Islamic family law not meant to protect rapists

rape-1

By P Ramakrishnan

The Tasek Gelugor MP Datuk Shabudin Yahaya was rightly criticised for his callous remarks in Parliament stating that ‘rape victims should be allowed to marry their rapists as a remedy to social problems.’

To begin with, his suggestion cannot be considered as a remedy. He is merely providing an easy escape route for the rapist who has committed a heinous crime against an under-aged little girl.

There is no remedy for the innocent victim who has been taken advantage of. There is no justice whatsoever for the victim. Worst of all, there is no punishment for the perpetrator of this crime. It does not address this evil social problem nor does it provide a solution. It only allows for this social problem to continue unabated.

Someone asked pointedly, “Would you like to have a rapist as a son-in-law?” Or for that matter, I may add, as a brother-in-law?

Would Shabudin accept a rapist as a relative if his kith and kin were unfortunate victims of a savage, bestial crime?

Without showing any remorse or regret for a silly suggestion, he is now trying to take refuge in Islam. He is trying to imply that there is a remedy for rapists in Islam. Can he seriously tell us that the enactment that he quoted was specifically enacted for the protection of rapists?

With reference to the motion to be tabled at the forthcoming Penang state assembly censuring him for his remarks – and in trying to justify himself – he now quotes the Islamic Family Law (State of Penang) Enactment Sections 8 and 18 which allow for under-age marriages in special cases under certain circumstances.

In falling back on these Sections of the Enactment, he brazenly claims that introducing the motion of censure in the state assembly is tantamount to criticising the Islamic Family Law and challenging Section 8 and Section 18 of the same enactment.

The motion, I would imagine, would confine itself to Shabudin’s remarks in Parliament without mentioning Sections 8 and 18 of the Islamic Family Law. These sections have nothing to do with his remarks in Parliament. Shabudin did not mention in Parliament that his remarks were sanctioned and supported by Islamic Family Law.

It is an erroneous after-thought to fall back on the enactment to rally the Muslims to support him for his outrageous suggestion that this enactment is meant to protect the rapist.

What is a matter of grave concern is the fact that no mention is made of the poor innocent girls seduced and ravaged by the unscrupulous lust-ridden demons walking in the form of human beings. Why is their future and their well-being not a matter of justice and compassion?

Forcing her into a love-less marriage when she is hardly ready for it is to condemn her to a life of servitude. She has to endure the shame and contempt of society and be subject to ridicule following the bad publicity of the rape.

All that the rapist has to do, it seems, is to marry her so that he goes scot-free without any punishment or obligation to his victim. Subsequently, if he so wishes, he could easily divorce her and abandon her without a care in the world. Her entire life would have been ruined. Doesn’t this bother Shabudin’s conscience?

This quotation aptly describes the torment and trauma the rape victims go through their entire lives:

“Rape is a more heinous crime than murder since the rape victim dies throughout the period she lives.”

P Ramakrishnan is an FMT reader.

With a firm belief in freedom of expression and without prejudice, FMT tries its best to share reliable content from third parties. Such articles are strictly the writer’s personal opinion. FMT does not necessarily endorse the views or opinions given by any third party content provider.