ABC News recently quoted legal experts who said they did not know of one instance of a judge in the U.S. invoking sharia in rendering a decision. Since then, have they been made to look like fools?
How many times I have heard “Sharia law is not compatible with the U.S. Constitution or our judicial system, it cannot happen here.” Really? Let’s examine that for a moment.
Back in January, I wrote about Creeping Sharia here in America. In another article, I examined the case against Faleh Hassan Almaleki of Phoenix, Arizona accused of the murder of his own daughter, Noor Almaleki, in what was an admitted “honor killing”.
The death penalty was taken off the table after Almaleki’s defense attorney, Billy Little, asked the court and the Judge not to seek the death penalty and to take special precautions to ensure that the County and Attorney’s Office wouldn’t wrongly seek the death penalty because…Almaleki is a Muslim.
I recently reported on the case of four Christians arrested in Dearborn, Michigan at the Arab Festival. The Thomas More Law Center stated:
“In what some have described as police enforcement of Sharia law at the annual Dearborn Arab International Festival, last Friday night Dearborn Police Officers arrested four Christian missionaries and illegally confiscated their video cameras which were recording the events surrounding their arrests.”
I was elated when Oklahoma State representative Rex Duncan saw the threat of Sharia law and wrote a bill that would ban Sharia law in his state. When I interviewed Rep. Duncan, he explained:
“It would have been a safe bet that Oklahoma would be the last State to enact this law, but if we waited until it was on our doorstep it would be too late.”
Those words mean more than you can imagine.
During the same time period that I interviewed Rep. Duncan, ABC news did a story on the Oklahoma anti-Sharia law as well. ABC reported that, after speaking to legal experts, they (legal experts) “did not know of one instance of a judge in the U.S. invoking sharia in rendering a decision.”
And now we have New Jersey.
According to Court documents:
“The plaintiff, herein known as S.D., and the defendant, herein known as M.J.R., are citizens of Morocco and adherents to the Muslim faith. They were wed in Morocco in an arranged marriage on July 31, 2008, when plaintiff was seventeen years old. The parties did not know each other prior to the marriage. On August 29, 2008, they came to New Jersey as the result of defendant’s employment in this country as an accountant.”
The wife, S.D. accused her husband of domestic abuse that began on November 1, 2008. Court records show that defendant requested that plaintiff, who did not know how to cook, prepare three Moroccan dishes for six guests to eat on the following morning. After two unsuccessful attempts at cooking the husband angrily told her: “I’m going to show you later on, not now, I’m not going to talk to you right now until the visitors leave”.
After the visitors left the husband stated “now I’m going to start punishing you”. The punishment continued for approximately one hour. Although this occurred on November 1, some of the bruises remained at the time that a detective from the Hudson County Prosecutor’s office took pictures of her body on November 22, 2008.
Also according to Court documents an additional incident of abuse took place on November 16, 2008 in which S.D. attempted to flee the bedroom and her husband locked the door and sexually assaulted her.
The husband was quoted as saying:
“You’re still my wife and you must do whatever I tell you to do. I want to hurt your flesh, I want to feel and know that you’re still my wife.”
Another incident occurred on November 22, 2008:
“That morning, following an argument with her mother-in-law, plaintiff locked herself in her bedroom. Defendant, having been refused entry, removed the latch from the door, entered the bedroom, and engaged in nonconsensual sex with plaintiff. Although plaintiff’s mother-in-law and sister-in-law were in the apartment, and although plaintiff was crying throughout the episode, neither came to her assistance. Defendant and his relatives then left the apartment, and plaintiff started to break everything in the bedroom, including one of its two windows. After defendant returned with his mother at approximately 4:00 p.m., plaintiff attempted to leave the apartment. However, defendant pulled her back into the bedroom and assaulted her by repeatedly slapping her face, causing her lip to swell and bleeding to occur. He then left the room, and plaintiff escaped without shoes or proper clothing through the unbroken window.”
The husband obviously beat his wife and raped her. This was not disputed in court.
The Judge’s decision in this case of so called “justice” is as disturbing as the husband’s behavior towards his wife. Here is what the Judge wrote for his decision on a restraining order following a finding of domestic violence:
“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.”
You read it right. Go ahead and re-read it if you want to, it won’t change. The Judge in this case basically said, because he is a Muslim he was acting under “something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.”
Yeah, and Sharia doesn’t happen here in America, or ABC’s “legal experts” can’t remember? It is not compatible with our Constitution remember?
I am glad to report that an Appellate Court saw it differently. Here is part of what the Appellate Court wrote when overturning the first Judge’s decision:
“Defendant’s conduct in engaging in nonconsensual sexual intercourse was unquestionably knowing, regardless of his view that his religion permitted him to act as he did.”
“As the judge recognized, the case thus presents a conflict between the criminal law and religious precepts. In resolving this conflict, the judge determined to except defendant from the operation of the State’s statutes as the result of his religious beliefs. In doing so, the judge was mistaken.”
The Judge was “mistaken”? Mistaken? How about if we “mistakenly” throw this guy off the bench?
Yes, in this case an Appellate Court came through, but how many more times must we see cases like this here in America before people start to open their eyes to the truth of “creeping Sharia”?
How many cases such as this will occur before the Appellate Court lets the decision stand? The words written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States – “EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW”.
Equal. It does not say equal unless you are a different religion or culture. It says equal. Period.
The more people, yes, we the people, allow this to happen the more Sharia has a foothold within our society and our Judicial system. We the people have the right, no, the obligation, to make sure that those we put in office, be it as Judges or Representatives follow the Constitution. If and when they don’t, vote them out or impeach them. This is our country and it’s time we took it back!
