Man Rapes Wife and Pleads Muslim, American Trial Court Judge Says Okay!

UPDATE 8:13pm: Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. Decided July 23, 2010. The opinion of the court was delivered by PAYNE, J.A.D. Please click HERE to read the full details of the case and legal decisions.

Plaintiff, S.D., appeals from the denial of a final restraining order following a finding of domestic violence. On appeal, she raises the following issues:

POINT ONE

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FINDING THAT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HAD BEEN COMMITTED BUT FAILING TO ISSUE A FINAL RESTRAINING ORDER.

A. Defendant's conduct constituted an egregious act of domestic violence.

B. The pendency of simultaneous court proceedings, does not negate the importance of affording domestic violence protections when justified by the record.

C. Given that the parties were about to have a child in common, the trial court erred in determining that the parties would have no further need for communication.

POINT TWO

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.

We reverse and remand for entry of a final restraining order.

*********************************************************************

New Hammer

Man Rapes Wife and Pleads Muslim, American Judge Says Okay

written by Staff

August 7, 2010

Advocates of Anti-Shariah Measures Alarmed by Judge’s Ruling

[Fox News 08/05/10] A New Jersey family court judge’s decision not to grant a restraining order to a woman who was sexually abused by her Moroccan husband and forced repeatedly to have sex with him is sounding the alarm for advocates of laws designed to ban Shariah in America.

Judge Joseph Charles, in denying the restraining order to the woman after her divorce, ruled that her ex-husband felt he had behaved according to his Muslim beliefs — and that he did not have “criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault” his wife.

According to the court record, the man’s wife — a Moroccan woman who had recently immigrated to the U.S. at the time of the attacks — alleged:

“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.”

So the judge effectively ruled in favor of rape because the man pleaded Muslim. We now have judges ruling by the guidance of not American law and the Constitution, but by Islam and the Koran. I wonder what bin Laden would be allowed to get away with under judge Charles. It is not out of the question when a judge allows a man to rape his wife because Islam says it is okay.

But Ibrahim Hooper, national communications director for the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR), said claims about Shariah law in the U.S. play into irrational fears about Muslims.

“It fits into the whole extremist Muslim-basher theme that Muslims are somehow trying to replace the Constitution with Islamic law,” he said.

“That is absolute fantasy, and hateful. Islamic beliefs don’t permit rape of any kind,” he said, speaking of the New Jersey case.

CAIR spokesmouth, Hooper, as per usual, resorts to smear tactics to deflect attention away from having to address the substance of the point at hand. He claims it is Muslim bashing to observe fact and that concerns about shariah law superseding American law are “absolute fantasy.” But are they? Nope. Not at all. In point of fact, radical Islamists want to replace man made civil law with shariah.

As Daniel Pipes noted in the New York Post way back in 2002, none other than the chairman of CAIR himself once boasted of his organization’s Islamic supremacy oriented views.

As reported by the San Ramon Valley Herald, CAIR Chairman Omar M. Ahmad told a crowd of California Muslims in July 1998, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.”

With his ruling sanctioning marital rape judge Charles has made the ex-chairman of CAIR’s desire come true. At least in his little court room. In his ruling Islam and the Koran served as the “highest authority in America.”

And as for the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)?

The same Islamist apologists the Department of Homeland Security refuses to deal with.

The same Islamist apologists the FBI refuses to deal with.

The same Islamist apologists that Senator Charles Schumer says is an organization “which we know has ties to terrorism.”

The same Islamist apologists that Senator Dick Durbin says is “unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its associations with groups that are suspect.”

The same Islamist apologists that Senator Barbara Boxer withdrew a “certificate of accomplishment” from and “expressed concern” about while citing law enforcement officials as saying CAIR “gives aid to international terrorist groups.”

The same Islamist apologists that Steven Pomerantz, the FBI’s former chief of counterterrorism, says “its leaders, and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups.”

The same Islamist apologists that counter terrorism expert and founder of the Investigative Project on Terrorism Steven Emerson calls “a radical fundamentalist front group for Hamas.”

The same Islamist apologists that were named by federal prosecutors as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the Hamas funding Holy Land Foundation case.

The same Islamist apologists that Muslim Seifeldin Ashmawy, publisher of the New Jersey-based Voice of Peace, said was an organization of “extremists whose views do not represent Islam.”

The same Islamist apologists that Muslim Jamal Hasan of the Council for Democracy and Tolerance says wants “Islamic hegemony the world over by hook or by crook.”

The same Islamist apologists that Muslim Kamal Nawash, leader of Free Muslims Against Terrorism, says “almost all of their members are theocratic Muslims who reject secularism and want to establish Islamic states.”

The same Islamist apologists that Muslim Tashbih Sayyed of the Council for Democracy and Tolerance says is “the most accomplished fifth column” in the United States.

The same Islamist apologists that Stephen Schwartz of the Center on Islamic Pluralism says “should be considered a foreign-based subversive organization, comparable in the Islamist field to the Soviet-controlled Communist Party, USA.”

Please click HERE to read the entire article...