An Arabic holy book in a German court

The west could do well to learn from Mr. Napier and standing up to offendsive Islamic pratices such as Koran allowed wife beating.

The Napier anecdote never fails to make me laugh. Sir Napier's idea of multiculturalism is sorely needed in the Europe (and America, and Australia, etc.) of today.

Hearing Robert's strong convictions gives me strength to keep trying to bring Islamic awarness to those who do not know.
Thank you.

Yes! I am related to the Napiers of Scotland although not a direct link the Gen. Napier he is part of our the clan.

Sans Tache!!!!

Jeeeze I need to re-read something before posting it...

Yes! I am related to the Napiers of Scotland although I am not a direct link to Gen. Napier. He is part of the clan.

Sans Tache!!!!

Oh well...

Nice to know Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton appointed nitwit judges in Germany too.

And the best part was Napier was enforcing his customs in India, not in Britain. (As an aside, the custom he was banning was one that was almost unheard of in Hindu mythology, such as in the Ramayana and Mahabharata).

Robert ...

Another splendid "Hot Air" ... which I always enjoy watching. You have a way of distilling a tremendous amount of information -- with a solid principle at the core of it -- in a very short time.

I think the way the graphic presentation of substantiating documents is handled is very good.

Also, I sometimes watch the comments after Hot Air -- which I mass mail to my whole list -- and I find it disconcerting to read some of the very petty comments, which I want to address this time.

I do NOT feel that you have "Al Gore" syndrome, AND I do NOT find any of your presentations -- which I have seen numerous times on the web and in person -- to be the least bit wooden.

And I find the suggestion that you provide "entertainment" of the "Jay Leno" variety absolutely shocking. Have we devolved into a culture so juvenile that we demand that anti-jihadist information, given by our best pundits, be accompanied by pom-pom routines, stand-up comic gestures and the like -- as if we're adult enough to take our medicine without a kind of "Pirates of the Caribbean" Johnny Depp fluorish of the arms and hands, a roll of the eyes, etc.

It's ridiculous, and I am sorry that after such as efforts as you make -- and I know how busy you are -- that your good works are subject to this kind of silly ridicule.

So I would like to say a resounding "Thank you" for the incredible amount of information that the site puts forth, and that particularly you put forth. It is invaluable to those of us who rely on JW and DW for a vast amount of information completely unavailable elsewhere.

And particularly I want to say that I enjoy your video preentations. I find your presentation completely professional and film-worthy. I will say again, as I have before, that I think you have a wonderful speaking voice, a first-rate intelligence, and enclopedia knowledge of the subject, and a polymathic recall of detail.

I hope you will not be dissuaded from the sober and professional manner in which you present these Hot Air segments, as I think the dignity required of a legitimate pundit can never lend itself to the kind of cheap theatrics I find you encouraged towards in this thread.

Warmest regards ...

I'm quite heartened by the strong reaction against this in Germany. Hopefully, anyone else with similar multi-cultural cravings will think twice about pulling such a stunt. It's wrong wrong wrong to indulge contemptible irrational superstitions. Perhaps this incident and the reaction represent a tipping point.

Great rant. I still can't believe the Europeans are surrendering so easily.

This also reminded me of a comment that somebody made (I think it was Robert) about the need for a list of questions or a declaration by all immigrants and/or visitors to the US. eg. I will not try to instill Sharia law, I will not kill infidels, etc...

Can anybody post a link to this list of questions/statements/declaration?

Cheers,
SY

Robert,
You say that Muslim countries demand conformity to their mores and customs from visitors and immigrants and we should expect no less.
This seems at variance with a point that Bernard Lewis made in his recent Irving Krystol lecture:

"In the Ottoman Empire and other states before that--I mention the Ottoman Empire as the most recent--the non-Muslim communities had separate organizations and ran their own affairs. They collected their own taxes and enforced their own laws. There were several Christian communities, each living under its own leadership, recognized by the state. These communities were running their own schools, their own education systems, administering their own laws in such matters as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and the like. The Jews did the same.

So you had a situation in which three men living in the same street could die and their estates would be distributed under three different legal systems if one happened to be Jewish, one Christian, and one Muslim. A Jew could be punished by a rabbinical court and jailed for violating the Sabbath or eating on Yom Kippur. A Christian could be arrested and imprisoned for taking a second wife. Bigamy is a Christian offense; it was not an Islamic or an Ottoman offense.

They do not have that degree of independence in their own social and legal life in the modern state. It is quite unrealistic for them to expect it, given the nature of the modern state, but that is not how they see it. They feel that they are entitled to receive what they gave. As one Muslim friend of mine in Europe put it, "We allowed you to practice monogamy, why should you not allow us to practice polygamy?" "

The crucial line is, of course, "It is quite unrealistic for them to expect it, given the nature of the modern state." It's on the crucial principle of a unitary legal system that the lines should be fixed and no compromise made.

I still have a weird feeling that this judge might have purposely ruled the way she did just to force the German High Court to rule the opposite. Getting the High Court to strike down part of Sharia is a good step! IF it happens.

If she did this for the reason I think she did, then she is a brave genius! If she did it for the stated reasons, then she is a moron and her children should be checked to see if they are carrying the moron genes too. Of course, this is in Germany, the land of the childless, so she might not have children.

Are the Germans going nuts?

This is an outrage!

l know that the working class European and small businsee owners are not pleased with the way muslims are abusing their social services. if politicians want to keep hoaring their votes on muslims, they will find themselves soon out of a job.

I would like to know why the muslim thinks that she should be allowed to have another law settle this case. Yes, I am going against the mainstream here in this discussion. All we hear is that the muslims want sharia law - they practice sharia law - and they commit crimes against non-muslims because their sharia law says it is ok since they are infidels, etc. Now, we see that a muslim now wants another law to protect her.

I think the judge was right - but for a different reason than anyone might think. This all needs to be brought to a head in Europe. The Europeans need to get their heads out of their butts. Either sharia law is practiced in their land or it is not. You cannot have it both ways.

And if we are aghast at this idea that they need to get their Europeans head screwed on straight by letting this gal get what her chosen religion wants for her, then maybe more 'moderate' muslims and other Europeans will start changing things.

I hope that I stated this so you see my point. Do I want this to happen here? NO! But, I don't want us to cave in to a group of people to let them practice, or even have one godzillionth, of their sharia law here in this USA. And that goes for whether the person be a muslim or not. And our cities, people, need to stop looking away when people are practicing their sharia law here. An example is in NYC when that fire rooted out a lot of people in one house that had some muslim males with more than one wife, and who knows what else went on in that house. Just because NYC, and other cities, want to be safe havens for illegal aliens.

R_not

Speaking for the women of the world in general, and Muslim women friends, and by extension, the Islamic feminism movement, I would like to ask you why whether you think a Muslim man in Germany found guilty in a German court of theft should expect a 6-month term in the province clink rather than to have his left hand cut off.

Citizens of Western countries -- all of them, Muslim included -- should be able to expect EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS OF THE COUNTRY, AN EQUAL PROTECTION THAT WAS DENIED THIS WOMAN.

And at the same time, we ought to be fighting to bring ALL THE LEGAL CODES of all nations of the world into line with international human rights standards, beginning with CEDAW, which every Islamic country, the Vatican and United States have refused to ratify becuase it means equal rights, equal food, equal medicine, the right to refuse sex in order to prevent pregnancy, rights of choice in marriage and divorce, equal inheritance, and equal protection under the law for women.

Now, you may be willing to sacrifice this woman's life -- and if she is returned to this man and her relativist desert tribalist culture that's what it'll mean -- SO SHE CAN MAKE A POINT FOR YOU.

But I am not willing to sacrifice her life so it makes international news. For this one case that came to someone's attention -- and only because the judge quoted the Qur'an -- there are 10,000 a year in Europe where Muslim women who try to USE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS are denied them by courts and NGOs under the name of multiculturalism.

Not one more. Not one more. Especially not to make your point for YOU.

I'll go half way between Morgaan and R_not here. If the woman here is willing to renounce Islam, she deserves the full protection of German law. But if she insists on remaining Muslim, and thereby providing the demographic underpinnings to the Islamization of Europe, she should expect to be ruled by Quranic law. The idea here is not so much to make a point, but to send a message to Muslims throughout Europe - either endorse the secular underpinnings of European society, which means leave your Islamization ideas back in Pakistan or Algeria or Turkey... and then enjoy those benefits, or remain in Islamic ghettos, and live by their rules. Can't have both.

And Morgaan, to answer your apparently rhetorical question, I'd say yes - Muslim thieves should be given Islamic punishments administered by Infidels when they commit crimes in Infidels lands. Like thieves should have their left hands and right feet amputated. Also, I'd institute Shariah laws in reverse for Muslims, while leaving Infidel equality before the law intact. In other words, Infidel men and women would still have equal rights, but the testimony of a Muslim woman would be worth half that of an Infidel (man or woman), and the testimony of a Muslim man would be worth a quarter. Also, an Infidel who kills a Muslim would not be sentenced to any jail time - they'd simply have to pay blood money (like in Saudi Arabia), except that unlike in Saudi Arabia, where there are progressive rates for Muslim, Christian and Hindu deaths (and none for Jews), there'd be a flat rate regardless of the denomination of Muslims killed - Sunni, Shit (as Abdullah would say), Ahmadiya, Sufi, et al). Oh, and if any Infidel converts to Islam, (s)he should be executed. If any Infidel marries a Muslim, the Muslim must convert to the religion of the Infidel (or a mutually agreed non-Islamic religion)

In case you cringe at any of my suggestions, all of this is the norm in Islamic countries, and you don't see Infidels raising hell in Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, et al. I'd like to see the same semblance of order in all Infidel lands - US, Australia, Israel, Russia, India, Thailand, Phillipines, Ethiopia, Serbia(!), Germany, Britain, France, Spain, Sweden, et al. Once the above Reverse-Shariah is imposed against Mohammedans, you are going to see a beeline back to dar-ul-Islam.

Which is how it should be.

If she openly renounces Islam, she is dead. So, according to you, she should not get the protection of her country unless she is willing to die?

Thank god you guys aren't running anything of any significance.