Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 30

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,110

    Moroccan girl commits suicide after being forced to marry her rapist

    This is a very sad violation of human rights:

    Moroccan girl commits suicide after being forced to marry her rapist

    Quote Originally Posted by Al Arabiya
    A 16-year-old Moroccan girl has committed suicide after a judge ordered her to marry her rapist, according to Moroccan media reports.

    Last year Amina’s parents filed charges against their daughter’s rapist, a man 10 years older than her but it was only recently that a judge in the northern city of Tangier decided that instead of punishing him, the two must be married.

    The court’s decision to forcibly marry Amina to her rapist was supposed to 'resolve' the damage of sexual violation against her, but it led to more suffering in the unwelcoming home of her rapist/husband’s family.

    Traumatized by the painful experience of rape, Amina decided to end her life by consuming rat poison in the house of her husband’s family, according to the Moroccan daily al-Massae.

    According to the newspaper, this type of forced marriage is rooted in local rural traditions to safeguard the honor of girls who are raped.

    Moroccan penal code exempts a rapist from punishment if he agrees to marry his victim.

    Feminists have long demanded an amendment to this article.
    Muslims adopted a lot from Judaism and Christianity. Here is a relevant passage from the Bible which commands rape victims to be "married" to their rapists for life:
    Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 "then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days."
    If you are not horrified by this, you are not using your imagination. Just take a moment to imagine that you are the rape victim, and that you have been condemned to live your entire life serving your rapist and bearing him children. And remember, he has complete rule over you, and can beat you if you get out of line, and you have no recourse of any kind. It's pretty obvious why that poor girl committed suicide.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    This is a very sad violation of human rights:

    Moroccan girl commits suicide after being forced to marry her rapist



    Muslims adopted a lot from Judaism and Christianity. Here is a relevant passage from the Bible which commands rape victims to be "married" to their rapists for life:
    Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 "then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days."
    If you are not horrified by this, you are not using your imagination. Just take a moment to imagine that you are the rape victim, and that you have been condemned to live your entire life serving your rapist and bearing him children. And remember, he has complete rule over you, and can beat you if you get out of line, and you have no recourse of any kind. It's pretty obvious why that poor girl committed suicide.
    Just one more horrific example that shows how destructive to human lives the teachings of the Bible are!

    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Richard and Rose


    Again you are promoting the same argument, even though someone (I forget who) has explained this passage in Deuteronomy to you and it is clear in the case of the man giving the father of the virgin 50 shekels of silver, that the girl did not cry rape, unlike the others spoken of in the same passage who cried rape. It is clear by implication that the girl consented and got found out.

    So you are citing the wrong example and you are refusing to accept any better understanding of the verses you have been corrected on.

    I will not be taking this any further in discussion; I only want others reading your comment to get truth which you are intent on avoiding. You are falsely accusing the Bible of bad teaching when your judgement is as bad as the judge who wrongly forced the couple to marry. It does not give me pleasure to be so blunt, but your intent on accusing the Bible, is blinding you sight as to the truth and it has to be pointed out so other do not make your mistake.


    Anyway, thanks for bringing this example of man's injustice to light which is where the real blame lies.

    David

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Not from this world...from the other side
    Posts
    3,236
    It's me CWH, David and I don't mind quoting again. And I am wondering what is the motive of RAM and Rose. If they are trying to convert us to atheist or non-theists, they can forget it!

    If you have read the book on the Rape of Nanking, the situation was 1,000 times worst than that Moroccan girl in which thousands of young Chinese women were raped by Japanese soldiers. Some were killed during the rapes and some committed suicides after the rapes, some were forced to prostitute themselves, many were impregnated by the Japanese soldiers knowing well that those were the soldiers who also killed their families, husbands, boyfriends and children. Many lived through that horrible trauma of rapes after WW2.

