Friday, May 08, 2015


I spotted this at Newsmax:
Rush Limbaugh: Sharia Law Already Happening in US

In light of the fallout from the recent shooting in Texas, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh says Sharia law is already happening.

Limbaugh said on his radio show Thursday that on "one of the networks this morning somebody was defending Pam Geller and started saying, 'If we're not careful, Sharia law is gonna happen,'" and the co-host responded, saying that "'There isn't gonna be Sharia law in the United States of America. Just isn't gonna happen. Come on, get real, get real, it's silly.'"

But Limbaugh said that "Sharia law has already been implemented in this country."

"Are you aware that in New Jersey a judge found that an Islamic man could not be accused of the rape of his wife?" the conservative radio host asked his audience.

"A judge in New Jersey found that he could not be charged with it, much less found guilty, because there's no rape in his religion," he explained. "Well, hello. That's Sharia.

"Now, it's not Sharia that has become American law, but it's been implemented," he added. "It's been used."
Yeah, that happened -- in 2010. Jihad Watch wrote about it. So did Creeping Sharia. But they at least -- unlike Limbaugh -- pointed out that the ruling was almost immediately overturned.

Eugene Volokh had the story originally, under the headline "Cultural Defense Accepted as to Nonconsensual Sex in New Jersey Trial Court, Rejected on Appeal." A Moroccan woman had applied for a restraining order, charging her Moroccan husband with forcing her on a number of occasions to have sex. The judge accepted that this had happened, but concluded that the husband
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.
But the ruling was overturned on appeal, with the appeals court judge writing this about the original judge (emphasis added):
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.
Somehow, Limbaugh failed to mention the resolution of the case on the radio yesterday -- as, presumably, will your uncle when he forwards the Newsmax story to you.


On the radio, Limbaugh went on to say:
... I would even go so far as to point out that what happened in Indiana when they had their religious freedom law pass there, remember the outrage that occurred as a result of that? The media is running around going door-to-door looking for a bigot. They found this young woman and her family that owned a pizzeria. The people at the pizzeria had never said anything about whether or not they would cater a gay wedding. It had never come up. But the media goes door-to-door, starts asking, and in response a question, this young woman who thinks that the media is really interested in what she's saying, doesn't realize she's being set up, says, "No, we would not cater a gay wedding. It's against our religious principle."

And, bammo, the sewer that is Twitter blew up. Everybody in the country came descending on the state of Indiana. That's an example of what Sharia would be like.
You mean, the pizzeria that closed temporarily, then reopened with huge crowds of customers, after benefiting from an $840,000 crowdfunding campaign? Yeah, that's brutally totalitarian. If that's American sharia, wingnuts, it's going to be just fine for you.


Victor said...

Shari Law, since 2010?

Even if that decision was overturned!!!


We're so...
Not doomed.

Rush is still out there, trying to keep his conservative children scared.

Professor Chaos said...

Oh, no wonder all the Christian churches have been shut down! And my wife has been busy burqa shopping! It all makes sense now! Because for the first time in American history, a male judge has found an excuse to let a rapist off the hook!

Anonymous said...

Help me here, I'm confused. Under laws like the Indiana one, or under the RFRA as interpreted by the Supreme Court, wouldn't the original judge's decision in New Jersey be upheld?

Or does Limbaugh believe that judges should only decide that the wives of Good Christians should submit to their husbands?

Glennis said...

Are you aware that in New Jersey a judge found that an Islamic man could not be accused of the rape of his wife?

Ah, so now the right wing supports the notion that rape can occur in marriage?

Everybody in the country came descending on the state of Indiana. That's an example of what Sharia would be like.

No, actually, an example of what Sharia would be like is if commercial businesses could refuse to serve customers if they think the customer is sinful.