Hey guys, story in todays Irish Indo, Rape 'impossible' in marriage, says Muslim cler

The Highwayman

Just wondering what the enlightened souls in here think about this.

Rape in marriage was made illegal about 30 years ago in Ireland.

How does this statement sit with any of you who practice or purpose sharia law. Is this Cleric wrong, right or misguided?

Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed, president of the Islamic Sharia Council in Britain does say it would be 'not desirable' to have sex with your wife if she does not want but there is no rape. So one would could extrapolate from this man's ideals that a woman has no rights to her own body after she is wed.

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."

If this is the case should Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed be removed from his position? What would you do as a Muslim to see this happen? As people like Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed only see to reinforce the stereotype westerners may have about the Muslim faith.




Here is the story



A senior Muslim cleric in Britain 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 in the UK, 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 said this to The Independent: "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."

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/rape-impossible-in-marriage-says-muslim-cleric-2381315.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/8064571/Rape-within-marriage-is-impossible-claims-Muslim-cleric.html

Black Swan

The Highwayman wrote: »

So one would could extrapolate from this man's ideals that a woman has no rights to her own body after she is wed.

Does she have any rights to her own body before she is wed?

Hobbes

The Highwayman wrote: »

Just wondering what the enlightened souls in here think about this.

Here is what I think. When you see such stories, never take the story as the final say. See where they are quoting from and read the actual proper article.

You can find it here.

http://www.thesamosa.co.uk/index.php/news-and-features/society/431-uk-sharia-chief-there-is-no-such-thing-as-rape-within-marriage.html

This statement is from the London-based Muslim Institute’s Muslim Marriage Contract, published in 2008 as an attempt to modernise the contract governing many Islamic marriages in Britain. But few within the British Muslim establishment were impressed. Britain’s main Islamic sharia court, the Islamic Sharia Council, produced a swift rebuttal of the contract, including the statement on sexual abuse (page 6 here).

So this is something he said 2 years ago and was condemned by the main bodies.

If you read the whole thing you will see that he wasn't fully quoted. He isn't saying Rape is acceptable.

Rather than pursuing miscreants through the criminal justice system, Sheikh Sayeed felt the sharia court was better placed to handle such cases by policing offenders by “Islamic means”. He explained the Council’s approach:

“If such a man comes to us, to ask him not to repeat the same, ask forgiveness from his wife, ask forgiveness from Allah as well, and make a new contract that he would never do it, otherwise his wife will have the liberty to finish the marriage unilaterally. This sort of relief is available.”

Can't say I agree with him, but it appears it is not "rape is acceptable" comment the Telegraph would have you believe.

irishconvert

Moral of the story is don't believe everything you read in the papers.

And for the record, in an Islamic marriage the woman is obliged to make love with the husband if he wants to. However she also has the right to refuse if she wants to. The husband has no right to rape her.

The Highwayman

Hobbs & Irishconvert thanks for your posts.

Hobbs


Here is what I think. When you see such stories, never take the story as the final say. See where they are quoting from and read the actual proper article.


The proper article comes not from a number of national newspapers but from a privately run bias website? Well ok for the moment lets run with that

If you read the whole thing you will see that he wasn't fully quoted. He isn't saying Rape is acceptable.

I never said he did nor did I use the word acceptable. However I did read the whole article, twice. I was shocked at what I saw, this article is even more damming than the newspaper stories.

I asked Sheikh Sayeed whether he considered non-consensual marital sex to be rape.

“No,” he replied. “Clearly there cannot be any ‘rape’ within the marriage. Maybe ‘aggression’, maybe ‘indecent activity’.”[/B]

How can he make such a statement? Rape is a crime no matter what religion you are. Or is it what he is saying 'crimes against a woman dont really count'?

He said it was “not Islamic” to classify non-consensual marital sex as rape and prosecute offenders, adding that “to make it exactly as the Western culture demands is as if we are compromising Islamic religion with secular non-Islamic values.”
Rather than pursuing miscreants through the criminal justice system, Sheikh Sayeed felt the sharia court was better placed to handle such cases by policing offenders by “Islamic means”.


So if your a a follower of Islam in the west then the laws of the land dont apply for you? What sort of an arrogant attitude is this? But he goes on ...

[B]“It is not an aggression, it is not an assault, it is not some kind of jumping on somebody’s individual right. 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. But that man can be disciplined and can be reprimanded.”


Its not 'an aggression' , 'it is not an assault' is this because its only a woman on whom these crimes have been perpetrated. After all her husband has a right to sex with his wife.
But everything is ok there is a light at the end of the tunnel. The man can be disciplined and can be reprimanded. What do you think these draconian measures entail?

If such a man comes to us, to ask him not to repeat the same, ask forgiveness from his wife, ask forgiveness from Allah as well, and make a new contract that he would never do it

Because within the marriage contract it is inherent there that man will have sexual intercourse with his wife. Of course, if he does something against her wish or in a bad time etc, then he is not fulfilling the etiquettes, not that he is breaching any code of sharia – he is not coming to that point. He may be disciplined, and he may be made to ask forgiveness. That should be enough.”


So if the rapist says sorry to his wife and god and says he wont do it again then its just swept under the carpet. Totally ignoring the crime that has taken place!

Being Irish and what has gone on here for so long with the abuse of children in this country we all know where sweeping thing under the carpet leads.

....he said the prosecution of marital rape was due to misguided Western values: “Why it is happening in this society is because they have got this idea of so-called equality, equal rights. And they are misusing these equal rights in every single aspect of human conduct.

This has to make you cringe. 'so-called equality' I ask you both Hobbs and Irishconvert, do women have the same rights as men? In the west where you both seem to live do you both agree that equality for men and women is right?
I would suggest to Sheikh Sayeed that he go back to Bangladesh or some other backward misognic state where his views are welcome. Would you both join me in this call?

Sheikh Sayeed said he would not immediately advise a wife who claimed her husband had raped her to go to the police. “Not in the beginning, unless we establish that it really happened

First he would try and prevent a crime being reported, that in its self is a crime.
Secondly how the hell could he find out what 'really happened'?
By simply listening to the man and telling him to say sorry, maybe!
Is this man telling us the truth is this the way Islam see's this issue and is this how its dealt with under sharia law?

“If nothing helps,” said Sheikh Sayeed, “at the end she may call the police if it is genuine, and unless she can prove from DNA and other tests, she cannot succeed there.” On that point, the statistics bear him out.

What DNA is he talking about that can be gained from the marital bed? After delaying her going to the police what chance does a woman have?

He goes on to say that a women makes up stories about rape to get a divorce. If true how shocking is the fact that a woman feels the need to make up a story of rape just to get a divorce! Are you angered by this?

As well as the passage on domestic abuse, the Muslim Institute’s Muslim Marriage Contract granted wives an absolute right of divorce, removed the higher status traditionally given to males over females as witnesses to marriage, established that both husband and wife should work collectively towards the family’s economic stability, and outlawed polygamy. The Islamic Sharia Council rebutted each of these points, often on the grounds that they traded in Islamic scripture for Western values.


Now here we have an example of an Islamic organisation with a progressive attitude.
Unfortunately the 'Islamic Sharia Council' of which Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed is president rebutted these ideas. Now if they can use Islamic scripture to do this then the subjugation of women in Islam must be written in stone?

If this man Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed totally wrong? Is his stance and that of The Islamic Sharia Council outdated? Will you as I asked you in my opening post try and do something to have this man removed from his post?

Hobbs, This statement is from the London-based Muslim Institute’s Muslim Marriage Contract, published in 2008.
If you read the whole article Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed was interviewed in March 2010 not 2 years ago :rolleyes:

Irishconvert, I think the moral of the story from this article is that a woman has no rights in Islamic marriage.

You said, And for the record, in an Islamic marriage the woman is obliged to make love with the husband if he wants to. However she also has the right to refuse if she wants to. The husband has no right to rape her.

This is an oxymoron on one hand you say a woman is obliged to have sex with her husband if he wants. Then you say she has the right to refuse, which is it? Or is it simply the mans need and wants circumvents the rights of the woman?
From the said article that would seem to be the case that a woman is second class in a marriage. After all I would with respect say Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed is a much higher authority on Islam than your good self, would you agree?

Also there is a comment box below The Samosa article where someone has said

sharia gives the man a position of dominance in Islam- it's easy to see how rape can occur- if intercourse is "unwanted' and is abusive on hat basis to the wife sharia makes no comment as it is physical harm only that it is concerned with
M5.1: The Wife's Marital Obligations

It is obligatory for a woman to let her husband have sex with her immediately when:

(a) he asks her;

(b) at home (O: home meaning the place in which he is currently staying, even if being lent to him or rented);

(c) and she can physically endure it.
@M5.4: The Husband's Rights

A husband possesses full right to enjoy his wife's person (A: from the top of her head to the bottoms of her feet, though anal intercourse (dis:p75.20) is absolutely unlawful) in what does not physically harm her.


Is this true and do you agree?

I'm sure you will bombard me with web links to sites that will be just as bias as 'The Samosa' and if you do will it be ok if I use links to sites like 'Jihad Watch' or Robert Spencer do refute your claims?

Hobbes

The Highwayman wrote: »

The proper article comes not from a number of national newspapers but from a privately run bias website? Well ok for the moment lets run with that

Actually the newspapers quote that site as the source. Hence why I suggested to read it. It also relates to a PDF released some years ago. The interview was recent and asking him to clarify his earlier points.

How can he make such a statement? Rape is a crime no matter what religion you are.

As I understand what he was trying to say that it should be dealt with before going the courts route.

So if your a a follower of Islam in the west then the laws of the land dont apply for you?

That isn't what he is saying at all. It would be more akin to seeing marriage counselor/or support group before criminal process.

I'm sure you will bombard me with web links to sites that will be just as bias as 'The Samosa' and if you do will it be ok if I use links to sites like 'Jihad Watch' or Robert Spencer do refute your claims?

Again, It was the source to all the newspaper articles pointed to. If you think that site is wrong, then the articles you linked to are also wrong.

As to the rest, did you want answers from Muslims here? Or did you just want to voice your own personal opinion of the matter? If so I recommend you read the charter as well.

Zombrex

This seems to be more of an issue of the definition of "rape" the cleric is using rather than a view that a woman cannot refuse sex in a marriage. From the Independent

"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."


If someone defines rape as adultery by force then by definition forced sex within marriage is not rape.

He does say that forced sex with marriage is reprehensible, though doesn't do much favours by suggesting that a lot of rape claims are made up to get a divorce, or that a rapist asking for forgiveness should be enough.

senordingdong

Jesus...twisting words much.

goose2005

irishconvert wrote: »

Moral of the story is don't believe everything you read in the papers.

And for the record, in an Islamic marriage the woman is obliged to make love with the husband if he wants to. However she also has the right to refuse if she wants to. The husband has no right to rape her.

That makes no sense - she has to, but she doesn't have to?

2: 223 Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will. But do some good act for your souls beforehand; and fear Allah and know that ye are to meet Him (in the Hereafter) and give (these) good tidings to those who believe.

Zombrex

goose2005 wrote: »

That makes no sense - she has to, but she doesn't have to?

Yeah I thought that too. Obliged implies that someone has an obligation to do something even if they don't want to, which contradicts the idea that she has the right to refuse if she doesn't want to

Maybe he means she really should do it unless she really really doesn't want to

Perhaps IrishConvert can clarify

irishconvert

goose2005 wrote: »

That makes no sense - she has to, but she doesn't have to?

2: 223 Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will. But do some good act for your souls beforehand; and fear Allah and know that ye are to meet Him (in the Hereafter) and give (these) good tidings to those who believe.

Wicknight wrote: »

Yeah I thought that too. Obliged implies that someone has an obligation to do something even if they don't want to, which contradicts the idea that she has the right to refuse if she doesn't want to

Maybe he means she really should do it unless she really really doesn't want to

Perhaps IrishConvert can clarify

I as a Muslim am obliged to pray 5 times a day, however nobody is going to force me to pray if I don't want to. Nobody has the right to put a gun to my head and force me to pray. Same thing as no husband has the right to force his wife to have sexual relations if she doesn't want to.

Zombrex

irishconvert wrote: »

I as a Muslim am obliged to pray 5 times a day, however nobody is going to force me to pray if I don't want to. Nobody has the right to put a gun to my head and force me to pray.

Ah ok I understand, so you may make yourself do it even if you don't want to because of obligation and loyalty to Allah, but that doesn't mean someone can force you if you genuinely decide not to.

So you say I've an obligation to do this for Allah even though I've a headache and I would rather be watching the game, but that isn't the same as someone forcing you to. If you didn't do it that would be between you and Allah, no one else's business.

irishconvert wrote: »

Same thing as no husband has the right to force his wife to have sexual relations if she doesn't want to.

So a woman should really make herself have sex with her husband even if she doesn't want to, but no one else should.

Makes sex seem like a bit of a chore doesn't it? :pac:

Anyway, that is for you guys to discuss, I understand what you meant. Out of curiosity is it the same for a man, does he have an obligation to have sex with his wife even if he doesn't want to?

MrPudding

Wicknight wrote: »

This seems to be more of an issue of the definition of "rape" the cleric is using rather than a view that a woman cannot refuse sex in a marriage. From the Independent

"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."


If someone defines rape as adultery by force then by definition forced sex within marriage is not rape.

He does say that forced sex with marriage is reprehensible, though doesn't do much favours by suggesting that a lot of rape claims are made up to get a divorce, or that a rapist asking for forgiveness should be enough.

I tihk there are two parts to it. The first one is exactly as you say, according to his beliefs the word "rape" refers to a very specific thing, and therefore, from a technical perspective, forced sex within marriage cannot be rape. There is no point in getting hung up on that, it is simply a difference in terms.

It is the second part that is more troublesome. It is all very well to say that forced sex within marriage is not rape because the word rape means something else, but, whatever you call it it should be treated with the same vigour as rape in the "normal" UK/Irish meaning of the word. So, fine, don't call it rape, call it whatever you want, but whatever you call it, you need to treat it as the serious offence that it is.

I am particularly worried by this line, discussing whether a woman how had been raped / forced to have sex with her husband against her will should go to the police:

Sheikh Sayeed wrote:

Not in the beginning, unless we establish that it really happened...

Sheikh Sayeed wrote:

If nothing helps, at the end she may call the police if it is genuine...

I am sorry but is it not the job of the police to establish if an allegation "really happened." And what does "if nothing helps" mean exactly?

So, whilst I can understand the comments around the meaning of the term "rape," and will even go so far as to say because of the difference in terminology his words are being misrepresented in so far as him saying there is no such thing as rape in marriage, it is still quite clear that his attitude to forced sex within marriage / rape falls way below that expected in a civilised society.

MrP

g5fd6ow0hseima

irishconvert wrote: »

Moral of the story is don't believe everything you read in the papers.

Of course, surely the same goes for religious texts.... wait.... no. No dont go there.

craggles

irishconvert wrote: »

Moral of the story is don't believe everything you read in the papers.

And for the record, in an Islamic marriage the woman is obliged to make love with the husband if he wants to. However she also has the right to refuse if she wants to. The husband has no right to rape her.

The husband has no right to rape his wife but the wife is obliged to always submit to him? This is a massive contradiction.

craggles

Emanuel Prickly Stepchild wrote: »

Of course, surely the same goes for religious texts.... wait.... no. No dont go there.

Unfortunately that's one for another forum with less heads in the sand.

irishconvert

Emanuel Prickly Stepchild wrote: »

Of course, surely the same goes for religious texts.... wait.... no. No dont go there.

craggles wrote: »

Unfortunately that's one for another forum with less heads in the sand.

Any more posts like this will result in bannings

Morbert

"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."

Is this true? Under sharia law, if a husband rapes his wife, is it recognised as rape? Irishconvert's post (number 4) implies it isn't true, which I would hope is the case.

hivizman

Just as a point of reference, here is the definition of rape in Irish Law, taken from the Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1981:

2.—(1) A man commits rape if—

(a) he has unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who at the time of the intercourse does not consent to it, and

(b) at that time he knows that she does not consent to the intercourse or he is reckless as to whether she does or does not consent to it

Under the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act, 1990:

5.—(1) Any rule of law by virtue of which a husband cannot be guilty of the rape of his wife is hereby abolished.

(2) Criminal proceedings against a man in respect of the rape by him of his wife shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Before then, the Common Law held that "“the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract” (a statement made by the jurist Sir Matthew Hale in the 17th century). However, a husband could be prosecuted for other offences in cirucmstances that would have amounted to rape if the victim were not the wife.

There is a very interesting report available on-line The legal treatment of marital rape in Canada, Ghana, Kenya and Malawi - a barometer of women's human rights, which was published in September 2010. This report discusses how attitudes to rape as a sexual offence have changed in recent decades (incidentally, it also notes that there is now no legal offence called "rape" in Canada, only varieties of "sexual assault").

Morbert

hivizman wrote: »

Just as a point of reference, here is the definition of rape in Irish Law, taken from the Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1981:

Under the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act, 1990:

Before then, the Common Law held that "“the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract” (a statement made by the jurist Sir Matthew Hale in the 17th century). However, a husband could be prosecuted for other offences in cirucmstances that would have amounted to rape if the victim were not the wife.

I don't think anyone would dispute the abhorrent nature of the old Common Law. Does Sharia Law state something equivalent to the old Common Law? Or is it an attitude merely reflecting past cultures, similar to the Christian understanding of Leviticus?

There is a very interesting report available on-line The legal treatment of marital rape in Canada, Ghana, Kenya and Malawi - a barometer of women's human rights, which was published in September 2010. This report discusses how attitudes to rape as a sexual offence have changed in recent decades (incidentally, it also notes that there is now no legal offence called "rape" in Canada, only varieties of "sexual assault").

Thanks, that's a good article. A sentence in the introduction really nails it.

"Legal impunity for marital rape constitutes state endorsed violence against women."

which is why I would be shocked if something equivalent to the Old Common Law would be adopted by Muslims in developed societies.

bmarley

happy to live in a civilised society

hivizman

Here are some extracts from a book called The Ideal Muslimah: The True Islamic Personality of the Muslim Woman as Defined in the Qur'an and Sunnah, by Dr. Muhammad Ali al-Hashimi (trans. Nasiruddin al-Khattab, Riyadh: International Islamic Publishing House, 2003). This book puts forward what could be described as a "Salafi" or "Wahhabi" position, and therefore is at the "conservative" end of Islamic thinking.

"The true Muslim woman is always obedient to her husband, provided that no sin is involved. She is respectful towards him and is always eager to please him and make him happy" (p. 179)

"Marriage in Islam is intended to protect the chastity of men and women alike, therefore it is the woman's duty to respond to her husband's requests for conjugal relations. [Two hadiths are reproduced stating that satisfying the husband takes precedence over other tasks.] The issue of protecting a man's chastity and keeping him away from temptation is more important than anything else that a woman can do, because Islam wants men and women alike to live in an environment which is entirely pure . . . The flames of sexual desire and thoughts of pursuing them through haraam means [presumably this would involve adultery] can only be extinguished by means of discharging that natural energy in natural and lawful ways. This is what the Prophet meant in the hadith narrated by Muslim from Jaabir: 'If anyone of you is attracted to a woman, let him go to his wife and have intercourse with her, for that will calm him down'." (pp. 186-187)

From a more "liberal" viewpoint, Kecia Ali, in her book Sexual Ethics and Islam: Feminist Reflections on Qur'an, Hadith, and Jurisprudence (Oxford: Oneworld, 2006, p. 12) summarises the position as follows: "The early jurists would have considered marital rape an oxymoron; rape (ightisab, "usurpation") was a property crime that by definition could not be committed by the husband, who obtained a legitimate (but non-transferable) proprietary interest over his wife's sexual capacity through the marriage contract, incurring the obligation to pay dower in exchange. The Hanafi view that hisbands were entitled to have sex forcibly with their wives when the latter did not have a legitimate reason to refuse sex was not widely shared outside that school. Even the majority of Hanafi thinkers who accepted this doctrine recognised a distinction between forced intercourse and more usual sexual relations between spouses; although both were equally licit, sex by force might be unethical."

So (1) it seems to be a correct summary of Sharia that husbands cannot, by definition, rape their wives (as was the case in most common law legal systems until the last 20 or so years), but (2) most Islamic schools of jurisprudence do not consider that the husband has the right to force sex on the wife, and even the Hanafi school generally considers that forced marital sex is reprehensible.

Morbert

hivizman wrote: »

Here are some extracts from a book called The Ideal Muslimah: The True Islamic Personality of the Muslim Woman as Defined in the Qur'an and Sunnah, by Dr. Muhammad Ali al-Hashimi (trans. Nasiruddin al-Khattab, Riyadh: International Islamic Publishing House, 2003). This book puts forward what could be described as a "Salafi" or "Wahhabi" position, and therefore is at the "conservative" end of Islamic thinking.

"The true Muslim woman is always obedient to her husband, provided that no sin is involved. She is respectful towards him and is always eager to please him and make him happy" (p. 179)

"Marriage in Islam is intended to protect the chastity of men and women alike, therefore it is the woman's duty to respond to her husband's requests for conjugal relations. [Two hadiths are reproduced stating that satisfying the husband takes precedence over other tasks.] The issue of protecting a man's chastity and keeping him away from temptation is more important than anything else that a woman can do, because Islam wants men and women alike to live in an environment which is entirely pure . . . The flames of sexual desire and thoughts of pursuing them through haraam means [presumably this would involve adultery] can only be extinguished by means of discharging that natural energy in natural and lawful ways. This is what the Prophet meant in the hadith narrated by Muslim from Jaabir: 'If anyone of you is attracted to a woman, let him go to his wife and have intercourse with her, for that will calm him down'." (pp. 186-187)

From a more "liberal" viewpoint, Kecia Ali, in her book Sexual Ethics and Islam: Feminist Reflections on Qur'an, Hadith, and Jurisprudence (Oxford: Oneworld, 2006, p. 12) summarises the position as follows: "The early jurists would have considered marital rape an oxymoron; rape (ightisab, "usurpation") was a property crime that by definition could not be committed by the husband, who obtained a legitimate (but non-transferable) proprietary interest over his wife's sexual capacity through the marriage contract, incurring the obligation to pay dower in exchange. The Hanafi view that hisbands were entitled to have sex forcibly with their wives when the latter did not have a legitimate reason to refuse sex was not widely shared outside that school. Even the majority of Hanafi thinkers who accepted this doctrine recognised a distinction between forced intercourse and more usual sexual relations between spouses; although both were equally licit, sex by force might be unethical."

So (1) it seems to be a correct summary of Sharia that husbands cannot, by definition, rape their wives (as was the case in most common law legal systems until the last 20 or so years), but (2) most Islamic schools of jurisprudence do not consider that the husband has the right to force sex on the wife, and even the Hanafi school generally considers that forced marital sex is reprehensible.

Perhaps a more salient question would be whether or not, according to most Islamic schools of jurisprudence, forceful sex with a wife is as legally offensive as forceful sex with any woman. What you have said implies it is, which is what I hoped.

Incidentally, the extracts you provided outline the duties of Muslim women, but they don't seem to claim rape is impossible. I would have assumed sex, although a duty, is the woman's to give, and not the man's to take. And that if a woman refuses sex then it simply means she is not acting like a true Muslim. Catholics, for example, are obliged to go to confession, but forcefully locking them up until the confess their sins would constitute unlawful imprisonment.

It seems that usurpation occurs unless the woman's body is explicitly the property of the man.

maxxie

Backward man!

hivizman

Morbert wrote: »

Perhaps a more salient question would be whether or not, according to most Islamic schools of jurisprudence, forceful sex with a wife is as legally offensive as forceful sex with any woman. What you have said implies it is, which is what I hoped.

I think that it's a bit more complicated. Sex, whether forced or not, with any woman to whom a man is not married would constitute zina (variously translated as "fornication", "adultery" and "lewdness") on the parrt of the man and woman. If sex is obtained through force, this should exculpate the woman from accusations of zina (though there have been cases reported in Muslim majority countries where raped women have been held to be guilty of zina).

Morbert wrote: »

Incidentally, the extracts you provided outline the duties of Muslim women, but they don't seem to claim rape is impossible. I would have assumed sex, although a duty, is the woman's to give, and not the man's to take. And that if a woman refuses sex then it simply means she is not acting like a true Muslim. Catholics, for example, are obliged to go to confession, but forcefully locking them up until the confess their sins would constitute unlawful imprisonment.

It seems that usurpation occurs unless the woman's body is explicitly the property of the man.

To quote Kecia Ali again (page 13): "Sex is, by and large, a male right and a female duty, according to the fiqh [jurisprudence] texts, whatever the ethical importance of a husband's satisfying his wife and thus enabling her to keep chaste. The repeated, though ultimately unenforceable, assertions of some scholars as to a wife's sexual rights - or, more particularly, the husband's obligations - demonstrate an unresolvable tension." Dr Ali is writing here mainly about whether there is "mutuality in sexual rights" - if Islam gives the husband the right to demand sex from the wife, does it also give the wife the right to demand sex from the husband? Her opinion is that traditional Islamic jurisprudence does not recognise such a right of the wife.

The general sense of what I have read is that the wife can refuse to have sex with the husband if she has a "good" reason, but what would be recognised as a "good" reason? The Qur'an (Surah al-Baqarah 2:222) states that husbands should avoid intercourse when the wife is menstruating. The verse describes menstruation as adhan, which has connotations of "hurt", "harm", "pain" and so on, and hence presumably a wife would be able to refuse intercourse if she feared that it would cause harm or pain to her.

The consensus seems to be that rape, in the legal sense, is impossible by definition within marriage under Sharia law. Forced sex within marriage is not explicitly prohibited, but would be considered by many scholars to be reprehensible. But again, there is a definitional issue - what counts as "forced" sex?

irishconvert

bmarley wrote: »

happy to live in a civilised society

maxxie wrote: »

Backward man!

Both banned for ignoring the warning above.

MrPudding

hivizman wrote: »

The consensus seems to be that rape, in the legal sense, is impossible by definition within marriage under Sharia law.

I think this pretty much sums it up. Forced sex within marriage is not called "rape" because rape means something else. So if a man has sex with his wife against her consent, he will have raped her according to national law, but in sharia law he will not have raped her, but he will have done something else.

This is actually very different to the common law exemption that existed in Irish and English law. In those cases a man having sex with his wife without her consent had legally done nothing wrong, it was not rape because a man simply could not rape his wife. This was not a "definitional" issue, there was simply no wrong doing.

What this cleric is say is a man cannot rape his wife, because under sharia law rape has a very specific meaning, which a married couple simply cannot satisfy. He is not saying that it is not possible for a man to have non-consensual sex with his wife, just that they don't call it rape.

At first blush this attitude is actually better that what we had a common law. At common law we had a complete denial of the offence, it simply could not happen. Under sharia law, so it seems, there at least is an offence. That said, it seems that not all clerics agree with this and even the ones that do have some opinions about it which I find most objectionable, but I still don't think it is as bad as the story might want us to believe.

hivizman wrote: »

Forced sex within marriage is not explicitly prohibited, but would be considered by many scholars to be reprehensible.

I think this is the bit that concerns me slightly. That fact that not all scholars think it is reprehensible and even those that do have a qualified opinion of it. That said, as a nation that only late last century removed the marital rape exemption, I think getting on the old high horse is a little rich.

hivizman wrote: »

But again, there is a definitional issue - what counts as "forced" sex?

There does not have to be. Forced sex might not be the best description, non-consensual, I think, is better. Then it is quite simple, did you woman consent? Yes, then it is OK, no, then it is rape / whatever you want to call it.

MrP

Morbert

hivizman wrote: »

I think that it's a bit more complicated. Sex, whether forced or not, with any woman to whom a man is not married would constitute zina (variously translated as "fornication", "adultery" and "lewdness") on the parrt of the man and woman. If sex is obtained through force, this should exculpate the woman from accusations of zina (though there have been cases reported in Muslim majority countries where raped women have been held to be guilty of zina).

The issue would be whether or not the husband would be held accountable for his actions to the same extent. He would also be guilty of adultery if he is not married to the woman, but the question is whether or not his offence against the woman is taken as seriously. If sharia law shows leniency towards men who forcefully have sex with their wives then I would see that as a serious issue that needs to be addressed. I have discussed this with a few Muslim friends and they aren't sure where sharia law stands. Though they don't follow sharia law, perhaps because of this very reason.

To quote Kecia Ali again (page 13): "Sex is, by and large, a male right and a female duty, according to the fiqh [jurisprudence] texts, whatever the ethical importance of a husband's satisfying his wife and thus enabling her to keep chaste. The repeated, though ultimately unenforceable, assertions of some scholars as to a wife's sexual rights - or, more particularly, the husband's obligations - demonstrate an unresolvable tension." Dr Ali is writing here mainly about whether there is "mutuality in sexual rights" - if Islam gives the husband the right to demand sex from the wife, does it also give the wife the right to demand sex from the husband? Her opinion is that traditional Islamic jurisprudence does not recognise such a right of the wife.

The general sense of what I have read is that the wife can refuse to have sex with the husband if she has a "good" reason, but what would be recognised as a "good" reason? The Qur'an (Surah al-Baqarah 2:222) states that husbands should avoid intercourse when the wife is menstruating. The verse describes menstruation as adhan, which has connotations of "hurt", "harm", "pain" and so on, and hence presumably a wife would be able to refuse intercourse if she feared that it would cause harm or pain to her.

What Kecia Ali has written seems to contradict irishconverts explanation of the situation.

"And for the record, in an Islamic marriage the woman is obliged to make love with the husband if he wants to. However she also has the right to refuse if she wants to. The husband has no right to rape her"

Ali seems to be implying that, while the act is reprehensible, sharia law protects men who would forcefully have sex with their wives. Though the above seems to focus more on the rights of the woman to demand sex.

I think this is the bit that concerns me slightly. That fact that not all scholars think it is reprehensible and even those that do have a qualified opinion of it. That said, as a nation that only late last century removed the marital rape exemption, I think getting on the old high horse is a little rich.

I agree, which is why we shouldn't frame the issue as simple moral point scoring against Islam. If Sharia law does not protect women against sexual assault, either through violence or intimidation, that that would strike me as a serious issue that the Muslim community should be working to amend. I mentioned above that one solution adopted by Muslims to combat the issue seems to be to ignore sharia law, though I don't know how ideal that is.

mickol

Morbert wrote: »

I would have assumed sex, although a duty, is the woman's to give, and not the man's to take.

1. Sex is never a duty ...its a loving act between 2 consenting partners.

MrPudding wrote: »

There does not have to be. Forced sex might not be the best description, non-consensual, I think, is better. Then it is quite simple, did you woman consent? Yes, then it is OK, no, then it is rape / whatever you want to call it.

MrP

2. There is no difference , If the sex is not consensual ( fully consensual ) then it is always RAPE ....no laws be they religious or otherwise can change that ....anything else is for Animals

donaghs

irishconvert wrote: »

Both banned for ignoring the warning above.

Since most people are posting from Ireland, maxxie makes a valid point. Marital rape was finally outlawed in Ireland in 1990, in line with the views of most people. And has been outlawed in most developed countries. So for an educated "cleric" (a spritual "leader"), to say this - it does indeed seem very "backward".