    [QUOTE][QUOTE=CWH;42015]
    Supposed President Obama visited your house and the mob outside demanded and forcing themselves to have sex with him, would you do a very heroic act by offering yourself, children and husband as a last resort so as to distract them and provide time for your beloved President to escape or be rescued? You know very well they are not interested in all the "holes" except Obama's so as to create world's headline, "President Obama raped by mobs!". They will most likely leave you and your family unharmed.

    When we read Judge 19, the concubine was unfaithful to the husband and thus by right deserved death in those days but the husband did not do that out of mercy. Perhaps the husband still harbored that rage in him and eventually decided as a last resort to punish the concubine by throwing her out to the mob to be raped and at the same time saved all the rest. This is a very heroic act on the part of the concubine and perhaps the husband (which I believe God will pardon her sin and her husband) but unfortunately resulted in her death. Her death brought a good thing and that was the destruction of all the evil-doers of that town. Would you like to live in a town whereby the main pre-occupation of the residents is sex, sex, sex and nothing but perverse sex?
    What would you do if you are faced with such a serious situation? Have one raped as a last resort to save all others or get all be raped?

    Judge 19:
    Now a Levite who lived in a remote area in the hill country of Ephraim took a concubine from Bethlehem in Judah. 2 But she was unfaithful to him. She left him and went back to her parents’ home in Bethlehem, Judah. After she had been there four months, 3 her husband went to her to persuade her to return. He had with him his servant and two donkeys. She took him into her parents’ home, and when her father saw him, he gladly welcomed him. 4 His father-in-law, the woman’s father, prevailed on him to stay; so he remained with him three days, eating and drinking, and sleeping there.



    Fine, but how about taking common accepted ancient cultures and context at those times....forced marriages, child marriages, arranged marriages, bride kidnapping, are'nt those the same as forcing themselves on another to want children? In ancient Jewish custom, all grown up children are expected to get married.

    My question srtill stands, why didn't she scream or resisted like the other case? Silence means consent. The man paid 50 shekiels as dowry (in fact that was the sum of a marriage dowry in those days) to a proposed marriage which the father accepted. The father and the girl could have rejected that 50 shekiels if they wanted to and the man would have been stoned to death. What if the father was rich and doesn't need the money or what happened if the man cannot afford to pay? Please see wiki on Ancient Jewish marriages:

    http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life...Marriage.shtml

    Excerpt:
    The last step in the reform of the mohar institution was made by Simeon ben Shatach, head of the Pharisees, who were the ruling party in the state during the reign of the Maccabean queen, Salome Alexandra (76-67 B.C.E.). He declared that the mohar, which was ordinarily 200 silver dinars (50 shekels) for a girl, and 100 for a widow, should merely be written in the ketubah, the marriage deed, as a lien of the wife on the estate of her husband, to be paid to her only if he divorced her, or at his death!

    I quoted all the disgusting customs of primitive people to show that they have nothing to do with disregard for women rights but that it is based on acceptable sexual and social norms. They may looked like rapes but they are not. I even know from wiki of a primitive tribe in ?Africa in which "rape" was a sexual norm before marriage and from another in which adolescent males were allowed to have sex with matured women prior to their marriages in order to gain sexual experience.

    Same as I would say to you that if you want to disregard or ignore the sexual norms and practices of ancient people of the Middle East and declare some of those practices as rapes is up to you.


    Yes, human morals are better than God ... Free sex, promiscuity, adultery, homosexuality, lesbianism, pornography, nudity, molest, rape, divorce, prostituition, abortion, pedophilia, bestiality, wife swapping etc. etc. If you can't see these happenings, I am afraid you are also a lost soul
    .

    God Blessed.
    Ask and You shall receive,
    Seek and You shall find,
    Knock and the door will be open unto You.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    It's me CWH, David and I don't mind quoting again. And I am wondering what is the motive of RAM and Rose. If they are trying to convert us to atheist or non-theists, they can forget it!

    If you have read the book on the Rape of Nanking, the situation was 1,000 times worst than that Moroccan girl in which thousands of young Chinese women were raped by Japanese soldiers. Some were killed during the rapes and some committed suicides after the rapes, some were forced to prostitute themselves, many were impregnated by the Japanese soldiers knowing well that those were the soldiers who also killed their families, husbands, boyfriends and children. Many lived through that horrible trauma of rapes after WW2.



    God Blessed.
    What's up with you Cheow? Nobody is saying that rape isn't horrible whenever it happens. Whether it be one rape or 32,000 rapes like it reports in Numbers 31 it's an abomination that is despicable!

    Rape is a violation of a woman's human rights and the Bible promotes it, that is why Richard and I keep saying the same thing over and over again, to try and get it through peoples thick heads. Whether or not you wish to believe it is up to you, but that does not mean it's not there! Just quit trying to justify it, okay.

    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  6. #6
    Hi Gals and Guys,

    Here is an article I found on Deut. 22:28-29 which may put some light on the subject. I thought I'd post it and let the readers decide how the passage is to be taken. After all they are the ones who have to live with it (accept it or not). Here is the source: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...io0fC5kCQHt2FQ


    I often hear this claim brought up in dialogues and discussions with those skeptical of the Christian faith. Not long ago a correspondent cited that most medieval commentators taught, on the basis of Deut 22:28-29, that a woman who had been raped was commanded by God to marry her rapist. In particular he referred me to Maimonides who wrote, 'by this prohibition a man is forbidden to divorce a woman whom he has raped.'[2]*
    In this post I want to address this line of argument. My response is two-fold, first I will argue that Martin’s translation of Deuteronomy is mistaken, second, I will suggest that the medieval commentators my correspondent referred to actually utilised a different definition of rape to that used today. My conclusion will be that this law does not command a woman to marry her rapist; it rather commands men who have sex with women to follow their sexual advances up with marital commitment, and teaches that failure to do so is forbidden by God.

    Martin’s Translation of Deuteronomy 22:28-29
    Martin cites Deut 22:28-29 as dealing with a situation where 'a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her.' He immediately states, without argument, that this refers to acts of rape. Although he does not say, it appears this conclusion is based on the verb 'seizes' in the English version he cites. Martin imports into this word the connotation of violent, coercive, abduction so that the sexual intercourse that follows is a rape. There are several problems with this claim.

    First, and most obvious, the English word 'seizes' is not in The Torah. The word in The Torah is tabas; in Hebrew, tabas 'does not in itself indicate anything about the use of force.'[3] While the word can refer to the capture of a city,[4] it is also used for 'handling' the harp and flute,[5] the sword,[6] a sickle,[7] a shield,[8] oars or a bow,[9] 'taking' God’s name[10] or dealing with the law of God.[11] The word simply means to 'lay hold of,' 'to take hold of something' or to 'grasp it in hand.' The more formal King James translation interprets the passage as, 'If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her and lie with her.'

    Second, there are good reasons in this context for interpreting the word in a manner where it does not have a connotation of force or violence. Here I will mention three.

    The first reason is that the context strongly suggests it. Had the author intended to refer to rape then he would have used the word chazak which does carry the connotations Martin plays on. This is reinforced by the fact that three verses earlier the author does refer to a rape. The law immediately preceding this one begins, 'But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her …' here the word used is chazak, which suggests a violent seizure is used. Bahsen notes, 'Just three verses later (Deut. 25:28), the verb is changed to simply ‘take hold of’ her – indicating an action less intense and violent than the action dealt with in verse 25:25 (viz., rape).'[12]

    The second reason is that Deut 22:28-29 actually repeats a law which has already been laid down in the book of Exodus. When one examines this law it is clear it does not refer to rape. The word 'Deuteronomy' in Greek means 'second law;' throughout the book of Deuteronomy, Moses repeats laws already laid down in the book of Exodus, sometimes expanding on them. The Decalogue, for example, which was delivered on Sinai in Exodus 20, is repeated again in Deuteronomy 5. The laws about releasing an ebed (or indentured servant) in Exodus 21:1 are repeated and expanded on in Deuteronomy 15:12-18. The same occurs with the law under discussion. Gordon Wenham points out that that Deut 22:28-29 is a repetition of a law spelled out in Exodus 22:15, which states 'If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife.'[13] Here, the penalty for sleeping with an unbethrothed virgin is that the man must marry the woman which is why the man must pay the mohar or 'bride-price' to the bride’s father. A mohar was security money (50 shekels) that the groom paid to the bride’s father. It was held in trust for the woman in case the man later abandoned her or divorced her without just cause.[14] Such money protected women from the poverty that could occur if they were abandoned with children. What is important, however, is that we are left in no doubt that in Exodus 22:15 the case deals, not with rape, but with what was traditionally called seduction.

    The third reason is that, to interpret the law in Deut 21:28-29 as a rape is to make God the commander of a morally heinous command. Martin is correct, given what we know about the psychological harm that rape inflicts upon its victims to command that a woman marry her rapist is cruel and hence clashes with strong moral intuitions. Elsewhere I have defended the claim that if one interpretation of divine commands coheres better with our moral intuitions than another then that fact constitutes evidence for the former interpretation. All else being equal, an interpretation that coheres with our pre-theoretical moral intuitions is always preferable. This hermeneutical principle applies here.

    The passage then does not refer to a rape. The Hebrew word does not, by itself, indicate rape and interpreting it this way both ignores the context where the word chazak is used to designate a rape. It also makes the second law inconsistent with the exposition of the same law in Exodus 22:15 and also with our prior moral discernment about what is right and wrong. Seduction, however, is consistent with the meaning of tabas, the context it is used in, the original law it was derived from and it coheres with our moral intuitions. These factors, to me, provide decisive reasons for rejecting Martin’s interpretation.

    It is worth noting that the fact that this passage refers to a seduction and not rape is really not news. Bahnsen notes that, 'one will find that many competent authorities in Biblical interpretation understand Deuteronomy 22:28-29 to apply to cases of seduction, not forcible rape;'[15] he lists several,

    Meredith Kline: 'The seducer of an unbetrothed virgin was obliged to take her as wife, paying the customary bride price and forfeiting the right of divorce' (Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy, p. 111).

    Matthew Henry: '. . . if he and the damsel did consent, he should be bound to marry her, and never to divorce her, how much soever she was below him and how unpleasing soever she might afterwards be to him' (Commentary on the Whole Bible, ad loc.).

    J. A. Thompson: 'Seduction of a young girl. Where the girl was not betrothed and no legal obligations had been entered into, the man was forced to pay the normal bride-price and marry the girl. He was not allowed, subsequently, to send her away (Deuteronomy: Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Series, p. 237).
    In Israel’s Laws and legal Precedents (1907), Charles Foster Kent (professor of Biblical Literature at Yale University) clearly distinguished between the law pertaining to rape in Dt. 22:25-27 and the law pertaining to seduction in Dt. 22:28-29 (pp. 117-118).
    Keil and Delitzsch classify Deuteronomy 22:28-29 under the category of 'Seduction of a virgin,' comment that the crime involved was ‘their deed' – implying consent of the part of both parties – and liken this law to that found in Exodus 22:16-17 (Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 3, p. 412).

    John Calvin: 'The remedy is, that he who has corrupted the girl should be compelled to marry her, and also to give her a dowry from his own property, lest, if he should afterwards cast her off, she should go away from her bed penniless' (Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, vol. 3, pp. 83-84.

    J. C. Connell: 'Although she consented, it was still his responsibility to protect her from lifelong shame resulting from the sin of the moment by marrying her, not without payment of the regular dowry' ('Exodus,' New bible Commentary, ed. F. Davidson, p. 122).
    Adam Clarke: 'This was an exceedingly wise and humane law, and must have operated powerfully against seduction and fornication; because the person who might feel inclined to take advantage of a young woman knew that he must marry her, and give her a dowry, if her parents consented' (The Holy Bible . . . with a Commentary and Critical Notes, vol. 1, p. 414).

