I will not be subject to sharia law

[𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕯𝖊𝖛𝖎𝖑]

allah is a fictional character, but even if he was real, I would never submit to him. I would rather die.

 

[Xuelian Baijie]

Allah is a pre islamic ambiguous word for god

If its directed at Islam its better to speak against Muhammad

 

[Myst]

allah is a fictional character, but even if he was real, I would never submit to him. I would rather die.

What are your issues with him? (also we refer to allah/god as he in english because in arabic we refer to the unknown as male, and since allah doesnt have a gender, he is a he).

 

[Myst]

Allah is a pre islamic ambiguous word for god

If its directed at Islam its better to speak against Muhammad

I urge you to bring forth your issues with prophet muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), even if they're the usual accusations such as pedophilia, but if you are to do so, then please be as respectful as possible

 

[Xuelian Baijie]

I urge you to bring forth your issues with prophet muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), even if they're the usual accusations such as pedophilia, but if you are to do so, then please be as respectful as possible

My only issues are that this warlords religion is the most invasive abrahamic religion, only thing i like about it is that its the most manospheric religion. As a panthiest I dont know of one place in the world that is better for me because islam has spread there.

 

[Myst]

My only issues are that this warlords religion is the most invasive abrahamic religion, only thing i like about it is that its the most manospheric religion. As a panthiest I dont know of one place in the world that is better for me because islam has spread there.

By the logic that prophet muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), we could also say that the prophets moses and joshua (peace be upon them) were warlords too, they both led people and armies.

Was the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) a warlord?:
Absolutely not.
According to Google, a warlord is defined as:
"a military commander, especially an aggressive regional commander with individual autonomy."
Let's break this down.

1- A military commander?
The army at Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) disposal consisted of all the able-bodied Muslim men of Medina, not trained soldiers specialized for the purpose of warfare. Hence, it would be a stretch to consider it a militia.

2- Aggressive regional commander?
All of the wars that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) participated in were either defensive or the result of a broken treaty that Islam strictly forbids, never offensive. This is because Allah SWT said in the Quran that the first priority should always be to establish peace. This is why Medina has so many treaties with neighboring Jewish or pagan tribes, to maintain peace and prevent war.[2:190] “You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.”[2:193] “You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression is permitted only against the aggressors.”As evident from the verses mentioned above, unprovoked aggression is not permitted in Islam.

3- Individual autonomy**:**
Did Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) have individual autonomy over his people? Absolutely.
Was it a result of his ferocity in battle and dominance in war or his reputation as you put it "as a warlord"? Absolutely not.
The first decade of his Prophethood was filled with what can only be referred to as "torture". He was excommunicated, stones were thrown at him until his sandals were filled with blood, garbage was dumped on him, many attempts were made to kill him and countless other atrocities were committed against him. But he remained steadfast to the message of Islam.
Despite this, he continued to preach the message of Allah and it was not until Allah commanded him to migrate to Medina, that he left Mecca. The people of Medina welcomed him with open arms and declared him their leader before he ever took part in a military campaign or battle. They gave him individual autonomy because of his Prophethood, the message he preached, and the virtues he upheld.In conclusion, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was not a warlord, and similar words with a negative connotation should not be attributed to his name.

Did he have an army?
Answered above.

Did he wear armor and weapons?
Yes, however, it was not a matter of choice rather a matter of necessity. The Muslims were a minority in the Arabian peninsula hence, they feared attacks from other Arabian tribes who wished to subdue them. Rightfully so, as evident by the countless invasions and raids targeted against them. As mentioned earlier, Islam promotes peace but in the face of aggression, it commands them to be strong and to be ready to fight, as it should be.

Did he have a court and castle?
No, despite his influence, he never used it to live a life of grandeur and luxury. If you read about the Seerat-e-Nabwi (Life of the Prophet Muhammad) you'll see that throughout his life he lived frugally. He only possessed what he required and gave the rest away. He considered things like castles that befit royalty, a waste of money that could be used to help the poor.

 

[Xuelian Baijie]

moses and joshua

I know there was some jewish old testiment stuff where they practiced war.
They did not create their own sect to justify war.

Was the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) a warlord?:
Absolutely not.

Yes I exaggerated the professionalism of his forces. My intent was express his incitement of Jihad not flat fact.

All of the wars that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) participated in were either defensive or the result of a broken treaty that Islam strictly forbids, never offensive

Yes, wars must be justified its normal for warlords to follow rules of justification. When you can live the hadith or die in Jihad then you can a heightened desperation to justify that war.

 

[Myst]

I know there was some jewish old testiment stuff where they practiced war.
They did not create their own sect to justify war.


Yes I exaggerated the professionalism of his forces. My intent was express his incitement of Jihad not flat fact.


Yes, wars must be justified its normal for warlords to follow rules of justification. When you can live the hadith or die in Jihad then you can a heightened desperation to justify that war.

First there's multiple types of jihad. Jihad just means to struggle (in the way of Allah). Jihad al-nafs is struggle with your desires. Living your life as close to Islam as possible is jihad. Speaking out against oppression is jihad. Jihad can be in the form of war too.
Secondly, Islam is a peaceful religion but Islam is not a pacifist religion. Islam is not a wishful thinking religion where everyone is expected to "turn the other cheek" even in face of oppression and injustice. Islam is a realistic religion that acknowledges the realities of the world and the reality involves war at times.

 

[Myst]

First there's multiple types of jihad. Jihad just means to struggle (in the way of Allah). Jihad al-nafs is struggle with your desires. Living your life as close to Islam as possible is jihad. Speaking out against oppression is jihad. Jihad can be in the form of war too.
Secondly, Islam is a peaceful religion but Islam is not a pacifist religion. Islam is not a wishful thinking religion where everyone is expected to "turn the other cheek" even in face of oppression and injustice. Islam is a realistic religion that acknowledges the realities of the world and the reality involves war at times.

And again, you must look to prior context of prophet muhammad's (peace and blessings be upon him) wars.

 

[Xuelian Baijie]

And again, you must look to prior context of prophet muhammad's (peace and blessings be upon him) wars.

The good guys win, every time

 

[Myst]

The good guys win, every time

Elaborate please

 

[Xuelian Baijie]

Elaborate please

“History is written by the winners.”​

― Napoleon Bonaparte

 

[Myst]

“History is written by the winners.”​

― Napoleon Bonaparte

Somewhat true generally but if you take that statement literally, then you might as well disregard history as a whole, who's to say anything happened?

The context of the wars during the time of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is well-documented in both Islamic and historical sources. These wars were not driven by aggression or conquest but were largely defensive and intended to protect the early Muslim community from external threats and oppression as I've already mentioned.

Here are both islamic and historical sources:

1. The Battle of Badr (2 AH / 624 CE)​

• Islamic Sources:
  • Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim: These two major hadith collections provide detailed accounts of the Battle of Badr, including the reasons behind it and its outcome.
  • Ibn Ishaq’s "Sirat Rasul Allah": A primary source for the life of Muhammad (SAW), it offers a narrative of the Battle of Badr, its strategic elements, and the importance of divine support.
  • Qur'an: Surah Al-Imran (3:123-127) refers to the Battle of Badr, emphasizing the help of Allah and the significance of the battle in the early days of Islam.
• Non-Islamic Sources:
  • The History of al-Tabari: While Islamic, al-Tabari’s work is a key historical source that compiles both Islamic and non-Islamic perspectives on early Islamic history. It gives a comprehensive description of the Battle of Badr.
  • The Cambridge History of Islam: This scholarly work offers a historical analysis of the Battle of Badr, providing a secular view of its context and outcome.

• • 2. The Battle of Uhud (3 AH / 625 CE)​

    • Islamic Sources:
      • Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim: These collections describe the events of the Battle of Uhud in detail, focusing on the causes and lessons learned from the battle.
      • Ibn Ishaq's "Sirat Rasul Allah": Provides an in-depth account of the Battle of Uhud, including the mistakes that led to the Muslim defeat.
      • Qur'an: Surah Al-Imran (3:121-180) reflects on the lessons from Uhud, including the Muslims’ initial success and the consequences of not following the Prophet’s instructions.
    • Non-Islamic Sources:
      • The History of al-Tabari: Al-Tabari’s account of the Battle of Uhud offers insights into the military strategies used by both sides, including secular commentary on the battle's implications.
      • The Cambridge History of Islam: Offers a non-religious historical perspective on the battle, analyzing its strategic importance in the early Islamic period.
  • 
    

