From The Samosa: (hat-tip to Sunny at Pickled Politics)
“Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed is the president of the Islamic Sharia Council. A softly spoken elderly man with the manner of a kindly grandfather, he is far removed from a firebrand radical Islamic preacher – indeed, he is nothing of the sort.
But sitting in a small office at the al-Tawhid Mosque in East London, where the Council’s sessions had been relocated while its nearby headquarters were renovated (the Council has now moved back), 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’.”
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.”
Sheikh Sayeed went on to say:
“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.”
And it gets even more depressing:
“By contrast, 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. That’s why. It is one aggression against another, and that is bigger aggression against minor one.
I asked Sheikh Sayeed what he considered to be the “bigger aggression”.
“To call it rape. Rape is a criminal offence in this country; man will end up in prison for three, five years or more.”
So the non-consensual sex is the minor aggression, and calling it rape is the major aggression?
“Yes”
Why is calling it rape a major aggression?
“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.”
I’ve written here before about the nonsensical belief that a husband has any kind of “right” to expect sex from his wife, so I’m not going to repeat myself except to say: the marital rape exemption was done away with in this country in 1992 ffs! (Interestingly though, that post is currently the third most popular post on this blog, and it’s still getting plenty of hits, mainly from google searches such as “How do I say no to my husband?” and “Husband wants too much sex” – which suggests to me this is still a significant issue in many women’s lives.)
And I’ll also say this. The rape laws in this country apply to everyone, including to those who would prefer to live under Sharia. If your husband rapes you, whether he’s a Muslim, a Christian, a Sikh or a sodding Humanist, you have the right to report his crime, yes, his “crime”, not his “breach of “etiquette” or whatever other weasely worded expression rape apologists want to employ, to the appropriate authorities. It doesn’t matter what Sheikh Sayeed, or your Pastor, or your Imam, or your Priest, or your Rabbi says: UK law takes precedence over any other legal system in this country, and that includes over religious law.
Some useful sites:
Too Much To Say For Myself 
Very true. I just wouldn’t fancy your chances of getting a conviction. And the Mail is terribly upset about what might happen on the off chance you do.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-389576/Spousal-rape-treated-like-gang-rape.html
NB there’s been a load of nonsense talked about sharia law. It’s only ‘recognised’ in the sense that you can use it to decide a dispute if both parties agree, in the same way the Beth Din is recognised in the UK (something that’s gone on for years without anyone getting their knickers in a knot). No one can be subjected to it against their will.
Very true. I just wouldn’t fancy your chances of getting a conviction. And the Mail is terribly upset about what might happen on the off chance you do.
That’s what I was thinking too, polly. It really doesn’t matter what the sentence is for rape if they’re not going to prosecute or convict rapists. They could make it death by velociraptor, what’s the difference?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rape-impossible-in-marriage-says-muslim-cleric-2106161.html
Polly the comments under the article are actually supporting the concept that spousal rape be treated like gang rape, in fact one commenter believes it to be worse.
Cath you are absolutely right to point out that no religious law overrides the the UK legal system. Sheikh Sayeed’s views regarding rape in marriage (whether they reflect Sharia ‘Law’ or not) are as potent as an Aberdeen Angus bullock.
Not to answer for polly, but those commenters are just that – commenters. Not police officers, judges, or the QC.
Obviously the sharia system sounds worse, because it is religion based, and so they don’t have to pay lip service to equal rights legislation, like legal systems where the church and state are supposedly separated. Maybe they’re just being more honest – what is the spousal rape conviction rate anyway?
Or reporting rate, for that matter.
Oh I didn’t mean to criticise Polly, far from it. Just an observation regarding public opinion to an article that is entrenched in bias. Yes Valerie I agree that police officers, judges and CPS are obstacles and would add in rape cases per se.
I’m not saying that’s not what sharia law says Cath, I missed the crucial words “it’s only recognised in the ukin the sense” out of my sentence. Obviously it’s recognised in other countries.
But there have been a lot of pieces about ‘sharia law’ operating in the UK which are bullshit, and are just used by the likes of the Mail to racist ends (like them currently going on and on and on about halal meat, when they don’t really give a toss about animal welfare). And imply that before you know what’s happening, your local Imam will be having you stoned to death and the UK courts will just stand by and watch.
The real issue that is facing many vulnerable muslim women in the UK is being isolated, often not speaking English as a first language, being poor and having no financial means to escape an abusive situation, being unable to access services, being surrounded by people who put pressure on them to accept their husband’s behaviour – very much the issues that face a lot of non muslim women in fact. I don’t think we can say that there aren’t ANY additional pressures that are more prevalent in some communities than others, but I do think that what sharia law says is often a fairly minor factor – far worse is the social pressure put on these women to stay in an abusive situation. And yes, pronouncements like these are PART of that, but only part. Muslims aren’t a homogenous group, basically.
I don’t want to sound like the sound of liberal tosser who goes ‘well women are being raped/beaten, but hey THAT’S THEIR CULTURE’, cos that’s not what I’m trying to say. Just that there’s often more to it. Not that we shouldn’t object to Mr Muslim cleric, who is clearly an arse of the first order.
Oh dear, from the Mail piece
The new rules look certain to produce deep controversy.
Some lawyers and judges are already deeply anxious over the way husbands, boyfriends and men who have sex at the end of a date are taken to court and charged with rape after a complaint by a woman who says she was forced into the act.
They believe juries are reluctant to convict in such circumstances and that urgent Government efforts to secure greater numbers of rape convictions risk injustice and are likely to continue to find unco-operative juries.
One critic, criminologist Dr David Green, said yesterday: ‘Most people do not believe a woman who has sex and later regrets it is the victim of a crime in the same way as a woman who was attacked by a stranger and feared death
Which bit of ‘she isn’t a victim of crime at all because that ISN’T rape actually’ do you not understand Dr Green?
Yes all women who say they’ve been raped by a man they had sex with/had dinner with/had a drink with/briefly spoke to in a nightclub are clearly just making it up and regretting a hasty decision to have consensual sex. FFS.
Anyway, I noticed this story of a woman who was raped by her partner today. He killed her while she was in a hospital bed. Otherwise the Mail would no doubt be claiming she’d made it all up.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1320451/Paramedic-murdered-nurse-hospital-car-park-bail-rape-jailed-life.html
That is actually the only way to convince a jury that you didn’t want it all along though polly, is to die. See, just die, and that’ll teach ’em.
Funny, every single male I ever had sex with, I regretted it. I only tried to charge one with rape though, because he went a little too far and slipped me a roofie. Probably I just made it all up though, and put my own bra on inside out that day.
Correction – she wasn’t a patient at the hospital, she worked there, note to self – read more carefully.
But yeah, if he hadn’t stabbed her, the Male would have been going on about how she tried to ruin an innocent upstanding man’s life just out of spite because the relationship failed no doubt.
I just don’t get how/why the guy was let out on bail when he was facing 9 charges of rape. Wtf is that all about?
The judge apparently. Both the police and CPS didn’t want him bailed.
Oh no, give me an H, give me a Y,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1320815/Sheikh-Maulana-Abu-Sayeed-UK-sharia-law-leader-says-theres-thing-rape-marriage.html
(oh and try putting the words ‘falsely accused’ into the Mail’s search engine).
Oh God *head/laptop* ‘the understanding was that sexual intercourse was part of the marriage’ – err, yes, when BOTH PEOPLE INVOLVED WANT IT. BOTH. How hard is that to understand??
Yes it beggars belief how that rapist was allowed out on bail…misogynist judges like that should be sacked from being judges. Re: Daily Male/ ‘false accusations’, oooh I can only imagine…actually, I don’t want to.
Ugh, and I love how according to the Daily Male types, misogyny is bad, but only when brown or black people do it. They rail against ‘Londonistan’ on one page, and criticise whichever sleb is wearing hot pants and a tiny top for showing too much off on the next…it would be funny if it didn’t make me so angry.
Well not only that but they get frightfully het up about brown people saying rape in marriage is ok, and then publish numerous pieces saying any woman who alleges rape against a man who didn’t actually nearly or actually kill her is lying, particularly if she ever voluntarily had sex or any other kind of social contact with him.
Anyway hold the front page because there are some tights that make your legs look hairy. Obviously the work of evil feminists.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1321128/Somebody-girl-razor-Trendy-tights-make-legs-look-HAIRY.html
Yeah, all those seemingly pro-women’s-bodily-sovereignty comments looked pretty grounded in racism.
@ polly – you’re right – it was on the front page as well!?
This is from a long rambling comment (goes on about women who use “nookie cookies” to modify men’s behaviour ffs) from an MRA, that I’m not letting through ‘cos it links to his shit misogynist MRA blog:
I love that “Regardless what you think about the permissibility of “marital rape” per se”, especially the scare quotes around the term marital rape……..
i always like to stab myself a few times after consensual PIV. if the guy doesnt stop the bleeding in time, and i die, then i have successfully set him up on a bogus rape (and murder) charge. so far though, it hasnt worked.
Well I only read the online Mail you understand Valerie, but the ‘hairy leg tights’ story was pretty prominent.
There seems to be a misunderstanding going on here, and that is the idea that ‘marital rape’ is just part of an otherwise happy marriage, the dude just gets a bit frustrated and why is that any different from what’s been going on in most heterosexual marriages for years anyway? (In terms of women ‘consensually’ having sex they don’t want just because they’re worn down by pressure, I suspect it’s not, but I digress).
The real truth – I’d venture – is it’s more likely to be where it’s part of an ongoing pattern of abusive/violent behaviour.
So Mr MRA that’s (one reason) why we need a law against rape in marriage. And a lot of the reported rapes I’d suspect, happen when a couple have already split but are still married. The one and only case I know of that was reported to the police was certainly that scenario. The dude was found not guilty of course.
Yes MRA, Polly is of course right. Another reason would be to recognize even married women’s humanity, and their right to bodily integrity, which is the absolute lowest standard any nation holds itself to, wrt human rights. And let’s be frank: we are talking about virtually ALL women here, and all women’s humanity, since virtually all women eventually marry, or contemplate it. Of course, if said MRA doesn’t have a problem with men raping other men, then I guess I don’t either. I mean really. What’s really the point of the laws against that?
And POLLLLLYYYY, where in the world have you been? Pay me a visit won’t you? You are missed.
Ok I know I’m coming a bit late to this, but hang on –
“critic, criminologist Dr David Green, said yesterday: ‘Most people do not believe a woman who has sex and later regrets it is the victim of a crime in the same way as a woman who was attacked by a stranger and feared death”
from the Mail? As polly pointed out, that’s because it’s not a crime to have consensual sex with someone, so he has materially misrepresented the concept of date rape/marital rape, as they always do in the Mail.
It’s not an either/or with ‘stranger rape’ and ‘woman changes her mind 24 hours later, having consented to the sex’, and to keep repeating ‘woman changes her mind’ as though THAT were the reality on which date rape is reported is maddening. That is usually the first line people trot out when rape conviction rates come up, and to see it repeated in a national publication over and over is incredible.
‘Well not only that but they get frightfully het up about brown people saying rape in marriage is ok, and then publish numerous pieces saying any woman who alleges rape against a man who didn’t actually nearly or actually kill her is lying, particularly if she ever voluntarily had sex or any other kind of social contact with him.’
polly, i just want to say, exactly. it pisses me off.
i think uk feminista were trying to set something up about the daily mail and there endless stories about false accusations.
EmilyBites
I agree, it’s infuriating, frustrating, and a host of other things. It’s also irresponsible and downright fucking dangerous, because it helps reinforce rape myths and contributes to juries and members of the criminal justice system not believing women when they report rapes perpetrated against them.
Well it would be very easy to set up ‘Daily Mail false rape accusation watch’ I fancy. As I said just go to the site and type ‘falsely accused’ into the search engine.
As Alan Partridge said: ‘arguably the finest newspaper in the world’. At least one word of that is correct.
Ouch. From today’s Mail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1327445/Raped-wife-jailed-months-falsely-dropping-charges.html
Yep, I saw that one earlier Polly.
I’m still trying to get my head around how a judge can think it’s in any way right to imprison a victim, or what fucking justice they think is being served by this disgusting verdict.
I saw it too. Sounds EXACTLY like witness intimidation to me.
Note that when she first wanted to withdraw the complaint, she still insisted that he had done it. There must have been reasonable evidence in the case, because the CPS don’t take many rape cases to trial.
But eight months, bloody stiff sentencing for being an intimidated victim.
Well it’s really going to give confidence to women to report rape to the police isn’t it.
Well it’s really going to give confidence to women to report rape to the police isn’t it.
That is exactly the point of it. From the victim’s pov, she has been raped by a partner or ex-partner. She gets the courage to report it, then gets intimidated by the partner and backs down, then gets intimidated by the CJS instead of supported. They are supposed to be aware of witness intimidation, esp in cases of domestic violence and rape committed by someone the victim knows.
I think he might be an ex-partner too, even though that article was not very clear at all – the mention of him visiting her and the kids at Christmas.
Sadly, she is not the first rape victim to be charged with PTCOJ, it is a trend that started a few years ago.
Another report confirms the separation, and indicates an abusive marriage:
Her solicitor said she had previously lied because she was being “emotionally blackmailed” by her husband, at the culmination of an abusive marriage, which was now over.
The woman had been told by her husband and his family that the charges against him could mean a long jail sentence for him, whereas if she retracted her allegations the penalties were likely to be far lighter for her.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8115496/Woman-who-accused-husband-of-rape-jailed-for-falsely-retracting-the-claims.html
The headlines would be more accurate if they said:
Criminial Justice System Encourages Witness Intimidation.
the daily mail should apologise every day to all women for spreading the lie that false allegations of rape are the norm, that women lying is the norm, and ignoring the 100,000 women a year who are raped. they are partly responsible for a culture that disbelieves women, via their unashamed and nasty spreading of rape myths. it is just awful that even today the courts are still so confused, ill informed and uncaring about rape that this case could end that way.