• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Separation of church and state...unless it's Sharia law.

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
This is the stupidest thing I've ever read.

This is a law making it mandatory to follow the rule of law. There is not any place for ANY religious arguments in secular court, so if OK was doing anything other than fear mongering they should have written it that way.

I would FULLY support that law, as I dislike all religion. I would never support this law where I live because I am against any law that says "it's okay for me but not for you".
 
You're right that it being Muslim views was irrelevant, what was relevant was that he thought he was acting within his rights.

What you show you are not getting is the idea of 'criminal intent'.

However in this case, while he may not have had 'crimina intent' and the judge may have considered that relevant, the appeals court disagreed, and he is guilty.

The point is, the judge's error seems to be bases on a non-Muslim issue, despite the hype.

Hypesters say 'Sharia Law takes precedence over US law!', implying 'those evil Muslims are overthrowing our legal system, we're under attack!'

I am under the impression that intent is only relevant when someone didn't intend on committing the crime. The definition of rape is pretty simple, sex without consent, so unless the argument was he thought she consented when she really did not consent to the sex I can't imagine why intent would be relevant. Furthermore, I have been taught (the hard way once) that ignorance of the law is not an excuse nor will it get you out of the consequences. Obviously there is some leeway there but I think we can all agree that the "line" should be drawn WAY THE FUCK BEFORE you get to rape .

Again, why the hell do we need a law that says the current rape laws also apply to XYZ group? Rape? Seriously?

I bet a years pay that if I joined a religion that believed paying taxes was a mortal sin that they wouldn't need a new law to throw my ass in jail because its already freaking illegal.
 
My post has nothing to do with muslims imposing Sharia and more to do with the failure of multicuturalism and the judge was trying to promote multiculturalism and not offend muslims.

But she offended the wife, a Muslim. She's saying that the wife's culture involves wife beating.

I don't think that the judge is promoting multiculturalism. She's punishing the wife and saying THIS is your culture despite what you think, and you deserve this because you are from THERE. She's promoting bigotry. It seems like her point was to offend Muslims.

It's like a judge saying you are German and Germany has Nazi-elements within it, therefore it's ok for your husband to gas you to death.

The article you posted states:

Muslim leaders agreed that Muslims living in Germany 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 Quran governing relations between husbands and wives.

The verse cited by Datz-Winter does say husbands may beat their wives for being disobedient — an interpretation embraced by Wahhabi and other fundamentalist Islamic groups — but mainstream Muslims have long rejected wife-beating as a medieval relic.
 
Last edited:
This is the stupidest thing I've ever read.

This is a law making it mandatory to follow the rule of law. There is not any place for ANY religious arguments in secular court, so if OK was doing anything other than fear mongering they should have written it that way.

I would FULLY support that law, as I dislike all religion. I would never support this law where I live because I am against any law that says "it's okay for me but not for you".

Almost in all major countries some Muslims are trying to get the courts to agree to their argument by saying that I am Muslim, Sharia says so, so I can do it, Fuck you court. And because of the minority ass kissing culture that has totally infested our world, many judges have agreed/budged. Sooner or later its gonna start in US too. It will start somewhere in states like NY, MA or CA, these states have encouraged, rewarded and promoted illegal immigration and the judges and politicians there and just itching to add sharia law to their books. OK is doing what AZ had to do after the illegal immigration situation got out of hand. Today it might seem a little overboard but one day it will all make sense. One thing they should have done though is to include all religions and and religious laws. Anywho, OK is not being paranoid but is taking a preemptive step to protect its ppl from being stoned to death for not covering their heads. Once the liberal states start accepting sharia arguments in courts, these kind of measures will be very difficult to pass, this is perfect time and more states or even the whole nation should consider this. Just include all religions and the law is good to go on national level.

Look at the Elizabeth Smart case, police missed her once because of religious bullshit, noone should be allowed to do anything in the name of religion in any civilized society.
 
Last edited:
But she offended the wife, a Muslim. She's saying that the wife's culture involves wife beating.

I don't think that the judge is promoting multiculturalism. She's punishing the wife and saying THIS is your culture despite what you think, and you deserve this because you are from THERE. She's promoting bigotry. It seems like her point was to offend Muslims.

It's like a judge saying you are German and Germany has Nazi-elements within it, therefore it's ok for your husband to gas you to death.

What do you think a Sharia court in, say Saudi, would have said?

The Judge didn't make the Husband beat the wife, its his crime.

Nothing the Judge has done has influenced the husbands behaviour in this crime.
 
Of course. The judge has her own separate "crimes" here.


I just concerned that you're worried about the Judge offending the wife than the husband beating her.:\

Its almost like you're trying to use someone elses misery to make your own petty points.

Of course I could be wrong here and you just have the woman's well being at heart and have difficulties expressing yourself.
 
I just concerned that you're worried about the Judge offending the wife than the husband beating her.:\

Its almost like you're trying to use someone elses misery to make your own petty points.

Of course I could be wrong here and you just have the woman's well being at heart and have difficulties expressing yourself.

The judge's action is the central point. Why would you not focus on that? There's not much to discuss on the husband's actions for this thread topic.

I'm more concerned about the broad implications of the judge's actions. The judge is probably much more powerfully socially, politically, etc. Her actions, especially in a country with Germany's history, can lead to another genocide. I would not be surprised if she was a far-right Nazi and wanted to punish the wife.
 
The judge's action is the central point. Why would you not focus on that? There's not much to discuss on the husband's actions for this thread topic.

I'm more concerned about the broad implications of the judge's actions. The judge is probably much more powerfully socially, politically, etc. Her actions, especially in a country with Germany's history, can lead to another genocide. I would not be surprised if she was a far-right Nazi and wanted to punish the wife.

Except shes not the one beating anyone.
 
Except shes not the one beating anyone.

She's not physically beating anyone.

She should be investigated for what she did. Unfortunately, I can't find anything about her nowadays. I wonder if she is a folk hero now in Germany, socializing with Thilo Sarrazin.

She supposedly showed Germany what multiculturalism will bring even though she is the one that tried to bring it about! THIS is what THEY will do HERE! SEE! SEE! Nevermind that I'm the one that tried to bring it here and that none of THEM tried to!
 
Last edited:
Almost in all major countries some Muslims are trying to get the courts to agree to their argument by saying that I am Muslim, Sharia says so, so I can do it, Fuck you court. And because of the minority ass kissing culture that has totally infested our world, many judges have agreed/budged. Sooner or later its gonna start in US too. It will start somewhere in states like NY, MA or CA, these states have encouraged, rewarded and promoted illegal immigration and the judges and politicians there and just itching to add sharia law to their books. OK is doing what AZ had to do after the illegal immigration situation got out of hand. Today it might seem a little overboard but one day it will all make sense. One thing they should have done though is to include all religions and and religious laws. Anywho, OK is not being paranoid but is taking a preemptive step to protect its ppl from being stoned to death for not covering their heads. Once the liberal states start accepting sharia arguments in courts, these kind of measures will be very difficult to pass, this is perfect time and more states or even the whole nation should consider this. Just include all religions and the law is good to go on national level.

Look at the Elizabeth Smart case, police missed her once because of religious bullshit, noone should be allowed to do anything in the name of religion in any civilized society.

So much FUD in this post. The law says that you have to consider the law. How does that change ANYTHING? Name a situation that before the law would have been allowed to happen (ie. was not against the law) that now is against the law.

And the argument that it's okay to ban Muslim religious arguments because at least it's a start, would you also support a law that banned white's from murdering? Murder is bad, and really no one should be allowed to murder, but at least banning white's is a start.

This was done to spread fear and hate, nothing else.
 
No shes not.

Of course she is. She was beating the wife in another way by abusing the law.

The husband however is.

Why dont you seem bothered about him?

He's basically a single bullet point in a huge article. He's only tangential to the true issue. What more can we say about him than what has been said, especially in a thread talking about Shariah law and people supposedly trying to impose it on others?

I have to ask why you're not bothered about the judge.

This is like posting an article about how a car swerved to avoid hitting a stray dog, hit another car, and dead bodies were found in the hit car. You're focusing on the stray dog while the story is the dead bodies in the car.
 
I am under the impression that intent is only relevant when someone didn't intend on committing the crime. The definition of rape is pretty simple, sex without consent, so unless the argument was he thought she consented when she really did not consent to the sex I can't imagine why intent would be relevant. Furthermore, I have been taught (the hard way once) that ignorance of the law is not an excuse nor will it get you out of the consequences. Obviously there is some leeway there but I think we can all agree that the "line" should be drawn WAY THE FUCK BEFORE you get to rape .

Again, why the hell do we need a law that says the current rape laws also apply to XYZ group? Rape? Seriously?

I bet a years pay that if I joined a religion that believed paying taxes was a mortal sin that they wouldn't need a new law to throw my ass in jail because its already freaking illegal.

Quite true, because then government would be the victim. The hierarchy goes Government > identified groups > individual. Thankfully even the progressives have not (yet) extended their war on individualism into criminal court, but government has been permanently established at the top of the heap.

Under this judge's twisted logic, no sociopath could ever be convicted of anything because he truly believed he was doing nothing wrong. ("Other people are insignificant insects, so it's okay if I kill them.")
 
...Under this judge's twisted logic, no sociopath could ever be convicted of anything because he truly believed he was doing nothing wrong. ("Other people are insignificant insects, so it's okay if I kill them.")
Not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect...
 
Last edited:
This is the stupidest thing I've ever read.

This is a law making it mandatory to follow the rule of law. There is not any place for ANY religious arguments in secular court, so if OK was doing anything other than fear mongering they should have written it that way.

I would FULLY support that law, as I dislike all religion. I would never support this law where I live because I am against any law that says "it's okay for me but not for you".

lol. well stated. i am thankful to you for your objective post.
 
Does this mean you have changed your mind and you are in agreement that sharia has no place in a secular state, ie the U.S.?

hi. i dont know why I would change my mind? can you please link me to where I have stated one way or the other?
 
Of course she is. She was beating the wife in another way by abusing the law.



He's basically a single bullet point in a huge article. He's only tangential to the true issue. What more can we say about him than what has been said, especially in a thread talking about Shariah law and people supposedly trying to impose it on others?

I have to ask why you're not bothered about the judge.

This is like posting an article about how a car swerved to avoid hitting a stray dog, hit another car, and dead bodies were found in the hit car. You're focusing on the stray dog while the story is the dead bodies in the car.

So you are saying that the husband, which is who he was referring to, is analogous to a stray dog which has not guilt because it's not capable of seeing how it's actions will have conseqences?

Are you saying that Muslim men are on the same level of intelligence as a dog? Because if you are not, your analogy in response to him makes no sense what so ever except perhaps in your own deranged mind.

The perpetrator is the one you SHOULD focus on, the religion that he thinks justifies should come second, the judge ruling in favor of his religious beliefs should come third, in the end, HE raped her, he committed the crime, send him off to jail.

This actually happens a lot in Catholic congregations where the priest IS a judge as much as the counsil in any Sharia court in Britain or other places, of course, just like the Sharia courts in the UK have no legal bearing unless both parties wish to honor the rulings, neither do the Catholic courts, or the JW courts where children have been silenced for three decades and where wives are still below their husbands and have to obey them.

There are entire societies who live under these rules both in the US and in the EU, they are small towns who are ruled by religious laws of that town, it's not really legal but since all adhere to that sect, no one will mention anything about it. Incest and pedophelia are common traits in these towns mostly because the leaders are fucked up, doesn't matter though, it's freedom of religion to do whatever it wishes.

Until they commit mass suicides, we rarely even hear about them, it's not like they have any outside communication so we'd hear about them in that way, they are just known as "small towns of god fearing people"...
 
Would you agree that sharia has no place in a secular state, ie the U.S.?

Religious law has no place in any secular state, argue that and you will have followers, pick out sharia and others will protest that ALL religious laws should be abolished, not just Islamic law.
 
So you are saying that the husband, which is who he was referring to, is analogous to a stray dog which has not guilt because it's not capable of seeing how it's actions will have conseqences?

Are you saying that Muslim men are on the same level of intelligence as a dog? Because if you are not, your analogy in response to him makes no sense what so ever except perhaps in your own deranged mind.

He has the same role as the dog in the story.

The perpetrator is the one you SHOULD focus on, the religion that he thinks justifies should come second, the judge ruling in favor of his religious beliefs should come third, in the end, HE raped her, he committed the crime, send him off to jail.

Not in an article and discussion on the supposed introduction of Sharia. If the focus was on domestic abuse or crime then yes. But the focus here is on the judiciary and Sharia.
 
No shes not.

The husband however is.

Why dont you seem bothered about him?

Maybe CanOWorms wants primitive values to dominate the West and the entire world. I've always thought he was motivated by hatred of white Americans and Europeans but perhaps his underlying motivation is actually love of barbarism.
 
Back
Top