Judge Christopher Stevenson “said the man had not only broken the law, but the respect between husband and wife.”
However, no such respect actually exists within the framework of the Sharia, which is based on Qur’anic tenets that teach that men are superior to women (cf. Qur’an 4:34).
The migrant said confidently and correctly that “under Sharia Law it was essentially his wife’s religious legal duty to agree to have sex with him whenever he wanted it.” In his mind, Sharia is above all other legal systems; he apparently expected the Australian judge to agree to that. Imagine his surprise when he was sentenced.
Every Western country should establish a policy of zero tolerance against any and all cultural and religious practices that are in violation of their constitutions.
“Sudanese immigrant in Perth jailed after raping wife because of Sharia Law,” by Aidan Wondracz, Daily Mail Australia, August 23. 2020:
A Sudanese immigrant has been sentenced to four years jail after he used Sharia Law as an excuse to rape his wife.
The 40-year-old man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, forced himself onto his now ex-wife at their Perth home in 2012, the Western Australian District Court heard.
Prosecutor Joel Grinceri said the man believed he was entitled to sex under religious law, The West Australian reported.
‘He went on to say that under Sharia Law it was essentially his wife’s religious legal duty to agree to have sex with him whenever he wanted it.’
The man had also told police: ‘When I want to have sex, I’m going to have sex and she knows that.’
The court heard the man forced himself onto his then-wife while his children were also at home.
He pushed her onto the bed before he ‘pried’ apart her legs.
Judge Christopher Stevenson said the man had not only broken the law, but the respect between husband and wife.
‘The victim was obviously vulnerable by reason of her marriage to you and the place in which the offence occurred which was in your bedroom in the house … where she was entitled to feel safe and secure.’
The man was found guilty of one count of aggravated sexual penetration without consent and not guilty of making threats to kill, assault and deprivation of liberty…..
talleyrand says
pity not a zero after the 4
Rethmann says
He should be tried and punished
Tom says
And kicked Back to a country, where he is allowed by a sick law to rape his wife.
John says
So why hasn’t the koran been banned in Australia as it is so harmful?
b.a. freeman says
it’s simple, John; the uneducated left, hating all religions as being stupid and pap for the masses, believes that islam is just Yet Another Stupid Religion, which, although it distracts the masses, is otherwise benign. not a single one of these indoctrinated leftists has checked islam out for himself, instead depending upon the “smart people” (read “hard-core leftists in universities who lie to all and sundry) to tell him what to think about it. i have no doubt that the hard-core leftists know very well of the depravity and pure evil of the mind-disease of islam, but because individual pious muslims make a perfect proxy army to destablize society, they’re not going to say a word of truth about the cult.
good times for all, and the blood is on the hands of the left.
Keith O says
b.a.
That’s one reason.
The other is that none of our elected representatives actually do what they are paid to do and represent the majority.
These slime balls know that the Mudslimes and other minority groups vote.
So they will kiss their arses to get the votes and if that means screwing over the rest of the people in the process, then so be it.
And if said arse kissing is done by allowing a book which calls for violence against anyone who doesn’t believe in it? Well, you know the rest!
The Political Oracle says
The Pope is on his way over to Australia now to council the muslim about the correct way to interpret the quran. Meanwhile, Australia continues to became islamized by creeping sharia.
gravenimage says
If the Qur’an were banned, Muslims would not stop reading it–just law-abiding Infidels would be prevented from learning what Islam truly says.
The Political Oracle says
+1 Eventually, the Qur’an would end up in our children’s schools to brainwash our future.
Francis Weber says
Because our government is gutless!
Michael Copeland says
“A wife is a chattel to buy, beat, and use,
Obliged to submit, not allowed to refuse.”
From “Easy Guide to Sharia Law”
https://gatesofvienna.net/2020/04/easy-guide-to-sharia-law/
mortimer says
A Muslim husband ‘buys’ the wife’s private parts through the dowry.
gravenimage says
Grimly true. And the Muslim buys it not from the woman herself, but from her “Mehram”–usually her father.
JamesC. says
Then the rapist has condemned his own religion, far more effectively than any Muslim could.
gravenimage says
I presume you mean any non-Muslim, James. I agree.
The Political Oracle says
“Every Western country should establish a policy of zero tolerance against any and all cultural and religious practices that are in violation of their constitutions.”
This must be enshrined into the U.S. Constitution immediately! Religious and cultural hypocrisy must be condemned and dealt with swiftly! Of course CAIR and Linda Shariasour with Looney Leftists would disagree!
I have been arguing this for years!
+infinity
tim gallagher says
This knuckledragger is just the type of person we need to “enrich” Australian society. His view of life is only a few thousand years out of date. The worrying thing is how many more such primitives have also been let in to pollute the country with their barbaric ideas. The Sudanese and Somalis have been just about the worst of migrants to Australia, as mainly demonstrated by the rampaging, incredibly violent youth gangs in Melbourne, who have been carrying carjackings and home invasions and, generally, terrifying many members of the society there, although things seem to have quietened down lately (maybe the Covid virus has quietened the crime wave down). It has been a huge mistake letting people like this guy into the country.
