Do you think sharia is not creeping into American culture? This case removes all doubt. A New Jersey Judge acknowledges that a Muslim man violated New Jersey laws, but rules “not guilty” on the grounds that he was operating under his beliefs and consistent with his practices.
Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch provides some of the theological justification from Islamic authoritative sources for a Muslim man raping his wife:
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).
First to report on this case was Eugene Volokh of The Volokh Conspiracy, a blog written mainly by law professors. Volokh writes:
While recognizing that defendant had engaged in sexual relations with plaintiff against her expressed wishes … the judge did not find sexual assault or criminal sexual conduct to have been proven.
The judge’s reasoning according to court records:
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.
The judge needs a good proof reader, but that’s beside the point. The judge really needs to reject the free exercise of religious beliefs and practices WHEN DOING SO HARMS ANOTHER HUMAN BEING OR OTHERWISE BREAKS THE LAWS OF THE LAND!
Thank God for the appeals process because this sharia-loving judge was overruled by a higher court, who stated:
As the judge recognized, the case thus presents a conflict between the criminal law and religious precepts. In resolving this conflict, the judge determined to except defendant from the operation of the State’s statutes as the result of his religious beliefs. In doing so, the judge was mistaken (emphasis mine).
America Patriot and member of ACT! for America.