US judge cites Sharia Law in decision

[SW VandeCarr]

In a recent case in New Jersey, a judge cited the husband's religion in a case where his wife asserted she was raped by her husband and was seeking a protective order. Contrary to some reports, the judge did not say the husband was legally entitled to sexual relations with his wife against her will, or that Sharia Law trumped US Law in this case. However, he did cite the husband's beliefs under Sharia Law as a sufficient reason not to find criminal intent or the necessity for a protective order. The ruling was overturned on appeal.

http://lhla.org/breaking_news/?p=5274

What are the limits of allowing customs and practices that immigrants bring to countries? What is permitted and what is not? In Canada, I understand Sharia has some legal standing in Ontario although I don't know to what extent. In the EU, there is discussion of allowing divorce under Sharia Law.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-want-Sharia-law-applied-British-courts.html

I'd particularly like to hear from people in countries with secular constitutions re the status of Sharia and religious law in general.

 

[rootX]

What are the limits of allowing customs and practices that immigrants bring to countries?

It matters more what kind of customs and practices are acceptable.

I remember reading somewhere in the government documents that Canada does not embrace barbaric cultural practices such as spousal abuse, honor killing etc. I believe there are some good things in Sharia Law also. Supporting those does not mean one is supporting everything in it.

 

[Proton Soup]

in the US, we are guaranteed equal protection under the law. i don't think that is something we can afford to lose. for some citizens to have more, less, or different rights than others makes them more, less, or different citizens. we had variable citizenship at times in the past, but it didn't work out so well and we had to correct it. so, no, i'd rather not repeat past mistakes. if you want to have a sharia-type relationship with your wife here in the US, you'll have to do it with her consent and blessing.

 

[vertices]

in the US, we are guaranteed equal protection under the law. i don't think that is something we can afford to lose. for some citizens to have more, less, or different rights than others makes them more, less, or different citizens. we had variable citizenship at times in the past, but it didn't work out so well and we had to correct it. so, no, i'd rather not repeat past mistakes.

Yes indeed, equal protection under the law is of crucial importance to any functioning democracy. You simply cannot have parallel systems of laws for certain groups of people.

if you want to have a sharia-type relationship with your wife here in the US, you'll have to do it with her consent and blessing.

A 'shariah-type relationship' is quintessentially sexist - are you saying shariah laws to do with marriage should trump legislation to do with equality, if the wife simply agrees to such a relationship?

 

[lisab]

Yes indeed, equal protection under the law is of crucial importance to any functioning democracy. You simply cannot have parallel systems of laws for certain groups of people.

Absolutely. Lady Justice wears a blindfold for a reason.

 

[rootX]

Ontario, the most populous province in Canada, has allowed Catholic and Jewish faith-based tribunals to settle family law matters such as divorce on a voluntary basis since 1991.

The practice got little attention until Muslim leaders demanded the same rights.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20050912/mcguinty_shariah_050911/

I am surprised that they provide religions legal status.

 

[Proton Soup]

A 'shariah-type relationship' is quintessentially sexist - are you saying shariah laws to do with marriage should trump legislation to do with equality, if the wife simply agrees to such a relationship?

i think you missed the part about consent. it's really none of my business if a wife chooses to submit to her husband, or a husband chooses to submit to his wife.

 

[mheslep]

i think you missed the part about consent. it's really none of my business if a wife chooses to submit to her husband, or a husband chooses to submit to his wife.

Rape never equates to consent; the two are opposites by definition.

 

[Proton Soup]

Rape never equates to consent; the two are opposites by definition.

who said anything about rape? consent is not rape.

 

[Borek]

Original case was about rape.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

It matters more what kind of customs and practices are acceptable.

I remember reading somewhere in the government documents that Canada does not embrace barbaric cultural practices such as spousal abuse, honor killing etc. I believe there are some good things in Sharia Law also. Supporting those does not mean one is supporting everything in it.

There may be "good things" in religious law, but should religion rule in a secular state? Good for who? I'm sure many men might like the elevated status that Shariah gives them. It's "good" for men.

