MDI news, commentary and current affairs

Marrying Your Daughter to a Rapist is Okay: Anthony Rogers

Anthony Rogers is a wannabe apologist, who usually writes a load of rubbish, but in this case I only seek to respond to him to show everybody why I never really bother with this guy.

Just to show how bad this guy is, let us read what he has to say:

According to the following verses, we are told that a father may refuse to give his daughter to the man who humbles her even though the man still has to pay the bride-price as a punishment:

If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins. (Exodus 22:16-17)

As well, while fathers had authority according to the law to say whom their daughters could marry, we know a woman’s wishes would be taken into account and that they would not be forced to marry anyone they did not find pleasing in their own eyes (q.v. Numbers 36:6).

So when Sami tells us that the rape victim must marry her seducer or rapist, he is simply wrong: the rapist must marry the woman as a punishment only if the father insists, and only if the young woman finds him pleasing in her eyes.

RESPONSE:

Anthony doesn’t realize the major problem he has just created. According to Anthony, if a lady is seduced or raped by a man, the father MAY CHOOSE TO MARRY HIM to the lady, if she agrees to it. But the father may also choose to not marry him to his daughter, and he will only have to pay a fine. So according to Anthony, one can rape a lady, and just get off with a fine! He basically simply had to pay for his rape services. How nice.

Secondly, does Anthony actually know the concept of what a rebuttal is? A rebuttal is when you are refuting someone’s argument, so if someone argues A, you argue B. Yet Anthony simply agrees with me, note the last paragraph:

So when Sami tells us that the rape victim must marry her seducer or rapist, he is simply wrong: the rapist must marry the woman as a punishment only if the father insists, and only if the young woman finds him pleasing in her eyes.

RESPONSE

So therefore he agrees, that the Bible does teach a rapist must marry the victim, his only rebuttal is that she has to agree to it! So the main argument stands: THE BIBLE HAS A LAW THAT CALLS FOR THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN THE RAPIST AND RAPE VICTIM.

Anthony then writes:

As for Sami’s claim that the Lord should have said something to remove the stigma that otherwise attaches to rape victims in some societies, or by otherwise doing something to encourage men to marry a victim of rape, Sami’s inferior moral sense causes him not only to miss that God did so, but also that the Lord did what is far better: He gave a law that was calculated to discourage anyone from raping an unbetrothed virgin girl in the first place.

RESPONSE

Actually, the God of the OT did not change anything, because he made the RAPIST marry the VICTIM, and according to Anthony that is a great moral reformation!

I will repeat my argument again, since Anthony did not address it: If a rape victim was stigmatized by society, why did God not make a law that would encourage OTHER MEN, NOT THE RAPIST, BUT OTHER MEN, to marry her? Is that so hard to do? But according to Anthony, God brought a major reformation by saying the rapist has to marry her, irony.

Anthony claims that this law is calculated to make men refrain from raping women, since they would have to marry them, really? This is where Anthony can’t keep up with his own rubbish arguments, according to Anthony, MARRIAGE IS NOT AN OBLIGATION, it is an OPTION, and if the marriage is not done, he only has to pay a fine. Tell me, does that sound like a calculated law to discourage men from raping, where his only punishment is a fine? Wow, what a great calculated discouragement from rape! And what if the man is rich? We know many rich men engage in rape, so paying a fine wouldn’t be a big problem for them as they would easily be able to afford it, but hey this was a ‘calculated’ law to discourage men from rape, right…

The biggest laugh at all of this is that Anthony claims I have an inferior moral sense, when he’s the one trying to justify a rapist marrying his rape victim, and when he is the one saying the punishment for a rapist could potentially only be a fine. Yes, and I am the one with a moral inferior sense.

In fact, let us put it straight up to Anthony:

Mr. Anthony, if a man raped your daughter, would you ask her if she wanted to marry him? And if he she refused, would you be satisfied by merely giving him a fine that he has to pay you?

If Anthony is consistent, his answer is yes, that if his daughter were raped, he would have to CONSIDER GIVING HER IN MARRIAGE to the rapist, per by the Bible rules. And I’m the one with an inferior moral sense, right…

Great rebuttal Anthony, keep it up.

13 Responses »

  1. Letting the rapist get off scot free because four ( Muslim ) male witnesses, who were not accomplices and are willing to give evidence against him, were not present is ok too? Sharia gives a lot of protection to rapists.

    • Rape does not need 4 witnesses, that is only in cases of adultery and fornication, and Islamic scholarship is unanimous on this. Rape comes under a different category than adultery and fornication.

      In fact can you bring me any text that says a rape victim requires 4 witnesses, because I can bring you a hadith where a lady was raped, and the rapist was punished, without the need of any 4 eyewitnesses. :-) So produce what you speak of.

    • Madmanna,

      This is the problem with people dont even bother understanding Islam, or bother reading what os true etc. Four witnesses.are.requied by anyone accusing a women of committing Adultry. If

    • Madmanna,

      This is the problem with people dont even bother understanding Islam, or bother reading what os true etc. Four witnesses.are.requied by anyone accusing a women of committing Adultry. If women is raped, she.doesnt require.any witnesses…..besides witnesses are required only when its not possible otherwise………other evidencee, science and confession

  2. @Ijaz, go ahead, the guy’s a complete joke. What’s funny is he thinks he’s witty and tries to be so smart, but it just backfires on him, I don’t think the guy is even thinking properly when he writes, I’d seriously have a field day with him if this was a public debate, getting the guy in public saying erm yeah a rapist can marry his victim if she agrees, that would be priceless.

  3. (Salamoalaikum),

    Ijaz, didn’t you forget to mention that Shamoun provides Madmanna “ammos”. He just needs to write email him for “ammos” – lol.

    4 witnesses – rape victim etc etc was just one such “ammo” which Shamoun lended him.

  4. Wow, you didn’t spare Anthony at all lol. And Sam Shamoun says he is one of their brightest minds.

    • Anthony is always writing disrespectfully towards me in his rebuttals, and has a big mouth, so ya know, had to teach him a good lesson.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow MDI on Twitter

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,738 other followers

%d bloggers like this: