Skip to comments.Maldives president vetoes marital rape bill as ‘un-Islamic’
Posted on 01/20/2014 10:11:03 AM PST by Olog-hai
Maldivian President Abdulla Yameen has refused to ratify a bill that seeks to partially criminalize marital rape, calling it un-Islamic.
The parliament voted 67-2 last month to limit a husbands right to have non-consensual sex with his wife. The bill says a husband cannot force his wife to have sex if the couple have filed for divorce, dissolution or mutual separation, and if the intent is to transmit a sexual disease. [ ]
The Maldives, an Indian Ocean archipelago of about 330,000 people, claims to have a 100 percent Muslim population. Its constitution states that no law contrary to any tenet of Islam shall be enacted.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
And yet rich Americans will still spend their hard earned money in those islands.
(AND)if the intent is to transmit a sexual disease.
Notice it is (and) and not (or). I guess it is OK as long as the intent is not to transmit a sexual disease!!!
islam demonstrates more insanity by the day.
I WAS half interested in visiting the Maldives - Islamic constitution? Cross that sh¿t hole off the list.
are the two voter minority still ALIVE?
Something to know as American courts look to Sharia law as a legal defense.
So Catholicism of the Middle Ages was not a religion?
I understand and in general agree with your point. But it is much more accurate to say that Islam is not JUST a religion, in the way others are. It is a political/religious/cultural amalgam. This does not make it any less a religion, though.
Also, technically speaking, Islam does not call for the death of non-believers, at least among People of the Book. They do, however, have to accept submission to Muslim rule. :)
Tell me when Jesus said the like?
I’m not a fan of Islam, and I’m fully aware of the differences between Mohammed and Christ.
Hadiths are not the Koran.
Have a nice day.
Catholics of the Middle Ages would kill you for not believing as the law prescribed. I reference the Albigensians and Hussites, and a host of other smaller groups and individuals.
Were these Catholics not members of a religion?
Sure there were Catholics at the gates of Vienna (both times). They were just on the inside, not the outside of the gates.
My point is that we can’t say a religion we dislike, or even one that is objectively evil, ceases therefore to be a religion. Religions can be bad, just like any other human production.
Aztecs and most other “civilized” American Indians practiced routine human sacrifice as part of their religions. Does that mean they weren’t really religions?
It is perhaps relevant that criminalizing of marital rape in US states started only in the 70s and was completed only in the 90s.
Yeah, according to Logan we need to give Islam a pass as it’s 600 years behind Christianity. If Christians did it 600 years ago, Muslims should be allowed to do it now.
Nope, just pointing out that the Koran ranks the Hadiths just as the Bible outranks the Patristic writings.
In this particular instance it appears Islam, or at least the Maldives, are 20 to 40 years behind the United States.
Don’t let any imam hear you say that.
I really don’t care what an imam thinks.
I didn’t ask you to care. And it’s not his thoughts, but his possible actions, that cause trouble.
So I should watch what I say because of what an imam might do if her heard me?
No thanks, he’ll just have to deal with any upset I might cause him.
Nope, but I am saying that expecting the same kind of trouble out of any Christian these days is a false expectation.
I do not disagree. My sole argument is that a religion does not cease to be a religion because it has strongly negative aspects, or is mixed in with what we more commonly think of as political or cultural issues.
I don’t have to like a religion for it to be a religion. There is no rule out there that requires religions to all be cute, cuddly and loving.
Which is pretty much my point. We really ought to think about how we should deal with religions that are bad and negative. Classifying all religions as innocuous and “good” prevents us from doing so.
Here’s Merriam-Webster definition:
: the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group
Nothing there that requires goodness or non-violence. And all quite obviously apply as much to Islam as to Christianity or any other religion. Indeed, many sects of Buddhism would not meet the first definition.
There’s still the difference between religion and cult. Size matters not.
A cult, in the somewhat bastardized definition that has gained popularity in recent years in the USA, is simply a religion generally viewed negatively by others.
And I’m happy to agree that the negativity is often well-justified. But I hope you will agree that we don’t want to make legal distinctions on this basis.
Do you really think it would be a good idea to make legal distinctions by which “cults” are stripped of the protections afforded recognized “religions.” What government agency would you like to put in charge of deciding which groups will be recognized?
Much better, to my mind, to give legal status as religion to any group claiming it, no matter how kooky their beliefs. This of course should not inhibit us from fully enforcing laws they may break. Beliefs are and should be no business of the State. Actions are and should be.
No, that’s the left’s definition of a cult. Would you describe a religion that’s into human sacrifice or genocide of those that don’t believe in it as merely being “generally viewed negatively by others” or is there genuinely something wrong with it?
“And Im happy to agree that the negativity is often well-justified.” I’m obviously happy to agree that there may be something genuinely wrong with a religion.
Which doesn’t answer the obvious question.
Based on your comments, it appears that you would prefer to have some groups claiming religious status stripped of the constitutional protection given religions. This would of course require some process by which an individual or group would make this determination.
What individual or group would you suggest giving this power to? What is to prevent that power from being abused, possibly at some future date being used to “de-list” your religion?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.