New Jersey Judge Rules Islamic Sharia Law Trumps U.S. Law

Fortunately, the ruling was overturned, but it’s obvious sharia is creeping.

A New Jersey family court judge’s decision not to grant a restraining order to a woman who was sexually abused by her Moroccan husband and forced repeatedly to have sex with him is sounding the alarm for advocates of laws designed to ban Shariah in America.

Judge Joseph Charles, in denying the restraining order to the woman after her divorce, ruled that her ex-husband felt he had behaved according to his Muslim beliefs — and that he did not have “criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault” his wife.

According to the court record, the man’s wife — a Moroccan woman who had recently immigrated to the U.S. at the time of the attacks — alleged:

“Defendant forced plaintiff to have sex with him while she cried. Plaintiff testified that defendant always told her “this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do.”

In considering the woman’s plea for a restraining order after the couple divorced, Charles ruled in June 2009 that a preponderance of the evidence showed the defendant had harassed and assaulted her, but “The court believes that [defendant] 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.”

Charles’ ruling was overturned last month by New Jersey’s Appellate Court, which ruled that the husband’s religious beliefs were irrelevant and that the judge, in taking them into consideration, “was mistaken.”

The woman’s lawyer, Jennifer Donnelly of New Jersey Legal Services, told FoxNews.com that Charles’ ruling should add to the case for a proposed Oklahoma law, which will be on the ballot in November, which would ban judges from considering “international law or Shariah Law” in their rulings.

“Those who don’t want the bill to pass say, ‘there’s really no need for it because why would a judge walk down that road of religion?'” Donnelly said.

“Clearly here, this judge did walk down that road. He may not have said ‘Shariah law.’ But I think it’s indicative that, in trying to be respectful of religion, judges venture into a very slippery slope.”

Donnelly said she was surprised when Charles refused to issue a restraining order, adding that the only tipoffs that it might happen were questions he put to the husband’s imam when he testified in the case.

The Appeals Court ruling notes, “The imam testified regarding Islamic law as it relates to sexual behavior. The imam confirmed that a wife must comply with her husband’s sexual demands, because the husband is prohibited from obtaining sexual satisfaction elsewhere.

“However, a husband was forbidden to approach his wife ‘like any animal.’ … he acknowledged that New Jersey law considered coerced sex between married people to be rape.”

Charles, a former New Jersey state senator, declined to comment on his ruling. The husband, who represented himself in court, remains unnamed, as does his ex-wife.

While the judge in the case did not specifically mention Islamic or Shariah law, Robert Spencer, director of JihadWatch.com, said he might as well have.

This is a ruling that is strictly in line with Islamic law, which does indeed declare that a wife may not refuse her husband sex under virtually any circumstances,” Spencer said. “The only legal framework that would not consider marital rape to be sexual assault is Shariah.”

The husband in the case has been indicted on criminal charges and is expected to face trial in the fall.

FOXNews.com – gave their obligatory opposing view to the terror-linked, pro-sharia, pro-jihad, unindicted co-conspirator, Saudi-funded (Fox is also Saudi-linked), CAIR.

The article also references a 2008 ruling in Texas which was one the topic of our first post ever here at Creeping Sharia – Sharia Law enforced in Texas!

103 Responses

  1. [...] the original post: New Jersey Judge Rules Islamic Sharia Law Trumps U.S. Law … More on this:The Law of Karma | yourspiritualhaven.comJudge Rules for Rifqa! – Atlas [...]

  2. As long as our muslim president and his band of crooks are in control no woman is safe. America this is the most serious attempt to over throw the goverment from within that we have ever faced. YOU MUST VOTE THEM OUT!

  3. Creeping,

    The fact that this ruling could have even happened in the first place is very troubling. I hope they do pass that law banning judges from using Sharia. But its shocking that we would even need such a thing. Not only is it stepping out of bounds to even consider foreign law when judge makes a decision on U.S Law, it could be argued that even considering Sharia violates the separation of church and state. Yet groups like Americans United For the Separation of Church and State are not only ignoring it, but accusing people who speak out against it, like Newt Gingrich of bigotry.

    http://blog.au.org/2010/07/30/gingrich-and-god-newt%E2%80%99s-nasty-letter-masks-an-even-scarier-agenda/

    Personally I would prefer a constitutionally amendment banning all Sharia, and any consideration of foreign law in U.S courts. That would make much more difficult for infantile leftwing useful idiots and power hungry activist judges to overturn it.

  4. It’s incredible that a judge would subvert the law to consider a religious belief over law. Should we all claim we can now murder and rape at will, and call it our religion? Astounding. Political correctness has run amok.

  5. This judge should be removed from the bench, disbarred & sent to prison. Or someone should take him for a “ride” down to the pine barrens,

  6. muslim terrorists are everywhere

  7. Yeah right, let a Christian or Jewish person come up with this excuse.

  8. There’s nothing worse than a dhimmi judge!

  9. Judge Charles cannot be lifted above this error. He has proven himself willing to undermine the basic tenet of our system of law. He must be punished.

  10. Activist..tjudges run amok…again! Here is my big question”This happened over a year ago – why are we just now hearing about this This should have been national news from day one!

    • Excellent point – and how many similar rulings have gone unnoticed? Why did the media ignore, and continue to ignore this ruling?

  11. This judge should be fired to start with and after that someone please drop this azz clown in the river

  12. [...] post is not for children, but if you have a daughter, you will take the time to read this shocking story and insist that your state Legislators ban judges from considering “international law or Shariah [...]

  13. [...] Judge rules that witness can’t testify in face veilPrevious cases of judicial dhimmitude:New Jersey Judge Rules Islamic Sharia Law Trumps U.S. LawGerman judge: “Muslims have a different understanding of rape than …“In the Name of the [...]

  14. Before you get all hot about them nasty Sharia laws, New Jersey’s Christian citizens didn’t decide that rape within marriage was a crime until ~1977.

    One idiot ruling doesn’t make a trend. Even the imam who testified acknowledged the authority of state law.

    Fools.

  15. Jim,

    Really? Rape was legal within Marriage in New Jersey until 1977? Do you have a source for that?

  16. Damien,

    There are dozens of websites – search on spousal rape. Wikipedia has an entry. I didn’t find the exact date for New Jersey, but South Dakota was the first state to ban it in 1975, and NJ saw the it’s first prosecution in 1978. N Carolina didn’t ban it until 1993.

  17. The laws put in place to specify rape within marriage don’t indicate that rape was allowed within marriage prior to that. To assume so is quite ridiculous. Spousal abuse has been an issue for a very long time. But over the years and decades, the numbers of lawyers has increased exponentially and without some new laws many would not have had anything to do, so they worked for advocacy groups.

    • I guess you’re not old enough to remember or walk around wearing blinders.

      If you were one of the Christian varieties that believes the Bible orders a wife to submit to her husband, forced sex wasn’t really rape, was it? And many people believed that even if forced sex was bad, it wasn’t a matter for the police.

      The change in laws was a result of hard work by feminists. Yes, some were lawyers, but it was civil mobilization rather than the consequence of too many lawyers.

  18. [...] Law and Muslim customs and practices. Did you see the shocking headline: “New Jersey Judge Rules Islamic Sharia Law Trumps U.S. Law”?  Judges are interpret the federal, state and local laws in this country. [...]

  19. [...] legal, but law is ultimately defined by common practice, rather than the other way around. And judges are already beginning to defer to the Muslim view of rape, in America and [...]

    • So far we have one incident of a flawed judgment overturned by the appeals court. That is not sufficient evidence of a trend. If you have real evidence, publish it.

      I don’t get it – why are you so addicted to fear a small, law-abiding minority? Couldn’t you get worked up about something real?

      My hometown has had Muslims since the 1890s and a mosque for over 70 years. No signs of creeping sharia. They’re as fully assimilated as the Czechs, the Germans, the Irish.

      And your views on how the law is defined would get you flunked out of first year law school.

      • Why? Because Sharia has infiltrated the UK courts already, that’s why. Ditto Germany in the middle of a huge battle of Germany’s Constitution v Islam.. And since this post you can hear Merkel speaking out on it.

        • UK and German law are unchanged.

          From what I read, the scoop is that at time people elect to use arbitration rather than courts of law to settle domestic disputes. Sometimes people prefer to use arbitration based on the customs and traditions of their community and culture. It may be Jewish, it may be Christian Science, it may be Muslim. The arbitration board requires both parties to sign a contract to abide by their decision.

          This contract is enforceable under state and national laws, and ONLY enforceable as long as the provisions of the decision DO NOT VIOLATE state and national law.

          One article discusses councils in the UK setting themselves up as “Islamic Courts”, and asking people to agree to their decisions. These have no legal authority under UK law, and are less of a concern even than arbitration.

          Again, nothing here suggests that any court has decided that sharia law should guide their decisions on guilt, innocence, or punishment, or that a judge has the authority to use sharia rather than the national and state code of law.

          Again, you are looking for trouble and finding trouble where little trouble exists. You behave as if you were scared of a shadow.

        • I did some more research on the situation in Germany, and I’m going to walk back my comments on Germany below. It seems that German courts have a habut of considering the national laws of country of origin in some cases, whether they be France or Jordan, and applying those laws in some family/domestic cases. In one case, a German judge refused to grant a Moroccan woman’s request for an expedited divorce despite evidence that he intended to harm her physically on the basis that she should have known that he might behave so before she married him.

          I think the judge in this case was severely wrong and so did the German public – she quickly pled to suffering from an unresolved trauma from a murder committed in her office 10 years before and took a leave of absence. The judge went too far, and the aftermath should prevent another one from making the same mistake.

          Following the laws of another nation is a bit more complex; it is up to the Germans to decide how far they are willing to go and give the judges clear guidance. My own feeling is that the outcomes must be consistent with prevailing German law or disallowed – let the disputants move back home if they want another law. But before we get too harsh on this, we should remember that at one time northern states in the US were not only permitted but required to enforce the harsh slavery laws of the southern states. It’s not a parallel situation, but it was a fraught one that needed to be and was resolved. The Germans will solve theirs without turning the courts over to sharia.

  20. [...] legal, but law is ultimately defined by common practice, rather than the other way around. And judges are already beginning to defer to the Muslim view of rape, in America and [...]

  21. [...] legal, but law is ultimately defined by common practice, rather than the other way around. And judges are already beginning to defer to the Muslim view of rape, in America and [...]

  22. This Judge should be thrown off the bench and have all of his credentials taken away . !!!!!! Was the judge of middle eastern descent . I cant imagine an american judge making a ruling like this

    • If you’d bother to read the article, he was Judge Joseph Charles. Does that sound suspiciously Arabic to you?

      You’d also notice that he didn’t rule that rape in marriage was acceptable. He was asked to place a restraining order on the ex-husband AFTER the divorce was finalized.

      He argued that since the husband had acted within the bounds of what he believed were his marital rights, there was no evidence that he intended to break the law now that the marriage was over and neither law or religion granted him legitimate access to his ex-wife.

      This is simply not any kind of evidence that judges are introducing sharia into US jurisprudence.

      What a crock of bull____.

      • What “law” did the judge cite to (you know other precedent as in cases) that stated the lack of an “intent” to break the law made it okay for the fact that he “did” break the law.

        If you went to law school you would know that ignorance of the law is not a viable legal excuse. The question is: did he rape her? If yes, he broke the law. Is having raped a person grounds for getting a restraining order against that person? Yes.

        These are pretty simple issues here. I am convinced Americans are scared. And you seem like your one of them. The truth is if you fight against it now, there won’t be a problem. If you don’t there will be. It is quite simple. You can’t ignore it and think it will go away.

        Keep this religion and its insanity out of our country. I can’t possible understand why anyone would defend it. You have seen what it has done in other countries already. And every woman that SCREAMS they are a feminist should be yelling at the top of their lungs against it. It treats women horribly.

        • Dear Joan,

          Just who here is scared? You are the one who fears Muslims, not I. My hometown in Iowa has had Muslim residents for over 100 years. They fit right in. They fought for their country in WWII and are now serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have as much right to be here as anyone.

          Re: restraining orders. They are not based on guilt, but on the probability of future behavior. Hence, the propensity of a person to break the rules is appropriate evidence. Here, a person’s knowledge of the rules is relevant.

          You have an extremely narrow and biased picture of Islam. One doesn’t need law school to understand what is happening here; one needs an open mind.

      • From what Ive read there really is no evidence that the judge based his ruling on Sharia. However, the appeals court got it right. There was sufficient evidence to award the restraining order – his wife accused him of rape. It doesnt matter that he was acting in accordance with his religious views. He was accused of committing a violent felony.

        • “Plaintiff testified that defendant always told her “this is according to our religion.””

          His religion is Islam…governed by sharia law…judge agreed…do the math – did you expect the judge to write specifically in his ruling that “according to Islamic sharia law” there was no crime committed?

      • JIM:

        I am actually surprised at your response to this. All of you, everyone is talking about Sharia Law or Islamic Law. Have you all forgotten that here, in the United States, we have American Law. Our Judges our sworn to protect the rights of citizens according to the Constitution of the United States and perform those duties according to Amercan Law — NOT Sharia Law. In Sharia Law, Islamic faith or religion may allow husbands to treat their wives that way. If they want to treat their wives that way then tell them to go back to Saudi Arabia or where ever. But here, in the United States, you must obey our laws. Religion is NEVER supposed to enter the court room. We have a specific seperation of church and state for this very reason — THIS REASON RIGHT HERE. The simple facts are the plaintiff submitted enough evidence to prove her husband (whether he was black, white, brown, or yellow) had sexually assaulted her. The judge dismissed the evidence due to the religious beliefs of an individual. He allowed religion to come between justice. When we allow the beliefs and religions of other countries to begin ruling over ours, we then have no country we can call our own. If this happens then I could or should be able to walk into a court room after raping and killing five people because I developed a religion that says I have to do that before I can find peace with my creator. According to your line of thought I should not be convicted because it is my religious belief. Don’t you see? This is why we do not mix church and state. We are Americans here. And are you really going to tell me that you believe that man didn’t know it was illegal to force himself onto his wife in America after living her for what two years? You know he’d probably seen Law & Order: SVU. Come on, who’s leg are you trying to pull here. I think the only person with the wool pulled over their eyes here is YOU.

        • US courts and judges do not make law – they are bound to follow statute law (that created in legislatures) and case law, the history of decisions tracing back to English common law. A judge cannot implement sharia law in conflict with the these.

          The problem you seem to be determined to ignore is that the judge was not using the ex-husband’s religious beliefs to determine guilt or innocent, as that was not the question that the PLAINTIFF CHOSE to put before the court.

          SHE CHOSE not to bring rape charges even though that redress was available to her under law. SHE CHOSE to ask instead for a restraining order against FUTURE CONDUCT. So far, in this country, we can’t be held guilty for an act we have not yet committed.

          The question before the judge was, was this ex-husband likely to sexually assault his ex-wife again? Apparently he thought that the ex-husband recognized that the relationship between the two had changed via the divorce such that even his former justification no longer applied, meaning that such behavior in the future was unlikely. Apparently, a higher court decided this judge had weighed the aggregate evidence wrongly, and overturned his decision. The judge did NOT use sharia law, he used the ex-husband’s stated beliefs as psychological evidence and only as psychological evidence.

          You see, courts aren’t empowered to make judgements on whether we are threatened by Islam, they are required to stick to the law and the evidence and try the case brought before them, not the case they may have preferred to try..

          Most complaints on this matter seem to ignore even these broad constraints on judges in order to accuse him of doing what he in fact had no ability to do.

      • Jim, you are not the victim of rape! You need to put yourself in that situation and asses well what the ex-husband did. If probably you see your father doing this to you your Mother, I do not think your gonna be Happy either. So wake up and smell the coffee!

        • Sigh, once again, I am not ignoring nor defending rape. The woman could have charged her ex-husband with rape if she wished as it is indeed against the law in all US states – although one, I think it was N Carolina, didn’t get around to outlawing marital rape until the 1990s.

          The question is whether the judge followed sharia law or not. As he didn’t use this man’s interpretation of sharia law to render a verdict on guilt or innocence, he did not put sharia over state law.

          Clear?

          • No he did not specifically cite Sharia law, but what he did do was to use the testimony of the imam that is under Sharia law and take into consideration the defendants religious beliefs.
            No religious beliefs should have been considered. It has nothing to do with this case. The case should have been considered only under what state law is concerning marital law.

  23. [...] this will never be made into law, some judges have taken it upon themselves to use this law in giving out punishments and as an excuse for some [...]

  24. [...] NC: Judicial candidate says sharia law used in Delaware decision Posted on September 24, 2010 by creeping Update: Per the comment below, it appears a reporter referred to a Delaware decision in error, the case referred to was in New Jersey, which we posted on here. [...]

  25. [...] Re: Consider it a gift from me to you. New Jersey Judge Rules Islamic Sharia Law Trumps U.S. Law [...]

  26. [...] a woman seeking a restraining order against her husband whom she asserts had been raping her.   Judge Joseph Charles  ruled that the  defendent committed no crime as he was acting in accordance with his Islamic [...]

    • Wrong.

      You are simply wrong about what the judge was doing.

      It was not a trial on a charge of rape. The judge did not rule that the defendant was not guilty of a crime. That was not the question before him.

      The question was whether a restraining order was necessary to protect the now ex-wife from her ex-husband.

      The judge reasoned that if the man had behaved badly because the man thought it was sanctioned within marriage, the man would recognize that it was not sanctioned outside of marriage, and there was no longer any danger to the woman. This is not imposing sharia law, this is making reasoned judgments about the basis for presuming the probability of future harm.

      In any case, the judge’s decision was overturned on appeal. So ir’s a moot point except to those who need a reason to cry “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!”

      • Hey, the rulilng was overruled on appeal, so no big deal, right? Jeez, you are an idiot.

      • The man raped his wife repeatedly, but hey, since he supposedly followed the tenets of his religion, he clearly is no danger. And obviously, there has never been a history of Muslims resorting to violence in order to redress supposed grievances, has there? There is a saying that perfectly applies to the idiot to whom I am responding: he mind is so open his brain has fallen out.

        • In my above post the last sentence should read, in part, “…HIS mind is so open…” not “…HE mind is so open…”

          I figured I had better correct that before someone tried to call me out for a minor grammatical error.

        • Dear Bob,

          The point that is moot is not whether the woman was given justice, but the argument that this incident is evidence of sharia law infiltrating US jursiprudence.

          Once more, this was not a rape trial. If the woman wanted to bring rape charges, she could – and then the question before the judge would have been the ex-husband’s guilt or innocence. Instead, she requested a restraining order, in which the question before the judge is the ex-husband’s future behavior.

          Have Christians ever resorted to violence to redress their grievances? Yes.

          Are most men who rape their wives in this country Christian or Muslim? Christian, clearly.

          I am happy to report that my brain is safely within my skull.

          I am sad to observe that you can’t follow a line of reasoning from point A to point B without detouring through a swamp of bias and prejudice. I doubt anyone could clean up that swamp as it is likely very dear to you, so I am not going to try, and will ignore any future attempts on your part to take me on a detour through said swamp.

      • It’s making judgment based on the man’s supposed adherence to Islamic sharia law, and it’s certainly not reasoned.

        It wasn’t a moot point for the 14 months that the ruling stood, and the woman potentially lived in fear.

        Not to mention that the imam lied…in Islam men are entitled to four wives so the husband is not permitted to get sexual satisfaction elsewhere, and there is also the temporary marriage for pleasure.

      • The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior; reason would indicate that the woman would remain in danger if a restraining order were issued. (Not that a restraining order would do any good.)

        You seem very gullible.

        • Whether I’m gullible or not is totally beside the point.

          The issue raised is whether the judge substituted sharia law for the relevant statute and case law. He did not.

          In issuing a restraining order the judge uses evidence and testimony to decide whether it is needed. The judge’s decision may well have weighed the testimony and the evidence poorly – the appellate court so ruled. But he did not go outside of US or state law in using the testimony.

          But if you are addicted to fear and to misrepresenting the legal issues, you’re not about to let me persuade you to change your mind.

    • Need to investigate the judge for coruption! The US law should be above this whatever you call it Sharia.
      We do not need this distorted Sharia law, cause we already have our own law of this land. It is stupid for Europeans to accept it and now they are paying for it.
      The public needs to fully know what this law is about!

    • I do not know thatwe need to specifically ban Shariah law. However, I do feel Judge Charles should face a sentence for obstruction of justice for this ruling.

      • Why?

        He applied the relevant law – US and state law.

        The commentary misrepresents the judge’s actions and the legal issues. Don’t let yourself be so easily misled!

        If it had been determined that he had applied sharia over the proper law, he would be disciplined or replaced. However, he was merely over-ridden. It’s a pretty common occurrence.

        You may note that the nation’s judges and lawyers are NOT raising a hue and a cry over this. They surely would if someone besmirched the legal profession with so serious an error. Instead you find posting on blogs and comments from people who have no expertise in the law.

        So – relax.

        • Jim,

          When a higher overturns a lower court’s ruling, the implication that the lower court did not apply the law correctly is obvious.

          That is exactly what happened here. The judge argued that the man’s religious beliefs trump US law and his ruling was rightfully overturned. Anyone with a basic understanding of our legal system can understand this.

          However, this does not mean that he substituted sharia law. Maybe he substituted his own generic religious law that favors a person’s religious beliefs – any religious beliefs. He may have made a similar ruling with a Catholic by substituting biblical law for US law. Or he may not have. One ruling does not make a pattern.

          So give it a rest. A bad judicial ruling is hardly a rare occurrence. Unfortunately, stupidity is all too common.

  27. The judge was mistaken to rule that the defendant’s religious beliefs trump US laws and the appeals court agreed. This is not evidence that he endorses Islamic law. This is not evidence of creeping sharia. It is only evidence that he is a bad judge.

    If sharia were to creep into our laws, then it would have to do so by the will of the people, in which case it would be legitimate. The US is not a Christian country or a Jewish country or an Islamic country. It is a secular country and it is in our secular values in which we find common ground.

    Are you even willing to change your mind?

  28. [...] domestic and sexual violence are sometimes equated with “Islamic cultural practices” and defended as such in secular [...]

  29. [...] the Name of the People: Wife-Beating Allowed,” A German (female judge) applies sharia…New Jersey Judge Rules Islamic Sharia Law Trumps U.S. Law (and they are telling us there is no creeping sharia)In a ruling Thursday, Germany’s Federal [...]

  30. [...] young women who have been murdered by their fathers for becoming too “Westernized”.  One judge even wanted Sharia Law to be used against a woman whose husband forced her to have sex.  The banshees over at NOW would normally have had a field day [...]

  31. [...] was a court case in New Jersey. Judge Joseph Charles, denied a request for a restraining order on the basis of Islamic law. Because Sharia defines rape differently than United States law, Judge Charles ruled that a the [...]

  32. Any time I want to get a good dose of craziness, I come to this site!

    Thank you for providing a window into the reality of racism and xenophobia from the Christian masses.

    • Xenophobia Rules,

      In case you are not being sarcastic, its not Xenophobia, if we have a good reason to think a certain group of people from a certain part of the world, really do want to destroy our way of life, and subjugate us under theirs. Besides, contrary to what you might think, its not just Christians who think like us and are worried about this happening.

      Read Some the things scientist and atheist philosopher, Sam Harris has said about Islam, and the danger many of its adherents pose to a free society.

      Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/losing-our-spines-to-save_b_100132.html

      • Sam Harris is notoriously hostile to religion in general, so I don’t take his opinions at face value. And this opinion peace discusses the reaction of a set of fanatics to intentional provocation – it in no way offers evidence that there is any substantial movement among Muslims to impose sharia on the rest of us.

        In conclusion, your denial doesn’t change the fact that by seeing great threats from alien horrors where they scarcely exist, you display xenophobia.

        • J2hess,

          Did you read what he had to say carefully? Yes he criticizes religion in general, but if you notice he’s saying things about Islam that are not exactly politically correct. He also calls CAIR an Islamist public relations firm in the guess of a civil rights organization. A lot of people out there think CAIR is what it says it is, he understands it is not. he also understand how Islamic doctrine is used as a justification for violence and the subjugation of non Muslims.

          • It’s not whether Harris is politically correct, it’s whether he’s factually correct, whether he makes a good argument on the basis of the facts that follows logically, and whether the facts and the argument have any bearing on the question at hand.

            Harris’ opinion piece just doesn’t have much to do with whether we are threatened by attempts to impose sharia on us. Anyone who thinks that we face such a threat is disconnecting from reality. (I know any number of people with guns who would react rather decidedly against such efforts, for one thing. You probably do too. Second, most US Muslims seem content with the laws we have.)

            So buck up.

          • J2hess,

            I’m not saying all Muslims want to implement Sharia law, its just that large numbers of them do, and according to some polls, world wide, its actually a majority.

            Game Over, Pew Poll Reveals Majority of Muslims Are Anything But “Moderate”

            http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2010/12/game-over-pew-poll-reveals-majority-of.html

            Game Over II: Poll of Egyptians Shows 84% Want Apsotates Stoned to Death

            http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2011/02/game-over-ii-poll-of-egyptians-shows-84.html

            If you still think that the threat is not significant, you’re living in denial. The only way you’ll stand any chance of changing my mind, is if you can refute those polls.

          • I don’t know if this will appear in proper order at the end, as your last comment has not “reply” button.

            I’m not going to attempt to refute the poll because I don’t know what the poll is! The website, obviously anti-Muslim, offers no source, no citation, no reference. What was the sample? What was the question? I do surveys and statistics and know well how they can be manipulated, and sources like this one have no transparency, no history, hence no credibility.

            I will merely not that the poll also says 70%are very concerned about extremism – which would include attempts to force your religious law on others.

            But more immediately, this has little relevance to the debate. These are not US Muslims. Their opinions are not relevant. And US Muslims are such a small proportion of the population that they have NO power to make us adopt sharia against our will. Only the paranoid imagine otherwise.

            Buck up.

