U.K. cleric: Rape is impossible within marriage

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