Mauritania and Rape

2010-12-22 11:21:01

#1

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6680|North Carolina

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/12 … tml?hpt=C1

Mahjouba was raped in March on the nighttime streets of Mauritania's capital, but she will not bring charges against the man she says did it since she may be the one who ends up in prison. The 25-year-old says the legal advice she received was to not go to court, leaving her to suffer in silence.

There is no law in Mauritania that defines rape.

According to a local U.N.-funded group working with the victims, the law criminalizes the women instead of their rapists -- and society ostracizes the women.

Mahjouba, who asked not to use her real name, said: "I am sure that if I raise my voice I'm going to be criminalized by my society and I will pay the price harshly ... and as a result I may stay single for the rest of my life."

She added: "I consulted a lawyer secretly, and he advised me sincerely not to seek justice because that would throw me in jail. I know what happened to other girls who decided to go to court and face the community. Their lives were destroyed completely forever. So I already know what would happen to me if I had to follow that path.

"This Islamic republic has no place for rape victims like me."

Mauritanian laws are based on Sharia law and the penal code forbids relationships between both sexes outside marriage. That includes a consensual relationship between a boyfriend and girlfriend but can also criminalize a woman who is forced to have sex.

A lot of religions have some pretty fucked up laws and ideas, but so far, Islam seems to be the only one that can be interpreted in such a way that rape is the fault of the victim rather than of the rapist.

2010-12-22 11:39:17

#2

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,981|6907|949

Turquoise wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/12/21/mauritania.rape/index.html?hpt=C1

A lot of religions have some pretty fucked up laws and ideas, but so far, Islam seems to be the only one that can be interpreted in such a way that rape is the fault of the victim rather than of the rapist.

You are mixing two ideas up - one is the cultural values of certain predominately Muslim countries which places high regard in a subserviant cloaked female. The other is the idea that rape (in any country) is often a very hard allegation to prove. One only has to look at the Julian Assange rape allegations and coverage/commentary regarding that to see how people view rape charges. It's just that most western societies don't have laws that explicitly forbid consensual sex outside of marriage.

There's no rhyme or reason to think that any legitimate scholarly train of though in Islam "can be interpreted in such a way that rape is the fault of the victim rather than of the rapist".

2010-12-22 11:40:59

#3

ROGUEDD: BF2s. A Liberal Gang of Faggots.; +452|5663|Fuck this.

She was exposing way too much of her body. I mean, the poor man probably saw the bridge of her nose and couldn't help himself!

Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!

2010-12-22 11:52:07

#4

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6680|North Carolina

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/12/21/mauritania.rape/index.html?hpt=C1

A lot of religions have some pretty fucked up laws and ideas, but so far, Islam seems to be the only one that can be interpreted in such a way that rape is the fault of the victim rather than of the rapist.
You are mixing two ideas up - one is the cultural values of certain predominately Muslim countries which places high regard in a subserviant cloaked female. The other is the idea that rape (in any country) is often a very hard allegation to prove. One only has to look at the Julian Assange rape allegations and coverage/commentary regarding that to see how people view rape charges. It's just that most western societies don't have laws that explicitly forbid consensual sex outside of marriage.

There's no rhyme or reason to think that any legitimate scholarly train of though in Islam "can be interpreted in such a way that rape is the fault of the victim rather than of the rapist".

Oh really? Then why is it that Sharia Law is always given as the rationale? See, I understand that certain cultural values that precede Islam influence these laws, but when Islam essentially embraces these values, it really is one and the same.

You can only hide behind the excuse of culture for so long. Eventually, you have to blame the religion as well.

2010-12-22 11:54:10

#5

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,981|6907|949

Sharia law is given as the rationale in the fact that adultery is morally wrong and consensual sex outside of marriage is wrong. Christians tend to think the same way, but thankfully in most Western countries that specific moral code has worked its way out of the lawbooks. Not the case in many Islamic states. Sharia law doesn't punish the victim of rape, it punishes sex outside of marriage. The fact that rape allegations are often hard to prove makes it that much harder to establish fair culpability.

2010-12-22 11:56:36

#6

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6680|North Carolina

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Sharia law is given as the rationale in the fact that adultery is morally wrong and consensual sex outside of marriage is wrong. Christians tend to think the same way, but thankfully in most Western countries that specific moral code has worked its way out of the lawbooks. Not the case in many Islamic states.

Agreed, but the fact remains, this interpretation is based out of Islam. The laws are a reflection of Islam itself.

Granted, I'll agree that Christianity is pretty fucked up in certain ways too.

2010-12-22 11:57:57

#7

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,981|6907|949

Sharia law doesn't punish rape victims. It punishes sex outside of marriage. There is a difference.

2010-12-22 12:02:35

#8

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6680|North Carolina

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Sharia law doesn't punish rape victims. It punishes sex outside of marriage. There is a difference.

Sex outside of marriage includes rape. There is no difference, as demonstrated by this law. Unless Sharia Law specifically mentions consent, then rape really is within that context.

2010-12-22 12:08:22

#9

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,981|6907|949

Dude, the fact that rape allegations are consistently hard to prove IN ANY SOCIETY is a factor. Sure, rape is within the context of sex outside of marriage. But it isn't the same thing. Are we supposed to look at this specific case and come to the conclusion that Muslims punish rape victims? That would be an extremely ignorant and irrational deduction.

2010-12-22 12:12:04

#10

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6772

dam, i misread the title. i was expecting another topic on pot.

2010-12-22 12:12:30

#11

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6680|North Carolina

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Dude, the fact that rape allegations are consistently hard to prove IN ANY SOCIETY is a factor. Sure, rape is within the context of sex outside of marriage. But it isn't the same thing. Are we supposed to look at this specific case and come to the conclusion that Muslims punish rape victims? That would be an extremely ignorant and irrational deduction.

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that Sharia Law essentially punishes rape victims because of the social environment it creates. This is a reflection on Islam itself, although I'm not saying that Muslims have a grudge against rape victims.

Basically, the point of this was to show that Islamism is a very bad thing as is Sharia Law. Islam itself is somewhat disturbing in this respect.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-12-22 12:15:37)

2010-12-22 12:14:09

#12

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6772

. . . and found a lowing thread instead.

2010-12-22 12:39:01

#13

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|7050|Moscow, Russia

Turquoise wrote:
A lot of religions have some pretty fucked up laws and ideas, but so far, Islam seems to be the only one that can be interpreted in such a way that rape is the fault of the victim rather than of the rapist.

there was a time when christianity was being interpreted in such a way that if, say, a woman was redhead and had any kind of mole anywhere on her body it was deemed necessary to torture her until she confessed she was a witch and all that stuff, and after she did she'd be burned at stake to cleance her soul of sin.

religion does not make anybody evil - stupidity does.

Last edited by Shahter (2010-12-22 12:41:36)

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2010-12-22 12:50:49

#14

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5633|London, England

burnzz wrote:
dam, i misread the title. i was expecting another topic on pot.

I read it the same wa th

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-12-22 13:09:02

#15

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6680|North Carolina

Shahter wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
A lot of religions have some pretty fucked up laws and ideas, but so far, Islam seems to be the only one that can be interpreted in such a way that rape is the fault of the victim rather than of the rapist.
there was a time when christianity was being interpreted in such a way that if, say, a woman was redhead and had any kind of mole anywhere on her body it was deemed necessary to torture her until she confessed she was a witch and all that stuff, and after she did she'd be burned at stake to cleance her soul of sin.

religion does not make anybody evil - stupidity does.

Ah... not surprising... although, I don't believe there's any part of the Bible that references redheads or moles.

2010-12-22 13:10:01

#16

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5860

Iran executes their rapist. As does Saudi Arabia.

2010-12-22 13:24:55

#17

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6680|North Carolina

Macbeth wrote:
Iran executes their rapist. As does Saudi Arabia.

They both punish victims too...

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/11/1 … shing.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atefah_Sahaaleh

Again, it seems like a pretty strong connection to Islam here -- both among Sunnis and Shiites.

