A jury of Muslims would likely have acquitted this man. He raped his wife? That’s simply not a concept that exists in Islam:
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).
He also is depicted as saying: “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).
He threatened to kill her? A bit extreme, to be sure, but the Qur’an directs men to beat women from whom they “fear disobedience”:
“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)
And in a hadith, Muhammad’s child bride Aisha recounts an incident when he hit her. 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?” (Sahih Muslim 2127)
“‘Islamophobic’ Jury Didn’t Have Enough Muslims, Says Convicted Rapist,” by Liam Deacon, Breitbart, November 2, 2017:
A man imprisoned for 12 years for raping and making death threats to his wife has launched an appeal because he says the jury contained too many white Catholics and not enough Muslims.
The man, convicted at Ireland’s Central Criminal Court in 2016, argued the jury was too ethnically and religiously “homogenous” to be fair and insisted the jury should have been warned about potential issues surrounding race and religion, The Times reports.
Ronan Munro, the senior counsel for the defence, said that Islamophobia would mean the jury had preconceptions about how Muslims treat women and complained that the judge had not spoken about religion or the fact the man was married to the victim.
During the trial, it was alleged that the man told his wife that she was a “commodity” he could have sex with whenever he wanted because they were living together, he explained.
The jury of 11 men and one woman, including one non-white person, convicted him of raping his wife at their home in May 2014 and of threatening to cut her face and kill her.
Mr. Munro claimed he was not accusing the jury of bias but demanded the jury should have been given a tailored warning because of the “hot topic” issue around Muslims today.
He also claimed that not enough Muslims were called for jury service because of the electoral roll system, and presented academic studies purporting to show that Ireland was already awash with ‘Islamophobia’….
The leader of one of the Rotherham grooming gangs, Shabir Ahmed, has also used claims of ‘Islamophobia’ to challenge his rape convictions.
Mr. Ahmed lost an appeal against his possible deportation at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), claiming that his all-white jury breached his human right to a fair trial.
He claimed members of the jury passed details to racists and said his convictions were a conspiracy by police and members of the jury to “scapegoat” Muslims.
WorkingClassPost says
I don’t get it.
Is he admitting, or actually suggesting that rape and threats of violence to women has something to do with being muslim?
Older Canadian says
Absolutely.
afrostreetwise says
That is how I understand him as well. That and the fact that certain aspects of the law should not apply to a Muslim.
gravenimage says
Muslims will admit Islamic savagery when they believe it will benefit them.
Obscura says
Only Kafirophobes claim that unbelievers are ignorant of islam, biased against the islamic hate crimes against humanity and claim that these unbelievers are “islamophobic”.
steve says
Eire welcomes Islamic Chivalry……..I await the first child murder in Ireland by one of the faithful….
Keith says
I would like to see a retrial with at least a muslim majority or even completely muslim jury, who then acquit the defendant based on sharia law.
It would be so funny seeing the liberal left tie themselves up in knots trying to explain why that decision is the correct one.
R Russell says
I suppose if more Muslims were on the jury he believes they would have ignored Irish law and acquitted him in accordance with sharia?
katherine says
There must be a new law to make jury duty illegal for Muslims because :
— the Muslim Cult Laws ( Sharia ) REQUIRES such a juror to make biased decisions based on Islamic Norms
— they are UNDER OBLIGATION to free the defendant if charged with crimes Islam doesn’t recognize such as rape, child and wife-abuse, murder/assault of unbelievers, FGM, honor killings, grand larceny by Muslim Leaders or politicians, robbery/swindling of unbelievers, polygamy, religious discrimination, anti-Semitism and ……………….etc.
— they do not even recognize the legality/concept of Jury Duty as defined under the system of western laws
— their concept of morality and humanity is the antithesis of secular western norms of neutrality in judgement.
mortimer says
Rape approved by Hanafi Jurists
Marital rape was regarded as acceptable husbandly conduct by scholars in the Hanafi legal school. For example, Zayn al-Din ibn Ibrahim ibn Nujaym (d.970/1563) argued that as long as a wife remains in her husband’s house, she is owed maintenance, even if she is disobedient and withholds sex. This is because as long as she remains in his house, a husband can dominate her (yaghlibu ‘alayha), forcing her to have sex with him. Like al-Kasani, ibn Najaym was comfortable with marital rape, seeing it as a natural consequence of a wife’s sexual disobedience. ‘Abd Allah ibn Ahmad al-Nasafi (d.710/1310) added an undeniable shade of violence to his discussion of marital rape. While he argued that a necessary condition of hitting one’s wife is to leave her intact or sound (bi-shart al salama), soundness is not a condition for sex, so if a wife dies while her husband is having sex with her, he is not liable.
The Rationalvoice says
This is the problem with practicing Muslims and is why none should be allowed into any western country.
I have never heard of any other nationality or religion claiming exemption from a host country’s laws except those from Islamic countries claiming political asylum which is,of course a lie to start with.
Their standards of marital rights and conduct are well below ours and should not be tolerated.If they don’t like it then they should return to their country of origin or comply with the law of the land.
Sharia law is not and should never be the law of Ireland
Jayell says
And the Nuremburg trials didn’t have enough Nazi judges.
gravenimage says
Spot on, Jayell.
Dawn says
Pathetic or what ! If you commit rape you deserve jail time . Islam believes its ok to rape not in my books. You need your ass whooped
LeftisruiningCanada says
“The jury of 11 men and one woman, including one non-white person, convicted him of raping his wife at their home in May 2014 and of threatening to cut her face and kill her”
All of which are being hinted at as being OK in Sharia? Interesting.
Cornelius says
I know this is Ireland, but the unanimous jury verdict system in America has been a concern to me ever since Nosair was put on trial for murdering Meir Kahane in New York in 1990. There were eye witnesses who saw him at crime scene….he was chased and eventually caught in possession of the murder weapon. Yet. his slick defense lawyers weaved this improbable tail that he was the fall-guy in a wicked conspiracy….apparently one juror bought the story….and all they could convict Nosair of was a weapons charge….(he was eventually convicted of other terror-related charges).
As the Muslim population of the USA increases exponentially, there will come an inevitable day when Muslims are routinely represented in the jury-pool of terror trials and other crimes involving Muslims. How can we legitimately keep them off of juries just because of their religion? How will their presence on juries effect the outcome of such cases? If deadlocked juries become the norm in terror-trials because of one recalcitrant jurist, what will that portend for the future of our country?
LeftisruiningCanada says
Good questions. And of concern for sure.
“How will their presence on juries effect the outcome of such cases?”
Can see there being a lot of weakened convictions for their fellow brothers and sisters, since islam usually comes before anything else. This could be compounded in cases related to jihad, since to be against a jihadi would be very dangerous. He’d come for you first of all.
R Russell says
The West is reaping what it has sown
Sarah says
To be honest the whole system is flawed and requires fundamental, root and branch reform.
I served my first Jury Duty last year. It was for a child molester. The case was difficult given the crimes had occurred many years earlier. We wound up finding him guilty on all counts – but it was really hard for all of us to come to that decision. I cannot underestimate to you all – just how hard it was, morally, for all of us to decide on a guilty conviction on each count.
There was no physical evidence given the time delay between the crimes and the trial. The evidence was completely circumstantial and we’d been instructed by the Judge at the beginning that it was circumstantial and that we’d have to make our decision basically, on who we believed in the absence of hard evidence. All of us were figuratively sick by the end of it – at the idea that we had potentially convicted this guy – where we might have been terribly wrong.
Then i got the sentencing notes, about 6 months later. Turns out he’s been a registered sex offender for years. Had groomed and raped and abused other little girls for years and years before the particular female related to our trial. We weren’t told any of that. We knew none of it.
Its a prime example of a broken system. We made a judgement call based on really shonky ‘evidence’, with no real proof. Turns out in the long run – that we were absolutely right – but it was a guess. We could’ve destroyed an innocent mans life. I was guilt ridden, stressed out and really affected by it all for months after – until I saw the sentencing remarks. We basically convicted that guy on the idea of ‘where there is smoke there is fire’ and that if the Police and DPP felt there was enough to bring it to trial – then he was up to his ears in it. It was that shonky.
That should never, ever have happened. The system, the way it all played out, the way we had the right to determine this man’s future based on hearsay and unreliable statements was wrong. We’re just stupidly lucky that he was, in fact most likely guilty as sin, given he had been doing sickening things for years and years to other little girls. But we should have known it all from the start. It should never have been hidden from us.
And as a group of citizens, none of us ultimately, were in a position to make that determination – given the deliberate twisting by the defense and the prosecution. The games both sides play during the trial. We’re just regular people without degrees in law. The Judge had to constantly stop and advise us because of the intricacies of the law and the arguments we were observing.
I’m not advocating getting rid of juror trials. I’m advocating fixing the entire bloody system. Because I do not think that putting people like Muslims on a jury for a trial, is a good idea – especially when the crimes in question – like this case in this article – are crimes that they will morally, have different opinions about. They are not Westerners. They do not share our collective values on pretty much any topic. Put 7 Muslims in a jury on a rape trial where the accused is a Muslim and the victim is not – and I guarantee time and again, the accused Muslim will walk. Its sick. And it points to the massive breakdown in justice that our justice system is suffering under.
We need fundamental reform. And that includes these shyster Lawyers out there who are completely abusing the whole concept of Justice.
LeftisruiningCanada says
Interesting, thanks for that. Sounds a very stressful time. Glad that guy was put away in the end.
On the muslim jurors, it seems to come down to the fact that in many cases, muslims simply aren’t ‘peers’ in the sense that matters. As you say, values held by the more serious and ‘un-integrated’ muslim (one who takes the koran as primary over everything else) just isn’t going to see things the same way most westerners will.
How can that ever support western law and justice?
Especially if being asked to judge a fellow muslim?
LeftisruiningCanada says
As an after thought, the analogy of asking 12 colorblind ‘peers’ (muslims) to judge another colorblind person according to laws specified by people of regular color definition, might be an interesting way to think of it?
gravenimage says
Thanks for that account, Sarah.
I understand the legal system not wanting people to be convicted for past behavior–but if the jury has no idea that the accused has a pattern of similar conduct, it is clearly salient information.
Overall, the American justice system works well–for all its problems, better than most legal systems.
But a huge influx of Muslims would definitely break it–especially given the need for unanimous jury decisions–difficult enough, as you note, at the best of times.
JanwoG says
Irish people, deport him. If you don’t, you’re cowards.
Voytek Gagalka says
Doubtless all multiculturalists will agree with him: Ireland is “too much Catholic” and more Mohammedans are needed to “balance” this country, i.e., call for more and unrestricted immigration. Once the dam is crossed by the first Mohammedan to “emigrate” to spread Islam, the others will follow until given country is completely dominated and subjugated. Here is the pattern: Not enough Mohammedan jurors? Injustice! Not enough Mohammedans (yet) to populate a jury? Why, bring more of them from “Syria”!
Ren says
A jury that has enough Muslims would not be called a jury but a sharia court or a monkeys court.
gravenimage says
Yep.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
“Mr. Ahmed lost an appeal against his possible deportation at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), claiming that his all-white jury breached his human right to a fair trial.”
Mr Ahmed, your prophet, so the hadiths say, was whiter than white!
As for Mr Ahmed’s scum-ball defense attorney, he deserves to have his client violently turn on him.
John Forbes says
NOW IT APPEARS CATHOLIC IRELAND HAS THIS DISEASE AS WELL ??
ALTHOUGH JUDGING BY THE POPE;S STANCE – ALL OF THESE MUSLIMS ARE DELIGHTFUL & TREATED TERRIBLY & ARE MISUNDERSTOOD !
SHOULD ASK THE RAPE VICTIM IF SHE AGREES !!
Sarah says
The idea that packing a Jury with more Muslims would have given this rapist scumbag a better chance of getting off scot free, is like me as a woman, going on trial for castrating and murdering a man – and complaining about the lack of radical feminists on the Jury – who would most likely be more easily swayed towards supporting me and what I was accused of.
That doesn’t wash. And a Lawyer of all people knows this.
That ginger haired Solicitor just reinforces the stereotype for Lawyers. A deceitful, manipulative piece of crap who is utterly without morals or values and who is guided by his own greed rather than a basic sense of decency. Blame rampant Islamaphobia, indeed.
High Hopes says
I have followed this case, this was a married woman on a night out. She has been destroyed by this attack, her marriage in tatters. And yet, once again, the perpetrator is playing victim, standard behaviour.
Tom says
It is irrelevant whether or not his religion was taken into account because he was tried and convicted based upon Irish law NOT Sharia law.
I presume under Irish law sexual assault of his wife is illegal as is uttering threats of bodily harm. He was convicted on the evidence presented at trial by a jury of average people.
If there had been 6 muslims on the jury and he had been aquitted of the charges, THEN there should have been a mistrial and a retrial ordered by the judge as it would be obvious that the evidence had been ignored.
The race component of their defense is a non starter as being a Muslim is not a specific unique race.
gravenimage says
Ireland: Convicted Muslim rapist appeals, says “Islamophobic” jury didn’t have enough Muslims
……………………
Because raping and threatening to murder your wife is perfectly Islamic.