    3. The Battle of the Trench (5 AH / 627 CE)​

    • Islamic Sources:
      • Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim: These hadith collections provide insights into the defensive tactics employed by the Muslims during the siege and the role of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) in coordinating the defense.
      • Ibn Ishaq's "Sirat Rasul Allah": Provides a detailed narrative of the trench’s construction and the events leading to the eventual retreat of the Quraysh.
      • Qur'an: Surah Al-Ahzab (33:9-27) narrates the events of the Battle of the Trench, emphasizing the divine intervention and the eventual failure of the siege.
    • Non-Islamic Sources:
      • The History of al-Tabari: Al-Tabari’s narrative includes details of the Battle of the Trench, incorporating both Muslim and non-Muslim perspectives.
      • The Cambridge History of Islam: It offers an academic interpretation of the Trench's significance in the context of early Islamic expansion and defense.
  • 
    

    4. The Conquest of Makkah (8 AH / 630 CE)​

    • Islamic Sources:
      • Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim: Both collections contain reports of the peaceful conquest of Makkah, including the Prophet’s forgiveness of his enemies and the cleansing of the Ka'bah.
      • Ibn Ishaq’s "Sirat Rasul Allah": Describes the strategy and execution of the conquest, focusing on the reconciliation between the Muslims and the Quraysh.
      • Qur'an: Surah Al-Fath (48:27) references the conquest, describing it as a significant divine victory for the Muslim community.
    • Non-Islamic Sources:
      • The History of al-Tabari: Al-Tabari discusses the conquest of Makkah, giving an account of the political maneuvering and the role of the Quraysh in the event.
      • The Cambridge History of Islam: A scholarly account that assesses the political and military context of the conquest, presenting a secular perspective on its strategic significance.
  • 
    

    5. The Battle of Hunayn (8 AH / 630 CE)​

    • Islamic Sources:
      • Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim: These collections detail the events of the Battle of Hunayn, including the initial Muslim difficulties and ultimate victory.
      • Ibn Ishaq’s "Sirat Rasul Allah": Provides a comprehensive account of the battle, focusing on the circumstances that led to the initial setbacks and the eventual triumph.
      • Qur'an: Surah At-Tawbah (9:25-26) references the Battle of Hunayn, emphasizing Allah’s support for the Muslims despite their initial disarray.
    • Non-Islamic Sources:
      • The History of al-Tabari: This source includes a detailed account of the Battle of Hunayn, analyzing the tactical and strategic aspects of the battle.
      • The Cambridge History of Islam: Provides an analysis of the Battle of Hunayn, giving insights into the broader Arabian context of the battle and its role in the consolidation of Islamic power.
  • 
    

    6. The Expedition to Tabuk (9 AH / 630 CE)​

    • Islamic Sources:
      • Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim: These sources provide details of the Expedition to Tabuk, emphasizing its purpose as a preventive measure against the Byzantine Empire.
      • Ibn Ishaq’s "Sirat Rasul Allah": Offers an account of the expedition and the events surrounding it, including the challenges faced by the Muslim army.
      • Qur'an: Surah At-Tawbah (9:38-39) refers to the expedition, urging the Muslims to support the campaign and explaining its importance.
    • Non-Islamic Sources:
      • The History of al-Tabari: Al-Tabari's account gives further context to the Expedition to Tabuk, discussing the political implications of the Byzantine threat and the Muslim response.
      • The Cambridge History of Islam: It discusses the strategic considerations behind the expedition, including its political and military objectives.
        
        
        
        
        
        "But al-tabari was a muslim historian?" You’re absolutely right that al-tabari was a Muslim historian, but his work is often considered reliable for several reasons, even when analyzing Islamic history from a scholarly, secular perspective. Let me list them:
        
        

      • Historical Objectivity:​

        
        While al-Tabari was a Muslim scholar, his approach to history was rigorous and aimed at compiling multiple sources, both Islamic and non-Islamic. Al-Tabari didn't just record the Islamic narrative; he often presented multiple versions of events, some of which were contradictory. This method allowed readers to see different perspectives, including those that were more critical of Islam.
        
        
        Al-Tabari aimed to present a balanced historical account, and his works include narratives from a variety of sources. For example, when discussing early Islamic history, he references Jewish, Christian, and Persian sources, in addition to Islamic traditions. This makes his work particularly useful for understanding the history from various perspectives.
        
        
        
        
        
        

        Sources and Documentation:​

        
        Al-Tabari’s "History of the Prophets and Kings" (also known as "Tarikh al-Rusul wa’l-Muluk") is an extensive compilation of earlier works. He cites and cross-references his sources carefully, which adds credibility to his work. He didn't simply record what he had heard but gathered reports from earlier scholars and historians.
        
        
        In cases where he was unable to verify certain details, he would state the source of the report, allowing readers to assess the reliability of the information themselves. This transparency is one of the reasons why scholars from various backgrounds respect his work.
        
        
        

        Use by Secular Historians:​

        
        Many non-Muslim historians and scholars of Islamic studies cite al-Tabari’s work because of its methodological approach to history. While al-Tabari’s religious views do play a role in his perspective, his work is not overtly biased or apologetic. Modern scholars often compare his reports with other sources to verify their accuracy, and al-Tabari’s accounts are generally found to be corroborated by other historical documents, especially when it comes to the general events and milestones of early Islamic history.
        
        
        

        Contextual Analysis:​

        
        Al-Tabari didn’t simply record events; he analyzed them within their historical, cultural, and political contexts. For example, when describing the battles and wars of Prophet Muhammad (SAW), he didn’t just talk about military tactics but also the social and religious impacts of these events. This broader context helps historians assess the motivations and consequences of these events in a way that isn’t strictly limited to the religious narrative.
        
        
        

        Historical Continuity:​

        
        Al-Tabari's work is valuable because it provides a continuity of Islamic history and includes key figures, places, and events that are corroborated by other historians, both Muslim and non-Muslim. His work is often compared with that of other early Islamic historians and scholars like Ibn Hisham, Ibn Sa'd, and others to cross-check the details. This cross-referencing approach gives a fuller picture of early Islamic history and allows scholars to validate his accounts.
        
        
        

        Critical Readings of Early Islam:​

        
        In his work, al-Tabari does present some critical perspectives, even about the early Muslim community. While his narrative is supportive of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and the early Islamic community, al-Tabari doesn’t shy away from recounting the challenges and internal conflicts faced by early Muslims, including disputes over leadership and the political struggles that occurred after the Prophet’s death.
        
        
        
        
        Hence, using the given evidence and reasoning, prophet muhammad (SAW/PBUH) was NOT a "warlord".

 

[𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕯𝖊𝖛𝖎𝖑]

The good guys win, every time

Is this sarcasm? Evil always wins.

 

[Xuelian Baijie]

who's to say anything happened?

I agree but not to this extreme. Im saying just because the people who won the wars say they are the good guys does not make it fact.

 

[Myst]

I agree but not to this extreme. Im saying just because the people who won the wars say they are the good guys does not make it fact.

View attachment 5157

The Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) instructed his military commanders not to destroy infrastructure, trees, or places of worship unnecessarily.
"Do not kill women, children, the elderly, or monks; do not destroy trees, crops, or places of worship."
(Sunan Abi Dawood 2614; Al-Muwatta 21:10)

"And when he goes away, he strives throughout the land to cause corruption therein and destroy crops and cattle. And Allah does not like corruption." (2:205)

• Islam does not force conversion, but it also does not allow public idol worship in an **Islamic** state.
• If idol worship is happening inside an Islamic state, the ruler can decide to restrict, repurpose, or remove the temple.
• Non-Muslim places of worship (churches, synagogues) are protected and cannot be destroyed.
• Muslims cannot destroy temples in non-Muslim lands.
• Random individuals cannot take action—only an Islamic ruler can decide.
  
  
  
  
  
  

 

[Myst]

The Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) instructed his military commanders not to destroy infrastructure, trees, or places of worship unnecessarily.
"Do not kill women, children, the elderly, or monks; do not destroy trees, crops, or places of worship."
(Sunan Abi Dawood 2614; Al-Muwatta 21:10)

"And when he goes away, he strives throughout the land to cause corruption therein and destroy crops and cattle. And Allah does not like corruption." (2:205)

• Islam does not force conversion, but it also does not allow public idol worship in an **Islamic** state.
• If idol worship is happening inside an Islamic state, the ruler can decide to restrict, repurpose, or remove the temple.
• Non-Muslim places of worship (churches, synagogues) are protected and cannot be destroyed.
• Muslims cannot destroy temples in non-Muslim lands.
• Random individuals cannot take action—only an Islamic ruler can decide.
  
  
  
  
  

The image you sent was of terrorist groups which obviously don't represent islam in any way, shape or form.

 

[Myst]

The Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) instructed his military commanders not to destroy infrastructure, trees, or places of worship unnecessarily.
"Do not kill women, children, the elderly, or monks; do not destroy trees, crops, or places of worship."
(Sunan Abi Dawood 2614; Al-Muwatta 21:10)

"And when he goes away, he strives throughout the land to cause corruption therein and destroy crops and cattle. And Allah does not like corruption." (2:205)

• Islam does not force conversion, but it also does not allow public idol worship in an **Islamic** state.
• If idol worship is happening inside an Islamic state, the ruler can decide to restrict, repurpose, or remove the temple.
• Non-Muslim places of worship (churches, synagogues) are protected and cannot be destroyed.
• Muslims cannot destroy temples in non-Muslim lands.
• Random individuals cannot take action—only an Islamic ruler can decide.
  
  
  
  
  

Destruction of active pagan temples should be, according to islamic law, warranted as a last solution if restricting, repurposing or converting the temple to a mosque for some reason isn't possible. And again, only the head of state of an islamic country can make such a decision.

 

[Myst]

I agree but not to this extreme. Im saying just because the people who won the wars say they are the good guys does not make it fact.

View attachment 5157

I also provided multitudes of evidence from both islamic and non-islamic historical sources on the events and the context behind them.

 

[Myst]

The image you sent was of terrorist groups which obviously don't represent islam in any way, shape or form.

why'd you jfl?

 

[Xuelian Baijie]

1- A military commander?
The army at Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) disposal consisted of all the able-bodied Muslim men of Medina, not trained soldiers specialized for the purpose of warfare. Hence, it would be a stretch to consider it a militia.

He was in 65 armed conflicts. one every 6 weeks on average. saying this is not a warlord is semantical

The Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) instructed his military commanders not to destroy infrastructure, trees, or places of worship unnecessarily.
"Do not kill women, children, the elderly, or monks; do not destroy trees, crops, or places of worship."

Oh thank you for killing me raping my wife and turning my place of worship into a mosque
So tolorant

why'd you jfl?

Islam is loves to Destroy history because they are just warlord copeaholics

 

[Xuelian Baijie]

I also provided multitudes of evidence from both islamic and non-islamic historical sources on the events and the context behind them.

i partially read it. it looked like an irrelevant chat gpt response

 

[Myst]

He was in 65 armed conflicts. one every 6 weeks on average. saying this is not a warlord is semantical


Oh thank you for killing me raping my wife and turning my place of worship into a mosque
So tolorant


View attachment 5159

Islam is loves to Destroy history because they are just warlord copeaholics

The vast majority of those "armed conflicts" were skirmishes and major battles like badr and uhud were quite rare, several of those were defensive, and the ones that weren't defensive by definition weren't unjust or warlike at all, examples:

Expedition to Banu Mustaliq (627 CE) – This was not an act of aggression but a response to intelligence that the tribe was planning to attack the Muslims. Preemptive action was taken before they could mobilize.

Conquest of Mecca (630 CE) – This was not a typical war campaign. It was a peaceful takeover with almost no bloodshed. The Quraysh had violated the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, and instead of massacring them, the Prophet (ﷺ) granted a general amnesty despite the fact that they had persecuted him and his followers (PBUT), driven them out of their homes, fought them unjustly, killed them, and more and still, the prophet (PBUH) had mercy on them.

Battle of Tabuk (630 CE) – This was a military expedition to deter an expected Roman (Byzantine) attack. The Prophet (ﷺ) marched to the northern frontier, but the Byzantines did not show up, so no battle occurred.


And again, dear magnonia, unlike actual warlords, prophet muhammad (PBUH) never fought for personal gain, land, or wealth. His goal was to establish peace and security for the muslims since they had been tirelessly persecuted and attacked.



As for the "killing and raping", again, the killing part is when there is a defensive jihad OR justified responses to threats and were NOT unprovoked acts of aggression, the raping part is just untrue and any muslim that rapes whether it be during war or peace time is to be dealt with through the following:

• If the rapist is married → Death penalty by stoning (Rajm), according to Islamic jurisprudence.
• If the rapist is unmarried → 100 lashes + exile for a year (as per Surah An-Nur 24:2).
• If the rape involved extreme violence (e.g., murder, armed assault) → The punishment falls under Hirabah (highway robbery/terrorism) as mentioned in Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:33, which allows for:
  • Death penalty (execution)
  • Crucifixion
  • Amputation of limbs
  • Exile or imprisonment
    
    (this is for fixed punishment)
    
    
    
    
    The case with discretionary punishment is if there is a lack of four witnesses (which is rare in rape cases) but strong circumstantial or forensic evidence, the judge (Qadi) can impose discretionary punishments, such as:
    
    
  • Death penalty
  • Life imprisonment
  • Flogging
  • Heavy fines and compensation for the victim

 

[Myst]

The vast majority of those "armed conflicts" were skirmishes and major battles like badr and uhud were quite rare, several of those were defensive, and the ones that weren't defensive by definition weren't unjust or warlike at all, examples:

Expedition to Banu Mustaliq (627 CE) – This was not an act of aggression but a response to intelligence that the tribe was planning to attack the Muslims. Preemptive action was taken before they could mobilize.

Conquest of Mecca (630 CE) – This was not a typical war campaign. It was a peaceful takeover with almost no bloodshed. The Quraysh had violated the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, and instead of massacring them, the Prophet (ﷺ) granted a general amnesty despite the fact that they had persecuted him and his followers (PBUT), driven them out of their homes, fought them unjustly, killed them, and more and still, the prophet (PBUH) had mercy on them.

Battle of Tabuk (630 CE) – This was a military expedition to deter an expected Roman (Byzantine) attack. The Prophet (ﷺ) marched to the northern frontier, but the Byzantines did not show up, so no battle occurred.


And again, dear magnonia, unlike actual warlords, prophet muhammad (PBUH) never fought for personal gain, land, or wealth. His goal was to establish peace and security for the muslims since they had been tirelessly persecuted and attacked.



As for the "killing and raping", again, the killing part is when there is a defensive jihad OR justified responses to threats and were NOT unprovoked acts of aggression, the raping part is just untrue and any muslim that rapes whether it be during war or peace time is to be dealt with through the following:

• If the rapist is married → Death penalty by stoning (Rajm), according to Islamic jurisprudence.
• If the rapist is unmarried → 100 lashes + exile for a year (as per Surah An-Nur 24:2).
• If the rape involved extreme violence (e.g., murder, armed assault) → The punishment falls under Hirabah (highway robbery/terrorism) as mentioned in Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:33, which allows for:
  • Death penalty (execution)
  • Crucifixion
  • Amputation of limbs
  • Exile or imprisonment
    
    (this is for fixed punishment)
    
    
    
    
    The case with discretionary punishment is if there is a lack of four witnesses (which is rare in rape cases) but strong circumstantial or forensic evidence, the judge (Qadi) can impose discretionary punishments, such as:
    
    
  • Death penalty
  • Life imprisonment
  • Flogging
  • Heavy fines and compensation for the victim

And here are some historical precedents during the time of prophet muhammad (PBUH) and his companions (RA)

In Sunan Abu Dawood (Hadith 4379) and Jami` at-Tirmidhi (Hadith 1454), it is recorded that a woman was raped during the time of the Prophet (ﷺ), and the rapist was executed based on circumstantial evidence:
Narrated Wa'il ibn Hujr:
A woman went out to pray and was attacked and raped by a man. She screamed, and he ran away. A man passed by, and she claimed he had raped her. They seized him and brought him to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). The man said, "I am innocent; she was mistaken." Then the real rapist was found. The Prophet (ﷺ) ordered that the rapist be executed, and he said to the falsely accused man, “You are free, Allah has forgiven you.”


(Sunan Abu Dawood 4379, Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1454 - Graded Sahih by Albani)

During the rule of Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab (RA), a group of men kidnapped and raped a woman. Umar (RA) ruled that they should be executed, stating that:

"Even if she was previously sinful, that does not make it lawful for them to violate her."


(Narrated in Al-Sunan al-Kubra by Bayhaqi, Vol. 8, Page 240 - Hasan)

 

[Myst]

i partially read it. it looked like an irrelevant chat gpt response

I can see why it seems like chatgpt but I just like having proper structure for my posts, and if you had read it fully, you'd have seen that even non-muslim non-biased historians had used the same sources I had provided.