Yes, this is very clear in Islamic law: a hadith depicts Muhammad saying: “If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning” (Bukhari 4.54.460).
Another hadith attributes this to Muhammad: “By him in whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself [to him for sexual intercourse] she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel’s saddle” (Ibn Majah 1854).
However, as far as I know Canada is not under Islamic law. Thus he should not have been found not guilty.
“Ottawa man not guilty because he thought he could have sex with wife anytime,” Ottawa Citizen, October 19, 2017 (thanks to David):
An Ottawa man has been found not guilty of sexually assaulting his wife because of his honest belief that he had the right to have intercourse with her whenever he wanted.
In a written ruling, Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert Smith said the Crown failed to prove that the accused had formed the required criminal intent — mens rea — to sexually assault his wife in 2002.
“I find that the accused probably had sex with his wife on many occasions without her specific consent, as both he and she believed that he had the right to do so,” Smith said.
However, the judge ruled the man was not guilty of sexual assault because the Crown had failed to establish that he knew his behaviour was, in fact, criminal.
The decision, issued earlier this week, followed a five-day trial in June.
The man was part of an arranged marriage in Gaza. His wife, a Palestinian who grew up in Kuwait, lived in Ottawa and the family settled in this city.
She testified that during their marriage, she considered it her obligation to have sex with her husband. Often, she told court, she did not consent, but they both believed it was his right.
The couple separated in January 2013, but they had difficultly making child arrangements work.
Court heard that it was during a dispute over child access — after speaking to a police officer — that the woman came to understand she had the right to refuse sexual relations with her husband. She subsequently complained to Ottawa police about a 2002 incident.
The husband denied ever having sexual relations with his wife without her consent, and specifically denied the incident that led to the charges.
His wife alleged that, in 2002, he 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 times to stop.
The judge said she was a credible witness who gave straightforward answers….
“Marriage is not a shield for sexual assault,” Smith wrote in his decision. “However, the issue in this trial is whether, considering the whole of the evidence, the Crown has proven the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The man’s defence lawyer, Sean May, said the timing of the charges — they came to light during a combative phase in the relationship — also raised doubt in the case.
Carrolyn Johnston, acting executive director of the Ottawa Coalition to End Violence Against Women, called the ruling “disappointing.” She said it highlights persistent myths about sexual assault….
RichardL says
I know nothing of Canadian law, but in the Roman legal tradition it is completely irrelevant if one knows a law or not when one breaks it: Ignorantia juris non excusat.
Perversely, that doesn’t apply to judges who break the law by ignoring it.
Angus says
“Ignorance of the law is no defense”
Funny how that law doesn’t seem to apply to muslims…
Jeanne T. says
You nailed it.
Bev says
Is there anyone left in Canada with two working brain cells in regard to Islam?
Dan says
Not amongst any in positions of authority.
PaulM says
No, apparently not. And now…just watch, every wing nut sexual deviant in Canada will be converting to islam in order to be able to beat and rape their wives and girlfriends with impunity.
Prophecy says
“Marriage is not a shield for sexual assault” – OH REALLY??? His misguided decision suggests otherwise.
Dan says
“She said it highlights persistent myths about sexual assault….”
Hey don’t be tossing the rest of us civilized men under the bus.
If any man other than a Muslim did this, there’d be screams for castration.
That this guy didn’t get the max, AS EXAMPLE TO ALL MUSLIMS COMING TO THIS COUNTRY CAUSE THERE ARE PLENTY OF LINDA SARSOURS OUT THERE, highlights the myth of Islamophobia.
gravenimage says
Agreed–only Muslims think like this–not civilized Infidel men.
Milad Meah says
beginning of the deterioration of western society by Judges
Krazy Kafir says
Remember when “ignorance” of the law was no excuse? The west keeps bending over backwards for this barbaric death cult.
MFritz says
So the lesson here is, convert to islam then assault your wife scot-free?
utis says
Looks that way to me. At least the judge wasn’t female. I can’t stand these Post-feminist feminists who are trying to destroy the real advances of the first wave. Why should a white man put up with this “women are human beings” crap if anyone with a tan and a zebibah can ignore it?
gravenimage says
Why do you think it is crap to consider women human beings?
utis says
Sorry for the bad sentence. I was “thinking like the enemy” (the only way you can really combat them) and the sentence could be read that that was the way I thought. There are men who think that way all over the planet, which is why the Post-feminists are idiots to assume that only white men think that way, so only all white men must be chastised and humiliated for it. That judge in Canada set a very lousy precedent that could turn women’s life back to pre-feminist style, if not all the way back to Islamic barbarism.
gravenimage says
Thanks for the clarification, utis.
Halal Bacon says
Under our legal system, Canadians are expected to know what the law says. But this doesn’t mean we all have to be legal experts. It’s not realistic for everyone to memorize all the laws! Not even lawyers know all this information.
The rule “ignorance of the law is no excuse” really means that people can’t defend their actions by claiming they didn’t know the law.
It would be too easy for people to break a contract, ignore a neighbour’s right to privacy or sell drugs if they could get away with it by arguing they didn’t know it was against the law.
However, even when people have good intentions, they sometimes break the law because they don’t realize they are doing something illegal. This can happen because our legal system is complicated. When people have good intentions, judges can sometimes be understanding. Judges are less understanding when the actions involve certain kinds of crimes.
Politicianphobia says
A little off topic, Canada, the Canada I know and have loved dearly is probably gone unless Canadians stand up and stop this madness. I have asked the Committee members of M-103 why 50,000 signatures for M-103 out weigh 200,000 plus against. I have asked them to look into what Imam Mazim Abdul-Adhim, living in London, Ontario, head of the terrorist group, Hibz ut Tharir in Canada, is saying in public and on the internet. He is promoting Shari’ah law in Canada. The Imam may say Shari’ah is Allah’s law but this is Canada, Shari’ah law does NOT supercede Canadian law. I asked them to stand up for free speech and Canadians, it is their job. I also asked, Carol Hughes, Member of parliament for Algoma, Manitoulin, Kapuskasing, who voted in favour of M-103 to take a look at the Imam. I am still waiting for the stage coach to arrive with just one explaination as to why he has not been charged with sedition. I cringe when I hear anyone referring to a member of parliament as ” The Right Honourable”.
MFritz says
Same story in Sweden. Just wait another couple of years.
Michael Copeland says
“I find that the accused probably had sex with his wife on many occasions without her specific consent”, said the judge.
On each occasion, therefore, Canadian law was broken.
The accused has a track record of breaking Canadian law: the judge confirmed this.
An honest belief is not enough to override the law.
Many muslims have the honest belief that they are entitled to mutilate the genitals of their little girls. It is against the law in Canada. Whether they are AWARE it is against the law is of no relevance.
This judgment sets an appalling precedent.
Warble Gloaming says
In “The Ruling on Dispossessing the Disbelievers [sic] wealth in Dar al-Harb,” Anwar al Awlaki says that jihadists have the right to loot “disbelievers” in order to finance their activities.
https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2011/01/anwar_al_awlaki_jiha.php
Memo to all Canadian jihadists:
Help yourselves to the property of Justice Robert Smith. Awlaki says you have the right to do so.
Guest says
What the hell is wrong with these people?
Jeanne T. says
FTA: ““Marriage is not a shield for sexual assault,” Smith wrote in his decision.:”
Well, apparently is is.
gravenimage says
Grimly true.
robeaver says
He didn’t know what country he was in. He has mental health issues. He does drugs. He is illiterate. He is poor. He had no cahce at education. He is blow 83 in IQ.
I wonder about leftists says
How many times it has happened already, even with murder and raping, “he did not know he could not do that” Canadians did not inform the “refugees” about the first common laws then. Things are getting so absurd, is becomes a laughing stock if it is not so serious. This world and this planet will never be the same and we all have to carry the consequenties. And the stupid governments are the culprits, even they did not know what to do and that’s why they feel no remorse, THEY DID NOT KNOW WHAT THEY WERE DOING AND NOT DOING!!! There is not any excuse, not any. And who pays for it all and for all the lawyers of those people and for the “mental institutes” and even when they get out , they get pampered , even the Jihadis or their wives when it does not please them there and they come back. You all blew it.
LeftisruiningCanada says
“An Ottawa man has been found not guilty of sexually assaulting his wife because of his honest belief that he had the right to have intercourse with her whenever he wanted”
With Taqiya part of the mix, how can a muslim ever be trusted to have an honest anything, let alone when he’s up on charges? Perhaps someone more informed on islamic law could comment further, but it seems to me there is a very high probability that lying to an infidel ruled court in order to defend oneself from incarceration would be perfectly allowable. Especially if this guy considers himself to be in Canada for purposes of Jihad.
““Marriage is not a shield for sexual assault,” Smith wrote in his decision. “However…..”
The “However” is the problem here. In almost any other circumstance a woman saying “No” to sexual advances is enough to convict a guy of rape should he persist. At least if he’s white im guessing. This seems like yet another example of a judge/police officer/civil servant not wanting to involve themselves in the State sanctioned alternate universe that muslims et al are allowed to exisit within.
