Hrm, seems this horse doesn’t want to drink. Well, I tried.
I’m not an expert on Islamic jurisprudence, but I can’t help but notice that (1) these stories where a girl is first raped and is then victimized by the legal system seem to happen regularly; and (2) these stories seem to happen a lot more in Muslim countries than one would expect if they occurred at random all over the globe.
Badly, apparently. What water were you trying to lead me to? All I got from your posts is that you take the Fundy position on the bible. The only proper interpretation of it is an absolutely literal one. The only place you differ is that they say it’s the word of God and is 100% correct, and you say they’re completely wrong on that. I also get the idea that you think anyone who departs from that literal interpretation of the bible is hypocritical.
Are you truly incapable of accepting that someone can, and most Christians do, hold religious beliefs outside the only two positions you seem to think are proper? Or am I missing something here?
This case walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, but it’s actually a canard. Every source I can find apart from the Daily Mail says it’s based on local, cultural or traditional law: basically from the infancy of our understanding of human sexuality and notions of hierarchy not too different from other animals.
The other cases where the victim has been blamed usually stem from Sura 24, where women are required to have four witnesses to the fact that they’d been raped (with an analogue in Deuteronomy where they have to shout particularly loud or face execution). The death penalty for zina isn’t prescribed in the Quran or hadith (from what I can find) though.
At any rate, marrying rapists isn’t an example of Sharia unless one wants to extend Sharia to the other books. I’m no fan of other misogynistic laws that do form parts of Sharia though, including a lack of acknowledgment of marital rape, the free sexual plunder of slaves the right hand posseses and pederasty.
Considering that until the early 90s it was perfectly legal for husbands to rape their wives in many states in the US and the UK, this is an an extremely foolish comment.
Moreover making judgements about a country or culture based on a few extreme court rulings is moronic.
Here in the US we’ve had rapists aquitted because their victims weren’t wearing panties or, in at least one case, asked the man to put on a condom out of fear of getting AIDS, despite the fact that they held knives to the throats of their victims.
I’m pretty sure no one would want the US judged by those cases which would have been beyond preposterous in Muslim countries.
Also, no one has said that it “occur[s] at random all over the globe.”
Beyond that, that has far more to do with the parts of the world and the conditions in those than theology.
Frankly, I’d say women are treated better and have more protections in Iran than they do in India, China, or the Christian parts of Sub-Sahharran Africa but that doesn’t mean that Islam is somehow “better” than Christianity, Hinduism, or Buddhism.
Straw man. Nobody said that. But there are many commandments, such as the death penalty for a bride who cannot prove her virginity, that are so straightforward that you either have to take them literally, or ignore them. There’s no way to argue that they are metaphorical.
Speaking for myself, I am evidently incapable of understanding how intelligent, educated people can simultaneously believe that their scriptures are the inspired Word of God, and that they are free to ignore large portions of them. I am also incapable of understanding how they can disparage atheists by claiming they have no standard of morality, while picking and choosing what they accept from what they claim is an absolute, eternal standard.
Maybe you’re missing the way very prominent clergy and politicians justify their positions on issues like abortion and gay rights as “God’s Law,” and attempt to impose their interpretation of the Bible on everyone, Christian or not, while feeling free to ignore even some of the Ten Commandments.
I would like cites for your assertions, especially since 4 witnesses is required for an accusation of adultery not rape.
Or El Deuterino or His Royal Deutness if you’re not into the whole brevity thing…
Nonsense. The Church would be just as likely to say “You want to have non-procreative sex anytime you want? Then you can let Sine-Aid O’Connor handle your ministries.” If the Catholic Church had to choose 10% of their membership to keep in the pews (with their clergy aging, they do), they could hardly do it more efficiently than by getting the least obedient 90% to leave on their own.
You make the mistake of thinking that any of it has to do with morals and ethics. It has entirely to do with ownership. Of women. Because they are things to be owned, controlled, traded and used. And this is a POV that is common throughout history and throughout human cultures. It is a continuum that the US also occupies, although on our end, in 2012, it manifests as public policy discussions about birth control.
Don’t kid yourself, it’s all of a piece.
Sure, but why would they want 90% to leave? The Catholic Church spends quite a lot of time and money on making new Catholics.
They don’t have the clergy for them. The United States is running out of people willing to commit to a lifetime of celibacy, poverty and obedience, and the ones who already have are aging. I’m not sure how much money the Church spends trying to get Catholic converts, but I will bet it’s really not that much, and focused in areas outside the United States and Western Europe, or Latin America, for that matter.
Stories like this. You’re right, but the point is that a man can affirm their testimony multiple times, whereas women are held to be too emotional and there need to be two women to every man. So in other words, adultery is the default assumption given sexual intercourse and the women needs to produce witnesses to the contrary (which is highly unlikely given the fact that she’s been raped).
Still, English courts are woefully depressing on that case, though not to the same degree. I went into court for a criminal psychology trip… There was a swaggering asshole sitting in the defence stand with his feet on the bar, smiling at the woman he most likely raped while his barrister brought up every activity the woman had done on the night of the rape. That was including apparently drinking and smoking weed with the guy. Why drag her through that irrelevant shit? The judge was a woman and still didn’t ask the defence to skip to the point.
For what it’s worth this article states that “A 16-year-old Moroccan girl has committed suicide after a Sharia judge ordered her to marry her rapist, according to Moroccan media reports.”
But anyway, let’s assume for the sake of argument that this case has nothing to do with Islamic law and is purely based on the local culture and tradition independent of Islam.
In that case, one can ask what the point is in equating cultural and traditional practices in Morocco today with Jewish practices from 3000 years ago?
If you want to say that Jews from 3000 years ago were as barbaric as Moroccans today, fine you may be right, but so what?
Pre-empting religious arguments from believers in the Bible, I presume. If God is omniscient and benevolent, presumably a law that was good enough for his chosen tribe would be good enough to be applied at will? If it is a barbaric and misogynistic command, why even keep it in a book purported to be from an omniscient and benevolent God? Surely there are more moral tales, perhaps of successful convictions of rapists, or preventions of rape by peers that held their friends behaviour in check?
Anyway, I don’t dispute that it was a Sharia court: Sharia is simply an Arabic word for “law”, or at least a close analogue for it. The Quran and hadith don’t mention anything about vehicular homicide, but I’m going to guess that’s also in their jurisdiction. That said, if the court did need to extrapolate from a religious source, there are several injunctions in the Quran to consult a person of the book (the Bible) on religious matters, so the authority may be derived from that.
I kinda doubt it since the OP says nothing about the Bible or even religion for that matter. Besides which, if that was the point, then it should have been made explicit.
So in your view, all courts in the Arabic-speaking worlds are Sharia courts?
So in your view, Islamic courts can never assert jurisdiction over vehicular homicide cases?
Uh, tautologically, yes.
Edit: That said, I wrote earlier in the thread that the ruling wasn’t an example of “sharia”. I meant specifically it wasn’t derived from Quran and hadith, but it is a ruling given by a judge that is appointed on religious capacity I suppose.
No, that’s precisely the opposite of what I’m saying. Fiqh means they have to.
Cake or DEATH?
Eddie Izzard
Um, Cake please. 
Very well, give him cake then.
Your expertise in legal matters floors me. Even aside from the simple fact that the cite you place says absolutely nothing about what you boldly assert. And it seems that your penetrating expertise in English law has let you down in your court trip as the main reason the Judge did not interfere is that either pursuant to Section 41 0f the YJCEA 1999 she has already granted leave to adduce evidence and or as it related to the night in question, it was important explanatory evidence and not as you felt “irrelevant shit”.
This is a solved problem. Am I the only one here who remembers Lorena Bobbitt?