          • Jim,

            The source for the story about the first poll is the LA times and the poll was conducted by the Pew Research Center,

            Majority of Muslims want Islam in politics, poll says

            http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/06/world/la-fg-1206-muslim-poll-20101206

          • Now that you’ve given me a reliable source on the poll, I can respond.

            Although it doesn’t cover US Muslims, it shows variation in responses, with Muslims living in more liberal societies generally being less in favor of more fundamentalist forms of Islam. It tends to support my informal observations in contacts with US Muslims that there is no significant opinion in favor of implementing the harsh and sometimes unjust punishments advocated by fundamentalists. Jewish law too used to call for stoning adulterous women; that aspect of the law has been dropped with changes in the context of Jewish practice across history.

            An aside: the practice of cutting of the hand of thieves emerged in societies without judicial institutions. Maintaining social order depended on family and tribe. Because of limited water for washing, hygenic regulation dictated that the right hand was for eating, the left hand for cleaning after elimination. Cutting off the right hand meant a thief needed someone else to assist them in eating, placing them in effect under the close supervision of relatives – a harsh solution for a harsh environment.

            I will also recall the testimony of the Muslim community of my hometown. Some young Muslims who came to the US as students were radicalized by their experience of religious intolerance in the US. They came to believe the Americans were engaged in a campaign against Islam, and responded in kind.

            In another conversation with a Muslim from Southeast Asia, I learned that he was concerned about the increasing influence of the more radical wahabbi sect in the last decade. The cynical support of the Saudi elite for wahabbist schools is likely a first cause, but the rising perception of a campaign against Islam by the Christian West contributes to this trend.

            My take-away is this: the more we accept the legitimacy of moderate Islam and distinguish the moderates from the extremists, the more we model the American value of religious tolerance, the less we have to worry about the radicalization of Islam. When we accept Muslims into the mainstream of American society, they acculturate. The more we exclude them, the less they acculturate, and the more we oppose them, the more they will adopt an oppositional politics and search for worldviews that validate their opposition.

            In short, if you want to protect and promote American values, practice them.

          • I think their tendencies for greedy islamic radical political policies and their extremely islamic intolerant upbringing are to be blamed for their failure to prevent their own islamic community from negative radicalisation. It is also unacceptable, if they used their totalitarian islamic political agenda to push their negative radical agenda, whether they are wahabi or not or whether anyone oppose them or not.

          • If one look into the history of muslim majority countries in south east asia, they were many incidence of violent islamic radicalisation that led them to display their various irrationally unpleasant radical political nature, even when they have all the political power..

          • WLIL,

            If you know something of the history of the countries of South and Southeast Asia, you realize that there are many factors operating, including ethnicity, the ambitions of politicians and soldiers, urbanization and economic change, the legacies of colonialism, etc., in addition to religion. Nor is there any evidence that Muslims are more greedy than anyone else.

            Your remarks tell us more about your prejudices than they tell us about the world or Islam.

          • The extreme selfish greed of islamics is well known. Just look at how those islamics who demand so much preferential treatment for their own islamic malay community, even though they don’t deserve it.
            It is nothing to do about ethnicity. It is all about their racist asiatic islam and their greed for islamic political control. They created so many bad and shabby economic poliices just to pander to their own islamic communites.

          • .
            While other nonislamic ethinics in asia used colonialism to get enrich themselves only, islamics had been known to make use of colonialism not only to enrich themeselves, but also to further their islamic political agenda. Our nonbeliever criticism of their bad islamic policies is nothing to do with prejudice, as islamics and proislamics like to claim. When those islamic are just pushing their islamic agenda in everything, including unpleasant rapid islamisation of urban area, that seek to make us disadvantaged nonbelievers uncomfortable, that is not only bad but most unacceptable..

          • IT is not prejudice when us nonbelievers have to cope with unpleasant backward islamic culture or learn to understand where their unpleasant islamic culture originated from .

          • During european colonialism in certain parts of south east asia, islamisation were not known to proceed at such a rapid pace. It was only during post european colonialism, that islamisation happened at such a rapid pace in line with their asiatic islamic agenda in almost everything that seek to exclude us poor disadvantaged nonbelievers, from the wealth that was created during european colonialism by the europeans from the west.

          • Those islamics are indeed a significant threat to our nonbelievers universal decent way of life. If those islamics continue to spread fear, intolerance and cause so much fear with their subtle and blatant display of their aggressive islamic culture or unpleasant islamic ideology, it is better they go back to their middle east.

        • I would imagine you would call the German people that fled Germany when the Nazis came to power Xenophobiac ?

        • This is my first time on this site and I came across it while trying to find some information on something for my class. I am an American Muslim, born and raised here and I used to be a Christian. I don’t think there’s any way possible that our Shariah Law will ever be allowed here in the U.S. And we are actually told by Allah (God) that we must follow our countries leader. So, we live in America, we have to follow the rules here.

          Yes, people do fear it but I think it’s because they don’t know what it is. And I think a lot of it has to do with the media. Of course people will be afraid of us muslims and shariah law when all they see on tv is crazy muslims running around screaming, burning things etc. But us muslims who actually follow the real religion are so embarrassed and saddened when we see other Muslims acting that way, because we know it’s wrong.

          Some things in Shariah law are actual in the bible as well, such as chopping off the hand or imprisonment of one who steals. Stoning or whipping one who commits adultery. Adultery is wrong, so there should be a big punishment for it. If people knew there was a punishment for it, then there wouldn’t be so much of it occuring, correct? Let’s say there was a punishment in the U.S for adultery, like 2 years prison or something, a lot less people would be cheating on their spouses, breaking up their families etc.

