Once again a German court ruled by referring to Shrai’a (Islamic law), which predominantly incites to denigration of women, hatred, violence.
Most recently, Lisa, a German woman (46) married to an Egyptian, called the police seeking protection for herself and her 17-year-old daughter from assaults by her husband. Magdi, Lisa’s husband, threatened to kill their daughter who had been raped by a man. Magdi, a practicing Muslim, believes that his daughter committed “Zena” (adultery). He told his wife that he was always suspicious of his daughter who clandestinely had a German boyfriend. Lisa filed a divorce case against her husband, and requested deporting him.
The judge, Matthias Rau, at a court in Hanover, Germany, ruled (Jan. 21, 2009), Lisa had to wait for at least one year before she is legally divorced. Her husband cannot be deported. “He must be re-educated, in hopes he would renounce his Islamic understanding of “Zena”, the judge said.
The German judge argued, “Muslims have a different understanding of rape than Europeans, and this must be taken into account.”
In an interview with a German radio, NDR on Feb. 18, 2009, Rau said, “Shari’a aligns rape to adultery, Zena, and victims – women - are often punished instead of prosecuting the perpetrators and convict them.”
Helmut Wagner, another German judge, this time in Essen, ruled March 2, 2009, Muslim girls in Germany can not be forced to swim in public and learn about the evolution theory at school. The parents of three school girls requested a verdict freeing their daughters from taking part in swimming classes and lessons which teach the evolution theory. Wagner argued, “These things contradict tenets in Islam, the religion of these girls, and hence in light of freedom of religion, the Muslim girls cannot be forced to do or learn things which are incompatible with their religion.”
The Attorney General was indignant. He objected to Wagner’s verdict by saying, “How would this judge rule if a Muslim kills someone who commits apostasy. According to the Koran, he must be killed. Would the judge let the perpetrator free?” The Attorney General cites the Koran which says, “If they (Muslims) turn (their) back (to Islam), then seize them and KILL them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.” (Sura 4, verse 89).
The attorney General added, “In Islam, polygamy is permissible. Should also this be sanctioned in Germany for Muslims? It seems to me that some German judges are more royal than the king and more Catholic than the Pope. Some Arab countries use Western legal codes.”
In another case, the judge, Hans-Dieter Bachmann at a court in Dortmund, also ruled (Feb. 12, 2009), with reference to Shari’a. He said, according to the Koran, a Muslim father can beat his 15-year-old daughter who refuses to wear a headscarf, and he cannot be punished, and quoted the following passage from the Koran, “The men are made responsible for the women, and God has endowed them with certain qualities, and made them the bread earners. The righteous women will cheerfully accept this arrangement, since it is God’s commandment, and honor their husbands during their absence. If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them.” (Suran 4 on Women).
Numerous cases have now been ruled with reference to Shari’a in Germany. Earlier in 2007, Christa Datz-Winter, a judge in Frankfurt also referred to a passage in the Koran that gives the right to a husband to beat his wife. She procrastinated the divorce of a Moroccan women from her Moroccan husband, Both live in Germany.
Instead of using Paragraph 1565 of the German Federal Law, Datz-Winter preferred to use the hardship criteria as defined in the Koran, and added in her verdict, “Both the wife and the husband are Muslims. In Islam, the husband is allowed to castigate his wife. This fact cannot be ignored, and cultural and religious motives must be considered in this case.”
Andrea Bramsche, a lawyer in Stuttgart, Germany, told the prominent weekly newspaper, Die Zeit on-line, (Feb 19, 2009), “What is going on in German courts? Are we here in Saudi Arabia or Iran? Even some Muslim countries are obviously more secular than we are. Syria, Lebanon, and Tunisia, for example, apply the Napoleon code, and Turkey uses the Swiss code. Besides, would a Saudi judge rule allowing a German to drink alcohol in Saudi Arabia because the Bible allows that?”
The list of passages from the Koran and Hadith, which basically constitute Shari’a, and denigrate women is long. For more details check out
“Is Islam a Violent Faith” and
“Women in Hadith”.
If German courts opt to use Shari’a in their verdicts then women can be beaten, their testimony is worth half of that of men, they are disallowed to travel alone, they can inherit only half the mount their male relatives get. Women are intellectually deficient. They even cannot fast without their husband’s permission, etc. All these commandments are entailed in Shari’a.
Shari’a has also infiltrated German schools. The head teacher of a secondary school in Detmold permits Muslim pupils who do not want to learn the evolution theory to learn the “creationist theory” as an alternative.
In another school, the head teacher issued instructions to male teachers not to shake hands with Muslim girls after handing over their graduation documents. “This is haram (impermissible) in Islam.” The head teacher said.
Shari’a has also infiltrated the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In an interview with the Egyptian Al Ahram Weekly (Oct. 19, 2008), Gabrielle Linda Guelil, a Muslim Turk, whose real first name is Layla and who dyes her hair blond to look German, and works for this ministry as head of a new section called “Dialogue with the Islamic World”, said, “Through interaction and dialogue with the Muslim world we hope to bridge the gap between cultures and clear up any misunderstandings.”
What kind of “misunderstandings” is Guelil talking about? Are “beating women” and urging Muslims to kill infidels – Christians and Jews – which the Koran, Hadith, and fatwas (edicts) incite to, all “misunderstandings”? This is an insult to the intellect of all sanely-thinking people.
Then Guelil says, “Tolerance must prevail. Respecting other religions is essential.” The question is who is intolerant, Islamists or the rest of the world? Who does not allow non-Muslims build their temples and practice their religions? Is it the West, or Muslim countries, spearheaded by Saudi Arabia, the cradle of fanatic Islam? Who set embassies to fire after the Muhammad cartoons? Have you ever heard of a Christian or a Jew setting fire to a mosque? Who is actually intolerant?!
To add insult to injury, Guelil says, “Some Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, enforce the Islamic Shari’a law without making the effort to explain that this law does not necessarily constitute a violation of human rights.”
What should the Saudis explain? How men should beat women and denigrate them? Beating women, denigrating them, and inciting to hatred and violence against non-Muslims do not “constitute a violation of human rights”? This is insane.
Instead of lecturing us about “misunderstandings” and “tolerance”, Guelil should have asked Muslims to be tolerant and renounce violence.
Shari’a is not the “law of Allah”. God is merciful and tolerant. He would never incite to kill human beings and denigrate them. Anyone who claims the opposite is an outlaw and irreligious by all means.
Islam is an Arabic word which means “submission”. There is no room of freedom in Islam. It is full of contradictions. While the Koran says, “There is no compulsion in Islam” (Sura 2, verse 257), it incites to hatred and violence in numerous passages. Muslims who turn their back to Islam are branded as “heretics” and sentenced to death. Check out the above mentioned articles.
Many German apologists, and for that matter many Europeans like the British Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams who endorses Shari’a, argue that Muslims living in the West must have their own law, Shari’a applied next to the mundane law. They justify that by religious freedom which all Western constitutions prescribe.
They also argue that in a bid to integrate migrants of different religious backgrounds, these people must “feel home”. Their religious tenets must be taken into consideration. But how about Western mundane laws and constitutions, do they use the Bible or refer to it? The answer is NO.
At the same time all those apologists do not realize, or rather ignore that Shari’a violates basic human rights.
I believe that apologists who refer to Shari’a and accept its appalling rules do so out of fear of Islamists. The aim is appeasing radical Muslims. Consequently, they make themselves accomplice to those who violate human rights and incite to hatred and violence.
Source:
Canadian Free Press
_-_Election_april_09_(488_x_574).jpg)
