NJ judge OK’s rape of wife by Muslim, citing religious belief; overturned on appeal

[bobbyw24]

A trial judge in NJ refused to issue a restraining order in a case of domestic violence and marital rape because the defendant, a Muslim, claimed that his religion gave him the right to sex on demand and complete control of his wife. An appeals court overturned the verdict.

A New Jersey Superior Court judge heard the case of S.D., a 19-year-old woman, against M.J.R., her husband. The couple, from Morocco, were wed in an arranged marriage in 2008, when S.D. was 17. They came to the United States because her husband had work in New Jersey as an accountant.

S.D. described abuse at her husband’s hands in great detail in the recently-released court documents. Abuse included corporal punishment and marital rape. He first punished her for not knowing how to cook. He then prepared a list of things for her to do, promising to punish her for anything not done. The abuse continued; please review the record for yourself for details.

S.D. sought a divorce and a restraining order.

From the appellate court decision noted above (original case has not been released, nor the name of the family court judge), the family court judge ruled:

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.

The appellate court determined:

http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2010/07/28/nj-judge-oks-rape-of-wife-by-muslim-citing-religious-belief-overturned-on-appeal/

[NACBA]

Incredible.

What's next- Honor Killings will be OK with courts??

[ibaghdadi]

I hate to bring this up, but if his couple were brought before a sharia court, they would rule for separation (khul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khul')) in a jiffy.

Amazing how a NJ court would be more willing to entertain this psycho's arguments.

[bobbyw24]

Amazing how a NJ court would be more willing to entertain this psycho's arguments.

Yes, that is the amazing part

[RM918]

I hate to bring this up, but if his couple were brought before a sharia court, they would rule for separation (khul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khul')) in a jiffy.

Amazing how a NJ court would be more willing to entertain this psycho's arguments.

Ah, but I don't find it very amazing at all.

[bobbyw24]

Ah, but I don't find it very amazing at all.

Do you agree with the lower court's ruling?

[RM918]

Do you agree with the lower court's ruling?

Nope, just not very surprised.

[tjeffersonsghost]

Im one of the biggest proponents of Muslim rights including for building the Mosque on NYC. But this is just ridiculous. There is a difference between being tolerant to other religions and accepting their version of religious law. We have our law here based on reason and either you abide by our laws or you leave. This judge is an ass.

[bobbyw24]

Im one of the biggest proponents of Muslim rights including for building the Mosque on NYC. But this is just ridiculous. There is a difference between being tolerant to other religions and accepting their version of religious law. We have our law here based on reason and either you abide by our laws or you leave. This judge is an ass.

Amen, brother.

[Mini-Me]

Unless that judge is prosecuted for some kind of misconduct, New Jersey is pretty much beyond saving.

[jmdrake]

It's settled law in this country that while you have unfettered freedom of religious belief you do not have unfettered freedom of religious act. Fundy Mormon's routinely face prison for marrying to willing women. (I personally think the states reasoning and the courts ruling in that case is utter crap. If all participants are willing adults who cares? The states not going to prosecute a "playa" with 5 "babies' mommas", but if three people decide they want to form a committed relationship that's worthy of prosecution? Even without the religious context that's just stupid).

Side note, marital rape was not a crime in most states into the 20th century based on a similar argument that this Muslim put forward. I know some will look at this as "those horrid Muslims", but this "Christian" country had the same view not too terribly long ago. That said it's a legally ridiculous decision justified only by political correctness run amuck. Glad it was overturned. Was this an elected judge or an appointed one? Either way there simply needs to be a concerted effort to remove him.

[specsaregood]

//

[NACBA]

Not necessarily.

I am no lawyer but restraining orders are issued if it is likely that the person will harrass or cause violation IN THE FUTURE. Using that, then this decision could very well make sense. If they are seperated or divorcing now then the man would not consider himself in the right to force sex on the wife/ex-wife. or cause any other violence to her due to them being married now or in the future.

So in short, if the judge does not think there is a likelihood of problems in the future then there is no reason for a restraining order and the decision was correct. This is not "ok's rape of wife".

There was a history of abuse. And the perp thinks that the religion of peace allows him to act this way.

[specsaregood]

There was a history of abuse. And the perp thinks that the religion of peace allows him to act this way.

Right but he justified it based on the fact that they were married. If they are no longer married then there is no reason to believe it will happen in the future, thus no need for a restraining order.

[jmdrake]

Not necessarily.

I am no lawyer but restraining orders are issued if it is likely that the person will harrass or cause violation IN THE FUTURE. Using that, then this decision could very well make sense. If they are seperated or divorcing now then the man would not consider himself in the right to force sex on the wife/ex-wife. or cause any other violence to her due to them being married now or in the future.

So in short, if the judge does not think there is a likelihood of problems in the future then there is no reason for a restraining order and the decision was correct. This is not "ok's rape of wife".

That makes even less sense. If the perp isn't planning on raping his wife again then he has no reason to oppose the restraining order. Also if they are merely separated, then in his mind he would still have the same "right".

[NACBA]

Right but he justified it based on the fact that they were married. If they are no longer married then there is no reason to believe it will happen in the future, thus no need for a restraining order.

Are you married?

[specsaregood]

//

[jmdrake]

There was a history of abuse. And the perp thinks that the religion of peace allows him to act this way.

And until 1975 good old Judea / Christian America felt the same way.

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

The first spousal rape law was passed in South Dakota in 1975. Before that nobody could be convicted of spousal rape whether they were Muslim, Christian, Jew or atheist.

[specsaregood]

Are you married?

Yes.

[Baptist]

Follow the Bible and problem is solved.
Husband owns wife's body. Wife owns husband's body. Wife gives it up to husband whenever he wants it. Husband gives it up to wife whenever she wants it.

Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

Religion aside, though, my problem with this case is that is divides us into groups and gives one group rights while denying them to another group. According to this judge, it is okay for Muslim men to rape their wives, but it is not okay for Christian, agnostic and atheist men to rape their wives. Raping your wife is either legal for everyone, or illegal for everyone. And of course all of us here would agree that it is never okay to rape a wife.

[jmdrake]

Sure there is. What if they both attend the same mosque? He wouldn't be able to go worship at the same time. Shop at the same grocery store, etc? A restraining order puts limitations on what the person can do even if unrelated under the assumption that they could cause violence. If that threat no longer is legit there is no need for a restraining order.

Life sucks. And who says the threat is no longer legit? You? Based on what? If they are merely separated they are still married! If this man believes he has a right to beat a woman he is married to he might beat her in the mosque. Besides, you're making the broadest interpretation of the restraining order possible. The restraining order could be modified to exclude the mosque. And last time I checked Muslim men and women didn't worship together anyway.

[jmdrake]

Follow the Bible and problem is solved.
Husband owns wife's body. Wife owns husband's body. Wife gives it up to husband whenever he wants it. Husband gives it up to wife whenever she wants it.


Religion aside, though, my problem with this case is that is divides us into groups and gives one group rights while denying them to another group. According to this judge, it is okay for Muslim men to rape their wives, but it is not okay for Christian, agnostic and atheist men to rape their wives. Raping your wife is either legal for everyone, or illegal for everyone. And of course all of us here would agree that it is never okay to rape a wife.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lzRf9b1vduk/SqStXX-4V2I/AAAAAAAAACc/0CphKSkYiQY/s320/nailed+it.jpg

[specsaregood]

//

[RM918]

I'm not making any interpretation, the judge did. And my issue is with the thread title. The judge did not "OK rape of wife by muslim". He rescinded a restraining order. I offered an explanation of why that might be the correct decision. ie: if there is no longer a threat because they are no longer married and thus by his own religious beliefs he would not be justified in raping his ex-wife. Do you think we are getting the whole story here from this "news" source?

Even so, that's assuming anything about this is logical or you can trust anything this guy says. That'd be one terrible judge to just buy this guy's story and figure he wouldn't try anything because they'd be getting divorced.

[jmdrake]

I'm not making any interpretation, the judge did. And my issue is with the thread title. The judge did not "OK rape of wife by muslim". He rescinded a restraining order. I offered an explanation of why that might be the correct decision. ie: if there is no longer a threat because they are no longer married and thus by his own religious beliefs he would not be justified in raping his ex-wife. Do you think we are getting the whole story here from this "news" source?

He didn't just rape her. He also beat her. Furthermore they weren't divorced yet! According to the article the wife "sought a divorce and a restraining order". So even going by your logic a restraining order was at least required until the divorce was final.

[specsaregood]

//

[ibaghdadi]

Im one of the biggest proponents of Muslim rights including for building the Mosque on NYC. But this is just ridiculous. There is a difference between being tolerant to other religions and accepting their version of religious law.

No man, you get it wrong. The lower court's ruling is against Islamic law to begin with. It seems that asshole husband somehow maneuvered the court into believing that his religion gives him the right to do whatever he wants to his wife.

[Brian Defferding]

Wow. I'm speechless.

[jmdrake]

You sure they weren't already divorced by the time this judgement was issued?

It sounds like they issued temporary restraints during the divorce and this was about whether to issue a permanent restraining order at the end of the divorce.

So did the judge "ok rape of wife by muslim" or not?

For the sake of argument, let's say that they were. That still doesn't justify overturning the restraining order. Again there was also physical beatings! Furthermore, how do you know that this Muslim now considered himself "divorced" from his wife in an Islamic sense? It's possible in many some religions to still be considered "married" in the eyes of God even if you are "divorced" in the eyes of the state. (Strict Catholics need an annulment to get remarried. Orthodox Jews also need a special religious divorce. And there is a Sharia law version of divorce.) So going by your "He'll follow the dictate of his religion and not attempt to rape / beat his wife if they are no longer married" argument there is still no guarantee that he won't try to rape or beat his wife. And considering the fact that men and women don't worship together anyway, a restraining order is less of a burden for him than it would be for a Christian.

[specsaregood]

//

[jmdrake]

Is a restraining order meant to be a form of punishment or to prevent crimes?

It's meant to prevent crimes. In this case the crime of domestic violence. Nothing in your argument gives any indication that the risk of the beatings is reduced by their no longer being married. You haven't made a case that he thought he had a right to beat his wife, but merely that he had a right to rape his wife. Further he may still consider himself "married" to his wife if he doesn't have an Islamic divorce. This was a simple case were the judge should not have even factored in the man's religious beliefs. And according to one Muslim posting in this thread the lower court ruling went against Islamic law anyway. Again another reason for a judge who has no Sharia law expertise should not have factored that in.


There is no guarantee that I won't find you and rape and beat you.

:rolleyes: Highly unlikely. But maybe I should file a restraining order. ;)



Evidently the judge was convinced that he was no longer a threat to the woman. It happens everyday in this country by muslims and non muslims alike.

Evidently this judge was an idiot. That happens everyday in this country also. (Idiot judges).

[dannno]

And until 1975 good old Judea / Christian America felt the same way.

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

The first spousal rape law was passed in South Dakota in 1975. Before that nobody could be convicted of spousal rape whether they were Muslim, Christian, Jew or atheist.

Ya I couldn't believe there were anti-Muslim comments in the beginning of this thread, it's not like our Christian country wasn't once like that. Thanks for doing the research.

[specsaregood]

//

[jmdrake]

You haven't made case that he did indeed consider himself still married. If he used the marriage clause as his excuse and the judge vacated the orders, then clearly he convinced the judge that he didn't consider himself married any longer.


I believe I've made the case that there is a strong possibility that he thought he was still married. Restraining orders are all about strong possibilities. After all nobody can know for certain what some wife beater will do in the future.



Well it helps determine "intent":


Restraining orders are not about "intent". And not all crimes have an "intent" mens rea anyway.



The judge determined that his intent was not criminal in nature, due to his religious beliefs. If a rastafarian is charged with posession of marijuana, should his religious beliefs be factor in how he is prosecuted? I'd argue that maybe it should.


Intent doesn't matter in rape. All that matters is that the victim didn't consent. Even if a man believes he has a woman's consent, if he was reckless in that belief it's still rape. At least in most states. There are cases of men convicted of rape where the woman testified that she "went along with it because she was scared". And not all of these cases can be chalked up to "jilted woman trying to get revenge". Sit through a criminal law class if you want to know more about this.

As for the Rastafarian, under current law that doesn't matter either. In Employment Division v. Smith the supreme court upheld the denial of unemployment to two Native Americans who were fired for peyote use. The ruling held that if it was a general law of equal applicability the government only needs a "rational basis" for the law, even if the law has the affect of hurting certain religious groups. Personally I think that ruling was crap, but it's the law. That said, I see a big difference between an exercise of religion that only affect the adherent (Rastafarian smoking weed) and an exercise of religion that affects another person (someone thinking he has the religious right to rape his wife). Further looking at it from a balancing point of view, not being able to smoke weed might be an undue burden on someone's religion. Not being able to go around your ex-wife is not an undue burden by any stretch of the imagination. As I've pointed out already, men and women Muslims don't worship together. Shopping? Go to another store or wait until she's finished. Or move to another city if you're crossing paths too much. Really, this guy needs to be worried about whether or not he's going to end up going to prison and be put on a sex offender registry. The restraining order is the least of his problems.




To that, we can certainly agree.

I'm certainly not defending this guys actions and I would never dream of beating or raping my wife --well unless she asked for it, lets not go there.

But, I think there is more to the story than we know, and if this guy proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he was no longer a threat, then rescinding the restraining order was the correct decision.

Any judge who thought that this guy had proved "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he wouldn't attack his wife is an idiot and should be removed from office and disbarred. That said I don't think "beyond a reasonable doubt" is even the standard in retraining order decisions. It's most likely "preponderance of the evidence". I don't think that was met either. Thankfully the appeals court agrees with my position.

[specsaregood]

I believe I've made the case that there is a strong possibility that he thought he was still married.

I disagree, as you haven't provided any evidence that they didn't pursue a divorce according to their religious beliefs.



Restraining orders are not about "intent". And not all crimes have an "intent" mens rea anyway.

Well if his intent behind her complaints were not criminal in nature (as the judge ruled) then it would matter in pursuing a criminal restraining order.