    Alan Cole: 'If a man seduces a virgin: . . . he must acknowledge her as his wife, unless her father refuses' (Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Series, p. 173).

    James Jordan: 'the punishment for the seducer is that he must marry the girl, unless her father objects, and that he may never divorce her (according to Dt. 22:29)' (The Law of the Covenant, p. 148).

    Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.: 'Exodus 22:16-17 takes up the problem of the seduction of a maiden who was not engaged . . .. Here the seducer must pay the ‘bride-price’ and agree to marry her' (Toward Old Testament Ethics, p. 107).[16]

    Hence a skeptic who was interested in what the passage actually says could easily have discovered what I have noted by consulting a commentary.*

    Medieval Commentators
    If many post enlightenment and modern commentators realise that this passage is about a seduction and not a rape how does one explain the fact, alluded to above, that many medieval commentators apparently interpreted the passage to refer to rape? Here one needs to be attentive to the fact that words change their meaning over time. Medieval writers utilised a wider definition of rape than modern people do. In the middle ages the word ‘rape’ could include not only what we call rape today but also what was called 'seduction,' where a man seduces a virgin he is not married to with her consent.

    Isidore De Seville, for example, stated 'seduction [stuprum], or rape, properly speaking, is unlawful intercourse, and takes its name from its causing corruption: wherefore he that is guilty of rape is a seducer.'[17] Similarly, Thomas Aquinas wrote,
    They [rape and seduction] coincide when a man employs force in order unlawfully to violate a virgin. This force is employed sometimes both towards the virgin and towards her father; and sometimes towards the father and not to the virgin, for instance if she allows herself to be taken away by force from her father’s house. Again, the force employed in rape differs in another way, because sometimes a maid is taken away by force from her parents’ house, and is forcibly violated: while sometimes, though taken away by force, she is not forcibly violated, but of her own consent, whether by act of fornication or by the act of marriage: for the conditions of rape remain no matter how force is employed.[18]
    Hence it is not entirely accurate to read the word 'rape' in Medieval commentaries as we understand it today.

    In conclusion then, it is very doubtful that Deut 22:28-29 commands women who have been raped to marry their rapists.

    Twospirits
    "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away" (Rev. 21:4).

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Richard and Rose


    Again you are promoting the same argument, even though someone (I forget who) has explained this passage in Deuteronomy to you and it is clear in the case of the man giving the father of the virgin 50 shekels of silver, that the girl did not cry rape, unlike the others spoken of in the same passage who cried rape. It is clear by implication that the girl consented and got found out.

    So you are citing the wrong example and you are refusing to accept any better understanding of the verses you have been corrected on.

    I will not be taking this any further in discussion; I only want others reading your comment to get truth which you are intent on avoiding. You are falsely accusing the Bible of bad teaching when your judgement is as bad as the judge who wrongly forced the couple to marry. It does not give me pleasure to be so blunt, but your intent on accusing the Bible, is blinding you sight as to the truth and it has to be pointed out so other do not make your mistake.


    Anyway, thanks for bringing this example of man's injustice to light which is where the real blame lies.

    David
    You are totally wrong about the woman in Deut. 22. If you read the verse carefully you will see that the Hebrew word taphas is used, it is a forceful word which means to catch or seize; the same word is used in Judges 21, where the Benjamites go down to Shiloh and and taphas 200 virgins to take as wives.


    Deut.22:28-29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold (taphas) on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her (anah), he may not put her away all his days.

    Judges 21:20 Therefore they commanded the children of Benjamin, saying, Go and lie in wait in the vineyards; And see, and, behold, if the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and catch you (taphas) every man his wife of the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin.

    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •