Islam: Rape Of Male Children As Told By A Survivor

[Rusty Crown]

This confuses me though. I have some Muslim friends (who aren't super religious but don't call themselves atheists either so hey) who tell me that nowhere in the Quran does it allow you to beat and control women. In fact you have to treat them respect, at least that's what their prophets did.

So I don't get how modern day Muslims justify this. It seems to be just a case of either them being misinformed or just uneducated.

Have you seen this verse before?:
An-nisa النساء 4:34 "As for those (women) on whose part you fear ill-will and nasty conduct, admonish them, leave them alone in beds and beat them. But if they obey you, then seek nothing against them. Behold, Allah is most high and great."

 

[Rusty Crown]

Rape, spousal abuse, and child molestation are all clearly prohibited under Islamic law. Anyone who claims to perform such acts in the name of Islam is lying.

Even child molestation? What about Aysha?

 

[Kulindahr]

Well I was actually trying to find something relevant to Morocco or Angola (post #68) and get away from the intellectual theorising of posts #60 to 64).

You people are intellectualising while people are being killed in africa and the middle east

What are we supposed to do -- form a Free Company, solicit a few billion in donations, hire a commander, obtain equipment and drill, and go over to fight as commandos to change things?

 

[Kulindahr]

Even child molestation? What about Aysha?

Yeah. When lilbit says that "rape, spousal abuse, and child molestation are all clearly prohibited under Islamic law", what he's not saying is that they merely redefine those things. Starving or beating a wife into submission isn't abuse, because the Prophet says so. Forcing a 13-y.o. into sex isn't rape, if you add her to your collection of wives afterwards, because the Prophet says so. Having sex with a 10-y.o. girl isn't rape or molestation or abuse, if you marry her first, because the Prophet says so.

The Prophet was a barbarous seventh-century warlord who, if he really was a prophet, used his station to write his personal attitude toward sex into the text.

 

[bankside]

Yeah. When lilbit says that "rape, spousal abuse, and child molestation are all clearly prohibited under Islamic law", what he's not saying is that they merely redefine those things. Starving or beating a wife into submission isn't abuse, because the Prophet says so. Forcing a 13-y.o. into sex isn't rape, if you add her to your collection of wives afterwards, because the Prophet says so. Having sex with a 10-y.o. girl isn't rape or molestation or abuse, if you marry her first, because the Prophet says so.

The Prophet was a barbarous seventh-century warlord who, if he really was a prophet, used his station to write his personal attitude toward sex into the text.

They come by it honestly. Same kind of bait and switch as seen in the "Hey Abraham, kill your son. Kidding! Man, he was totally going to do it…." because Jehova says so. Redefined as an act of loving submission.

Oh, but he didn't have to go through with it! No; he merely had to go through the psychological torment of it. But nothing purely psychological could ever be cruel, or unethical, could it? Especially if Jehova says so. Jehova; the god of three religions of peace and love.

 

[pat grimshaw]

What are we supposed to do -- form a Free Company, solicit a few billion in donations, hire a commander, obtain equipment and drill, and go over to fight as commandos to change things?

I guess I'm tying to warn you. The English and the Australians were too polite and allowed these people with their primitive beliefs into our country. The newcomers are demanding sharia Law in the host country

 

[KaraBulut]

Yeah. When lilbit says that "rape, spousal abuse, and child molestation are all clearly prohibited under Islamic law", what he's not saying is that they merely redefine those things. Starving or beating a wife into submission isn't abuse, because the Prophet says so. Forcing a 13-y.o. into sex isn't rape, if you add her to your collection of wives afterwards, because the Prophet says so. Having sex with a 10-y.o. girl isn't rape or molestation or abuse, if you marry her first, because the Prophet says so.

The Prophet was a barbarous seventh-century warlord who, if he really was a prophet, used his station to write his personal attitude toward sex into the text.

One of the compelling arguments about whether Christianity forbids homosexuality that I hear is "Well, Jesus never said anything about homosexuals and homosexuality".

Well, Jesus never said anything about beating your wife or molesting children, either. So, if you follow the previous line of thinking...

The problem with the Qur'an is not that the Qur'an says that one should beat your wife or molest minors. The problem is that these practices were so wide-spread at the time that the Qur'an just tries to make religious law to put structure around their practice. The concept that having one wife, not beating your wife or marrying women after they reach adulthood were just too radical for the times to even be conceived.

But that's the issue with all of these holy books- whether it be The Bible, The Qur'an the Book of Mormon is that they're books written by men from archaic periods of history and they bring the perspective of those times.

 

[AngolaZee]

If Islam specifically prohibits domestic abuse and sodomy than why is it the case that in Morrocco the childs family would not take action to protect their child. What we are trying to get to here is whether the molestation of boys is due to the teachings of Islam or merely a societal issue i.e why did this boys family not protect him is it because there is no such protection under Sharia law (in which case we can blame Islam) or is it because they were afraid of humiliation should they report this to relevant authorities(in which case we can blame society).

Personally I find all religion to be such a waste of time but it was necessary to regulate the behaviour of the people. For some people knowing you will burn in hell for eternity is probably more of a deterrent than going to jail so in that way religion does give us order

PS: I am not Angolan by the way it was just a random nick I thought of at registration time. I'm black South African

 

[KaraBulut]

If Islam specifically prohibits domestic abuse and sodomy than why is it the case that in Morrocco the childs family would not take action to protect their child.

Islam also forbids consumption of alcohol. The men in the story were drunk. What does that tell you about their adherence to religious law?

What we are trying to get to here is whether the molestation of boys is due to the teachings of Islam or merely a societal issue i.e why did this boys family not protect him is it because there is no such protection under Sharia law...

It's too complicated a cultural issue to answer easily.

Every country is different dependent upon whether it's a rural area or an urban area and dependent upon how orthodox Islam is in the country. In Morocco, like in most of these countries homosexual conduct is illegal. In the most conservative Muslim countries, because of the suppression of women's sexuality, there's a tacit look-the-other-way attitude about sex among younger men. In Morocco, no one acknowledges circle jerks and sexual conduct between unmarried men. There's also some tribal custom of older men and younger men in some areas.

The general rule is that men can do what they want as long as they are married and produce heirs. This is pretty much the unwritten rule across most of the Mediterranean- even in the Christian countries.

None of this is particularly unusual or shocking. There's a similar rape story in The Kite Runner. There's allusion to sex with a camel boy in Lawrence of Arabia.

When trying to explain what are complicated issues, I can only point out that most Abrahamic religions expressly forbid adultery. This includes the Roman Catholic Church. However, in Italy- home of the Vatican- how seriously do you think the average Italian takes the proscription on adultery?

 

[Kulindahr]

Islam also forbids consumption of alcohol. The men in the story were drunk. What does that tell you about their adherence to religious law?

That they're a lot like many, many Mormons -- they condemn a lot of behaviors only in someone else.

It's too complicated a cultural issue to answer easily.

Every country is different dependent upon whether it's a rural area or an urban area and dependent upon how orthodox Islam is in the country. In Morocco, like in most of these countries homosexual conduct is illegal. In the most conservative Muslim countries, because of the suppression of women's sexuality, there's a tacit look-the-other-way attitude about sex amount younger men. In Morocco, no one acknowledges circle jerks and sexual conduct between unmarried men. There's also some tribal custom of older men and younger men in some areas.

The general rule is that men can do what they want as long as they are married and produce heirs. This is pretty much the unwritten rule across most of the Mediterranean- even in the Christian countries.

None of this is particularly unusual or shocking. There's a similar rape story in The Kite Runner. There's allusion to sex with a camel boy in Lawrence of Arabia.

When trying to explain what are complicated issues, I can only point out that most Abrahamic religions expressly forbid adultery. This includes the Roman Catholic Church. However, in Italy- home of the Vatican- how seriously do you think the average Italian takes the proscription on adultery?

To the dismay and annoyance of the Vatican, most Catholics still follow the advice of a great bishop across the sea from them many centuries back, and don't condemn themselves for common human failings.

 

[Mariatenebre]

One of the compelling arguments about whether Christianity forbids homosexuality that I hear is "Well, Jesus never said anything about homosexuals and homosexuality".

Well, Jesus never said anything about beating your wife or molesting children, either. So, if you follow the previous line of thinking...

The problem with the Qur'an is not that the Qur'an says that one should beat your wife or molest minors. The problem is that these practices were so wide-spread at the time that the Qur'an just tries to make religious law to put structure around their practice. The concept that having one wife, not beating your wife or marrying women after they reach adulthood were just too radical for the times to even be conceived.

But that's the issue with all of these holy books- whether it be The Bible, The Qur'an the Book of Mormon is that they're books written by men from archaic periods of history and they bring the perspective of those times.

You are wrong before Islam women had far more equal rights then they did under it. Women had equal rights in fact Mohammad's wife Khadijah was a wealthy independant buisness woman who proposed marriage to him. This certainly did not stay under Islamic rule where women could be beaten by men and had to be veiled and kept away from men. In fact Aisha said herself that she had not seen any woman treated so bad as the Muslim women. Also it was not common to take young prepubescent girls into marriage in Pre Islamic Arabia. Mohammad down graded the rights of women. He took a society where women had a great deal of power and status and made them men's property.

 

[Rusty Crown]

Yeah. When lilbit says that "rape, spousal abuse, and child molestation are all clearly prohibited under Islamic law", what he's not saying is that they merely redefine those things. Starving or beating a wife into submission isn't abuse, because the Prophet says so. Forcing a 13-y.o. into sex isn't rape, if you add her to your collection of wives afterwards, because the Prophet says so. Having sex with a 10-y.o. girl isn't rape or molestation or abuse, if you marry her first, because the Prophet says so.

The Prophet was a barbarous seventh-century warlord who, if he really was a prophet, used his station to write his personal attitude toward sex into the text.

She was 9 .. and she was 6 when she was "engaged"!

 

[Rusty Crown]

You are wrong before Islam women had far more equal rights then they did under it. Women had equal rights in fact Mohammad's wife Khadijah was a wealthy independant buisness woman who proposed marriage to him. This certainly did not stay under Islamic rule where women could be beaten by men and had to be veiled and kept away from men. In fact Aisha said herself that she had not seen any woman treated so bad as the Muslim women. Also it was not common to take young prepubescent girls into marriage in Pre Islamic Arabia. Mohammad down graded the rights of women. He took a society where women had a great deal of power and status and made them men's property.

Thank you, Ma'am!

KaraBulut are you muslim?

 

[KaraBulut]

That they're a lot like many, many Mormons -- they condemn a lot of behaviors only in someone else.

Or as one of my Jewish friends says, "It's okay to eat fried rice because the pork is chopped up so that it's too small to see".

To the dismay and annoyance of the Vatican, most Catholics still follow the advice of a great bishop across the sea from them many centuries back, and don't condemn themselves for common human failings.

I'd wager to say it's the "little bishop with the turtleneck" whose advice they're following.

 

[Mariatenebre]

Maria, there's another side to this situation, but to understand it I'll have to give you an analogy. I hate to compare women to pets, but in this instance it's necessary.

You know how some irresponsible people let their pets breed, and then abandon their kittens in the forest? They're helpless, and they have to fend for themselves, facing almost-certain doom.

From the viewpoint of a Muslim woman, Western women are left to fend for themselves in the same way. By contrast, a Muslim woman is taken care of, from birth to death. All she has to do is cook and clean, and provide a good home for her husband and children.

A woman I knew was an American soldier in Turkey. She told me that the Turkish women felt very sorry for her ("you have nobody to take care of you"). They rallied around her, and did as much as they could to help her.

They believe that Western culture is very unkind to the plight of women.

Oh, I could go on and on about the things I learned, but this will do for now.

It's something to think about.

There isn't much to think about this. These Muslim women have been brainwashed to think that they need a man to take care of them and that they can't survive without male aid.

Your analogy also fails. Women are not animals but sentient creatures every bit as equal to a man. So therefore all of the rules and regulations should be equal to both genders. The fact that you have to compare women to baby animals in the first place should show you how offensive your statement is. Women are neither babies nor animals but men's equals. Further more I would let you know that stray female cats and female animals of all kinds take care of themselves just fine and usually without need of a man. Point in fact if female animals try to be dependant on anyone other then themselves they will usually die. Just like in animals every gender must learn to take care of themselves.

A Muslim woman is "taken care of by a man" however all this means is that she surrenders herself and her autonomy to a man. She basically becomes totally dependant on men and does not learn how to take care of herself. She also must accept her husband as the head of the household and submit herself to his every wish and he even has the right to beat her if she disobeys him. She basically becomes nothing more then and adult child totally dependent on this man and must submit herself to obedience to him as her superior. She is basically nothing more then a dependant slave to her husband.

In fact many women in these countries are rebelling against these ideas with regard to women. We give women equality to do what they wish. The Muslims keep women as nothing more then dependant servants totally submissive and at the mercy of their husbands. Plus said men and stop taking care of their wives if they disobey or does something they husband dislikes. A woman under Islam is under the complete control of her husband and he can do with her how he sees fit. Only a brainwashed fool would say that such a system is kind to women. This kind of perspective is wrong. I know it well and have talked to many Muslims and this view is merely based on the view of women as weak, defenseless child like creatures who can not fend for themselves and as such is monstrous and sexist.

 

[Ninja108]

Religion to me is more about trying to control people than anything else.

 

[bankside]

Maria, there's another side to this situation, but to understand it I'll have to give you an analogy. I hate to compare women to pets, but in this instance it's necessary.

You know how some irresponsible people let their pets breed, and then abandon their kittens in the forest? They're helpless, and they have to fend for themselves, facing almost-certain doom.

From the viewpoint of a Muslim woman, Western women are left to fend for themselves in the same way. By contrast, a Muslim woman is taken care of, from birth to death. All she has to do is cook and clean, and provide a good home for her husband and children.

A woman I knew was an American soldier in Turkey. She told me that the Turkish women felt very sorry for her ("you have nobody to take care of you"). They rallied around her, and did as much as they could to help her.

They believe that Western culture is very unkind to the plight of women.

Oh, I could go on and on about the things I learned, but this will do for now.

It's something to think about.

If that were true, the men of the middle east should be the ones demonstrating for equality. We have better things to do than break ourselves taking care of adult women who can make their own way just as well as men.

 

[pat grimshaw]

A Canadian doco made last year claims says 5,000 women around the world are put to death every year.

http://www.oneworld.cz/2011/films-a-z/17498-in-the-name-of-the-family
http://shows.ctv.ca/InTheNameOfTheF...-In-the-Name-of-the-Family-airs-Sept-7-on-CTV

 

[Mariatenebre]

The trouble Maria is that you are deciding what is good for them. Don't you think they should decide for themselves what is good for them?

We might think our ways are best. They think their ways are best.

As I said before, the Muslim women in Turkey felt very sorry for my soldier friend. They think Western women are treated very cruelly by having to fend for themselves.

I am not saying I necessarily agree with this. My opinion on their lives doesn't count—theirs does. It is their lives Maria and I do think we Westerners need not meddle so much!

Yes we should decide what is good for them because their leaders are too dumb to give them equality.

This idea again that women in these countries want male dominance is again foolish and sexist. It make just as much sense as during segregation or apartheid when white racists said that blacks wanted to be segregated so that they would have things that just belong just to them and that they wouldn't have to share with white people or during our own sexist period in the West when the sexists said that women wanted to stay home and be under the thumb of a man. The sexists of our region said the same things as the ones in that region and the only reason you accept the Muslims sexist nonsense is because of your cultural relativism

Again said Muslim women's opinions are as valid as slaves who would rather be enslaved because they do not know how they would survive without their masters.

Next no their opinion does not matter because it is wrong. It is based on sexism and if you knew anything about these countries you would know that countless women are rebelling against the patriarchal order. Of course we should meddle because we should civilize these countries and grant rights for all people including women. Again also since many Arab states are racists and have slaves from Africa would you accept the opinion of a black slave who liked being a slave and felt taken care of and who feels sorry for his clansmen who aren't slaves?

Again you are a cultural relativist, you think that women's rights and gay rights are only valid if the culture permits it and no matter what a culture does it is ok because it is their culture. It is only individual rights that deserve respect and the individual. Any cultures that do not respect such basic things as women's rights do not deserve respect and they should be fought against and destroyed. It is individual rights that deserve respect not such collective things as culture. The only reason that you think that women's rights in the West was a good thing in spite of the fact that many women were brainwashed to think that they should be subservient to a man but you think that foreign cultures should be exempt from women's rights if their culture is against it is because you like all Liberal cultural relativists support any foreign culture no matter how evil it is merely because it is a culture. You are even willing to embrace the female inferiority arguments they give even though you would never accept these same arguments from a Westerner. In essence you think that individual rights should be subservient to the culture when in fact the culture should be subservient to individual rights.

Here is an actual woman from a Muslim country and here is her opinion on you cultural relativists.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsSpShSE4C8[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK05C-pcxLg[/ame]

This is the woman you should be listening to. Not the brainwashed women who live under the thumb of their husbands. They scream for liberation while you side with their oppressors.

Bankside, we in the United States had a not dissimilar practice, all the way up until WW2. Even up until the 1970s, working wives were not the norm.

In the United States of that time—and all over the Muslim world today—a man was expected to provide for his family.

Yes and inspite of the sexist pressure of the culture and the brainwashed status of many women a few women spoke out and changed things for the good of every woman. However it took women rebelling against their culture because they realized that culture did not deserve respect but rather the individual did.

I bet you defend the driving ban on women in Saudi Arabia because most of the brainwashed women there "do not want to drive anyway."

Also if you compared any given race or ethnicity to pets or infant animals and made arguments from such racist standpoints that they would be too weak to take care of themselves because of their race you would be called a racist. However since you used the same arguments as the mysogynist Muslims this makes you a mysogynist.

What you need to realize is that not all choices are equal. Just because a person chooses something does not make it right. If a woman chooses sexism then she has made a bad choice because she has chosen to lower herself. Which again I bet you wouldn't say that it is ok for a Western Christian woman who wants to be submissive to a man.

 

[lambdaboy]

The only thing that ever made sense from Chairman Mao was ;

"Religion is the Opiate of The Masses"

What low life pigs there could be openings in the Catholic Church who also love to abuse children.

More hurt pain and war and greed has been caused by Religion than any other means on earth.