As Christians all around the globe watched Dr. Meriam Ibrahim Ishag suffer at the hands of Sudan’s radical Shari’a extremists during the last two months, Americans in particular can take away one critical piece of knowledge. We absolutely do not want any form of the barbaric Shari’a law introduced into our U.S. courts.
Except it already has been.
Thanks to efforts by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Shari’a law is well on it’s way to becoming the new standard in civil court cases. As usual, the ACLU is playing the ‘guilt’ card and working against the intent of our First Amendment rights of free speech, and CAIR is busy telling Americans that Islam is the religion of peace.
But anyone who’s paid attention to the attacks of 9/11, the Fort Hood massacre, the Boston Marathon bombing, the torture and murder of Americans in Benghazi, the deadly tyranny of Sudan’s President Al-Bashir, the kidnappings by Boko Haram, or the recent deadly invasion of Iraq – to name a few – know that radical Muslims are anything but peaceful.
Attempting to get the jump on Shari’a, many states have already passed laws prohibiting the use of foreign religious law in their courts. Yet despite strong voter support for these measures, the ACLU is fighting to get them all overturned. Oklahoma was one such state and – sure enough – in 2013 a federal court struck down their efforts, ignoring 70% of the population’s wishes that the U.S. Constitution take precedence.
The ACLU claims it is necessary to consider religious law (Shari’a) when negotiating adoptions, custody of children, executing a will and/or settling disputes over private property rights, to name a few. What the ACLU fails to mention is that within Shari’a law, women are considered property and thus have no rights, which means they have no say in court.
Proponents of Shari’a law also seem to forget that when foreigners come to America, they are supposed to assimilate into our culture, not the other way around.
Consider the case of the 2008 arranged marriage in Morocco between S.D., a 17 year-old girl, and M.J.R., a man she did not know. Born to a Muslim father, S.D. was by default forced into Islam and had no choice but to accept her fate of the prearranged marriage.
The teenager was introduced to the man at their wedding and one month later they moved to New Jersey so that M.J.R. could pursue his career in accounting.
Apparently it wasn’t ‘love at first sight’ or ‘wedded bliss’ because by 2010, S.D. (still a teenager) had filed for a restraining order against her ‘husband’ on the grounds of rape, kidnapping and aggravated assault. Apparently the man repeatedly forced her to have non-consensual sex and abused her when she tried to refuse.
Eventually M.J.R. took the teen to the home of an Imam and verbally divorced her in accordance with Shari’a law. However, the sexual assaults and abuse continued, even after the divorce.
Believing the laws of New Jersey would protect her, S.D. did what any logical abuse victim would do to defend herself. She lodged complaints with the police, filed for a restraining order against the assailant and sought permanent intervention through the courts.
Imagine her surprise when Hudson County Superior Court Judge Joseph Charles refused to uphold the restraining order because he felt the man brutalizing the teen was doing so out of a desire to live his faith. Furthermore, the Judge found that even though the religious customs clashed with the New Jersey law, Muslim beliefs took precedence.
In Judge Charles’ opinion he wrote, “This court does not feel 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 … he wanted to … was something that was not prohibited.”
Interestingly enough, the leftists chanting the ‘war on women’ mantra were silent on this case. Perhaps they momentarily forgot that women don’t actually enjoy being raped or assaulted, even if it is by a man they are quasi ‘married’ to.
Fortunately S.D. had the financial resources to force an appeal of the case and eventually Judge Charles’ despicable decision was overturned by the appellate court. M.J.R. was then charged with sexual assault, kidnapping, aggravated assault and criminal restraint.
Even though this case was almost four years ago it brings forth the ever-present concern that Shari’a law is slowly and silently encroaching upon our U.S. Constitution and individual state’s rights. While this case was eventually made right, the very notion that any sitting judge would consider Shari’a law in an American court – should scare the pants off every American citizen.
As the world around us implodes with barbaric Muslim radicals and sympathizers on the march to eradicate all Judeo-Christian people everywhere, we must be ever vigilant to prevent it taking over at home. Stand firm for American laws. Stand firm for America.