Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Thursday, March 22, 2007 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document Germany Cites Koran in Rejecting Divorce

by NYTimes.com, Mark Landler

Reposted from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/world/europe/22cnd-germany.html

FRANKFURT, March 22 — A German judge has stirred a storm of protest here by citing the Koran in turning down a German Muslim woman's request for a fast-track divorce on the ground that her husband beat her.

In a remarkable ruling that underlines the tension between Muslim customs and European laws, the judge, Christa Datz-Winter, said that the couple came from a Moroccan cultural milieu, in which she said it was common for husbands to beat their wives. The Koran, she wrote, sanctions such physical abuse.

News of the ruling brought swift and sharp condemnation from politicians, legal experts, and Muslim leaders in Germany, many of whom said they were confounded that a German judge would put 7th-century Islamic religious teaching ahead of modern German law in deciding a case involving domestic violence.

The woman's lawyer, Barbara Becker-Rojczyk, said she decided to publicize the ruling, which was issued in January, after the court refused her request for a new judge. On Wednesday, the court in Frankfurt abruptly removed Judge Datz-Winter from the case, saying it could not justify her reasoning.

"It was terrible for my client," Ms. Becker-Rojczyk said of the ruling. "This man beat her seriously from the beginning of their marriage. After they separated, he called her and threatened to kill her."

While legal experts said the ruling was a judicial misstep rather than evidence of a broader trend, it comes at a time of rising tension in Germany and elsewhere in Europe, as authorities in many fields struggle to reconcile Western values with their countries' burgeoning Muslim minorities.

Last fall, a Berlin opera house canceled performances of a Mozart opera because of security fears. The opera includes a scene that depicts the severed head of the Prophet Muhammad. Stung by charges that it had surrendered its artistic freedom, the opera house staged the opera three months later without incident.

To some here, the divorce court ruling reflects a similar compromise of basic values in the name of cultural sensitivity.

"A judge in Germany has to refer to the constitutional law, which says that human rights are not to be violated," said Günter 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," Mr. Meyer said of Judge Datz-Winter. "It was an attempt at multi-cultural understanding, but in completely the wrong context."

Reaction to the decision has been almost as sulfurous as it was to the cancellation of the opera.

"When the Koran is put above the German constitution, I can only say, 'Good night, Germany,' " Ronald Pofalla, general secretary of the main conservative party in the country, the Christian Democratic Union, said to the mass-market paper Bild.

Dieter Wiefelspütz, a member of Parliament from the more liberal Social Democratic Party, said in an interview that he could not recall any court ruling in years that had aroused so much indignation.

Muslim leaders agreed that Muslims living here must be judged by the German legal code. But they were just as offended by what they characterized as the judge's misinterpretation of a much-debated passage in the Koran governing relations between husbands and wives.

While the verse cited by Judge Datz-Winter does say husbands may beat their wives for disobedience — an interpretation embraced by Wahhabi and other fundamentalist Islamic groups — most mainstream Muslims have long rejected wife-beating as a relic of the medieval age.

"Our prophet never struck a woman, and he is our example," Ayyub Axel Köhler, the head of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany, said in an interview.

The 26-year-old woman in this case, whose name has not been disclosed, was not so fortunate. Born in Germany to a Moroccan family, the woman was married in Morocco in 2001, according to her lawyer, Ms. Becker-Rojczyk. The couple settled in Germany and had two children.

In May 2006, the police were summoned to the couple's home after a particularly violent incident. At that time, Judge Datz-Winter ordered the husband to move out and stay at least 50 meters (164 feet) away from the home. In the months that followed, her lawyer said, the man threatened to kill his wife.

Terrified, the woman filed for divorce in October, and requested that it be granted without waiting for the usual year of separation, since her husband's threats and beatings constituted an "unreasonable hardship," the requirement for waiving the delay.

"We worried that he might think he had the right to kill her because she is still his wife," Ms. Becker-Rojczyk said.

A lawyer for the husband, Gisela Hammes, did not reply to e-mail messages or a telephone message left at her office in Mainz.

In January, the judge turned down the wife's request for a speedy divorce, saying that the husband's behavior was not an unreasonable hardship because they were both Moroccan. "In this cultural background," she wrote, "it is not unusual that the husband uses physical punishment against the wife."

Ms. Becker-Rojczyk filed a request to remove the judge from the case, contending that she had not been neutral.

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.

Judge Datz-Winter declined to comment for this article. But a spokesman for the court, Bernhard Olp, said the judge 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 narrowly avoided being killed 10 years ago in a case involving a man and woman whose relationship had come apart. The man emptied a gun in her courtroom — killing his former partner and wounding her lawyer. The judge survived by diving under her desk.

German newspapers have speculated that the ordeal may have affected her judgment in this case, a suggestion that the court spokesman denied.

A new judge will be assigned to the case, but Ms. Becker-Rojczyk said her client would probably nonetheless have to wait until May for her divorce, since the paperwork for a fast-track divorce would take several months in any event.

For some, the greatest damage done by this episode is to other Muslim women suffering from domestic abuse. Many are already afraid of going to court against their spouses. There have been a string of so-called honor killings here, in which Turkish Muslim men have murdered women.

"For Muslim men, this is like putting oil on water, that a German judge thinks it is O.K. for them to hit their wives," said Michaela Sulaika Kaiser, the head of a group that counsels Muslim women.

Comments 1 - 43 of 43 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #27030 by MihaiC on March 22, 2007 at 11:47 pm

In January, the judge turned down the wife's request for a speedy divorce, saying that the husband's behavior was not an unreasonable hardship because they were both Moroccan. "In this cultural background," she wrote, "it is not unusual that the husband uses physical punishment against the wife."


The hell with cultural background.

And she suggested that the wife's Western lifestyle would give her husband grounds to claim that his honor had been compromised.


The prick compromised his honor on the first act of violence against his wife.

Other Comments by MihaiC

2. Comment #27037 by MartinSGill on March 23, 2007 at 1:54 am

 avatar

"When the Koran is put above the German constitution, I can only say, 'Good night, Germany,' " Ronald Pofalla, general secretary of the main conservative party in the country, the Christian Democratic Union, said to the mass-market paper Bild.


yes, the Christian Democratic Union. So... if the judge had referred to the Bible, instead of the Koran to negate national law, would our friend here still be up in arms?

Other Comments by MartinSGill

3. Comment #27039 by Fouad Boussetta on March 23, 2007 at 2:11 am

 avatarWell, I hope this will at least cause some moslem
women to wake up to the stupidity of their religion.
How many of them really know what's inside the Koran?

Other Comments by Fouad Boussetta

4. Comment #27046 by Octavion on March 23, 2007 at 3:13 am

I have to agree with Fouad Boussetta isn't that what you sign up for when you join one of those "cults".

Other Comments by Octavion

5. Comment #27054 by denoir on March 23, 2007 at 3:47 am

 avatar

yes, the Christian Democratic Union. So... if the judge had referred to the Bible, instead of the Koran to negate national law, would our friend here still be up in arms?


Probably. The CDU is not really christian in the same sense as the republican party is in the US. The 'christian' thing is more of a cultural conservative thing than religious.

Other Comments by denoir

6. Comment #27066 by BaronOchs on March 23, 2007 at 4:16 am

 avatarI read this article in a state of sheer disbelief. If there's any consolation at least it exposes the deeply misogynistic nature of Islam.

Isn't that what you sign upto when you join one of those cults?


Don't forget Octavion most muslim women will have been indoctrinated in it from birth and told if they leave they will go to hell and will not be able to return either.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

7. Comment #27068 by Zappi on March 23, 2007 at 4:23 am

The ruling by Judge Datz-Winter is unusual because she cites the Koran. I assume that her intention was to raise awareness to what amounts to be an impossible task: embracing "multiculturalism" and preserving human rights at the same time.

Other Comments by Zappi

8. Comment #27073 by MiloC on March 23, 2007 at 5:06 am

Here in the Montana town where I live, the school board has ruled that Native Americans will be allowed to bring their 'cerimonial tobacco' to school. They decided this because the Native American community wants to be allowed to practice the cultural and religious hertiage and the school board has agreed. There are no Native Americans on the board. I think this whole "respect for religion" thing is getting out of hand. Makes me wonder what's next!

Other Comments by MiloC

9. Comment #27076 by fonex_86 on March 23, 2007 at 5:14 am

BaronOchs,

I would also like to add that even Muhammad once remarked hell was mainly populated by women, so I imagine that those firmly indoctrinated are probably so scared out of their minds they desperately obey every sick and perverse law their epileptic prophet regurgitates.

Hmm, if you're a virgin, you (maybe) end up serving someone who died in jihad, alongside 71 others. If you're a promiscuous woman, you end up in hell. What happens to those perfectly obedient, *happily married* women?

Other Comments by fonex_86

10. Comment #27087 by faouloki on March 23, 2007 at 5:37 am

 avatar"...most mainstream Muslims have long rejected wife-beating as a relic of the medieval age."

And the rest of the Koran isn't i suppose?

Other Comments by faouloki

12. Comment #27103 by Luthien on March 23, 2007 at 6:41 am

 avatarSick! That poor woman!

Makes me wonder if muslims who insist on the veil / Burka are using it to cover up the bruises?

Other Comments by Luthien

13. Comment #27108 by Deimos on March 23, 2007 at 6:57 am

The Judge was biased to a favourable outcome to the Muslim man. She thought the Muslim man might want to kill her too.

Good the Judge is fired. She should not act in law again.

If the wife of the Muslim man was being like a German, then surely German Laws apply to her.

Does this mean that Nazis are excempt from German Law, afterall their law stems from Mein Kampf?

Of Course not.

If the Qur'an is made into law, then there will be child marriages between old men and 6 year girls i.e. pre-Grund Schule maidchen. They will have sex when she is 9 years old. This is what Muhammad did, the Muslims say Muhammad is their role model. This is the law adopted in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Other Comments by Deimos

14. Comment #27109 by anotherclinton on March 23, 2007 at 7:03 am

 avatarNew, from the people who brought you the Nuremburg Laws, it's Conditional Legalization of Spousal Abuse!

"If you liked the Holocaust, you'll love Christa Datz-Winter's newest verdict!"
--Simon Wiesenthal

Other Comments by anotherclinton

15. Comment #27113 by Skeptic Jim on March 23, 2007 at 7:14 am

>yes, the Christian Democratic Union. So... if the judge had referred to the Bible, instead of the Koran to negate national law, would our friend here still be up in arms?

I reckon he'd be running around in circles with his hands over his ears screaming 'OUT OF CONTEXT OUT OF CONTEXT'.

Other Comments by Skeptic Jim

16. Comment #27130 by cerad on March 23, 2007 at 8:41 am

 avatarSeems a bit hypocritical to me that the wife is seeking the protection of German Law while at the same time remaining a Muslim. Muslims (like Christians) tend to believe that God's Laws transcend Man's Laws.

She should either take up her plight inside the Muslim community or else give up being a Muslim.

Other Comments by cerad

17. Comment #27132 by pastafarian82 on March 23, 2007 at 8:43 am

Comment #27108 by Deimos on March 23, 2007 at 6:57 am

"If the Qur'an is made into law, then there will be child marriages between old men and 6 year girls i.e. pre-Grund Schule maidchen. They will have sex when she is 9 years old. This is what Muhammad did, the Muslims say Muhammad is their role model. This is the law adopted in the Islamic Republic of Iran."

Good FSM is this actually practiced? I know religion has made people do some odd things over the years, but that's the most horrible thing I've heard since....well ever. I've got to research this, even religion can't be this sadistic. Do you have a cite for me to read up on it? If this is true I'll be open to reconsidering my stance against toppeling the regime in Iran.

Other Comments by pastafarian82

18. Comment #27144 by nickthelight on March 23, 2007 at 9:24 am

 avatarSeems to me that many women would rather suffer years of beatings than simply denounce their religion, and live a rational existence.

Many Catholics were burnt at the stake in England during the middle ages; all they had to do was disown their catholicism. Instead they preferred to burn to death. Such is the powerof delusion.

Other Comments by nickthelight

19. Comment #27155 by BaronOchs on March 23, 2007 at 9:56 am

 avatarnickthelight The middle ages are generally regarded as beginning in about the C5th and ending in the C16th. You might say beginning with the ascendancy of the catholic worldview and ending with the great questioning of it at the reformation.

Hence Catholics were persecuted in England after the middle ages not during it.

Also it's difficult to make judgements on the beliefs of people in previous ages, when science was still very much in its infancy for instance. Even David Hume called himself a deist rather than an atheist, at least initially.

In the C16th and C17th the old world, populated by spirits and demons and gods was on the wane, but it was still credible so personally I'm not going to castigate recusant catholics for not doing the sensible thing and adopting an anything goes vicar-of-brayism.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

20. Comment #27158 by Deimos on March 23, 2007 at 10:04 am

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/058.sbt.html#005.058.234

This is the link to the written record of Muhammads youngest and virgin wife.

Hadeeth, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234

For information on Iran's attrocities against the female human, just google it.

Try Uniter Nations and Amnesty International.

The ruling elite in the Islamic Republic of Iran are really sex obsessed.

Hopefully, when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in New York, someone will assasinate him. The toppling of the regime won't require excessive military action against the Iranian nation.

Other Comments by Deimos

21. Comment #27160 by Luthien on March 23, 2007 at 10:04 am

 avatar16. Comment #27130 by cerad on March 23, 2007 at 8:41 am
Seems a bit hypocritical to me that the wife is seeking the protection of German Law while at the same time remaining a Muslim. Muslims (like Christians) tend to believe that God's Laws transcend Man's Laws.

She should either take up her plight inside the Muslim community or else give up being a Muslim.


Oh, and by that logic people with stockholm syndrome deserve to be kidnapped?

How dare you take the attitude that this vulnerable woman should either become an atheist or just bugger off back to her abuser(s)? Have a bit of compassion!

We must remember that it's hard to let go all at once, and it seems that this woman is well on her way to escaping the mental prison of Islam (but of course that is besides the point, as she deserves our protection no matter what delusional beliefs she may or may not hold).

Other Comments by Luthien

22. Comment #27164 by karlJ on March 23, 2007 at 10:25 am

 avatarIt can be illuminating for the subject to be evaluated by the arbitrary rules of religion.
However, I think that it is a disgrace, a total failure for the judicial system.

The judge should be fired promptly!

Other Comments by karlJ

23. Comment #27172 by fotomatt on March 23, 2007 at 10:49 am

 avatarre: Comment 11, "They fired the judge."

The judge has not been fired... yet. But she has been removed from the case.

From Spiegel Online:
On Wednesday, numerous politicians in Berlin voiced their horror at the verdict -- and demanded disciplinary action against the judge. "In my opinion, this is a case of extreme violation of the rule of law that can't be solved with a mere conflict of interest ruling," Social Democrat parliamentarian Dieter Wiefelspütz told SPIEGEL ONLINE. "There have to be further consequences. This is a case for judicial supervision -- this case needs to be further investigated."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,druck-473017,00.html

Other Comments by fotomatt

24. Comment #27188 by The author on March 23, 2007 at 1:00 pm

 avatarAh yes, you're right. And I don't think that they will fire her, was a bit surprising anyway.

Other Comments by The author

25. Comment #27194 by alexander77 on March 23, 2007 at 1:35 pm

I feel ashamed of my country's justice system from time to time, especially now.
I hope that woman will get her divorce as soon as possibly. I am optimistic that for this will be the case due to the public pressure. However, I pity all the women (regardless of their faith) who do not have the courage to stand up against domestic violence and still suffer to "protect" their children.

The new political correctness is speaking now of citizens with migration background (=parents moved to Germany and they grew up in D, but still have their parents' nationality).
To my feeling (and confirmation by some statistics) young male youths with "migration background" from islamic counties increased the number of violence crimes and also the severity of these.
In contrast, this tendency is not visible for migrants from e.g. Africa or far east Asia.

To my opinion politicians and authorities failed to set clear standards for the integration of those people, based on a wrong understanding of cultural and religious tolerance.

Other Comments by alexander77

26. Comment #27195 by alexander77 on March 23, 2007 at 1:39 pm

Maybe judge Christa Datz-Winter should be married to the husband for a while as she is so understanding...

I guess that would change her mind quite quickly.

Alexander Henke

Other Comments by alexander77

27. Comment #27198 by Bremas on March 23, 2007 at 1:46 pm

All in one article:

Right wing bible (Koran) thumping extremism. (husband)
&
Left wing multicultural extremism. (judge)

Other Comments by Bremas

28. Comment #27203 by Monsterbeach on March 23, 2007 at 2:11 pm



Other Comments by Monsterbeach

29. Comment #27210 by Monsterbeach on March 23, 2007 at 2:44 pm



Other Comments by Monsterbeach

30. Comment #27233 by MelM on March 23, 2007 at 3:50 pm

Hopefully, this outrage will put an end to the idea of two sets of laws.
"Reaction to the decision has been almost as sulfurous as it was to the cancellation of the opera."
Good! Anger is called for. Defiance is needed.

Maybe Wafa Sultan will clear people's heads. I understand she's now writing a book entitled "The Escaped Prisoner: When God Is a Monster."

Other Comments by MelM

31. Comment #27235 by ghostbuster on March 23, 2007 at 3:52 pm

This comes after my last post on veils in school in Britain ie Secular laws being overshadowed by religious law. Canada was smart enough to turn it down. Many religious laws are against human rights and human rights are NOT relative values. Soon, Hindus will want theirs, Old Testament laws, now being pushed by Dominionism in the US, will raise their ugly heads--on and on it will go. If a person cannot go to a country and accept its laws, then DON'T GO THERE.You certainly won't find me moving to Iran anytime soon and please take a gander at those countries that practice theocracy--they are not friendly democracies and why should they be---religion has never been freedom-friendly, and is, in fact, extremely hierarchal. They can't stand each other, even when they do believe in the same god. So why are we running so scared of offending them? Religion more often than not CREATES offensiveness but all demand respect. I will not respect any system that believes in injustices, inequalities, ignorance and abuse. And, nor should secular governments.

Other Comments by ghostbuster

32. Comment #27245 by MelM on March 23, 2007 at 4:13 pm

Comtemptible, irrational, religious superstitions should not be indulged and should not be woven into regulations and laws. The more superstition is indulged, the worse it will get. If some people feel hurt, it's their own fault and not ours. "Sensitivity" to the irrational is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Other Comments by MelM

33. Comment #27254 by jonecc on March 23, 2007 at 4:29 pm

Muslim opinion on the age of Aisha at marriage varies from 6, with the marriage being consummated at 9, to 23.

There is an informative summary of the subject here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha%27s_age_at_marriage

Other Comments by jonecc

34. Comment #27257 by the great teapot on March 23, 2007 at 4:35 pm

This should be published in the liverpool echo-
tieving by scousers legal in Germany-
It might be against German Law but nicking stuff in liverpool is the cultural norm -so let it be.
(sorry to pick on Liverpool, but Evertonians are the scum of the earth- even rational people can be bigots)

Other Comments by the great teapot

35. Comment #27268 by jonecc on March 23, 2007 at 4:50 pm

ghostbuster

Does it say that the husband asked to be considered under sharia law? My reading of the article is that the ruling was a bizarre aberration from the judge, instantly rejected by all sides, which has been reversed.

Contrary to your statement, British law is not trumped by religious law. The discussion about veils only arose because the state has just given schools the right to ban them if they wanted to. Meanwhile, Catholic adoption agencies have been told that they don't have the right to ignore the new law making it a crime to discriminate against gay people, despite their religious sensibilities.

Abu Hamza, the militant jihadist, is currently serving a 7 year sentence for soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred. Demonstrators waving placards demanding the murder of the Danish cartoonist were arrested, and at least one sent to jail (does anyone have a reference for this?).

None of this suggests a climate of pandering to religious minorities (in Britain, all religions are a minority). You ask, "So why are we running so scared of offending them?" It doesn't seem to me that "we" are.

Other Comments by jonecc

36. Comment #27271 by Bremas on March 23, 2007 at 5:04 pm

Unfortunately, it seems this story is making its rounds in the christian right news circles here in the states. It seems to be reinforcing their view that Europe is too far gone down the road of socialism and multiculturalism.

I know quite a few very intelligent and educated agnostics, that don't really believe that the president of the US talks to god (or don't care), but are terrified of European socialism. They are part of that group that predicts that it is only a matter of time before Europe is living under Sharia law.

Other Comments by Bremas

37. Comment #27272 by mmurray on March 23, 2007 at 5:05 pm

 avatarIt is a novel idea that the right to protection of the law is only for atheists. But more seriously those who think the wife should become atheist or just put up with the beatings might like to read `Infidel' by Ayaan Hirsi Ali to get an insight into just how difficult becoming an atheist is likely to be for her.

Ali also has some pertinent thoughts on the clash between human rights and our desire to respect other cultures. For more about this see

http://www.signandsight.com/features/1167.html

which someone posted a few days back.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

38. Comment #27297 by ghostbuster on March 23, 2007 at 7:24 pm

That it got a ruling in the first place is cause to pause. And, I am speaking of Canada, not Britain, where secular law IS being threatened. The Knights of Columbus (Catholic) refused to host gay marriage receptions on religious grounds. Judges refusing to perform civil ceremonies re gays (they've been excused, but I say if you can't do the job....), pharmacies not wanting to sell certain medications on religious basis, Sharia law was shut down--barely--but we have a very religious right wing political leader of the same ilk as Bush who would probably hold a majority government if put to the vote today and to get votes, he does pander. THAT does concern me. While Britain and much of Europe does not seem to pander to religion and in fact tend to have a non-religious majority, I come from a country that is very much inclined to do so(Quebec alone is a heavily Catholic province while Alberta holds the West in evangelical leanings--the province that our Prime Minister comes from.) So excuse me if I get alittle up tight about religious law in a secular country. My country is most certainly timid about upsetting religious elements, more particularly Christian elements, but certainly Muslim as well. We are being Americanized in every concievable way, including the importation of fanatical religious organizations under the banner of multi-culturalism. Morality is NOT relative, either to cultures or religions. The very fact that we have to waste precious time discussing the same crap that was discussed in the 4th Century while the world is winding down into an ecological abyss makes religion an even bigger crime against humanity than it already has been.
In Canada and the US more people are concerned about the use of "Happy Holidays" over "Merry Christmas" than they are about the damned environment.

Other Comments by ghostbuster

39. Comment #27634 by Russell Blackford on March 25, 2007 at 9:05 pm

Oil on water? Surely she meant petrol (or gasolne) on the fire? Quite the opposite!

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

40. Comment #27676 by Nessie on March 26, 2007 at 5:03 am

Anyone else notice the surprising omission? I wrote this letter to the NY Times:

"You reported on a German judge whose ruling cited the Koran's sanction of wife beating (March 22: "Germany Cites Koran in Rejecting Divorce"). The article failed to mention the religion of the judge. Did the reporter assume that a German judge couldn't possibly be Muslim, or was the reporter afraid of treading on cultural sensibilities? If the first case, it would show condescension to Muslims. If the second case, it would show kowtowing at the expense of relevant factual information. So, was the reporter condescending, or kowtowing?"

I very much doubt an agnostic judge would have made the same blunder.

Other Comments by Nessie

41. Comment #27703 by HunterZolomon on March 26, 2007 at 8:08 am

 avatarI wouldn't call it a surprising omission Nessie. It is done, more or less, as a rule of thumb. "Religion can't possibly have anything to do with it, so why bother."

Other Comments by HunterZolomon

42. Comment #27930 by Thrall on March 27, 2007 at 9:47 am

Female Genital Mutilation is ok, because it's religously based. Treating Blacks as lesser people is ok, because they wear the mark of Cain. Israel can have nukes, because the bible says so. Anyone who attacks israel will get destroyed by any christian country, because the bible says to. Women should be slaves because it's what the culture says.

Ugh, these stories always make me sick.

Other Comments by Thrall

43. Comment #28125 by Nessie on March 28, 2007 at 5:09 am

Hunter,

Religion is more often dragged into stories unnecessarily. This is an interesting case in which religion is patently relevant and yet overlooked. I'm curious about why.

If I had to guess, I'd say it's because the reporter assumed that the judge was Christian and (wrongly) assumed this fact to be irrelevant. The more sinister but less likely possibility is that the judge is Muslim, in which case the offending judgment is easily traceable to religious teachings.

In any case, it's amusing that the Muslim objection is "The Koran says it's fine to beat our wife, but like Mohammed, we're too nice to exercise that God-given option." How generous.

Other Comments by Nessie
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: