2

I ask this in good faith as I am religious.

How is it possible for this situation to come about? If you claim the rapist must receive a punishment via the fines, then we know that at least two generally good and trustworthy witnesses to the act are required (correct me if I'm wrong).

So

  • a) How could they be good and trustworthy if they did not stop the rape unless subdued or seeing it from a distance and arriving too late
  • b) If they indeed witnessed it, why would they testify if they know a potential outcome is the rapist marrying the victim?
  • OK. So is your question B answered by any of the answers to the linked question that yours has been closed as a duplicate of? If not, why not? – Joel K Jan 24 at 9:12
  • @JoelK No, it's not answered as the witness situation is not addressed at all. – user1879026 Jan 24 at 9:31
  • 3
    It sounds like the root of your question A) can be distilled to 'how can there ever be a witness to a crime, shouldn't witnessing but not acting on a crime disqualify the witness under some sort of 'Rasha' clause?'. It does look like your second question is a duplicate, since if it's explained how the punishment for the rapist isn't a harsh punishment for the victim as well, there is no longer a reason to avoid testimony in order to protect the victim. – Salmononius2 Jan 24 at 12:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .