2007 March 21 Wednesday
German Judge Cites Koran To Justify Wife Beating

Can Muslim husbands castigate their wives by beating them?

The case seems simply too strange to be true. A 26-year-old mother of two wanted to free herself from what had become a miserable and abusive marriage. The police had even been called to their apartment to separate the two -- both of Moroccan origin -- after her husband got violent in May 2006. The husband was forced to move out, but the terror continued: Even after they separated, the spurned husband threatened to kill his wife.

A quick divorce seemed to be the only solution -- the 26-year-old was unwilling to wait the year between separation and divorce mandated by German law. She hoped that as soon as they were no longer married, her husband would leave her alone. Her lawyer, Barbara Becker-Rojczyk agreed and she filed for immediate divorce with a Frankfurt court last October. They both felt that the domestic violence and death threats easily fulfilled the "hardship" criteria necessary for such an accelerated split.

In January, though, a letter arrived from the judge adjudicating the case. The judge rejected the application for a speedy divorce by referring to a passage in the Koran that some have controversially interpreted to mean that a husband can beat his wife. It's a supposed right which is the subject of intense debate among Muslim scholars and clerics alike."The exercise of the right to castigate does not fulfill the hardship criteria as defined by Paragraph 1565 (of German federal law)," the daily Frankfurter Rundschau quoted the judge's letter as saying. It must be taken into account, the judge argued, that both man and wife have Moroccan backgrounds.

Some Westerners are definitely enemies of the West. Take this judge for example.

Thanks to Dragon Horse for bringing this story to my attention.

Islam is already causing enough oppression of people in Germany without help from judges. A group of out-of-the-closet former Muslims is getting death threats from current Muslims

A group of former Muslims in Germany who formed a non-religious society have been sent threatening letters, pronouncing them "fit for death."

Mina Ahadi, an Iranian-born woman, founded the society in Cologne with 10 sympathizers several weeks ago and called it the National Council of Ex-Muslims. At the end of February she called a news conference in Berlin to publicly pronounce herself non-Islamic.

The police have assigned plainclothes bodyguards to protect her ever since.

"I'm a target," said Ahadi, 50. She said members of her society had received letters telling them they would be shot in the back. When she went online with a fierce attack on Islamic organizations, somebody circulated a statement suggesting she was fit to be killed, she said.

Islam does not recognize a right to leave the religion. In many Muslim countries leaving Islam is against the law.

A state in Germany has responded to concerns about divided Muslim loyalties by toughening a loyalty exam.

Believed to be the first test of its kind in Europe, the southern state of Baden-Württemberg has created the two-hour oral exam to test the loyalty of Muslims towards Germany.

...

But now they will be quizzed on their attitudes to homosexuality and western clothing for young women, and whether husbands should be allowed to beat their wives.

Other questions covering topics such as bigamy and whether parents should allow their children to participate in school sports have been called "trick questions", meant to catch people off guard.

The state interior ministry said the test would be used to filter out Muslims who were unsuited for life in Germany. Those who answered "correctly" but later acted against expected behaviour, such as wife-beating, could have their citizenship removed.

Want a more effective alternative for Germany and Europe? Separationism. Keep out a religion that is incompatible with Western societies. Pay Muslims to leave Europe.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2007 March 21 09:16 PM  Immigration Culture Clash


Comments
Wolf-Dog said at March 21, 2007 10:43 PM:

I wonder to what generation the judge who quoted the Koran belongs. If he is old enough to have lived the indoctrination of the pre-World War II generation, then this might explain. Heinrich Himmler often stated that instead of the weak and submissive Christianity, the more masculine and strong Islam was more appropriate for the German race( read " The Kersten Memoirs: 1940-1945" by Felix Kersten ). In this book, it is reported that Himmler specifically wished that Germany were a Muslim country, and he said that "It is too bad that Charles Martel stopped the Muslim invasion of Europe at the decisive battle of Poitiers many centuries ago", and he added that " Had the Muslims successfully invaded Germany and converted its Aryan population to Islam, then, Germany would have been infinitely stronger."... And Himmler added that "Since the German race were superior to Arabs, ultimately the Germans would have overthrown the Islamic invaders and formed their independent country, but that they would have retained Islam as a religion, and hence with the strength of Islam Germany would have won all wars..." (all of these statements are in Felix Kersten's book I mentioned.) I am not surprised that some Germans might favor the male dominated old fashioned Germanic families.

Wolf-Dog said at March 21, 2007 10:50 PM:

"Believed to be the first test of its kind in Europe, the southern state of Baden-Württemberg has created the two-hour oral exam to test the loyalty of Muslims towards Germany."
-------------------------------------------------------------

But how can they apply this law to German-born Muslims? To which country can a German-born Muslim get deported? Also this law sounds rather very discriminatory, if only Muslims are required to take the oral exam. This sounds like a first step before they force people to take drugged interrogations and fMRI polygraph tests. This sort of thing is not surprising in Germany.

Anonymous said at March 21, 2007 10:55 PM:

The basic question is why are Muslims or any Third World immigrants here in the West ?

The answer to this is that after WWII, most liberal elites in the West came to believe that the Nazis were the worst people of all time. The Nazis were white. Therefore, all whites everywhere might become Neo-Nazis and thus all whites should be destroyed. That's the liberal paradigm in a nutshell. Everything they do is informed by this belief.

Given this, mass immigration of non-white peoples into the West is the preferred policy of liberals. It makes the West more non-white and therefore safer and better. No matter that terrorists are brought in. No matter that killers and rapists are brought in. No matter that the whites being displaced helped to fight the Nazis. None of it matters. They have their eye on the ball, and they follow it relentlessly.

Possibly liberalism will die off due to some generational change, but probably not, because it's a culturally transmitted mental illness to which many Westerners are congenitally susceptible. It will likely take some fantastic shock of gigantic destructiveness to shake off liberalism. The 911 attacks didn't do it. It will take a couple orders of magnitude more than that, I now believe.

John S Bolton said at March 22, 2007 1:40 AM:

There isn't any explanation of this kind of treason and unprincipled opportunism than power-greed.
Recall that the left is here making common cause with moslem theocracy, than which there is no more thorough repudiation of every principle they ever pretended to be advocates of.
Power is what they stand to gain, when conflicts magnify through juxtaposition of incompatibles in sufficient degree,
completely unprincipled shyster-filth like the above-mentioned jurist,
get their chance to establish dictatorship on those who previously did not want it.
This is not about money; the seeking of judgeships is not a way to get rich, for those who are qualified, relative to other opportunities.
Leftist malice, having miserably failed to ignite the class war, now bends all the way down to lick the boots of the moslem terror offensive. They will try anything by now, that seems to have a chance of being gotten away with.

Ned said at March 22, 2007 6:10 AM:

The idiot judge got booted off the case, so there is still some hope.

Germany has long had fairly good relationships with several Muslim states. Back in the 1930's, Hitler was tight with the Palestinians and the Iranians. Apparently the Muslims admired Nazi society as well as the anti-Semitism and Hitler's anti-British foreign policy. During World War II, the SS recruited Muslims from the Balkans to fight against the "atheistic communists." In the 1950's with the German economy booming and labor in short supply, Turks were recruited to come to Germany as guest workers. Most of them stayed, and today there is a parallel Turkish-Muslim society in Germany. Many of these families have been in Germany for three generations. They speak flawless German, but they have mostly not been allowed to become citizens and have never really assimilated. If you want to know what it looks like, go to Berlin and take the U-Bahn to Schlesisches Tor. Just walk around - it feels more like Baghdad than Berlin.

On a brighter note, it is refreshing that these stories have appeared in Der Spiegel, a notoriously left-wing German publication. Maybe they are finally waking up....

Hal K said at March 22, 2007 8:47 AM:

Anonymous:

What you wrote sounds paranoid, but the unfortunate fact of the matter is that this is the thought process of many liberals. Actually take Nazism and add to that a concern over other past transgressions such as slavery, colonialism, and displacement of indigenous populations. This mental illness, as you aptly called it, goes beyond multiculturalism and has various suicidal aspects to it, including low birthrates and an embrace of the "right to die." Generally, though, when someone gives you a logical reason for their view (i.e. protecting the world from a return to Nazism) it is actually just a cover for a more deep-seated reason that they may not completely acknowledge or understand.

I wonder if there are precedents for this sort of self-erasing group phenomenon in biology or sociology. Since most sociologists in our society are probably victims of the disease themselves I doubt they would be able to study it objectively.

Anon said at March 22, 2007 12:58 PM:

Ned,
They were called the Skanderberg Brigade and I am pretty sure they were SS. In any event, many were Kosovo muslims. In the Balkans they were involved in fighting the Chetniks and Communists. They and just about everyone else (Chetniks, Ustashe, SS and the muslims were involved in massacres, murders, etc... standard fare for that part of the world). As a side note Kurt Waldheim was as young officer down there in WW2 and though he denied it, was involved with some nasty stuff, (but not with the Skanderbergs) Germany has had ties to the muslims world for some time. They had agents helping the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in WW2 and in what became Iraq and Iran. In WW1, the Germans were allies of Turkey and aided the Turks in fighting the English in the ME, again, in what became Iraq (when it was a Turkish province.

In echoing what anonymous and Hal K have said about the liberals/left and mental illness, I'll just say that they are correct. The liberal mindset is one of total fantasy and the left wants to make common cause with muslims to destroy the current social order. The left and liberals will continue to think as they do right until they hear "Up Against the Wall Motherfucker!"

Purenoiz said at March 22, 2007 1:27 PM:

people who associate with murderous genocidal a**holes really have no right to call anybody mentally ill. It's one thing to defend yourself and another to go out on a killing spree, but thats what make neo-cons and muslims brothers in arms.

Ned said at March 23, 2007 6:11 AM:

Anon -

Don't mean to be picky, but it was Skanderbeg, not Skanderberg. Skanderbeg was an Albanian hero who fought against the Turks. The unit was the 21st SS Mountain Division, a rather glorious title for a group that never came close to reaching divisional strength. Heinrich Himmler admired Islam and had no problem allowing Muslims to join the SS. Everything else you say is quite true.

Wolf-Dog said at March 23, 2007 7:09 AM:

Adolf Hitler also favored Islam over Christianity, because he believed that the strong and aggressive Islam was better for the German race. But Himmler was also in favor of polygamy, and he was much more adamant about adopting Islamic methods in Germany.

Hal K said at March 23, 2007 7:56 AM:

Purenoiz: You have made an unwarranted assumption.

Anon said at March 23, 2007 8:31 AM:

Ned,
You are not being picky at all and thanks for the correction. If I am going to claim some sort of knowledge of Balkan history, I might as well get the spelling right.

Francis said at March 23, 2007 12:04 PM:

It is obvious that these people are not compatible with any kind of free, Western society. The sooner they are removed or leave the better. The longer we take, the worse it will be and the greater the violence. Next the courts in Germany will be saying that assaulting homosexuals or non-muslims is OK too because the Koran says so. Once tolerant nations give an inch to these savages, they will take a mile. The Koran isn't just a rule book for muslims it is the word of Allah and there is no substitute and nothing else is necessary for them. The cancer that is islam is already in America and spreading and poisoning our nation as we speak. I'll give 3 examples: The sex-segregated health club in Michigan, the muslim cabbies who won't drive dogs or people with alcohol around in Minneapolis and the muslim Target employees who won't handle pork. This is just the beginning. Muslim polygamists from Mali were already living in NYC when a space heater burned their apartment a few weeks ago. Nobody in the media has mentioned this fact as far as I can tell because that would be judgemental of a different culture (no matter how fucked up and twisted that "culture" jhappens to be. The fact that islam considers dogs unclean is to me perhaps the most screwed up thing about these wack-job cultists for Allah) and we simply cannot have that. It will only be a matter of time until some lefty-liberal judge gives sharia law sway in our land. That islamic "congressman" from Minneapolis used a Koran to swear into our legislative body. That man is not an American and neither are the fools who voted for him and I don't want to hear that since the Koran was owned by Jefferson it makes it OK. He is turning in his grave as our the rest of the Founders. The wife beating and honor killings are coming and so are the death threats and violence to anyone who dares to criticize it. The liberals will remain silent as will the left, after all, this is what they wanted, right? They will also remain silent because they are cowards and muslims mean business; they back up their threats with real violence like throat slitting. There is no way leftists academics, feminists and media types, who are excuse me, are pussies and all talk, will take any chances with their own precious lives. I can recall that more than a few newspapers in our supposedly fearless press didn't publish any Mohammad cartoons. Theo Van Gogh is dead and Hirsan Ali needs 24 hour a day guards (people are willing to die if they can kill her). Anything like that would wreck the social lives of the editors of the NY Times and make getting tenure real tough.

purenoiz said at March 23, 2007 12:45 PM:

1) It's not an unwarranted assumption. "up against the wall motherfucker"? The threat is implied. There are people who want us to be a pure society, whatever that means to them. And in their conquest they would attack and kill anybody who disagrees with them. This is whats wrong with neo-cons and whats wrong with moslem extremists. Pitt bulls attacking anything and everything around them is what the two groups have become.

2) I agree with the notion that fundamentalist moslems and America do not mix. However ordinary people who just want to live their lives as free persons with out interfering with the day to day, as long as they are allowed to intergrate, something france has had a long hard history of not doing. Who wouldn't want to live in a countr with all the freedoms and luxuries america has to offer. Immigrants do offer up something to america, they make it richer, unless they are feeble minded pricks who are afraid to change and go with the new flow. Living under some of the despots in the middle east and somalia is a lot harder than any WASP could fathom.

3) This isn't a warrior society like sparta or japan of old. We are not vikings etc. If somebody chooses to work for the common good without a rifle, so what, as long as the people they are helping are willing to contribute, if they are not, and want to leach then let them go home, freedom = responsibility.

Francis said at March 23, 2007 1:13 PM:

Purenoiz,
I don't know what part of not driving around Americans who have alcoholic beverages and dogs, segregating sexes in health clubs, ploygamy or not handling pork is going with the "new flow." These muslims are not made to assimilate by us (and that is our fault for playing nice and being hamstrung by PC leftism and yes, neo-con wishful thinking) or even trying to themselves. They are recreating their old, fucked-up islamic societies in their (really our) new homes. These people just don't want to let us live our lives either. We must change and bow to their sensibilities and beliefs whenever they demand it, whether it is a separate prayer room for muslims or days off for Eid or whatever to prove we are tolerant and love immigrants and other cultures and to not give offense to people who seem offended by everything that is not islam. If muslims would "live and let live", then many of these issues would not exist, but "live and let live" is not part of islam, but they'll take whatever luxuries they can get. The ME may be despotic, but so is most of Asia and Africa. I don't recall any Burmese Buddhists or sub-shahran animists flying planes into buildings. They have it bad too, many have it worse then the ME, but I don't see them exporting an religion with terror and violence. I am also not sure how islamic immigrants makes America richer, neither do I see how Latin American peasants help us either. We did fine before halal meat markets.. In fact, these people are a drain on our social, educational, legal and other systems. They consume more tax dollars and servics than they produce. I have said it before and I'll repeat myself: Islam is a continuum. All muslims want sharia, it is just how to get there; via war and terror or infiltration through PC. (The Koran has instructions of how to do this). Even if most of these muslims are wonderful people who don't want to burn synagogues and beat their wives and more, why should we take the chance that some are bent on terror, murder and sharia-inspired mayhem? Do I need to remind you again of the shooter in Utah, the shooter in Seattle, in LAX, the cabbie in Nashville or the SUV driver in NC? And why is it that the so-called moderate muslims speak out rarely if ever about this kind of shit? Are they afraid? Do they secretly agree? I don't know and I really don't care. Islam divides the world into 2 spheres, the House of War and the House of Peace. Muslims have a holy duty to turn all the world into the House of Peace, using any means necesary. This House of peace isn't some free-love, ditchweed smoking, hippy love fest, drum circle either. It is a world where the women wera burkhas when they go out (if they go out at all), Jews and other infidels are jailed, beaten, tortured and killed (until infidels are only in the history books but those books will be burned too, as all we need the the Koran), free thought is forbidden and all will bow to Allah 5 times a day, forever. Finally, being a "warrior" society has nothing to do with it except in that maybe we had better become one if we want to crush islam and "live and let live" as you want to.

Irish Savant said at March 23, 2007 3:49 PM:

The leading Muslim organizations in Germany have confirmed the rights of the group members to be both ex-Muslims and to organize. However, this in direct conflict with Islamic teachings which clearly say that apostates must be killed. What will happen here is that these 'moderate' groups (there is no such thing as moderate Islam, if it's moderate it's not Islam) will hide behind such staements, while waiting for the real Muslims to do the job on the apostates.

Bob Badour said at March 24, 2007 4:44 AM:

purenoiz,

It's not an unwarranted assumption. "up against the wall motherfucker"?

Hal can correct me if I am wrong, but I think the unwarranted assumption happened when you assumed people who disagree with you are "people who associate with murderous genocidal a**holes". Your reply did nothing to address the unwarranted assumption and merely tried to evade the issue.

purenoiz said at March 24, 2007 9:50 PM:

Just a reminder
Beating and castigating wives has been the domain of the right wing since time immemorial.
Perfect example is Mike Savage, Rush Limbaugh etc. Women haters pure and simple.

Newt cheats on his wife while pursuing somebody for adultery, and divorces a wife while she is in the hospital dying of cancer.
Give me a break, you don't even have proof that the judge was liberal, since it's typically liberal judges who demand women be treated equal to men
and protected from violence under the law.
It's liberals who created the laws that have seen domestic violence rates drop to the lowest levels in 20 years. This would be in part because of the work of such non profits as the (Domestic Abuse project). in spite of religious doctrines that support spousal abuse, whether Christian or Moslem ,it's the religious right that wants to create a world were women are separate than men in freedoms, it's always the fundamentalists aka the right wing that support such evil.

Ok unwarranted assumption, MR anon, please tell us what you meant by "The left and liberals will continue to think as they do right until they hear "Up Against the Wall Motherfucker!""
My assumption is that we won't change our thoughts until imprisoned or dead. Since it's usually not a friendly greeting to say "up against the wall...".


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©