In terms of people voluntarily entering into submitting to religious tribunals to decide family issues, there are all kinds of problems. Suppose you don't like the decision. Are you legally bound by it? How should an a religious organization enforce its decisions in family law?

What about children? Do they have a voice in whether they want to submit to religious law?

 

[nismaratwork]

I don't see the issue, we have plenty of idiot judges... that's why we have appeals courts.

This guy just sounds like a misogynist in search of justification for me.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

A rape case would be a criminal case. In the US if both parties agree, a civil case can be heard in a Beit Din, a Jewish religious court. I assume that the same is true for Sharia law, but I don't know the name of the Sharia religious court. Apparently, in Great Britain, there is a Muslim Arbitration Tribunal which can try civil cases.

 

[nismaratwork]

A rape case would be a criminal case. In the US if both parties agree, a civil case can be heard in a Beit Din, a Jewish religious court. I assume that the same is true for Sharia law, but I don't know the name of the Sharia religious court. Apparently, in Great Britain, there is a Muslim Arbitration Tribunal which can try civil cases.

Criminal matters in the US can be prosecuted by the DA on behalf of the defendant, rare as that is, especially in a rape case. You can bring a civil suit, but there is no capacity to render arbitration unless both parties agree, which is not a civil or criminal matter... just a legal contract.

In Sharia law in practice:

Rape VICTIM is punished:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1570495/Saudi-Arabia-defends-sentence-for-rape-victim.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7096814.stm

Analysis of Hudud law in Pakistan:
http://www.karamah.org/docs/Zina_article_Final.pdf

In theory: You need 4 Muslim men in good standing in the community to be witnesses to a rape and testify for a conviction. Remember that false accusations (meaning, the woman can't get the required number of witnesses as well) = imprisonment at the LEAST.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudud

This site is not impartial, but the verses are accurate, with links, as is the Hadith:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/002-rape_adultery.htm

 

[turbo]

Here is a very good article about the principals of Sharia. The abuses carried out by radical governments in the ME, including stonings, whippings, etc are cultural responses and not supported by Sharia.

There are six principles of shariah. They are derived from the Qur'an, which Muslims believe is the word of God. All Islamic religious rules must be in line with these six principles of shariah.

Aha! The six principles must be about killing infidels, veiling women, stoning people for adultery, honor killings and female genital cutting, right? Nope.

Here they are, the six principles of shariah:

1. The right to the protection of life.
2. The right to the protection of family.
3. The right to the protection of education.
4. The right to the protection of religion.
5. The right to the protection of property (access to resources).
6. The right to the protection of human dignity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sumbul-alikaramali/whos-afraid-of-shariah_b_701331.html

 

[nismaratwork]

Here is a very good article about the principals of Sharia. The abuses carried out by radical governments in the ME, including stonings, whippings, etc are cultural responses and not supported by Sharia.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sumbul-alikaramali/whos-afraid-of-shariah_b_701331.html

We have principles in culture and law too, but the right to pursue happiness and freedom, and more doesn't always jive with the reality of how the law or society works. It's the same with Sharia, but the latter is really nasty in its technical execution however lovely its sentiments.

 

[talk2glenn]

In a recent case in New Jersey, a judge cited the husband's religion in a case where his wife asserted she was raped by her husband and was seeking a protective order. Contrary to some reports, the judge did not say the husband was legally entitled to sexual relations with his wife against her will, or that Sharia Law trumped US Law in this case. However, he did cite the husband's beliefs under Sharia Law as a sufficient reason not to find criminal intent or the necessity for a protective order. The ruling was overturned on appeal.

This is a queer judicial finding; I'm not surprised it was tossed on appeal, but I am surprised that the judge was not officially sanctioned by the Appellate court.

It is true that crminial guilt requires intent and action. However, criminal intent has nothing to do with how the defendant feels about the merits of the law itself, and everything to do with whether or not defendant intended to break the law.

In this case, the judge acknowledges that the defendant intended to rape, as defined under US law, his wife, but argues that because the defendant felt his actions were not rape (however it is defined under the law), intent is not met.

This is an absurd conclusion, and could be used to justify any criminal conduct (an appeal to belief - I do not believe that this was murder, but an honor killing, for example).

Your opinion of the law is irrelevant. If you meant to break it, intent is satisfied.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_(criminal )

 

[Proton Soup]

A rape case would be a criminal case. In the US if both parties agree, a civil case can be heard in a Beit Din, a Jewish religious court. I assume that the same is true for Sharia law, but I don't know the name of the Sharia religious court. Apparently, in Great Britain, there is a Muslim Arbitration Tribunal which can try civil cases.

i was just yesterday reading a story about a jewish couple who had received a civil divorce, yet the man would not give his wife a "get", which means under jewish law she's still married to him and cannot remarry under their religion. but this has no force of civil law. she can remarry if she wants, tho it may not be accepted by her religious community or family. catholicism is similar, with the catholic church recognizing or not marriages and divorces of its members, and sometimes granting annulments. but this has no force of law. it's more like rules of membership for an exclusive club.

and this is about all the muslim community should expect concerning sharia law in the US. they're free to peacefully observe their religious practices. they're just not free to use force or violence to enforce it. the men can't force their wives to have sex with them or stay in their marriages. peer and family pressure are their only options if they want to observe their faith here.

 

[rootX]

There may be "good things" in religious law, but should religion rule in a secular state? Good for who? I'm sure many men might like the elevated status that Shariah gives them. It's "good" for men.

In terms of people voluntarily entering into submitting to religious tribunals to decide family issues, there are all kinds of problems. Suppose you don't like the decision. Are you legally bound by it? How should an a religious organization enforce its decisions in family law?

What about children? Do they have a voice in whether they want to submit to religious law?

I took your question out of context:

What are the limits of allowing customs and practices that immigrants bring to countries?

But religions should not have any influence on the legal systems.

 

[GeorgCantor]

What does it mean to 'rape' your own wife? Sounds to me like stealing your own car or hitting yourself in the eye. Where i live, marriage is a declaration of sexual union.

 

[rootX]

What does it mean to 'rape' your own wife? Sounds to me like stealing your own car or hitting yourself in the eye. Where i live, marriage is a declaration of sexual union.

You can posses a car but not your wife.

 

[GeorgCantor]

You can posses a car but not your wife.

Sure, but how do you go from not possessing to "rape"??

 

[nismaratwork]

What does it mean to 'rape' your own wife? Sounds to me like stealing your own car or hitting yourself in the eye. Where i live, marriage is a declaration of sexual union.

So, if your wife wants to screw you all day, even if you need to get to work, or have some kind of physical pain, or are just plain tired... she should be able to strap you down and feed you viagra? Putting that obvious notion aside, rape is someone saying "NO", and that isn't a right that you give up in any circumstance at all.

Sure, but how do you go from not possessing to "rape"??

Like this: "Georg, I'm not attracted to you anymore, no, stop."... and you don't stop. Or, you say, "Honey, I'm not attracted to you anymore, no, stop"... and she doesn't stop. Get it?

 

[GeorgCantor]

So, if your wife wants to screw you all day, even if you need to get to work, or have some kind of physical pain, or are just plain tired... she should be able to strap you down and feed you viagra?

I didn't know a male could be raped!? Nice principles you have over there. Where i live, a male has to have an erection(i.e. no rape) for any sexual activity.

Putting that obvious notion aside, rape is someone saying "NO", and that isn't a right that you give up in any circumstance at all.

So you are saying that there are 130 million wedded raped american women?? What if she says "NO! Stop!" in the middle of the intercourse?

Like this: "Georg, I'm not attracted to you anymore, no, stop."... and you don't stop. Or, you say, "Honey, I'm not attracted to you anymore, no, stop"... and she doesn't stop. Get it?

Sure you'd probably stop because you'd cause her unpleasantness, but it's not rape. That's not how normal women feel towards their husbands. If i get old and ugly, that'd be rape too??

 

[nismaratwork]

I didn't know a male could be raped!? Nice principles you have over there. Where i live, a male has to have an erection(i.e. no rape) for any sexual activity.

You don't know that a man can be raped? Wow... well here you go:

Anally
Orally
Given drugs such as viagra et al to induce an erection. In fact, there are cases of male rape by women which don't require drugs... we guys do tend to be wired in a particular way.

So you are saying that there are 130 million raped american women??

Are 130 million american women saying "No", and then forced to have sex?

Sure you'd probably stop because you'd cause her unpleasantness, but it's not rape. That's not how normal women feel towards their husbands.

That's your judgment, and irrelevant, because we're talking about cases where you DON'T stop. If you stopped, then no rape occurs... and forgive the turn of phrase here... duh.

As for how "normal women" feel about their husbands, are you honestly saying that with divorce at the rate it is, and infidelity of both genders that all married couples are happy and attracted to each other?

Oh, and I'm American, so "over there" is over here... to be honest I kind of assumed you were from some terribly backward country; now I can see you're just being (I hope deliberately) obtuse.

 

[nismaratwork]

Oh, and I can't wait to see what the response from female members of PF is to this... I mean, I'm a guy and I'd find what you're saying offensive it weren't so clearly rooted in blind ignorance.

 

[GeorgCantor]

Oh, and I can't wait to see what the response from female members of PF is to this... I mean, I'm a guy and I'd find what you're saying offensive it weren't so clearly rooted in blind ignorance.

A husband and wife BELONG to each other. They cannot rape each other any more than i can steal my own car. This reasoning is so ridiculous as to make it a sticky on facebook or other social networks.

 

[Hurkyl]

Can't beat or murder each other either, I suppose?

 

[GeorgCantor]

You don't know that a man can be raped? Wow... well here you go:

Anally
Orally
Given drugs such as viagra et al to induce an erection. In fact, there are cases of male rape by women which don't require drugs... we guys do tend to be wired in a particular way.

Reference please.

Are 130 million american women saying "No", and then forced to have sex?

OF COURSE! At least once in their lifetime. Isn't that somewhat obvious?

That's your judgment, and irrelevant, because we're talking about cases where you DON'T stop. If you stopped, then no rape occurs... and forgive the turn of phrase here... duh.

As for how "normal women" feel about their husbands, are you honestly saying that with divorce at the rate it is, and infidelity of both genders that all married couples are happy and attracted to each other?

If she has had sex for 5 years with you on 1003 occassions, the 1004th time cannot be a rape. You have some very funny laws over there in the US.

Oh, and I'm American, so "over there" is over here... to be honest I kind of assumed you were from some terribly backward country; now I can see you're just being (I hope deliberately) obtuse.

I am not from the US, but it isn't the first time i encounter very strange judicial practices. You can't beat a bear on the head with a stick longer than 40 inches and such...

 

[JaredJames]

GeargCantor, words fail me.

You OWN a car, you DO NOT in any way own your wife / husband.

If you take two people, one says "I want to have sex with you" and the other says "no", but the first proceeds to do it anyway, that is rape, whether in marriage or not.

 

[JaredJames]

Male Rape:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_gender

BS on the 130 million women (unless you can provide a reference).

 

[GeorgCantor]

GeargCantor, words fail me.

You OWN a car, you DO NOT in any way own your wife / husband.

If you take two people, one says "I want to have sex with you" and the other says "no", but the first proceeds to do it anyway, that is rape, whether in marriage or not.

I understand now that is a commonly accepted understanding in the US, but you are asking for trouble with this. A "rape" by a husband is not comparable in ANY way WHATSOEVER to a rape by a stranger. And this is exactly 100.00% certain.

 

[JaredJames]

Reference please.

as above

rubbish unless you prove it with a reference

again, rubbish

i prefer that law to ones such as having a hand removed for theft...

 

[JaredJames]

I understand now that is a commonly accepted understanding in the US, but you are asking for trouble with this. A "rape" by a husband is not comparable in ANY way WHATSOEVER to a rape by a stranger. And this is exactly 100.00% certain.

The physiological and psychological effects of rape whether from husband or stranger are no different.

edit: i want numbers to prove you 100% certain. so far you haven't given any references and as such are working against the rules of this forum

 

[russ_watters]

Locked pending moderation.