          And the thing with this morrocan guy having sex with his wife while she cried, and how he said she has to submit to him, that part is wrong. No, we don’t submit to any human being, we only submit to God. We are supposed to have sex with our husbands when they want, just as they are supposed to have sex with their wives when the wives want. Why would you deny your spouse intimacy when that is a part of marriage? There’s times when I’m tired and I don’t feel like being intimate with my husband, but if he wants to, I would never say no to him. So in my opinion, by the judge not giving her the restraining order, and saying that it’s allowed in our religion, does not mean he’s following Shariah Law or that Shariah Law is making it’s way into the U.S. he’s just respecting something in our religion. There’s no reason to fear, the U.S. laws will always be what is followed.

        • What a load of bollocks j2hess. islam is a death cult pure and simple and is a danger to all of us!

          • Your ignorance is only exceeded by your inability to form an argument based on evidence and logic.

            And I’ll take that load of bullocks – when can you deliver?

        • Yours is the mindset of those that would not stand up to Hitler before he exterminated those he hated for no reason except that he hated himself.

          Wake up and see the writing on the wall. Look at Europe – Holland, France, England and other countries are now posed with having to deal with how to control the Muslim populations that do not immigrate they come to settle(take over) and have created their own nation within those countries.
          Even here in America some schools are so biased they allow Muslims prayer time, but hate Christians and will not allow them to even carry a bible. How twisted is that?
          They are infiltrating our government, schools and elsewhere just like the Nazis did you blinded fool.
          I hope you do not have a daughter because they think any other than a Muslim is a slut and gang rape young girls and women. Nice people that have settled in the western world under the guise of escaping their government.
          Don’t complain when you have to convert.

  33. We all have our own separate Beliefs, founded in various religions, because we are individuals. It only makes sense that a situation such as this would produce various ways to praise OUR HEAVENLY FATHER, the Creator. I think my Beliefs are correct as much as you do yours.
    _
    “Everyone thinks he’s right. And some of us are so convinced that we’re even willing to fight to the death for what we believe. And with all that conviction, sincere as it may be, we keep digging ourselves in, and making that [hole] deeper and deeper, because in the final analysis, if everyone is right, then no one is right.
    So what’s the answer? Don’t be so sure of your beliefs. Don’t be so quick to jump to your belief, because what you believe may not be as true as you first thought. Have the courage to filter your beliefs through the filter of common sense. Don’t take your preconceived beliefs and try to justify them rationally. Instead, use rationality to come to your beliefs . . . And whatever doesn’t make sense, have the sense to let it go. . . And if we don’t get our heads straight, it will only get worse.” -Nissim Dahan
    _
    I do not want to force anyone to believe as I do. Then it would not be your will, it would be my will. I accept Jesus Christ as my Savior. You may not. Whether you choose to believe or not is your decision, not mine. I have put my ’Beliefs’ through the ’Filter of Common Sense.’ Have You? We all are not going to have the same convictions about ‘Divinity‘, the same religion, or even the same beliefs about a common religion. Wanting to kill someone because they do not believe as I do, on anything, is not good. I should have the patience and tolerance to accept the fact we do not agree. Common sense.
    _
    Furthermore, there are bad elements in every religion, culture, and nation. I can not say one religion, culture, or nation is bad because of some and not all. Thus, not all Muslims are bad when a few do wrong; not all Christians are bad when a few do wrong; not all Middle-Easterners are bad when a few do wrong; not all Americans are bad when a few do wrong; etcetera. Plus I can not blame the people for what their government does. We all, worldwide, have bad politicians, bad bureaucrats, and bad military leaders. And the same is true as before. All are not to be blamed for the actions of some. Common sense.
    _
    So what is the answer? I personally agree we must stop ‘Extremism.’ Such things as killing, fighting to the death, and forcing your will upon others are extreme. I also personally agree with the ‘Golden Rule’ which should be common sense:
    _
    “Do unto others as you would have done unto you.” -Jesus Christ
    _
    We all will not agree on everything; we must accept that situation. So let people decide for themselves what is currently best for themselves. If someone wants to do something that does not affect you, then let them do it. You may not agree with what they are doing , but let them. OUR HEAVENY FATHER obviously does not want to control us. I believe we must follow that example. Do not force your will on someone else. If their actions will not affect you, then let them. Not advocating hedonism, let their will decide what is best for them. Common sense.
    _
    I’m not forcing my will on you. Why are you forcing your’s on me? May OUR HEAVENLY FATHER’s Will Be Done.

  34. This is not religion – this is the law of their country.
    They do not immigrate to assimilate into a culture they come to settle – like settlers in our country came west to change it.
    Look at France and Holland where they have settled-creating their own cultural neighborhoods demanding to be under Sharia law – demanding the food in schools be changed to accommodate them, demanding prayer time for their children in schools, and the list goes on with the increase in crime as they rape women and young girls and call them whores.
    So if you like their way of life go join them, but as for me I am an American and the laws of America do not need to be changed to accommodate any other group of people that come here legally or illegally. We are a nation that is a democratic republic and we need to get back to being such.

  35. [...] as evidenced in a ruling by a New Jersey judge last year  which was later overturned by the New Jersey Appellate Court, and more recently a Tampa [...]

