Muslim Wife Beating

C'mon guys, it's Friday!
No need for shouting. Let's sing campfire songs!

 

Frankly, this ruling didn't go over well with the German courts

The Frankfurt administrative court said it was considering disciplinary measures against the judge. She was removed from the divorce proceedings of the woman. Olp said the judge had been convinced she was doing everything she could to protect the woman, who had been granted a restraining order against her husband. She had seen no reason to grant help in paying court costs for a fast-track divorce, and looked in the Quran to support her reasoning. Olp said her reasoning was unacceptable, but insisted it was a "one-time event" that would not have an effect on other cases, or the final ruling in the couple's divorce proceedings.

or German muslims

Representatives of Germany's Muslim population were also critical of the ruling. The country's Central Council of Muslims said that the judge "absolutely should have ruled in line with the German constitution." "Violence and abuse of people — whether against men or women — are, of course, naturally reasons to warrant a divorce in Islam as well," the group said in a statement.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/22/...ran-Divorce.php

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 21 2007, 12:06 AM) [snapback]515596[/snapback]</div>

That is not true. According to Sharia the penalty for leaving the faith (abandonding Islam) is Death, conversion by Muslims to other religions, is strictly forbidden and is termed apostasy. Muslim theology equates apostasy to treason, and in most interpretations of sharia, the penalty for apostasy is death. The Qur'an states that God (in Arabic, Allah) despises apostasy. See verses [Qur'an 3:72], [Qur'an 3:90],[Qur'an 16:106],[Qur'an 4:137] and [Qur'an 5:54]. Also unlike other religons Muhammad gave specific permission for a husband to beat their wifes. In case of "rebellious" behaviour, Verse 34 of an-Nisa says the husband should urge his wife to mend her ways, refuse to share her bed, and admonish her by beating. Show me in the new Testiment where Jesus gave Christians permission to commit any act of violence...

 

This happened in Germany.
However, if we were to relate this to the USA, the law says that "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion, or inhibiting the free practice thereof" (okay, that may not be the exact wording, but I ain't looking it up at the moment)
So, no laws that interfere with religious practice... HOWEVER, in my Constitutional Democracy class, we discussed things like how one person's rights, religious or otherwise, cannot infringe upon another person's rights. The right to swing my fist stops at your nose.
A religion may allow slavery, or polygamy, for instance, but the law of the land does not.
Therefore, someone that holds someone else as a slave is chargable in a court of law. It isn't to infringe on their religion... it is to preserve the rights of others, and to uphold the law of the land. In the same way, bigamists are prosecuted (in most states, your mileage may vary, not valid in Utah).
I think that the judge in this case was wrong to not uphold a civil legality, instead bowing to a religious custom, especially in a case where the wronged party was seeking redress from the behavior. This would be assuming that it is against the law to assault someone in Germany, as it is here.
Civil law can only trump religious practice when said practice infringes on the rights of others.

 

The judge in this case wasn't bowing to religious custom, but imposing it. It was a judge imposing her own prejudices on a woman trying to escape an abusive husband.

In a statement defending her ruling, Judge Datz-Winter noted that she had ordered the man to move out and had imposed a restraining order on him. But she also cited the verse in the Koran that speaks of a husband’s prerogatives in disciplining his wife. And she suggested that the wife’s Western lifestyle would give her husband grounds to claim that his honor had been compromised.

The woman, her lawyer said, does not wear a headscarf. She has been a German citizen for eight years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/world/eu...agewanted=print

It's not like the woman was a fundamentalist, or was asking the judge to rule by sharia law.

This was just a judge being stupid, like that one in New York that sued his dry cleaners over a pair of pants.

The judge got removed from the case.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 21 2007, 07:48 AM) [snapback]515763[/snapback]</div>

But it is Kol Nidrei tonight.

G'mar hatimah tovah.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Sep 21 2007, 11:05 AM) [snapback]515816[/snapback]</div>

Sorry tony and Berman if i misread what was posted. I was replying specifically to the quote in my post - the one that tied together the Muslim community and US law... I guess i saw an attempted connection there that wasn't intended.

 

The thread's simple question is:

"Do you support spousal abuse?"

The example cited happend to of a muslim couple. Granted spousal abuse occurs in all cultures to some degree, and just because you think some aspects of our culture are barbaric, the death penalty was cited, does that mean we should accept a cultural custom which our society, for the most part disagrees with?
Rember the question:

"Do you support spousal abuse?"

If a culture says, "yes" in my culture that is ok, you have to ask yourself, "Is that culture compatable with mine?" And if the muslim culture grants permission to beat your wife, is it racist to denounce that aspect of the culture? Or are you afraid to denounce an aspect of the culture because those who do often end up dead or in hiding?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(n8kwx @ Sep 21 2007, 02:15 AM) [snapback]515642[/snapback]</div>

"Was" part of the culture? See thread above. We're ALL horibly violent. Time to smell the coffee. Muslim culture IS even handed. Women, men, they'll beat ANYone's arse, if it's part of their law that's in violation ... gays, non-muslims, moderate non-violent muslims, it aint just women.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Sep 21 2007, 01:05 PM) [snapback]515876[/snapback]</div>

No, it's really

"Do you support stupid/racist judges?"

As the woman's attorney said,

The woman's lawyer, Barbara Becker-Rojczyk, protested, saying: "When Christians are arguing for a divorce they don't use the Bible."

"Apparently the judge deems it unchaste when my client adapts a Western lifestyle."

I suppose if the couple had been Mormons, the judge would have failed to grant a divorce as it could interfere with the husband's potential for polygamy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Sep 21 2007, 12:52 PM) [snapback]515912[/snapback]</div>

The Judge may have been stupid! (probably)
But was absolutely NOT racist! In fact the Judge was super-PC, in granting deference to a cultural "tradition" that was antithetical to our own!

The interesting thing about this thread is that most respondents aren't condemning the action of wife beating or the allegations made by the judge that it was cultural.
If this thread had said that this was a Christian couple basing the belief that beating the wife was held OK in the bible, (and yes I think some in the past may have argued that) EVERYONE on this site would have roundly criticized the practice. But because its a muslim couple, no one appears willing to really criticizing the practice of wife by muslims!

The woman's attorney is right, and you and most of the posters have missed it, the judge is willing to defer to Islam but NOT Christianity. Why???? Oh yeah, when you speak out criticizing against islam they just kill you! (and yes all religions have killed those that spoke out against them, but in this modern world Islam is BY FAR the most egregious example of killing the questioners!)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Sep 21 2007, 03:31 PM) [snapback]515926[/snapback]</div>

No, I've said as much in my prior posts, with quotes from muslim societies in germany and the woman's attorney. The judge, to save money on court costs, was imposing a FUNDAMENTALIST form of Islam that the woman DID NOT PRACTICE. No one asked the judge to "defer" to Islam. The judge came up with this nonsense all on her own. When you impose your stereoptype on the member of another culture, it's not "PC", it's racism plain and simple: i.e., if a woman is from Morocco and a muslim, she must believe wife-beating is part of her religion. Utter nonsense.

This story, by the way, had a shelf-life of about 4 days back in March:
<blockquote>Judge issues decision
Woman's Lawyer publicizes judge's idiocy
German public, muslims, government all deride judge
Judge booted off case</blockquote>
After that it's gone. Why? Because it wasn't about a larger issue. It was about a moment of personal stupidity on the part of a judge.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Sep 21 2007, 04:59 PM) [snapback]515938[/snapback]</div>

Which means it will probably have a longer shelf life here.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 21 2007, 08:57 PM) [snapback]516061[/snapback]</div>

Let's make a few trivial adjustments to your question:

So let's take two people, engaged in a relationship here, where freedom of religion allows the people to choose their religion, and in a country where divorce is easy. They are Kookla-Wumpus, and they both agree that the man can prevent his wife from seeking medical treatment; that the Kookla-Wumpus deity will heal whatever needs healing. If the man fails to seek medical treatment after she develops a severe infection that puts her into a coma, who are we to say their ways are not right? They both agree to it by being Kookla-Wumpus, right? Especially if she agreed while she was still conscious? Can we prosecute such willful neglect?

One would hope the man would be charged at the very least with voluntary manslaughter, just as a wife-beater would be charged with criminal battery.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 21 2007, 10:57 PM) [snapback]516061[/snapback]</div>

Actually, I found the page on that same site, "Is wife beating allowed in Islam?" even more clarifying:
a. It must be seen as A RARE EXCEPTION TO THE REPEATED EXHORTATION OF MUTUAL RESPECT, KINDNESS AND GOOD TREATMENT

b. As defined by hadith, it is NOT PERMISSIBLE TO STRIKE ANYONE'S FACE, CAUSE ANY BODILY HARM OR EVEN BE HARSH. What the hadith qualified as dharban ghayra mubarrih, or light striking, was interpreted by early jurists as a (symbolic) use of miswak (a small natural toothbrush)! They further qualified permissible "striking" as that which leaves no mark on the body. It is interesting that this latter fourteen-centuries-old qualifier is the criterion used in contemporary American law to separate a light and harmless tap or strike from "abuse" in the legal sense. This makes it clear that even this extreme, last resort, and "lesser of the two evils" measure that may save a marriage does not meet the definitions of "physical abuse," "family violence, " or "wife battering" in the 20th century law in liberal democracies, where such extremes are so commonplace that they are seen as national concerns.

It goes on to conclude:

f. Any excess, cruelty, family violence, or abuse committed by any "Muslim" can never be traced, honestly, to any revelatory text (Qur'an or hadith). Such EXCESSES AND VIOLATIONS ARE TO BE BLAMED ON THE PERSON(S) HIMSELF, as it shows that they are paying lip service to Islamic teachings and injunctions and failing to follow the true Sunnah of the Prophet (P).

So it's undisputably not a criminal act if the Muslim taps his wife with a toothbrush.

It again speaks, to me, against the cliche of some monolithic muslim view. Here we have two somewhat different interpretations from the same website (and I imagine there are many more there sprouting off its Domestic Violence page).

A strict Wahhabi (like those guys in Saudi Arabia we give all that oil money too so they can build schools around the world to spread their faith) would likely have a more Fundamentalist view.

People like Fareena Alam, who started the Islamic site themodernreligion when she was a teenager, are working to create that transition, or to find how Islam fits into western society.

But you'll never get me to believe there is "one" Islam that wants "one" thing or that muslims even agree on it. It's just as fractious as Christianity. And many of the more abhorrent values we see it used to justify I think likely are artifacts of local culture that have adapted the religion, selectively, to serve its traditions. For example, in Egypt, fundamental Islam is used to justify female circumcision, even though it is not a topic mentioned in the Koran, and not a practice implemented in Islamic countries outside of North Africa. Although the situation in Egypt is finally meeting some open confrontation this days. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/20/world/af...amp;oref=slogin

 

regardless of the intended implications of the wife-beating mentions in religious texts... this whole thing seems to me like enforcing someone's cultural rules upon them, which is simply beyond the jurisdiction of the government.

holding people to different standards under the same law because of whatever background they come from is wrong. how far, then, would this be from refusing to let a catholic wife divorce her husband because she can't handle birthing any more children, and he will not allow birth control? she should have known better, right? she should have expected that.

we have to allow people to deviate from their own cultures if that's what they really want and if it's permissible by law.