Islam Doesn't Tolerate Rape

This opinion has been plastered as a judgement on the values of the Shariah and what it entails. The Express even brought in Douglas “Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board” Murray to denounce all things Shariah, saying, “Under sharia women are second-class citizens at best; chattel at worst. Sharia courts are incompatible with British democracy. There’s no such thing as moderate sharia. It’s a backward, bigoted, discriminatory body.”

We thank Mr. Murray for once again proving his lack of knowledge but abundance of bigotry to society. However, the obvious question has to be whether this cleric’s comments are representative of a consensus among scholars on the issue of rape. This issue is neither addressed, nor any answers presented.

A letter published in The Independent by Myriam Francois-Cerrah of Oxford University Islamic Society, states:

“Sex is indeed a part of marriage, but rape is not. Rape is a type of violence expressed through sexual assault; it has nothing to do with sex, love or intimacy.”

“Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) said: ‘The best amongst you are those who are best to their wives.’ How this cleric believes his assertions fit with the preceding statement is unfathomable. Rape within marriage constitutes domestic violence and should be treated with the same severity.”

“This is not the ‘Sharia’ position on this issue, but Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed’s.”

Inayat Bunglawala called the Sheikh’s comments “woefully misguided.”

The other issue predictably ignited by these comments is that of the role of Shariah courts. One Daily Express editorial states, “the views of Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed about rape in marriage show why sharia law must never be allowed to take a grip in Britain.”

The editorial alarmingly goes on to claim, “this senior Muslim cleric, in charge of a large network of sharia courts, insists that men who force themselves upon their wives should have immunity from prosecution for rape.”

“This nation’s shared values, including belief in gender equality and the right to self¬determination, are under threat.”

The day before this editorial by the Express, Inayat Bunglawala predicted:

“Shaykh Abu Sayeed’s comments are woefully misguided and will also be a gift to the likes of the Daily Mail and others who love to incite mischief by portraying the Islamic Shariah Council as being in the vanguard of slyly ‘Islamising’ the UK.”

And right on cue, the Express editorial states,

“Perhaps this outburst will destroy once and for all the foolish notion that opposition to the creeping islamification of Britain can only be motivated by bigotry and prejudice.”

Dave Whatton, Chief Constable of Cheshire, commented, “It is a fundamental principle that sharia law should not replace the laws of the UK.”

Perhaps someone could enlighten the Chief Constable that there are no calls for the replacement of UK law with the Shariah and ask the Express just who is calling for Shariah law to take a grip in Britain and where does the cleric “insist” that “men who force themselves upon their wives should have immunity from prosecution”?

The Chief Constable, of all people, should know that Shariah courts can only arbitrate on matters of family law and not criminal justice and so a rape case reported to the police cannot be over ruled by any Islamic arbitration court. Jack Straw has made clear in the past, in his former position as Justice Minister, “English law will always remain supreme and religious councils subservient to it.” This was at the time of another attack on Shariah courts by the Express.

These “religious councils” include Shariah courts, as well as Jewish Beth Din courts.

There is a sustained diffusion of the narrative that Shariah courts are somehow attempting to operate a parallel legal system to that of the UK. The comments of Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed only serve as catalysts to the spread of these narratives, yet counter views from other Muslims is either not considered not asked for.

The Economist points out, “any Western politician, judge or religious leader desiring instant fame or a dose of controversy has an easy option. All you need to do is say ‘sharia’ in public.” Perhaps The Economist should add that any newspaper looking to sell more of its papers seems to only need to splash “Shariah” across their headlines to attract instant interest but, underneath it all, offering very little in the way of substance that is of value to any debate.