I truly could not believe my eyes. In a New York Times article published on March 23, a German judge refused to grant a Muslim woman a speedy divorce on the grounds that her husband beat her. The reason for this refusal, according to the article, is that the couple came from a "Moroccan cultural milieu, in which it is common for husbands to beat their wives."

This reason, in and of itself, is extremely disturbing. This man, according to the woman's lawyer, "beat her seriously from the beginning of their marriage. After they separated, he called her and threatened to kill her." The woman filed for divorce and requested that it be granted without the usual year of separation, because her husband's behavior constituted an "unreasonable hardship." The judge, however, did not think the man's behavior constituted unreasonable hardship, because, as she wrote: "In this cultural background, it is not unusual that the husband uses physical punishment against the wife."

According to the article, the judge issued a statement defending her ruling in which she "noted that she ordered the man to move out and put a restraining order on him...And she suggested that the wife's Western lifestyle would give her husband grounds to claim his honor had been compromised."

Even though I am not a lawyer or a judge, it seems painfully obvious to me that these reasons are completely ridiculous to justify denying a speedy divorce to a woman who was allegedly brutalized by her husband. Beyond the fact that applying German law should have been the primary imperative of the judge, citing that "men do this in Morocco" as a reason to keep the couple together is alarming and utterly disturbing iteration of multiculturalism.

Yet, even more disturbing was the other rationale, according to the article, for denying a speedy divorce: "The Koran...sanctions such physical abuse." Condemnations abound, by different people for different reasons.

"When the Koran is put above the German Constitution," wrote Christian Democratic Union general secretary Ronald Pofalla, "I can only say 'Good night, Germany.'"

Muslims were equally horrified by her ruling: "Our prophet never struck a woman, and he is our example," said Ayyub Axel Kohler, the head of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany in an interview.

"A judge in Germany has to refer to the constitutional law, which says that human rights are not to be violated," said Gunter Meyer, director of the Center for Research on the Arab World at the University of Mainz. "It's not her task to interpret the Koran. It was an attempt at multicultural understanding, but in completely the wrong context."

Not only was it not her task to interpret the Qur'an, it was completely inappropriate for her to even cite the Qur'an as sanctioning the physical abuse of women. Muslim scholars have gone to great lengths in explaining that verse 4:34, which literally says that husbands may "beat" their wives, does not sanction the type of abuse that this Moroccan man allegedly meted out to his wife. Muhammad Asad eloquently summarized the views of Muslim scholars in his explanation of the Qur'an:

It is evident from many authentic Traditions that the Prophet himself intensely detested the idea of beating one's wife, and said on more than one occasion, "Could any of you beat his wife as he would beat a slave, and then lie with her in the evening?" (Bukhari and Muslim). According to another Tradition, he forbade the beating of any woman with the words, "Never beat God's handmaidens" (Abu Daud, Nasai, Ibn Majah, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ibn Hibban and Hakim, on the authority of Iyas ibn Abd Allah; Ibn Hibban, on the authority of Abd Allah ibn Abbas; and Bayhaqi, on the authority of Umm Kulthum).

When the above Quran-verse authorizing the beating of a refractory wife was revealed, the Prophet is reported to have said: "I wanted one thing, but God has willed another thing - and what God has willed must be best" (see Manar V, 74). With all this, he stipulated in his sermon on the occasion of the Farewell Pilgrimage, shortly before his death, that beating should be resorted to only if the wife "has become guilty, in an obvious manner, of immoral conduct", and that it should be done "in such a way as not to cause pain ( ghayr mubarrih)"; authentic Traditions to this effect are found in Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Daud, Nasi and Ibn Majah.

On the basis of these Traditions, all the authorities stress that this "beating", if resorted to at all, should be more or less symbolic - "with a toothbrush, or some such thing" (Tabari, quoting the views of scholars of the earliest times), or even "with a folded handkerchief" (Razi); and some of the greatest Muslim scholars (e.g., Ash-Shafi) are of the opinion that it is just barely permissible, and should preferably be avoided: and they justify this opinion by the Prophet's personal feelings with regard to this problem.

Moreover, there are some who do not even believe that the word wadribuhunna means "beat them" at all. In her forthcoming translation of the Qur'an, Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar interprets wadribuhunna as "then go away."

Regardless, however, of what Muslims have had to say about 4:34, it is not a German judge's place to cite the Qur'an as justification to keep a woman married to someone who allegedly brutalized her on a regular basis. It seems to me that this judge was either completely ignorant of what Islam and the Qur'an, or she has such a contempt for Islam that she sought to malign the Qur'an by using it in this terribly unjust ruling.

Unless she is completely incompetent, it is more likely the former rather than the latter. Nevertheless, this ruling may have significant implications: "For Muslim men," said Michaela Sulaika Kaiser, head of a group that counsels Muslim women, to the Times, "this is like putting oil on a fire, that a German judge thinks it is O.K. for them to hit their wives."

How disastrous. It is bad enough that there are Muslims who use the Qur'an to justify domestic violence; now we have a German judge who - wittingly or not - has done the same thing. Judge Datz-Winter, if you plan to issue another crazy ruling like this one, please, leave the Qur'an out of it.

In a New York Times article about this incident, the following was written:

Judge Datz-Winter declined to comment. But a spokesman for the court, Bernhard Olp, said she did not intend to suggest that violence in a marriage is acceptable or that the Koran supersedes German law. “The ruling is not justifiable, but the judge herself cannot explain it at this moment,” he said.

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.

One wonders if the disgruntled husband who shot up her courtroom 10 years ago was a Muslim. That certainly is a possible implication, unless this judge is that frightened in general of violent husbands. If that is the case, what is she doing working in a domestic court situation?

That being said, if this is a case of gross incompetence, the plaintiff's attorney bringing it to the attention of the media affords an opportunity to examine the role of shar'ia law, cultural custom, and integration into Western society.

RoseofSharon,

If the New York Times did not mention the religion of the man who shot up the courtroom, I am 99.999...% he is not a Muslim.

Journalists should investigate the judge's own family situation. Maybe her husband is having an affair with a Morrocan/Muslim women and so that judge is taking her anger out against this Morrocan women.

More information is needed. How many other Muslim couples' divorce cases has she worked on and what were the outcomes?

yeah. I ve been thinking about this for a few hundred years. Given that Izlam does not prohibit wife-beating, slavery, temporary marriages that maybe there is one more religion to come. You know. Sort of the final version of God's monotheistic religion, in keeping with the liberated times, equality of sexes and abolution of slavery and that sort of thing.

In 1936, while passing over the Atlantic, I saw a U-boat on fire, so I quickly came down to help out and while trying to pull this German sailor out of the damn thing, it went under and the door got jammed. I had to wait 40 years, for some Chinese submarine looking for scrap metal to come pull me out. Jesus.

They did not have Satellite TV in these damn tiffin boxes back in those days, so I had to spend like several decades contemplating about religion. And what I realized is that IN THE BEGINNING, there were people living in simple villages (like modern day Afghanistan), and so whenever someone did something bad, like stole or killed someone, you just slapped him a few times and let him go. This was in Abrahamic times. Everyone knew who did it, so there was no big issue about it.

Then in the time of Moses, with people moving about and there being the odd stranger in town, the punishment was increased. Now, you had to like pay the agrieved family a bunch of goats and camels and crap. Mucho money. Crime became a little bit expensive.

With the advent of boats and stuff, people started to move about and cities became big and full of strangers and all kind of violent crimes like rape and highway robbery became the norm. So God sent the Mohammed Law, with lashes and hand chopping and Death by stoning to keep a lid on things. Natural progression really.

But now, with most crimes being harmless insider trading and other harmless corporate skulldegery, surely there is no need for such harsh punisments as death by stoning and stuff. What with prisons and sophisticated justice systems of today, maybe there is a need for a new edition of religion. Divorce is also easy to do, $99 Divorce packages are widely available online.

Now let me elaborate on the need for this new Religion by analyzing case-by-case the various outdated rulings.

WIFE BEATING
Simple. In the old days, it was easier to beat the wife up and resolve domestic disputes, then to get the whole freaking neighborhood involved. With 50,000 family members per couple, it was asking for trouble.

Nowadays, simple. Call 1-800-DIVORCE, use your MC/Visa, 15 min. Bling Bling Bling. In and Out. No need to beat your wife, no mess no fuss, no hassle.

TEMPORARY MARRIAGES
This whole temporay marriage thing came about when some sahaba went to fight some battle in some far away place. They saw some buxom local women at the water well, and felt a little you know. Bling bling. They'd been up since dawn fighting jihad and a little bling bling would'nt hurt the emman level for the next days fighting. Its pretty normal you know. Normally, you simply rape the locals to resolve this kind of situation, but these were Holy warriors, not some rif raf. So Allah came up with this solution of temporary marriage. You couldnot like show up back home after two months of fighting with a hot looking foreign babe wrapped around your collar. Your wife would skewer you by your bling blings within 24 hours. It was just not practical, so this temporary arrangement.

Nowadays, this problem is solved. Thanks to the American military. Its called Satellite Porn, you get a 60" Widescreen hooked to the local US Porn Satellie feed and don't matter where you are, bling bling. No need to get into complicated temporary arrangements with local women. Virtual satisfaction. Problem solved.

SLAVERY
Hmmm. Times have changed my friends. With all the airplanes and ships flying across the globe, why in the world would you want to enslave a bunch of lazy black people to work on the farms in the factories, hospitals, pizza parlours, cabs and in the call centers. When there are millions of hard working free Mexican, Indian and Chinese workers willing to do the same work for pennies on the dollar. How stupid is that. Slavery is basically too expensive in the global economy. Outdated, it should be banned by God.

INTEREST
No interest, no financing, mortgages, nothing???? WHAT. How the hell do you run an economy???? Jesus. How do you buy a house in the suburbs???? Outdated, totally totally, oudated.

Judaism >>> Christianity >>>> Islam >>>> ??????

hajibaba,

During the time of Moses it was just not "pay the agrieved family a bunch of goats and camels and crap. Mucho money. Crime became a little bit expensive. "

In Judaism there was cruel brutal physical punishment for the smallest infraction.

Islam copied some of its harsh punishments from Judaism.

LOL @ Hajibaba. Randall, isn't it true that Muslims views Mosaic Judaism as the "Islam" of its time?

This is the problem with Sunni Islam's inability to understand the historicity of the Quran. Thats why now they are scrambling to find a way out of these verse because the alternative explanation, that this was the mentality and culture of 7th century arabia and God knows best how to deal with it goes aginst their doctrine of othodoxy. Yet their inability and their claim that Islam is not merely a religion but a political and legal and economic framework applicable as it was in Medina for all places, all times and all peoples is now slowly crumbling under the scrutiny of modernization and globalization and public awareness.

Its is high time we realize that Islam is a set of theological, moral, ritual and spiritual set of belief and behaviour. This is why the vast majority of the sahaba did not leave any detail of that period except the Quran and the established rituals. It was a handful of companions, many very young or did not acompany the prophet for long periods who took it upon themselves to pass down orally every detail they could find about the prophet and the Medina community which later became the basis of the Sunni and Shia doctrine of the religion and the state.

In fact the 4 caliphs consistently forbade and destroyed all details of their community as they understood it will become binding on future generations beyond the scope of what God and his prophet intended. This is why only 2 % of hadiths are narrated by the 4 caliphs and only 3.5 % of hadiths are narrated by the muhajireen companions.

So what doctrine or sect do you follow bigmo? Where are you getting your information from, because they sound very similar to orientalist arguments.

Heh. For the first time I feel myself experiencing what the Germans call schadenfreude: pleasure at another person's misfortune. Why is that? Because as the Nazi party gained power in the twenties and thirties, Jews experienced this sort of legal indignity. Now that the judges are scared of the Muslims, Germans themselves get to feel the lash of tyranny!

If you want this to change, you must loudly condemn this interpretation of Islam in every political and social forum available. Only then will your ideas have a chance of being heard.

So what doctrine or sect do you follow bigmo? Where are you getting your information from, because they sound very similar to orientalist arguments.

- Posted by BushTerrorWarForMakeBenefitGloriousNationOfIsrael on Mar 26, 07 | 5:36 am

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok from history, mainly studying the Abbassid period where fiqh and hadith and madhabs took shape. Actually orientalist like Goldziher and Schacht, maybe, but they were in the late 1890s and mid 1950s long before wahhabism and fundamentalism and Israel was an issue. Today orientalist only study the Islam the Islamist follow and not an independent historic analysis of Islam that does not assume Islam only started with the Abbassid as Sunni and Shia Islam does but started by the prophet .

Want to know why most of the hadith collectors are persian(muwali) and how sunni islam came to be:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasid

Want to know more:

http://newint.org/features/2002/05/01/keynote-islam-resistance-and-reform/

Just study history, only history will teach you orthodoxy in Islam was an innovation appearing 2 centuries after the prophet under the patronage of brutal corrupt power hungry rulers even worse than the rulers we have today.

>I feel myself experiencing what the Germans call schadenfreude: pleasure at another person's misfortune. Why is that?<

Its rather evident why. A jewish extremist and supporter of terrorism like you would. Both nazis and zionist share more then a passing resemblance.

>you must loudly condemn this interpretation of Islam in every political and social forum available.<

What interpretation? The one you insist on believing and making up. Classic straw man arguments.
Maybe you ought to take your own advice and condemn jewish terrorism and chauvenism.

You didn't answer my question bigmo. What sect do you belong to? Don't be so coy.
Wikipedia? You can't be serious. I am familiar with Mr.Sardar. What is immediately obvious is that he has a strong grasp of current politics and societal trends in the west. But it is also very plain that his understanding of his own professed faith was superficial, without any understanding of its complexity, the quality of its jurisprudence or even any sophisticated understanding of the Koran.
I'd rather read George Santanya's works.

>>very plain that his understanding of his own professed faith was superficial, without any understanding of its complexity, the quality of its jurisprudence or even any sophisticated understanding of the Koran.

How so?

There is nothing called jurisprudence in Islam, its not a law. Angels, Satan and destiny do not fit in a courtroom.

There is nothing wrong legally to be a miser or an envious person or arrogant, yet these are all deadly for a human in judgement day.

Stop treating Islam like its another legal system.

>There is nothing called jurisprudence in Islam<

I must say thats possibly the stupidest and most ignorant statement you have uttered. But that wasn't what the question. Which sect do you belong to?

Yep. Islam is basically like the Jesus thing. Believe and your sins will be forgiven. Quite simple really. Jurispudding or Jurispudance or whatever that thing is, is basically a Pauline Church like creation made by the religious clergy.

Salat & Zakat & Hajj Vacation & Ramadan Weight Loss Program, these are the basics of faith.

People mistakenly started to worship the Prophet Muhammad and copycat all his habits and stuff and the politicans of the time started using Moslems for their own agendas and next up you know, we have a "new religion" for the gentiles. Have we not seen all this before, bling bling.

Plus if you notice how pre-occupied God is with the Jews in the Qur'an, you'd almost think He sent Prophet Muhammad as a Jewish reformer. Sound familiar. Bling bling bling.

I mean, hey God dude, why don't you like forget the Jews, talk about something else man. Old story, so OK, you made a mistake and picked the totally wrong people. Fine, happens, everyone makes mistakes. Now lets put the past in the past and choose some other race. Lets move on, yo. Why keep thinking about those ungrateful Jews.

Jesus. Ummm, metaphorically speaking, that is.

hajibaba,

Since you were wrong about the types of punishments in Mosaic Judaism, it would be helpful if you could quote the Quran concerning what you wrote in your last comment. It is not clear what you are trying to say about the Jews and the Quran.

Basically what it is is that God is an artist type, you know. Moody, creative, carefree. And satan is a scientific type. Precise, detail-oriented. And the two just could never get along.

God has this habit of making things on the spur of the moment. Idea comes, bling bling bling. "Lets get the damn thing out the door, we can always perfect it later. "

Thats why we have all these religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc etc. God did'nt realize mankind was going to take His advice so seriously. So He's been tweaking around, trying to get this religion thing right.

Which is why the say, "the Devils in the details" H ah ha a ha hhaha hahaha. Satan worshippers, all these scientific types. Trying to get you caught up in the details, so you forget the creator Himself.