| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
"Muslim leaders' divorce proposal," from the Australian Daily Telegraph, with thanks to all who sent this in:
MUSLIM leaders want to set up a separate Islamic court in Australia to deal specifically with Islamic divorces.The radical idea was raised by Muslim leaders in a meeting with Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs Minister Peter McGauran last week.
But Mr McGauran and Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock yesterday rejected the idea.
"The law in this country is secular. There's a clear separation between religion and the law and Australia's laws apply equally to all citizens, regardless of their religion," Mr McGauran said.
A spokeswoman for Mr Ruddock added: "It would not be appropriate for the Government to establish a separate religious court."
But the Government said it was sensitive to problems experienced by Muslims, particularly those with dual citizenship who seek a divorce.
Muslim Women's National Network spokeswoman Jamila Hussain said a divorce was only recognised under Islamic law when the husband says "I divorce you".
A Muslim woman may obtain a civil divorce under Australian law but she cannot remarry if her husband refuses to grant her a religious
divorce.
Why not, pray tell? If a woman is granted a divorce under Australian law, why can't she remarry under Australian law?
In Muslim countries, a disputed break-up is settled by a special sharia court.But these don't exist in Australia and citizens who want to remarry must travel overseas to get a judgment.
Again, this seems like a spurious argument.
The major problem is some Muslim countries don't recognise Australia's civil divorces.
What difference does that make? Why should an Australian citizen care
whether or not some Muslim government recognises their laws? This is plainly a smokescreen.
Mr McGauran suggests the Government should ask foreign governments such as Lebanon to recognise Australian Family Court divorces.Spokesman for Australia's Lebanese community, Keysar Trad, said this was an acceptable solution.
Why on earth should Australia ask Lebanon to recognise their divorces? What business is it of the Lebanese?
"We're looking for a solution to make life easier for Australian citizens," he said....
Yeah, sure you are, Keysar.
Posted by Robert at April 6, 2005 7:49 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
A parallel legal system will quickly evolve if Australia allows this, and soon they will find themselves engulfed and overrun. The lessons of history of countries and civilizations that have been swallowed by Islam can be ignored only at your peril.
Posted by: epg![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 6, 2005 9:06 AM
Muslims have not come to Australia to integrate, they have come to interleave, like a metastatic tumor in the Austalian body politic. It is an insidious metabolic all-encompassing ideological disease with a bloody 1400-year history. Our ancestors were adept at recognizing the symptoms of infection in the early stages. The present generation has failed to learn what our ancestors knew and about which they tried to warn us. We are having to learn the lessons of our ancestors through the same bitter and horrific experiences that they endured.
Posted by: Hulegu Khan at April 6, 2005 9:10 AM
"Mr McGauran suggests the Government should ask foreign governments such as Lebanon to recognise Australian Family Court divorces..."
And if they don't, will the Muslims lobbying for special treatment in Australia then use that refusal as a reason ("we agreed to the compromise, but it didn't work") to insist on separate sharia courts to deal with divorce, and then inheritance of course (which will come into it), and then the rest of domestic law, and then...
It should be turned down, flat. If the Lebanese government -- and if the Lebanese government then perhaps any or all of the 56-57 countries that are part of the Organization of Islamic States (not all of them by all means completely Muslim) might do the same. That is the problem of the Muslims who wish to divorce in Australia. No one is stopping them from subsequently getting a divorce in a Muslim court in Lebanon. Go right ahead. Feel free.
Posted by: Hugh at April 6, 2005 9:39 AM
This is exactly what I said on my own weblog when I posted this news yesterday, the Australian law provides them with everything they need. The problem is that Muslims don't recognize Australian law and therefore do NOT belong in Australia. It's simple math, really.
Posted by: Leveller at April 6, 2005 9:47 AM
As much as I abhorred the white Australia policy, it seems that the one good thing that it did do, was to keep muslims from Islamic countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia, out of Australia until 1973.
Imagine if thousands of muslims from those muslim countries north of Australia had been allowed to live here before then. There might well have been sharia law by now.
Posted by: Voltaire at April 6, 2005 10:16 AM
Terrorism works
Christians Back Muslims On DRB
http://allafrica.com/stories/200504050481.html
The Monitor (Kampala)
April 5, 2005
Posted to the web April 5, 2005
Al -Mahdi Ssenkabirwa & Robert Mukombozi
Kampala
Religious activists have backed Muslims in opposing the proposed Domestic Relations Bill (DRB) that was designed to regulate marriage.
Through the Media for Peace and Religious Tolerance (MPRT), they argued that Parliament should not enact a law that undermines norms of some religions and traditions.
Mr Issa Kirarira, the MPRT chairman, said on Thursday, "If the Muslims are not contented with the Bill, why should the government go ahead to enforce it?"
He appealed to the government to drop the DRB to avoid likely chaos caused by Muslims.
"The government should know that Uganda is not prepared to undergo any form of conflict and peoples' freedoms should be upheld,"he said
Kirarira said they would not sit back when leaders are repeating past mistakes.
"If the government goes ahead to pass this Bill against the will of some religious groups, it will imply that they learnt nothing and forgot nothing from leadership of the past regimes," Kirarira said.
He said Muslims should be given chance to practice marriage and divorce as per the teaching in the Quran.
"It is after they have failed to control themselves that the government can intervene to form and enforce this law," he said.
Kirarira's reaction comes days after Muslims stood out to protest provisions of the DRB which they say infringes on their freedom to practice marriage as stipulated in the Quran.
They marched through Kampala City to Parliament.
They presented a petition to the Deputy Speaker, Ms Rebecca Kadaga, and demanded that the Bill be scrapped because it is against the Quranic teaching.
Posted by: KAOSKTRL at April 6, 2005 10:23 AM
As Mr Pipes suggests, this is wrong - big time!
In Australia, whether a "religous divorce" is granted by a particular body has no impact whatsoever on the granting by the Family Court of a divorce.
Further, a husband - regardless of his religous persuasion - cannot in Australia legally prevent his former wife remarrying once a "civil divorce" is granted by the Family Court.
Certainly the failure to obtain a "religous divorce" does not prevent a muslim woman from "remarrying".
Whether it would "prevent" her from remarrying in a mosque is another matter.
at April 6, 2005 10:49 AM
"Why on earth should Australia ask Lebanon to recognise their divorces? What business is it of the Lebanese?"
Well, it's very simple really - Australians are kufr and therefore inferior and Lebanese (some) are muslims and therefore superior. Straightforward.
Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at April 6, 2005 11:13 AM
Since Islam has divorced itself from human decency- why not?
But the court should be located in Mecca. And they can all be given one way tickets out. With no right of return.
Case closed.
at April 6, 2005 12:07 PM
how long will it be be for we see australian women in prison for intimidating moslims to rape them
Posted by: shiva at April 6, 2005 12:55 PM
I like the approach posted earlier-require the husband during the civil divorce to repeat "I divorce you" three times. If he refuses, throw him in jail for contempt of court and fine him severely. Problem solved, no need for Sharia courts. How disappointing.....NOT!
Treehugger
at April 6, 2005 2:52 PM
Muslims come to western countries not for a better life,but for the purpose of demographic jihad,some for economic jihad,by making financial contribution to jihadists organizations and some of them take up arms to actually kill infidels.
Most of them overstay their visas and a lot of them cross the borders illegally.
Sooner or later,regardless of what kind of arangements they make to gain legal status,they will want to travel back to their country of origin,and when they do that,they will always have to travel legally(boarding a plane,etc).
And since we failed to keep them out,we should try to attack at the other end,when they try to travel abroad.....
All muslims should be notified that once in a western country,they cannot travel back home for a period of time of at least 20 years,and if they do,they cannot return.
I do believe that such a measure would lead to a massive muslim exodus from all western countries.
at April 6, 2005 4:51 PM
I grew up when the White Australia Policy was in force - but Sydney still had visible communities of Islanders, Chinese and some Indians and Africans. And also aboriginals - the country was never 'white', that's absurd. In the years of early settlement, there were Afghan traders and their camels. The original objection was to the importation of Chinese coolies - they were indentured labourers working for a fraction of the normal wage, and it was believed that they would make an impoverished underclass if allowed to come here in large numbers.
Australians at the time were also very worried about the empire-building ambitions of Japan - and the Japanese had established enclaves in Darwin and Broome, both in the Northern Territory of Australia. We saw in WWII that our fears were no joke.
So if not for the White Australia Policy, Australia could have been overrun by Japanese or Chinese. Or by Muslims, as Voltaire commented.
The policy is outdated now, but it certainly achieved its purpose. Lets hope that the present generation dont decide to throw away the country our ancestors built to appease primitive immigrants from an alien culture.
at April 6, 2005 9:38 PM
If you're an Australian citizen your life is already easy and you don't need any solutions because you don't have any problems to solve regarding divorce, thanks to Australian law, Mr. Trad. He throws in the "Australian citizens" bit to try to make it out like this is to help our own. Good Aussies and all that. Pffft!
This request for sharia divorce court indicates that, contrary to their claims, Islam treats women unfairly and that Muslims have utter contempt for the law of the country they choose to live in. No surprise there. And as the nosharia website states: this is a universal attempt.
Can't provide a link, but in yesterday's paper an article said that Perth Muslim leaders plan to go ahead with their sharia divorce court regardless of what the Federal Govt says. Another indication of their contempt and proof that they are Muslims first, foremost, and solely. The Australian citizenship or permanent residency bit is merely a matter of convenience. The article quoted some Abdul Jalil Ahmad as being "not deterred".
I'd love to see the State govt tell Abdul to go live in a country with his precious Sharia. Oh, but of course he wouldn't do that because countries with Sharia are hellholes of misery, poverty and death, without generous welfare benefits for people who do nothing but pop out more kids than they can support. So Abdul will unfortunately be staying with us and agitating to chip away at our vastly superior legal and social system with his backward one.
Mr. Ahmad said Sharia courts already exist in North America. Unless someone else can enlighten me, I believe he's referring to the proposal for Sharia court in one province of one country: Ontario. It doesn't exist yet, I believe. To say it already exists in North America implies it's in the US and Canada, as if to justify it. Does it exist in the US?
The president of the Ethnic Community Council, Suresh Rajan is against Abdul, thankfully. He says mixing religion and the law would lead to problems. Thank you Mr. Rajan. For stating the bleedin' obvious.
As far as the State govt's reaction to this, no word yet, but given they're left leaning and like to oppose the Federal govt just for the hell of it, I wouldn't be surprised if they supported this odious beligerence.
Posted by: feralee at April 7, 2005 12:01 AM
feralee-
The closest to Sharia Law that has come to the U.S. is when, a few years back, the Supreme Court allowed "animal sacrifice for religious reasons".
To placate the 'enlightened' Muslim custom of ritually cutting the throat a live sheep in order to douse your doorstep in blood whenever you get married, visit an uncle, graduate from charm school, etc.
And, for the "Santaria" cult's chicken and goat killings used to placate or implore the 'spirits'.
I protested the regressive cruelty of this bizarre ruling, but the judging majority felt that Dark Age religious customs should be given the full weight of a civilized country's legal system and its tacit sanction.
The way a culture treats those with no voice is a sign of its soul.
The jury is out on the likelihhod of other aspects of Sharia infiltrating the U.S.
Posted by: BigSleep
at April 7, 2005 1:46 AM
One of the real problems here is the idea of dual citizenship. No country, certainly no Western country, should permit dual citizenship.
Posted by: jay at April 7, 2005 3:50 AM
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)