• Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      It’s just that the man when buying sex is not (as much) sinning, but the woman who allows him to buy sex is very much sinning.

    • Shenanigore@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      That’s literally in their book, it’s not even rape. let alone wrong at all, if the victim isn’t Muslim, with a small exception for married women regardless of faith.

          • nifty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            I looked at the verses you mentioned, and did not find what you’re stating. Also, HQ is not a verse per se, as far as I can tell from looking it up.

              • nifty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                9 months ago

                Unreliable source, have you read it? The evidence they cite for their interpretation of the Quran has nothing to do with the content therein.

                • Shenanigore@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  I’m starting to feel you know and just don’t like it. Which is fair, it’s kinda awful.

                  • nifty@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    9 months ago

                    No I don’t know, so I could be wrong. I am not making any claims about being a religious scholar or learned in this. But just reading what’s written in those verses and comparing it against the text of the wiki, I can’t logically make the connection between the interpretation and the source material. Anyway, I wouldn’t worry about proving your point, religious texts (especially of the Abrahamic variety) have been ruining lives since their inception. Hopefully we can move on as a society while condemning people who rely on religious texts to persecute or subjugate.

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Absolutely. Like medieval Christians couldn’t lend money to each other with interest, so they just found a Jewish person, and used them as an intermediary as they could lend/owe with interest to non Christians just fine lol

      And my medieval example is completely topical cause these religions have hardly advanced since then.

    • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      There’s a lot of this in Abrahamic scripture. The nice treatment of slaves, for instance, only applies to fellow Israelites who sell themselves into servitude. Non-Israelites can be bought, sold, kept forever, bred (and their kids are slaves too), and even killed with impunity.

      Biblical scholar Dan McClellan notes that people from every age have to negotiate with sacred texts to affirm the ethos of their time and explain away those parts that don’t work anymore. And this is true with all religions whether Jewish, Hellenic, Wotanic, Shinto or whatever.

      So yes, in Islam, sex work is haram until it isn’t.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        I remember when Dan said that yelling at the podcast “hey you don’t have to do anything. Just admit the texts are garbage and there is no god.”

        It is so so much easier knowing that I will never have to explain away slavery again.