Thursday, October 21, 2010

Sharia Comes To New Jersey

Many of you are aware of a Supreme Court decision in the Islamic nation of the United Arab Emirates which recently held that wife and child beating are acceptable so long as the punishment wasn't "too extreme." But what you may not know is that a judge in New Jersey recently considered sharia law and Islamic custom in rejecting a restraining order requested by an abused wife.

There is a very disturbing trend in American courts that results in the negation of American law and custom in favor of politically-correct multicultural nonsense. Dangerous nonsense. Here's a quick summary of the case and the New Jersey judge's decision: A married Moroccan Muslim couple moved to New Jersey some years back. After suffering continued beatings and spousal rapes, the wife finally resorted to the New Jersey courts. The facts are undisputed. Police took photos of the battering, demonstrating multiple severe bruising over her entire body. A gynecologist testified to the forced sex. At the couple's house, blood stains were found in many locations, most noticeably on the couple's bed. DNA tests established that all the blood stains came from the wife.

The wife requested a restraining order against the husband. Slam-dunk prior to the latest abandonment of American decency and law. But these are very perilous times. Even the husband's imam testified that Islam requires that the wife must submit to her husband's sexual demands. But he refused to answer what Islam allows if she says no. The husband himself, citing his version of Islamic law, testified that he warned the wife that: "You must do whatever I tell you to do. I want to hurt your flesh. This is according to our religion. You are my wife, I can do anything to you." Had a cult fundamentalist Christian said the same thing by way of defense, the court would have laughed heartily before turning the husband over to the police.

The court made a decision that in my lengthy years in the law I never expected to hear from an American judge. First, the judge determined that the criminal acts were proved (this was a civil court, so the judge had no immediate jurisdiction over the criminal charges). BUT, he then unbelievably denied the restraining order. Without even the concurrence of the defendant's imam, the judge simply ignored New Jersey law and instituted his own version of Islamic/sharia law. He further held that the husband could not be culpable for the physically violent sexual assaults because, hold your breath, "he did not have the specific intent to sexually assault his wife, and because his actions were consistent with his religious practices." Therefore under sharia law this Muslim husband had the right to rape his wife.

In America, we are all supposed to be bound equally by the laws of our nation and our states. It has been the long history of American jurisprudence that you don't apply California law to an Illinois case, you don't apply British law to a federal case, and you don't apply religious law of any kind to any case. This creeping Islamism is an abandonment of the entire course of American jurisprudence. It is an early example of the "special treatment" for Muslims that no other civil or religious class of Americans is allowed. Furthermore, it indicates the willingness of damned fool liberal jurists to begin following the descent into hell already being experienced in Great Britain where there are government-sanctioned Islamic courts separate from the English judicial system.

I wonder how the judge would rule if I beat the crap out him because my religious views allow me to physically attack judicial wrongdoers. In fact, I'd be jailed just for making the threat to throttle him. At least one state, Oklahoma, has begun the march that every state should join by amending its state constitution to forbid state court judges from considering sharia or the law of other nations in a purely state matter. I think it would be a great development if the US Supreme Court would also follow that lead.

Before packing my .357 Magnum and booking a flight to New Jersey, I found out that a New Jersey appellate panel overruled the judge's decision and ordered him to issue the restraining order forthwith (in legal parlance, "forthwith" means "yesterday, you idiot"). That does not alter the fact that an American judge was willing to ignore a very specific New Jersey anti-spousal abuse statute in order not to offend a practitioner of one single religion. It wasn't Christianity, or Judaism, or Buddhism, or Hinduism. It was the one religion that promotes hatred, male domination of women, jihad, and mass murder for infidels--namely, Islam.

According to current politically-correct thought, I'm now supposed to do a lengthy disclaimer that I only mean "radical Islam." Instead I offer the following, "radical Islam" is a redundancy. When an allegedly moderate imam can't bring himself to condemn spousal rape and physical abuse committed by one of his faithful, I have to ask "what is moderate Islam?" There is more to mainstream Islam than flying airplanes into skyscrapers. And if America ever allows sharia to enter the legal system in any form, America is doomed and the rule of law is gone forever.

