Remember when the U.S. aided the establishment of a theocracy in Afghanistan? Here is what we helped to create:
Lawyers in Afghanistan recently came to the conclusion that the best way to strike a plea bargain for a rape victim is to grant her the option to marry the man who raped her. This option, they assure, will reduce her criminal incarceration from 12 years to three years at the Badambagh Prison located outside of Kabul.
At the heart of the case is a 21-year-old woman simply known as Gulnaz who was raped by her cousin’s husband several years ago. Prosecutors don’t doubt that she was impregnated by the rapist. Indeed, her child lives in prison with her. But, concern was raised, and her case scrutinized because she failed to report the rape in a “timely” manner. She waited a few months, debating very serious but equally problematic options. The U.S. State Department has commented on the case, stating, “Gulnaz’s situation is one no woman should have to face. Our heartfelt condolences go out to Gulnaz and her young daughter.”
The problem is that the options for rape victims in Afghanistan are draconian and barbaric at best. For example, Gulnaz was sentenced to 12 years in jail after the rape. Her crime? Being a victim of rape is considered a crime of adultery. The options for rape victims are deeply constrained in Afghanistan. Had Gulnaz remained silent, she might have brought dishonor on her family for an out-of-wedlock pregnancy. That could have resulted in murder—an illegal, but nonetheless customary practice in dealing with women who “dishonor” their families. Indeed, women are stoned in Afghanistan. The other option might have been immolation—setting oneself on fire—which unfortunately is more prevalent than previously understood in Afghan society.
(Via: Challies.com)
November 29th, 2011 | 1:22 pm
Perhaps the Afghans know their Bible (Deuteronomy 22:23-29)
November 29th, 2011 | 2:03 pm
David, what that says is, you can punish a guy if you can prove it’s rape. If you can’t prove it — guess what, it doesn’t get treated like rape. Something like “reasonable doubt,” you know.
“And they are found” implies she doesn’t go screaming off to report it afterward — nobody knows until they “get caught,” in the more modern (though now somewhat dated) vernacular. So again — can’t prove it’s rape, it doesn’t get treated like rape. But at the same time, he doesn’t get to love her and leave her.
The Afghan situation is different because clearly, the woman felt that she was at risk if she reported it. The biblical law places the woman at no risk if she was raped, only if she willingly commits adultery under circumstances where her willingness is clear.
November 29th, 2011 | 2:07 pm
Perhaps the Afghans know their Bible
This is why it is so important that Jesus came with the New Covenant, nullifying that type of law.
The Old Testament might have been ethically ahead of its time at the time it was written, but I don’t know of anyone – Jewish or Christian – who does not believe that revelation “unfolds” (that is, we ‘see’ more now than Moses was able to see).
November 29th, 2011 | 5:15 pm
David, what is your point in quoting Jewish scripture here? I don’t see it.
I have seen this horrible treatment of rape victims in the Middle East, where I lived for several years. So many of these young women are naive and innocent, and I can easily imagine how horrified this victim was. I can also easily imagine she waited, hoping against hope that she wasn’t pregnant and then being embarrassed and rightfully afraid. I have read her tender words about her daughter, conceived in rape and yet recognized as innocent by her loving mother. This is an awful and unjust situation that threatens the life of a baby and a real woman barely out of girlhood.
November 29th, 2011 | 7:04 pm
Peg,
I agree that treatment of the Afghan woman is appalling, and my point is that the treatment of women in Old Testament times was similarly appalling. The idea that a woman would be required to marry her rapist is unthinkable today (except, of course, in places like Afghanistan), and yet that was the fate dictated by Deuteronomy for the unbetrothed virgin who was raped. For me, it is one example of a great many that one should be extremely cautious when looking to the Old Testament for a moral code.
As I have pointed out before, many take the Ten Commandments as the basis of all morality, and yet the prohibition against adultery applied only to a man having sex with a married woman:
Blake correctly points out that Christians don’t take the Old Testament in isolation, and yet it seems to me that pentamom attempts to explain away problems with this passage from Deuteronomy.
According to a very recent report, by the way, the requirement that the Afghan woman marry the rapist has been dropped, and it looks very much like she is about to be freed.
November 29th, 2011 | 8:03 pm
The Deuteronomy reference might be relevant if there was someone, somewhere who advocated turning it into the civil law of a nation.
Of course, there is no such person anywhere, and certainly no nation that purports to do so.
So, the only purpose is a silly ad hominem argument that aims to score adolescent debating points, and distract people from the barbarism that results when nations are governed by Islamic law.
November 29th, 2011 | 8:05 pm
The Afghan situation is different because clearly, the woman felt that she was at risk if she reported it. The biblical law places the woman at no risk if she was raped, only if she willingly commits adultery under circumstances where her willingness is clear.
The passage cited by David seems unclear as to what happens if the woman’s claim of rape is rejected because of ‘reasonable doubt’. If no one heard her cry, she says she did and he says she didn’t then does the man get convicted of rape, does the woman get convicted of adultery if the man isn’t convicted or do both get off and the case remains undecided?
Remember when the U.S. aided the establishment of a theocracy in Afghanistan?
Well it’s not exactly like Afghanistan was a disco dancing embodiement of the sexual revolution before 2001. Thank God for the Englightenment and Secular Humanism. Hopefully it will reach places like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. This does, however, show how questionable the whole enterprise has been to ‘remake’ the Middle East in the last ten years. Left and right most people are coming to the conclusion that the most sensible thing to do is avoid the area.
November 29th, 2011 | 9:41 pm
So, the only purpose is a silly ad hominem argument . . . .
Ad hominem?
November 29th, 2011 | 11:01 pm
“I agree that treatment of the Afghan woman is appalling, and my point is that the treatment of women in Old Testament times was similarly appalling”.
Well, the Hindu custom of sati was real bad, too. I guess we could go on ad infinitum, finding lots of unrelated practices from different places and times. I just see these comparisons as apples and oranges, though, and they shift the attention from this 21st century Afghan woman who is the subject of the article. It would have been pertinent to quote the Koran and current Afghan Sharia law, since I imagine everyone involved in this incident is Muslim. What Jews did to women 5,000 years ago sheds no light on Gulnaz and her plight.
November 30th, 2011 | 12:02 am
Yes – ad hominem is sometimes used in a colloquial fashion to mean “you are insulting people rather than arguing.” I’m sure you understood what was meant, didn’t you?
I think the more appropriate category in this case is that you are engaging in the “tu quoque” fallacy. And a rather weak tu quoque at that, since it’s obviously true that no one in the contemporary world seeks to impose the Deuteronomy code as a civil law.
But it’s always fun to bash the foundations of our civilization in response to stories of the indefensible barbarism of other cultures. Makes you feel so superior.
November 30th, 2011 | 4:51 am
Well, the Hindu custom of sati was real bad, too. I guess we could go on ad infinitum, finding lots of unrelated practices from different places and times.
Ever notice that when humanists attack Christians, they tend to attack not what Christians actually believe, but their own constructed version of what they think Christians “ought” to believe based on their own arrangements and interpretations of Christian materials and sources?
The whole thing is based on just ignoring any information that doesn’t happen to suit your purpose. It’s not a very honest approach, but humanism apparently finds Christianity such a threat that the ends justify the means.
I don’t think there is a point to his quoting Jewish scripture except that he is hoping to cause pain, start a fight, change the subject, and/or make Jews and Christians look bad – because, ironically, we have the same “evil” scriptural commandments, and also – at the same time – (b) we aren’t following our own Bible.
November 30th, 2011 | 8:47 am
“Ever notice that when humanists attack Christians, they tend to attack not what Christians actually believe, but their own constructed version of what they think Christians “ought” to believe based on their own arrangements and interpretations of Christian materials and sources?”
Yes, indeed. I was confused by the insertion of Deuteronomy—and right off the bat, first comment— because Christians (and Jews) are not at all involved in the story of Gulnaz. It’s not about us. In fact, the first sentence (“Perhaps the Afghans know their Bible”) points this out since, of course, we know that Afghans do not know “their” Bible. That would be dangerous for them.
I don’t know if it was a deliberate attempt to annoy Christians—how puerile can one get?—but it did divert discussion from the actual topic.
November 30th, 2011 | 12:09 pm
I don’t know if it was a deliberate attempt to annoy Christians—how puerile can one get?—but it did divert discussion from the actual topic.
Peg,
Here’s the point. In this post, a Christian (Joe Carter) who believes the Bible has all the answers to everything that is wrong with the world, assumes (and quite correctly, in this case) that we will be appalled at the treatment of this poor rape victim, although something almost identical to the treatment she is getting is prescribed in Deuteronomy. Not long ago, there was a post that assumed (again quite correctly) that we would be appalled that Saudi Arabia would execute a man for sorcery when the Bible calls for the execution of “witches.”
Now, of course no one—not even the most Orthodox of Jews—follows all of the commands in Hebrew Scripture literally. And in fact many Christians don’t follow what appear to me to be clear commands in the New Testament literally. Jesus clearly prohibited divorce, and yet many Christian denominations permit it.
So, the overall question that I am raising is how Bible-believing Christians pick and choose from among the commands of the Bible and say, “This applies today and that doesn’t apply today,” or say, “This is to be taken literally but that is hyperbole.”
It’s interesting to me that a few people who write here (harry is a good example) respond to challenging questions by going to great lengths to explain what they believe, quote from sources, and actually answer the question, while a great many others become testy or hostile.
November 30th, 2011 | 12:50 pm
If people seen “testy or hostile”, it may be because you come across as remarkably cold-blooded. You used an account of a horrific crime against a young woman as nothing more than an occasion to lecture.
November 30th, 2011 | 12:54 pm
I do acknowledge that preceding the quote from Deuteronomy by “Perhaps the Afghans know their Bible” was clumsy and stupid, and for that I apologize. It was no way to introduce Deuteronomy into the discussion. If that is what people found offensive, then mea culpa. But I do not at all apologize for the overall question (which I know is a huge one).
Question: Where the ancient Hebrews doing the right thing in dealing with rape according to this passage in Deuteronomy? That is, did God intend them to deal with rape in this way (or execute witches) because of circumstances at the time, or are we seeing in Deuteronomy the developing morality of a primitive culture?
November 30th, 2011 | 1:27 pm
Blake –
Rather like Blake and Heraclitus, eh? :)
November 30th, 2011 | 1:30 pm
Charlotte,
You have a point. It was not my intention in any way to minimize the seriousness of the harsh treatment of the woman we know as Gulnaz. I apologize to anyone who was offended.
November 30th, 2011 | 2:01 pm
Blake –
Ever notice that when humanists attack Christians, they tend to attack not what Christians actually believe, but their own constructed version of what they think Christians “ought” to believe based on their own arrangements and interpretations of Christian materials and sources?
Rather like Blake and Heraclitus, eh? :)
No, there is in fact an important distinction.
I misunderstood what the person was saying.
There is a huge difference between making a mistake vs. engaging in a troll’s tactic.
November 30th, 2011 | 3:03 pm
David, the point of the Deuteronomy passage is not that the woman is forced to marry her rapist, it is that a man is required to marry a woman he has violated. Fathers ALWAYS retained the right of refusal to give their daughters away, and commonly acted upon their daughters’ wishes. If anyone’s forcing the woman to marry a rapist (and I wonder if this was ever known actually to happen) it’s the father, not the law.
So understanding the passage properly would have been a good idea prior to using it to make a point that detracted from the seriousness of the situation at hand.
November 30th, 2011 | 5:28 pm
Fathers ALWAYS retained the right of refusal to give their daughters away, and commonly acted upon their daughters’ wishes. If anyone’s forcing the woman to marry a rapist (and I wonder if this was ever known actually to happen) it’s the father, not the law.
pentamom,
This is not the way the Jewish Study Bible explains these situations. Exodus 22:15-16 says:
A note says in part:
A note to the Deuteronomy passage dealing with rape says in part:
When an unbetrothed virgin was seduced, her father determined whether or not she married her seducer. When an unbetrothed virgin was raped, the law said her rapist had to pay a fine and marry her with no option for later divorce.
As for fathers “commonly” acting on their daughters wishes, what is your basis for saying that? Can you cite any evidence whatsoever? What I am discussing is biblical Judaism, not postbiblical Judaism. Do you actually have any source at all that purports to know how fathers “commonly” handled such situations in biblical times (or even postbiblical times)?
November 30th, 2011 | 6:48 pm
The State Department’s statement seems exceptionally weak (“our heartfelt condolences”? Gee, thanks). Sometimes, publicity does seem to help these individuals, though, so maybe Gulnaz will be lucky. Maybe her persecutors in legal robes will be embarrassed into allowing her to live, or maybe even to leave prison and not end up second (or third or fourth) wife to her cousin’s raping husband.
December 1st, 2011 | 4:05 am
“What I am discussing is biblical Judaism, not postbiblical Judaism…”
But, in a continuous legal tradition, changes of interpretation tend to leave their mark in the text. What evidence is there that the view prevailing in rabbinic Judaism was an innovation, differing from how the law was originally interpreted? Even in biblical times, the passages in Exodus and Deuteronomy would have had to be harmonized.
December 1st, 2011 | 8:53 am
Deuteromony is a restatement of the laws of Exodus, not an overturning of them. If the father’s consent was required in Exodus, it is required in Deuteronomy, even if unstated. The Jewish Study Bible is wrong to create a “contrast” between two statements *of the same law.*
December 1st, 2011 | 8:56 am
Yes – ad hominem is sometimes used in a colloquial fashion to mean “you are insulting people rather than arguing.” I’m sure you understood what was meant, didn’t you?
Who was David insulting specifically?
Ad hominem really means reasoning by insult.
“Joe says the sky is red. Joe is an idiot. Therefore the sky is not red” – the sky may or may not be red but Joe being an idiot or not doesn’t determine the color of the sky
It’s often incorrectly used in colloquial fashion to ding people who are making perfectly valid arguments but are doing so in a harsh or insulting manner.
“Joe thinks the sky is red. The sky is blue therfore Joe is an idiot” – Not technically an ad hominem. The argument defines an idiot as someone who can’t tell the color of the sky and links that to Joe. Insulting, yes, but not technically ad hominem.
I can tolerate ‘colloquial fashion’ extending, sometimes, the definition of ad hominem to the 2nd case but I refuse to allow it to venture into PC territory where any argument that ‘offends’ someone suddenly becomes ad hominem. Asserting “the Old Testament’s treatment of women was just as bad” is not some type of ad hominem attack on those who think the Old Testament is great.
Blake
Ever notice that when humanists attack Christians, they tend to attack not what Christians actually believe, but their own constructed version of what they think Christians “ought” to believe based on their own arrangements and interpretations of Christian materials and sources?
The same is done with Islam. How many people dance around comment threads asserting it doesn’t matter if this or that Imam says violence is wrong, if so many Muslims reject terrorism because assorted Koran quotes plucked from newsgroup threads ‘say’ the opposite?
The Roman Catholic answer to the problem with the disconnect between what people who believe in a sacred text believe and what the text seems to say is coherent IMO. It asserts that the Bible needs to be read in the context of tradition and history making it, dare we say a ‘living document’. Other denominations that resort to the easy assertion of “just read the Bible”, though, don’t get to enjoy that ‘out’. “Just reading the Bible” does seem to lead to the conclusion that the woman’s treatment was not out of line with Old Testament morality as was the execution by Saudi Arabia of a man practicising witchcraft.
David
As for fathers “commonly” acting on their daughters wishes, what is your basis for saying that? Can you cite any evidence whatsoever? …
A good point but we should also consider what daily life was like in ages past. In a society where sexes were strictly segregated, rape would have been an execptional event (note the description….an outsider has to come upon the woman in the field away from everyone….hardly a ‘date rape’ situation). I also wonder what is left out here. Would more intimate cases of rape not even get judged because the family would have first ‘taken matters into their own hands’? The law sounds harsh because it was written for and in a different time and place that had different ways of doing things. that doesn’t mean you have to approve of the law but to really judge it fairly requires understanding its full context and tradition.
December 1st, 2011 | 9:06 am
Even in biblical times, the passages in Exodus and Deuteronomy would have had to be harmonized.
Michael PS,
The passages under discussion from Exodus and Deuteronomy do not contradict each other, and therefore do not have to be harmonized. Exodus 22 deals with seduction, and Deuteronomy 22 deals with rape.
Also, my point is not about what the actual practices were in biblical times, but about contemporary approaches to interpreting the Bible. For those who believe that the Bible is the inerrant, inspired word of God, how is it to be decided what from the Old Testament is binding and what is not?
December 1st, 2011 | 12:42 pm
Pentamom,
“Deuteromony is a restatement of the laws of Exodus, not an overturning of them. If the father’s consent was required in Exodus, it is required in Deuteronomy, even if unstated. The Jewish Study Bible is wrong to create a “contrast” between two statements *of the same law*”
Most biblical scholars believe that Deuteronomy was written before Exodus and that the laws contained in Deuteronomy were reforms of existing laws. Exodus continues with its own reformations of Hebrew laws. Written in different times, places, and circumstances, the two books think about law and other things a little differently.
December 1st, 2011 | 1:18 pm
“Most biblical scholars believe that Deuteronomy was written before Exodus and that the laws contained in Deuteronomy were reforms of existing laws. ”
No, only most biblical scholars of the more modern liberal schools. There are still many genuine scholars who accept the traditional, self-styled chronology.
December 1st, 2011 | 2:22 pm
Pentamom,
Fair enough. We trust different scholars. I wouldn’t presume to call one set “genuine” and another not, as you have, but I’m curious about which Old Testament scholars you look to.
December 1st, 2011 | 5:56 pm
Well, I gather that President Karzai will release her from prison. He wants to meet with her and her rapist to see if she wants to marry him and thus give legitimacy to her daughter. She says she does not see her rapist as Mr. Right—she prefers an “educated man”. Karzai worries that if she goes back to her village, she will be subjected to the usual punishment for crimes against honor. He is right to be concerned. To what standard can she appeal?
In the meantime, I do not know the status of her rapist—has he been punished, too?
December 1st, 2011 | 8:50 pm
In the meantime, I do not know the status of her rapist—has he been punished, too?
The rapist is serving a 7-year sentence, reduced from an original sentence of 12 years.
December 1st, 2011 | 11:04 pm
For those who believe that the Bible is the inerrant, inspired word of God, how is it to be decided what from the Old Testament is binding and what is not?
How is it possible to be a Christian and yet ignore what Jesus actually said about the old law?
He addresses the subject in multiple places – ‘let he who is without sin throw the first stone’. Working on the Sabbath. Eating and drinking. Jesus IS the New Covenant. The Bible makes no sense if you don’t understand the idea of the covenant, or its history.
I would be interested in knowing how many Christian churches teach that rapists should be treated harshly. I would also like to know how they reconcile that with what Jesus actually taught.
I am especially interested because back when I was myself more liberal, I heard so much about how supposedly there’s a conspiracy dedicated to creating or resurrecting a Christian equivalent of Sharia law in America, but when I tried looking up the names and sources, I found a lot of 404 and empty air. I never did find these scary bogeymen who supposedly want to make it legal to stone non-virginal females and disobedient offspring. It makes me wonder about motives.
December 2nd, 2011 | 3:12 am
How is it possible to be a Christian and yet ignore what Jesus actually said about the old law?
Blake,
The topic of Jesus and the Law is extremely complex. Were the Ten Commandments not part of the Law? Why are they still binding if Christians don’t have to follow the Law. Jesus himself and his Jewish disciples were all observant Jews. His Jewish followers continued to follow the Law after his death. The only case I can think of in which Jesus “undoes” the Law is the case of divorce, in which he makes it more stringent. Jesus does not change anything having to do with eating and drinking.
December 2nd, 2011 | 11:23 am
Michael — I was not using the word “genuine” to restrict it to conservative scholars. I was doing the opposite — emphasizing that they, also, are genuine scholars. The prejudice often goes that way so I was just trying to forestall it.
December 2nd, 2011 | 5:23 pm
Pentamom,
Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. I did indeed misread what you were trying to say. I’m still curious about which genuine scholars you’re reading that argue that Exodus was written first and that the laws of Exodus and Deuteronomy substantially agree with each other.
December 2nd, 2011 | 11:21 pm
The topic of Jesus and the Law is extremely complex. Were the Ten Commandments not part of the Law? Why are they still binding if Christians don’t have to follow the Law. Jesus himself and his Jewish disciples were all observant Jews. His Jewish followers continued to follow the Law after his death. The only case I can think of in which Jesus “undoes” the Law is the case of divorce, in which he makes it more stringent. Jesus does not change anything having to do with eating and drinking.
Is that what actual Christians say, or did you make this up yourself?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact