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.
|Bibi Aisha of |
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.