In a discussion on whether the use of blogs (and more widely the intenet) is haraam (prohibited), Aziz writes:
A crime like rape is seen as a problem arising from immodest clothing rather than a violation of civil rights and the sovereignity [sic] of the self.
I cannot comment on how rape is viewed or seen by Muslim jurists (this needs someone to do a survey of how such acts were classified and understood in Muslim legal writing and what the practice was and is today). I responded to his comment on the 'sovereignty of the self':
I doubt pre-modern (philosophically speaking) traditional religions recognise "sovereignty of the self".
Aziz's response was to invoke ijtihad allowing "role for the indovidual's [sic] self-determination". I believe ijtihad is a rather abused word as I suggested in another post. But this isn't the place for that. The point here is to note that whereas modern liberal theories acknowledge the individual as a self-owning and sovereign individual, who is wholly owning of his/her acts, this is not the case with traditional forms of religion, of which classical Sunnism would be in Islamic history.
In early Muslim history, in the debates between traditionalists and rationalists (and those in between), a key question for Muslim theologians  was whether the acts of the human were "owned" by the man in question and what was the role of God in these acts. In the face of the extreme humanism of the Mu'tazlites (who seemed to reject the role of God in human actions), Sunnism chose, for the most part, the position that a man acquires his deeds (with God the cause and effect of such acts).  So from this perspective, the individual is not wholly owning of his or her acts (though is responsible for them before God); the individual here is certainly is not a sovereign agent who acts as he/she wills.
Further, there is a hint in the definition of the word muslim ('one who submits'). The individual (muslim) is bound by a set of disciplines (which cultivate virtues such as patience and steadfastness, reliance on God etc.) and a practical morality which binds him to the rest of the ummah and ultimately to God, the One who owns him or her. Certainly, liberals would find repulsive the idea that the Self is owned by something else (other than itself). But in Islamic moral theologies the reverse is said to be true; one who claims not to be (consciously) owned by God is distant from God (beyond a point which makes him or her a non-believer).
 Islam, as a whole, probably does not recognise a pure 'philosophy' as understood in Western traditions, divorced from a theology. But then neither does Catholicism. This doesn't mean there have not been Muslims, orthodox or hetrodox, who have recognised the concerns of philosophy. Ibn Rushd and Ibn Sina are two good examples.
 Whatever the philosophical and theological (i.e. rational, logical) arguments are, and whatever the internal developments of this theological position, would deserve more attention than I can give (in any case look up any good history book on Islamic theology). I also quite appreciate that Aziz is not a Sunni. So this argument does not affect him, but does affect, like I said, most Muslims who adhere to traditional religion.