Somewhat related note: On Wednesday, National Public Radio fired liberal contributor Juan Williams for making the very sensible remark on the Fox O'Reilly Factor that "when I get on a plane and see people in Muslim garb who identify first and foremost as Muslims, I get nervous." The rest of his remarks were sharply aimed at dispelling what he considered to be anti-Islamic stands taken by others. He has consistently been a promoter of the concept of "broad moderate Islam." None of that mattered when the leftists discovered he had made one small and rather innocuous remark aimed at fundamentalist Muslims of a very specific type. So far, the rumor is that CAIR (the Council on American Islamic Relations) called NPR and demanded Williams be fired. NPR is largely funded by taxpayer funds, so this is getting very close to government censorship of any speech that is even mildly critical of even minor factions of Islam. A judge happily applying sharia law. A taxpayer-funded national radio station firing someone for making a very minor criticism of Islam. A President who bows low to the Saudi king. Are you getting nervous yet?

29 comments:

Tam said...

Yes, nervous. Terrified and horrified even. But then, I'm just a typical white person. And you sir, are just using hate and fear mongering to promote your radical views.

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

I too am getting tired of being beat about the head with this is only radical Islam. True Islam is a religion of peace.

I found out that the Koran was written by one man. His later entries as compared to his early entries are radical. When the Koran writings are in conflict, the later writings are considered to be true. So True Islam is Radical.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tam: And don't forget we've been called a right-wing rag as well. I suspect I'll be older than Methulesah before I see a massive demonstration of moderate Muslims condemning Islamic violence. I have no intention of waiting for that. This danger has to be pointed out early and often before it gets a solid foothold. In the meantime, if I ever get into trouble, I will demand to be tried in a Lutheran Court by a jury of my fellow Lutherans without interference from that pesky civil authority.

BevfromNYC said...

Ugh. How did this not make it to the local papers?

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: There are many different versions of how the Koran actually came about. Much of the battle between Sunnis and Shiites grows out of those early disputes. The important point is that there is no exegesis allowed in Islam, and that all the Prophet's alleged words at the time of the writing of the Koran still apply today. They can't be altered or interpreted using any meaning the imams and ayatollahs don't give them. Kill the Jews. Murder, convert or enslave the Christians. There is no historical perspective to this. It was true then, it is true now, and there can be no accommodation to other beliefs, no tolerance, no freedom.

I do believe that most American Muslims don't really want the blood of their fellow Americans, and wouldn't give even passing consideration of violent acts against their neighbors. Still, that could change rapidly with the heavy influence of Wahhabist support for militant Islam. And to paraphrase Edmund Burke: "All that is necessary for the triumph of radical Islam is that good Muslims do nothing."

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: If you pause for just a minute, you already know the answer to why it didn't make it to the local newspapers (or commercial TV or cable news).

AndrewPrice said...

So where are the feminists on this? It's funny how they can yell and scream about someone using pronouns unfairly, but when it comes to Islam turning women into slaves, they can't seem to speak up.

JG said...

Thanks for the shout-out to the anti-Sharia law in Oklahoma. The original authors of the bill (SQ 755), Rep. Duncan & Sen. Sykes, are getting quite the flaying in the local media, as you might imagine. This is going straight to facebook.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: This is so far beyond the pale that I've come to believe that there is quite literally not a single spokeswoman for N.O.W. who will stand up for women who stand up for themselves. Not a word from them about Ms. Jerry Brown calling Meg Whitman a bitch (and worse). Not a word about Muslim oppression of women. Not a word about Islamic spousal rape. Their faux indignation over a man looking askance at a woman falls apart completely when it comes up against those who truly do hate women.

LawHawkRFD said...

JG: A sensible, thoughtful, restore-the-Constitution and state's rights act deserves praise and publication. I hope your Sen. Sykes and Rep. Duncan laugh in the face of media scorn, knowing that they have the support of a large majority of the American people.

BevfromNYC said...

Where have the feminists been in the entire issue of women's right and Islam? Crickets can be heard over their outrage.

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: Sad, and accurate. I'm at a complete loss to explain it. They could at least have put on some kind of mock horror over these multiple examples of how women are treated, but they just don't. Maybe they like their throats in one piece more than they like their alleged principles.

StanH said...

I love your articles Lawhawk, but damn that one pissed me off. We as Americans must resist this creeping Islamo-Fascism with every fiber of our being. That judge would have that woman’s blood on his hands, if the appellate court hadn’t reversed that dumbass ruling. We have many challenges as a country, it looks like this is yet another, thanks for bringing attention this disgusting story…just wow!

LawHawkRFD said...

Stan: Sorry, but I felt I had to do it. I knew the main story would disappear into a liberal black hole. To quote a famous Democrat, "our job is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." If this article didn't raise everybody's blood pressure at least a little, I would have had to give up.

Anyone who says "it can't happen here" has not followed the history of once-great nations that collapsed from their inability to defend and protect their core values. When the German Chancellor admits very publicly that multiculturalism is a failure and is badly damaging her country, it's time for Americans to start realizing that exactly the same thing is happening here.

Joel Farnham said...

Update on Juan Williams. He gets a three year contract. He is going to be paid 2 million to give out his opinions. Lucky stiff!!!!

He has earned it though. He is liberal and he does piss me off, but man!!! Two million for getting mugged by liberal hypocrisy?!!! Where do I sign up for that!!!?

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: Who is the contract with? NPR? Fox? Someone else? I haven't seen that news yet.

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-juan-williams-20101022,0,4294425.story

He is going to be on Fox. They are putting him in for O'Reilly tomorrow night. He will be around. I do like Juan better than Colmes.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: I had heard rumors that Fox might do that. Glad it happened. I'm waiting to see if NPR will realize just how much damage they've done to themselves. Despite my firm determination not to write about this controversy, I'm going to do it tomorrow in spite of myself.

Joel Farnham said...

It's is important LawHawk. We need an honest talk about Muslims. We needed it 9/12/2001. Maybe we finally can get something going along those lines.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: The sad part of the Juan Williams fiasco is that attempting to have a dialogue with O'Reilly about Islam was the thing that brought on his downfall at NPR (although I guarantee you it wasn't the only factor).

Joel Farnham said...

You are right. Juan Williams also said that Michelle Obama might be an albatross around Obama's and the Democrats neck. NPR upbraided him for that.

Tehachapi Tom said...

New Jersey just out stupided California. If this stupidity spreads it will be vigilante time. We can suit up and arm up then ride out into the night to do what is fair.

And for Joel it reminds me of the Ancient Mariner modified lines we coined in high school,"water water every where and with not a drop to drink and that old albatross around my neck sure began to stink".
Could that apply to the libs?

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: Williams just used the wrong simile. Not an albatross, but a ball and chain.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tehachapi: That's not exactly the way I remember the Coleridge poem, but I like it--a lot.

Question "could that apply to libs?"
Answer "Yes, even on ice."

Libertarian Advocate said...

LawHawk:

You pegged it with this one. There is no substantive difference between moderate Islam and radical Islam. Its the equivalent of the distinction that exists between a progressive and a socialist.

Tennessee Jed said...

I wonder how that judge could be kicked out of office? Voting? impeachment?? To me, that ruling absolutely is beyond the pale and borders on malfeasance. I totally agree with your comments on the whole p.c. issue and how it has been raised vis-a-vis Islam.

I did go to a charity fundraiser supported by my Doctor, who happens to be a Muslim. They are wonderful people. While I have not even anectdotal evidence, I suspect it is possible more of them don't speak out, because they fear a fatwah hit being placed on them and their loved ones.

LawHawkRFD said...

Libertarian Advocate: Well-said. It's that "exegisis" among the other major religions that is lacking in Islam. Some things are eternal, and some things change with times and circumstances. Islam does not allow for the latter.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tennessee: I don't know New Jersey's judicial rules well enough to know their procedures. Impeachment is always available in every state for public officials. Some states elect judges, others appoint, and others retain or dismiss at certain periods of time. The only thing I'm sure of is that if the public got angry enough, and the MSM made these stories front-page news, a lot of judges would be gone wherever their seats.

LawHawkRFD said...

chas2007: I spent too much time in the courts to put anything past some of these political hack judges. But I must admit that when this judge ignored even the caution of the imam's testimony, he set a new low for the profession.

I did have to laugh. As soon as you mentioned the tissues, I thought of the GEICO commercial with Gunny (Marine Gunnery Sargeant R. Lee Ermey) as the unsympathetic psychiatrist suggesting that the patient go to namby-pamby land and then throwing a box of tissues at him.

Post a Comment