Muslim Woman Forced to Marry Rapist

My event focuses on the rape of a mother by her father-in-law. The Muslim clerics in her village declared that it nullified her marriage and that she is to marry her father-in-law. Her husband would become her son. The clerics are indifferent to the attack, but are only concerned by how this affects the family structure and the men directly or indirectly involved. The culture reinforces gender inequalities through ignoring where the blame lies and placing stigma on the affected, the stigma being labeled unclean.

It amazed me how hard it was to find information on this one instance in western news sources. Yet finding related attacks where the victim was told to marry the attacker, or where the attacker asked for marriage was drawing full search results every time. This was a big news story in the rest of the world and attacks just like it. When I read over my sources they all agree on some things, but a few at first I thought were totally different stories. I get the feeling some of them just read the other and reached for no original facts.

Here is the event as it happened using all sources to display the variables of this story. Imrana Ilahi, name is from the Washington Times the only one in any of the five articles, was rapped by her father-in-law while her husband was away at work. Her husband is one of two people Noor Mohammad or Noor Ilahi. The name varies and he is only called by name in the Washington Times and Agence France Presse articles. Nearly two weeks after the attack she either decided to walk out says the France Presse, the husband learned of the attack and was ordered to divorce his wife claims the Washington Times, The Middle East Times report that she left home to stay with family pleading with her husband to join her; the husband refused.

By The Village Elders, local Muslim clerics, the council, or hard line Islamic clerics she was ordered to marry her father-in-law also she must treat her husband as a son. They also ordered her to stay away with her parental family for seven months and ten days until she becomes pure again. The act of having sex with her father voids her marriage. It does not matter the terms of the engagement. The husbands response to this also varies, "My father is dirty and you are clean. I still love you and I cannot desert you." (Rahman 1.) The other articles either lack a response from the husband or stop talking about him after he refused to leave with her.

The victim filed a case of rape against her father-in-law and he was arrested. The Washington Times feels she will not be able to prove the crime because she waited two weeks and there is no proof. This is the basic story or the best one that can be made of the material at hand. Details vary, but the basic story is the same across the board. The reporting style raises a few questions though

Starting with the Agence France Presse article feels the most "fair" out of the five. It reads like good reporting should just facts and quotes condensed in a easy to read manner. We are not sure after looking at the other articles if their facts are accurate, but they are presented as such. The word "allegedly" comes up twice, but no real question if she was rapped. The clerics have no concern if she was rapped, but they believe she was because they are making her marry the rapist. In every article the clerics make no comment about the rape only what the rape says about the woman. They never even bring up the father-in-law unless to remind her that she is supposed to marry him.

The Sify article really strikes me as an attention getter. Not so much drawing attention to the problem, but using extremes just to have you read. Right away this is a very liberal paper because the only thing it really covers is how the father-in-law should be punished. Twice in a row it says that she should receive 60 lashes and then be stoned. The story is really more about him and what he did than the woman at all. It seems to be covering everyone but the victim. We get no statements from her all we get is, "She pleaded with her husband..." (Sify) This differs from other accounts, so we really have no idea what the husband does or how he reacted. The source for this is news reports, although they never say which one. If she is the subject of the story why is there so little from her?

This article by the Middle East Times is again about the father-in-law. The victim gets two lines in a two page article. In this one after the attack she left home to live with her brother, pleaded with husband to join her-he refused. Again news reports tell us this tiny fragment of information about the attacked. We know a great deal more about the attacker, the clerics, and those outraged by the entire thing. He thing drawing so much attention to this event is not the rape, but the clerics ruling. Had she just been raped by her father-in-law and then nothing happened, this would not be news at all. The only people calling the father-in-law accused are the papers. There is no doubt in the mind of the clerics, they quote so much, that she was raped they just do not care and neither do the papers. They do not even use language to describe it as an attack, nor do they tell of the attack, only that one happened...maybe.

The BBC News at least tell us something about the "alleged" attack. This article focus on the things the council ordered and then how other Muslims responded to their rulings. Again the trend of over looking the attack for the more sensational thing, the council. Thus reinforcing the idea that the rape is not the issue at all, but having to marry the attacker. These is almost reads like Weekly World News, a bold catchy headline followed by something very silly with little or no real research. A women being raped reads as normal and not worthy of the time of readers or the paper. Add the twist of having to marry the attacker who is also her father-in-law and then it becomes news. I wonder if they have a Muslim equivalent of Jerry Springer? Still soft language nothing we would connect with an attack. If she stabbed her father-in-law it would read totally different, you might see the word 'attack.'

The Washington Times confirms the attack by having a quote from one of the clerics, "She had a physical relationship with her father-in-law..." then added, "It makes no difference if whether the sex was consensual or forced." (Washington Times, 1.) This line gives me trouble, "When Mr. Ilahi, a brick kiln laborer, learned of the attack, the village court instructed him to divorce his wife." (Washington Times, 1.) Those read as two totally separate thoughts that are not connected in any way. There seems to be some information missing to make sense of that. The times continues with the loving husbands pledge, missing from all the other articles, that he will remain with her and not desert her. Since his name is also different in this article are we to conclude that this is a totally different husband? At the end of the article legal analysts are not sure if Mrs. Ilahi will be able to prove the attack, this in light of several organizations saying he in fact did. All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Darool Uloom Deoband, and the woman herself all agree she was "used" by her father in law, they just all feel differently about what that means.

Although this happened some time ago I was unable to find anything on the outcome of her legal battles, if her husband stayed with her, if she married her father-in-law, or anything else to confirm anything I have analyzed here. This article ends with its tabloid appeal. The outcome was probably was good because had it been bad, judging on reports of this, would have been covered in the same manner. The school house rumor method of reporting, "did you hear about such and such," then leave you to draw your on conclusions.

The men were the actors, the rape victim seemed to be a prop in the story. The loaded gun that started the war. "The Fatwa, on the other hand appears to treat women as mere commodities." (The Washington Times, 2) After reading all these it also appears the media does as well. It appears in this small community and maybe even the entire state that bad things do not happen to women, unless you are a woman that is. Judging by the responses from some of the clerics, "...the woman...had been party to a criminal act and she, too, should be punished," if you had been killed you would also be guilty of murder.

The clerics are saying a lot more than just their quotes in the paper and their rulings they are also broadcasting their feelings towards women. They feel she should also be punished, because she had been a party. This stinks of her having something to do with the attack. Because she must have done something to warrant it. Yet we see nothing to say either way how the attack when, because that is not reported. Only the ruling is news. The attack also annulus her marriage...was her husband not affected? He is also married to her what of his marriage, or better yet their marriage. They seem to be passing the marriage to her, that she alone is married and that has been taken from her. We also have no information saying the father in law wants to marry her. The only thing he is ever reported as saying is she consented.

The culture and even the reports seem to be biased against the woman and her plight. No one reports her side of anything. They use the same speech they would use to talk about an upcoming dog show, to talk about a forced attack against a person. This is the same medium that uses horror, blood, bombs, and death to make its killing yet when they have an open opportunity to use the gritty harsh language we have come to expect they do not. Instead the hook is not the attack, but the fact she now has to marry the guy whom is also her father in law. Shifting the focus from a personal violation to woman order to marry rapist father-in-law. The ruling is important, but I feel that both things should be covered for a more balanced, rounded story.

My current event is sure to be an ongoing one, the lack of solid reporting on attacks on women. The real story has little to do with the ruling, but more to do with the response it generated. The story goes unreported because there is a better sound bite in "woman to wed father-in-law rapist." It is sensational and outlandish while rape and female abuse a footnote.

Works Cited Page

Site locations are at the bottom of each enclosed article.

Author(s). "Title of Article." Title of Source Day Month Year: pages.

AFP. "Outcry over Muslim clerics' order that woman marry her rapist." Middle East Times. 16 June 2005.

"Outrage in UP as woman ordered to marry dad-in-law." Sify. 16 June 2005.

"Indian rape victim ordered to marry father-in-law: report." Agence France Presse. 15 June 2005.

"Woman 'ordered to marry rapist'" BBC NEWS.

Shaikh Azizur Rahman. "Victim ordered to wed rapist." The Washington Times. 19 July 2005.