Saturday, July 31, 2010

Sharia In New Jersey

While an ABC News story blindly scoffed at the Oklahoma referendum that prohibits the courts from substituting Sharia law in their legal decisions implying that there is no need for the referendum, the rest of the country is incrementally excepting Sharia as an alternative for American law.

By de Andréa

As a continuation and in support of my article titled “THE ISLAMIC STATE OF MICHIGAN” , the state of New Jersey, ‘not’ may be, but ‘will’ likely be, one of the next Islamic states that will be governed by the hatred of Islamic oppressive Sharia law. I say one of the next because it is becoming a race as to which state will stoop and bow the lowest, to Sharia and be the most politically tolerant and multi-Cultural toward the terrorist regime, deceptively called the peaceful religion of Islam.
Jihad Watch reported on Saturday that a New Jersey judge ruled that a Muslim man, accused of forcing non-consensual sex on his wife, was not guilty because of his religious beliefs. (Sharia Law) Husbands are also allowed to murder their wives under Sharia.
Fortunately, an appellate court had the good sense to overturn this absurd decision. But don’t let anyone tell you we don’t need to be concerned about Sharia law being imposed on us here in America! Dearborn Michigan for example totally ignores Constitutional Rulings by a Federal Court. Instead all of the people in Dearborn are subject to Sharia.

Sharia in New Jersey: Muslim husband rapes wife, judge sees no sexual assault because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex.
Because, after all, Satan’s prophet 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).

Muhammad 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).

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 in Sharia.

Here is the portion of his ruling that should leave no doubt that Islamic Sharia law has its foot in the door of New Jersey and is penetrating America:

  • "This court does not feel, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire, 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."
In other words, the husband’s belief in Sharia law ‘trumps’ New Jersey criminal law. The husband did not commit a crime because he was acting according to his own Sharia law. What this judge is blindly ignorant of, is that the murder if infidels is also consistent with Islamic Sharia and Islamic practices. “…slay them wherever you find them…” (Sara 4:76) When you meet them, strike off their heads…” Sura 47:4

This is surreptitiously becoming the standard by which all Americans will eventually be judged.

Luckily, ‘this time’ the appellate court overturned this decision, and this Sharia ruling by the New Jersey court was not 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): From today's opinion in S.D. v. M.J.R. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.), a domestic restraining order case:

  • The record shall reflect that plaintiff, S.D., and defendant, M.J.R., are citizens of Morocco and adherents to the Muslim faith. They were wed in Morocco in an arranged marriage on July 31, 2008, when plaintiff was seventeen years old. [FN1] The parties did not know each other prior to the marriage. On August 29, 2008, they came to New Jersey as the result of defendant's employment in this country as an accountant....

  • [Long discussion of the wife's allegations of abuse, which included several instances of nonconsensual sex as well as other abuse, omitted for space reasons. -EV]. Upon their return to the apartment, defendant forced plaintiff to have sex with him while she cried. Plaintiff testified that defendant always told her this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do.

  • After having sex, defendant took plaintiff to a travel agency to buy a ticket for her return to Morocco. However the ticket was not purchased, and the couple returned to the apartment. Once there, defendant threatened divorce, but nonetheless again engaged in nonconsensual sex while plaintiff cried. Later that day, defendant and his mother took plaintiff to the home of the Imam and, in the presence of the Imam, his wife, and defendant's mother, defendant verbally divorced plaintiff....[...]

  • "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."
While recognizing that defendant had engaged in sexual relations with plaintiff against her expressed wishes in November 2008 and on the night of January 15 to 16, 2009, the judge did not find sexual assault or criminal sexual conduct to have been proven. He stated:
  • After acknowledging that this was a case in which religious custom clashed with the law, and that under the law, plaintiff had a right to refuse defendant's advances, the judge found that defendant did not act with a criminal intent when he repeatedly insisted upon intercourse, despite plaintiff's violent contrary wishes.

  • The appellate court having found acts of domestic violence consisting of assault and harassment to have occurred, the judge turned to the issue of whether a final restraining order should be entered. He found such an order unnecessary, vacated the temporary restraints previously entered in the matter and dismissed plaintiff's domestic violence action.... The appellate court then reversed this absurd decision, saying: “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.”
THE BOTTOM LINE: Mistaken indeed… Surreptitiously and incrementally (Islamic, terrorist, oppressive Sharia law) will eventually be primary, replacing all other laws including the Constitution in the United States. Why? Because instead of stopping it as the appellate court in New Jersey did in this case, we are encouraging it. There are already Sharia Courts in Michigan and in Texas.

This is the agenda of Islam and Islam will never stop. But then what can we expect, when we have a Muslim President who believes in Sharia. They Must Be Stopped
de Andréa

No comments: