The Radicalised Rabbi: Discussing sexual offences with Vincent Bruno and the Secular Koranism School of Sharia

THE RADICALISED RABBI is a blog on Judaism and its very useful ideas and the blogger a Secular Koranist and a revolutionary. You don't have to be Jewish to find Jewish ideas very useful in tidying up your thinking and turbo-charging your powers of reasoning to the extent that you can even predict most events and disasters. The West is heading for disaster with its insane policy of Transnational Progressivism, turning our global village into Sodom and Gomorrah attracting the same punishment.

Thursday, 20 March 2025

Discussing sexual offences with Vincent Bruno and the Secular Koranism School of Sharia

https://radicalisedrabbi.blogspot.com/2025/03/self-confessed-islamophobe-repeatedly.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atefeh_Sahaaleh

6:00 The Koran is silent on stoning.

8:00 False rape accusations

9:00 Rape

18:00 Marital status of Atefeh

24:00 Is it true that a rape victim under sharia attracts the death penalty?

No, it is not true that a rape victim under Sharia law automatically attracts the death penalty. This is a common misconception that arises from a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Islamic legal principles.
In classical Islamic jurisprudence (Sharia), rape is considered a serious crime, distinct from consensual adultery or fornication (zina). It is typically classified as a form of hirabah (brigandage or violent crime causing public disorder) or as coercive zina, depending on the school of thought. The punishment for the perpetrator, if proven, can be severe—ranging from flogging to execution—based on the discretion of a judge or the specific circumstances, such as the use of force or threats. The victim, however, is not held liable for the crime, as Sharia explicitly recognizes coercion as negating consent and thus exempts the victim from punishment.
The confusion often stems from the evidentiary requirements for proving zina (consensual extramarital sex), which demands four upright male witnesses to the act itself—a deliberately high bar to protect individuals from false accusations. If someone claims rape but cannot meet this threshold (e.g., by lacking four witnesses to the assault), critics argue that some interpretations or misapplications of Sharia might treat it as an admission of consensual zina, potentially exposing the accuser to punishment for qadhf (false accusation) or zina itself. However, this is not a universal rule in Sharia, nor is it the intent of the law. Many Islamic scholars and jurists, both classical and modern, emphasize that a rape victim’s testimony, supported by circumstantial evidence (e.g., physical signs of assault, medical reports), can be sufficient to prosecute the rapist under ta’zir (discretionary punishment), bypassing the strict four-witness rule applied to consensual zina. For example, the Maliki school of thought historically allowed for broader evidence in rape cases, and contemporary Islamic legal systems in some countries adapt these principles to modern contexts.
In practice, outcomes depend heavily on the specific legal system of a country claiming to implement Sharia, as well as cultural influences that may deviate from Islamic law. There have been documented cases—such as in parts of Pakistan under the Hudood Ordinances (1979-2006) or rare instances in Saudi Arabia—where victims faced punishment due to judicial errors, cultural biases, or conflation of rape with zina. These cases, however, are widely criticized by Muslim scholars and human rights advocates as misapplications of Sharia, not as its proper execution. Reforms in places like Pakistan (e.g., the 2006 Protection of Women Act) have sought to correct this by separating rape from zina entirely.
In summary, Sharia does not prescribe the death penalty—or any punishment—for rape victims. The death penalty may apply to the rapist if the crime is proven and deemed severe enough (e.g., under hirabah). Claims to the contrary often reflect either exceptional misapplications or deliberate distortions of Islamic law, not its foundational principles.

Here’s a hypothetical scenario to illustrate how the evidentiary requirement of four upright male witnesses for proving zina (consensual extramarital sex) under classical Sharia law might create confusion, particularly in relation to a rape case:
Scenario:
In a small, traditional village governed by a strict interpretation of Sharia, a young woman named Aisha lives alone. One night, a man named Omar forces his way into her home and rapes her. Aisha, traumatized but determined to seek justice, reports the assault to the local qadi (judge). She has visible bruises and torn clothing, and a neighbor heard her screams but didn’t witness the act itself. Omar, however, denies the accusation, claiming that Aisha invited him over and that any encounter was consensual.
Under Sharia’s rules for zina, consensual extramarital sex requires four upright male witnesses to the act of penetration itself to secure a conviction. This high threshold exists to prevent slander and protect individuals from baseless accusations—imagine a scenario where someone might falsely accuse two unmarried people of zina out of spite; without four witnesses, the case would collapse, and the accuser could face punishment for qadhf (false accusation). However, rape is not zina—it’s a crime of coercion, not consent—and ideally should be prosecuted differently, often under hirabah (violent crime) or ta’zir (discretionary punishment), where a judge can consider broader evidence like Aisha’s injuries and the neighbor’s testimony.
In this case, though, the qadi adheres to a rigid interpretation and demands Aisha provide four male witnesses to prove the encounter wasn’t consensual. Since the assault happened indoors and no one saw the act itself, Aisha can’t meet this burden. The judge, misapplying the zina framework to a rape case, interprets her accusation as an admission of extramarital sex without proof of coercion. He warns her that if she pursues the claim without witnesses, she risks being charged with zina herself, which carries a punishment of flogging or, in extreme cases, stoning if she were married (though she’s not). Frightened, Aisha withdraws her complaint, and Omar walks free. Rumors spread in the village that Aisha “confessed” to illicit behavior, further compounding her suffering.
Explanation of the Confusion:
The four-witness rule is meant to safeguard against wrongful zina convictions, not to obstruct rape cases. In this scenario, the confusion arises from the qadi’s failure to distinguish between consensual zina and rape, treating Aisha’s accusation as a partial admission of guilt rather than a crime against her. Properly applied, Sharia would allow the judge to use circumstantial evidence—her bruises, the neighbor’s account, Omar’s lack of alibi—to convict Omar under ta’zir or hirabah, without punishing Aisha. This misapplication reflects how the high evidentiary bar, designed as a protection, can be twisted in practice to harm victims when judicial discretion or understanding falters. Such outcomes, while not the norm in Sharia’s intent, have occurred in rare historical or modern instances, fueling misconceptions about victims facing penalties.