Germany: Parallel Justice System Among Muslim Minority

[Phantasee]

Author sees domestic Islamic threat to German justice system

In many German cities, Muslim arbiters, or "peace judges," are settling criminal cases before law enforcement can bring the cases to court. That is undermining Germany's rule of law, according to a new book.

German law expert and former public TV investigative journalist Joachim Wagner presented a new book on Monday in which he speaks of a parallel justice system among the Muslim minority that undermines the rule of law in Germany.

The 236-page book, titled "Judges Without Law: Islamic Parallel Justice Endangers Our Rule of Law," looks into the problems the German judiciary faces when investigating crimes committed within Muslim communities or clans in Germany.

Wagner says the "parallel justice system" is maintained by Islamic arbiters-cum-imams who settle crimes out of court without the involvement of German prosecutors or lawyers.

The author examines several recent cases in which crimes within Muslim communities have been settled by Islamic arbitrators at the request of the families involved. Such "peace judges" act behind the scenes in line with compensation stipulations to be found in Shariah law.

Centuries-old tradition

According to Wagner, settlements reached by the Muslim mediators often mean perpetrators are able to escape long prison sentences, while victims receive large sums in compensation or have their debts cancelled. In return they are also required to make sure their testimony in court does not lead to conviction.

"When a serious crime is committed, German police step in to investigate what's happened," he said. "But parallel to that, special Muslim arbitrators, or so called peace judges, are commissioned by the families concerned to mediate and reach an out-of-court settlement. We're talking about a tradition that's more than a thousand years old in Muslim societies."

Wagner called the phenomenon "very common in Muslim neighborhoods in Germany."

Hassan Allouche, a Lebanese peace judge in Berlin, said such parallel justice systems can be found in almost all of Germany's big cities, and that Muslim families are happy to use its services.

"These families have their own set of Shariah-based laws," he said. "And it doesn't even come into their minds to follow the principles of the German legal system."

Poor integration exacerbates problem

Berlin-based sociologist Ralph Ghadban, also Lebanese, said it is partly because the families don't really feel they belong in Germany.

"'The clan is my world,' these people think," he said. "And everything outside the clan doesn't matter or is considered to be hostile territory. So it's easy to understand why they don't take much note of German society and its rules of behavior."

Muslim theologian Hamideh Mohageghi said she opposes accepting Shariah law as valid alongside German law, and that she does not understand why the peace judges still enjoy respect among Muslims in Germany.

"The German legal system is very advanced and well-suited to represent the interests of Muslims too," she said. "Any parallel justice system must be avoided by all means."

Flaws in German system

But for author Joachim Wagner, the damage has already been done.

"I've studied 16 recent crime cases here with Muslim citizens involved," he said. "In almost 90 percent of all cases where Muslim arbitrators were commissioned, the perpetrators were acquitted by German courts or the cases were dropped altogether by the prosecution for lack of evidence. It's an alarming finding, and it throws a bad light on our courts."

Wagner added that the prevalence of Muslim peace judges highlights a number of flaws in the German justice and law enforcement system.

He said that out of political correctness investigators usually only focus on individuals rather than whole families or clans, and that prosecutors do not put enough effort into finding out why some witnesses' testimonies change so rapidly on the way to court. Also, the typically long delay before cases arrive in court allows the judges to settle the case before the German trial has even begun.

Author: Hardy Graupner, Berlin / acb
Editor: Nancy Isenson

It's interesting to read an article about this subject that isn't hysterical and quotes people who know what they're talking about. Also, learning things about how to improve the system to avoid the problem, instead of scare-mongering! Deutschland, you amaze me.

Are Turks the largest group of Muslims in Germany?

[Lord MJ]

Well I believe in Christianity at least, that disputes and transgressions between desciples are supposed to be handled "In the Kingdom" as it were. And the issue should only be escalated out of the kingdom if the offending party refuses to relent, leaving the victimized party no choice to take things out of the kingdom.

