Posted tagged ‘Islam and wives’

Canadian Judge in Marital Sexual Assault Case Places Cultural Practices Above the Law

November 8, 2017

Canadian Judge in Marital Sexual Assault Case Places Cultural Practices Above the Law, Investigative Project on Terrorism, Scott Newark, November 8, 2017

The question that now needs to be asked is whether the Provincial Crown (which has jurisdiction) will appeal this decision to confirm that Canadian secular law, which prohibits sexual contact without consent, including for married women, prevails over a cultural or religious practice that mandates a woman’s consent to sex as a condition of marriage.

And will our self-described feminist federal government urge its provincial counterpart to launch this important appeal with the full support of the federal Crown as an intervenor in the case?


Thanks to excellent reporting by Andrew Duffy of the Ottawa Citizen, Canadians recently learned of a disturbing decision from Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert Smith that acquitted a man of sexual assault against his former wife because the man and his then-wife believed that their religion and culture entitled him to have sex with her whether she consented or not.

The decision is especially alarming as it is based on a presumption that Canada’s clear criminal law that requires actual consent to sexual contact is somehow superseded by a cultural or religious belief. Further, the ruling undermines specific protections enacted in Canadian law that protect women, including those who are married, from non-consensual sexual contact.

The ruling also ignores the long standing Canadian legal principle that ignorance of the law is not a criminal defense. In summary, the ruling appears to place religious and cultural beliefs above the laws of Canada.

The identities of the people involved are withheld under Canadian law, ironically to protect the victims, but the rationale for the decision is discernible and can be commented on which is what Andrew Duffy’s column carefully did. In essence, the judge concluded that although the sexual contact was done without the wife’s actual consent, the Crown had failed to prove that the accused had the required criminal intent (mens rea) because of the religious cultural belief he possessed.

His wife was a Palestinian Muslim who came to Canada in 1989 with her parents at age 19. Three years later, she entered into an arranged, but not forced, marriage in Gaza with a man who was also a Palestinian Muslim. The newlyweds returned to Canada and started a family.

Justice Smith concluded that both the accused and victim believed that under their religion and culture, the wife was obliged to have sex with her husband when he wanted, regardless of whether she agreed.

“I find that the accused probably had sex with his wife on many occasions without her specific consent,” Smith said, “as both he and she believed that he had the right to do so.”

The incident that was the basis of the charge occurred in 2002. The wife said that her husband grabbed her by the wrist, pulled her onto the couch, pulled down her pants and had sex with her even though she asked him three separate times to stop. She testified that she only learned that this was a crime in Canada in 2013 after the marriage ended and she spoke with police about child access issues when she revealed details of their past marriage. Based on that information, the police laid the sexual assault charge and the Crown Prosecutor’s office agreed it should proceed to trial.

The husband denied the allegations, but the judge expressly said he disbelieved his evidence, while he believed the wife’s evidence who he found credible as a witness who gave straightforward answers. Conversely, he found the accused to be argumentative and evasive as a witness, and he rejected his account as not believable.

The decision is remarkably brief, and it fails to address existing Canadian criminal law which expressly requires consent for sexual contact (s.273.1) and defines circumstances where consent does not exist including:

(c) the accused induces the complainant to engage in the activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority;

(d) the complainant expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to engage in the activity;

Further, the ruling does not address s. 278 of the Criminal Code which specifically requires sexual consent from a spouse.

The judge does not address or even mention the s.19 ignorance of the law is no excuse issue and simply concluded that the Crown had failed to prove the husband’s criminal intent. So even though he believed the wife, he dismissed the charge against the ex-husband.

The judge seems to have concluded that ignorance of applicable Canadian law, or a belief that a religious or cultural practice supersedes secular criminal law, is a defense to what is the clear crime of sexual assault.

His failure to consider existing relevant Criminal Code provisions is further grounds for an appeal, as ignoring the law is also not acceptable judicial conduct.

The question that now needs to be asked is whether the Provincial Crown (which has jurisdiction) will appeal this decision to confirm that Canadian secular law, which prohibits sexual contact without consent, including for married women, prevails over a cultural or religious practice that mandates a woman’s consent to sex as a condition of marriage.

And will our self-described feminist federal government urge its provincial counterpart to launch this important appeal with the full support of the federal Crown as an intervenor in the case?

Justice Smith made his ruling Oct. 17. That means the attorney general has about a week to lift the cone of silence on this important ruling and announce the filing of an appeal on behalf of the people of Ontario, and indeed Canada, to confirm that the secular law of Canada still applies to all residents of our country.

Scott Newark is a former Alberta Crown Prosecutor who has also served as Executive Officer of the Canadian Police Association, Vice Chair of the Ontario Office for Victims of Crime, Director of Operations for Investigative Project on Terrorism and as a Security Policy Advisor to the governments of Ontario and Canada. He is currently an Adjunct Professor in the TRSS Program in the School of Criminology at Simon Fraser University.

Muslim Chaplain of the Canadian army: Beat your wife, but keep it private

December 17, 2016

Muslim Chaplain of the Canadian army: Beat your wife, but keep it private, Jihad Watch

Why would anyone expect him to say anything different? The mandate to beat one’s wife is in the Qur’an:

“Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them.” — Qur’an 4:34

Muhammad “struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?” — Aisha (Sahih Muslim 2127)

“Muslim chaplain of Canada’s army explains Quranic verse on wife beating,” by Jonathan D. Halevi, CIJ News, December 15, 2016 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

Dr. Iqbal Al-Nadvi (Mohammad Iqbal Masood Al-Nadvi) is the Muslim Chaplain of the Canadian army, the Chairperson of Canadian Council of Imams (Canada’s top imam) and the Amir (President) of Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) Canada, a nation-wide Islamic organization that is striving “to build an Exemplary Canadian Muslim Community” by “total submission to Him [Allah] and through the propagation of true and universal message of Islam.”

His previous positions include the following: Director of Al-Falah Islamic School in Oakville, Ontario from 2004 to 2011, Imam of Muslim Association of Calgary Islamic Center from 1998-2004 and as a member of the University of Calgary chaplaincy team.

On February 16, 2015, Iqbal Nadvi delivered a speech on “Family: The Building Blocks of Society” and “Family Life in Islam.” Among other things, Nadvi explained the Quranic verse dealing with wife beating. Verse 34 of Surah (chapter) Al-Nisa’ in the Quran reads:

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard.  But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance.  [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them [lightly].  But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.”

Nadvi said that the Quran allows the husband to beat his wife under certain conditions, but because relationship between husband and wife is “scared” Islam, it has to be carried out as part of the attempts to resolve conflicts and must stay behind closed doors. Only if it fails to fix the marital relationship, the couple can resort to mediation and later to divorce. The following is an excerpt from Nadvi’s speech (19:24-22:10):

“In Islam as [inaudible] Qadar says many rulings (احكام) of the Islamic Law (الشريعة) in Islam, in Quran, [are] given just in concept, in brief, rights? But the family issue is covered by Quran in a very detailed way. Not only what we should do, but even what you do if face some problems. How [do] you solve it.

“So in that sense for example we see that the protection of family is covered by Islam in three layers,right?

“The first layer is – solve the problem mutually between husband and wife, right? In many times it happens that in these days and Glory be to Allah, meaning (يعني) when we are attacked, right? and Islam is criticized that Islam promotes suppose wife beating, right? and so many things.

“So many people when they translate the word fa-idribuhunna (فاضربوهن) they translate, change the meaning of it. [inaudible]

“Me, of example, I want to say one thing. First thing is that the is the ruling (حكم) of the Quran. It is existing. I can not change it. But I need to know from the messenger of Allah (رسول الله) peace and blessing be upon him (صلى الله عليه وسلم) what it means? How [do] we implement it? Do we have an example from messenger of Allah (رسول الله) peace and blessing be upon him (صلى الله عليه وسلم) that he ever used this order? Right?

“So it means what? It means only that Islam is saying that the husband and wife issue and relation is so sacred, is so important, it must not be exposed to others. It supposes to be solved among each other. It is the first layer.

“And this is the point where for example Quran says if you are taking the issue, and Hadith says, if you are doing this thing, you can beat or can leave [avoid sleeping with the wife]. But why? Just keep the issue among each other.

UK: Sharia court orders woman to return to abusive, rapist husband

November 15, 2016

UK: Sharia court orders woman to return to abusive, rapist husband, Jihad Watch

SHARIA courts are sentencing women to lives of misery by ordering them to stay with abusive husbands, a rape victim has claimed.

Where is the power of Western principles of human rights and a democratic constitution in Britain? This is what the Prime Minister of the UK, Theresa May, has defended in the name of religious freedom and diversity: she hailed the “great benefits” to Britain of sharia teachings, overlooking the principles of sharia, which permits men to beat and rape their wives. Add to that the shocking coverup of the abuse and brutalization of up to a million British girls at the hands of Muslim rape gangs. With its two-tier legal system, Britain is descending further into the pit of subjugation.


“Sharia court told rape victim to RETURN to her attacker husband,” by Leda Reynolds, UK Express, November 14, 2016:

The mother-of-two, calling herself Lubna, revealed that she had been beaten, robbed and raped by her estranged husband despite being the British courts banning him from approaching her and which had also awarded her custody of their children.

But family pressure persuaded the British-Pakistani to try and obtain an Islamic divorce in a Sharia court.

Expecting to be treated sympathetically, Lubna said she felt violated when she was instead told to return to her violent husband.

Gita Sahgal, a human rights activist from the One Law for All campaign and Centre for Secular Space, said this is the reality of Sharia courts which are operating across Britain.

She said many Muslim women are being denied their legal rights by Sharia courts which are bypassing the UK’s justice system and telling women British civil divorce does not count in the eyes of Islam.

She said: “Any woman who embarks on a new relationship will, they say, have committed adultery – a crime only equalled in their eyes by apostasy, abandoning Islam, and blasphemy.

“Yet the courts in, for example, Bangladesh and Pakistan, are perfectly happy to accept a civil divorce certificate from Britain as evidence of the end of a marriage, which in the Muslim tradition is a civil contract rather than a sacrament. In those countries, the contract must be registered to count as a legal marriage.”

The Commons Home Affairs Committee has begun an investigation into the spread of Islamic law, a move criticised by some Muslims who have branded the probe “interference”.

Dr Ahmad al-Dubayan, chairman of the UK Board of Sharia Councils – a body set up to standardise the administration of Islamic law – said unregulated Sharia law courts exist “everywhere in the country”.

And he told the Home Affairs Select Committee last week the self-appointed courts are performing marriages and handing out divorces.

Although the unregulated bodies have no legal force or jurisdiction in the UK, they are regularly used by Muslim families to adjudicate on personal matters, the Committee heard.

Many courts reportedly charge for their services, with fees for divorce proceedings often higher than British courts.

The doctor warned the exact number of Sharia courts operating across Britain is unknown.

He said: “We don’t know how many councils there are.

“Some people talk about 80 or 30 or 50, I don’t know. There is no record for this and no studies, unfortunately.”…..

The Select Committee heard that if Sharia courts are banned, backstreet courts will continue to operate but will slip even further under the radar.

Labour MP Naz Shah, who also giving evidence, admitted the councils could be used to “oppress” women.

She added: “Sharia itself is actually a code of conduct and the fundamental principal of Sharia is that the law of the land precedes anything.

“You cannot enforce and have a second parallel legal system in this country.

“As a British lawmaker I’m very clear, we have one law and that law is of the British court.”

Forensic Psychiatrist: Fascinating Insights Into Orlando Shooting

July 11, 2016

Forensic Psychiatrist: Fascinating Insights Into Orlando Shooting, Clarion ProjectRyan Mauro, July 11, 2016

Omar-Mateen-Noor-Salman-HPNoor Salman and Omar Mateen (Photo: Video screenshot)

Dr. Michael Welner, a forensic psychiatrist renowned for his work both in cutting-edge legal cases and research on criminal evil, explained to Clarion Project that important questions about the wife of Omar Mateen, who attacked a gay club in Florida, remain unanswered.

He also explained how political correctness and the difficulties in discussing Islamism are undermining our ability to combat the ideology.

You can read our previous interview with Dr. Welner here. Below is the latest interview between Clarion Project’s National Security Analyst Ryan Mauro and Dr. Welner :

1. Clarion Project: What’s the significance of Omar Mateen’s wife’s role in Mateen’s actions based on what we currently know?   

Dr. Welner:  Mateen’s wife, Noor Salman, was aware of his objectives to carry out a mass casualty attack, and she could have easily engaged his or her own support system to stop him from doing so.

Mrs. Salman accompanied Mateen during a visit to Disneyworld that caught the attention of Disney security in April. Salman knew Mateen was purchasing offensive weaponry. And not just any gun, but an assault weapon (MCX Sig Sauer) far more expensive than needed for a mass killing – even as Mateen was quite underemployed.

Ms. Salman did not stand in the way of her husband’s activities that would “martyr” himself, knowing that her child would be fatherless and she would be without financial support. Or is there more?

The San Bernadino killers, who long planned the mass killing yet bore a child together, was the watershed of ISIS in America. ISIS has redefined Islamic feminism by embedding women in vital support roles in terror (martyrdom), recruitment and facilitation.

That Mateen was willing to leave a child behind and Salman accepting of same is an idea unthinkable to Americans and to terrorism in America. But it is a mindset indoctrinated in Palestinian life.

Salman, born of Palestinian parents and raised with traditional Islamic restrictions, was first wed in an arranged marriage with a man from the West Bank. She divorced her first husband. Yet she stayed with Mateen, who long claimed aspirations to be a martyr.

Salman did more than stay with Mateen, she admittedly participated with him in preparations for his eventual attack, including driving him to Pulse to case the nightclub. She thus actively supported her husband’s efforts, even she had family living nearby where she could separate herself. She agreed, with Mateen, to sign over the deed to their house two months before the attack on the Pulse nightclub.

Facilitators, collaborators, and handlers are the unseen support of Islamist suicide terror – especially in the Palestinian theater. How did Mateen get the resources for an MCX Sig Sauer? How did he pay for the upscale accommodations of his overseas travel? How does his wife anticipate supporting herself financially in the face of the attack – and having divested herself of her home?

Did he expect to survive, as had the San Bernadino attackers? And what then would have happened? How is it that we do not even know the identity of her first husband’s family? How is it that there is no public discussion about Mateen’s mosque or the influences who inspired him?

2. Clarion Project: When Mateen had outbursts of extremism at work, such as declarations of support for terrorist groups, he blamed it on anti-Muslim discrimination by his colleagues, basically saying that Islamophobia causes Islamic terrorism. Is this just a standard deflection tactic or is there more involved with Islamists’ incessant use of the Islamophobia card?   

Dr. Welner: The American dialogue about the Islamist supremacist movement and, in fact, all of Islam is not based in fact. This is because public impressions and the nature of the dialogue we have are carefully controlled by at least three sources of influence:

1) Unregulated and below-the-radar financial influence on American lawmakers by countries ruled by sharia law,

2) intellectuals and other American media and thought-leader proxies funded by dogmatic Saudi Arabia and Qatari deep pockets. These funding resources, whose assets tie back to their respective governments, export the spread of sharia as a neoconservative would aim to export democracy. Funding now heavily influences university education, think tanks and media and promotes impression management by respected academia deliberately dissimulates and whitewashes Islamist terrorism and its broader goals, and

3) CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, who have been ceded standing by the press to speak for Muslims in America despite a legacy of apologia and of actively teaching the Muslim community to impede law enforcement’s investigations of terror inquiries.

Islamic supremacist advocates and, more importantly, the organizations empowered to speak for Islam are very sensitive to American public opinion and the buttons to push among social activists.

At a time that enhanced interrogations and waterboarding came under scrutiny in Afghanistan and Guantanamo, for example, al-Qaeda was teaching its conscripts to assert that they were tortured when they went into custody.

They could rely upon an academia-media complex that grasped at any opportunity to attack a Republican president through the safe space of declared “social justice.” Al-Qaeda exploited these willing opinion soldiers to fuel public sentiment against Guantanamo Bay and to delegitimize the U.S.-led war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

The Islamic supremacists have also cynically co-opted national sensitivities on other fronts. Recognizing the mainstream news media’s identification with black grievances against the police, the Islamists have successfully fused the idea of blacks targeted for their skin color to advance the notion that Muslims are victimized as a direct result of discussion of the centrality of Islam to Islamic supremacist terror incidents.

President Obama, has been the highest authority to subscribe to this false canard. The President has famously disassociated Islamic supremacist terrorism from Islam, often with servile platitudes that embellish Islam’s history in America or submissive deference to “The Prophet.”

The administration has promoted a CVE (Countering Violent Extremism) program that emphasizes the purported risks of “right wing terrorist” groups in America. While the facts demonstrate otherwise, an imposed groupthink has rooted out teaching and training from among law enforcement that engages the Islamist threat with any appreciation for its urgency and current relevance.

References to Islamic terror have been literally erased, right down to “Allah” being airbrushed from transcripts of the Mateen 911 calls.

Political correctness extinguishes any criticism of Islam or its intolerance to alternative lifestyles. This includes speech laws in many otherwise free countries that equate criticism of Islam with hate speech, laws which are enforced particularly as they relate to Islam.

With freedom controlled, even where expression is normally free, the public submits. The psychological intimidation by legal repercussion extends what is accomplished by terror or, if not, by threat of terror.

The consequences have filtered all the way through American life, as they have in Europe. A migrant gang sex assault in Idaho of a small child is suppressed by the local authorities. Nidal Hassan’s advocacy of martyrdom is not sufficient to remove him from active military duty, and when he later embarks on a mass shooting of the troops to whom he was to apply a Hippocratic Oath, the military – which answers to the Commander-in-Chief – insists that it is a work accident.

Unquestionably dangerous prisoners released from Guantanamo Bay, only to return to attack and kill American servicemen and Ankara airport-goers alike.

Surveillance programs that would monitor mosques in which attendees are particularly poisoned to support terrorism shut down, despite court support of their legality and police respect for their effectiveness.

Americans who cared about their country reported concerns about Mateen to entrusted law enforcement agencies, only to have investigations shut down. All of these systemic errors feed back to the active thought control and stifling of free thinking about efforts of the Islamic supremacist movement to gain submission of non-believers.

The first of those affected are Muslims themselves, because open-mindedness is crushed by sharia advocacy as opposed to pluralism advocacy among Muslims.

The only solution is a nonviolent but defiant revolt of free speech that demands that leaders and the news and information media stop lying to our free society about terrorism and its origins.

Only from that point can collaboration then begin between the general public and Muslims who are invested in a pluralistic America to undertake a constructive anti-terror policy that wins the war that we are now losing.


(We are currently) not losing by terror, but by the success of our Machiavellian enemy (who has been able to) buy the influence of those who do not appreciate that non-violent war is more destructive than terrorism and who exploit our inherent empathic nature as Americans as the first step on the road to submission.