NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070322/wl_afp/germanyjusticeislam_070322132641

One wonders whether or not judges in Germany can be sacked immediately after something this stupid.

Especially when politicians of every stripe in Germany seem to be outraged by this sort of idiocy.

The woman had filed for immediate divorce on the grounds that the husband, also of Moroccan origin, regularly beat her and threatened to kill her. The claims were backed up by a police report.

But the female judge, who has not been named, made clear in a letter that the wife's bid had little chance of approval because, according to her, Islamic law allowed a man to strike his wife.

Wow... Just wow. I have no idea how a person that backwards could be appointed a judge. I certainly hope she's out of a job within the day. I really can't believe someone would be that stupid.

Religion has its place and the laws in the Koran, bible, what have you are all well and good but not when someone is having their life threatened and their overall quality of life brought down without their consent. The laws of the state should come first, well before the laws in any religious text. I'm frankly appalled by this ruling. I can't see how the judge would make that decision.

Well at least the other court upheld the bias complaint against the judge. The Central Council of Muslims in Germany also disagreed w/ the idiot.... I mean judge.

Well at least the other court upheld the bias complaint against the judge. The Central Council of Muslims in Germany also disagreed w/ the idiot.... I mean judge.

No, you mean idiot (and so do I).

A female judge ruling in favor of Islamic law? That, to me, is one of the greatest paradoxes of all time. Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. One would think a woman would have compassion on other women who have been abused by their husbands (which is not to say that men would not also have compassion on such women). But a WOMAN (the judge; not the man's wife) giving a MAN the right to ABUSE HIS WIFE?

WHAT IS THIS WORLD COMING TO?

Have we gotten so politically correct as to allow Islamic law (in the name of "tolerance", "diversity", and "multiculturalism") to take precedence over laws of the state and government, and even over basic human rights?

Yeh, read that this morning. That was quite a retarded decision. She quoted the Koran as a basis for her ruling.


Who in the hell cites from a holy book to decide a ruling in a court of law these days?!

WHAT IS THIS WORLD COMING TO?

You know, I wish I knew. To me this whole debacle seems... wrong. I keep trying to think what was going through this judge's head, and I can't really fathom it. Maybe she did it to prevent being called anti-islamic. But I don't think even that should override the basic need for Human decency of any public servant. That's really what gets me, not how stupid this judge was, but the lack of basic human compassion and decency. If you heard a woman was beaten, threatened, and the POLICE said it was true, you would do something about it, I don't care who you are.

I think this case, this judge, really shows that people are losing that basic decency that our parents and grandparents were brought up with. I'm not saying that the past was better, it wasn't in a lot of ways, but I can tell you that people are becoming more apathetic, less respectful, basic courtesy is disappearing in most cases. I don't know why, I don't care on some level. It saddens me.

EDIT: Political correctness is a daemon in a very real sense. It looks so appealing on the outside, but really, it isn't. It's something terrible. It appears benign, but cases like this appear. It is subversive in a very real sense. And I hate to do it but "Tolerance is for those to weak or cowardly to smite the Wicked," That isn't always true... but sometimes, sometimes it is. And when it is, it's a tragedy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070322/wl_afp/germanyjusticeislam_070322132641

One wonders whether or not judges in Germany can be sacked immediately after something this stupid.

Especially when politicians of every stripe in Germany seem to be outraged by this sort of idiocy.

I guess German Law gets trumped by Islamic Law now? Just wow. This judge ought to be sacked ASAP and have this stupid ruling overturned.

Although I don't know the details of the case, I wonder if this is to do with contract law. Islamic marriage is recognised by courts because it has all the character of a contract - but if beating was implicitly accepted in the contract then it wouldn't be grounds to nullify the contract.

Having said that, any such contract is wrong and should be considered void by the law.

Especially when politicians of every stripe in Germany seem to be outraged by this sort of idiocy.

Shari'a is a tradition particular to Islam. Thus, criticism of Shari'a is criticism of Islam. Criticism of Islam is bigotry. Thus, criticism of Shari'a is bigotry. Bigot.

:D I just wanted to be the first one to say it, for a change. ;)

But a WOMAN (the judge; not the man's wife) giving a MAN the right to ABUSE HIS WIFE?

WHAT IS THIS WORLD COMING TO?

Have we gotten so politically correct as to allow Islamic law (in the name of "tolerance", "diversity", and "multiculturalism") to take precedence over laws of the state and government, and even over basic human rights?

It's not so much about politically correct I think. IIRC, there have been cases of female judges giving verdicts against rape victims before.

Shari'a is a tradition particular to Islam. Thus, criticism of Shari'a is criticism of Islam. Criticism of Islam is bigotry. Thus, criticism of Shari'a is bigotry. Bigot.

:D I just wanted to be the first one to say it, for a change. ;)

Since when? Disliking someone simply because he or she is Muslim is bigotry, but criticizing a religion certainly is not bigotry.

Since when? Disliking someone simply because he or she is Muslim is bigotry, but criticizing a religion certainly is not bigotry.

No disagreement here. Criticism of a religion isn't criticism of any and all adherents to that religion. I just wanted to be the first one this thread to say that it was.. It doesn't seem to matter how many times you note that you aren't condemning the entire religion, there's going to be a few people throwing in a "OMG the EvIl muzlimsz!!1!" to imply that you are. I thought I'd give it a go. :)

Another article, from Spiegel: http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,473017,00.html

The whole thing is so incredibly ridiculous, because Moroccan law is actually very reformed in gender issues and women can ask for divorce whenever they want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudawana
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/030311/2003031114.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3435153.stm

No disagreement here. Criticism of a religion isn't criticism of any and all adherents to that religion. I just wanted to be the first one this thread to say that it was.. It doesn't seem to matter how many times you note that you aren't condemning the entire religion, there's going to be a few people throwing in a "OMG the EvIl muzlimsz!!1!" to imply that you are. I thought I'd give it a go. :)Even if criticism of a religion was criticism of all the adherents, it's still not bigotry, at least not as I understand the word. Bigotry involves hating someone for who they are--it's an unreasoned, reflexive hatred, and doesn't generally involve something so logical as criticism.

No disagreement here. Criticism of a religion isn't criticism of any and all adherents to that religion. I just wanted to be the first one this thread to say that it was.. It doesn't seem to matter how many times you note that you aren't condemning the entire religion, there's going to be a few people throwing in a "OMG the EvIl muzlimsz!!1!" to imply that you are. I thought I'd give it a go. :)

Oh...so we are now pre-empting the pre-empters. Nice. :D


But what will you do if they start pre-empting you pre-empting their pre-empting ? :confused:

Oh...so we are now pre-empting the pre-empters. Nice. :D


But what will you do if they start pre-empting you pre-empting their pre-empting ? :confused:

I've gone crosseyed. :p

But what will you do if they start pre-empting you pre-empting their pre-empting ? :confused:
You'll be left with an empty feeling inside.

Sweet. I'm gonna convert to Islam. Then on Saturday night, I'm gonna go to the club a one punch every chick in the place.:)

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,473385,00.html

She finally made a statement. She reckons she was still scared because ten years ago a man shot his wife and seriously wounded her lawyer in her office while she was watching. So she doesn't like the idea of dealing with angry and potentially unstable men. :rolleyes:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070322/wl_afp/germanyjusticeislam_070322132641

One wonders whether or not judges in Germany can be sacked immediately after something this stupid.

Especially when politicians of every stripe in Germany seem to be outraged by this sort of idiocy.
This career of this 'judge' is fucked. She needs more harm principle.

How on Earth is Islamic "law" even considered such?

I mean, this is like using the laws of Inquisiton-era Spain in a modern courtroom; it's a bunch of archaic, barbaric laws that originate from a far different time and which have no cultural or ethical relevance to our society today. What was okay in the Dark or Middle Ages isn't what's okay today.

How dare all you?!?!? You bigots! You..you...Racists! Islamophobes! We need to embrace Islamic Law unless we want to be intolerant to them!

How dare all you?!?!? You bigots! You..you...Racists! Islamophobes! We need to embrace Islamic Law unless we want to be intolerant to them!

I'd quote warhammer but it's not worth looking it up. Anyway, sign me up for the intolerance list!

the state should stay out of the affairs between a man and his wife me thinks.

the state should stay out of the affairs between a man and his wife me thinks.

When he's beating her and threatening to kill her?

:rolleyes:

the state should stay out of the affairs between a man and his wife me thinks.

Even when the man is clearly harming the wife? I bet it would be different if a kufr was beating on his muslim wife, wouldn't it? You'd want the kufr to be put away or stoned to death.

the state should stay out of the affairs between a man and his wife me thinks.

Abuse is the responsibility of the state; a person shouldn't be allowed to assault and torture another person simply because that person happens to be married to them. The law applies no matter what the situation is. In all honesty, a man beating and threatening his wife is no different from him simply randomly assaulting another out on the street, and deserves the same kind of intervention as any other form of physical or emotional battery.

Abuse is the responsibility of the state; a person shouldn't be allowed to assault and torture another person simply because that person happens to be married to them. The law applies no matter what the situation is. In all honesty, a man beating and threatening his wife is no different from him simply randomly assaulting another out on the street, and deserves the same kind of intervention as any other form of physical or emotional battery.

IMO, it deserves more intervention, as I'd say there'd be more mental harm to the woman, as she is being beat by someone she loves.

Even when the man is clearly harming the wife? I bet it would be different if a kufr was beating on his muslim wife, wouldn't it? You'd want the kufr to be put away or stoned to death.

I think you mean Kafir. Kufr is something a Muslim does wrong, Kafirs are the unbelievers. But that wouldn't make sense since Muslim women aren't allowed to marry non-Muslims.

IMO, it deserves more intervention, as I'd say there'd be more mental harm to the woman, as she is being beat by someone she loves.

Oh, absolutely.

When he's beating her and threatening to kill her?

:rolleyes:

obviously if the man is going to kill his wife or beats her severely thats different. But the state has no business getting involved if he just hits her.

I think you mean Kafir. Kufr is something a Muslim does wrong, Kafirs are the unbelievers.

Kufr, Kafir, Kaffir - all the same.

But that wouldn't make sense since Muslim women aren't allowed to marry non-Muslims.

But men are allowed to.

I think you mean Kafir. Kufr is something a Muslim does wrong, Kafirs are the unbelievers. But that wouldn't make sense since Muslim women aren't allowed to marry non-Muslims.

my bad, but just becuase they aren't allowed too doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

obviously if the man is going to kill his wife or beats her severely thats different.

Did you even read the article?

The woman had filed for immediate divorce on the grounds that the husband, also of Moroccan origin, regularly beat her and threatened to kill her.

But the state has no business getting involved if he just hits her.

Why not?

But the state has no business getting involved if he just hits her.
A person hitting another person without their consent and without being physically attacked first is assault in this country, no matter the reason, and the state has every right to intervene and will do so accordingly.
I'm surprised by this judge's ruling for it goes against the German Basic Law.

the state should stay out of the affairs between a man and his wife me thinks.

I used to have a small measure of respect for you. It's gone.

But the state has no business getting involved if he just hits her.

Obviously, the state should have no business either if I made your face resemble tomato paste now should it? If the state has no business preventing assault between a man and his wife, it has no business preventing assault anywhere.

Why not?

That's easy. Islam (Qur'an and hadiths) allows beating of wife.

He is just arguing for his religious right.

You are being a bigot and islamophobic. ;)

*interpretations vary on the sayings. But overall, it is accepted that beating is sanctioned.

How dare all you?!?!? You bigots! You..you...Racists! Islamophobes! We need to embrace Islamic Law unless we want to be intolerant to them!

Beat you to it. :D

Which was lucky, because NCAA took over my afternoon shortly afterward. :)

I've gone crosseyed. :p

Quick! look at this (http://www.magiceye.com/client/images/value_s.jpg)and tell me what word appears...

oh, damn... you uncrossed them... :p


one wonders... is the Judge Islamic?

That judge is lucky he doesn't live in America...:eek:

That wouldn't end well.

Quick! look at this (http://www.magiceye.com/client/images/value_s.jpg)and tell me what word appears...

oh, damn... you uncrossed them... :p

value :D

The judge should be locked up for inciting violence and inciting murder.

Oh...so we are now pre-empting the pre-empters. Nice. :D


But what will you do if they start pre-empting you pre-empting their pre-empting ? :confused:

Well, then we need to pre-empt their pre-empting of our pre-empting their pre-empting. Quite simple really.

Open letter to the US, British, and French militaries:

Please, COME BACK. The Germans are REALLY BAD AT THIS.

obviously if the man is going to kill his wife or beats her severely thats different. But the state has no business getting involved if he just hits her.

Oh, so it's only a problem if he beats her severely. You actually call yourself a human being?

Well, then we need to pre-empt their pre-empting of our pre-empting their pre-empting. Quite simple really.


:cool: "We will now Pre-empt this Pre-empting of Pre-empters and return you to the thread topic now in progress."

Oh, so it's only a problem if he beats her severely. You actually call yourself a human being?

Isn't Soviestan muslim? The religion of violence and hatred...

At least that's what he's displaying it as if he is muslim: using certain passages I know of for his own twisted Satanic views and ignoring the rest of the Qur'an when it speaks about being kind to women and treating them fairly.

There is no way some one that stupid get through law school. No fucking way. Not in a million years.

Oh, so it's only a problem if he beats her severely. You actually call yourself a human being?

the husband is just pissed because the wife is supposed to be beating him off.












Oi... I must be tired...

There is no way some one that stupid get through law school. No fucking way. Not in a million years.

Welcome to liberal Europe.

Isn't Soviestan muslim? The religion of violence and hatred...


You do know I put bigots in the same category as wife beaters right? Besides Christianity has just as much claim to the title as Islam. Unlike you however I judge individuals on their actions, not the actions of their radical counterparts.

Yeh, read that this morning. That was quite a retarded decision. She quoted the Koran as a basis for her ruling.


Who in the hell cites from a holy book to decide a ruling in a court of law these days?!

As a Muslim, I can tell you that this decision was wrong and NOT based on Islamic Law. Religious law should be respected by those who choose to abide by it, however, even if Islam does allow for a man to strike his wife (and I'm sorry to say, I couldn't tell you one way or another), I can tell you that a woman has the right to seek a divorce for any reason, even if she just thinks her husband is too ugly to live with (that is in the Hadith, the sayings, doings, traditions, etc. of the Prophet Muhammad).

Kufr, Kafir, Kaffir - all the same.



But men are allowed to.

Nope, not all the same. They come from the same root. But so do, for instance, the words yudarris and yedruus (the trilateral semitic root D-R-S). When spelled in Arabic they are even written exactly the same, you just have to judge it from connotation. In any case, those two words I just mentioned mean "he teaches" and "he studies" respectively.

Men are allowed to because traditionally, especially in the Middle East (with the notable exception of the Jews) it was the man's religion who determined the religion of the household. As a Muslim, the man would still respect his wife's religion because he believes in all her Prophets (he can marry a Christian or a Jew). Not only would the children NOT be Muslim if the woman married a non-Muslim man, but he would most likely not respect her religion in terms of how he thought about it because he would see the Prophet Muhammad as a liar. It's a way of preventing unnecessary and typically inevitable conflict.

Most Hindus would be shunned by their families if they even married outside their castes, let alone if they married a non-Hindu or non-Indian.

That's easy. Islam (Qur'an and hadiths) allows beating of wife.

He is just arguing for his religious right.

You are being a bigot and islamophobic. ;)

*interpretations vary on the sayings. But overall, it is accepted that beating is sanctioned.

And good Hindu women are supposed to burn themselves on funeral pyres. That only stopped because of Western influence via the British.

obviously if the man is going to kill his wife or beats her severely thats different. But the state has no business getting involved if he just hits her.

The point is Soviestan that in Islam, a woman can seek divorce for any reason she chooses. The husband could be a total saint and she can divorce him whenever the hell she wants.

If Christians can't use religion as a reason not to expense birth control, Muslims can't use religion as an excuse to beat women, which is even more illegal.

If Christians can't use religion as a reason not to expense birth control, Muslims can't use religion as an excuse to beat women, which is even more illegal.

But Christians can often (unless it is different in Germany) Not that I am arguing that they should be alowed to abuse anyone for whatever reason

Kufr, Kafir, Kaffir - all the same.

as far as I know, there is a slight difference between Kufr and Kafir/Kaffir

But men are allowed to.

yes, Christians or jews only though. Personally I don't see the point in doing that, I will only marry a Muslim.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070322/wl_afp/germanyjusticeislam_070322132641

One wonders whether or not judges in Germany can be sacked immediately after something this stupid.

Especially when politicians of every stripe in Germany seem to be outraged by this sort of idiocy.

So what the judge is saying is that the particular rules of a particular religion and not the law of the land has to prevail. Well, doesn't that just open the door to all sorts of lovely things. The next thing you know, the German courts will rule that honor killings aren't murder because they're supported by some hair-brained interpretations of Islam.

I hope that American courts won't be that stupid, although I have my doubts.

What's ridiculous is that the judge is so idiotically "liberal" that she just takes the husband's word for it and doesn't even truly investigate. Let's just say that the husband is right, and he CAN beat his wife. Even so, if this idiotic judge wants to apply "Islamic" law she would HAVE to grant the woman a divorce, because a woman can divorce her husband for any reason she wants. It seems as though this judge looked no further than her own prejudices and decided to try and be "understanding" when in fact she obviously just assumes Muslims are barbarians and should have the right to be such. Idiocy.

So what the judge is saying is that the particular rules of a particular religion and not the law of the land has to prevail. Well, doesn't that just open the door to all sorts of lovely things. The next thing you know, the German courts will rule that honor killings aren't murder because they're supported by some hair-brained interpretations of Islam.


Even if it was stipulated in the marriage contract, it should have been nulled by the fact that it violated the law. I hope an appeals court overturns this and that judge gets removed from office. If you can't make rulings on the basis of the law, you don't deserve to be a judge.

Even if it was stipulated in the marriage contract, it should have been nulled by the fact that it violated the law. I hope an appeals court overturns this and that judge gets removed from office. If you can't make rulings on the basis of the law, you don't deserve to be a judge.

To play the advocate of a large red fellow with horns and a pitch fork, is it still null and void if the person being beaten had not only contractualy agreed to it but was a masochist and derived sexual pleasure from it?

To play the advocate of a large red fellow with horns and a pitch fork, is it still null and void if the person being beaten had not only contractualy agreed to it but was a masochist and derived sexual pleasure from it?

That really makes it a non-issue. If someone derived pleasure from being beaten, I doubt they would divorce the person who beat them. (And I would hate to think that anyone, anywhere, thought that women secretly derived pleasure from being beaten.)

That really makes it a non-issue. If someone derived pleasure from being beaten, I doubt they would divorce the person who beat them. (And I would hate to think that anyone, anywhere, thought that women secretly derived pleasure from being beaten.)

Such people unfortunately do exist.

A lot of people underestimate the 'effeminate' Europeans... they have something of a history of violence.

I think that the Germans will only be pushed so far before they respond unpleasantly.

A lot of people underestimate the 'effeminate' Europeans... they have something of a history of violence.

I think that the Germans will only be pushed so far before they respond unpleasantly.

I've never considered the Germans effeminate (the French maybe, but not the Germans). And one does hope that the Germans will respond immediately and unpleasantly to this idiocy.

obviously if the man is going to kill his wife or beats her severely thats different. But the state has no business getting involved if he just hits her.
No.
I used to have a small measure of respect for you. It's gone.
Yes.

Worst. Court. Ruling. Ever. Why do people insist on making Muslims look bad by letting them do moronic things?

obviously if the man is going to kill his wife or beats her severely thats different. But the state has no business getting involved if he just hits her.

Sir, you are an ass. When one human being hits another (unless, of course, you don't consider women human), that is assault and very much the business of a well-run state.

Rather than continue to attempt to tolerate your blatant and willful ignorance further, I'm putting you on my ignore list.

That really makes it a non-issue. If someone derived pleasure from being beaten, I doubt they would divorce the person who beat them. (And I would hate to think that anyone, anywhere, thought that women secretly derived pleasure from being beaten.)

And again playing Soviestan advocate here, if someone can say "you can hit me because it turns me on" and it becomes none of the states business, then why can they not say "you can hit me because it's part of my marriage contract" thus making it none of the states business?

(disclaimer: I am not agreeing with this standpoint, I am arguing it purely for academic purposes. I also realize that it does not map completely with this specific case.)

And again playing Soviestan advocate here, if someone can say "you can hit me because it turns me on" and it becomes none of the states business, then why can they not say "you can hit me because it's part of my marriage contract" thus making it none of the states business?

Because:

1) The former is consensual, the latter is not
2) The former is in line with int. law, the latter is not

obviously if the man is going to kill his wife or beats her severely thats different. But the state has no business getting involved if he just hits her.The state has every business to protect its citizens and everybody else who dwells or just moves within its territory. The only law that's relevant is the law of the land, no religious or traditional or else assumed justice is relevant. In Germany no man can beat his wife and get away with it, as you see in the case at issue here. The judge only refused to accelerate their divorce and gave a (stupid and inappropriate) hint to the cultural background. Nevertheless she kept the woman away and safe from her ill-tempered soon-to-be-ex-husband .

Why a judge of a secular state would uphold an archaic religious law as justification for not granting a divorce over common sense and secular rules is beyond me. Hopefully she won't be in a position to make a ruling like that from now on.

And on top of that, I still say this is yet another Kimchi Online 3b1l |\/|05l3|\/| rant earmarked to a legitimate complaint.

Why a judge of a secular state would uphold an archaic religious law as justification for not granting a divorce over common sense and secular rules is beyond me. Hopefully she won't be in a position to make a ruling like that from now on.

And on top of that, I still say this is yet another Kimchi Online 3b1l |\/|05l3|\/| rant earmarked to a legitimate complaint.She did not uphold an archaic religious law. I would summarize what she said as this: if you get married to a muslim, it's your own fault if you get beaten up, as you must have seen that coming. :(

She did not uphold an archaic religious law. I would summarize what she said as this: if you get married to a muslim, it's your own fault if you get beaten up, as you must have seen that coming. :(


No, that's not it at all. She based her decision on a Koranic verse stating that a Muslim man is 'dominant' in the relationship and that the wife had no grounds for an urgent divorce because it contradicted this Koranic verse.

Nothing to do with "You married a Muslim, you got what you asked for."

You'll be left with an empty feeling inside.

That's why the term "spinning" was invented.

That judge is lucky he doesn't live in America...:eek:

That wouldn't end well.

You know, not so long ago, a judge in certain states in the US might have ruled similarly, except using the Bible as justification.

It was legal in Virginia to beat your wife up until 1986 (but not beat your girlfriend).

Keep religion out of government and we won't have this sort of bullshit.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070322/wl_afp/germanyjusticeislam_070322132641

One wonders whether or not judges in Germany can be sacked immediately after something this stupid.

Especially when politicians of every stripe in Germany seem to be outraged by this sort of idiocy.

I'm geussing this must be some german Religion has higher power than criminal law.

http://www.iuscomp.org/cgi-bin/search.pl?ACTION=ONECLASSIF&CLA_ID=224

wonder if this, you can kill your husband if he beats you would be a better solution for her.


is that to say that the bible allows bigamy so it should be legal in germany?

or what about killing your first born son?

or sacrificing animals,

or ain't it legal for muslims to kill the infidels, couldn't that be problematic for the judge?


HA this gives me a chance to make a list .. what happens in religious books vs. real life

or I"m christian so I just need to ask for forgiveness to be not guilty.

how do you plead - JESUS DID IT!


Then the church as the body of christ comes under fire due to Organized Crime legislation.

the next worst thing since the holocaust.

What you thought that we were moving our hands for fun.. of course it is a gang sign.

ICCD-Intracircumcordei;12459350']I'm geussing this must be some german Religion has higher power than criminal law.

The Basic Law is ueber allen in Germany.

ICCD-Intracircumcordei;12459350']the next worst thing since the holocaust.

Godwin's Law by proxy. Took long enough.

At least that's what he's displaying it as if he is muslim: using certain passages I know of for his own twisted Satanic views and ignoring the rest of the Qur'an when it speaks about being kind to women and treating them fairly.Now, now - you only have to do that if they're obedient little (And preferably kept stupid) housewives giving birth to the warriors of Islam - if she happens to believe in integrating into a civilised society, or in having, lets say, rights, discipline still has to be applied.

After all, a good and honest husband cares when his wife turns the wrong way, and guides her back to the path of righteousness. Even if it involves a broken nose or stoning her to death.

But that's a small price to pay for saving her immortal soul (To be raped for all eternity in paradise, where she can serve the glorious warriors who sacrificed themselves in order to blow up evil zionist kindergartens, bringing them joy with her ever-regrowing hymen), no?

As a Muslim, I can tell you that this decision was wrong and NOT based on Islamic Law. Religious law should be respected by those who choose to abide by it, however, even if Islam does allow for a man to strike his wife (and I'm sorry to say, I couldn't tell you one way or another), I can tell you that a woman has the right to seek a divorce for any reason, even if she just thinks her husband is too ugly to live with (that is in the Hadith, the sayings, doings, traditions, etc. of the Prophet Muhammad).Not according to some interpretations of islamic law, anyway - while I'm aware of assorted rather liberal, well, sects within islam, as well as admittedly sizeable, semi-secular movements, it doesn't really change the fact that Islam's used as an excuse and justification for this - almost anywhere.

Soviestan's posts in this thread being a rather nice example.

Islam - like any religion - has the 'Problem' (Actually, long-term advantage, when one looks at it from a purely survivalist point of view, but anyway...) of contradicting itself quite massively in the available scripture, leaving vast space for varying interpretations, ranging from what amounts to be the muslim version of a christian conservative to, well, wahhabism. Certainly, issues like the ones present in this thread (Massive gender inequality) didn't originate within islam - they were carried over from tribal traditions -, but this doesn't change that at present, islam's the excuse used to justify them.

And a religion's tangible effects are not the pacifist tendencies one almost invariably finds in every religion, they're what its members make of it - and I find it hard to deny that in the modern world, a fairly high percentage of muslims uses their religion to jusfify what amounts to barbarism, the Taliban being the prime (If admittedly extreme to the point of being despised by everyone except maybe the Saudis) example.

And that's the problem - by noting that 'True' muslims don't have this, well... issues, and by saying that the religion at large is against this kind of abuse, one is, well, not strictly lying, but one's evading the truth, the truth being that the religion - islam - is used to justify exactly this kind of behaviour. By evading this issue, you're not helping the victims of the more aggressive (And surprisingly popular) interpretations of the Qu'ran, nor the attempts at 'Modernising' islam (Well, I'd call it 'Domesticating', just as Christianity wasn't 'Modernised', it was merely domesticated as secular movements grew in power), just as one wouldn't help the victims of, lets say, the Magdalan Asylums in Ireland by saying 'Hey, Jesus never teached this barbarous practise, the church is clearly innocent!'.

Because it wasn't, regardless of what Jesus said.

And the same principle applies to Islam (As in, the vast conglomerate of interpretations formed by various schools of the faith, divering opinions of assorted Imams, etc, to get something analoguous to the 'Church'). It is not innocent, and it is - in a wide variety of fairly sizeable modern movements within the religion - outright barbaric. Whether the Qu'ran agrees with these practises or not (Certainly, the misogynist excesses of the Taliban weren't supported by it) is irrelevant, because a religion isn't a dust-covered book on a bookshelf.

A religion is its followers and their actions. And if it refuses to be held accountable for the worst of them, it refuses to accept criticism, it refuses to change, and covers the crime.

yes, Christians or jews only though. Personally I don't see the point in doing that, I will only marry a Muslim.
With that attitude toward women, I wouldn't be making wedding plans any time soon.

Nope, not all the same. They come from the same root.

Doesn't matter. In common usage, those words are used interchangeably.


Men are allowed to because traditionally, especially in the Middle East (with the notable exception of the Jews) it was the man's religion who determined the religion of the household. As a Muslim, the man would still respect his wife's religion because he believes in all her Prophets (he can marry a Christian or a Jew). Not only would the children NOT be Muslim if the woman married a non-Muslim man, but he would most likely not respect her religion in terms of how he thought about it because he would see the Prophet Muhammad as a liar. It's a way of preventing unnecessary and typically inevitable conflict.

IOW, it is a patriarchal practice incorporated into Islam from the societal practice of that time.


Most Hindus would be shunned by their families if they even married outside their castes, let alone if they married a non-Hindu or non-Indian.

lol. Nice attempt at diverting the topic. Ok I will take the bait. :D

You forget one important thing.

It is not institutionalized. There is no Hindu law (like the Shariat) that prevents a person from marrying another person from another caste (or another religion for that matter). There are countless examples of people doing exactly that. Even in my very own family. Those barriers are breaking down and breaking down fast with increasing societal mobility.

Very unlike some islamic societies where parallel cousin marriages are making the social structures more rigid.

And good Hindu women are supposed to burn themselves on funeral pyres. That only stopped because of Western influence via the British.

Sati as a regular practice came into being in north-west India (Rajasthan, Punjab etc) as a response for muslim armies taking the widows of men killed in battle as war booties.

That is why you should read history. It helps in avoiding digging your own graves. :p

To play the advocate of a large red fellow with horns and a pitch fork, is it still null and void if the person being beaten had not only contractualy agreed to it but was a masochist and derived sexual pleasure from it?

Yes, it's still null and void. Otherwise, we'd get sticky situations where a mugger would claim "Even if I had a gun to his head he agreed to give his money to me. The state should butt out."

The law is quite clear on what assault and battery is. An agreement of any sort that contravenes the law does not have any legal standing whatsoever.

With that attitude toward women, I wouldn't be making wedding plans any time soon.
Oh, I don't know about that. Fundamentalist groups are really good at emotionally brutalizing young women, and they churn out tons of high-quality submissive wife material by ensuring that girls and women view themselves as nothing more than servants and toilets for men. I'm sure Sovietstan will be able to find a woman who has been so thoroughly stripped of her human dignity that she will be thankful for the opportunity to devote her life to being his wife-mommy.

obviously if the man is going to kill his wife or beats her severely thats different. But the state has no business getting involved if he just hits her.
If you hit a stranger, it's called "assault." Why should you be held to a LOWER standard of conduct toward the woman that you have promised to honor and care for as your partner in life? Why should you be allowed to treat her WORSE than a total stranger?

You know, it may just be me, but the last time I checked, judges were supposed to uphold the secular law of the country that they serve, not some archaic, backwards religious law that they don't even belong to (unless, of course, the judge was Muslim, but then I would still fault her for her extreme idiocy and lack of ability to think beyond the most literal interpretation of the scripture.) I can only hope that she'll be fired for this extreme idiocy.

I know that if this took place in the 'States, this woman would probably be gone in a week. And I shudder to think of what might happen then.

It makes me so sad when people refuse to think for themselves. You might as well scoop out your brain with a spork and replace it with a Koran/Bible/whatever, if you're that fanatic.

Oh, I don't know about that. Fundamentalist groups are really good at emotionally brutalizing young women, and they churn out tons of high-quality submissive wife material by ensuring that girls and women view themselves as nothing more than servants and toilets for men. I'm sure Sovietstan will be able to find a woman who has been so thoroughly stripped of her human dignity that she will be thankful for the opportunity to devote her life to being his wife-mommy.

Sometimes, I wonder if the world would be better if there was an equal opposite to such groups, whose sole objective is to 'de-man' fundamentalist groups like these.

With that attitude toward women, I wouldn't be making wedding plans any time soon.

*feels ground quaking under my feet, thunder rolling in the distance*

I agree with Nazz here. If Soviestan gets married, it won't be long before he's divorced.

That's easy. Islam (Qur'an and hadiths) allows beating of wife.

He is just arguing for his religious right.

You are being a bigot and islamophobic. ;)

*interpretations vary on the sayings. But overall, it is accepted that beating is sanctioned.

From the article in the OP

The Central Council of Muslims in Germany also condemned the decision.

"The judge should have made a decision based on the German constitution instead of the Koran," said spokeswoman Nurhan Soykan, who said that violence and mistreatment, regardless of the gender of the victim, were also grounds for divorce in the Islamic world.(my bold)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070322/wl_afp/germanyjusticeislam_070322132641


Apparently "overall" does not include German muslims.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070322/wl_afp/germanyjusticeislam_070322132641

One wonders whether or not judges in Germany can be sacked immediately after something this stupid.

Especially when politicians of every stripe in Germany seem to be outraged by this sort of idiocy.
This makes another of my worst nightmares worse. Remember when one of our Supremes -- Ginsburg, I think, said that we should look to decisions in other countries to help decide Constitutional questions? Well, here is a judicial decision. What will keep nonsense like this from filtering into our legal system? Besides common sense, I mean -- we know that doesn't exist anymore.

Apparently "overall" does not include German muslims.

Those are Muslims who are making the attempt to assimilate.

Perhaps we should make the distinction between fundamentalist groups of any ilk (Christian, Muslim, Scientologist, or otherwise) who put their own beliefs before the general view of society they live in, and those who do not.

There are plenty of examples of groups that have no intention to assimilate - and some examples of those groups who do intend to assimilate.

Sometimes, I wonder if the world would be better if there was an equal opposite to such groups, whose sole objective is to 'de-man' fundamentalist groups like these.
I don't think the world would be better off if we had groups dedicated to abusing men the way that fundamentalists abuse women. However, I do believe the world is a better place because of the groups that really do oppose sexism and misogyny: feminist groups.

And the #1 most common complaint about such groups is that they "pussify" or "emasculate" men, apparently because it's not possible to be a man unless you are abusing women. When feminists argue that women are real live people who deserve the same fundamental respect as male human beings, you'll hear plenty of people (like Sovietstan) start shrieking about how they are trying to "destroy gender" and "make men into women and women into men." This is because a lot people basically define gender as a hierarchy of abuse. Maleness is the quality of being non-female and therefore being in the position of abusing those who are unlucky enough to be female. If the abuse is ended, then their form of maleness can no longer exist.

You know, it may just be me, but the last time I checked, judges were supposed to uphold the secular law of the country that they serve, not some archaic, backwards religious law that they don't even belong to (unless, of course, the judge was Muslim, but then I would still fault her for her extreme idiocy and lack of ability to think beyond the most literal interpretation of the scripture.) I can only hope that she'll be fired for this extreme idiocy.She has been removed from the case, ya'know - it's now in the hands of another judge (And her career's presumably in ruins).

Furthermore, she didn't say 'No' to the divorce per se - she said 'No' to accelerating the proceedings on the same (Incidentally, the Husband was already disallowed from seeing his (Soon-to-be-ex) wife), as there's usually a year in between applying for divorce, and being divorced - the woman in question simply wanted it to happen faster.

Not quite the same thing, I believe.

Not that I understand why the 'Right to discipline one's wife' played a role in this, but meh.

Sati as a regular practice came into being in north-west India (Rajasthan, Punjab etc) as a response for muslim armies taking the widows of men killed in battle as war booties.

That is why you should read history. It helps in avoiding digging your own graves. :p

Yep, that last sentence is the kind of thing that could come back to haunt ye....

Widow burning, the practice as understood today, started to become more extensive after about 500 CE, and the end of the Gupta empire. The neo-Buddhists have ascribed to the decline of Buddhism in India, the rise of caste based societies, and the idea that sati was used to reinforce caste status. There are also suggestions that the practice was introduced into India by the Huna Buddhist invaders who contributed to the fall of the Gupta empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice)

I think you mean Kafir. Kufr is something a Muslim does wrong, Kafirs are the unbelievers. But that wouldn't make sense since Muslim women aren't allowed to marry non-Muslims.

Read the book you claim to follow. A man isn't allowed to hit a woman in the Quran, and muslim women CAN marry non-muslim men:

http://islamlib.com/en/page.php?page=article&id=449

The law you referred to involved the "heathen" tribes of the time, that practiced, among other things, sacrifices.

I don't think the world would be better off if we had groups dedicated to abusing men the way that fundamentalists abuse women. However, I do believe the world is a better place because of the groups that really do oppose sexism and misogyny: feminist groups.

No, no, no. Not men in general. Just the crazy fundamentalist types. They complain about how women's groups de-man men partly because they can do it with impunity. If they were fair game for 're-education', a great deal of them would quite quickly change their mindsets.

Sadly, I am beginning to think that the only way to really get rid of this sort of behavior is with either complete reconstruction of the human psyche of dominance by complete and absolute fear.


If the abuse is ended, then their form of maleness can no longer exist.

And that is precisely why it should be eliminated entirely. Thinking of that sort is nothing more than a perverse desire to dominate and abuse which should have died out in the stone age.

You know, not so long ago, a judge in certain states in the US might have ruled similarly, except using the Bible as justification.

It was legal in Virginia to beat your wife up until 1986 (but not beat your girlfriend).

Keep religion out of government and we won't have this sort of bullshit.


As much as we disagree, I can agree with this

Well, here is a judicial decision.
Look, the judge has been put on holidays. The entire country wants to lynch her, and she herself says she regrets what she did and can't quite understand why she did it in the first place (she blames it on a shooting in her office ten years ago when an angry ex-husband-to-be shot his wife in front of her).

It's hardly something the German judiciary will be based on. Particularly since it's not common law and past decisions don't carry precedence as such.

Look, the judge has been put on holidays. The entire country wants to lynch her, and she herself says she regrets what she did and can't quite understand why she did it in the first place (she blames it on a shooting in her office ten years ago when an angry ex-husband-to-be shot his wife in front of her).

It's hardly something the German judiciary will be based on. Particularly since it's not common law and past decisions don't carry precedence as such.

The belief that all muslims are barbaric and that all foreigners are evil is core to Myrmidonisia's ideas.

Open letter to the US, British, and French militaries:
Please, COME BACK. The Germans are REALLY BAD AT THIS.
:upyours: Go screw yourself!
I think that the Germans will only be pushed so far before they respond unpleasantly.
Yes.
I've never considered the Germans effeminate (the French maybe, but not the Germans). And one does hope that the Germans will respond immediately and unpleasantly to this idiocy.
Within reason, I might add. Within reason!
The judge has already been withdrawn from the case, and our legal system hasn't broken down.
Life continues.

Look, the judge has been put on holidays. The entire country wants to lynch her, and she herself says she regrets what she did and can't quite understand why she did it in the first place (she blames it on a shooting in her office ten years ago when an angry ex-husband-to-be shot his wife in front of her).

It's hardly something the German judiciary will be based on. Particularly since it's not common law and past decisions don't carry precedence as such.

THat's a damn good thing.

I really hope someone shoots that judge.

I really hope someone shoots that judge.

"Judge advocates a backwards way of looking at life so we must show our social progress and deal with it by killing her."

:rolleyes:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070322/wl_afp/germanyjusticeislam_070322132641

One wonders whether or not judges in Germany can be sacked immediately after something this stupid.

Especially when politicians of every stripe in Germany seem to be outraged by this sort of idiocy.It's funny how the only reason you know about this is because she has been sacked.

"Judge advocates a backwards way of looking at life so we must show our social progress and deal with it by killing her."

:rolleyes:
Yee haw!

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/2752/31045403eg6.jpg

Oh, dear:
BERLIN (AFP) - A German woman judge has refused a Moroccan-born woman permission to file for divorce by interpreting the Koran as allowing husbands to beat their wives.The woman had filed for immediate divorce on the grounds that the husband, also of Moroccan origin, regularly beat her and threatened to kill her. The claims were backed up by a police report.The way this is worded makes it easy to miss what actually happened.

The woman was being beaten and threatened by her husband, which is why she filed for an immediate divorce.

To understand that, one must know that under German law, you're not allowed to get a divorce unless you've lived in separation for a year. Exceptions are in cases of spousal abuse and so on.

The judge denied the request for an immediate divorce on grounds that she should have expected to be beaten in a marriage with a muslim man, based on the Qu'ran, and therefore it wasn't a "special case of need" (Härtefall). So in other words, she can get a divorce, but will have to live separated from her husband for a year before that.

A fuckwit decision and worthy of the outrage received, but hardly the invocation of sharia law as some people on here claimed.

If you hit a stranger, it's called "assault." Why should you be held to a LOWER standard of conduct toward the woman that you have promised to honor and care for as your partner in life? Why should you be allowed to treat her WORSE than a total stranger?

They are totally different circumstances. If you hit a total stranger, you don't them so most likely your doing it for no reason at all. However within a marriage, the husband is the protector over the woman and has final say on most matters. Hitting a wife(not severely btw) is a form of disipline like spanking your children. It should also be used as a last resort. This is an internal affair of the marriage on how a husband disiplines his wife and the state has no right getting involved. whats next, is the state going to tell you what colour blinds you should have in your house? of course not because its an issue within your home dealing with you alone.

This is an internal affair of the marriage on how a husband disiplines his wife and the state has no right getting involved.Nah. In Germany, the sanctity of a person's dignity ranks higher than that of marriage.

Read the book you claim to follow. A man isn't allowed to hit a woman in the Quran, and muslim women CAN marry non-muslim men:

http://islamlib.com/en/page.php?page=article&id=449

The law you referred to involved the "heathen" tribes of the time, that practiced, among other things, sacrifices.
"liberal Islam network" What a bunch of bs. I will listen to credible Islamic scholars thank you.

Oh, dear:
The way this is worded makes it easy to miss what actually happened.

The woman was being beaten and threatened by her husband, which is why she filed for an immediate divorce.

To understand that, one must know that under German law, you're not allowed to get a divorce unless you've lived in separation for a year. Exceptions are in cases of spousal abuse and so on.

The judge denied the request for an immediate divorce on grounds that she should have expected to be beaten in a marriage with a muslim man, based on the Qu'ran, and therefore it wasn't a "special case of need" (Härtefall). So in other words, she can get a divorce, but will have to live separated from her husband for a year before that.

A fuckwit decision and worthy of the outrage received, but hardly the invocation of sharia law as some people on here claimed.

Right, above all this shows the prejudiced view of the Judge..

"liberal Islam network" What a bunch of bs. I will listen to credible Islamic scholars thank you.

What are credible scholars according to your view, if I may ask?

I agree with Nazz here. If Soviestan gets married, it won't be long before he's divorced.

why? I will be a good husband. I will protect her and provide for her. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

The point is Soviestan that in Islam, a woman can seek divorce for any reason she chooses. The husband could be a total saint and she can divorce him whenever the hell she wants.

Are you refering to authentic hadiths?

"liberal Islam network" What a bunch of bs. I will listen to credible Islamic scholars thank you.

And I will read what's actually written in the book YOU claim to follow. Did you ever hear of Biddah?

why? I will be a good husband. I will protect her and provide for her. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

And yet you claim to have the right to beat the crap out of your wife. Does she get to beat you up in case you fail to thread the line?

And I will read what's actually written in the book YOU claim to follow. Did you ever hear of Biddah?

Islam is more than just the Qur'an, following only the Qur'an would in practice be biddah...

Are you refering to authentic hadiths?

Either part in a given marriage only needs to say "I divorce you" three times. Please, stop humiliating yourself further by showing yourself less knowledgeable on Islam than an occultist.

Islam is more than just the Qur'an, following only the Qur'an would in practice be biddah...

My point being that adding to the Quran in order to make it more conservative is as much biddah as adding to it in order to make it a Japanese cuisine cookbook. Plus the person that talked about marriage did extensive research on the subject. However, Soviestan seems to be a troll intent on making muslims look bad, so he will pretend to be offended at the idea of Islam being a decent religion.

Are you refering to authentic hadiths?

And who decides what is authentic?

My point being that adding to the Quran in order to make it more conservative is as much biddah as adding to it in order to make it a Japanese cuisine cookbook.

The rich tradition of Islam has come under pressure of the Saudi sponsored variant, a new form claiming to be authentic Islam... :(

And who decides what is authentic?

I do.

Oh, dear:
The way this is worded makes it easy to miss what actually happened.

The woman was being beaten and threatened by her husband, which is why she filed for an immediate divorce.

To understand that, one must know that under German law, you're not allowed to get a divorce unless you've lived in separation for a year. Exceptions are in cases of spousal abuse and so on.

The judge denied the request for an immediate divorce on grounds that she should have expected to be beaten in a marriage with a muslim man, based on the Qu'ran, and therefore it wasn't a "special case of need" (Härtefall). So in other words, she can get a divorce, but will have to live separated from her husband for a year before that.

A fuckwit decision and worthy of the outrage received, but hardly the invocation of sharia law as some people on here claimed.

Thank you Laerod...frankly, my immediate reaction to any EO thread is scepticism as to the true facts, and in reaction to any thread bitching about legal decisions, scepticism as to the OP's ability to actually understand the issue.

The decision sucks ass. But it doesn't mean 'OMG, NOW WE HAVE SHARIA!'

Where I live, the law is similar...a year separation and recently, the addition of a mandatory counselling session outlining the responsibilities spouses may continue to have to one another after divorce (including child care etc). An immediate divorce is rarely granted...the most common successful reason is the desire to immediately remarry (but no guarantee the judge will accept that). Spousal abuse is not generally considered exceptional enough to warrant an immediate divorce, Koran or no.

I do.

And here I thought it was me :D

The rich tradition of Islam has come under pressure of the Saudi sponsored variant, a new form claiming to be authentic Islam... :(

Too bad wahhabi isn't Islam anymore than KKK is Christianity. Which is why I've been showing that I know more on Soviestan's religion than he does. I, the, once again, occultist.

And here I thought it was me :D

It isn't any of the people that believe Islam to be barbaric or conservative.

It isn't any of the people that believe Islam to be barbaric or conservative.

I'll drink to that.

I'll drink to that.

Bearing in mind that that includes ANTI-islam people that believe Islam to be barbaric, as well.

Too bad wahhabi isn't Islam anymore than KKK is Christianity. Which is why I've been showing that I know more on Soviestan's religion than he does. I, the, once again, occultist.

Still, we cannot prescribe religion. Only adherents determine religion... That is why it is not possible to determine “true” Islam. Four madhabs, Shi’ism, Sufism and other forms complicate the matter. (Same with Christianity) However the variants that are gaining popularity are really novel, and selective. But because of their widespread availability gain more followers who fail to realize what they lose.

But it doesn't mean 'OMG, NOW WE HAVE SHARIA!'

That won't stop certain people from shouting OMG SHARIA constantly, though.

I mean not that those certain people are racist, bigoted or believe wholeheartedly in religious and ethnic persecution.

They are just good citizens concerned more with their values than with facts.

Still, we cannot prescribe religion. Only adherents determine religion... That is why it is not possible to determine “true” Islam. Four madhabs, Shi’ism, Sufism and other forms complicate the matter. (Same with Christianity) However the variants that are gaining popularity are really novel, and selective. But because of their widespread availability gain more followers who fail to realize what they lose.

Doesn't change the fact that they're committing, in the case of Islam, Biddah.

Doesn't change the fact that they're committing, in the case of Islam, Biddah.

I agree, but Islam is what its believers believe it to be... even though this is bidda

They are just good citizens concerned more with their values than with facts.

Yes...one should never let facts get in the way of a good-old Muslim bashing (EO's favourite pasttime on NSG), or any other sort of bashing. Life is not nearly as fun when facts are included in the issues.

That won't stop certain people from shouting OMG SHARIA constantly, though.

I mean not that those certain people are racist, bigoted or believe wholeheartedly in religious and ethnic persecution.

They are just good citizens concerned more with their values than with facts.

Hey, it doesn't stop people that believe ISLAM to be sharia (therefore showing how little they know about their supposed religion) from defending it.

Hey, it doesn't stop people that believe ISLAM to be sharia (therefore showing how little they know about their supposed religion) from defending it.

And rather than actually discuss the issue at hand, both sides dance round and round, substitution values for facts.

I agree, but Islam is what its believers believe it to be... even though this is bidda

Maybe so, but most muslims are not Soviestan either - especially because they KNOW their religion.

They are totally different circumstances. If you hit a total stranger, you don't them so most likely your doing it for no reason at all. However within a marriage, the husband is the protector over the woman and has final say on most matters. Hitting a wife(not severely btw) is a form of disipline like spanking your children. It should also be used as a last resort. This is an internal affair of the marriage on how a husband disiplines his wife and the state has no right getting involved. whats next, is the state going to tell you what colour blinds you should have in your house? of course not because its an issue within your home dealing with you alone.
No, they're not - and you're wrong because German law says otherwise. Men do not have the last say in marriage matters, they have equal rights, and there is no difference between hitting a total stranger for no reason and hitting your wife for a stupid reason. Even hitting your children can lead to you losing custody over them.
And when it comes to houses, the community can very well tell you which color the roof tiles are to be or how many stories your building can have, all according to the Bebauungsplan.
So stop trying to interpret German law when you have no idea what you're talking about - it makes you look really dumb.

And I will read what's actually written in the book YOU claim to follow. Did you ever hear of Biddah?

yes. As far as I'm concerned the site you linked to is basically biddah. they seem to be the the type that says eating pork or drinking really isn't against Islam and its ok.

So stop trying to interpret German law when you have no idea what you're talking about - it makes you look really dumb.

That's essentially my argument about people who try to interpret law period, with no understanding of the topic. Drives me insane it does.

No, they're not - and you're wrong because German law says otherwise. Men do not have the last say in marriage matters, and there is no difference between hitting a total stranger for no reason and hitting your wife for a stupid reason. Even hitting your children can lead to you losing custody over them.
And when it comes to houses, the community can very well tell you which color the roof tiles are to be or how many stories your building can have, all according to the Bebauungsplan.
So stop trying to interpret German law when you have no idea what you're talking about - it makes you look really dumb.

I could care less about german law, or any other man made law for that matter.

yes. As far as I'm concerned the site you linked to is basically biddah. they seem to be the the type that says eating pork or drinking really isn't against Islam and its ok.

The essay is by a scholar that did a LOT more study in this than you, the guy that thinks Islam includes beating one's wife to near death, did. For that matter, you didn't answer, is it or is it nor ok for a wife to discipline the husband by beating him, according to your biddah?

I could care less about german law, or any other man made law for that matter.

Cute, except for the fact that you don't give a damn about Islamic law either.

Bearing in mind that that includes ANTI-islam people that believe Islam to be barbaric, as well.

Yea....

And your point?

I could care less about german law, or any other man made law for that matter.

Now why doesn't that surprise me? :rolleyes:

I could care less about german law, or any other man made law for that matter.

Spoken like a true zealot.

As to the OP:

The judge should be removed. There are cases where agreements can be made depending on the type of crime.

I think it was Alaska where the was a case of petty theft. The tribe worked an agreement with the judge and the victims to where they two kids would be punished in the ways of their culture. I think it was banishment to a island without food water and shelter for a small period of time.

It was acceptable to the judge because there was no physical damage to property(or it was minor if I remember right) or people.

There is no justification for beating a woman.

German law trumps the Religion.

Just because you immigrate to another land; your religion doesn't trump the laws of the land.

Now why doesn't that surprise me? :rolleyes:

Because he ALSO disregards what the Prophet is actually supposed to have said.

Yea....

And your point?

Just making it to avoid certain misunderstandings.

Because he ALSO disregards what the Prophet is actually supposed to have said.

I was going to mention that tiny little detail :D

Spoken like a true zealot.

Especially in the "I don't know jack about the religion I supposedly follow" part.

I could care less about german law, or any other man made law for that matter.

Not caring is no excuse for prattling on in ignorance about it.

I don't care about structural engineering. That doesn't mean I get to yap about it as though I'm somehow, via my ignorance, an expert on the topic.

What you THINK about the law certainly has a place. Just like what I think about structural engineering has a place. But neither refute the reality.

So guess what. We get to dismiss your thoughts and focus on the reality.

That's essentially my argument about people who try to interpret law period, with no understanding of the topic. Drives me insane it does.
And rightly so. ;)
I could care less about german law, or any other man made law for that matter.
Which is exactly the kind of attitude which will put you in a lot of trouble sooner or later.
If you're not willing to follow a country's law, don't go there. And don't come to Germany.

I certainly hope she's out of a job within the day.

Exactly this was the resumen of my commentary I wrote about this story. :grin:

Well, I am from Germany and like most people here I don't understand this woman, too. The koran of course is not equivalent to the German law. But you know what's the best? The judge said, she's sorry about this and she didn't know her decision would cause reactions like these... :lol:

There is no justification for beating a woman.

German law trumps the Religion.

Just because you immigrate to another land; your religion doesn't trump the laws of the land.Please read this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12460289&postcount=106).

After reading that post, you can still disagree with the decision of the judge, but your objections may at least be more informed than just taking the OP's word for what this issue is really about.

One question I would pose to you is, what would be so compelling about this woman's situation that would warrant waiving the year waiting period and granting her an immediate divorce?

One question I would pose to you is, what would be so compelling about this woman's situation that would warrant waiving the year waiting period and granting her an immediate divorce?

Well, I think the law should make divorces easy and quick, the "stuck together for one more year" being basically a church thing...

Well, I think the law should make divorces easy and quick, the "stuck together for one more year" being basically a church thing...

Back up your assertion that it's a 'church thing'.

You aren't stuck together for a year, you simply must be separated for a year. The belief is that you should not simply be able to sever the legal contract of marriage on a whim.

There are waiting periods for any number of legal actions that have nothing to do with the church.

Please read this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12460289&postcount=106).

After reading that post, you can still disagree with the decision of the judge, but your objections may at least be more informed than just taking the OP's word for what this issue is really about.

One question I would pose to you is, what would be so compelling about this woman's situation that would warrant waiving the year waiting period and granting her an immediate divorce?

Aww crap. I did make that assumption! Thank you for pointing it out.

I would wave the year if the physical well being of the woman was in question.

Not knowing German law or the reasons for the current one, I guess the year deals more with "You bastard/bitch" situations where they are given time to try and sort things out rather then take the quick and easy way out.

Because:

1) The former is consensual, the latter is not
2) The former is in line with int. law, the latter is not

<I really need some sort of shorthand for I'm playing devils advocate here>

But is it not also consensual if you agree to it as part of the marriage contract?

Which is exactly the kind of attitude which will put you in a lot of trouble sooner or later.
If you're not willing to follow a country's law, don't go there. And don't come to Germany.

What I meant was I don't care about German law in this matter, not that I am unwilling to follow the laws. My point was irreguardless of what German law is, the state shouldn't have the right interfering with matters between a husband and his wife.

ICCD-Intracircumcordei;12459350']
or sacrificing animals,


Why SHOULDN'T this be legal? Or are you a radical vegetarian?

For that matter, you didn't answer, is it or is it nor ok for a wife to discipline the husband by beating him, according to your biddah?

No its not ok, thats not the role of the wife.

Aww crap. I did make that assumption! Thank you for pointing it out.

I would wave the year if the physical well being of the woman was in question. If continuing to be married meant there could be no separation and the abuse would continue, that would likely constitute special circumstances warranting waiving the year. If, however, continuing to be married in no way made it likely that the abuse would continue, or preclude the possibility of separation, then the year really doesn't need to be waived. Neither situation actually guarantees that further abuse would be prevented...unfortunately.

What I meant was I don't care about German law in this matter, not that I am unwilling to follow the laws. My point was irreguardless of what German law is, the state shouldn't have the right interfering with matters between a husband and his wife.

And yet, you failed to answer whether or not your wife would get to beat the crap out of you as well.

Because he ALSO disregards what the Prophet is actually supposed to have said.

Proof? Besides in my view the Qur'an trumps and Hadith when refering to or establishing Islamic law.

<I really need some sort of shorthand for I'm playing devils advocate here>

But is it not also consensual if you agree to it as part of the marriage contract?

There are many things you do not have the freedom to contract into or out of. Generally for policy reasons.

Doesn't mean some of us don't get to agree to a beating now and again...but consent is an ongoing thing, not something that is set at the very beginning, with no possibility of being withdrawn.

What I meant was I don't care about German law in this matter, not that I am unwilling to follow the laws.

:confused:

That statement seems to conflict.....

No its not ok, thats not the role of the wife.

If that was actually written anywhere in the Quran, I might hold it in the same contempt I'm holding your interpretation. However, since your idea is all about trying to portray Islam as a troglodyte religion, whereas true islam isn't anywhere close to such barbarism, I will focus it on you.

Proof? Besides in my view the Qur'an trumps and Hadith when refering to or establishing Islamic law.

If the Quran trumps it, you might want to realize that your interpretation is flawed. The Prophet isn't the psychotic, wife-beating troglodyte you make him out to be.

why? I will be a good husband. I will protect her and provide for her. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

No husband who hits his wife is a good husband. Nor is he a decent human being of any form.

:confused:

That statement seems to conflict.....

Na, he's just saying that he isn't really disussing the issue in context, he's talking about his view of marriage in general.

My point is that we don't give two shits about his opinion on marriage in general.

What I meant was I don't care about German law in this matter, not that I am unwilling to follow the laws. My point was irreguardless of what German law is, the state shouldn't have the right interfering with matters between a husband and his wife.
Again, that is where you're wrong. The rights that you carry as a human being under German law, like the right to physical inviolability or self-determination, do not cease to exist once you get married!

If that was actually written anywhere in the Quran, I might hold it in the same contempt I'm holding your interpretation. However, since your idea is all about trying to portray Islam as a troglodyte religion, whereas true islam isn't anywhere close to such barbarism, I will focus it on you.

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more strength than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient and guard in the husband's absence what Allah would have them to guard. As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance); for Allah is most High and Great (above you all). If you fear a breach between them twain, appoint (two) arbiters, one from his family and the other from hers. If they wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation; for Allah has full knowledge and is acquainted with all things." (An-Nisa': 34-35)

now stop saying I don't know of what I speak.

No husband who hits his wife is a good husband. Nor is he a decent human being of any form.

Unless of course she enjoys that kind of thing and it's consensual.

Again, that is where you're wrong. The rights that you carry as a human being under German law, like the right to physical inviolability or self-determination, do not cease to exist once you get married!

Und jetz, Soviestan wa hielten sich für schlaue leute, GN. (sp)

The irony being that Islam law does not, itself, allow for this kind of violence.

Again, that is where you're wrong. The rights that you carry as a human being under German law, like the right to physical inviolability or self-determination, do not cease to exist once you get married!

Do you agree the state has a right to make homosexuality illegal and arrest people in their homes who engage in that?

Do you agree the state has a right to make homosexuality illegal and arrest people in their homes who engage in that?
No.
And I don't see how that has anything to do with the discussion at hand. How 'bout you stay on topic?

Do you agree the state has a right to make homosexuality illegal and arrest people in their homes who engage in that?

o_O

Mind explaining how you get from GN's post about "the right to physical inviolability or self-determination" even (I can't believe I have to say "even" :rolleyes:) inside a marriage to "the state has a right to make homosexuality illegal and arrest people in their homes who engage in that"?

That's, um, pretty much the exact opposite of what he was talking about.

No.
And I don't see how that has anything to do with the discussion at hand. How 'bout you stay on topic?

because its an issue of whether a state has the right to interfere with the personal lives of its citizens. Now said 'no', yet you think its ok for the state to step in between the affairs between a man and his wife. double standard much?

because its an issue of whether a state has the right to interfere with the personal lives of its citizens. Now said 'no', yet you think its ok for the state to step in between the affairs between a man and his wife. double standard much?Uh...no. Because, see, there is actually a difference between physically and mentally abusing another person and living in homosexual relationship. Shocking, I know.

because its an issue of whether a state has the right to interfere with the personal lives of its citizens. Now said 'no', yet you think its ok for the state to step in between the affairs between a man and his wife. double standard much?
if a woman gets beaten up on the street by a stranger, the state will pursue that stranger and punish the person. if a woman gets beaten up at home, it's all the same. the state, i.e. the people of the land, have determined that when there is violence, then there is no such thing as a "private life". even more so when the woman asks the state's institutions for help.
in the case of homosexuality there is no violence involved and no-one is made a victim. then the state has to stay out of the respective relationship and the private lives, of course.

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more strength than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient and guard in the husband's absence what Allah would have them to guard. As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and LAST) beat them (LIGHTLY); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance); for Allah is most High and Great (above you all). If you fear a breach between them twain, appoint (two) arbiters, one from his family and the other from hers. If they wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation; for Allah has full knowledge and is acquainted with all things." (An-Nisa': 34-35)

1- Old rule.
2- Beating lightly doesn't begin to describe what you'd like to get away with.
3- The Quran itself says not to use violence against women, and you know it.
4- There's nothing there saying women can't beat their husbands back.

now stop saying I don't know of what I speak.

YOU DON'T KNOW OF WHAT YOU SPEAK!

because its an issue of whether a state has the right to interfere with the personal lives of its citizens. Now said 'no', yet you think its ok for the state to step in between the affairs between a man and his wife. double standard much?

If the wife is being struck and she does not WISH to be struck then it becomes a state issue. Much like two gay men having consensual anal sex is not a state issue but a man (gay or straight) being anally raped IS.

because its an issue of whether a state has the right to interfere with the personal lives of its citizens. Now said 'no', yet you think its ok for the state to step in between the affairs between a man and his wife. double standard much?
How's that double standard?

People can fuck whoever they want here in every which way that pleases them as long as we're talking about consenting adults.

I don't see how that has anything to do with whether a husband may abuse his wife (or the wife may abuse her husband).

The state has the legal responsibility and ability to see to the well-being of those living within its jurisdiction, making sure that their rights are not diminished. That includes married people, unmarried people, men and women alike.

Is that really so hard to grasp for you? You really don't know of what you speak.

If the Quran trumps it, you might want to realize that your interpretation is flawed. The Prophet isn't the psychotic, wife-beating troglodyte you make him out to be.

I've always said Sovietstan was a Wahhabist, or tended towards that end. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if he just turned out to be a non-Muslim cranking out all the 3b1l |\/|05l3|\/| stereotypes just to make folks like F1 Insanity, New Mitanni and I Can't Believe It's Not Kimchi feel good about themselves.

I've always said Sovietstan was a Wahhabist, or tended towards that end. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if he just turned out to be a non-Muslim cranking out all the 3b1l |\/|05l3|\/| stereotypes just to make folks like F1 Insanity, New Mitanni and I Can't Believe It's Not Kimchi feel good about themselves.

I agree.

I Can't Believe It's Not Kimchi:p

Is that really so hard to grasp for you? You really don't know of what you speak.

Help me out here, is "Soviestan wa hielten sich für schlaue leute" correct?

Help me out here, is "Soviestan wa hielten sich für schlaue leute" correct?I don't know what the random gibberish "wa" is doing in there, but the rest is correct. In a weird, Nena-quoting way.
Except Leute is capitalized. And Soviestan isn't plural so it doesn't actually make sense. :p

I don't know what the random gibberish "wa" is doing in there, but the rest is correct. In a weird, Nena-quoting way.
Except Leute is capitalized. And Soviestan isn't plural so it doesn't actually make sense. :p

Well, is it "Soviestan hielte sich für schlaue Leute" then? Be patient. I know just a bit more about German than Soviestan knows about Islam.

Well, is it "Soviestan hielte sich für schlaue Leute" then? Be patient. I know just a bit more about German than Soviestan knows about Islam.
Which is next to nothing? :eek:

You could always say "Er hielt sich für besonders schlau."

Well, is it "Soviestan hielte sich für schlaue Leute" then? Be patient. I know just a bit more about German than Soviestan knows about Islam.No, the problem isn't in the verb, it's in the "Leute". "Leute" = "people". So you can't make it singular even if you want to.

"Sie hielten sich für schlaue Leute" literally means "They thought of themselves as smart people", i.e. "they thought they were smart".

So unless you actually want to be quoting the song and not care about how much sense it makes with a singular subject, you'd have to go for something different, like "Er hielt sich für so schlau", i.e. "He thought he was so smart".

Even that, though, sounds a tad strange in this context.

In short, nothing all that appropriate comes to mind here which is probably for the better since you wouldn't want to be flaming, would you now? :p

/off-topic

Which is next to nothing? :eek:

You could always say "Er hielt sich für besonders schlau."

Danke schön. :D

No, the problem isn't in the verb, it's in the "Leute". "Leute" = "people". So you can't make it singular even if you want to.

"Sie hielten sich für schlaue Leute" literally means "They thought of themselves as smart people", i.e. "they thought they were smart".

So unless you actually want to be quoting the song and not care about how much sense it makes with a singular subject, you'd have to go for something different, like "Er hielt sich für so schlau", i.e. "He thought he was so smart".

Even that, though, sounds a tad strange in this context.

In short, nothing all that appropriate comes to mind here which is probably for the better since you wouldn't want to be flaming, would you now? :p

/off-topic

Oh, relax, I know "he thinks he's so smart" doesn't mean the same as "he's a gibbering moron". :p

No its not ok, thats not the role of the wife.

I pray to god no one that shares your belief in this ever is in the position to be married. what a disgusting POV

No its not ok, thats not the role of the wife.but that of the woman

1. Secular law trumps religious law. Even if the religious law allows abuse and murder, if it's illegal, it's illegal. Soviestan sounds like he converted to Islam. Converts to anything are often more radical than those who were always in something. Probably because if you were brought up believing something, you don't have to change your beliefs to believe it. You don't need to hear the powerful arguments.

2. Just because a priest or whoever says that God or Allah or whoever wants you to do something doesn't make it true, especially when the priest's or whoever's argument is flawed. If the man is the woman's protector, who's going to protect the wife from the man? What if the man tries to kill his wife because he's tired of her? Should she be sacrificed to the man's perverted interpretation of the religion he follows in a halfass way? I'd compare perverted interpretations of Islam to perverted interpretations of Christianity, but I can't think of any time when a large, powerful group of Christians declared worldwide Jihad against nonbelievers. The Catholic Church was pretty busy cleansing Europe and the Holy Land (area where Isreal is) to care too much about elsewhere and the early Saints prefered to be the martyrs instead of the murderers.

Key points:
-Secular Law overrules religious law. If the government says it's illegal, it's illegal. Doesn't matter if you do it on the streets or in your bedroom. Illegal is illegal.
-No mortal man is perfect. If a woman isn't protected from her husband, she isn't very protected. Even normal people can be driven homocidally insane with the right methods.
-Religious authorities are not always right. Jesus taught people to treat others kindly, yet the Church still used his teachings to unjustly torture and execute political prisoners.
-Mashed potatoes. Yum.

because its an issue of whether a state has the right to interfere with the personal lives of its citizens. Now said 'no', yet you think its ok for the state to step in between the affairs between a man and his wife. double standard much?

Yeah, what right does the state have to tell someone not to beat their spouse? I mean really, we are heading towards a totalitarian regime if we let such a thing pass unchallenged! Domestic violence is of no concern of the courts!

:rolleyes:

Do you agree the state has a right to make homosexuality illegal and arrest people in their homes who engage in that?

if the state was a true democracy (everyones opinion counts equally and there is no corruption what soever among the elected representants) Id say: yes the state has that right. However that wouldn't make the law right. it would be a horrible law but i would consider the state to have the right to pass it.

the laws of the state would be what is generally accepted amongs its population how everyone that lives there chooses to live their life.

the laws must in the end be choosen by the inhabitants to be effective. everyone must agree with them as they would a contract. a nations laws change with the passing of time.
As i understand it the korans laws only change depending on interperations. laws in the holy book of islam never becomes outdated. one cannot expect something that inflexible to ovverrule the laws the local residents has agreed to by living there in my opinion.



that is atleast my opinion.

1- Old rule.
old doesn't make it wrong

2- Beating lightly doesn't begin to describe what you'd like to get away with.
Check the thread again smart guy. I said if he beats her severly it would be wrong. Beating lightly is fine.

3- The Quran itself says not to use violence against women, and you know it.
its allowed as a last resort. didn't you not read the verse at all?

4- There's nothing there saying women can't beat their husbands back.
"the righteous women are devoutly obedient" an obedient wife wouldn't hit her husband.


YOU DON'T KNOW OF WHAT YOU SPEAK!
I just showed a verse from the Qur'an which clearly shows what Allah wants yet you seem to just put your fingers in your ears and go "la la la la can't hear you" instead of admitting your wrong. You said there was nothing in the Qur'an that allows it, I showed you in fact there is. I'm right, so let's just move on.

Check the thread again smart guy. I said if he beats her severly it would be wrong. Beating lightly is fine.

What exactly is a "light" beating?

What exactly is a "light" beating?

the definition varies depending on the scholar but I consider light to be a slap that doesn't leave bruises or something to that affect. I certainly would never just beat up on her and hurt her. That wouldn't be right.

It is my opinion that the state should defer to Islamic law when appicable such as in this case when issues reguarding Muslims are concern. Not to is a form of religious discrimination and reduces religious freedom. Obviously I'm not the only one who feels this way because the judge in the case ruled in the favour of Muslims, and good for her. This is the way it should be.

Okay, if you defer to a ruling which makes it ok to beat the fuck out of people with your name due to "religious reasons". By the way, should this come to pass, you're invited to the private sanctum of my house, where I practice my religion.

the definition varies depending on the scholar but I consider light to be a slap that doesn't leave bruises or something to that affect. I certainly would never just beat up on her and hurt her. That wouldn't be right.

and when the wife is beaten severely. when the husband doesnt follow the rules you now presented then who protects the woman?

the definition varies depending on the scholar but I consider light to be a slap that doesn't leave bruises or something to that affect. I certainly would never just beat up on her and hurt her. That wouldn't be right.

Then she has the exact same right. I am your god.

It is my opinion that the state should defer to Islamic law when appicable such as in this case when issues reguarding Muslims are concern. Not to is a form of religious discrimination and reduces religious freedom. Obviously I'm not the only one who feels this way because the judge in the case ruled in the favour of Muslims, and good for her. This is the way it should be.
No. The judge didn't follow the secular law as she was supposed to and faced the consequences.
Freedom of religion does not mean you get a special treatment or different set of laws or rules applied to you. Nor does it mean you are eligible to demand being treated differently.

It is not a form of religious discrimination. If you don't like it that Germany's secular Basic Law is more important than any religious law, tough shit, too bad, for it breaks down like this:

You must follow the secular law - you have no choice.
You are free to follow your religious law - unless it is contradicted by secular law.

Anyway, this one's just for you: Print it out, cut it out, glue it to your wall or place it in your wallet!

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/TrollScroll.jpg

old doesn't make it wrong

Check the thread again smart guy. I said if he beats her severly it would be wrong. Beating lightly is fine.

its allowed as a last resort. didn't you not read the verse at all?


"the righteous women are devoutly obedient" an obedient wife wouldn't hit her husband.



I just showed a verse from the Qur'an which clearly shows what Allah wants yet you seem to just put your fingers in your ears and go "la la la la can't hear you" instead of admitting your wrong. You said there was nothing in the Qur'an that allows it, I showed you in fact there is. I'm right, so let's just move on.

1- Yes, old IS wrong in this case. Unlike you, I'm not willing to believe that Mohammed was a psychotic woman-beating bastard, let alone willing to stand by his side on that due to ignorance.

2- Last resort is divorce. Unless she also has said last resource.

3- A human being wouldn't beat his wife. The Prophet is a human being, isn't he?

4- http://www.themodernreligion.com/women/w_abuse1.htm by people that, yes, actually KNOW what they're talking about, you infidel.

and when the wife is beaten severely. when the husband doesnt follow the rules you now presented then who protects the woman?

Nah, just a mere woman, wouldn't deserve to be protected.

I could care less about german law, or any other man made law for that matter.Too bad that within the borders of Germany, German Law > allah.

It is my opinion that the state should defer to Islamic law when appicable such as in this case when issues reguarding Muslims are concern. Not to is a form of religious discrimination and reduces religious freedom."Welcome to Germany. You've now entered the civilised world. If you wish to continue behaving like a prince in Riad, move back to Riad. Otherwise, get bent."

Above post has been made under the assumption that Soviestan is indeed a muslim. However, considering his behaviour patterns, I agree with the abovementioned notion that he might indeed be a troll intend to screwing with the perception of said religion (Although, admittedly a fairly determined troll). I call it a 25% chance.

the definition varies depending on the scholar but I consider light to be a slap that doesn't leave bruises or something to that affect. I certainly would never just beat up on her and hurt her. That wouldn't be right.


Should your strength in life be mirrored by your debating skills, I'd avoid force, were I you. And no, not for her sake.

I've always said Sovietstan was a Wahhabist, or tended towards that end. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if he just turned out to be a non-Muslim cranking out all the 3b1l |\/|05l3|\/| stereotypes just to make folks like F1 Insanity, New Mitanni and I Can't Believe It's Not Kimchi feel good about themselves.

I wouldn't be surprised either, considering he used to be a dyed-in-the-wool atheist who considered religion to be a major problem in the world. I have trouble believing someone that opposed to religion could become a fundy so quickly.

It is my opinion that the state should defer to Islamic law when appicable such as in this case when issues reguarding Muslims are concern. Not to is a form of religious discrimination and reduces religious freedom. Obviously I'm not the only one who feels this way because the judge in the case ruled in the favour of Muslims, and good for her. This is the way it should be.

When dealing with a Jewish or Christian defendant should they also take into account who the old testament tells you you're allowed to kill, or does this apply only to Muslims?

Should your strength in life be mirrored by your debating skills, I'd avoid force, were I you. And no, not for her sake.

Nice!

Okay, if you defer to a ruling which makes it ok to beat the fuck out of people with your name due to "religious reasons". By the way, should this come to pass, you're invited to the private sanctum of my house, where I practice my religion.

Does it involve ritual human sacrifice of people using the internet handle Soviestan?

It is my opinion that the state should defer to Islamic law when appicable such as in this case when issues reguarding Muslims are concern. Not to is a form of religious discrimination and reduces religious freedom. Obviously I'm not the only one who feels this way because the judge in the case ruled in the favour of Muslims, and good for her. This is the way it should be.

See, here is why you shouldn't blissfully declare "I don't care about German law" and just spout your opinions on how the law should be. It only highlights your ignorance, and makes you seem very foolish.

It has already been pointed out that the characterisation used in the OP, and in the original question is false. This was not really about Muslims, this was about a mandatory waiting period before a couple can divorce. The judge made a ruling and backed it up with something very contraversial, and rather stupid...but that doesn't mean the ruling itself was wrong.

No, the judge did not rule in the favour of Muslims, because this case was not really about Muslims. It was about divorce. It doesn't back you up in any way, any more than it backs up the anti-Muslim bigots. Sorry.

I wouldn't be surprised either, considering he used to be a dyed-in-the-wool atheist who considered religion to be a major problem in the world. I have trouble believing someone that opposed to religion could become a fundy so quickly.I require links to such posts.

I require links to such posts.

He used to have it in his profile, but hes changed it, I'll see what I can do.

Does it involve ritual human sacrifice of people using the internet handle Soviestan?

I don't know, I just made the religion up, I'm gonna need some more people to misinterpret the crap out of me.

I don't know, I just made the religion up, I'm gonna need some more people to misinterpret the crap out of me.

Well, let that be your first misinterpretation . . .

Well, let that be your first misinterpretation . . .

I'd have to die first so conservative Christians can paint my religion as evil and conservative Heikoku-ists can try to MAKE it evil, sorry.

I'd have to die first so conservative Christians can paint my religion as evil and conservative Heikoku-ists can try to MAKE it evil, sorry.

Well, we can fix that. Whats your address? :p <there for the humor impaired>

Well, we can fix that. Whats your address? :p <there for the humor impaired>

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. :p

Most Hindus would be shunned by their families if they even married outside their castes, let alone if they married a non-Hindu or non-Indian.

Maybe 100 years ago that might be true, but it is not true anymore and has not been for a long time.

Nice try, though.

Unlike you however I judge individuals on their actions, not the actions of their radical counterparts.

In Soviestan Germany, judges act up on YOU.



...what? I always wanted to use one of these!

It is my opinion that the state should defer to Islamic law when appicable such as in this case when issues reguarding Muslims are concern. Not to is a form of religious discrimination and reduces religious freedom. Obviously I'm not the only one who feels this way because the judge in the case ruled in the favour of Muslims, and good for her. This is the way it should be.

That makes no sense.

By that argument, I could fabricate a religion, called Haagen-Dasism, with a holy book and code of laws that says that murdering random people and robbing ice-cream shops is perfectly reasonable.

Do you then suggest that my religious views should be obeyed if one of my followers were to go and, say, kill someone?

It's ludicrous.

The bottom line is this: in order to be just to all religions, the state cannot defer to any religion. Rule of law must be rooted in rationality, and religious interpretation of law is, by definition, not rational.

im going to invent my own religion... which allows like.... hmm robbery with impunity

then ill rob banks, get rich, and stay out of jail, proclaiming im the prophet of the Intelligent Humans religion

and then ill buy my own island and have pirate bay come along...
and since the copyright industry considers sharing a theft, im allowed to do it by my own religion :D

genious

im going to invent my own religion... which allows like.... hmm robbery with impunity

then ill rob banks, get rich, and stay out of jail, proclaiming im the prophet of the Intelligent Humans religion

and then ill buy my own island and have pirate bay come along...
and since the copyright industry considers sharing a theft, im allowed to do it by my own religion :D

genious

So you're going to be a Scientologist?

and when the wife is beaten severely. when the husband doesnt follow the rules you now presented then who protects the woman?

I suppose the state would have to step in. The beating must be light, not to cause injury and the face must be avoided. If its worse than that, its against Islam and state law as well.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070322/wl_afp/germanyjusticeislam_070322132641

One wonders whether or not judges in Germany can be sacked immediately after something this stupid.

Especially when politicians of every stripe in Germany seem to be outraged by this sort of idiocy.

All I can say is "Welcome to Eurabia". Perhaps, one day these morons who hide under the name of "democratic socialism" and "tolerance" and all that other shit will finally realize what they're doing, and get the boot - or better yet, a bullet.

1- Yes, old IS wrong in this case. Unlike you, I'm not willing to believe that Mohammed was a psychotic woman-beating bastard, let alone willing to stand by his side on that due to ignorance.

The words of Allah swt are never wrong

2- Last resort is divorce. Unless she also has said last resource.
last resort in the chain of events refered to in the passage of the Qur'an.

3- A human being wouldn't beat his wife. The Prophet is a human being, isn't he?
?
4- http://www.themodernreligion.com/women/w_abuse1.htm by people that, yes, actually KNOW what they're talking about, you infidel.
1st, you are in no position to call me an infidel. 2nd, the site you linked to basically says the same thing I am, so I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish.

The words of Allah swt are never wrong


Guess Allah didn't say that, then.

So you're going to be a Scientologist?

why not lol...

as long as i don't mandate mass suicides like the other lunatics, i guess its not that wrong:headbang:

Guess Allah didn't say that, then.

didn't say what?

The words of Allah swt are never wrong

Yes they are. Get over it, bitch.

?

You got OWNED. OWNED OWNED OWNED.

1st, you are in no position to call me an infidel. 2nd, the site you linked to basically says the same thing I am, so I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish.

Everyone's in a position to call you an infidel! You're a muslim! You make snails feel good about themselves!

Yes they are. Get over it, bitch.



You got OWNED. OWNED OWNED OWNED.



Everyone's in a position to call you an infidel! You're a muslim! You make snails feel good about themselves!

I think you need to settle down there sport. Either have mature responses or don't respond at all. M'kay.

Guess Allah didn't say that, then.

Sovietstan thinks mortal men are honest enough to translate Allah's words directly without putting their own self-serving spin on it.

I think you need to settle down there sport. Either have mature responses or don't respond at all. M'kay.

Speaking of responding, am I going to get a response to this one?

When dealing with a Jewish or Christian defendant should they also take into account who the old testament tells you you're allowed to kill, or does this apply only to Muslims?

Sovietstan thinks mortal men are honest enough to translate Allah's words directly without putting their own self-serving spin on it.

IMO the prophets(peace be upon them all) were sinless and examples of how we should be. They wouldn't do something like that. On top of that Allah as said that he would protect the Qur'an from any changes or alterations. However I can not expect you, a non-Muslim, to understand or really believe it. But thats just what I feel.

Speaking of responding, am I going to get a response to this one?

I'm sorry, I didn't see it before. I'm not sure what you are asking though.

Everyone's in a position to call you an infidel! You're a muslim! You make snails feel good about themselves!

Uncalled for. The problem is not that his a Muslim, it's that he is a poor excuse for a human being who thinks it's acceptable to hit your wife. These come in all religions and not all Muslims believe such poor behavior to be acceptable.

I'm sorry, I didn't see it before. I'm not sure what you are asking though.

If a country should bow to Muslim law on hitting your wife, should they also bow to Judaic/Christian law on who to kill? (example: stoning those guilty of adultery) Or does only Islam get a free pass on the laws of man?

didn't say what?

The bit about it being okay to beat your wife.

Uncalled for. The problem is not that his a Muslim, it's that he is a poor excuse for a human being who thinks it's acceptable to hit your wife. These come in all religions and not all Muslims believe such poor behavior to be acceptable.

TPF is one of our resident islamophobes. Just ignore him.

TPF is one of our resident islamophobes. Just ignore him.

I don't ignore Islamophobes, homophobes, religious nutbars, or wife beaters. When I'm in a better mood than I am at the moment I mock them with witty comments and twist them around like taffy.

IMO the prophets(peace be upon them all) were sinless and examples of how we should be. They wouldn't do something like that. On top of that Allah as said that he would protect the Qur'an from any changes or alterations. However I can not expect you, a non-Muslim, to understand or really believe it. But thats just what I feel.

That's called "being delusional."

TPF is one of our resident islamophobes. Just ignore him.

IMO, islam is like Nazism. It has, in my mind, no redeemable qualities when compared to it's negative qualities.

Now, now - you only have to do that if they're obedient little (And preferably kept stupid) housewives giving birth to the warriors of Islam - if she happens to believe in integrating into a civilised society, or in having, lets say, rights, discipline still has to be applied.

After all, a good and honest husband cares when his wife turns the wrong way, and guides her back to the path of righteousness. Even if it involves a broken nose or stoning her to death.

But that's a small price to pay for saving her immortal soul (To be raped for all eternity in paradise, where she can serve the glorious warriors who sacrificed themselves in order to blow up evil zionist kindergartens, bringing them joy with her ever-regrowing hymen), no?

Not according to some interpretations of islamic law, anyway - while I'm aware of assorted rather liberal, well, sects within islam, as well as admittedly sizeable, semi-secular movements, it doesn't really change the fact that Islam's used as an excuse and justification for this - almost anywhere.

Soviestan's posts in this thread being a rather nice example.

Islam - like any religion - has the 'Problem' (Actually, long-term advantage, when one looks at it from a purely survivalist point of view, but anyway...) of contradicting itself quite massively in the available scripture, leaving vast space for varying interpretations, ranging from what amounts to be the muslim version of a christian conservative to, well, wahhabism. Certainly, issues like the ones present in this thread (Massive gender inequality) didn't originate within islam - they were carried over from tribal traditions -, but this doesn't change that at present, islam's the excuse used to justify them.

And a religion's tangible effects are not the pacifist tendencies one almost invariably finds in every religion, they're what its members make of it - and I find it hard to deny that in the modern world, a fairly high percentage of muslims uses their religion to jusfify what amounts to barbarism, the Taliban being the prime (If admittedly extreme to the point of being despised by everyone except maybe the Saudis) example.

And that's the problem - by noting that 'True' muslims don't have this, well... issues, and by saying that the religion at large is against this kind of abuse, one is, well, not strictly lying, but one's evading the truth, the truth being that the religion - islam - is used to justify exactly this kind of behaviour. By evading this issue, you're not helping the victims of the more aggressive (And surprisingly popular) interpretations of the Qu'ran, nor the attempts at 'Modernising' islam (Well, I'd call it 'Domesticating', just as Christianity wasn't 'Modernised', it was merely domesticated as secular movements grew in power), just as one wouldn't help the victims of, lets say, the Magdalan Asylums in Ireland by saying 'Hey, Jesus never teached this barbarous practise, the church is clearly innocent!'.

Because it wasn't, regardless of what Jesus said.

And the same principle applies to Islam (As in, the vast conglomerate of interpretations formed by various schools of the faith, divering opinions of assorted Imams, etc, to get something analoguous to the 'Church'). It is not innocent, and it is - in a wide variety of fairly sizeable modern movements within the religion - outright barbaric. Whether the Qu'ran agrees with these practises or not (Certainly, the misogynist excesses of the Taliban weren't supported by it) is irrelevant, because a religion isn't a dust-covered book on a bookshelf.

A religion is its followers and their actions. And if it refuses to be held accountable for the worst of them, it refuses to accept criticism, it refuses to change, and covers the crime.

No. I'm not giving you MY interpretation of what Islam teaches. That's why I didn't say one way or the other about what Islam believes of beating a wife. Soviestan never said women can't seek divorce, he just said it's ok for a husband to beat his wife and that others should stay out of it. In all Islamic Courts that I am aware of, a woman can seek divorce for whatever reason she wants. That is just a fact.

Sati as a regular practice came into being in north-west India (Rajasthan, Punjab etc) as a response for muslim armies taking the widows of men killed in battle as war booties.

That is why you should read history. It helps in avoiding digging your own graves. :p

Um no. For those of you who don't know what it is, it's a woman throwing herself on her husband's funeral pyre. That has definitely been around for thousands of years. And women did it because they were obligated to do so, or otherwise be shunned by society. The idea was that women were just around to please the husband, and so after he died, there was no point for her to live. Hindus also often burried girl babies alive (Pre-Islamic Arabs did it as well, and Islam put a stop to this). The only reason it stopped in India is once, again, because of outside influence, and it still occurs in very rural areas. 9th grade world history, my friend. Hinduism is generally a misogynistic religion.

You just dug yours you lying sack of crap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_%28practice%29

Anyway, the point you are all missing is that the judge is retarded because if she investigated any Hadiths or referenced any source of Islamic Jurisprudence she would find that whether or not beating a wife is allowed is irrelevant. Women are allowed to seek divorce for whatever reason they want to. As I said, an example was when a young woman came to the Prophet Muhammad and wanted to divorce her husband because he was ugly, which most of us would view as a stupid reason. And of course, she was allowed to. It is always within her right to seek a divorce, so the fact that this judge just listened to the husband only in this case, and apparently her own misconceptions about Islam, is just absolutely ridiculous.

IMO, islam is like Nazism. It has, in my mind, no redeemable qualities when compared to it's negative qualities.


Bit like yourself then so....

In Soviestan Germany, judges act upon YOU.
...what? I always wanted to use one of these!
And it's a funny twist to the routine - I like it. :p
I suppose the state would have to step in. The beating must be light, not to cause injury and the face must be avoided. If its worse than that, its against Islam and state law as well.
Again, secular law forbits any beating, no matter how lightly - what religious law says about that is irrelevant. It still is abuse no matter what the intention.
Bit like yourself then so....
:D

IMO the prophets(peace be upon them all) were sinless and examples of how we should be. They wouldn't do something like that. On top of that Allah as said that he would protect the Qur'an from any changes or alterations. However I can not expect you, a non-Muslim, to understand or really believe it. But thats just what I feel.Which prophets in particular? And what has El said about the Qur'an? And to who? And what relevance does the supposed sinlessness of prophets have in regard to the fact that a man who beats his wife is a criminal?