Walter Sieruk says
As is the saying that “Evil is always looking for an excuse.” Islam gave him is “excuse,”
RichardL says
islam does not have the concept of ‘respect’ which has its roots in Kant’s Humanity Formulation of the Categorical Imperative and was developed by the other German Idealists until Hegel perfected it. islam knows submission – the exact opposite of respect/dignity. Man is the slave of allah and thus allah has no respect for man; man has no dignity.
Gray says
I agree that the notion of a husband being able to rape his wife is abhorrent , but it should be acknowledged that the law in many Western countries did indeed allow a man to have intercourse with his wife without her consent, at least up until relatively recently. In Australia, where this incident happened, the changes in the law did not even begin to occur until the late nineteen seventies. Prior to that, the thinking was that, by entering into the marriage contract, the woman gave her consent to sexual intercourse. If a married woman was raped by her husband, she had to rely on other offences in the Criminal law – assault, and so on. However, she could not claim to have been raped. So, in this particular instance, maybe we should not be too quick to assume the moral high ground. It has taken some Western legal systems quite some time to ‘get it right’!
gravenimage says
Ah–more of the ‘you filthy Infidels are just as bad as Islam’. Not only is this in the past, but it was never sacralized as marital rape is in Islam. You won’t find this being criminalized in Dar-al-Islam, for just this reason.
Just look at this map:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape_laws_by_country#/media/File:Marital_rape_laws_by_country.svg
Besides China, almost every other nation that refuses to criminalize marital rape is Islamic.
Gray says
‘Ah – more of the ‘you filthy infidels are just as bad as Islam.’ Not only was this in the past, but it was never sacralised as marital rape is in Islam.’ I infer from this that I am being accused of indulging in tu quoque, and of arguing that Islam and the West are morally equivalent. Neither is true. Indeed, These suggestions are very offensive, although I consider my post was quite clearly expressed. It was obvious from many of the earlier posts that many contributors were totally unaware that many Western countries historically allowed rape in marriage, and had done so for many decades. It was this that prompted me to speak. I qualified as a lawyer in Australia (I won’t say ‘as a solicitor’ because that will probably be misconstrued too) in the early nineteen seventies. At that time, a person could be convicted of rape if he had carnal knowledge ‘of a woman or girl not his wife without her consent …’ At the time,it seemed to me that nobody really questioned that as a legal principle. The opposition built up later, and, in 1976, the Queensland Law Reform Commission recommended the law be changed, to allow husbands to be charged with rape. However, where I practised, it was not until 1989 that the exemption of marital rape was finally removed. With respect, it is glib to say dismissively ‘Oh, this was in the past.’ Marital rape was allowed in many Western jurisdictions (including mine) for many, many decades, and was only outlawed very recently. So maybe it is not for us to adopt a lofty moral tone. And that was simply my point.
Robert Edmondson says
Very good Gray. As you point out, in most Western countries until recently, rape of one’s wife was considered a legal impossibility. This position was founded on Christian scripture, specifically the writings of St. Paul, who stated that, “A man shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall become one.” Clearly, if man and wife are one entity, rape of one’s wife is impossible, since you can’t rape yourself.
James Lincoln says
Gray,
To your point, in the United States, from what appears to be a reputable website:
“Until the 1970’s, the rape laws in every state in the union included an exception if the rapist and the victim were husband and wife. In 1993, all 50 states had finally eliminated the “marital rape exception.”
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/crime-penalties/marital-rape.htm
gravenimage says
Gray wrote:
‘Ah – more of the ‘you filthy infidels are just as bad as Islam.’ Not only was this in the past, but it was never sacralised as marital rape is in Islam.’ I infer from this that I am being accused of indulging in tu quoque, and of arguing that Islam and the West are morally equivalent. Neither is true. Indeed, These suggestions are very offensive
………………………….
The idea that we should be forced to ignore marital rape today because there were unjust laws on the books in some Western nations fifty years ago is morally appalling.
These laws were *changed* in the West, just as the West abolished slavery a hundred years or more earlier. But marital rape being sacralized in Islam means that there will not be any change there.
And this is happening in the West itself–in Gray’s *own nation*. Does he have a problem with this? Not so he says.
More:
although I consider my post was quite clearly expressed. It was obvious from many of the earlier posts that many contributors were totally unaware that many Western countries historically allowed rape in marriage, and had done so for many decades. It was this that prompted me to speak.
………………………….
I certainly am quite aware of this. Again, unjust laws in the West–or anywhere else–do not lead me to excuse sacralized Islamic rape. Marital rape is also legal in Communist China–I do not excuse this, either. Why would I? I actually want justice to prevail everywhere. This is *not* a novel concept.
The worst thing would be for the West to allow herself to dragged back to allowing this injustice due to the huge influx of Muslims following Islam. Is this a concern Gray shares? Again, not so he says.
More:
I qualified as a lawyer in Australia (I won’t say ‘as a solicitor’ because that will probably be misconstrued too) in the early nineteen seventies.
………………………….
Well, this is just ridiculous. Firstly, I imagine most here are familiar with the term solicitor. And even for those who may not be, context gives a clue. The idea that they would assume that Gray is out soliciting women in the streets rather than practicing law is just absurd.
And I deal with the differences between British and American English all the time (I am American, but my mother was English, and I have lots of relatives in Britain and New Zealand–I also have friends in Australia and New Zealand)–one can just say “[blank], known as [blank] in [this place]”. That clears up any misunderstandings, if any.
More:
At that time, a person could be convicted of rape if he had carnal knowledge ‘of a woman or girl not his wife without her consent …’ At the time,it seemed to me that nobody really questioned that as a legal principle. The opposition built up later, and, in 1976, the Queensland Law Reform Commission recommended the law be changed, to allow husbands to be charged with rape. However, where I practised, it was not until 1989 that the exemption of marital rape was finally removed.
………………………….
It was actually opposition to these laws remaining on the books that led to their change–these laws did not passively change themselves.
More:
With respect, it is glib to say dismissively ‘Oh, this was in the past.’ Marital rape was allowed in many Western jurisdictions (including mine) for many, many decades, and was only outlawed very recently. So maybe it is not for us to adopt a lofty moral tone. And that was simply my point.
………………………….
Note this last–how often do we hear *this*? Slavery was shamefully legal in the West a century and a half ago, ergo we have no right to take issue with slavery in the Muslim world today–or “blasphemy” laws existed in the West two hundred years ago, so we should not be allowed to speak out against “blasphemy” laws in Dar-al-Islam; the same with child “marriage”, torture, etc etc.
The fact is that good people changed these barbarisms, and we will continue to work to do so–whether those like Gray approve or not.
gravenimage says
The idea that Christianity sacralizes marital rape is quite false. Robert Edmondson does not quote the subsequent verses, which read:
“Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.”
–Ephesians 5:33
Does *that* sound like marital rape? What rot.
James Lincoln says
gravenimage,
I took another look at my post, and I wanted to make sure that it did not come across as being insensitive. That was certainly not my intent.
I was actually shocked to find out that there were “marital rape exceptions” in some states as recently as 1993 – until it was fully eliminated. I was disgusted by this information – there should have *never* been a marital rape exception.
As always, thank you for your added information on the topic.
gravenimage says
Agreed, James.
Right now in California spousal rape is a felony sex crime and is punishable by up to eight years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000. In addition, the convicted rapist is required to register for life as a sex offender.
I did work to get this law passed–although many others did more. Still, this is important.
That ravening Muslims are hoping to roll this back and worse is sickening.
gravenimage says
Australia: Muslim migrant uses Sharia law as an excuse for raping his wife
……………..
Just disgusting–but no surprise. Here is a Sahih Hadith:
Abu Hurayrah reports from the Prophet (sws): “When a husband calls his wife to bed, and she refuses and [as a result] the husband spends the night in anger, then angels curse the wife all night till dawn.” (Bukhari, No: 3065)
Then, there is also the Hadith that says a wife cannot refuse her husband even is she is on a camel’s saddle.
This is obviously a recipe for marital rape.
truthout says
The whole thing is hog wash .You people seem to think that rapists will get caught as if anyone really cares .Every year the fleecing of the United States citizens occurs with rape and domestic violence as its head lines .Need more money .Use the victims for gain .Rape victim reports the crime has perk kit .Terrified that the rapist will kill the next victim .Perk kit lost misplaced exc .Not to mention that an officer could talk to the alleged perp and decide there was no cause [even if the bastards gang raped their victim] Cant bring themselves to tell the victim this .In fact do everything in their power to stall the victim .Oh lets talk about the sex offender registry that expensive useless registry .It gives a false sense of safety and has such an abysmal track record, that victims jokingly state that in another few years, you will know who the rapists are by the fact they aren’t on the registry. Lets bring that up as well shall we .There are different types of rapists and knowing who they are is only half the battle ,you need to know how they operate .Victims have attempted to contact the registries to point that out and make changes that would have been useful. They instead were treated like the offender .Another case of the us against them mentality.\
I want our laws to reflect our values and that is that we could care less in the real world about rape victims .Its shown over and over .Lets save the millions if not billions spent so that some can claim in their hypocrite world that they care.
gravenimage says
truthout wrote:
The whole thing is hog wash .You people seem to think that rapists will get caught as if anyone really cares .
……………………….
This rapist actually *has* been caught–and is being prosecuted. The idea that rapists are never caught is quite mistaken. The only real issue here–and it is an important on–is whether this judge grasps what Islam teaches about rape.
More:
Every year the fleecing of the United States citizens occurs with rape and domestic violence as its head lines …
……………………….
There is no doubt that more can be done about rape in general, including here in the West–although I am not sure the picture is overall quite as dire as you paint it. That being said, importing members of a creed that condone rape and marital rape will only make things worse.