“The racism of lowered expectations”
PaulM says
Well said, and now Canada is circling the drain like most EU Countries. And all because trudeau et al don’t have the spinal column or the testicles to stand up to this slimy, fascist group of gutless cowards and bullies.
endislam says
Why wasn’t he found guilty? Come into another country, learn the country’s laws. Is Canada a sharia country now? If not, then he should be in prison.
SV says
As braindead as the Judge’s decision is, the allegation is from 2002. There isn’t any evidence by which the state could prove it happened other that verbal testimony, so muslim or not he shouldn’t be convicted on such flimsy evidence.
I’m speculating here: judges in Canada have been brought under investigation for sex assault acquittals of non-muslims even when the evidence was clear no crime occurred. It may be possible that this flimsy mens rea justification is a way to acquit without having to worry about feminists and the compromised judicial system from raking the judge over the coals.
gravenimage says
Canada: Muslim not guilty of sexual assault of wife because he thought he could force her to have sex
…………………..
So is rape now legal in Canada so long as you are Muslim? *Good God*.
Alan says
Where is the liberal women’s outrage? What the judge implied is that there are two sets of laws in Canada. One for those who weren’t aware their actions could be criminal because of “religious beliefs” and one for everyone else.Whatever happened to ignorance is no excuse?
Carolyne says
Wouldn’t one of the parties involved fall off of a camel saddle? Sounds kind of impossible, Mo.
Canada collectively seems to have lost its mind in allowing such barbaric behavior. Don’t Canadian women have any rights anymore?
tgusa says
The western left is abandoning principles that it turns out they never had.
LeftisruiningCanada says
🙂
jean paul says
glad to see r o c in tune with my opinion about islam..i thought, that you we’re all into multiculturalism..an submissive of islam..what a relief… j p quebecois( supposedly racist for having that kind of opinion)
Bandor says
The Western left wing, seems to subscribe to the Groucho Marx style of political principles, “Those are my principles and if you don’t like them… Well, I have others.”
Karen says
Qasim Rashid wrote a recent article claiming that Islam may well be the solution to domestic violence the world has been seeking. He very exquisitely contorts Koran 4:34 from a verse instructing men to beat their wives into a 7th-century therapy session in anger management (his wording.)
To solidify his argument, he uses the usual tactic of language barrier, making the Koran mean whatever he wants it to mean. Says Qasim, “disobedient women” are not simply willful but are insidious destroyers of hearth and home, this full meaning only being evident via “Arabic lexicon”. Similarly, the word often translated as “chastise” may either mean “strike” or “heal”; so he decides it means “heal” based on Mohammad’s awesome example of, uh, non-violence. (Sorry, it’s well documented that he struck Aisha at least once, causing her pain.)
So, if language is our main barrier to implementing this solution, what would Qasim say about the many Arabic-speaking Imans who cite the Koran as approval for beatings that don’t leave marks or entitled, primitive brutes who rape their wives?
UNCLE VLADDI says
Meanwhile, for common whitey peons, the law officially remains:
“Ignorance of the law is no excuse!”
This “judge” should be fired and jailed.
Allowing foreign (sharia “law”) courts to exist in your country is to enable those foreign governments to govern in your country; it’s obviously TREASON.
UNCLE VLADDI says
Re: “In a written ruling, Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert Smith said the Crown failed to prove that the accused had formed the required criminal intent — mens rea — to sexually assault his wife in 2002.
“I find that the accused probably had sex with his wife on many occasions without her specific consent, as both he and she believed that he had the right to do so,” Smith said.”
NOW LET’S HAVE A QUICK LOOK AT THE NEXT STEP ON THIS SLIPPERY SLOPE:
“In a written ruling, Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert Smith said the Crown failed to prove that the accused had formed the required criminal intent — mens rea — TO MURDER THE INFIDELS.
“I find that the accused probably had MURDERED INFIDELS on many occasions without their specific consent, as he believed that he had the right to do so,” Smith said.”
Like I said: This juggalo “judge” needs to be fired and then jailed for treason.
Brenda Romano says
There was a case in the US where a Muslim woman was trying to get a restraining against her ex-husband. Her ex-husband said he had the right to sexual relations at any time under Sharia. The lower court judge sided with the ex-husband saying the ex-husband wasn’t trying to force or hurt her just following his religious faith. The women appealed the ruling and it was overturned in her favor.
Foreign codes, doctrines, law, customs have no place in a court of law. RELIGION SHOULD NEVER TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER CIVIL RIGHTS!