View previous topic | View next topic

What the hell, Morocco?

Page 1 of 3
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next

swot
893949.  Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:23 am Reply with quote

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/03/14/200577.html

A 16 year-old girl has killed herself after being forced to marry her rapist. Yet another reason that people should leave their religion at home when they go off to work.


Last edited by swot on Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:48 am; edited 1 time in total

 
NinOfEden
893973.  Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:41 am Reply with quote

Apparently it used to be pretty much the done thing in Christian + Jewish law, too - it's in the book of Deuteronomy that a rapist should have to marry his victim to, eh, make amends?
I really can't imagine what must have been going through the mind of whoever came up with that one. >_<

There's a Facebook memorial/protest page now: http://www.facebook.com/events/412117118803836/

 
Strawberry
893974.  Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:41 am Reply with quote

(It's Morocco.) Yeah, it's very sad that this happened; I feel sorry for the girl and her family.

 
swot
893992.  Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:48 am Reply with quote

Ta, fixed.

 
exnihilo
894026.  Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:11 am Reply with quote

Nin, you'll be referring to Deuteronomy 22:28-29, I assume?

Couple of problems with your interpretation/assertion which demonstrate the problem of quoting the Bible from a position of ignorance.

Earlier passages command death for rapists and this one does not so you need to ask why, and the answer lies in the context. Specifically that it's not clear that this passage is speaking of anything non-consensual, where in others that is made explicit.

The word 'rape' here is an odd translation of the word taphas used to describe the act which is not the same word used elsewhere for the crime of rape, chazaq. In this case the more usual translation would be 'take' or 'seize'. It's unpalatable to modern ways of thinking but that's less about forced intercourse than it is about making use of something that belongs to someone else, in this case a girl who belongs to her father.

It's important to remember that women at the time enjoyed few rights except those coming from her father and then her husband, and a young girl who was not a virgin would not find a husband. There's even a story later on, in Samuel, of a girl who wants to marry her 'rapist' (or more likely illicit lover) but isn't allowed to.

Finally, men at that time could have several wives and were obliged to support them and there are punishments laid out for failure to do so. The passage prescribes an enormous fine (by some estimates 10 years wages) to be paid to the father and that the man must take the woman in and support her for the rest of her days and may never divorce her. The intent of the law is not the punishment of the woman but of the man who 'defiled' her and destroyed her worth to her father or any future husband.

Now you can very much take exception to the treatment of women in the dim and distant past, but it's by no means as clear cut a case of crazy religious people doing their crazy religious thing as you might think.

 
swot
894031.  Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:47 am Reply with quote

Ok, we can leave crazy religious people and their crazy religious beliefs out of this, but I think we can all agree that this is a law that has to go.

 
Sadurian Mike
894034.  Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:08 pm Reply with quote

exnihilo wrote:
Earlier passages command death for rapists and this one does not so you need to ask why, and the answer lies in the context. Specifically that it's not clear that this passage is speaking of anything non-consensual, where in others that is made explicit.

Or, to put it another way.

"Oh shit guys, we've found another inconsistency in the bible. Quick, somebody find a way to paper over the logical cracks again."

 
suze
894043.  Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:16 pm Reply with quote

The bit that is not clear to me is where this Moroccan law comes from. It doesn't come from the Qur'an or from any of the major scholars of Islamic law.

Those legal scholars don't entirely agree on what should be the penalty for rape, but most reckon that it should be one or both of:

al mahr (He must pay her the sum of money which might otherwise be expected as a dowry, in recognition of the fact that the victim will now struggle to find a husband); and
al hadd (Stoned to death if he is married, one hundred lashes if he is not. The more severe punishment if he is married is because he has committed adultery quite apart from committing rape.)

From the Western viewpoint which most of us here hold, those punishments may seem medieval. But they do make sense in context - they fit fairly well with Islamic thinking on the penalties for other crimes.

 
exnihilo
894055.  Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:10 pm Reply with quote

Sadurian Mike wrote:
exnihilo wrote:
Earlier passages command death for rapists and this one does not so you need to ask why, and the answer lies in the context. Specifically that it's not clear that this passage is speaking of anything non-consensual, where in others that is made explicit.

Or, to put it another way.

"Oh shit guys, we've found another inconsistency in the bible. Quick, somebody find a way to paper over the logical cracks again."


Of course. Because the context couldn't possibly matter and an understanding of the time of writing can't add anything to our reading. Nothing in modern writing could be taken out of context or misinterpreted by a casual, and hostile, reader.

Let me be clear, I'm not condoning or excusing rape or mistreatment of women, and the Bible contains some dreadful stuff, but this is an example that doesn't fit that bill quite as easily as it might appear when it is viewed in context. Needn't even be historical context, just the context of surrounding passages! What a mad way to read a book!

 
Sadurian Mike
894059.  Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:45 pm Reply with quote

Sure, seizing/grabbing a woman and having sex with her is clearly not rape, even when the phrase usually used for consensual sex is something quite different.

No, not at all.

That the word 'seizing' can also be loosely interpreted in more... generously..., is convenient for those who don't want the inconsistent rambling writings of unconnected ancient scholars/madmen/fable tellers to appear in some way internally inconsistent.

 
exnihilo
894062.  Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:28 pm Reply with quote

That really is a selective reading of what I said, the word used for seizing is in the sense of taking someone's 'property' and does not mean that the said property didn't consent. As I said, we may find the idea of women as abhorrent but the Bible is not the culprit here it only records how things were.

Clearly this is must be a modern interpretation, though, which is why Jews have forced raped women to marry their rapists for millennia and why every Christian country has had such a low on their books too. Oh, wait no, they didn't and they don't.

I'm pushing no agenda here, I'm not apologising for the cultural mores of the time, I'm only explaining them. As a student of history you should know that you need not agree with a source but you absolutely have to try to understand it.

 
Sadurian Mike
894092.  Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:11 pm Reply with quote

exnihilo wrote:
That really is a selective reading of what I said, the word used for seizing is in the sense of taking someone's 'property' and does not mean that the said property didn't consent.

So why use a different word? All through the rest fo the bible the phrase 'lay with' is used to denote having sex. Suddenly we see rape being discussed and they change to a more appropriate word. It is not 'a man who lays down with another man's betrothed', it is 'a man who grabs a woman and has sex with her'. If they didn't want the difference to be clear then why change the language all of a sudden?

If, as you claim, it is the equivalent of a couple eloping against her father's wishes then why 'force' them to get married? Surely that is exactly what they would have been trying to do in the first place.

"You are a naughty burglar, as a punishment I am forcing you to accept these household valuables".

I'd say that the explanation is that a rapist has somehow devalued the girl and so has to take her off her father's hands now that she is no use to him for a good marriage. As you say, treating her exactly like property.

exnihilo wrote:
Clearly this is must be a modern interpretation, though, which is why Jews have forced raped women to marry their rapists for millennia and why every Christian country has had such a low on their books too. Oh, wait no, they didn't and they don't.

Just as they don't follow every other aspect of the bible literally. As I said, the bible is a mass of disconnected logic that makes little uniform sense. Bible interpreters try their best to stem the tide of leaky logic, but I don't see them as winning.

exnihilo wrote:
As a student of history you should know that you need not agree with a source but you absolutely have to try to understand it.

I understand that I can use my own brain to interpret what I see in front of me, and not rely on what has gone before or try to make excuses for it.

 
bobwilson
894106.  Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:25 pm Reply with quote

I'm with ex here (and Mike really should know better - probably been hanging around with that professor who is an expert in the Viet Nam war too much)

Quote:
All through the rest fo the bible the phrase 'lay with' is used to denote having sex.


No it's not. Lion lays down with the lamb? to give a trivial example.

Nothing wrong with criticising Bible bashers for following some Bible precepts whilst quietly ignoring others - but if you're going to argue serious points then at least get your facts straight.

 
masterfroggy
894130.  Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:56 am Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:
I'm with ex here (and Mike really should know better - probably been hanging around with that professor who is an expert in the Viet Nam war too much)

Quote:
All through the rest fo the bible the phrase 'lay with' is used to denote having sex.


No it's not. Lion lays down with the lamb? to give a trivial example.

Nothing wrong with criticising Bible bashers for following some Bible precepts whilst quietly ignoring others - but if you're going to argue serious points then at least get your facts straight.

If you are going to picking on people’s posts for being inaccurate, and use your own understanding of an expression to defend that, make sure your understanding matches the facts.
Isaiah 11:6
The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb and the leopard shall lie down with the kid and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together and a little child shall lead them.

 
exnihilo
894133.  Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:12 am Reply with quote

Sadurian Mike wrote:

So why use a different word? All through the rest fo the bible the phrase 'lay with' is used to denote having sex. Suddenly we see rape being discussed and they change to a more appropriate word. It is not 'a man who lays down with another man's betrothed', it is 'a man who grabs a woman and has sex with her'. If they didn't want the difference to be clear then why change the language all of a sudden?


I fear that Google is not your friend.

כי ימצא איש נער בתולה אשר לא ארשה ותפשה ושכב עמה ונמצאו
ונתן האיש השכב עמה לאבי הנער חמשים כסף ולו תהיה לאש תחת אשר ענה לא יוכל שלחה כל ימיו*

Read the passage in Hebrew again and you'll see that shakab, 'to lie with' is used in the same verse. The addition is of the word taphas which has a meaning similar to, but not the same as chazaq which is the word 'to seize'. The same word, taphas, is, for example, used in Jeremiah and there it's normally translated as 'deal with'. Chazaq appears in the passage immediately before (and in every other case) which deals specifically with rape, so as you say why change the word if not to convey a different shade of meaning*?

Note that in previous passages (and elsewhere) specific reference is made to the woman screaming and/or resisting. In this passage the words are "and they are found out", which implies a degree of consent and clandestine behaviour. You ask why a woman would be 'forced' to marry a man she voluntarily had sex with which again simply demonstrates ignorance of the period. Marriage was not for love it was for social status and advance, the man she had sex with might have been attractive enough for a fling but unsuitable for any number of reasons as a husband - to the woman as much as to her father.

You've taken an ignorance of the original text, added some sloppy translation and a dose of modern bias and arrived at a conclusion that cannot really be justified. I have no doubt that you're quite proud to be ignorant of the Bible, and fair enough as it's largely meaningless to most of us, but if you're going to deride a source text for what it says, rather than merely what you think it represents, then the onus is on you address what it actually says.


Either way we're wildly off track now and there's no justification for the original story - nor would I ever seek to justify it.



* Forum appears not to want to right align.
** If in English we had said 'rape' the first three times and 'assault' the fourth time it would be quite evident that the fourth was intended to refer to a different crime. (Note, for the hard of thinking, I'm not saying this word means assault, it's by way of being an analogy.)

 

Page 1 of 3
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group