Tuesday, June 12, 2007

PLAYING ALLAH DOES NOT A JUDGE MAKE - By HJS


Liberals have a difficult time understanding the most common problems of the most common people because of the disconnect between themselves and individuals. What is good for the masses, they fail to understand, is not necessarily good for the individuals.

According to Der Spiegel, a Muslim woman, formerly from Morocco but now a citizen of Germany, was denied a speedy divorce, even though such divorces were regularly conducted with deliberate speed whenever the husband is shown to be a batterer. The judge decided the case not on German law, but on a verse from the Qur’an that gave the husband the right to “castigate” her (unbelievable).

It is not easy for Muslims to understand everything in the Qur’an, even those who have learned to recite it. And for non-Muslim tyros who are not Qur’anic scholars to believe they can use one verse to decide a way of action in a case requires a degree of temerity unbecoming and unacceptable in a jurist. The woman came before the German judge in a German court, seeking German justice. What she got was neither German nor justice.

According to the Noble Qur’an, 4:34:

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

Dawud: Book 11: Hadith 2138; Narrated Mu'awiyah ibn Haydah:

I said: Apostle of Allah, how should we approach our wives and how should we leave them? He replied: Approach your tilth when or how you will, give her (your wife) food when you take food, clothe when you clothe yourself, do not revile her face, and do not beat her.

Dawud: Book 11: Hadith 2142; Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab:

The Prophet (peace-be-upon-him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.

One might be forgiven for asking the judge if the Shariah was consulted or if the reasons for the beatings were specified. The Qur’an and Shariah specify that only rebelliousness rates a beating, but only after the husband discusses the harmful effects of rebelliousness with her and listens to her viewpoint. If the discussion does not end the rebellion, then the husband tries another tack, refusing to sleep with her—they are supposed to learn the degree to which they need each other by this separation. If this tack does not work, then he is permitted to hit her, “but only if he believes that doing so will bring her to the right path, though if he does not think so, it is not permissible. His hitting her may not be in a way that injures her, and is his last recourse to save the family. If the disagreement does not end after all this, each partner chooses an arbitrator to solve the dispute by settlement, or divorce.” (Shariah n 10.12)

In view of the Shariah explanation shown above, the judge was not correct even by Islamic standards. Even if she were not battered, Shariah law called for arbitration which included divorce. The only bar to immediate divorce would be a requirement that the divorce remain not final until the next menstrual cycle to assure that the woman is not pregnant at the time of divorce.

Thankfully, the judge was removed from the case after the woman’s attorney went public and other authorities investigated. But she was removed from only that case and is still on the bench.

The point in all of this is that multiculturalism is a culture killer if you are trying to integrate new immigrants—or even old immigrants—into your civilization. And if you are not trying to integrate the immigrants, you have another problem even worse; you might be the culture killer. Immigrants must be viable candidates to your culture and must want to be included as one of you. If you try to use their own laws or religious traditions against them and you are not a scholar in their laws and their religion and culture, you are being arrogant and stupid. Generally, whenever someone being battered comes to you for help and you send her back to the batterer, you are hurting the victim and the state, and also indirectly letting other battered woman know they can forget coming to the law for help.

HJS

Read the entire story at http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0%2C1518%2C487238%2C00.html

6 comments:

Tony GOPrano said...

Harry your knowledge on this subject is amazing. I know the readers appreciate learning this information...

hjs said...

Tony, thanks for the comment. I always hate to see someone hurt because of a do-gooder or others who have no idea what they do. In years gone by, that very idea was the basis of comedies, like Laurel and Hardy. People trying to be helpful but screwing everything up because of a skewed idea of what being helpful really means in that case. I can't urge studying the Qur'an, the Hadiths, or anything like that because it takes too long and requires focus. I have more than 7,300 Hadiths, for example. So, unless someone has the time and energy, I would suggest reading authors like Robert Spencer. The best starting point to understand the Middle East, though is an inexpensive book by Dr. Karen Anderson: The Battle for God. The first four chapters constitute the best summary I have read on that period.

hjs

BillT said...

"In view of the Shariah explanation shown above, the judge was not correct even by Islamic standards. Even if she were not battered, Shariah law called for arbitration which included divorce."

The fact that the argument is even relevant is troubling.

hjs said...

Thanks for the comment. You really do have something very important there. The fact that the decision did not agree with the Shariah had nothing to do with the criticism of the judge's error. The judge was incorrect under German rules--further evidence is her removal from the case.
I identified the culprit as the judge's application of her sense of multiculturalism to the case. For some reason she wanted to show (perhaps) her liberalism and her internationalism by applying laws that were probably alien to her. The fact that even the Shariah disagreed was not really tangential.
That part was meant to show that people should not fool around with cultures and laws they do not understand--especially, when something important is involved, and when they do not apply to the case at hand. She made a mistake that seriously affected other people. Whenever a jurist uses an outside law to decide a case, it can result in "stare decisis" for other cases to follow. That can lead to a default Shariah usage that can become the slipperiest of slopes. hjs

BillT said...

I understood what you were posting. I apologize if it came off as a criticism. I was giving you a wordy amen.

hjs said...

I just took it as a comment; and when I reviewed, "I" saw that I had not made the disconnect clear between the judge's error and mentioning the Shariah. So, you gave me an opportunity to clear that up better and also say a little more about people dabbling in something they cannot handle. When I see that Muslim scholars have a very hard time with the Qur'an, and then the uninitiated think they know everything, and people suffer because of it, I get more than a little upset.
I appreciate your "Amen" wordy or not; it makes what I do worthwhile. hjs