| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
In FrontPage today I discuss the strange ruling of the German judge who quoted the Qur'an in her decision on a divorce case involving Muslims (news links in the original):
Beaten and threatened with death by her husband, a young Muslim mother of two in Germany petitioned a Frankfurt court for a speedy divorce. German law mandates a year-long waiting period between separation and divorce, but also contains “hardship” criteria that allow for that period to be shortened. However, Judge Christa Datz-Winter decided that this was not a “hardship” case. According to Spiegel Online, Datz-Winter quoted Qur’an 4:34, which says that “men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other,” and that men should punish disobedient women: “admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them.” After all, Datz-Winter pointed out, both husband and wife were Moroccan.Evidently, multiculturalism trumps even gender solidarity. Judge Christa Datz-Winter’s startling assumption that the Qur’an could be a legitimate basis for decisions in a German court is simply the logical endpoint of the disastrously self-destructive relativist multiculturalism that has governed European policy for decades now. As the historian Bat Ye’or recounts in Eurabia, beginning in the early 1970s the European Community, and then the European Union, entered into a series of agreements with the Arab League that provided for massive Muslim immigration into Europe without assimilation. It is ironic that European governments are now frequently criticized for not assimilating their Muslim populations, when the Arab League for years insisted that they must not move to assimilate their new Muslim immigrants – as have Muslim leaders in Europe. So if Muslims can legitimately form cultural enclaves in European cities, which in some cases have become virtually autonomous, such that even police, fire, and emergency personnel don’t dare enter them, why shouldn’t they be governed also by their own laws?
Nor is this the first time something like this has happened. A “religious diversity handbook” given to police officers in Australia’s Victoria state in 2005 stated that “in incidents such as domestic violence, police need to have an understanding of the traditions, ways of life and habits of Muslims.” They were directed to consult with the local imam, who would make sure there was no “fragmenting” of the “family unit.”In both of these incidents, Muslim leaders protested. In Australia, Joumanah El Matrah of the Islamic Women’s Welfare Council said of the “religious diversity handbook”: “The implication is one needs to be more tolerant of violence against Muslim women, but they should be entitled to the same protection. Police should not be advising other officers to follow those sorts of protocols. It can only lead to harm.” And in Germany, Ayyub Axel Köhler of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany articulated a view often stated by Muslims in Western countries: “Our prophet never struck a woman, and he is our example.” Unfortunately, however, the idea that a husband is sometimes justified in beating his wife – even if in a “light” or “symbolic” way – is held by influential Muslim authorities such as Sheikh Yousef Qaradhawi, Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Dr. Muhammad Al-Hajj of the University of Jordan, Islamic apologist Jamal Badawi, and others -- so it cannot be said that Judge Datz-Winter was wide of the mark in Islamic terms when she invoked Qur’an 4:34 to justify the abusive Moroccan husband’s behavior.
Judge Datz-Winter’s decision caused a furor in Germany, and she was quickly removed from the case. That may be one small sign that Europe is inching toward throwing off its multiculturalist blinders and recovering the spirit of General Sir Charles James Napier, the British Commander-in-Chief in India from 1849 to 1851. It is said that a Hindu delegation protested against the British prohibition of sati, the practice of burning a widow to death on her husband’s funeral pyre, by telling Napier that it was part of their cultural custom. Napier famously responded:
You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.It is long past time for authorities in Europe and the United States to begin to emulate Napier in their dealings with increasingly restive and demanding Islamic communities. Instead of issuing “religious diversity handbooks” and making special accommodations for Islamic practices, Western officials need to reassert the validity of our own laws and mores, and – at least as long as Europe’s suicidal immigration policies remain in place and neither Europe nor America treats immigration as a national security issue – remind newcomers that they are not welcome to bring with them customs and practices that are at variance with our own. This is the standard to which visitors and immigrants to Islamic countries are expected to adhere. The West should demand no less.
Posted by Robert at March 26, 2007 6:55 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Pretty sad when the Euro dhimmis are ahead of their Muslim masters in implimating Sharia law.
Posted by: Elric66![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 26, 2007 7:02 AM
"Evidently, multiculturalism trumps even gender solidarity".
I'm not so sure about that. The judge may be making precisely the opposite point re multiculturalism by following its logic to this ultimate and very ugly conclusion. How better to make the mandates of the Koran an issue than to take this to its logical conclusion. The judge is being very "sensitive" to Muslim culture and asking everyone: is that good? Is that justice? How do you like multiculturalism? Do you want more of it? Do you want it as the basis of law?
How better to demonstrate the mandates of the Koran than to use it as the basis of her decision in a secular court? to let Islam speak for itself re its mandates? How better to make the point re the value of secular law based on reason and experience than to turn a secular court into a theoocratic court? Perhaps she asks: Let Islam be the basis of law? Want more Islam?
Posted by: Frank at March 26, 2007 7:53 AM
Frank might have a point. What if the judge really opposes this multiculturalsm crap and gave the Euros what they wanted just to prove a point?
Posted by: Elric66 at March 26, 2007 8:03 AM
German females with double names, like 'Datz-Winter'- the judge in this case, are stuck on stupid, they are exemplary of the lunatic fringe of the late sixties and are a menace to society.
They belong under a burkha.
When the Islamic invasion is reversed the Muhammedans should take them along with them...
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 26, 2007 8:21 AM
Either Europe sinks into submission, or the people finally get fed up. If the latter happens, things are going to get real ugly, real fast.
Interesting quote:
As the historian Bat Ye’or recounts in Eurabia, beginning in the early 1970s the European Community, and then the European Union, entered into a series of agreements with the Arab League that provided for massive Muslim immigration into Europe without assimilation.
It makes me wonder what the European Elite received in exchange for selling out their countries
Posted by: PapaBear at March 26, 2007 8:25 AM
@ Papa Bear
They also sold their souls. Of course you could argue that they didnt have souls if they sold out their countries to jihad.
at March 26, 2007 8:32 AM
The judge may be making precisely the opposite point re multiculturalism by following its logic to this ultimate and very ugly conclusion.
On the other hand, EU law like British common law, is based on precedence.
Future rulings can now be based on this decision unless it is quickly overruled.
Judge Datz-Winter’s decision caused a furor in Germany, and she was quickly removed from the case
Very well then, but does the decision stand?
Muslims can legitimately form cultural enclaves in European cities, which in some cases have become virtually autonomous, such that even police, fire, and emergency personnel don’t dare enter them,
Given in this context, it appears that this was one more tiny step toward Eurabia and this judge knew it. She could have just as well used German law to decide the case in order to make a statement about where islamic law "fits," but didn't.
You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.
I don't think the feminists at any of America's Universities will be chanting this "dead white male's" wisdom, anytime soon.
As a result, the "activist judges" they churn out from their "Law" departments will continue to see themselves as "change agents" free to tinker with their "living document" called the Constitution until the document means nothing.
As our own President bush says: "it's just a g*dd@mmed piece of paper."
Moreover, we have had Supreme Court justices like Sandra Day O'Conner who to "look to the wisdom of the European Courts" for rulings on the US Constitution and other issues.
Let's hope the Euro-crazies have enough common sense to do the right thing in this German case.
Posted by: witness at March 26, 2007 8:48 AM
I think Frank may be correct.
However, it remains to be seen if that was the judge's intent -- and it is also a very perilous step to take in any case, as it creates a foundation of jurisprudence for insane anti-human sharia "law" being given the nod in a court in the Modern World.
The correct move for the judge, should her authority extend so far, was to quote the Koran, and then order immediate deportation of both for bringing their backward system into Germany and not living by the advanced laws and standards of their adopted land here in the Modern World. Therefore, they are not welcome. Or at least recommend immediate deportation when she does so.
Posted by: Abraham_Lincoln at March 26, 2007 8:53 AM
"...Ayyub Axel Köhler of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany articulated a view often stated by Muslims in Western countries: “Our prophet never struck a woman, and he is our example.”
Didn't Aisha herself say that Muhammad struck her, and caused her pain?
Posted by: Godefroi at March 26, 2007 9:20 AM
It is long past time for authorities in Europe and the United States to begin to emulate Napier in their dealings with increasingly restive and demanding Islamic communities.
You won't find many JW posters disagreeing.
The problem is that nowadays most politicians seem to regard their chosen vocation more as a lucrative career than an opportunity to do what is right. Islamic communities constitute votes to be won; therefore it would be career suicide for a modern, politically correct politician to alienate them by proposing or backing policies which would offend Muslim sensibilities. Better still - as far as such a politician is concerned - is if he/she backs pro-Islamic policies.
In Germany the Muslim population is about 3 million (3.7%).
In France it is about 5 million (8%).
In the UK it is about 1.6 million (2.7%).
In the Netherlands it is about 1 million (5.5%).
These percentages are still relatively small - even if the absolute numbers are frightenly high - but if a political party can secure the Muslim bloc vote that can make the difference between being in Government and being an also-ran.
Thankfully, some politicians (e.g. Geerd Wilders) still strive to do what is right. Unfortunately, they tend to be accused of Islamophobia, racism, fascism, etc. and consequently make little headway in terms of influencing the ignorant public.
Posted by: watling at March 26, 2007 9:30 AM
I am with Frank on this, the battle is to get the leftwing in Europe to see where their folly is taking us, and this was a pretty stark example. I don't care whether she was a dhimmi or not, but for me it was extremely beneficial and I was pretty happy when I heard it as it will tighten resolve to deal with Islam which is what we need in Europe.
Posted by: Daffersd at March 26, 2007 9:37 AM
This is already happening in the US, although not to the muslim's advantage. Everytime someone brings up religious law as a defense in legal proceeding, it is almost invariably shot down. While not a muslim, a guy named Distasio claimed that raping retarded boys ages 7-11 was part of his religion and that his prosecution infringed on his right to religious freedom.
The judge convicted him on multiple counts of child rape and sent him to jail in excess of 240 years. Hopefully his fellow convicts will exact true justice.
at March 26, 2007 9:53 AM
I must correct my last entry, Distasio had intended to argue religous freedom as a defense, but he plead guilty to 74 counts of child rape before trial. The judge had previously informed him multiple times that Distasio's defense was without merit or legal basis, and even Distasio's court appointed attorney refused to make the argument.
Posted by: Penfold at March 26, 2007 9:55 AM
frightenly. Oops - should have been "frighteningly". Or maybe "catastrophically".
Posted by: watling at March 26, 2007 10:23 AM
It is not the leftwing that has any hope of awakening. The conservatives by merit of their caring for country and tradition may awake. The politically-indiferent-but-still-having-common-sense group, if they wake up, would be our only hope to avoid sharia in the West. However, no one will wake up if the transition is slow. I don't know what the motivation of Judge Christa Datz-Winter was, but in any case a sudden implementation of Sharia-based ruling has the potential to get people thinking. Hope it does before it's too late...
Posted by: Excommie at March 26, 2007 12:04 PM
I wonder if the judge was, in a less than tactful fashion, telling the woman "you made your bed, so lie in it." The judge may have been trying to underline how silly this woman looks - she's asking to be saved from her own beliefs.
However, the judge could have better made her point by quoting the Qur'an - to show the woman is requesting relief from her own beliefs. Then the judge could explain that the Qur'an cannot form the basis of a sound legal judgment in Germany and inform her that the relief requested would be granted.
Posted by: Ansar Al-Kuffir at March 26, 2007 12:15 PM
Very strange justice system indeed; using a quaran upon which to base a decsion then establish legal and then to say "just kidding!"
Very strange judicial system indeed.
Posted by: witness at March 26, 2007 2:32 PM
Very strange justice system indeed; using a quaran upon which to base a decsion then establish legal precedence and then to say "just kidding!"
Very strange judicial system indeed.
Posted by: witness at March 26, 2007 2:33 PM
The NYT aka New Duranty Times mentioned another possible reason the judge made this outrageous ruling:
Judge Datz-Winter herself narrowly avoided injury 10 years ago in a case involving a man and woman whose relationship had come apart. When the man shot up her courtroom, the judge escaped by diving under her desk.
German papers have suggested that that ordeal may have affected her judgment in this case, which the spokesman denied.Posted by: traeh
at March 27, 2007 4:15 PM
That quote of Napier is incredibly rousing. Outstanding article.
Posted by: traeh at March 27, 2007 4:17 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)