Shariah council story in the Indy today


by Sunny
14th October, 2010 at 11:00 am    

The Independent have picked up the Sharia Council leader story I blogged yesterday. I hope the Muslim cleric has to resign – his views blatantly contradict UK law and should not be tolerated by an authority that claims to dispense justice.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Muslim,Organisations






54 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs


  1. farouk — on 14th October, 2010 at 12:33 pm  

    Resign? If only it was that easy.
    All that will happen is he will claim that he was misquoted, that he is a victim and that this is a fine example of ‘Islamophobia’. The MCB and such will follow suit and demand the government takes note of the rise of hatred against Muslims.

  2. damon — on 14th October, 2010 at 1:38 pm  

    Why should he resign? He said this:

    “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.”

    It’s just a different view of things. And not a surprising one for an Abrahamic religion.
    He probably thinks that homosexuality is a sin too.
    I can’t see why we bother and pester the religious to alter their religious beliefs to keep up with modern liberal ideas.

  3. Kamal — on 14th October, 2010 at 2:45 pm  

    Farouk you’re probably right -but if what he said had been said by a white Tory MP, the Mail and Express et al would be calling calls for his resignation “political correctness gone mad” and bemoaning the lack of free speech in the UK!

  4. ukliberty — on 14th October, 2010 at 4:30 pm  

    damon,

    It’s just a different view of things.

    It is hardly “just a different view of things”. He is in a position where saying such things could get people (women, mostly, in this case) harmed.

    I can’t see why we bother and pester the religious to alter their religious beliefs to keep up with modern liberal ideas.

    We ought to when their fuckwittery is of a kind that will lead to harm.

  5. earwicga — on 14th October, 2010 at 4:34 pm  

    ukliberty – damon is baiting. He gets his kicks by going onto feminist websites to discuss rape and then pretends to be bemused when he is banned.

  6. John — on 14th October, 2010 at 4:44 pm  

    Guardian has done some research;
    http://www.wimbledonguardian.co.uk/news/ahmadiyya/

    Apparently religion of peace is very active in Tooting and South London spreading peace.

  7. muslim — on 14th October, 2010 at 5:34 pm  

    John not as active as it is in invading Iraq and Afghanistan and numerous other places round the globe

  8. Refresh — on 14th October, 2010 at 6:00 pm  

    No he should not resign:

    “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.”

    given he holds the above view.

    The Independent (and presumably Somosa Blog) failed to ask the very obvious question, what is the punishment for this reprehensible act?

    Placing the act into a different category doesn’t make it less reprehensible. The punishment accorded may well do.

    So ask the question!

  9. damon — on 14th October, 2010 at 6:32 pm  

    ukliberty – damon is baiting. He gets his kicks by going onto feminist websites to discuss rape and then pretends to be bemused when he is banned.

    This is one of Sunny’s chosen moderators.
    I’ve never been on a feminist website in my life.
    It’s not an area that I know about that well – apart from reding an article like this today:

    The sad decline of la femme fantastique
    Proposing an online register of ‘rapists’ is the maddest thing Germaine Greer’s done since she puked on Big Brother.

    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/9787/

    Apart from things like this, I have no opinion on feminist politics – and certainly have never made a challenging view to women I already respect on the subject.

    If I was in London at the end of the month, I would have liked to have heard Julie Bindel speak, in a session called ”Rape and the law: he said, she said? ”
    http://www.battleofideas.org.uk/index.php/2010/speaker_detail/4718/

    earwicga just doesn’t ”go there” – so feels free to shoot off at the hip all the time.

  10. earwicga — on 14th October, 2010 at 6:51 pm  

    You are a liar damon.

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/8054#comment-197207 and many other comments on that thread.

    I’m not surprised you would like to see Bindel. She would be right down your (narrow) street.

  11. Sarah AB — on 14th October, 2010 at 7:12 pm  

    damon – I’m not sure how to respond to your commments – I think perhaps there isn’t a great deal of point in trying to change people’s minds if they think that homosexuality is a sin but do nothing to interfere with other people’s choices. But ‘reprehensible’ is a pretty soft word – and it does seem as if this man is brushing marital rape aside. If you think something (such as homosexuality) is a sin, but don’t want to punish homosexuals on this earth – that’s one thing. But if you claim that marital rape isn’t rape while aspiring to promote an alternative forum for justice – surely that’s *very* different.

    Having said that, unless I missed something in the links, I don’t see what you’ve said in the past that’s so terrible – seems within the parameters of fair debate to me … maybe earwicga can pinpoint what exactly was so offensive, in case I just overlooked it.

  12. Refresh — on 14th October, 2010 at 7:34 pm  

    We really are into semantics:

    ‘But ‘reprehensible’ is a pretty soft word – and it does seem as if this man is brushing marital rape aside.’

    And ‘seem’ is always a good getout. Meaning we don’t know, but will comment as if we do.

    Here is what one online dictionary says:

    Adj. 1. reprehensible – bringing or deserving severe rebuke or censure; “a criminal waste of talent”; “a deplorable act of violence”; “adultery is as reprehensible for a husband as for a wife”

    The point is no one asked him what the punishment would be; and worse no one has put up a scale on how soft the word reprehensible is/was.

  13. Sarah AB — on 14th October, 2010 at 7:45 pm  

    Refresh – do you endorse his (reported) views or do you think they are – reprehensible?

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

    “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.””

    It seems pretty clear what the answer to your question about what the punishment would be is – nothing.

  14. damon — on 14th October, 2010 at 7:50 pm  

    You are a liar damon.

    I had freely talked of being on a liberal website that was a fansite of a particular singer songwriter. About 50/50 men to women. It’s this you’re talking about I presume? It was just some threads where some of the women came to take a leading role. (The ones to do with feminist issues).
    It wasn’t a ‘feminist website’ of the type you might be thinking about.

    And I did say when you were new to this website – that I didn’t have any time for Julie Bindel. Maybe you’ve forgotten as it was a couple of months ago.

  15. ukliberty — on 14th October, 2010 at 8:41 pm  

    Refresh,

    The Independent (and presumably Somosa Blog) failed to ask the very obvious question, what is the punishment for this reprehensible act?

    Placing the act into a different category doesn’t make it less reprehensible. The punishment accorded may well do.

    … Sheikh Sayeed made his opposition to non-consensual marital sex absolutely clear – “of course it is bad, one should not jump on his wife as and when he desires” – but he said that it was wrong to prosecute it as rape:

    “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.” …

    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.” …

    “… 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.”
    - The Samosa

  16. ukliberty — on 14th October, 2010 at 8:41 pm  

    Sorry, didn’t close the italics

  17. Rumbold — on 14th October, 2010 at 8:47 pm  

    Damon:

    It’s just a different view of things. And not a surprising one for an Abrahamic religion.
    He probably thinks that homosexuality is a sin too. I can’t see why we bother and pester the religious to alter their religious beliefs to keep up with modern liberal ideas.

    So saying that martial rape doesn’t exist is ‘just a different view of things’? I suppose the same goes for paedophilia, etc.

  18. Don — on 14th October, 2010 at 8:53 pm  

    Refresh,
    He was asked and did explain.

  19. Don — on 14th October, 2010 at 9:01 pm  

    I can’t see why we bother and pester the religious to alter their religious beliefs

    Because they have an impact on the actual lives of others.

  20. Kamal — on 14th October, 2010 at 10:05 pm  

    I really don’t get why damon posts on here; he clearly hates Muslims,effnics and now it seems women.

  21. damon — on 14th October, 2010 at 10:13 pm  

    So saying that martial rape doesn’t exist is ‘just a different view of things’? I suppose the same goes for paedophilia, etc

    No of couse not. It’s their religious practice and sayings from the Qu’ran and the Bible.
    My own family were Catholics. You have to make your own decisions about these things.
    Of course I recognise that it’s not that simple.
    If you are born Muslim today (for example) – to declare you are not Muslim, is a bigger deal than me rejecting my grandparent’s Irish cathicolism.
    Which was rather easy.

  22. John — on 14th October, 2010 at 10:58 pm  

    John not as active as it is in invading Iraq and Afghanistan and numerous other places round the globe

    @muslim:

    Did Ahmadiyya invade Iraq and Afghanistan? Why are you taking revenge off them?

  23. Refresh — on 15th October, 2010 at 12:01 am  

    Thanks UKLiberty, Don, SarahAB,

    Reprehensible? Of course it is. Even he says so.

    The point of asking him what the punishment should be for such a reprehensible act is that it cannot go unpunished – logic dictates. So it cannot be nothing.

    He seems to be looking at the problem from a marriage guidance point of view. I do not think we’ve heard enough.

    Perhaps the direct question for him should be, ‘under what conditions would you advise the complainant to take the case to the Police?’

    I believe his answer will reveal a lot more than the headline. And there is never a downside to asking pertinent questions, one of which is to obtain information and the other is to get someone thinking about what they say and do.

  24. Hugh — on 15th October, 2010 at 7:30 am  

    Do you think whipping up a media controversy condemning this man and his views which actually help him to change his position or do you think perhaps some people who have some expertise in the subject sitting down with him and discussing the issue with him might be more productive.

    Shariah Law is not some monolith, it is open to interpretation and extension. Someone mentioned that marital rape has a fairly young pedigree in this country’s legal system, don’t you think perhaps it has not been an issue that has really sunk in for these individuals as yet. Expert opinions and calm civilised rational conversations help to bridge the gap.

    Witchunts on the other hand tend to put people’s defences up and make them solidify the position you are against and defend it as though it were the most sacred cow of all. Please use some wisdom if you really want the change you claim to seek.

  25. Sarah AB — on 15th October, 2010 at 8:08 am  

    Hugh – if this was just a private individual – then his views might not be doing a great deal of harm. I’m not sure what the precise remit of the Sharia council is but even if rape isn’t part of its agenda (I’m pretty sure it’s not) his position, combined with those views, suggests a worrying gap between his views and those of modern society – the UK law was changed quite recently but that change represented a catch up with society’s views which had long since moved on. ‘most sacred cow’ – that reminds me of Lindsay German’s point about how gay rights shouldn’t be a shibboleth!

  26. ukliberty — on 15th October, 2010 at 9:15 am  

    Refresh, please don’t misunderstand – I thought you made a good point @8 based on the OP. But, if you read the interview, you might get the impression that the cleric thinks a man who forces his wife into non-consensual sex deserves a slap on the wrist, not a prison sentence. The bigger crime, according to him, is calling non-consensual sex rape. it is not an assault, it is not some kind of jumping on somebody’s individual right.

    And there is never a downside to asking pertinent questions, one of which is to obtain information and the other is to get someone thinking about what they say and do.

    Agreed. Well, there might be a downside for the interviewee. :)

  27. douglas clark — on 15th October, 2010 at 9:57 am  

    Platinum 786′s comment on the other thread hits the nail on the head for me:

    I want to know what such a court is doing hearing cases of martial rape! It’s a kangaroo court, it has no powers to prosecute, it has no ability to investigate (a police force), it can’t enforce it’s sentences.

    It might be acceptable to go to a shariah court for a divorce (even those aren’t recognised in UK courts AFAIK), but rape?!

    All criminal offences should be dealt with by the British courts and under British law. The simple reason being, the British legal system has police officers, investigators, prisons etc.

    It certainly seems that to me that diverting what is sexual assault to people with these sorts of attitudes in an abrogation of the states responsibility to protect and serve all it’s citizens. They shouldn’t have any say in the matter whatsoever and ought to be seen as obstructing justice.

    If this idiot thinks the law is wrong, then he is perfectly at liberty to try standing for parliament on the basis of these views. He’d be lucky to save his deposit.

  28. earwicga — on 15th October, 2010 at 10:06 am  

    Quite Douglas. Another reason for govt to legislate mandatory reporting of rape to the police.

  29. Refresh — on 15th October, 2010 at 2:13 pm  

    UKLiberty, it is a topic which is open to misunderstanding.

    I am of the view that no one is completely immune to new ideas and change. He is best left in his post but persuaded into the real world. Failing that potential complainants would be advised to seek a hearing under a wiser adjudicator.

    I am also of the view that he would be completely wrong if his idea of punishment is a slap on the wrist, even though that is all he can offer as redress. He has no power, and those that appear before him are there voluntarily. So the harshest punishment he can recommend is to advise the complainant to go to the Police.

    That would strengthen the notion of justice for all concerned, and reinforces a policy of no tolerance.

    I am pretty sure that he could be convinced of that option. Why? Because it is the right thing to do.

    His problem comes when he is approached by a couple where one accuses the other of the act, the first thought is likely to be – is this couple intending to stay together?

    Marriage is a contract with rights and responsibilities on both sides. If one party is in breach to such an extent, then it remains a marriage only in name, regardless of any decree nisi or its equivalent. And I am sure a legitimate argument can be assembled to show that morally the marriage is finished and therefore the act of marital rape is ‘aldulterous’. So what punishment?

  30. Sunny — on 15th October, 2010 at 4:42 pm  

    Do you think whipping up a media controversy condemning this man and his views which actually help him to change his position or do you think perhaps some people who have some expertise in the subject sitting down with him and discussing the issue with him might be more productive.

    Why don’t others sit down and explain what UK law is first, to him?

    Somehow such a misogynist has been leading the sharia council and you want me to treat him like a five year old?

    Bollocks to that. He’s outspoken about his views and unrepentant about where he stands. He’s also contradicting UK law – either he goes or shariah courts will be shut down by the government.

  31. Don — on 15th October, 2010 at 5:34 pm  

    And I am sure a legitimate argument can be assembled to show that morally the marriage is finished …

    I’m sure such an argument could be constructed to your satisfaction and mine. I’m much less sure it would prove persuasive with the cleric in question.

    As you pointed out, he has no power to do more than reprimand and yet considers himself qualified to pronounce with authority on the crime of rape.

    It may be a generalisation, but clerics of whatever stripe who feel qualified to lay down divine law tend not to be amenable to mere legitimate argument.

    He said that there had been a few cases of marital rape ‘adjudicated’ upon by sharia courts. While there is no legal obligation to report a crime (except, I think, treason and terrorism) this is undoubtedly perverting the course of justice and can only serve to perpetuate this behaviour.

  32. Refresh — on 15th October, 2010 at 6:14 pm  

    Don

    ‘While there is no legal obligation to report a crime (except, I think, treason and terrorism) this is undoubtedly perverting the course of justice and can only serve to perpetuate this behaviour.’

    This is a problematic area. I am aware of a stream of people who need counselling due to childhood abuse, and it is a confessional oath that it goes no further. It remains with the victim to decide how they wish to proceed.

    Can we presume the abused partner wishes it reported in all cases? Would that itself not stop others from seeking assistance for themselves, in whatever form.

    We have to take care with the idea of mandatory reporting, without the agreement of the victim.

  33. earwicga — on 15th October, 2010 at 6:17 pm  

    Yes Refresh, this came up with discussions surrounding the Catholic church being required to report sexual abuses to the police. I’m sure there is a way of legislating which takes into account the wishes of the victim.

  34. Refresh — on 15th October, 2010 at 6:18 pm  

    ‘He’s also contradicting UK law – either he goes or shariah courts will be shut down by the government.’

    But we all know shariah courts have no standing in UK law, and is effectively an arbitration service. Which compels me to ask how is it cases of marital rape even go to arbitration?

  35. Don — on 15th October, 2010 at 6:46 pm  

    Refresh,

    I agree that mandatory reporting of crimes is problematic and I wasn’t advocating that as a broad policy.

    And of course we can’t make any assumptions about the wishes of the abused partner. Or indeed about whether the abused partner was even aware that this was an option, given that the cleric is declaring that it could not have been rape. We also don’t as yet know how freely the victims agreed to sharia adjudication.

    One key question might be; did the cleric ensure that the victim was aware of all her options and the agencies that could help. If not, then there is moral if not legal complicity, in my view.

    It remains with the victim to decide how they wish to proceed.

    To an extent. In cases of abuse there remains the issue that an abuser who is not reported may well go on to abuse others. Obviously in cases of people recovering from abuse it is important that they retain/regain a sense of agency, but if that is at the cost of new victims then the issue is not so clear cut.

    I have had to deal with several disclosures of abuse over the years and the first thing I have to make clear is that I cannot promise secrecy. We’re broadening the discussion here, but I’d say that in most cases there is no ‘seal of the confessional’ when it comes to abuse. We need to be clear about that from the start.

    Perhaps, if we are talking about years later when someone finds a way to confront something very much in the past they might need support from someone who commits to confidentiality. But if it is ‘live’ or likely to extend to other victims current or future, then you can’t promise to keep it a secret because you may not be able to keep that promise.

  36. Don — on 15th October, 2010 at 6:49 pm  

    earwicga,

    Quite. That struck me as well.

    ‘Why did you not report child rape to the police?’

    ‘We haven’t broken any laws by not doing so.’

  37. damon — on 15th October, 2010 at 6:54 pm  

    I’m obviously not understanding something here.
    Are we expecting the Sharia Council to be more representative of the needs of British muslim people than say, the European Council of Fatwa and Research which is based in Dublin is?
    That body is headed by Yusuf al-Qaradawi who thinks that female masturbation should be halted by caning (or something).
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPXmNXLbuxY

    Why the higher concern about the Sharia courts? It all comes from the same soruce. It’s all a bit of a muchness.

  38. Don — on 15th October, 2010 at 7:15 pm  

    Well, clearly al Qaradawi has given this matter a lot of thought. A lot of thought.

    Oh, and Damon. I don’t consider you a troll or anything like that and you have sometimes raised valid points. But this whole ‘gee whiz’ faux naif thing is getting old.

  39. Refresh — on 15th October, 2010 at 7:26 pm  

    earwicga,

    There is a fundamental difference here. In the case of the Catholic church it was an institution protecting itself (or so it thought).

    Don,

    I cannot disagree in the main, agency is important. But again you can act to protect others without involving the victim who presents themselves before you.

    Confidentiality in all other respects is essential, in the case of a school it makes perfect sense to not promise secrecy. You would need to act to protect the child and as you say others. And the other difference is that you would be privy to such disclosures occasionally.

    In the cases I am aware of we are often talking decades after the event. And the organisation(s) I refer to make it a rule that everything is confidential, should word get out that confidences were being broken (with good intent) then it could stop others who also would like to take advantage of the counselling services being offered.

  40. earwicga — on 15th October, 2010 at 7:47 pm  

    Refresh – I’m not comparing like that. The result is the same though.

  41. Don — on 15th October, 2010 at 8:07 pm  

    Refresh,
    I think we are in agreement.

  42. isa — on 15th October, 2010 at 11:34 pm  

    British law making rape within marriage a crime was passed way way back in …. 1991. So has clearly always been a historic integral part of our countries history.

    Typical Muslim, trying to take us back the Stone Age of 1990.

  43. Don — on 16th October, 2010 at 12:25 am  

    Troll.

  44. damon — on 16th October, 2010 at 1:47 am  

    Fair enough Don @38. But sometimes I really don’t get it. I don’t claim to be the brightest.
    The Sharia Council is part of the Deobandi sect someone has said. I have read of them before and just doing a quick google search on them to remind myself about them, doesn’t really show them in a favourable light – as far as modernity goes anyway.

    I don’t know if this is fair to say of them:

    The northern Indian Deobandi school argues that the reason Islamic societies have fallen behind the West in all spheres of endeavor is because they have been seduced by the amoral and material accoutrements of Westernization, and have deviated from the original pristine teachings of the Prophet.

    It seems a bit odd to think we can tell them what to think about how the Qur’an should be interpreted when they are part of a world wide movement.

  45. africana — on 16th October, 2010 at 5:56 pm  

    the reason this has raised everyone’s ire is because the head of the shariah council is relying on a defintion of rape as forced unlawful sexual intercourse. since, as a mulsim, he sees marriage as making sexual intercourse lawful, he’s unwilling to label forced sex as rape as the act of intercourse, itself, if it occurswithin marriage is not unlawful,though the means by which it is carried out (ie, with aggression) would be unlawful.
    it’s just a matter of semantics, he’s not justifying forced sexual intercourse that occurs in marriage.

  46. Don — on 16th October, 2010 at 7:11 pm  

    It is not semantics. Really, it isn’t.

    Not justifiying, but considering himself qualified to adjudicate on an actual crime as being no more than a breach of etiquette.

  47. douglas clark — on 16th October, 2010 at 7:50 pm  

    africana,

    My initial thoughts were along the lines you have outlined, however I quickly realised that that position is untenable.

    To a very large extent there is no difference, except as a matter of degree, between common assault and rape. Both have the potential, indeed likelyhood, of resulting in injury and psychological trauma for the victim.

    That is the crime.

    The issue of the relationship between the two parties is, largely, irrelevant. If you do the crime you do the time. I find it quite shocking that anyone would think otherwise.

    Him, not you….

    I am completely unconvinced as to the merits of cases like this being seen as something that should be dealt with at any level below that of the criminal law of the land.

    This chap is unfit for purpose.

  48. douglas clark — on 16th October, 2010 at 11:18 pm  

    Africana,

    You said:

    he’s unwilling to label forced sex as rape as the act of intercourse, itself, if it occurs within marriage is not unlawful, though the means by which it is carried out (ie, with aggression) would be unlawful.

    I’d have thought that ‘forced sex’ is a reasonable definition of ‘rape’?

    Correct me if I am wrong about that. I’ll use that the next time I talk to a woman:

    “Oh, no honey, rape would be wrong, but forced sex is just such a great thing.”

    Fancy my chances?

    ———————————

    And what is this bullshit:

    …as the act of intercourse, itself, if it occurs within marriage is not unlawful…

    Even evangelical Christians seem to have caught on to that one…

    _____________________________________

    You could reasonably accuse me of taking your words out of context.

    My excuse is, that there was no context. It was just a house of cards, words saying what you wanted them to.

  49. douglas clark — on 16th October, 2010 at 11:50 pm  

    Africana,

    Let us assume I have met this chick that hasn’t slapped my face and told me I am scum. Let’s say we got married and shit. What, exactly, gives me the right to force sex on an unwilling partner?

    Would you excuse me for it, and on what grounds?

    _______________________________

    Just ’cause I was part of your religious community, or, perish the thought because you had to protect your ‘community’ from persecution from folk like me that find it all a bit tawdry? Or disgusting and reprehensible?

    Frankly, the idiocy of Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed is without excuse.

    I have no idea why nice people – like most muslims I know, say – put up with idiots like him….

  50. africana — on 17th October, 2010 at 1:16 am  

    @douglas,

    you’re quite right in what you have said-forced sex in a marital context is no less devastating to the victim than if it were to have occured in any other situation.

    although the hanafi school of jurisprudence to which deobandi’s, other south asians aswell as turks (interestingly)adhere is derived from the quran and hadith literature, a large body of it is composed of the opinions of scholars(male, would you believe?) who were products of a time when rape was seen as less a crime against the woman herself but agianst her male guardian.

    abu sayeed and others like him are bound by this rather historical defintion of rape as adulterous forced sex. the whole discussion, though, is entirely academic as abu sayeed is just one individual who presides over an organisation to which individual muslims are not duty bound to turn. there will be muslims (both men and women) who share his views, but there are many more who are expressly of the view that,if faced with a forced sexual encounter in a marital context,that they would inform the relevant authorities.
    my own feeling is that many of the actual marital rapes that do occur, in wider society, probably do go unreported because, during the short time span in which the reporting needs to occur a woman would likely need to have made the decision to leave the marital home (and in cases of abusive relationships this is a difficult descison to make) as returning to live with an accused rapist is hardly going to be a laugh a minute.

  51. africana — on 17th October, 2010 at 8:05 pm  
  52. douglas clark — on 17th October, 2010 at 9:11 pm  

    africana @ 50 and 51,

    Your comment @ 50 has my complete agreement,especially the last paragraph, and the thread you linked to @ 51 kind of makes my final point @ 49. Thanks for the discussion….

    I am sorry if I appeared a bit rude.

  53. Soso — on 20th October, 2010 at 5:53 pm  

    Look, Islam is headquartered in a country that still has slavery and whose freedom of conscience is non-existant, so why should it come as a surprise when so many Muslim “scholars” and “clerics” show themselves up to be a bunch of backward, medieval misogynists?

    When it comes to Muslim clerics and their oh-so enlightened views on women, this dirtbag is pretty much the norm.

  54. africana — on 20th October, 2010 at 6:03 pm  

    headquartered? what do you mean by that? saudi arabia is not the same as the vatican in catholicism, you know?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.