In the June 14, 2010, story "Islamic Sharia Law to Be Banned in, ah, Oklahoma," ABC News reporter Joel Siegel scoffed at the Oklahoma referendum prohibiting the courts from using sharia law in their decisions, as if the state's referendum were a waste of time.

"Legal experts contacted by ABC News said they did not know of one instance of a judge in the U.S. invoking sharia in rendering a decision."—Joel Siegel

However, Jihad Watch.org exposed the limited knowledge of ABC's legal "experts."

According to Jihad Watch, a New Jersey judge found a Muslim man not guilty of forcing his wife to have sex with him. The judge ruled the man should be excepted from the State's criminal law due to his religious beliefs.

"This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he 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."

In other words, the Muslim husband acted in accordance with his belief in sharia law; therefore, he did not commit a crime because his desire to have sex was "consistent with his practices" which were "not prohibited," i.e., the judge determined sharia law trumps New Jersey criminal law.

An appellate court eventually overturned the judge's outrageous decision, yet this case escaped the purview of the legal experts contacted by ABC News.

For more on the New Jersey judge's sharia compliant ruling, see "Sharia in New Jersey: Muslim husband rapes wife, judge sees no sexual assault because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex" by Jihad Watch and "Cultural Defense Accepted as to Nonconsensual Sex in New Jersey Trial Court, Rejected on Appeal" by Eugene Volokh

Copyright by Jerry A. Kane