As for the Rastafarian, under current law that doesn't matter either. In Employment Division v. Smith the supreme court upheld the denial of unemployment to two Native Americans who were fired for peyote use.

Fair enough, doesn't mean it is right, in that religious beliefs should not be considered in an ideal society.


That said I don't think "beyond a reasonable doubt" is even the standard in retraining order decisions. It's most likely "preponderance of the evidence".
There are criminal and civil restraining orders. A restraining order related to criminal actions would still require beyond a reasonable doubt, IIRC.

[jmdrake]

I disagree, as you haven't provided any evidence that they didn't pursue a divorce according to their religious beliefs.

I don't have to. I'm not trying to prove this "beyond a reasonable doubt". Only that there is a strong possibility. To refute that you would have to show evidence that they did pursue a religious divorce.



Well if his intent behind her complaints were not criminal in nature (as the judge ruled) then it would matter in pursuing a criminal restraining order.


You don't get it. Some crimes don't require intent. For example the cop that just got convicted for the subway shooting successfully convinced the jury that he had no intent to do the shooting. But he still got convicted of a crime. Rape is the same. Intent on the part of the perpetrator is not at issue. The only thing that matters is if the victim did not consent. And yes that makes "date rape" crimes sticky situations.



Fair enough, doesn't mean it is right, in that religious beliefs should not be considered in an ideal society.


Do you think it should matter in the case of female genital mutilation?



There are criminal and civil restraining orders. A restraining order related to criminal actions would still require beyond a reasonable doubt, IIRC.

No. It doesn't work that way. Even though a restraining order is related to a criminal matter, it is still a civil order, just like a wrongful death case is still a civil suit even though it was over a criminal matter. For example O.J. Simpson had to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable down in the murder trial. In the civil trial all that was required was a preponderance of the evidence. Restraining orders are even easier to get.

[johngr]

As for the Rastafarian, under current law that doesn't matter either. In Employment Division v. Smith the supreme court upheld the denial of unemployment to two Native Americans who were fired for peyote use. The ruling held that if it was a general law of equal applicability the government only needs a "rational basis" for the law, even if the law has the affect of hurting certain religious groups. Personally I think that ruling was crap, but it's the law. That said, I see a big difference between an exercise of religion that only affect the adherent (Rastafarian smoking weed) and an exercise of religion that affects another person (someone thinking he has the religious right to rape his wife). Further looking at it from a balancing point of view, not being able to smoke weed might be an undue burden on someone's religion. Not being able to go around your ex-wife is not an undue burden by any stretch of the imagination. As I've pointed out already, men and women Muslims don't worship together. Shopping? Go to another store or wait until she's finished. Or move to another city if you're crossing paths too much. Really, this guy needs to be worried about whether or not he's going to end up going to prison and be put on a sex offender registry. The restraining order is the least of his problems.


Does that ruling only apply for firing someone or can the government arrest the Indians for possession now? I think prohibiting it at work might not be a bad idea. I'd hate to be doing inventory in a warehouse and have an Indian tripping balls and driving a forklift thinking I'm a 1 metre, 80 tall iguana that's about to attack and eat him.

[dannno]

Does that ruling only apply for firing someone or can the government arrest the Indians for possession now? I think prohibiting it at work might not be a bad idea. I'd hate to be doing inventory in a warehouse and have an Indian tripping balls and driving a forklift thinking I'm a 1 metre, 80 tall iguana that's about to attack and eat him.

They were probably fired for peyote use off the clock.

I think it is stupid to fire somebody for what they do on their off-time as long as they do good work, but people have the right to be stupid... I don't think prohibiting these substances at work is the answer, I think allowing private companies to do what they want is the correct action.

[specialK]

Unless that judge is prosecuted for some kind of misconduct, New Jersey is pretty much beyond saving.

Is it really that bad? I'm not from the US, but I was in McDonald's the other day and I overheard a black guy,( I mention colour only because we have very few blacks in my town, thus I immedately judged him to be American), tell his non-American lunch partner that NJ is like a toxic waste dump filled with degenerate people in some parts. Why is it so bad?

[jmdrake]

Does that ruling only apply for firing someone or can the government arrest the Indians for possession now? I think prohibiting it at work might not be a bad idea. I'd hate to be doing inventory in a warehouse and have an Indian tripping balls and driving a forklift thinking I'm a 1 metre, 80 tall iguana that's about to attack and eat him.



They were probably fired for peyote use off the clock.

I think it is stupid to fire somebody for what they do on their off-time as long as they do good work, but people have the right to be stupid... I don't think prohibiting these substances at work is the answer, I think allowing private companies to do what they want is the correct action.

Dannno is correct. The drug use was off the clock (part of a religious ceremony). That said the holding in the ruling isn't limited to simply firing someone.