  36. [...] as evidenced in a ruling by a New Jersey judge last year  which was later overturned by the New Jersey Appellate Court, and more recently a Tampa [...]

  37. yeaaaaah, he didn’t MEAN to rape her like a criminal, cause he thought it was okay!! Just because he thinks it is OKAY is not a reason to deny the protection order, it’s EVEN MORE OF A REASON TO!!! OBVIOUSLY he doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with what he’s doing. This isn’t mediating circumstances of a rape conviction, this is a request for a protection order !!! CRAP !!!

  38. I’m glad to see that you think you know more about the case than the judge who handles these as part of his normal duties. The judge determined that the change of circumstances meant that the ex-husband knew that his past behavior was illegal and that he was unlikely to repeat it.

    Not knowing the people and the details myself, I would nevertheless guess that if a protection order would give the ex-wife a better sense of security, the judge should have granted it.

  39. Addressing the main point of this discussion, however, this is not a case of substituting sharia for US law; the hysteria is unwarranted.

  40. This is only one reason the government should act now to ban any Sharia law. It is a dangerous precedent and no one group of any type has a right to live here under any other than city, state, federal laws that we all abide by.
    They should not come here with the idea of settling(taking over) they are immigrants and should assimilate with the population and laws here or go home.

  41. My Dear Margaret,

    We don’t have to ban sharia; US and state laws over-ride any contradictory provisions in sharia.

    Muslims come here with the idea of living a good life in the US, not taking over. That’s a scare raised by people who don’t know the Muslim immigrants. My hometown in Iowa has had Muslim residents for over 100 years. They are so assimilated that as a child I didn’t know they were there until I happened to ride my bike past their mosque on the way to the swimming pool. They fought and died for our country in WWII and some are now serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here in Orange County, my daughter has Muslim schoolmates, including one who was on the synchronized swimming team with her. There are many Persians here who fled the ayatollahs. Some Muslims are relatively secular; some are more worried to protect their kids from the sexualized media and cheap relationships. But we all get along, and I haven’t heard of any campaigns to replace our laws with sharia.

  42. Yes you are right we should not have to ban Sharia Law, however, if you will look at other countries of the world this is not the case. They are not immigrating they are settling to take over and build their communities that even the police can not get into to enforce the laws. They have injected their laws into theirs like is being done here in some schools that allow Muslims prayer time but no one else.
    Holland, France and England and other countries are suffering terribly for it.
    It is sad that some Muslims will suffer for this, but it is their own people that are doing it.
    I have friends of many races and beliefs and love them dearly. There are many Muslims that do not believe in violence and taking over other countries, yet the majority are doing just that and advocate the eradication of others that don’t accept their way of life.
    Humanity is a sad lot that they can not respect one another and let others live their own life. There have been and always will be those that think some people are less than themselves so it doesn’t matter what happens to them.
    I feel for your friends and others that suffer because of unjust thinking but it is a two way street it seems. You let some others share what you have and they want to take it all and then change it.

    What I was really trying to say and worded it poorly is that a law or judgement in this country should never be influenced by someone’s belief in another country’s law such as this judge did. It holds no basis under our laws and was rightly reversed.

    Thanks for making me think this through more clearly.

  43. We in the US have been far more successful in assimilating Muslim immigrants than some of the European countries. It’s partially a matter of numbers, partially a matter of the socio-economic status of most Muslim immigrants, partially a matter of our history as a country of immigrants from many cultures and our consequent tolerance for diversity while the younger generations become more assimilated. If we search the world for problems with ethnic/religious minorities, we will find many of them – but little evidence that Muslims are more of a problem than others. So let’s stick to the US, the topic at hand?

    Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but US law does recognize that intent is important, say for example in the difference between first degree murder and second degree murder or manslaughter. The judge was investigating intent as a clue, not even to guilt or innocence, but to the likelihood of a future sexual assault. He was trying to act within US law. It has nothing to do specifically with sharia in and of itself; it could have equally been fundamentalist Christian beliefs. I’ll not comment on the legal basis for the reversal as I haven’t read the appeals court opinion.

    It is common during troubled time to focus attention upon some group who is different, and ‘other’ we can blame. It is understandable that this time the other is identified as Muslims. But we also make mistakes. We tossed many loyal Americans of Japanese descent into concentration camps in WWII. We feared the Irish, then the Italians and the Poles. This is my effort here – to work against the substitute of fear for thought and sound judgment. Take courage, Margaret. We have more to fear of our laws being hijacked by our own wealthy and powerful than by a small minority of immigrants and the Muslims who have been here for decades..

  44. F.Y.I. up til about 30 years ago a woman in this country was not allowed to say no to her husband. It was her marital obligation to her husband. Cops wouldn’t prosecute a man if his wife said he raped her.

  45. [...] as evidenced in a ruling by a New Jersey judge last year  which was later overturned by the New Jersey Appellate Court, and more recently a Tampa [...]

  46. [...] as evidenced in a ruling by a New Jersey judge last year which was later overturned by the New Jersey Appellate Court, and more recently a Tampa [...]

  47. [...] as evidenced in a ruling by a New Jersey judge last year which was later overturned by the New Jersey Appellate Court, and more recently a Tampa [...]

  48. Iwanna unsubscribe

Your comments & your IP address are your legal problem, not ours.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 36,880 other followers

%d bloggers like this: