Muslim Group Sues Oklahoma over Anti-Shariah Ballot Measure (President, difference, husband)
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 find it interesting that those posting here that want to try to prove something in regards to this marital rape case as being proof of a Shariah law takeover in the U.S., haven't considered the multitude of cases in the U.S. regarding date rape (as well as I'm sure marital rape) that have had nothing to do with Shariah or any other religious law, but where ultimately the victim was ruled against. Reasons for this? I'm sure they vary and if I need to I will look up examples just to prove that #1) relationship rape is not something peculiar to islamic culture but pervades probably every culture, everywhere, and most definitely is quite pervasive in the U.S.; and #2) there is a tragic tendency to rule against the victim here in these cases, and it has nothing to do with judges' giving in to Shariah law, but everything to do with this culture's (THIS = AMERICA) tendency to view the female as a ***** and therefore probably "deserving" of what she gets.
I find it very odd that a few posters are fighting tooth and nail to excuse criminal acts committed in the U.S. on the basis of religious belief - in this case, Islamic Sharia law.
Not one poster is "fighting tooth and nail to excuse criminal acts committed in the United States on the basis of religious belief." Not one poster.
Some of us are fighting for the TRUTH. Which is that a judge made a bad decision in a ruling about a restraining order. The ruling had nothing to do with criminality. The ruling was an evaluation of the risk a husband posed to his estranged wife.
Your insistence that the judge ruled based on Sharia law is a falsehood. He ruled based on his evaluation of how dangerous the husband was. His evaluation took into consideration that the man and wife were both Moroccan and Muslims, and the man when he attacked his wife didn't know his actions were against the law. In his evaluation, he determined that the husband, now knowing that his actions were against the law, would not repeat those actions. He also considered that the CRIMINAL court, a separate court, had in all likelihood imposed a no contact order as a condition of bail, which would make a restraining order superfluous.
The appellate court overruled him for two reasons. The purpose of the restraining order is not about punishment. This hearing had nothing to do with the criminality of the defendant's actions. Restraining orders are set in place to prevent future harm. The appellate court overruled the judge because the judge's ruling gave credit to the man for not having criminal intent, but ignored the more salient issue that the man in his actions did know his actions were harmful. In other words, it didn't matter whether he intended to break the law, he did intend to assault his wife, and that was the salient point. They also expressed concern that the judge assumed that a no contact order was in place, and ruled on that assumption. They noted that the judge could have easily ascertained whether a no contact order was in place, and had a responsibility to do so.
There was no application of Sharia Law, and the Appellate court did not say any such thing. The characterization that there was an application of Sharia Law is misleading and also creates fear among American citizens. Baseless fear. An application of Sharia Law would have been a judge ruling that the defendant's actions were not criminal. And neither the family court judge nor anyone else ever suggested that the defendant's actions were not criminal.
I find it interesting that those posting here that want to try to prove something in regards to this marital rape case as being proof of a Shariah law takeover in the U.S., haven't considered the multitude of cases in the U.S. regarding date rape (as well as I'm sure marital rape) that have had nothing to do with Shariah or any other religious law, but where ultimately the victim was ruled against. Reasons for this?
The man's belief (Islamic Sharia law) was specifically cited as the reason the judge ruled lack of criminal intent.
The danger here is the establishment of legal precedent.
Have you not been following the thread? And it's quite obvious from your post that you did not read the Appeals Court decision.
Not one poster is "fighting tooth and nail to excuse criminal acts committed in the United States on the basis of religious belief." Not one poster.
Why are you arguing that a ruling of lack of criminal intent due to the man's belief (Islamic Sharia law) has nothing to do with excusing criminal acts based on a belief in Sharia law?
Quote:
Some of us are fighting for the TRUTH. Which is that a judge made a bad decision in a ruling about a restraining order. The ruling had nothing to do with criminality.
Not true. The judge ruled lack of criminal intent.
The man's belief (Islamic Sharia law) was specifically cited as the reason the judge ruled lack of criminal intent.
The danger here is the establishment of legal precedent.
Have you not been following the thread? And it's quite obvious from your post that you did not read the Appeals Court decision.
The judge RULED lack of criminal intent???? He OPINED lack of criminal intent. It's an important distinction legally.
And as usual, you refuse to answer whether YOU think the husband had criminal intent. Why would you refuse to answer that question? Oh yeah, because an honest answer would undermine your entire argument.
Why are you arguing that a ruling of lack of criminal intent due to the man's belief (Islamic Sharia law) has nothing to do with excusing criminal acts based on a belief in Sharia law?
Not true. The judge ruled lack of criminal intent.
He didn't RULE. He OPINED. His ruling had nothing to do with the CRIMINAL case. The SEPARATE CRIMINAL case.
Why are you arguing that a ruling of lack of criminal intent due to the man's belief (Islamic Sharia law) has nothing to do with excusing criminal acts based on a belief in Sharia law?
Not true. The judge ruled lack of criminal intent.
How could a family court judge ruling on a restraining order "excuse" criminal acts? He can't. His ruling has nothing to do with criminality. The CRIMINAL court rules on CRIMINALITY. The family court judge is decising whether a restraining order is necessary or not. His ruling has nothing to do with finding if the man is a criminal or not.
There was no application of Sharia Law, and the Appellate court did not say any such thing.
In fact, they did:
Quote:
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FINDING THAT DEFENDANT LACKED THE REQUISITE INTENT TO COMMIT SEXUAL ASSAULT AND CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONTACT BASED UPON HIS RELIGION
"In Islamic sharia, rape is adultery by force. So long as the woman is his wife, it cannot be termed as rape." - Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed, president of the Islamic Sharia Council in Britain
If a person runs over someone accidentally, they might have their license suspended and they might be charged with a crime. The criminal court will deal with whether a crime is committed. A SEPARATE court will deal with re-instating that license. That SEPARATE court might hear witnesses to the incident and read the police reports, and determine that the driver had no criminal intent when he ran down the pedestrian. And that judge might decide to re-instate the license. However the decision in that SEPARATE court will have no bearing on the CRIMINAL court rulings or proceedings.
Now, if the driver has a record of reckless driving, the family of the victim might file for an appeal. And the appeals court might decide to send the case back for another hearing because they might rule that the first judge erred in focusing on criminal intent, but didn't consider whether the actual act was, indeed, criminal because the death was the result of reckless driving or negligence. But again, the SEPARATE court ruling and the subsequent appeal will have NOTHING to do with the proceedings in CRIMINAL court. Because they are two separate things.
Sharia Law can only be said to have been imposed if the husband was found innocent of the CRIMINAL complaint against him, based on his religious beliefs. Unless you can find something in Sharia Law about restraining orders?
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.