Of course this is not widely followed espescially in this day and age where the rewards for successfully winning in court far exceed anything one could get handling the issue in the church. In the civil justice system anyway. "I could just stick to the church to handle this and get an apology and a little bit of money, but if I go to court I can really stick it to him and get MILLIONS."

It would not surprise me in the least is Muslims have a similar doctrine (where Muslims exist in societies where that are not governed by Sharia law).

From skimming the OP the situation being described is much different than the situation that teabaggers are fearful about in the US, with Sharia Law being injected into the nations laws, and our courts of law being transformed into Sharia courts, etc, etc.

[Phantasee]

I forgot the link. Sorry.

What is disturbing about this is that it affects criminal cases, which are between the state and the accused, not between the victim and the accused. We do things that way for a reason.

I am in favour of civil cases being resolved within the community, without going to court. It's proven to be very effective way of dealing with matters here in Canada, particularly among the First Nations. It helps with community cohesion, and the result is generally better accepted than a decision by a judge who isn't really a member of the community, geographically or socially. Of course, if it doesn't work for a particular case, it is good to go to court, but it's better to have options.

Criminal cases should not be handled this way.

[Zaune]

Sixteen cases isn't my idea of statistical significance, and I notice that the article fails to specify the nature of the crimes. In fact, I think the Muslim population of Germany -and the rest of Europe- are setting a good example for their neighbours by not involving the police and the courts in every act of vandalism or petty theft.

[Simon_Jester]

Well I believe in Christianity at least, that disputes and transgressions between desciples are supposed to be handled "In the Kingdom" as it were. And the issue should only be escalated out of the kingdom if the offending party refuses to relent, leaving the victimized party no choice to take things out of the kingdom.

It would not surprise me in the least is Muslims have a similar doctrine (where Muslims exist in societies where that are not governed by Sharia law).

The catch with Islam is that the religion started as a prescription for a religious (Muslim) community that was, theoretically, supposed to live at peace with itself by following a set of laws prescribed by God.

The idea of "separation of Church and state" can at least make sense within the Christian context: render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and all that. In the Islamic context it's much more difficult to do, because Islamic religious thought is mixed up with Islamic legal thought. And both of those kinds of thought evolved in a context where the question "what do you do if you are a Muslim, and the government is not Muslim" doesn't make any sense- the vast majority of Muslims lived in governments that were explicitly Muslim and referred back to Islamic law and tradition to justify their continued rule.

There was no Islamic counterpart to the medieval Christian rivalry between the secular feudal lords of Europe and the Church hierarchy.

[Thanas]

These courts are really a sign of failed integration and I do not think they should be allowed to operate. We have laws for all people for a reason yet certain groups disobey them in favor of this "justice system".

But yeah, big problem for Germany and it will only get bigger in the years to come until these groups finally want to integrate. There are encouraging signs, especially among the youths, but here it seems to be somewhat of a split - many young turks etc. want to integrate (especially the girls, no prizes for guessing why) but part the parents and a sizable portion of the young ones (primarily the young males with macho complexes and/or very small chances) are determined to hold on to their traditional values.

Anyway, integrating Turks has for some reason proved to be the hardest of them all, with Turkish nationalism (thanks for that, Atatürk ), patriarchic role models and just plain stupidity on both sides being all cited as reasons. Then of course there are the ultra-nationalist turkish shadow organizations who have even gone up to shooting people in broad daylight in a few cases, but these are very few occurrences. And then you just got the usual culture clashes, as in muslim girls not being allowed to participate in Physical education in school etc.


TL, DR: Immigrants have to do better and Germany can do a lot to improve integration as well.

[TithonusSyndrome]

A "parallel justice system" of Islamic character is a sudden problem? There's been a far wider, albeit more informal justice system far older than modern Islamist extremism that I would say is easily as much of a problem and if not then probably even more widespread; a blue-collar parallel justice system practiced in rural towns and on skid row. How many acts of prideful vigilantism or illicit duels have been carried out by these same people who smirk and jeer at any mention of intervention from law enforcement? Granted this may be less of a problem in Europe than it is here, I don't know, but I would like to know how a tribunal of traditional Muslims operating outside the law permits the proper exercise of justice any more than a barfight or an act of vandalism facilitated or given sanction by a low-income or low-education community native to western culture.

