There is a horrific account of a girl in Arizona being married against her will and subsequently assaulted:
Police noted in the court documents that the victim is Abdullahi's wife via Muslim custom. Police did not release her age, but Sgt. Trent Crump said she is a young adult. Police said the victim's parents married her to Abdullahi in November without her knowledge. She learned of the marriage in December and fled the state but returned two weeks later to finish high school.
The victim's family members reportedly took her to Abdullahi's residence against her will on Monday. Police said Abdullahi punched, bit and strangled her before sexually assaulting her.
"I just heard someone screaming and crying and there were these guys carrying a woman and like dragging her onto the sidewalk," said neighbor Trina Childs. "So I go out into the living room and I look into the peephole and they take her and throw her into the apartment," she continued.
To begin with, we cannot ignore the fact that this young woman was married against her will in a ceremony at which she was not even present. Evidently, her Muslim family thought this ceremony sufficed to force her into an apartment with the putative husband, because in a culture in which purity is paramount in women, this indicates that he had a right to intimacy with her.
The horror of the assault is complicated by a bizarre explanation that is self-contradictory:
A spokesperson for the Arizona chapter of the Center for Arabic Islamic Relations (CAIR) said what Abdullahi allegedly did has no basis in the Islamic faith. "Even though (he is) using the Islamic ceremony as a shield, all Muslims are subject to the laws of the land they're living in," said Kristy Sabbah.
Let's unpack that statement:
- If he is using Islam as a shield, then he has found a basis in Islam for his action;
- If her family is Muslim and acted thusly, they also believed their faith allowed it;
- Ms. Sabbah doesn't deny that Islam allows such behaviour, BUT
- She defers to "the law of the land" [the US] to show that this is not allowed, but that doesn't follow--a perfect example of a non sequitor.
Then let's ask some key questions:
- Who performed the ceremony that wed a woman against her will despite her absence?
- What have these people misunderstood about their religion to allow them to act this way?
- Where is a clarification from CAIR about marriage, so that others will not make this "mistake?"
- And will the justification be that Islam doesn't allow it, or that American jurisprudence forbids it?
CAIR has unwittingly revealed that the source of the problem is only that shari'a has not come to Arizona. When it does, there will be no refuge for such women.
Comments