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...ned-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) 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) 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.

[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 $#@! 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]

//