Tuesday, December 06, 2011

Matt 24 Watch, 145: Rape victim in Afghanistan forced to marry her rapist, to get out of gaol

This video is for the unbelievable department, courtesy Atlas Shrugs:

 Geller comments:
Under Islamic law, the emphasis is not so much on the crime of rape but on the shame that the woman has brought upon her family by her sexual immorality, even if it was forced. So that shame can be washed away by her marrying the rapist.

Islam's emphasis is wholly and completely upon women as having the responsibility not to tempt men. If they do, and the man rapes, it's the woman's fault. So this ruling is of a piece with the wearing of hijabs, burqas, etc. Islam teaches that women are the possessions of men and places a high premium on virginity. This woman after the rape would be considered damaged goods. If the rapist had declined to marry her, her life would have been completely ruined, as no one else would marry her and she would be stigmatized.
12 years in gaol for the crime of allowing oneself to be a rape victim. And, the condition of getting herself out of prison -- and her young child, the result of the rape . . .  -- is to marry the rapist.

I am sorry to have to be blunt, but that is absurd. 

Patently absurd.

Bibi Aisha of
mutilated for
fleeing her
abusive husband
This also has to be taken in the context of the case of Bibi Aisha of Afghanistan, as I have just discussed at Uncommon Descent

She was forced to marry a man at 13 or 14 in hostage for a murder by her father's cousin; subjected to beatings and treatment like an animal, fleeing then seized back and horrifically mutilated by her in-laws. Almost worse, her family were shunned and deprived of work in their community for the "crime" of their daughter's plight being exposed internationally.

I say: enough is enough.

It is plain that international pressure and exposure do get a response, and so the time has come to publicly expose the shocking truth, and to insist that it be corrected through major reform, now. END

F/N, for record: There has been an attempt by habitues of the site Anti Evo, to twist the text of Deut 22 into an apparent-to-the-ill-informed immoral equivalence to the above case in Iran. I have taken time to answer this here, in a follow up post, which is also notified at UD. Those who are playing at Bible bash games with the Old Testament also need to very, very soberly reflect on the fact that these are the scriptures of the Tanach, i.e. they are the specifically Jewish scriptures. Would they be willing to openly accuse Jews using those texts as they so routinely attack Christians with? (For example consider Dr Dawkins' notorious "God of the Old Testament" passage, which is specifically addressed. Similarly, Christianity is NOT a "bronze age" faith, though it derives directly from and is warranted in light of the messianic expectations of one such, namely Judaism.) If you are not willing to explicitly target Jews like this, why then are they making these scripture-twisting, out of context snippet hostile reading arguments against Christians? For those who have genuine difficulties or serious questions, or may be perplexed, the follow up post gives ten onward links to begin looking at Bible difficulty resources.

No comments: