German Citizens Outraged over Judges Ruling that allows Muslims to Beat Wives.

German Citizens Outraged over Judges Ruling that allows Muslims to Beat Wives.

www.news24.com

Germany was outraged on Thursday after it emerged that a German woman judge had refused a Moroccan-born German woman permission to file for divorce on the grounds that the Qur'an allows husbands to beat their wives.

"Where are we living? Woman judge allows beating in marriage and invokes the Qur'an," said a front-page headline in Germany's top-selling Bild newspaper.

"This Moroccan woman has the same right to protection from a violent husband as any German woman. Anything else would be misconceived sensitivity to the benefit of the husband and would amount to racist discrimination against the wife," said the Tageszeitung daily.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I think it was only a matter of time until stories like this hit the wires. Thank heavens another judge will now hear the case.

It makes no difference what religion you are nor does it matter if you have a religion at all. Wife Beating is not acceptable in the free world and this judge is way off base here.

www.news24.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Yea I agree wife-beating is pure abuse by cowards. I mean beating anyone is a cowardice act, because the very nature implies you are attacking someone who cannot even defend themselves. I just cannot even believe the judge beign a woman even denied the divorce.

I am an EU citizen myself, i believe this is really unussual !!! Actually UE legislation tries to discourage any form of involving religion in politics or legislation - so i believe that the mentioned judge did abuse her function using maybe a personal belief (possible she was also muslim - or ever herself endangered if ... not in accord with the muslims !).
Hey guys, what about the UFO discosure in France?? they got quite some muslims as well, i am curous on their reaction if UFO will proof to be real...

[edit on 22-3-2007 by sty]

But another (so many it seems) example of why this so-called "religion of peace" is hardly that.

OK, bring on the muslim apologists and appeasers who will say things like, "it's only a tiny minority that beat their wives".

Bottom line is that the muslim "faith" still says it's OK, and enough men are wanting to beat their wives in Germany, at least, that they're having to change their laws.

Still, I really blame the germans for this outrage.




[edit on 3/23/2007 by centurion1211]

This part of the article seems important to emphasis doesn't it?
.

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 Qur'an," said spokesperson Nurhan Soykan, who said that violence and mistreatment, regardless of the gender of the victim, were also grounds for divorce in the Islamic world.

The article also states that another judge will hear her case.

So many times, we hear that Europe has "progressive" attitudes.

Since when should a wife have to seek "permission" to divorce her husband, regardless of the reason?

And the obvious point: since when does the Quran trump the German constitution?

[edit on 23-3-2007 by jsobecky]

has anybody thought that she made this ruling deliberately to cause controversy?

after all, if she just granted a divorce to the woman because german law says they have a duty to protect her from a violent husband then no-one would have known about it except immediate family and friends.

if she refuses a divorce on the grounds that muslim men are allowed to beat up their wives according to the koran then it causes public outrage.

which is the most likely decision to get this vile practice brought to the public attention and which forces european muslims to be publicly shamed into condemning the practice?

Originally posted by justyc
has anybody thought that she made this ruling deliberately to cause controversy?

after all, if she just granted a divorce to the woman because german law says they have a duty to protect her from a violent husband then no-one would have known about it except immediate family and friends.

if she refuses a divorce on the grounds that muslim men are allowed to beat up their wives according to the koran then it causes public outrage.

which is the most likely decision to get this vile practice brought to the public attention and which forces european muslims to be publicly shamed into condemning the practice?

I don't think so.

To send a woman back into an abusive relationship doesn't seem like the right way to bring attention to a problem.

OTOH, granting her the divorce, and then widely publicizing the reason, would seem the best way to bring attention to the vile practice of the muslim men.

What do you want to bet this decision is rapidly overturned and the judge in question has to start looking for a new line of work soon?

And of course the usual suspects are out using this as an argument for genocide or God knows what. How charming.

I doubt any of them will even bother to read what Umbrax just posted.




[edit on 3/23/07 by xmotex]

Originally posted by xmotex


I doubt any of them will even bother to read what Umbrax just posted.

You mean like you did not read the 2nd sentence of the opinion portion of the story??

Thank heavens another judge will now hear the case.

People, people remember that we have our own brand of extremist judges ruling on the weirdest things and sometimes it makes head line news, but often they are overruled by other courts.

So what makes this story so fun to bash about . . . Oh, yeah is about muslins and Islam.

Originally posted by marg6043

So what makes this story so fun to bash about . . . Oh, yeah is about muslins and Islam.

In this case the issue is not Muslims, nor is it any faith.

It is all about the judge and her stupid ruling when she did not even follow her own countries laws.

[edit on 3/23/2007 by shots]

...you can't even count on a judge to follow the law anymore. This is really quite sickening and frightening at the same time. Judges believe that they have some divine right to follow or not follow laws as they see fit. When did this happen? Isn't it their job to enforce the law?

And for the record - If I EVER catch ANYONE beating their wife, I will personally beat you within an instant of your sad, sorry, worthless little life!!! BANK IT!!!

You mean like you did not read the 2nd sentence of the opinion portion of the story??

I didn't?

My comments weren't aimed at you or the thread, but some posters who chose to use it as another opportunity to vent "OMG Islam is teh EVIL!" hysteria.

[edit on 3/23/07 by xmotex]

Originally posted by jsobecky

And the obvious point: since when does the Quran trump the German constitution?

Germany does not have a real constitution, they are calling it the Grundgesetz (roughly 'basic' or 'primary' law), which is the result of them never having attained full formal independence after WW2...i know many people will now jump on me but for all i know this is really the case...

anyways: blind obedience knows no loyalty, if you are willing to sell your children down the river in the name of anti-fascism, anti-racism, anti-this and anti-that, while former STASI are running the commitees to investigate former STASI networks (and compensate their victims uh oh, more like persucute them some more) and hot political issues are simply sledgehammered into politically correct format by claiming xenophobia, well, chances are they won't mind taking it in the *** from another inherently violent, agressive and determined gang, will they?

links which are roughly along the same lines:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

it's happening in places you wouldn't expect:

www.infowars.com...

PS: i'd say this is merely an attempt at testing the waters, sooner or later they will get their exemptions, provided the EU still exists at that time, of course. ('coz without it they will suddenly realise they got a lot more cash in their pockets and chances are they will suddenly find out they've been abused as cash cow for several decades. i iexpect the roles will shift a bit)

i find this questionable...

first, did the Judge rule in favor of 'Beating' or was the act 'Striking' ?

the woman, with sound mind entered into a marrage contract/arrangement
with a person who followed and required the spouse to follow & adhere
to Muslim or Islamic rules & conduct in their marriage................

Islamic law & rules of conduct allow the 'Striking' of the woman,
now that is not 'Beating' in the legal sense of the act.

the woman should have looked past her nose
and avoided the marriage that had many non-western pitfalls
including the clause about 'striking'

hey, its a litigious world, she should have had a pre-nup to cover all the
weirdness and traditions of desert dwelling middle eastern men & their customs surrounding behavior & life in a marrage with Arab men !

Originally posted by St Udio
Islamic law & rules of conduct allow the 'Striking' of the woman,
now that is not 'Beating' in the legal sense of the act.

But laws in the free world are not the same. Here you do not even have to strike a person in order for the offence to be considered abuse.

Legal definition of Violence-Abuse

What is domestic violence?
Domestic violence is a pattern of physically and/or emotionally abusive behavior used to control another person with whom the abusive person has an intimate or family relationship.

What is the legal definition of domestic violence?
The legal definition of domestic violence is similar. Washington law says that domestic violence exists when a person:

Hits you, assaults you, or harms you physically in any way;

Or causes you to fear immediate physical harm, assault or injury.

[edit on 3/24/2007 by shots]

Originally posted by marg6043
People, people remember that we have our own brand of extremist judges ruling on the weirdest things and sometimes it makes head line news, but often they are overruled by other courts.

So what makes this story so fun to bash about . . . Oh, yeah is about muslins and Islam.

marg, it's the fact that the judge overruled a civil/criminal law (It Is Unlawful To Strike Or Beat Another Person) and said it was OK to do so because it was part of their religion.