the faith, can somebody please put me straight and tell me that this is far from the norm?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13760895

Jaafa

It is true that rape or even sex in any form has been a taboo to talk about in many Arab counties just as it was at one time in others. We lag behind in that matter.

However I would assert that Islam is not the cause of this and if it is, it's peoples misinterpretation of it that is the cause.

Show forgiveness, speak for justice and avoid the ignorant." (Quran, 7:199)

How can one speak for justice and kill their daughter without going after her raper?

Therefore I would say that this practice (I'm not sure how prevalent it is?) is a cause of the culture in some regions having long stemming factors involved. While Islam may have influenced this culture I would again say it is peoples misinterpretation of it. As you say there have been fatwas allowing abortion in these cases so clearly Islam is not holding them back.

So to answer your question to my knowledge this is not the norm. I would hope that in those places where it is the 'norm' it will soon die out.

Hope that answers your question.

irishconvert

People used to kill their daughters until Islam came along and people were thought that it is wrong. Islam does not encourage killing your daughters for rape or any other reason. It is totally wrong, full stop. These people are acting on silly cultural beliefs.

yammycat

I don't think the concept of rape exists in Islam, or am I wrong ? can anybody quote a sura condemning rape ?

hivizman

yammycat wrote: »

I don't think the concept of rape exists in Islam, or am I wrong ? can anybody quote a sura condemning rape ?

The Qur'an (Surat Al-Isra 17:32) condemns all zina, which is interpreted by various translators as "adultery" (e.g. Pickthall, Yusuf Ali, Sarwar), "fornication" (e.g. Shakir, Arberry), or "unlawful sexual intercourse" (e.g. Sahih International, Mohsin Khan). Asad notes: "the term zina signifies all sexual intercourse between a man and a woman who are not husband and wife, irrespective of whether either of them is married to another partner or not; hence, it denotes both 'adultery' and 'fornication' in the English senses of these terms."

As any sexual intercourse between men and women outside marriage is prohibited, a fortiori rape is prohibited. However, there is a question about whether Islam recognises the concept of "marital rape". This was discussed on a previous thread in this forum.

needzmanualz

hivizman wrote: »

The Qur'an (Surat Al-Isra 17:32) condemns all zina, which is interpreted by various translators as "adultery" (e.g. Pickthall, Yusuf Ali, Sarwar), "fornication" (e.g. Shakir, Arberry), or "unlawful sexual intercourse" (e.g. Sahih International, Mohsin Khan). Asad notes: "the term zina signifies all sexual intercourse between a man and a woman who are not husband and wife, irrespective of whether either of them is married to another partner or not; hence, it denotes both 'adultery' and 'fornication' in the English senses of these terms."

As any sexual intercourse between men and women outside marriage is prohibited, a fortiori rape is prohibited. However, there is a question about whether Islam recognises the concept of "marital rape". This was discussed on a previous thread in this forum.

So as stated above RAPE is not mentioned in the quran, there is a hell of a difference between RAPE and adultery. in cases of adultery or fornication outside of marriage, both parties are punished im sure with stoning or some barbaric nonsense like that....yet in the case of rape, why should the woman be punished aswell?..
Im reading the quran at the moment trying to understand the faith my parents have brought me up with...however all i am concluding is that Islam is the most invasive, intruding religion of them all, not to mention that for some reason alot of concessions are given to men, whereas in almost any situation, women are considered some sort of 'impure' burden. I dont know how anyone can find the understanding for this.

irishconvert

needzmanualz wrote: »

So as stated above RAPE is not mentioned in the quran, there is a hell of a difference between RAPE and adultery. in cases of adultery or fornication outside of marriage, both parties are punished im sure with stoning or some barbaric nonsense like that....yet in the case of rape, why should the woman be punished aswell?..

Who said the woman should be punished because of rape? It's certainly not Islamic teaching.

needzmanualz wrote: »

Im reading the quran at the moment trying to understand the faith my parents have brought me up with...however all i am concluding is that Islam is the most invasive, intruding religion of them all, not to mention that for some reason alot of concessions are given to men, whereas in almost any situation, women are considered some sort of 'impure' burden.

Can you give us an example of where woman are considered an "impure burden" in the Qur'an because I have never come across this when reading it.

chunkylover4

Quran:
[23.1-6] Successful indeed are the believers, Who are humble in their
prayers, And who keep aloof from what is vain, And who are givers of
poor-rate, And who guard their private parts, Except before their mates
or those whom their right hands possess, for they surely are not
blameable.

Quran:
[70:29] And those who guard their chastity,
[70:30] Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right
hands possess,- for (then) they are not to be blamed,


Sahih Muslim
Book 008, Number 3383:
Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported that a man came to Allah's
Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: I have a slave-girl who is
our servant and she carries water for us and I have intercourse with
her, but I do not want her to conceive. He said: Practise 'azl, if you
so like, but what is decreed for her will come to her. The person stayed
back (for some time) and then came and said: The girl has become
pregnant, whereupon he said: I told you what was decreed for her would
come to her.


Sahih Muslim
Book 008, Number 3432:
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah her pleased with him) reported that at the
Battle of Hanain Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent an army
to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome
them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger (may
peace be upon him) seemed to refrain from having intercourse with
captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah,
Most High, sent down regarding that:" And women already married, except
those whom your right hands possess
(iv. 24)" (i. e. they were lawful for them when their 'Idda period came
to an end).

Palmach

irishconvert wrote: »

People used to kill their daughters until Islam came along and people were thought that it is wrong. Islam does not encourage killing your daughters for rape or any other reason. It is totally wrong, full stop. These people are acting on silly cultural beliefs.

I have seen it written on several blogs that the Umdat al Salik that retribution is not obligatory “not subject to retaliation” is “a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring.”.As this book is produced by Al Azhar it carries a lot of weight. Is this true? If so it would seem to contradict what you said.

hivizman

Palmach wrote: »

I have seen it written on several blogs that the Umdat al Salik that retribution is not obligatory “not subject to retaliation” is “a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring.”.As this book is produced by Al Azhar it carries a lot of weight. Is this true? If so it would seem to contradict what you said.

A good source for this is here. The relevant pages are reproduced.

The book Umdat al Salik was written by a 14th (CE)/8th (AH) century jurist called Shihabuddin Abu al-'Abbas Ahmad ibn al-Naqib al-Misri, often known simply as Ahmad ibn al-Naqib, who was born and died in Cairo. It is regarded as a leading source of classical Shafi'i fiqh. It is well-known through the translation Reliance of the Traveller, by Nuh Ha Mim Keller. Al Azhar University's General Department of Research, Writing and Translation certified the Keller translation for "correspond[ing] to the Arabic original" and "conform[ing] to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community."

The passage referred to by Palmach in Umdat al Salik needs to be read carefully in context. The theme of the passage is retaliation - here, Shafi'i fiqh is picking up the traditional Arabian doctrine that, where someone has been deliberately killed, then that person's tribe has a right either to retaliate or to be compensated ("blood money"). The source for this is Surat al-Baqarah 2:178 (in the Mohsin Khan translation):

O you who believe! Al-Qisas (the Law of Equality in punishment) is prescribed for you in case of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. But if the killer is forgiven by the brother (or the relatives, etc.) of the killed against blood money, then adhering to it with fairness and payment of the blood money, to the heir should be made in fairness. This is an alleviation and a mercy from your Lord. So after this whoever transgresses the limits (i.e. kills the killer after taking the blood money), he shall have a painful torment.

Most translations render al-qisas as "retaliation".

As the Qur'an seems to permit retaliation, up to "a life for a life", even though it encourages paying blood money instead, it would be inconsistent, according to Shafi'i fiqh, for someone killing a Muslim in retaliation to be doing an unlawful act. However, certain examples of killing do not create a right of retaliation, and hence do not fall under the exemption. If a child or an insane person is the original killer, then there is no right of retaliation against the child or insane person (effectively, these groups are considered not to be responsible and hence cannot be retaliated against). In other cases, there is no right of retaliation because no-one is considered legally competent to exercise such a right. Generally, if a person is unlawfully killed, the right of retaliation lies with that person's family. But, if a parent kills a child, there can clearly be no right of retaliation, as the person who would normally have the right is in fact the killer.

In the absence of a right of retaliation, an unlawful killing becomes a matter for the ruler, that is, the state becomes involved.

So parents have no right to kill their children, and the material in Umdat al Salik does not provide grounds for believing that there is such a right. It simply notes that one cannot retaliate against oneself.

Kotek Besar

If I may say so, and speaking as a muslim, I would say the biggest threat to Islam is Arab culture.

Jaafa

Kotek Besar wrote: »

If I may say so, and speaking as a muslim, I would say the biggest threat to Islam is Arab culture.

How so?
Personally I would say Arab corruption

Kotek Besar

Jaafa wrote: »

How so?

I don't want to insult a whole culture of people on a public website, so I'd rather not go in to it in detail. Put simply, in my opinion, Arab culture is somewhat archaic yet domineering, on many levels. I feel this alienates non-Muslims from outside the Arab world and may be a huge deterrent to them wanting to learn about Islam.

Jaafa

Kotek Besar wrote: »

I don't want to insult a whole culture of people on a public website, so I'd rather not go in to it in detail. Put simply, in my opinion, Arab culture is somewhat archaic yet domineering, on many levels. I feel this alienates non-Muslims from outside the Arab world and may be a huge deterrent to them wanting to learn about Islam.

Well its your opinion but I'm sure your aware of the many criticisms about western culture. Equally I know and have heard of many peolple who were attracted to Arab culture before learning about Islam.

Really if you don't want to go into it you shouldn't mention it in the first place.

Palmach

hivizman wrote: »

A good source for this is here. The relevant pages are reproduced.

The book Umdat al Salik was written by a 14th (CE)/8th (AH) century jurist called Shihabuddin Abu al-'Abbas Ahmad ibn al-Naqib al-Misri, often known simply as Ahmad ibn al-Naqib, who was born and died in Cairo. It is regarded as a leading source of classical Shafi'i fiqh. It is well-known through the translation Reliance of the Traveller, by Nuh Ha Mim Keller. Al Azhar University's General Department of Research, Writing and Translation certified the Keller translation for "correspond[ing] to the Arabic original" and "conform[ing] to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community."

The passage referred to by Palmach in Umdat al Salik needs to be read carefully in context. The theme of the passage is retaliation - here, Shafi'i fiqh is picking up the traditional Arabian doctrine that, where someone has been deliberately killed, then that person's tribe has a right either to retaliate or to be compensated ("blood money"). The source for this is Surat al-Baqarah 2:178 (in the Mohsin Khan translation):



Most translations render al-qisas as "retaliation".

As the Qur'an seems to permit retaliation, up to "a life for a life", even though it encourages paying blood money instead, it would be inconsistent, according to Shafi'i fiqh, for someone killing a Muslim in retaliation to be doing an unlawful act. However, certain examples of killing do not create a right of retaliation, and hence do not fall under the exemption. If a child or an insane person is the original killer, then there is no right of retaliation against the child or insane person (effectively, these groups are considered not to be responsible and hence cannot be retaliated against). In other cases, there is no right of retaliation because no-one is considered legally competent to exercise such a right. Generally, if a person is unlawfully killed, the right of retaliation lies with that person's family. But, if a parent kills a child, there can clearly be no right of retaliation, as the person who would normally have the right is in fact the killer.

In the absence of a right of retaliation, an unlawful killing becomes a matter for the ruler, that is, the state becomes involved.

So parents have no right to kill their children, and the material in Umdat al Salik does not provide grounds for believing that there is such a right. It simply notes that one cannot retaliate against oneself.

Thanks for that. It makes sense.