[Stark]

Won't any community have a tendency to deal with 'crimes' and crimes internally? I mean, families and larger groups often don't act on things like domestic violence, drug use, petty thefts, assaults, etc and the police and justice system are never involved.

It's not like they can 'choose' to use the court of mohammad if they get arrested - as Thanas says its an integration thing, but it's not solely about nation or religion - it's a broad social issue.

If your brother stole something, would you call the cops? Or would you, your family, your community deal with it internally? How do people think decades of domestic abuse happens without the courts being involved?

[Master of Ossus]

I am in favour of civil cases being resolved within the community, without going to court. It's proven to be very effective way of dealing with matters here in Canada, particularly among the First Nations. It helps with community cohesion, and the result is generally better accepted than a decision by a judge who isn't really a member of the community, geographically or socially. Of course, if it doesn't work for a particular case, it is good to go to court, but it's better to have options.

I'm not.

Shariah law is particularly harmful to women and children, as detailed in that article. While it may be less harmful to allow recourse to Shariah law in civil cases than in criminal ones, that does not eliminate these harms. Shariah law is massively sexist and has no place in a developed society.

[Bakustra]

Wow, I had no idea that Shari'a was monolithic among Muslims, such that you can sum it up as universally misogynistic! Thanks for informing me, now I've going to harass every Muslim I know with how backward and primitive they are!!

PS: Perhaps it might be possible to work out some arrangement of some sort that works to the benefit of both groups involved. I know there's a word for it, starts with a "c", I think...

[Thanas]

Don't be an ass. There is no compromise with this, not within German law.

And why should there be?

[Stark]

You can't prosecute what you don't know about. If nobody talks, what can you do, outside long-term stuff like education and cultural shift?

[Bakustra]

Don't be an ass. There is no compromise with this, not within German law.

And why should there be?

I'll refrain from being an ass when people stop thinking their prejudicial, idiotic attitudes (thirteen hundred years of legal rulings for two major branches of a religion, which has had millions of adherents with a wide range of beliefs and attitudes, and yet it's all fundamentally the same?) are things that they should air publicly. I've seen you come down like a ton of bricks on people who say stupid shit about canon law; well, I think that misinformed attitudes about Shari'a ought to be countered as well.

So that you have a way for people who feel that Shari'a is important for their identity as a Muslim, or who want a legal ruling on an Islamic religious matter that is irrelevant to the German legal system, to get what they want, without infringing upon the rights of others. So that you show that you're willing to respect the cultural identity of Muslims in Germany in a number of ways, and thus bring them into German society more readily. So that you can reassure German Muslims that you won't enact anti-Islamic legislation. I can't think of any convincing reasons.

You can't prosecute what you don't know about. If nobody talks, what can you do, outside long-term stuff like education and cultural shift?

Well, one way to do this would be to try and build a rapport with the immigrant communities so that the people therein are willing to trust the authorities and come to them with their problems. Of course, that's not a quick solution, but it's easier than waiting for generations to change over.

[Simon_Jester]

I'll refrain from being an ass when people stop thinking their prejudicial, idiotic attitudes (thirteen hundred years of legal rulings for two major branches of a religion, which has had millions of adherents with a wide range of beliefs and attitudes, and yet it's all fundamentally the same?) are things that they should air publicly. I've seen you come down like a ton of bricks on people who say stupid shit about canon law; well, I think that misinformed attitudes about Shari'a ought to be countered as well.

There are a lot of similarities among the various forms of sharia. It's not all 'fundamentally the same,' they're not identical, but from the point of view of someone whose legal tradition might as well have evolved on a whole different planet, they all have a lot in common and can be talked about monolithically up to a certain point- in the same sense that we can talk about 'democracy' monolithically without worrying too hard about the details of which kind of democracy.

Or were you, Bakustra, planning to provide specific examples about how the various schools of thought among the ulama might actually make a damn bit of difference in the specific case of unofficial sharia arbitrators popping up in Germany? Can you perhaps identify which branches are most popular among European immigrant communities, and enlighten us on this issue? Can you name any of these branches without double-checking your references, or detail the differences between them, explaining how the differences between various branches of sharia will have a significant effect on the thing we're actually talking about?

Or are you just picking a fight for the sake of picking a fight?

[Shroom Man 777]

Isn't sequestering shit within small community councils a good way of perpetuating internal abuses that get hushed hushed and hidden from broader scrutiny?

[Master of Ossus]

Wow, I had no idea that Shari'a was monolithic among Muslims, such that you can sum it up as universally misogynistic! Thanks for informing me, now I've going to harass every Muslim I know with how backward and primitive they are!!

Shariah law is primitive and backward because all forms of Shariah are inherently misogynistic. Moreover, as detailed in the very article that you obviously neglected to read, they all impose broadly similar effects on the people who are "governed" by them, even when applied in otherwise secular countries. Indeed, these effects are present across all religious groups--not just among Muslims.

Studies across multiple faiths reveal that victims of family violence often find
cold comfort in their religious communities, whether from religious leaders or other
members. Religious groups often acquiesce in or, worse, condone family violence
within the community.

Tolerance of family violence is not limited to members of the Islamic
faith. Similar studies of religious leaders from Christian traditions confirm
that they also frequently acquiesce in physical violence between husbands
and wives. A 2000 study of 158 Christian religious leaders found that many
believed "marriage must be saved at all costs"—even when domestic violence occurs—
and that a realistic solution was "forgiving and forgetting the abuse."

But to deal with your specific bullshit about how Shariah law differs in form, each of which must be addressed separately, read the fucking article that I posted. It includes citations to numerous legal and religious scholars who make the precise point that all major branches of Islamic law share certain fundamental properties which are inherently harmful to women and children. For example, M. Hashim Kamali, Islamic Law: Personal Law, in ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION
4705, 4711 (Lindsay Jones ed., 2d ed. 2005). "While the mother maintains custody over young children in the event of divorce, she loses this right if she remarries." Id. at 4711.

Even when different formulations of Islamic law produce different results, these results often share the property that all of them are worse for women than secular law is.

Consider property distribution under
Islamic religious law. Islamic marriage contracts often include a deferred mahr
that is to be paid upon the husband’s death or a divorce. In some instances,
payment of a mahr upon divorce would facilitate exit from the relationship—for
example, if a mahr provided for half of the man’s property upon divorce and he
was wealthy. But some religious authorities preclude payment of the mahr to a
wife if she initiates the divorce. Other authorities go further, requiring a wife to
"waive[] her right to alimony" before they will grant a divorce. Now, if society
defers to religious authorities, divorce on these terms could impoverish the wife
and her child. Threatened with the prospect of certain poverty, some women will
surely be forced to stay in an abusive relationship.

I realize that you have a neverending ability to ignore evidence which other people rub in your face in favor of your preconceived notion that it is "stereotyping" or otherwise unfair to classify birds of a feather as belonging to the same flock, but there is powerful empirical evidence presented in that paper which suggests that religious law is in and of itself dangerous to women's rights and children's rights, that it consistently shelters abusive heads of household, discourages recourse to any secular judicial system, and systematically degrades women's rights.

"By giving deference to religious understandings that are not now held by both
adults, society increases the cost to women who want to exit for their own safety or
the safety of their children."

Not that I expect you to give a shit about women or children when it threatens Shariah law proponents' "right" to impose their system onto others, mind you.

PS: Perhaps it might be possible to work out some arrangement of some sort that works to the benefit of both groups involved. I know there's a word for it, starts with a "c", I think...

By all means, sketch out a compromise with Shariah law which avoids the problems cited by the article. As the article discusses, "Despite their different formulations, [religious apologists] share the idea that society can embrace pluralism without sacrificing protections for women and children.31 This is a dangerous assumption." Explain how your compromise either does not make this assumption or, at minimum, diverges materially from the three models discussed in the article.

[Master of Ossus]

I'll refrain from being an ass when people stop thinking their prejudicial, idiotic attitudes (thirteen hundred years of legal rulings for two major branches of a religion, which has had millions of adherents with a wide range of beliefs and attitudes, and yet it's all fundamentally the same?) are things that they should air publicly.

Cite a single school of Shariah thought which grants women anything approaching equal rights to men under the law. To narrow your search more specifically and to give you more options, let us limit it to equality with respect to divorce and child custody laws. Cite a single school of Shariah law which does not distinguish between the rights of women and men in either of these contexts.

I've seen you come down like a ton of bricks on people who say stupid shit about canon law; well, I think that misinformed attitudes about Shari'a ought to be countered as well.

Which "misinformed attitude" are you arguing against, here? The one which derives from the writings of a Washington and Lee legal scholar citing dozens of religious and legal scholars' works on this precise issue?

So that you have a way for people who feel that Shari'a is important for their identity as a Muslim, or who want a legal ruling on an Islamic religious matter that is irrelevant to the German legal system, to get what they want, without infringing upon the rights of others.

Except for the rights of the women and children whose rights are seriously compromised by the imposition of Shariah law.

So that you show that you're willing to respect the cultural identity of Muslims in Germany in a number of ways, and thus bring them into German society more readily. So that you can reassure German Muslims that you won't enact anti-Islamic legislation. I can't think of any convincing reasons.

How the fuck is forbidding application of Shariah law, and instead promoting recourse to the state's secular judicial system, a form of "anti-Islamic legislation?" Moreover, your failure to understand the issue has no bearing on the virtuousness of the cause of prohibiting state authority in the promotion of Shariah law.

[Shroom Man 777]

If this wasn't Shariah law but some home-schooled bible-thumping Biblical literalist Old Testament Leviticus-based rulership and law system for fundies, would anyone (here) be defending it at all?

[CJvR]

Except for the rights of the women and children whose rights are seriously compromised by the imposition of Shariah law.

Now, now, think of all those islamic women who want to be treated like property or second class citizens. Denying others the oppertunity to oppress them also deny them the oppertunity to be oppressed.

Parallell justice systems like this one always threatens one of the most fundamental principles of western legal systems, that of equality before the law. It also puts power into the hands of the last people who should have it, theocrats and segregationalists - those with the least intrest in integration. IIRC there was a suggestion in the UK last year that civil cases could be decided by Sharia if both parties agreed to it - effectively adding an entire extra layer for a muslim woman to fight through before getting a fair hearing.

[Bakustra]

Ossus, you made a claim first, that Shari'a is inherently and totally misogynistic. I would like you to demonstrate how halal dietary restrictions are inherently misogynistic. You also claimed that religious law in general is inherently misogynistic. Explain how kosher dietary regulations, the sacrament of communion, or the ability of both men and women to be ordained within the Presbyterian Church, Church of England, Methodist Church, and indeed about half of all Protestant churches worldwide, are inherently misogynistic.

For that matter, your position would require forbidding Muslims from consulting imams on matters of what is religiously permissible or what is not, Jews from doing the same with rabbis, banning bar and bat mitzvahs, banning parochial schools, banning Catholic universities, indeed banning the ordination of priests, ministers, monks, nuns, and rabbis altogether, essentially banning strict Mennonite sects like the Amish from existing altogether, banning religious confirmation and First Communion, banning Islamic banking...

Religious laws fulfill a variety of roles and solve a variety of problems that are outside of the state's purview, unless it wishes to endorse a specific religion. Contrary to the beliefs of the prejudiced, Shari'a does not translate to "The Protocols of the Elders of Mecca", and my overall point is that compromising, or determining which parts of religious law are compatible with modern society, is preferable to declaring all religious law illegal, particularly when you have no idea what the corpus of that religious law entails. That may or may not include traditional methods of resolving civil disputes, but the point is that accommodation is preferable to an ignorant mass ban.

Simon, it took me under a minute to find a gigantic legal rift on the matter of divorce between Sunni and Shi'a schools of legal thought. Semi-Orientalist insistence that Islamic opinions on religious law are all alike is as ignorant as insisting that the Orthodox and Reform schools of Judaism have essentially identical opinions.

[Bakustra]

If this wasn't Shariah law but some home-schooled bible-thumping Biblical literalist Old Testament Leviticus-based rulership and law system for fundies, would anyone (here) be defending it at all?

Should we ban Christians from choosing their own ministers based on the opinions held by their sect? Should we ban them from establishing their own bylaws within the boundary of the law? Should the state declare what they can and cannot believe? Religious law is more than just one thing, inevitably picked to smear the religion as much as possible.

[Thanas]

If this wasn't Shariah law but some home-schooled bible-thumping Biblical literalist Old Testament Leviticus-based rulership and law system for fundies, would anyone (here) be defending it at all?

Should we ban Christians from choosing their own ministers based on the opinions held by their sect? Should we ban them from establishing their own bylaws within the boundary of the law? Should the state declare what they can and cannot believe? Religious law is more than just one thing, inevitably picked to smear the religion as much as possible.

None of that is under attack here. You are grasping at straws. What the article is talking about and what worries people is religious law being used in place of civil and criminal law.

[Shroom Man 777]

If this wasn't Shariah law but some home-schooled bible-thumping Biblical literalist Old Testament Leviticus-based rulership and law system for fundies, would anyone (here) be defending it at all?

Should we ban Christians from choosing their own ministers based on the opinions held by their sect? Should we ban them from establishing their own bylaws within the boundary of the law? Should the state declare what they can and cannot believe? Religious law is more than just one thing, inevitably picked to smear the religion as much as possible.

Are any of those (electing leaders of their internal organizations / deliberating on matters of religious belief) in any way similar to how Shariah law is supposed to deal with civil cases and crime cases, which is the point of contention in this thread?

I don't recall anyone here getting pissy that the Muslims were electing their own imams, or Muslim rabbis deciding which is canonical or apocrypha in the torah, in the confines of their religulous organizations. Isn't the matter about Muslim/Islamic/religious law infringing on civil and crime cases?

Isn't this also why people are pissy because pedophile priests are investigated behind closed doors by the Vatican's own internal affairs whats-its, rather than tried openly in a government court?

Because, yeah, I'd say we should ban Christians from deciding criminal and civil cases in an isolated "Christian Court" just like how Muslims shouldn't be allowed to decide their own criminal and civil cases in an isolated "Muslim/Shariah" court. If this was Scientology court, or Mormon court, or pagan court, the objection still stands, Buck.

[Bakustra]

If this wasn't Shariah law but some home-schooled bible-thumping Biblical literalist Old Testament Leviticus-based rulership and law system for fundies, would anyone (here) be defending it at all?

Should we ban Christians from choosing their own ministers based on the opinions held by their sect? Should we ban them from establishing their own bylaws within the boundary of the law? Should the state declare what they can and cannot believe? Religious law is more than just one thing, inevitably picked to smear the religion as much as possible.

None of that is under attack here. You are grasping at straws. What the article is talking about and what worries people is religious law being used in place of civil and criminal law.

Shariah law is particularly harmful to women and children, as detailed in that article. While it may be less harmful to allow recourse to Shariah law in civil cases than in criminal ones, that does not eliminate these harms. Shariah law is massively sexist and has no place in a developed society.

Shariah law is primitive and backward because all forms of Shariah are inherently misogynistic. Moreover, as detailed in the very article that you obviously neglected to read, they all impose broadly similar effects on the people who are "governed" by them, even when applied in otherwise secular countries. Indeed, these effects are present across all religious groups--not just among Muslims.

Yes, there is nobody here suggesting that all religious law is inherently misogynistic and should be banned from "developed societies". If you disagree with that proposition, then perhaps you should take it up with the people advocating it. Again, what was actually posted in this thread was that all of Shari'a is misogynistic and should be banned, and this was extended to all religious law.

Are any of those (electing leaders of their internal organizations / deliberating on matters of religious belief) in any way similar to how Shariah law is supposed to deal with civil cases and crime cases, which is the point of contention in this thread?

I don't recall anyone here getting pissy that the Muslims were electing their own imams, or Muslim rabbis deciding which is canonical or apocrypha in the torah, in the confines of their religulous organizations. Isn't the matter about Muslim/Islamic/religious law infringing on civil and crime cases?

Isn't this also why people are pissy because pedophile priests are investigated behind closed doors by the Vatican's own internal affairs whats-its, rather than tried openly in a government court?

Because, yeah, I'd say we should ban Christians from deciding criminal and civil cases in an isolated "Christian Court" just like how Muslims shouldn't be allowed to decide their own criminal and civil cases in an isolated "Muslim/Shariah" court. If this was Scientology court, or Mormon court, or pagan court, the objection still stands, Buck.

Ossus specifically said that Shari'a, which covers the things which I mentioned, and which you admit are harmless and outside the magisteria of secular law, should be banned. I mean, if the official position is that pointing it out when people write stupid shit with no idea for the actual consequences should be deferred in favor of posting about how primitive and backwards Muslims are, then that's fine, but I'd like an ex cathedra statement on that, if you don't mind.

[Master of Ossus]

Ossus, you made a claim first, that Shari'a is inherently and totally misogynistic. I would like you to demonstrate how halal dietary restrictions are inherently misogynistic. You also claimed that religious law in general is inherently misogynistic. Explain how kosher dietary regulations, the sacrament of communion, or the ability of both men and women to be ordained within the Presbyterian Church, Church of England, Methodist Church, and indeed about half of all Protestant churches worldwide, are inherently misogynistic.

Strawman fallacy. We're talking about Shariah law which is being imposed as a substitute for a court system. Remember?

As it turns out, however, Islamic dietary requirements are uniquely damaging to women [url=http://business.in.com/article/appraisa ... ics/7332/1].

Take the first example. The populations of both south-east Uganda and Michigan are largely Muslim. So a baby born in May was in gestation in the month of Ramadan during which the mother was undergoing strict daytime fasting. It is, in fact, even more complex than it sounds. Since Ramadan follows the lunar calendar, the fasting dates vary each year. So if Ramadan falls during summer, more daylight hours mean longer periods without food and drink, which is even worse for the baby.

For that matter, your position would require forbidding Muslims from consulting imams on matters of what is religiously permissible or what is not, Jews from doing the same with rabbis, banning bar and bat mitzvahs, banning parochial schools, banning Catholic universities, indeed banning the ordination of priests, ministers, monks, nuns, and rabbis altogether, essentially banning strict Mennonite sects like the Amish from existing altogether, banning religious confirmation and First Communion, banning Islamic banking...

Bullshit. It merely prevents the use of state authority from being used to enforce the imam/rabbi's rulings, and from providing a legal substitute for state law and state courts.

Religious laws fulfill a variety of roles and solve a variety of problems that are outside of the state's purview, unless it wishes to endorse a specific religion. Contrary to the beliefs of the prejudiced, Shari'a does not translate to "The Protocols of the Elders of Mecca", and my overall point is that compromising, or determining which parts of religious law are compatible with modern society, is preferable to declaring all religious law illegal, particularly when you have no idea what the corpus of that religious law entails. That may or may not include traditional methods of resolving civil disputes, but the point is that accommodation is preferable to an ignorant mass ban.

You're really backpedaling, moron. We're obviously talking about the extent to which Shariah can be used as a substitute for the judicial system in a developed society.

Simon, it took me under a minute to find a gigantic legal rift on the matter of divorce between Sunni and Shi'a schools of legal thought. Semi-Orientalist insistence that Islamic opinions on religious law are all alike is as ignorant as insisting that the Orthodox and Reform schools of Judaism have essentially identical opinions.

So is your claim that one or more of these schools of thought do not distingish between the rights of husbands and wives during divorce, or are you merely claiming that they are sexist in different ways?

(Incidentally, the fact that you had to do research to determine that there were differences between Sunni and Shi'ite branches of Shariah indicates that you really didn't know what you were talking about when you came into the thread and accused others of ignorance.)