Friday, April 05, 2013

Muslim Rapist Wins Court Appeal Citing 'Cultural Differences'

Esmatullah Sharifi, 31, is an Afghan refugee who was given asylum in Australia and settled in Melbourne.

He was convicted of two counts of rape and given a 14 year non parole sentence.

The first rape was of an intoxicated teenager who had been separated from her friends outside a nightclub. Sharifi admitted driving around looking for a victim.

When he saw the victim, he pulled up, began talking to her and offered to drive her to the hotel where her friends had moved on to.

Then he drove off in a completely different direction. The teen became frightened and and texted her friends, but when Sharifi saw what she was doing, he took away her phone, drove to a dark, isolated street, put his hands around her neck and forced her to remove her clothes before raping her.

The second case involved a similar abduction and sexual assault of a woman on Christmas Eve, 2008, five days after Sharifi raped the teen.

The judge, Mark Dean in Melbourne, sentenced Sharif to 14 years of which he's going to have to serve a minumum of 11 years. He will likely be deported back to Afghanistan when he's served his sentence.

Except he may not serve his sentence at all.

He's been granted an appeal.

Sharifi's chief argument during his rape trials was that 'cultural differences' were responsible for the rapes and that, as a psychologist told the court he had an 'unclear concept of what constitutes consent in sexual relationships'.

Apparently this psychologist thinks kidnapping someone, forcing them to disrobe and then raping them while they're screaming 'no, no' is how dating is done is Afghanistan. Perhaps it is. At any rate, the courts have granted him an appeal on that basis.

The funny thing is that Sharifi's argument actually has some legitimacy, although it's no excuse for his actions.

As a product of Muslim culture, there is definitely a basis for Sharifi saying he's allowed to rape  non-Muslim women.

The Qu'ran is most definite that owning and using sex slaves is permissible:

If you fear that you will not act justly towards the orphans, marry such women as seem good to you, two, three, four; but if you fear you will not be equitable, then only one, or what your right hands owns; so it is likelier you will not be partial. (Qur'an 4:3)

This, along with Mohammed's conduct as recorded in the Hadiths is the basis for Muslim polygamy.Mohammed took numerous sex slaves, in some cases after they had seen their parents or husbands murdered in front of them. Hence 'orphans'.

'What your right hand owns' refers to war captives and sex slaves, and every major Islamic fiqh has interpreted it in that way. Here's Qu'rannic commentator Maulana Bulandshahri on the subject:

During Jihad (religion war), many men and women become war captives. The Amirul Mu’minin [leader of the believers, or caliph – an office now vacant] has the choice of distributing them amongst the Mujahidin [warriors of jihad], in which event they will become the property of these Mujahidin. This enslavement is the penalty for disbelief (kufr)

Notice the present tense, 'become' as opposed to 'became'. This view applies today and has never been abrogated in any way.

Moreover, since a number of prominent Islamic scholars and Qadis like the Muslim Brotherhood's Sheik Qaradawi and Egypt's Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni have declared that Muslims are waging jihad against Dar Harb, the infidel world in our present day, any infidel females a Muslim's 'right hand possesses are fair game:

.Jihad is only between Muslims and infidels….Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be taken in war between Muslims and infidels. Muslims in the past conquered, invaded, and took over countries. This is agreed to by all scholars--there is no disagreement on this from any of them, from the smallest to the largest, on the issue of taking spoils and prisoners. The prisoners and spoils are distributed among the fighters, which includes men, women, children, wealth, and so on.

When a slave market is erected, which is a market in which are sold slaves and sex-slaves, which are called in the Qur’an by the name milk al-yamin, “that which your right hands possess” [Qur’an 4:24]. This is a verse from the Qur’an which is still in force, and has not been abrogated. The milk al-yamin are the sex-slaves. You go to the market, look at the sex-slave, and buy her. She becomes like your wife, (but) she doesn’t need a (marriage) contract or a divorce like a free woman, nor does she need a wali. All scholars agree on this point--there is no disagreement from any of them. [...] When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her.

(h/t, Jihad Watch)

Of course, it can even apply to Muslims if you have cooperative imams to declare them kufrs, non-believers. Just ask Muslim Bangladeshi women about the rape camps the Pakistani Army set up for them during the 1970's.

Even in Australia itself, Sheikh Taj Din al-Hilali, Australia most senior Muslim cleric excused Muslim gang rapists in Australia saying that women who chose not to cover themselves were asking to be raped, referring to them as 'uncovered meat'. Even many decent Muslims objected to that one and called for al-Hilali's deportation, but he has a lot of support from others and is still there.

So when Sharifi says that as a Muslim, he's allowed to 'own' and use Kufr women as he pleases, he's simply telling the truth about what his religion has taught him.Perhaps Australia and other western governments that encouraged wholesale importation of Muslim refugees and immigrants and are experiencing a huge increase in these types of crimes as a result ought to have considered that and been a bit more careful whom they let in.

When the British ruled India, the commander-in-chief was a man called General Sir Charles James Napier. During his tenure, Hindu priests complained to him about the British suppression of their custom of suttee, the ritual burning of widows on the deceased husband's funeral pyre.

General Sir Napier's reply is worth remembering:

This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pyre. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. You follow your customs, and we shall follow ours.

Rather than being so careful to do the politically correct dance,to wallow in appeasement, it might be much more useful for the West to insist that any and all immigrants granted the privilege of living in their countries realize that it involves honoring the host country's laws and cultural norms as well.

Instead of wasting time and money on a ridiculous appeal based on 'cultural differences', Sharifi ought to serve his sentence and deported back to his home country of  Afghanistan forthwith.The same should apply to  anyone else who thinks his or her cultural beliefs give them a license to act in that fashion.



Anonymous said...

Your story relies on an old news article. The sentence has since been reinstated.

Rob said...

Sorry. I'm afraid you're incorrect.

The story you reference from the Daily Mail is dated April 12, 2012.

The story on the appeal, from the Australian Herald Sun is dated April 1, 2013

Easy mistake to make, I suppose..except it's only April 5th today!

Anonymous said...

Oh, my bad. I was feeling optimistic. said...

Hello, Rob. I knew about this absurd case and I'm also quite disgusted about that. It's a shame.
I just didn't understand one thing: is this rapist appealing from his jail or is he appealing free, on the streets? I hope he is still in jail, at least.

Greetings from Brazil. Keep the fight!

Lourival Marques