Muslim Group Sues Oklahoma over Anti-Shariah Ballot Measure (Israel, extremist, racist)
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.
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...
I'm pretty sure Phyllis Schlafly isn't a Muslim, by the way.
...which has nothing to do with the NJ case of the Muslim man sexually assaulting his wife. It's illegal in NJ, as well as in International Law, but the judge found no criminal intent because of the man's belief in Islamic Sharia Law.
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?
I'm sorry, you're right, it is a criminal offense in Germany today. It only became a criminal offense in 1997, and some of my reference material is older than that, since I became interested and involved in laws against rape in the 1980's. But that was an example that still applies. It is not exclusively Muslim culture that doesn't consider a husband forcing himself upon his wife to be rape. This was actually a widely held belief that has only changed during the last few decades. It is not exclusive to Muslim beliefs, and in fact, living in fundamentalist Baptist country, I can tell you that many Christians actually agree with Ms Schlafly's position, that when a woman marries, that she is compelled to comply with her husband's sexual demands.
I would object to ANY other country's laws taking precedence over U.S. Laws in the U.S.
Moot point, though, as Germany also considers marital rape a criminal offense.
But in this judge's decision, no other laws took precedence over US Laws. Judges don't always make great decisions. But this judge didn't base his decision on anything except AMERICAN law.
...which has nothing to do with the NJ case of the Muslim man sexually assaulting his wife. It's illegal in NJ, as well as in International Law, but the judge found no criminal intent because of the man's belief in Islamic Sharia Law.
Wrong. This judge wasn't a criminal judge and wasn't ruling on criminal intent.
I'm sorry, you're right, it is a criminal offense in Germany today. It only became a criminal offense in 1997, and some of my reference material is older than that, since I became interested and involved in laws against rape in the 1980's. But that was an example that still applies.
Still applies? No. Not when it's known to be illegal.
Quote:
It is not exclusively Muslim culture that doesn't consider a husband forcing himself upon his wife to be rape. This was actually a widely held belief that has only changed during the last few decades. It is not exclusive to Muslim beliefs, and in fact, living in fundamentalist Baptist country, I can tell you that many Christians actually agree with Ms Schlafly's position, that when a woman marries, that she is compelled to comply with her husband's sexual demands.
...which does not change the fact that it is a criminal offense in NJ, and should have been treated as such in court. Belief in Islamic Sharia Law should not entitle one to a pass for criminal behavior commited within a jurisdiction, nor the consequences of such.
Still applies? No. Not when it's known to be illegal.
...which does not change the fact that it is a criminal offense in NJ, and should have been treated as such in court. Belief in Islamic Sharia Law should not entitle one to a pass for criminal behavior commited within a jurisdiction, nor the consequences of such.
It IS being treated as a criminal offense in NJ. The criminal proceedings are separate from the civil matter of a restraining order. Two separate things.
Wrong. This judge wasn't a criminal judge and wasn't ruling on criminal intent.
Perhaps someone should tell the judge that because that's exactly what he did with 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.
It IS being treated as a criminal offense in NJ. The criminal proceedings are separate from the civil matter of a restraining order. Two separate things.
The judge refused to grant the restraining order because of what he ruled to be a lack of criminal intent, based on the Muslim man's belief in Islamic Sharia Law.
Don't like the laws in my Nation being over your murderous religious bs, leave my Country!!! Real simple,go back to the land the real God has cursed because of your false profit you follow who was nothing more than a child raping thief and live under your bs shariah garbage.
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.