NJ judge OK’s rape of wife by Muslim, citing religious belief; overturned on appeal

A trial judge in NJ refused to issue a restraining order in a case of domestic violence and marital rape because the defendant, a Muslim, claimed that his religion gave him the right to sex on demand and complete control of his wife. An appeals court overturned the verdict.

A New Jersey Superior Court judge heard the case of S.D., a 19-year-old woman, against M.J.R., her husband. The couple, from Morocco, were wed in an arranged marriage in 2008, when S.D. was 17. They came to the United States because her husband had work in New Jersey as an accountant.

S.D. described abuse at her husband’s hands in great detail in the recently-released court documents. Abuse included corporal punishment and marital rape. He first punished her for not knowing how to cook. He then prepared a list of things for her to do, promising to punish her for anything not done. The abuse continued; please review the record for yourself for details.

S.D. sought a divorce and a restraining order.

From the appellate court decision noted above (original case has not been released, nor the name of the family court judge), the family court judge ruled:

This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.

The appellate court determined:

After acknowledging that this was a case in which religious custom clashed with the law, and that under the law, plaintiff had a right to refuse defendant’s advances, the judge found that defendant did not act with a criminal intent when he repeatedly insisted upon intercourse, despite plaintiff’s contrary wishes.

Having found acts of domestic violence consisting of assault and harassment to have occurred, the judge turned to the issue of whether a final restraining order should be entered. He found such an order unnecessary, vacated the temporary restraints previously entered in the matter and dismissed plaintiff’s domestic violence action….

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.

Thanks to The Freethinker.

Related articles:

1. Christian Pamphlet: Rape… Sometimes, It's Her Own Fault
2. Study: Fundamentalist Christians more inclined toward domestic violence
3. In Israel, consensual sex becomes rape if you don’t disclose your religion
4. Judge orders Hutaree "Christian terrorists" released
5. Enfield's "in-church graduation" appeal ends in failure . . . this year

Mike Daniels is co-editor of Secular News Daily.

You can follow comments on this article through the RSS Comment Feed. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry.