U.K. cleric: Rape is impossible within marriage

LenaClaire

This is making my eye twitch. I just don't understand how people can be so misogynistic!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39664344/ns/world_news-europe/#

U.K. cleric: Rape is impossible within marriage
Husbands 'may be made to ask forgiveness ... That should be enough'
msnbc.com
updated 48 minutes ago

LONDON — A leading Muslim cleric has sparked controversy in Britain by claiming that it is impossible for men to rape their wives.
Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed, who is president of the Islamic Sharia Council, told a website that "sex is part of marriage" and suggested that husbands who commit such acts should not be prosecuted.
"Clearly there cannot be any rape within the marriage," he told The Samosa website. "Maybe aggression, maybe indecent activity... Because when they got married, the understanding was that sexual intercourse was part of the marriage, so there cannot be anything against sex in marriage. Of course, if it happened without her desire, that is no good, that is not desirable."
Sayeed runs Britain's largest network of Islamic sharia courts, The Independent reported.
Rape within marriage has been illegal in Britain since 1991.
Sayeed told The Samosa that if husband "does something against her wish or in a bad time" that he "may be disciplined, and he may be made to ask forgiveness. That should be enough."
When contacted by The Independent, the cleric added: "In Islamic sharia, rape is adultery by force. So long as the woman is his wife, it cannot be termed as rape. It is reprehensible, but we do not call it rape."
Cheshire police Chief Constable Dave Whatton criticized the comments.
"The majority of rapes do not take place through strangers attacking women late at night but between acquaintances and within marriages and partnerships," he told The Independent.
Inayat Bunglawala, chairman of Muslims4UK, added: "Sheikh Sayeed's comments are woefully misguided and entirely inappropriate. Rape — whether within marriage or outside it — is an abominable act and is clearly against the law.

MajorMax

Unbelievable

28064212

Meh, most religions are fairly misogynistic. So long as his opinion only reflects what happens within his religion, and anyone found to have committed rape is sentenced by the actual law, I don't really care what kind of crap 'laws' they try to enforce (so long as anyone can leave the church at any time)

MrDarcy

"A leading Muslim cleric"...

Is as far as I've read of that article.

Malari

28064212 wrote: »

Meh, most religions are fairly misogynistic. So long as his opinion only reflects what happens within his religion, and anyone found to have committed rape is sentenced by the actual law, I don't really care what kind of crap 'laws' they try to enforce (so long as anyone can leave the church at any time)

Well, I think a lot of rapes like this go unreported. It's damaging if a muslim man who takes his spiritual guidance from this dude feels it's his right to have sex with his wife whenever he wants and to take it by force if she doesn't want it. This statement exonerates him.

But yes, most religions are misogynistic but most of them have adjusted to at least pay lip service to the actual law.

Links234

wow, really disgusting attitude :mad:

squeakyduck

What an idiot.

"Maybe aggression, maybe indecent activity".... :mad:

I think this guy may consult a dictionary.

amacachi

Hands up who's surprised.

Morlar

amacachi wrote: »

Hands up who's surprised.

Considering the source it's not remotely surprising.

old_aussie

Would a nine year old know what rape is?

For rape to be proved under sharia law the woman has to provide four male witnesses.

When the law is run by islamic extremists the woman who is raped becomes the criminal.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/002-rape_adultery.htm

old_aussie

28064212 wrote: »

(so long as anyone can leave the church at any time)

I think if you leave islam they kill you.

LenaClaire

old_aussie wrote: »

I think if you leave islam they kill you.

Yeah, Islam is not really a religion you can opt out of safely in some areas. I keep thinking that the world must be making some process in changing peoples minds about sexual violence and then I see stuff like this and it is so disheartening.

up for anything

What is so shocking about that! It's not so long ago that the same standard was applied to marriages in Ireland and that lovely bit where the husband got to chose who would live in an either/or situation in childbirth - his wife or his child. Or the legal lack of contraception in this country so lots of women were ground down by their bearing of a child every year.

