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.
The judge referred to the man's belief. The judge didn't refer to Sharia Law. He referred to the man's belief. This particular man was Muslim. But if he'd been German he might have believed the exact same thing. And the judge might have referred to the man's belief in exactly the same way. And do try to remember that some states (American states) do not recognize forced marital sex as rape. They call it domestic assault.
The judge didn't call it domestic assault, either. He specifically referred to the MUSLIM man's belief that he could have sex with his wife whenever he wanted to, her nonconsent notwithstanding, as proof of lack of intent to cause harm. As the judge referred to a MUSLIM man's belief, it is highly doubtful the judge was referring to German law.
Which belief do you think the judge was referring to in this statement?
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.
Sounds very much like Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed's explanation of Sharia Law: "In Islamic sharia, rape is adultery by force. So long as the woman is his wife, it cannot be termed as rape. It is reprehensible, but we do not call it rape."
How do you think this defense would fly for an American? As an attorney would you rely on it as a defense? As a client would you feel confident with an attorney that used this defense?
What defense? What the heck are you talking about?
The judge didn't call it domestic assault, either. He specifically referred to the MUSLIM man's belief that he could have sex with his wife whenever he wanted to, her nonconsent notwithstanding, as proof of lack of intent to cause harm. As the judge referred to a MUSLIM man's belief, it is highly doubtful the judge was referring to German law.
Which belief do you think the judge was referring to in this statement?
Sounds very much like Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed's explanation of Sharia Law: "In Islamic sharia, rape is adultery by force. So long as the woman is his wife, it cannot be termed as rape. It is reprehensible, but we do not call it rape."
And yet in referring to the man's belief that he could have sex with his wife whenever he wanted to, such a belief is not the sole provenance of Sharia beliefs. It is in fact the law in Germany. It was in fact the law in the United States not long ago. If the judge had cited it as a German man's belief, would you be trying to assert that German law was making inroads into American jurisprudence?
How do you think this defense would fly for an American? As an attorney would you rely on it as a defense? As a client would you feel confident with an attorney that used this defense?
If the "that's my belief" defense is allowed a pass, as happened in the NJ case, I'm going to take up the 'belief' that I'm entitled to walk into a bank and take all the cash it has on the premises. It won't be referred to as bank robbery because my 'belief' excuses it. I'll call it IC Law, and everyone will be required to recognize it and act accordingly.
And yet in referring to the man's belief that he could have sex with his wife whenever he wanted to, such a belief is not the sole provenance of Sharia beliefs. It is in fact the law in Germany. It was in fact the law in the United States not long ago. If the judge had cited it as a German man's belief, would you be trying to assert that German law was making inroads into American jurisprudence?
Sounds very much like Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed's explanation of Sharia Law: "In Islamic sharia, rape is adultery by force. So long as the woman is his wife, it cannot be termed as rape. It is reprehensible, but we do not call it rape."
And just a couple of years ago, Phyllis Schlafly explains why it cannot be termed a rape when a husband forces himself on his wife:
Recently, Washington University decided to reward Phyllis Schlafly for her work on behalf of ideas like women can't really be raped by their husbands and she gave an interview to the student newspaper where she reiterated that she does indeed believe this:
Could you clarify some of the statements that you made in Maine last year about martial rape?
I think that when you get married you have consented to sex. That's what marriage is all about, I don't know if maybe these girls missed sex ed. That doesn't mean the husband can beat you up, we have plenty of laws against assault and battery. If there is any violence or mistreatment that can be dealt with by criminal prosecution, by divorce or in various ways. When it gets down to calling it rape though, it isn't rape, it's a he said-she said where it's just too easy to lie about it.
Phyllis Schlafly, an American woman, responding to a student newspaper at a well-respected American university. I'm pretty sure Phyllis Schlafly isn't a Muslim, by the way.
If the "that's my belief" defense is allowed a pass, as happened in the NJ case, I'm going to take up the 'belief' that I'm entitled to walk into a bank and take all the cash it has on the premises. It won't be referred to as bank robbery because my 'belief' excuses it. I'll call it IC Law, and everyone will be required to recognize it and act accordingly.
Since he didn't use it as a defense in a criminal court, or even as a defense in a civil court, your remarks here, while amusing, are not apropos.
And yet in referring to the man's belief that he could have sex with his wife whenever he wanted to, such a belief is not the sole provenance of Sharia beliefs. It is in fact the law in Germany.
Not sure where you're getting your info, but marital rape is a criminal offense in Germany. And is also a criminal offense in all 50 states, as well as a crime under International Law. Is marital rape a crime?
Since he didn't use it as a defense in a criminal court, or even as a defense in a civil court, your remarks here, while amusing, are not apropos.
On the contrary, the judge used the man's beliefs to rule a lack of criminal intent:
Quote:
This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to orintent 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.
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.
