Jump to content

Khadim uz Zahra

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Khadim uz Zahra last won the day on April 6

Khadim uz Zahra had the most liked content!

About Khadim uz Zahra

  • Rank
    The Dark One

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Shi'a Islam

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

13,900 profile views
  1. Khadim uz Zahra

    Man acquitted of raping 17 year old in Ireland

    MOD NOTE: This thread is being locked, as it has gone wildly off-topic and requires cleanup.
  2. Khadim uz Zahra

    Man acquitted of raping 17 year old in Ireland

    MOD NOTE: I'll advise everyone to please stay on topic. Any future off-topic posts will be hidden.
  3. Khadim uz Zahra

    Man acquitted of raping 17 year old in Ireland

    So, having read a bit more of the coverage, it seems the judge didn't agree to that. The defence lawyer was the one who brought up this argument in her closing remarks and the jury found the defendant not guilty. As far as we know, the judge never agreed to this argument and maybe the jurors didn't either, and were relying on something else for their judgement. In all fairness, I also made the same mistake in my first post on this thread.
  4. Khadim uz Zahra

    Man acquitted of raping 17 year old in Ireland

    I edited my post after I wrote it so perhaps you could refresh the page and look at the second paragraph. I can't know what Timeless is thinking, but my impression would be that she's considering it to be a criminal act based on the fact that a choice of underwear is not consent so if that is what is being used as proof of consent, then the man would be guilty, as I stated earlier.
  5. Khadim uz Zahra

    Man acquitted of raping 17 year old in Ireland

    Well, there is a difference between what can be proven legally and what is true. For example, many people who are actual murderers and drug lords and so on get away with it because they kill the only witness who could testify to their crimes. Legally, you can't say that person is a murderer because the court never found them guilty but we would normally still consider such people murderers and so on. Stories like this are quite common in the mafia/drug business and so on, no? Of course, there is a fine line and allowing your opinion to let you make an accusation could possibly also result in you accusing an innocent person at times. It's not always easy to know the truth, but I guess in this case, you could say that if the only sign of her 'consent' was that she was wearing a particular type of underwear and she told him she didn't want to do it - or, at least, didn't ask him to engage in sexual activity with her - then what happened was without consent and therefore criminal. Maybe there are more details we don't know, but from the details that have been shared, it doesn't seem like she consented, at least not to me.
  6. Khadim uz Zahra

    Man acquitted of raping 17 year old in Ireland

    Where are you getting this from? According to multiple news reports, the incident took place in an alleyway. Saying it happened in their shared bed while she was in her underwear is VERY different from it happening in an alley while she was dressed. Since this is a serious matter, I'll ask you to please provide a reference, or I'll edit your post to remove the factual inaccuracy. Secondly, even if they were sleeping in a shared bed and she was in her underwear, why would you want to have sex with someone while she's sleeping and not even aware of what's happening? It's just not right.
  7. Khadim uz Zahra

    Man acquitted of raping 17 year old in Ireland

    I never suggested that you did. I made my comment because your comments detracted from the man's culpability and focused on the woman's mistakes. No one is denying that immodest clothing is bad, and should be avoided. But timing is crucial for anything; when we have an incident like this take place, we can choose to focus on the woman's mistakes or the man's. At the end of the day, the man who raped someone is more responsible than the woman so by highlighting her mistakes, it serves to lessen his crime. To many of the people who are reading the forum, it may subconsciously imply that 'she was asking for it' or that 'she deserved it'. That kind of thinking is wrong. There's a time and place for everything, and I felt like your comments weren't right for this time. We can always discuss the need for more modest clothing at another time; the forum is full of such threads anyway.
  8. Khadim uz Zahra

    Man acquitted of raping 17 year old in Ireland

    Yes, there are women who dress provocatively and revealingly with the intent of attracting men, but that doesn't mean men are supposed to give in to your base desires and rape her. I don't care if a woman is walking naked on the street, you're not supposed to rape her. End of. It's important to recognise that besides being a sexual act, rape is also a violent act; if a woman walks around naked with the explicit purpose of arousing men, does that give men the right to murder her or beat her? If not, then it doesn't give men the right to rape her since it's an equally violent act. Even if one could argue that revealing clothes are for the purpose of arousing sexual desires and therefore men's subsequent arousal is justified, revealing clothes are not for the purpose of arousal of violence and therefore any subsequent violence is not justified. Secondly, this story is quite absurd. For one, the woman was probably wearing something above her underwear. So, how does an article of clothing that is hidden even signify consent? And if revealing underwear is somehow consent for sex, then all the beaches in the world must be just filled with justified rapes because women on beaches wear just as revealing, if not more revealing, clothing at beaches, without wearing anything on top of the bikini. So, unless this judge thinks raping any woman with a bikini is fine, I can't understand what the logic of this ruling was, unless there's more evidence pertaining to the case that has been omitted by the media coverage in favour of sensationalism.
  9. Khadim uz Zahra


    If you don't know something, then obviously there is no sin for it, regardless of whatever the problem/question is.
  10. Khadim uz Zahra

    A question to the sisters

    Well, for one, when deciding on whether to approve this thread or not, the moderators felt that it might, at least, give the female members on the forum some voice and agency, if they've had terrible experiences like this. Secondly, seeing this might shame some of the perpetrators from, hopefully, repeating their misdeeds. Lastly, for those of us males who aren't quite so far gone, it would, at least, show us your struggles and maybe allow us to be more sympathetic to your plight. Maybe it'll make us nicer and more respectful. Who knows?
  11. Khadim uz Zahra

    Thoughts 2018

    This. Is. Gold.
  12. Absolutely. Even if someone might argue that the physical aspect is more important to men and, so, why should women be forced into mut'ah and treated like objects to fulfil sexual desires, the fact is women in the West where there are fewer restrictions do get into relationships as well, no? They're not forced into them. Obviously, they're getting something out of it, and want one. Maybe they want the physical aspect less and want the emotional intimacy with the man, and again, the degree of puritanical thought in our societies and the various restrictions on marriage until half a person's life is already over are preventing women from having their physical and emotional needs being met as well.
  13. Permanent marriage could also be argued to literally be a permission for sex in exchange for a lifelong stipend. Those are the very basic requirements for marriage, if you only look at the law. And if two people want to get permanently married just to have sex, and the man pays the woman living expenses but they live in separate houses, don't love each other and so on, that's also a perfectly valid marriage Islamically. But that's not the ethical point of permanent marriage. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter in my opinion, what people's intentions for either mut'ah or permanent marriage are. Very simply put, despite our societies having become incredibly puritanical, Islam recognises that sex is a human need. Not a want, but a need. Sure, some people may argue men need it more than women, and that can be argued forever, but both sexes do need it. Just like how hunger is a basic human need and God provides halal foods to sate our needs in that regard, he has provided the two forms of marriage to sate our sexual needs. As long as people use these tools provided by God to avoid sins, and as long as both people understand and consent to what they're getting into, whether they do mut'ah for a one night stand or to get to know each other for permanent marriage or a man uses it for a legal means of marrying a non Muslim, kitabi woman for life (since regular nikah is not allowed in this case), it really doesn't matter. And it shouldn't matter. At best, some of these things may be makrooh, but the people who make it such a big deal, do they always eat with their right hand and enter the bathroom with their right leg and leave with the left? When it suits them, it's okay to ignore every mustahab and makrooh act, but when something is causing the youth to become irreligious and commit sins, then it's all about not doing makrooh actions? We'd rather let our youth commit sins instead of letting them do something makrooh. Is that not the epitome of irrationality? Do we not see the almost constant threads about teenagers complaining they are masturbating and they can't stop? Do we think God won't question us about how we created a society where His halal was made haram by societal pressure, where people were forced into sin and unable to use the halal means of satisfying their urges? We all read the hadith about halal and harm being interchanged at the end of times; is this not a glaring example of the same? Why do we think people will leave Islam and reject the Imam at the time of his zuhoor? It will be because their personal standards of ethics will be so different from Islam, that his actions will not make sense to them. Because they will judge a woman for doing mut'ah, while the Imam will allow it and, as the Hadith about its reward show, even encourage it for those who need it. What do they think is going to happen when the Imam tells their sister or their daughter to do mut'ah if the situation requires it and even tells her that she'll have a boatload of reward in Heaven for it, and their deluded idea of ghirah makes them think the Imam is sending their daughter down the wrong path? How many of the people here would accept it, then? If they can't accept it now, then they need to rethink their relationship with Islam and with the Imam because he could come tomorrow, and they might end up rejecting him. The rest is just cultural baggage. Islam is about not lagging behind the Prophet, but we should also not go beyond what he says. If he allowed something, we shouldn't judge people - especially the women since Muslim men are for some reason so enamoured with virginity while our Prophet married widows and divorcees with no hesitation - for doing something that he allowed.
  14. Khadim uz Zahra

    Motherly Love with Non Mahram Relations

    Your aunts that are related to you by blood are mahram (your mum or dad's sisters), but your aunts through marriage (the wives of your dad or mum's brothers) are not your mahram because they are not related to you by blood.