A NEW Jersey judge’s decision to refuse a restraining order sought by a young Muslim woman who had been raped and abused by her husband has been overturned on appeal.
While recognizing that the husband had engaged in sexual relations with his teenage bride against her expressed wishes in November 2008 and on the night of January 15 to 16, 2009, the judge at the original hearing did not find sexual assault or criminal sexual conduct to have been proven.
Islam gives abusers of women a free pass
The judge ruled that the husband, who had come from Morocco to the US with his arranged-marriage bride of 17, had been acting on his Islamic beliefs:
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.
After acknowledging that this was a case in which religious custom clashed with the law, and that under the law, the plaintiff had a right to refuse the defendant’s advances, the judge found that defendant did not act with a criminal intent when he repeatedly insisted upon intercourse, despite the plaintiff’s contrary wishes.
Reporting on this case, JihadWatch points out:
Muhammad said: ‘If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning’ (Bukhari 4.54.460).
He also said: ‘By him in Whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself [to him for sexual intercourse] she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel’s saddle ’(Ibn Majah 1854).
In overturning the judgement, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey noted that the husband told his bride:
You are my wife, I can do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do.
The appellate court reversed the judge decision, saying:
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 …
As the judge recognized, the case thus presents a conflict between the criminal law and religious precepts. In resolving this conflict, the judge determined to except defendant from the operation of the State’s statutes as the result of his religious beliefs. In doing so, the judge was mistaken.
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
July 27th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
the judge determined to except defendant from the operation of the State’s statutes as the result of his religious beliefs. In doing so, the judge was mistaken.
Amazing that that even needed to be said. Mistaken? I’m sure there is a better word but I can’t think of it right now. Not without major cussing.
July 27th, 2010 at 10:46 pm
I can’t believe anybody would begin to accept that “god made me rape my teenage bride” crap. Remind me again why atheists are considered the immoral ones…
July 27th, 2010 at 11:39 pm
Dang! Then just what did he desire or intend to do? Seems any rapist should be able to get off by that kind of reasoning.
July 28th, 2010 at 12:50 am
The first judge’s decision illustrates the dysfunctions of cultural relativism and the mistaken belief that people have religious freedom,even in the West this just isn’t true.It’s an amazing decision for a jurist and seems rather patronizing-His Honour sounds like another well-meaning ‘useful idiot’.
In Australia, a Moslem serial rapist thought that his religion made infidel women fair game,he received a 31 year jail sentence for ‘practising his religion’.That’s a more appropriate attitude.
July 28th, 2010 at 12:54 am
Can we get a name for that incompetent unnamed Judge? I think it’s important that the stink of their actions hang around their neck and siding with a rapist for dumb religious reasons should be the first thing that appears when you google their name. They should be fucking disbarred in fact. I couldn’t find it in the record of the appeal case, but then I’m not very good at reading legalese. Anyone that finds it out post it up, please.
July 28th, 2010 at 7:28 am
Was it Cherie Blair presiding? She has history in letting islamists get away with violent criminal behaviour.
Men of god? Barely even men. And as theres no such creature as allah, that doesn’t leave them with much.
I met her the other day btw. Worse in real life.
July 28th, 2010 at 8:13 am
Remind me again why atheists are considered the immoral ones…
Because we haven’t got a “moral compass”, Buffy!
July 28th, 2010 at 8:39 am
The Judge was:
Hon. Edith K. Payne, J.A.D.
(Judge, Part H, Appellate Division)
Suite 1101, North Tower
158 Headquarters Plaza
Morristown, NJ 07960-3965
It’s worth remembering that Justice was achieved on appeal, which is often the way the law works when it is ambiguous and requires clarification from a higher court.
July 28th, 2010 at 8:48 am
Was the judge another religious nutter who admired a person with “sincerely held beliefs” That would surely cloud his judgement.
Using religious belief as an excuse for abuse is about as valid as “the dog eat my school homework”
July 28th, 2010 at 9:11 am
Hey Angela – I had 3 dogs and they actually did once!
Totally savaged my maths book they did.
(though of course your argument is still valid
)
July 28th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Russell W,
dysfunctions of cultural relativism
You could be right. Or Angela could be right that it’s a question of ‘Any faith is better than no faith’. Or a combination. Either way, that judge has no place in a justice system.
(And I know it shouldn’t matter, but the the first judge was a woman?)
July 28th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
The sorry truth is that married women all over the world have been forced “raped” by their husbands since time immemorial. The men didn’t have to use a holy book. It’s part of the expectations of marriage and women who refuse can be repudiated. The Judge probably had this in mind when she threw out the case. Happily, in the West, society is progressing.
July 28th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
It’s sad that an appellate court had to be involved at all. When I came here from Kirkuk, I was told that the laws of the United States laws trump the rules of religion. If you study US history, you see time and time again such as Mormon polygamy being outlawed (although the courts allowed Mormons to be killed legally in Missouri) to the banning of drugs in other religions. Sons of Abraham were told to work on Saturday or be fired which resulted in Jews going into business for themselves. But now, since the Western “society is progressing” there is an apologetic approach towards those who are Islamic. Whether it is because of overcompensation for the racism that occur after 9/11 or due to fear of those radical Islamic terrorists, the progressive society is making compensations, especially in Europe and those more liberal states. In Detroit, we don’t even have as much lip service as I heard in New York and there is more Arabs there than anywhere else in the US. So as far as I am concerned, we need to quit “progressing” and just follow our laws (they are good laws), quit making special rules for different people (because I’m tired of people trying to make me fill out African American on forms, I am American regardless of skintone) and fire people who try to do so.
July 28th, 2010 at 11:19 pm
Hammad S,
Agreed,the problem is that religion and ‘race’ have become confused and sometimes equated.
Do people have to indicate their race when they fill out forms in the US,why is that relevant?
Don,
Interesting,it possibly does matter that the first judge was a woman. Over compensation for perceived gender bias perhaps?
July 28th, 2010 at 11:39 pm
@Hammad S
I understand how exasperated you must feel about that form. I remember how shocked I was myself at having to fill it out. It’s part of life in the US so you just have to go with it.
Most atheist , and certainly those on this site, would agree with you with regard to the disgraceful appeasements that our governments and the media make towards Islam. There is certainly no progress with regard to their waking up to the very real threat that is Islamic fundamentalism.
However, my point was that Western society has and is progressing with regard to a better deal for women. Due mainly to militant feminists. Women in the West have almost achieved equality with men in many areas of public life. A quieter but more important part of this progress is the change in the western man’s attitudes to women.
African Americans and women were once considered as chattel,- something that was bought like furniture and treated worse than. This is no longer the case. However, in many parts of Africa,Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, women continue to be treated as the property of a man. A creature little better than a dog with no personal liberty.
The Western man has acquired a better understanding and appreciation of women. Unfortunately, whenever religion and culture separates the sexes, sexual relationships are made difficult and the “rape” in the above story is probably a lot more common than most people imagine.
July 29th, 2010 at 1:17 am
RE: Hon. Edith K. Payne, J.A.D.
The judge you have identified was one of the appeal judges who corrected this injustice. The original Family Court Judge is still unknown, unfortunately.
July 29th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Are we entitled to ask a Judge who is presiding over us if he is religious or not, for I cannot see how they can judge a case fairly when in the beginning they are prejudiced.