"To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven". We are only now coming out from under the weight of church rule, maybe it is going to take them 50 years longer but it will happen. In another hundred years or even less we may swing back again to less permissive attitudes. It's the way of the world. It may not be right but history tends to repeat itself. People tend to rebel against extreme strictness but then are repelled when liberalness becomes too liberal.

MajorMax

up for anything wrote: »

What is so shocking about that! It's not so long ago that the same standard was applied to marriages in Ireland and that lovely bit where the husband got to chose who would live in an either/or situation in childbirth - his wife or his child. Or the legal lack of contraception in this country so lots of women were ground down by their bearing of a child every year.

"To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven". We are only now coming out from under the weight of church rule, maybe it is going to take them 50 years longer but it will happen. In another hundred years or even less we may swing back again to less permissive attitudes. It's the way of the world. It may not be right but history tends to repeat itself. People tend to rebel against extreme strictness but then are repelled when liberalness becomes too liberal.

You're right. My Granny was born in 1901 married in 1917 at the age of 16 was constantly pregnant over the next 20-25 years 12 kids survived to adulthood and they gave 5 of them to the church 3 nuns 1 priest and 1 Christian brother. One of the nuns and the Christian Brother were sent home as the church could pick and choose in those days. She died in 1999 at the age of 98 but her health was permantly ruined and she was bed-ridden (Careful now!) for most of her life. So it's not that long ago that we were under the thumb of the church and the rights of Irish women were whatever their husbands or Fathers chose to give them

LenaClaire

up for anything wrote: »

What is so shocking about that! It's not so long ago that the same standard was applied to marriages in Ireland and that lovely bit where the husband got to chose who would live in an either/or situation in childbirth - his wife or his child. Or the legal lack of contraception in this country so lots of women were ground down by their bearing of a child every year.

"To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven". We are only now coming out from under the weight of church rule, maybe it is going to take them 50 years longer but it will happen. In another hundred years or even less we may swing back again to less permissive attitudes. It's the way of the world. It may not be right but history tends to repeat itself. People tend to rebel against extreme strictness but then are repelled when liberalness becomes too liberal.

It is shocking because social mores have changed in the past 50 years and they have changed rather dramatically. I would say that if this statement was made 50 years ago it would not have been in the news because it would just be a reiteration of the same views as everyone else.

Times do change and I think that there has been a lot of progress in most of the world in what is considered acceptable and right and what is considered unlawful and amoral. It is frustrating that it is still something that even has to be discussed. It is frustrating that even though it is now illegal in most parts of the western world I am betting it would be incredibly rare for this sort of crime to be reported let alone successfully prosecuted.

Asphyxia

That is horrible and F**cking disgusting :mad: Stupid man!

up for anything

jujibee wrote: »

It is shocking because social mores have changed in the past 50 years and they have changed rather dramatically. I would say that if this statement was made 50 years ago it would not have been in the news because it would just be a reiteration of the same views as everyone else.

Times do change and I think that there has been a lot of progress in most of the world in what is considered acceptable and right and what is considered unlawful and amoral. It is frustrating that it is still something that even has to be discussed. It is frustrating that even though it is now illegal in most parts of the western world I am betting it would be incredibly rare for this sort of crime to be reported let alone successfully prosecuted.

That is true. I would like to see statistics as to how many marital rapes are prosecuted successfully as compared to non-marital rapes. Why do I have a funny feeling that it may well be more.

I think that 10 years of hard times here in Ireland will see us swing back to closer to the social and religious mores of 50 years ago than to behaviour that is accepted in the present.

Back in the 70s there were still girls being sent to Magdalen Laundries, a unwed girl getting pregnant was still a scandal although it was forgiven if followed up with a quick marriage. The tragedy of Ann Lovett sparked a changeover and made parents who were willing to accept a illegitimate grandchild feel more socially able to accept such a child openly. All through my teens I knew girls who hid their pregnancies. One girl I knew was getting ready to go to a disco and was lying on her bed hoiking up her jeans zip using a hanger hooked through the pull tab of the zip (necessary to get the zip up on the tight jeans we wore then) when she went into labour. Gave her family the shock of their lives and when they'd got over that, the shame of their lives. More mothers pretended that their eldest daughter's child was their youngest although that was not so common in the 70s as large families were on the way out. I knew so many girls who went away to what were called unmarried mothers homes, pretending they were going to Dublin/UK to find work and on finding themselves unable to give their child up for adoption had to make that difficult phone call home.

Nowadays nobody blinks an eye at a girl/woman having a baby outside of marriage. There is no shame (thank feck) attached to either the girl or her family. There may be blame but no shame. What will turn the country back to attaching shame will be the hard years ahead coupled with the girls who give birth to child after child relying on social welfare to feed their children. The people who are working and whose taxes go to providing that welfare are already getting fed up of this. It will not be marriage that provides respectability in the future. I can see some form of finance licence coming in. Where in order to have a child proof of financial ability to provide for that child without relying on others will have to be provided. Those girls who fall pregnant without that licence will be regarded as the scum of the earth and society will turn it's back on them and their offspring. Of course there will be a trade in their offspring among the wealthier sectors of that future society. Then the wheel will turn again. (*heads off to write a screenplay*)

That, to me, is why it is good to get angry when we see such excesses in society and religion but to use that anger at working to change these inequalities rather than just raging uselessly against the machine. Rather than despising Muslims for having such beliefs, work to alter them in some way. Put your money where your mouth is and I don't mean financially.


Mods, any chance of a Muslim bashing forum so that Old Aussie can ply his trade in one place rather than on every street corner of Boards? :rolleyes:

up for anything

old_aussie wrote: »

I think if you leave islam they kill you.

That's one up on the Catholic Church who are too busy adjusting their canon law trouser zips to allow you to leave these days.

Making a statement like that preceded by I think is possibly one of the most silly posts made by you in 906 posts and that is saying something.

Wibbs

OK up for anything and old_aussie lets keep this civil. No bickering please. And old_aussie blatant and ill informed Islam bashing is not on in this forum either.

goose2005

Not surprising. The Qu'ran allows men to rape their female slaves as well.

up for anything

Sorry Wibbs. I'll behave.

Dudess

I've heard of christians believing this too - the logic of it seems to be that you can't be sexually violated by someone close to you... Ahem.

the_syco

I stopped reading at "Islamic Sharia Council" - Sharia law is bizarre. Think 1940's Irish Catholicism type of bizarre.

People go mad when the pope for christianity says anything about gays. He gets lots of publicity, and some join his religion. I see this publicity stunt no different - a head person says something from his religion which will generate lots of excitement from everyone, and people join.

metrovelvet

It wasnt so long ago that Irish and British law also believed this. Marriage was a kind of blank cheque and the commodity was consent.

LenaClaire

up for anything wrote: »

That, to me, is why it is good to get angry when we see such excesses in society and religion but to use that anger at working to change these inequalities rather than just raging uselessly against the machine. Rather than despising Muslims for having such beliefs, work to alter them in some way. Put your money where your mouth is and I don't mean financially.

I think that part of the problem is that there are many moderate Muslims in the US, Europe and the rest of the world but the hardcore Sharia fringe types are the ones that get all the press. The more moderate Muslims, like the people quoted at the end of the article denouncing the statement, get push out of the way and people think that all Muslims are close minded and misogynistic.
I know there are a lot of women struggling in places like Saudi Arabia and Iran for broader rights. I am not sure how we can help there considering the intense animosity their governments have towards any western intevention.

I also think there is a lot of progress that can be made in more religiously conservative parts of the Western world on enforcing that idea that a Wife is a partner, not a subject or a pet. My uncle is born again Christian and there are a lot of things we just agree not to talk about at family functions.

Darlughda

Well, good old Justice Carney was up to his usual repute today, handing out a 12 yr sentence, 4 of those suspended, meaning self confessed psycho who had been secretly filming women around Galway, and plotting and planning his rape victims, with rope and other accessories too unpleasant to contemplate, only has 9 yrs to serve.

When will that prick of a Judge Carney and his outrageously lenient sentences towards seriously disturbed rapists ever be removed from his fiefdom?

the_syco

Darlughda wrote: »

When will that prick of a Judge Carney and his outrageously lenient sentences towards seriously disturbed rapists ever be removed from his fiefdom?

When he gets ass-raped with a glass bottle, I suppose?

Bottle_of_Smoke

As soon as I saw cleric rape and marriage could see where this was going.

Rape within marriage has been illegal in Britain since 1991.

This surprised me a bit though. Would have thought the UK would have criminalised it before then.

southsiderosie

I was more surprised by the Sharia court system in the UK. As the constable noted in the Independent article, saying marital rape is not a crime is a direct contradiction of civil law.

Given the post above about the judge in Ireland, clearly civil courts are not always the most progressive when it comes to these kind of issues, but I strongly believe that in Western liberal democracies, there should be no place for any kind of court or legal system outside of the state-run civil court system.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Darlughda wrote: »

Well, good old Justice Carney was up to his usual repute today, handing out a 12 yr sentence, 4 of those suspended, meaning self confessed psycho who had been secretly filming women around Galway, and plotting and planning his rape victims, with rope and other accessories too unpleasant to contemplate, only has 9 yrs to serve.

When will that prick of a Judge Carney and his outrageously lenient sentences towards seriously disturbed rapists ever be removed from his fiefdom?

And how much off for good behaviour? Though to be fair 9 years is relatively high for attempted rape. Considering that judge once gave a suspended sentence for completed rape. I think people have gotten less for attempted murder.

To be clear I personally think attempted rape should get the same sentence as completed rape but (same with attempted murder and murder) but for some reason it doesn't work out that way.

28064212

southsiderosie wrote: »

I was more surprised by the Sharia court system in the UK. As the constable noted in the Independent article, saying marital rape is not a crime is a direct contradiction of civil law.

But that's not what he said. He said sharia law doesn't call it rape. Anyone committing rape (by civil law definitions) is punishable by civil law. Any sharia-based punishment is on top of that

southsiderosie wrote: »

Given the post above about the judge in Ireland, clearly civil courts are not always the most progressive when it comes to these kind of issues, but I strongly believe that in Western liberal democracies, there should be no place for any kind of court or legal system outside of the state-run civil court system.

I don't know about that. We're all part of organisations that have their own rules: it's not illegal for me to bad-mouth my company, but they can certainly fire me for it. Similarly, I don't have to follow religious rules, but they can kick me out of that church if I don't.

The only uncertain area is actual bodily harm. For example, I join a religion which states that someone found guilty of stealing is required to have their hand amputated. If I'm found guilty, they require me to submit to the amputation or leave the church. Those are the only available options. Now, assuming I am fully informed and have given my consent*, is the church performing an illegal act by amputating my hand?

* That is, this situation is not relevant to, for example, women who are subjugated and prevented from leaving or informing themselves

donaghs

up for anything wrote: »

What is so shocking about that! It's not so long ago that the same standard was applied to marriages in Ireland and that lovely bit where the husband got to chose who would live in an either/or situation in childbirth - his wife or his child. Or the legal lack of contraception in this country so lots of women were ground down by their bearing of a child every year.

"To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven". We are only now coming out from under the weight of church rule, maybe it is going to take them 50 years longer but it will happen. In another hundred years or even less we may swing back again to less permissive attitudes. It's the way of the world. It may not be right but history tends to repeat itself. People tend to rebel against extreme strictness but then are repelled when liberalness becomes too liberal.

Those type of arguments sound more like a justification. Clearly the situation you describe in the past was wrong, and that is why change eventually came.

We should be shocked, especially as its been said in the present day.

up for anything wrote: »

That's one up on the Catholic Church who are too busy adjusting their canon law trouser zips to allow you to leave these days.

Making a statement like that preceded by I think is possibly one of the most silly posts made by you in 906 posts and that is saying something.

Its a fair point I think. Apostacy in Islam does warrant the death sentence in some jurisdictions, and according to many Islamic scholars. The chances of it occurring can of course vary from place to place and case to case. And even when its not the law of the land, people have been known to take the law into their own hands.

southsiderosie

28064212 wrote: »

But that's not what he said. He said sharia law doesn't call it rape. Anyone committing rape (by civil law definitions) is punishable by civil law. Any sharia-based punishment is on top of that.

But by saying that sharia law does not consider it rape, AND calling on people to NOT go to civil authorities to deal with these matters, the Sharia courts are in essence flouting civil law. The state has defined this act as a crime. It does not matter what Sharia Law has to say about it.

28064212 wrote: »

I don't know about that. We're all part of organisations that have their own rules: it's not illegal for me to bad-mouth my company, but they can certainly fire me for it. Similarly, I don't have to follow religious rules, but they can kick me out of that church if I don't.

Organizations can make whatever rules they want to make as long as they are not in conflict with civil law. Depending on laws governing industrial relations and free speech, your company may or may not be able to fire you for badmouthing them. For example, whistleblowing may be protected by civil law, which would then override any internal rules about badmouthing the company.

28064212 wrote: »

The only uncertain area is actual bodily harm. For example, I join a religion which states that someone found guilty of stealing is required to have their hand amputated. If I'm found guilty, they require me to submit to the amputation or leave the church. Those are the only available options. Now, assuming I am fully informed and have given my consent, is the church performing an illegal act by amputating my hand?

That is tricky, but I think consent is the issue. To use another example, in the US, a common gang initiation is for the newbie to withstand a group beating. Now normally, being beaten by a crowd of people would be grounds for assault charges. But in this case, the person has given their consent. And if the police caught the group in the act, it would be difficult to prosecute them for assault if the "victim" did not testify or file charges; the worst thing that might happen is that they were charged with disorderly conduct (or maybe gang activity).

But to bring it back to the rape issue, the central question here is over consent. The state says that a wife can withhold consent; as interpreted here, sharia law says that this concept doesn't exist within the realm of a marriage. So I don't think you can compare the rape situation to the "consent to do other bad things" situation because under sharia law (as expressed in this case anyway) the question of consent is not on the table. And this is in clear violation of civil law.

28064212

southsiderosie wrote: »

But by saying that sharia law does not consider it rape, AND calling on people to NOT go to civil authorities to deal with these matters, the Sharia courts are in essence flouting civil law. The state has defined this act as a crime. It does not matter what Sharia Law has to say about it.

Where did he say the bolded part? Anyone who says that is completely in the wrong and should be charged as an accomplice every time someone is found to have listened to them and covered up a crime.

southsiderosie wrote: »

Organizations can make whatever rules they want to make as long as they are not in conflict with civil law. Depending on laws governing industrial relations and free speech, your company may or may not be able to fire you for badmouthing them. For example, whistleblowing may be protected by civil law, which would then override any internal rules about badmouthing the company.

Whistle-blowing is an example, yes. But the government has no place preventing a member of a church from being ejected from that religion.

southsiderosie wrote: »

But to bring it back to the rape issue, the central question here is over consent. The state says that a wife can withhold consent; as interpreted here, sharia law says that this concept doesn't exist within the realm of a marriage. So I don't think you can compare the rape situation to the "consent to do other bad things" situation because under sharia law (as expressed in this case anyway) the question of consent is not on the table. And this is in clear violation of civil law.

And if the wife with-holds consent and is raped, the husband will be tried in a civil court. He will not be tried in a sharia court, because it is not a sharia crime. There are three situations for "crimes":

1. Both a civil and sharia crime: Tried in a civil court, and a sharia court, can receive punishment from both, but the sharia trial and punishment can not interfere with the civil case
2. A civil crime, but not a sharia crime (e.g. marital rape): Tried in a civil court, civil punishment. No sharia involvement at all
3. A sharia crime, but not a civil crime: tried in a sharia court, subjected to a sharia punishment. However, the perpetrator can, at any stage, choose to leave the sharia system

southsiderosie

28064212 wrote: »

Where did he say the bolded part? Anyone who says that is completely in the wrong and should be charged as an accomplice every time someone is found to have listened to them and covered up a crime.

The MSNBC article in the OP drew from a longer article in the Independent:

In the interview on the website, Sheikh Sayeed suggests that women who claim to have been raped by their husbands should not immediately go to the police, saying: "Not in the beginning, unless we establish that it really happened. Because in most of the cases, wives... have been advised by their solicitors that one of the four reasons for which a wife can get a divorce is rape, so they are encouraged to say things like this."

28064212 wrote: »

Whistle-blowing is an example, yes. But the government has no place preventing a member of a church from being ejected from that religion.

I don't disagree. For example, getting an abortion may be legal under civil law, but supporting abortion rights may be grounds for excommunication in the Catholic Church (as a few US politicians have found out).

28064212 wrote: »

And if the wife with-holds consent and is raped, the husband will be tried in a civil court. He will not be tried in a sharia court, because it is not a sharia crime. There are three situations for "crimes":

1. Both a civil and sharia crime: Tried in a civil court, and a sharia court, can receive punishment from both, but the sharia trial and punishment can not interfere with the civil case
2. A civil crime, but not a sharia crime (e.g. marital rape): Tried in a civil court, civil punishment. No sharia involvement at all
3. A sharia crime, but not a civil crime: tried in a sharia court, subjected to a sharia punishment. However, the perpetrator can, at any stage, choose to leave the sharia system

But the existence of the Sharia court system means that they may be the point of first contact within a particular community, especially if people think that they are more likely to get a favorable ruling from the Sharia court than a civil court. And as the comments in the article make clear, this particular court does not see this act as a crime, even though it is clearly defined as such in civil law.

I see strong parallels between the Sharia system's way of handling rape and the Catholic Church's approach to child molestation and rape, and that is a dangerous, dangerous road to go down. For example:

From the Independent:

Asked about how men who are found to have forced themselves upon their wives were punished, he explained: "He may be disciplined, and he may be made to ask forgiveness. That should be enough."

This is the same kind of thing that the Catholic Church said about child molesters: they would handle it in house, and if the priest/nun confessed and repented, that would be the end of that. Whereas, in a system where civil laws were made to be prevalent, they should have been turned in to the proper authorities (although as we have sadly seen in the Irish case, those authorities were not always willing to pursue the matter).

In a Western liberal democracy, there should be no higher authority that the civil court system. Religious law and religious institutions have a right to operate, and make whatever rules they wish for their followers as long as they are compliant with civil law. The way the Sharia courts deal with marital rape, and the way the Catholic Church dealt with child molestation violate both the spirit and the letter of civil law and present a threat to both vulnerable members of society and democracy itself: no individual or institution should be above the law in a liberal democracy.

28064212

southsiderosie wrote: »

In a Western liberal democracy, there should be no higher authority that the civil court system. Religious law and religious institutions have a right to operate, and make whatever rules they wish for their followers as long as they are compliant with civil law. The way the Sharia courts deal with marital rape, and the way the Catholic Church dealt with child molestation violate both the spirit and the letter of civil law and present a threat to both vulnerable members of society and democracy itself: no individual or institution should be above the law in a liberal democracy.

I fully agree that anyone who tries to set religious law above civil law is completely in the wrong. However, just saying marital rape is not a religious crime is not wrong (I know he said the other (wrong) part, but this part is not wrong). It's no different to saying drink-driving is not a religious crime. Covering up molestation is inherently against civil law. Saying marital rape is not covered by the sharia courts is not

southsiderosie

28064212 wrote: »

I fully agree that anyone who tries to set religious law above civil law is completely in the wrong. However, just saying marital rape is not a religious crime is not wrong (I know he said the other (wrong) part, but this part is not wrong). It's no different to saying drink-driving is not a religious crime. Covering up molestation is inherently against civil law. Saying marital rape is not covered by the sharia courts is not

I guess my reading of his comments about "we prefer people to come here first/It doesn't really happen" smack of covering up to me.

28064212

southsiderosie wrote: »

I guess my reading of his comments about "we prefer people to come here first/It doesn't really happen" smack of covering up to me.

Oh yeah, I agree that his expanded comments are completely unacceptable, and like I said earlier, he should be prosecuted for it