Sharia (Islamic) Law in New Jersey Court: Muslim husband rapes, beats, sexually abuses wife, judge sees no sexual assault because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex
From Atlas Shrugs:
Here. Now. Sharia law in New Jersey. When Obama went to Al Ahzar University to speak to ummah (worldwide Muslim community) last June and made the outrageous statement," the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life," little did we know what a warning it was. How prescient. It's here, the degradation and subjugation of women under the sharia. Foreign law, the most vile, in our nation's courts.
Luckily, the appellate court overturned this decision, and a Sharia ruling by an American court has not been allowed to stand. This time.
"Cultural Defense Accepted as to Nonconsensual Sex in New Jersey Trial Court, Rejected on Appeal," by Eugene Volokh in The Volokh Conspiracy, July 23 (thanks to CameoRed):
Robert posted this:
Sharia in New Jersey: Muslim husband rapes wife, judge sees no sexual assault because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex
Muhammad said: "If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning" (Bukhari 4.54.460).
He also said: "By him in Whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself [to him for sexual intercourse] she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel's saddle" (Ibn Majah 1854).
More here.And now a New Jersey judge sees no evidence that a Muslim committed sexual assault of his wife -- not because he didn't do it, but because he was acting on his Islamic beliefs: "This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited."
Click on the title for more at Atlas Shrugs.
22 comments:
Any way we can get this judge removed from office?
Is it just me? I can't get on Atlas Shrugs w/o my computer breaking down.
Pastorius,
I saw this earlier, it is disturbing. I'm going to check out NOW's website and see if they have anything to say about this abomination. If they do not, then they really aren't a much of a feminist organization, now are they?
Pastorius,
I just went over to the Now Website and typed in New Jersey Court, in their search bar. So far, I've found a lot of stuff related to everything from abortion to gay marriage, but nothing to do with this. You'd think this would be front page news for them. However I did find this,
Pakistani Tribe Orders Gang-Rape
So they're not entirely ignoring the abuse of women by fanatical Muslims, but still? What gives? I'm not on the same page with them on somethings, and I don't think you are either, but you'd think they'd show at least as much concern with this as we are.
Pastorius,
By the way, they really should get rid of the judge who made this horrible decision.
Even if it did not stand.
cartoons:
http://www.drybonesproject.com/blog/D06528_3.gif
http://antzinpantz.com/kns/images/oct08/adam%20eve%20arabic.jpg
Maybe we should start and outrage-of-the-day theme.
Damien,
Note, though, that NOW does not blame the rape on ideas associated with Islam. Instead, it's just a Pakistani tribe.
Hi AOW,
The problem with having an "outrage of the day" theme is, we have too many bloggers, and too many outrages.
I fear we would have three or four outrage of the day posts almost every day.
:)
Thanks for the cartoons, Anonymous.
I got the ones from yesterday too.
;-)
From the decision:
"As plaintiff described it at trial, the acts of domestic abuse that underlie this action commenced on November 1, 2008,
after three months of marriage. On that day, defendant [ed. M.J.R] requested that plaintiff, who did not know how to cook, prepare three Moroccan dishes for six guests to eat on the following morning. Plaintiff testified that she got up at 5:00 a.m. on the day of the visit and attempted to make two of the dishes,but neither was successful. She did not attempt the third. At 8:00 a.m., defendant arrived at the couple's apartment with his
guests. He went into the kitchen, but nothing had been prepared. Defendant, angry, said to plaintiff, "I'm going to show you later on, not now, I'm not going to talk to you right now until the visitors leave."******************
Read the rest to learn that the defendant thought he could teach her this lesson "in a pinch". I have a handy dandy set of pliers I could use to pinch this defendant - fixing him good with a permanent lesson of my own. Bastard. Where tf was the bastard slavemaster prior to 8am? Is he REALLY employed as an accountant? How'd he manage to bring his wife and his own mother over to the US from Morocco within one month of immigrating? Questions. Lots and lots of questions.
Pastorius,
I fear we would have three or four outrage of the day posts almost every day.
Well, having so many posts in that category every day could be part of the point. **wink**
Maybe we could selectively have "Yet Another Outrage."
There would have to be selectivity.
Anyway, the idea isn't practical. There are too many outrages now!
The "Yet Another Outrage" idea isn't bad, actually.
Anonymous said...
From the decision:
"As plaintiff described it at trial, the acts of domestic abuse that underlie this action commenced on November 1, 2008,
after three months of marriage. On that day, defendant [ed. M.J.R] requested that plaintiff, who did not know how to cook, prepare three Moroccan dishes for six guests to eat on the following morning. Plaintiff testified that she got up at 5:00 a.m. on the day of the visit and attempted to make two of the dishes,but neither was successful. She did not attempt the third. At 8:00 a.m., defendant arrived at the couple's apartment with his
guests. He went into the kitchen, but nothing had been prepared. Defendant, angry, said to plaintiff, "I'm going to show you later on, not now, I'm not going to talk to you right now until the visitors leave."******************
a bronze-age beast
Pastorius,
You wrote,
"Note, though, that NOW does not blame the rape on ideas associated with Islam. Instead, it's just a Pakistani tribe."
True, but at least they're reporting it. I'm not a big time supporter of NOW, but I was at least hoping they would care enough about this to mention it. We need as many people on our side fighting Jihad as possible, and I was at least hoping they'd speak out on it. Maybe I didn't look hard enough, but If they did write about this outrageous court decision, I should have been able to easily find something on it, on their website. The idea that its not rape, if the women belongs to a religion that thinks it okay for a husband to force sex on his wife.
never forgot this brutal rape, it represents the status of Muslim women. Aisha, Mo's 9 year old bride said that,'No woman suffers more than one who is a Beleiver..
this is todays proof
http://islamicterrorism.wordpress.com/2010/04/13/13-year-old-yemeni-child-bride-tied-up-raped-bled-to-death/
"snip...Updated April 10, 2010
Dead Yemeni child bride tied up, raped, says mom
SHUEBA, Yemen (AP) — A 13-year-old Yemeni child bride who bled to death shortly after marriage was tied down and forced to have sex by her husband, according to interviews with the child’s mother, police and medical reports.
The girl’s mother, Nijma Ahmed, 50, told the Associated Press that before her daughter lost consciousness, she said that her husband had tied her up and forced himself on her. “She looked like she was butchered,” she said about her daughter’s injuries.
Elham Assi, 13, bled to death hours after she spoke to her mother and just days after she was married to a 23-year-old man. She died on April 2 in the deeply poor Yemeni village of Shueba, some 200 kilometers northwest of the capital. Her husband, Abed al-Hikmi
...snip"
one interesting thing is that the mother didn't help.. she was trying to humiliate the daughter.. Arabic culture is brutal.. this is a moderate example... everyone shits on anyone they can in the pecking order to get even those who mess with them in the higher order.
in the OP..
the mother set up the daughter.. this was an opportunity to take it out on the wife.. for all she had suffered from her in-laws/family. to put her and keep her in her place as a slave..
this Brutal pecking order is why they are still living in mud huts. drink'n camel piss.
what a moron:
Burqa, The Cross We Must Bear
?The ban on the burqa in Belgium and France, now spreading to Spain, the UK, and even to universities in Egypt and Syria, points up the hypocrisy and double standards of Western Christian culture, writes German philosopher Andrea Roedig. If the burqa is an instrument of oppression, isn’t the cross we worship really a morbid fascination with torture?
Andrea Roedig
Just for the sake of argument: if Jesus were wearing a burqa, could he still be hung up on the walls of classrooms and public offices? The debate about the full-body veil is flaring up this year in all sorts of different places. It began with Belgian and French bills, now passed into law, to ban the burqa and niqab in the public domain, followed by similar proposals in Spain and Britain. The news that Syria now prohibits the wearing of face-veils at university fits and yet doesn’t fit into the picture: one has to distinguish between the arguments that apply to the Arab world and those of the European debate.?
Here in Europe, the discussion of the burqa ban invariably and automatically revolves around the Islamic challenge to Christian culture, where a double standard is often applied. Proposals to outlaw full-body veils do not meet with a storm of enthusiasm, to be sure, but with comprehension. After all, that much-mooted “mobile prison”, which is not required in such radical form by the Koran, is less the expression of a religious obligation than a horrible tool of patriarchal control, in which women are degraded to insects, as one woman journalist puts it. To Western sensibilities, the burqa seems like a Kafkaesque metamorphosis.?
The Cross is a nifty symbol?
But the morbid charm of the Christian cross, in comparison, isn’t all that harmless either. What does it really mean for a civilisation to venerate an instrument of torture as its emblem? Viewed with sufficient detachment, the exhibitionistic fetishism of suffering in the pictorial tradition of Western Christianity has got to look just as outlandish as the absurd mandatory veiling of women in some Islamic countries. If we hadn’t got so very used to them, all those crucified bodies dangling about in some areas of the Western world, writhing in agony and replete with painted blood-trickling wounds, could well be regarded as a form of indecent exposure.?
The cross, with or without Jesus, is a nifty symbol: it shows death and simultaneously signifies the triumph over death. This instrument of torture is supposed to be a sign of hope, of course, because the crucified Christ was resurrected. But that’s tricky because it’s doubtful whether pictures can really express the opposite of what they show.?
Naked Jesus versus muffled-up woman ?
It is understandable that Western culture should summon up more tolerance towards its own symbols than towards those of its southeastern neighbours. Nonetheless, it should be clear that its symbols are no more innocuous and no less cruel. The West shouldn’t go overboard in its outrage at Islamic misogyny either: after all, it still puts up with the occupational ban on women priests in one of its main churches, and many a nun’s habit is not such a far cry from the burqa.
?In the clash over permissible symbols — naked Jesus versus muffled-up woman — Christianity’s explicit pictorial tradition comes up against Islam’s traditional ban on images. That the West should find the veil so sinister and inhumane is partly owing to its culture of exhibition, which equates freedom with disclosure, whether it be the disclosure of sins, of the body, or of images of God. Islam, however, like Judaism, expresses itself not in images, but in the observance of laws.?
Need to ponder our own cultural biases ?
In affective terms, imposing a radical ban on the burqa in the public domain, but no such ban on the cross, replicates an old cultural struggle over faith, law and the commandment “Thou shalt not make thee any graven image” — which Christian culture never observed anyway. The Belgian and French burqa ban ends up looking like an attempt to ban the ban on images. Why do that, what is there to be so afraid of??In debating the burqa, we need to ponder our own cultural biases and cruelties as well, especially in Europe. That doesn’t mean to make light of the full-body veil. It is an instrument of oppression. But should it therefore be prohibited by the state??
A strictly secular purge of the public domain will create areas of freedom, but at the same time it impoverishes and imposes a form of secularistic paternalism on society. It might be better to take a more even-handed stance, as in the German constitution, for instance, which combines the principle of the neutrality of the state with the protection of the free practice of religion. That leads to a not entirely clear-cut separation of church and state, true enough, but it reflects the complexity of the whole issue of religion and tolerates not only the cross, but also the headscarf/burqa. The principle of “neutrality through plurality” puts its faith in enlightened citizens and their creative resilience. We needn’t expect more than that for Europe.
(...)
http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/article/298191-burqa-cross-we-must-bear
Post a Comment