Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, it does not. The judge refused to grant a restraining order, citing the man's belief (Islamic Sharia Law) as proof of lack of criminal intent.
Quote:
The only reason that you give a damn is because there is a muslim involved. Before this, you would not care at all. And it shows. In fact, you and people like you are the problem----not the solution.
I'm the problem for defending a Muslim woman's right to not be raped by her husband in the U.S.? Marital rape is against the law in NJ (all states, actually). Why do you believe the Muslim woman should not be protected by that law?
No, it does not. The judge refused to grant a restraining order, citing the man's belief (Islamic Sharia Law) as proof of lack of criminal intent.
I'm the problem for defending a Muslim woman's right to not be raped by her husband in the U.S.? Marital rape is against the law in NJ (all states, actually). Why do you believe the Muslim woman should not be protected by that law?
The judge wasn't ruling on the rape. He was ruling on a restraining order. They are TWO separate things. Separate courts. Separate judges. And the judge's ruling in this case was overturned on appeal.
Sadly, this sort of law shouldn't be necessary. The thought that our courts would actually consider international law, or religious law, allowing them to override our own laws is just laughable. But it can and has happened. That's the thing that's scary. That's why us "right wingers" are getting so worked up over it.
The judge wasn't ruling on the rape. He was ruling on a restraining order. They are TWO separate things.
What part of the judge refused to grant a restraining order, citing the man's belief (Islamic Sharia Law) as proof of lack of criminal intent do you not understand?
I'm not making fun of you, I'm sure it was just a typo, but I do believe you mean "gist of it". "Jest of it" might have been a Freudian slip. But it was funny as can be, even though this is not a funny topic.
The judge ruled against extending a restraining order. His ruling was overturned. He did not uphold the right of a man to have sex with his wife on demand. So you still have not provided us with the Sharia law that the judge BASED his ruling upon.
Some times DC I find people can be just to serious and humor is needed to lighten the mood. (i'm wondering now what Freud has to do with East Texas dialect lol)
I'm more interested in the law suit of the Muslim Group and Oklahoma than I am this law suit that has been brought in for discussion.
So I've been just basically reading along...one never knows when one might learn something from reading, not participating.
What part of the judge refused to grant a restraining order, citing the man's belief (Islamic Sharia Law) as proof of lack of criminal intent do you not understand?
What part of "separate" cases do you not understand?
The rape is being prosecuted in a criminal court. Nothing that the civil court judge ruled has ANY bearing on the criminal proceedings.
The criminal court had already imposed a condition on bail forbidding the man to have contact with his wife. The wife had applied for and received an ADDITIONAL restraining order in civil court. The restraining order came up for modification, and the civil court judge was ruling on that secondary restraining order.
The judge didn't cite Sharia Law as proof of criminal intent or lack thereof. The judge considered the man's arguments of why the restraining order was not necessary. Namely, that the man had believed something, and no longer did believe that. The man's beliefs had CHANGED. The judge made his ruling on that basis. NOT Sharia Law. The judge erred by not sufficiently weighing the woman's rational fears that her husband still posed a threat. She appealed and WON.
Some times DC I find people can be just to serious and humor is needed to lighten the mood. (i'm wondering now what Freud has to do with East Texas dialect lol)
I'm more interested in the law suit of the Muslim Group and Oklahoma than I am this law suit that has been brought in for discussion.
So I've been just basically reading along...one never knows when one might learn something from reading, not participating.
I truly do appreciate your sense of humor. I laughed out loud when I read that, but I knew from our previous exchanges that it was either wordplay or a typo.
What part of "separate" cases do you not understand?
We are discussing the judge's refusal to grant a restraining order. His ruling included the following:
Quote:
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 didn't cite Sharia Law as proof of criminal intent or lack thereof.
Which 'belief' was referred to in the above judgment? According to Sheikh Sayeed, president of the UK's Islamic Sharia Council, that 'belief' is Islamic Sharia law.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(i'm wondering now what Freud has to do with East Texas dialect 
lol)