2010-12-22 14:24:30

#18

UnkleRukus: That Guy; +236|5311|Massachusetts, USA

Turquoise wrote:
Shahter wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
A lot of religions have some pretty fucked up laws and ideas, but so far, Islam seems to be the only one that can be interpreted in such a way that rape is the fault of the victim rather than of the rapist.
there was a time when christianity was being interpreted in such a way that if, say, a woman was redhead and had any kind of mole anywhere on her body it was deemed necessary to torture her until she confessed she was a witch and all that stuff, and after she did she'd be burned at stake to cleance her soul of sin.

religion does not make anybody evil - stupidity does.
Ah... not surprising... although, I don't believe there's any part of the Bible that references redheads or moles.

Doesn't matter, look at the Salem Witch Trials. All it took was some educated people to manipulate the uneducated.

If you can't read, how do you interpret the bible, someone else has to read it to you and they can add in all their own facts and stuff. Its sort of like half the threads in D+ST.

If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.

2010-12-22 14:47:31

#19

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6680|North Carolina

UnkleRukus wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Shahter wrote:
there was a time when christianity was being interpreted in such a way that if, say, a woman was redhead and had any kind of mole anywhere on her body it was deemed necessary to torture her until she confessed she was a witch and all that stuff, and after she did she'd be burned at stake to cleance her soul of sin.

religion does not make anybody evil - stupidity does.
Ah... not surprising... although, I don't believe there's any part of the Bible that references redheads or moles.
Doesn't matter, look at the Salem Witch Trials. All it took was some educated people to manipulate the uneducated.

If you can't read, how do you interpret the bible, someone else has to read it to you and they can add in all their own facts and stuff. Its sort of like half the threads in D+ST.

I can agree with that, but the distinction here is whether or not the source texts involved actually mention something as punishable. The Quran does mention extramarital sex as punishable, but the Bible doesn't mention redheads or moles.

So, essentially, when taken very strictly, Islam essentially punishes rape victims. Someone has to add something to Christianity for it to have anything to do with redheads and moles. Granted, I'm willing to bet that some part of Leviticus advocates punishing extramarital sex -- chapter 20 seems to mention punishing just about anything.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-12-22 14:47:54)

2010-12-22 14:50:34

#20

UnkleRukus: That Guy; +236|5311|Massachusetts, USA

Turquoise wrote:
UnkleRukus wrote:
Turquoise wrote:

Ah... not surprising... although, I don't believe there's any part of the Bible that references redheads or moles.
Doesn't matter, look at the Salem Witch Trials. All it took was some educated people to manipulate the uneducated.

If you can't read, how do you interpret the bible, someone else has to read it to you and they can add in all their own facts and stuff. Its sort of like half the threads in D+ST.
I can agree with that, but the distinction here is whether or not the source texts involved actually mention something as punishable. The Quran does mention extramarital sex as punishable, but the Bible doesn't mention redheads or moles.

So, essentially, when taken very strictly, Islam essentially punishes rape victims. Someone has to add something to Christianity for it to have anything to do with redheads and moles. Granted, I'm willing to bet that some part of Leviticus advocates punishing extramarital sex -- chapter 20 seems to mention punishing just about anything.

No, you still aren't getting it.

We know the source texts don't mention redheads or moles, but the people who get the shit end of the stick weren't able to read. So the people reading the bible/Quran have free range to add and remove stuff at will.

I have no idea what the Quran says, I can't read arabic I doubt you can to. So how do you know what it says on sex before marrige?

If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.

2010-12-22 14:53:02

#21

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,981|6907|949

Turq, your logic here is about as sound as the people advocating death for rape victims based on Sharia law.

2010-12-22 15:03:06

#22

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5860

You fail at being funny john.

2010-12-22 15:11:00

#23

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5633|London, England

Macbeth wrote:
You fail at being funny john.

That's fine. There's about fifty other topics that Turquoise could've posted this in. Didn't need a new one.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-12-22 15:32:35

#24

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6745

read kens posts twice in this thread

think for a second

then stop posting

ta

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-12-22 17:23:15

#25

Hunter/Jumper: Member; +117|6629

JohnG@lt wrote:
burnzz wrote:
dam, i misread the title. i was expecting another topic on pot.
I read it the same wa th

Noted

BF2S Forums Mauritania and Rape

Turquoise wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

burnzz wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

UnkleRukus wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

UnkleRukus wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

burnzz wrote:

Board footer