Posted on 10/16/2010 3:37:55 PM PDT by george76
A senior Muslim cleric has been condemned by police and other Muslim leaders for claiming that there is no such thing as rape within marriage.
Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed, president of the Islamic Sharia Council in Britain, sparked outrage when he said he believed that men who rape their wives should not be prosecuted because 'sex is part of marriage'.
He further claimed, during an interview with the blog The Samosa, that many married women who made accusations of rape were lying.
His comments have caused fury among senior police officers, who already face great difficulties in getting women to report rape - a crime that all too often goes under-reported.
In the interview, Sheikh Sayeed said: '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.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
The rules weren’t “wacky”. In fact, the feminists pushed the change so that, in combination with changes in rules of evidence, any woman who was mad at her husband could have him prosecuted for “rape”. False charges of physical abuse and child molestation are also quite common.
I find it interesting that all it takes is for something to be around for a while and suddenly people uncritically assume it is reasonable, just, etc. “Sexual harassment” is another example of an offense invented by feminists so that women in the workplace could intimidate employers and male employees.
Bull crap.
Rape within marriage (spousal rape) is illegal in every state in the US. I’ve certainly never heard your scenario popping up in our divorce courts?
Can you please present some legal cases that show the scenario you laid out in your statement: “the feminists pushed the change so that, in combination with changes in rules of evidence, any woman who was mad at her husband could have him prosecuted for “rape”.”
I’d also appreciate some legitimate sources for your statement that “False charges of physical abuse and child molestation are also quite common.”...specifically, what percentage of divorces that include these charges make them “quite common” to you? Because, to me, “quite common” refers to an event happening somewhere in the “60 to 75% to the time” range.
Regarding your comments on sexual harassment, you’re saying that people who have been denied promotions or fired for not complying to sexual demands of a boss are making it up? That it’s ok to send unsolicited dirty emails/pictures to a coworker? That fondling a person you work with is a-okay? That it’s all revenge by women who...sorry, can’t finish typing this...laughing too hard at the absurdity of your statements...
moral absolutes ping, With Freepers showing their very worst sides.
“I remember the first case in US history of a conviction for marital rape, sometime in the 70’s, I think.”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Yes, and the accused man’s last name was “Rideout” which has always struck me as somehow rather ironic. There was a movie made about it starring Mickey Rourke as John Rideout. The movie came out in 1980.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081402/
And Linda Hamilton of the ‘Terminator’ movies as the Mrs.
At a Muslim bride bride says, “I do, or else I'm dead,” it is taken as implied consent to any and all sexual demands of the husband, anywhere, any time, any way he wants.
‘Only if you want to make marital sex, a financial arrangement.’
Until the 19th century that is exactly what it was in all the world and throughout history, although it was also a means of transmitting property, which could not be done to ‘natural’ children.
ROFLMAO! Good one!!!
So if a woman says "stop," that should have no effect?
I agree. When the man can charge his wife with theft for spending the money he earned, she can file charges of rape.
Looking at the vast majority of trashy women America has turned out since they were “liberated” and since the men allowed themselves to be emasculated, I admire this attitude of Sharia, and find it not surprising at all that Muslims resist Western influences and want our influences done away with.
We drank the anti-traditional Koolaide the Progressives/Marxists offered us to destroy our culture, and it has indeed been trashed.
Flame away, boys and girls. I couldn’t care less.
If you can’t discuss a topic without using such language... I won’t bother to respond.
You have an odd understanding of “quite common.” That aside, if you were to work in and around the family courts for any length of time you would perhaps have a better sense of how vindictive the participants are and would not be surprised that such claims get made “to get even”. Since you plainly don’t know much about this subject, however, except what the general culture has imprinted on your mind, and because you are demanding, without being aware of it I’m sure, systematic data, you might start with Stephen Baskerville’s “Taken into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family.” His Ph.D. is from the London School of Economics.
Your demand that I produce cases that “show the scenario you laid out”, isn’t clear enough to merit a direct response. Here is something that will at least give you some idea of what happened statutorily in one part of the relevant law: http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32701. Other changes were made to the law of evidence relating to rape in general that, when taken in conjunction with the elimination of the spousal exemption, made it relatively easy to go to a prosecutor to make a colorable charge under the law. Bear in mind that prosecutors are as fearful of failing to “take women seriously” as they are of being alleged not to “take blacks seriously.” If you want a case, the Twana Brawley affair is an example. The men falsely accused were dragged through the mud and all the rest of it even though they were eventually exhonorated. What happened to the accuser? Nothing. For that matter, what happned to Crystal Mangum?
\You don’t have to be convicted to have your life destroyed or be seriously harmed. You might think about that.
You also seem to doubt that feminists do a great deal of lying - even to the point of having the innocent prosecuted for reasons having to do with an agenda. Perhaps some familiarity with cases such as the “Wenatchee Witch Trials”, the McMartin case, and the Amirault case would be of benefit to you. Then, again, you might really dig in and do some serious research on “Tailhook”, which was far from the way it was presented by Patsy Schroeder (Of course, she did get the military to grovel and implement additional feminist policies, which was the real point. Never mind that careers were harmed or destroyed by a blatant lie.)
Actually, you seem not to realize how the feminists have succeeded in biasing all of family law. Unconstitutional ex parte restraining orders at times almost seem a routine part of the practice. Are you familiar with VAWA? Like all of the similar legislation, it was pushed by NOW and its allies, and went so far that the SCOTUS, which usually shows no spine on these isues, declared part of it unconstitutional. Familiar with all the propaganda about the epidemic of male domestic violence? Actually, most “domestic violence” is started by women. Sometimes the claims are almost comical - do you remember the “study” produced by some feminist group that claimed that males engaged in more “domestic violence” in connection with the Super Bowl? It got lots of play in the press, which, of course, failed to trumpt equally the subsequent finding by actual statisticians that the study and its claim were bogus.
As for “sexual harassment, there is a difference between something being wrong and being the proper subject of federal law. Prior to “sexual harassment” laws, there were laws against sexual battery, extortion, etc. Moreover, someone “offended” by an employee could always complain to higher management, which, as surprising as it may be to you, would tend to take a very negative view of the matter for business reasons, if for no other. What the “sexual harassment” laws added was a very ambiguous cause of action (think, for example, about “hostile environment” claims) that, when coupled with other laws relating to affirmative action and “disparate impact”, gave almost anyone willing to make such claims a great deal of workplace leverage. If you don’t know this, you are self-employed or don’t have a job.
Feel free to deny everything. BTW, are you trolling for Cass, or just free lancing from DU?
If “bull crap” is considered foul language, why on earth are you on a forum like FreeRepublic?
But, nice distraction (my language) to get out of addressing the issue (the frequency of spousal rape/accusations). Well played.
Abusive husband, adulterer, comes home gives her AIDs. Naw...they are married. It isn't rape? It is murder.
Sorry marriage isn't a demand, force, or against her will... that a woman spread her legs.
Yes, the end of marriage and the Judeo-Christian family has always been the goal of the modern feminist movement, which has its roots in the hard left. One of Mao’s most vigorously pursued “social reform” campaigns after he took power was to undermine paternal authority and the family.
Catherine McKinnon, a now somewhat forgotten “academic feminist”, urged that sex be considered “rape” if the female had regrets later on. McKinnon, however, was anathematized by lesbian feminists like Andrea Dworkin when McKinnon, quite unexpectedly, got married.
If young women wonder why young men are reluctant to “commit” to marriage today, they need to consider what their helpful feminists have done for them.
As I said, nice distraction from the issue at hand.
Now, please, scour this website and chastise everyone else who uses the phrase, “bull crap”. I’ll wait right here for you.
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.