Rape 'impossible' in marriage

spen666

An interesting view in one of today's newspapers.

Anyone on here prepared to be brave ( or foolish) enough to publically support or agree with the cleric's alleged views and if so for what reasons?

Rape 'impossible' in marriage, says Muslim cleric

A senior Muslim cleric who runs the country's largest network of sharia courts has sparked controversy by claiming that there is no such thing as rape within marriage.


Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed, president of the Islamic Sharia Council in Britain, said that men who rape their wives should not be prosecuted because "sex is part of marriage". And he claimed that many married women who alleged rape were lying.

His comments have angered senior police officers, who say that such statements undermine the work they do to encourage women to report rape, a notoriously under-reported crime.

Sheikh Sayeed made the comments in an interview with the blog The Samosa, before reiterating them later when contacted by The Independent.

He told the website: "Clearly there cannot be any rape within the marriage. 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."

Later he told this newspaper: "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."

British law was changed in 1991, making rape within marriage illegal.

Dave Whatton, Chief Constable of Cheshire and spokesman on rape for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said: "We know that the majority of rapes do not take place through strangers attacking women late at night but between acquaintances and within marriages and partnerships.

"It is a fundamental principle that sharia law should not replace the laws of the UK. Putting out views that rape can be dealt with in another way fundamentally undermines everything we are trying to do."

The cleric's comments come just days after Germaine Greer suggested that rape victims should name and shame their attackers online instead of reporting it to the police.

Mr Whatton added: "The comments of Sheikh Sayeed and Germaine Greer suggest there are other ways of dealing with rape. If that happens, victims of rape do not get the medical and counselling support they need to overcome this traumatic experience – and we are not in a position to effectively prosecute offenders."

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."

Sheikh Sayeed said the Islamic Sharia Council had only dealt with two or three cases of rape since the arbitration tribunal was founded in 1982. 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."

Inayat Bunglawala, chairman of Muslims4UK, said: "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."

rick_chasey

Which paper?

spen666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Which paper?

Its irrelevant - the issue is the cleric's view


however if you read the article, you would know which paper

pbt150

I vaguely recall some of my friends at Uni who were studying law once came up with something like this. Apparently rape is very difficult to prove in marriage (not sure if it's actually illegal or not), and a woman can never rape a man.

rick_chasey

spen666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Which paper?

Its irrelevant - the issue is the cleric's view


however if you read the article, you would know which paper

No, the cleric's view has been digested by said journo at said paper. Said paper has a particular editorial stance.

Why you being cagey about the paper?

It's always good practice to give the provenance of a source.

cee

"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."

Shurely this is just a difference in definition.

I read this as saying that the term rape in Islamic Sharia, is less broad than the UK law definition, as it only includes cases where the man and woman are not married.

There must be other definition difference even between the laws in scotland and england....where in england an act would fall under on definition, whilst in scotland it would fall under another.

It doesn't read to me like the cleric is condoning forced intercourse between a man and his wife....simply that in Islamic Sharia terminolgy, that type of sexual assault is not called rape.

I do think however that its a bit foolish to make these comments...in a time when difference between cultures is scrutinised without delving into the detail....

At the end of the day...if it happens in the UK...it falls under UK law. Not Sharia law.

MattC59

The clerics comments are irellavent. The UK is bound by UK law, not Sharia law.

finchy

It's UK law, so Muslims have to abide by it.

Muslims living in non-Islamic societies also have to abide by local laws and customs (it's in the Koran somewhere, haven't got a reference, sorry).

So whether judged by UK law or Islamic law, in this country it's rape.

spen666

MattC59 wrote:

The clerics comments are irellavent. The UK is bound by UK law, not Sharia law.

The comments will influence some people's views - especially those in the muslim community.

all changes in law result from views which by definiton run contrary to the current law

verylonglegs

Interesting to note British law only changed on this as recently as 1991.

Didn't some think-thank suggest Sharia courts should have a role to play within UK law in order to help integrate Muslim communities? Sure I read that a couple of years ago. Madness.

giant_man

spen666 wrote:

An interesting view in one of today's newspapers.

Anyone on here prepared to be brave ( or foolish) enough to publically support or agree with the cleric's alleged views and if so for what reasons?

Rape 'impossible' in marriage, says Muslim cleric

A senior Muslim cleric who runs the country's largest network of sharia courts has sparked controversy by claiming that there is no such thing as rape within marriage.


Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed, president of the Islamic Sharia Council in Britain, said that men who rape their wives should not be prosecuted because "sex is part of marriage". And he claimed that many married women who alleged rape were lying.

His comments have angered senior police officers, who say that such statements undermine the work they do to encourage women to report rape, a notoriously under-reported crime.

Sheikh Sayeed made the comments in an interview with the blog The Samosa, before reiterating them later when contacted by The Independent.

He told the website: "Clearly there cannot be any rape within the marriage. 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."

Later he told this newspaper: "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."

British law was changed in 1991, making rape within marriage illegal.

Dave Whatton, Chief Constable of Cheshire and spokesman on rape for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said: "We know that the majority of rapes do not take place through strangers attacking women late at night but between acquaintances and within marriages and partnerships.

"It is a fundamental principle that sharia law should not replace the laws of the UK. Putting out views that rape can be dealt with in another way fundamentally undermines everything we are trying to do."

The cleric's comments come just days after Germaine Greer suggested that rape victims should name and shame their attackers online instead of reporting it to the police.

Mr Whatton added: "The comments of Sheikh Sayeed and Germaine Greer suggest there are other ways of dealing with rape. If that happens, victims of rape do not get the medical and counselling support they need to overcome this traumatic experience – and we are not in a position to effectively prosecute offenders."

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."

Sheikh Sayeed said the Islamic Sharia Council had only dealt with two or three cases of rape since the arbitration tribunal was founded in 1982. 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."

Inayat Bunglawala, chairman of Muslims4UK, said: "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."

yeah well maybe within their religion is exists but I can't see that standing up in court within a Christian marriage somehow ....

simonaspinall

I would wager money it's the Daily Mail or Express.

Do I get a prize?

rick_chasey

simonaspinall wrote:

I would wager money it's the Daily Mail or Express.

Do I get a prize?

Me thinks it's the independent.

finchy

verylonglegs wrote:

Didn't some think-thank suggest Sharia courts should have a role to play within UK law in order to help integrate Muslim communities? Sure I read that a couple of years ago. Madness.

It was only for financial matters governing contracts between Muslims I think, not for common law questions such as rape.

spen666

simonaspinall wrote:

I would wager money it's the Daily Mail or Express.

Do I get a prize?

Only prize you get is for showing you have not read the article.

If you read it, you would not have made such a post

Cleat Eastwood

One possible way to agree with him involves endorsing concept of cross cultural langugae problems. His culturally led definition differs clearly from others definition of rape, which is undoubtedly trumped by the legal definition of rape.

I worked with the Somali community and was astonished to learn for example that there is no distinction in their culrure for problems to the head; so a bump on the head which may require prompt treatment is accorded the same social stigma as a mental illness like schizophrenia.

Words may be spelt the same but may have infinite meanings attached. I thought the legal definition of such concepts was to eliminate such misunderstanding.

verylonglegs

johnfinch wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

Didn't some think-thank suggest Sharia courts should have a role to play within UK law in order to help integrate Muslim communities? Sure I read that a couple of years ago. Madness.

It was only for financial matters governing contracts between Muslims I think, not for common law questions such as rape.

Hmmn that does sound familiar, must have been what I was thinking of. I retract the madness bit then!

thecrofter

IIRC English law made rape within wedlock a crime in 1991, it had always been illegal under Scots Law.

There is no such thing as British law or UK law.......it's English (which also covers Wales) or Scots, or N. Ireland.

pastey_boy

what if an english man rapes a muslim ? and rape in marriage should be legal , why should you be refused use of amenities that you have paid for and have a legally binding contract to prove ownership of ???

cee

thecrofter wrote:

IIRC English law made rape within wedlock a crime in 1991, it had always been illegal under Scots Law.

There is no such thing as British law or UK law.......it's English (which also covers Wales) or Scots, or N. Ireland.

true....

however, rape within marriage is illegal, no matter which of the UK jurisdictions you currently reside under. So in the UK, under law, rape within marriage is illegal, no matter what jurisdiction you reside. UK Law. see?

MattC59

spen666 wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

The clerics comments are irellavent. The UK is bound by UK law, not Sharia law.

The comments will influence some people's views - especially those in the muslim community.

all changes in law result from views which by definiton run contrary to the current law

It's still irellavent, Sharia law has no legal standing in the UK (English, Scotish or where ever).

Whether those individuals in the Muslim community are influenced or not, they are still bound by English law.

cjw

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 06161.html

IronHorse100

MattC59 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

The clerics comments are irellavent. The UK is bound by UK law, not Sharia law.

The comments will influence some people's views - especially those in the muslim community.

all changes in law result from views which by definiton run contrary to the current law

It's still irellavent, Sharia law has no legal standing in the UK (English, Scotish or where ever).

Whether those individuals in the Muslim community are influenced or not, they are still bound by English law.

Try saying it's irrelevant to the Muslim woman, raped by her husband who beleived Sharia law to be a higher authority based on his loyalties to an influential cleric. The technicalities of whether it's legal or illegal by English law wouldn't be of much concern to her after the event.

spen666

MattC59 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

The clerics comments are irellavent. The UK is bound by UK law, not Sharia law.

The comments will influence some people's views - especially those in the muslim community.

all changes in law result from views which by definiton run contrary to the current law

It's still irellavent, Sharia law has no legal standing in the UK (English, Scotish or where ever).

Whether those individuals in the Muslim community are influenced or not, they are still bound by English law.

This is such a naive view

Take an analogy of the KKK or the BNP or other group saying that its fine to attack blacks/ gays/ Jews.

Would you simply say their comments/ views are irrelevant?

If not, then why differentiate these views, which are as encouraging of rape as the views above are encouraging violence against those groups

unCivilServant

I think I can see 3 possible facets to this:

1. The legal situation for the geographical area in question. If "impossible" is meant as a universal term not taking into account laws in England/GB/UK that say forced sex between spouses is rape, then he's clearly wrong.*

2. The view of a particular religion or other 'grouping' that isn't the state. Usually such groupings at least in theory acknowledge that if the follower lives somewhere mainly not of that grouping, the state law takes precedence where there is a conflict. And to be fair to the Sheikh (!!!) he does preface a statement with "In Islamic sharia...", as if acknowledging that it's an interpretation for his particular religion, *if* no other rules applied, only...
*But the Islamist tendency isn't to be quiet and unassuming, it's to try to elide the distinction between theoretical Sharia law for Muslims and what 'should' apply in practice to everyone, so I don't for a moment believe the Sheikh is just engaging in some "Did you know it's legal to shoot a Welshman on Sundays?"-type legal trivia.

3. The most prevalent view in the population, regardless of what the legal situation or view of religious 'authorities' is. It's a pretty fair guess that on the idea of marriage constituting automatic consent, most of England would have considered forced sex under these circumstances as 'rape' well before 1991.

Having done the 'wordy' bit, can I now do the 'decent human' bit, and say aaaarrgghh, this is fairly terrible in terms of being a decent human, a woman, and especially if one is a Muslim woman standing to be affected by it.

sloboy

Isn't the danger here that such a view can distort the meaning of consent ? Suppose I'm a muslim wife (I'm not a woman or a muslim as it happens) and I believe what this cleric says that my husband can't rape me. Based on that, I suppose I believe I've given permanent, unretractable consent. And so actually, he can't rape me.

pastey_boy

another way of looking at it is the fact that they dress in those ninja suits and having sex with the wrong woman must happen a lot as the fellas cant see the womens heads. in my well informed view, mistaken identity should not be put into the same category as rape.

nwallace

pbt150 wrote:

I vaguely recall some of my friends at Uni who were studying law once came up with something like this. Apparently rape is very difficult to prove in marriage (not sure if it's actually illegal or not), and a woman can never rape a man.

Used to be the case, you owned your wife...

Cleat Eastwood

pbt150 wrote:

I vaguely recall some of my friends at Uni who were studying law once came up with something like this. Apparently rape is very difficult to prove in marriage (not sure if it's actually illegal or not), and a woman can never rape a man.

Unless clare baldings involved.

spen666

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

pbt150 wrote:

I vaguely recall some of my friends at Uni who were studying law once came up with something like this. Apparently rape is very difficult to prove in marriage (not sure if it's actually illegal or not), and a woman can never rape a man.

Unless clare baldings involved.

@pbt150 - that must have been before the 2003 act.

Indeed rape can be by either sex on either sex now

spen666

Jake151 wrote:

Why is this even being reported in a UK paper?

His views should be completely irrelevant to the UK in the way that we don't go over there and say "You should eat pork because its good for you and tastes great" because that would go against their religion/law or whatever it is. Is this trying to increase the numbers that are raped because muslim men within the UK will believe they can get away with it!? No. They are in this country and they abide by our laws not their own, if they want to go by their laws then go back to their country as simple as that. I think its ridiculous that this comments can be made simply to start what can only be described as an argument.

That cleric shouldn't have made those comments and it should not be in the paper. Rape if its in a marriage or not is rape and is a serious crime and haunts millions of woman or are afraid of coming forward and articles like this are not going to help anyone at all.

@ Jake, so people shouldn't be allowed to express views you don't agree with eh?

You sound like a dictator or supporter of a totalitarian regime