Wednesday's Child
Sorry, but I'm a little confused by your statements.
I see you are painting a wonderful picture of peaceful Islam and the small minority of fanatics who spoil it for a beautiful religion.
Whether the fanatics are a minority or not I don't know
I challenge you that would be fine if the people practicing that faith refrain from immigration to countries and then try to insert their own laws into the laws of the country. Any immigrant, whether Muslim or agnostic, immigrates with the expectation of following the laws of the land, is respectful of those laws and commits to the betterment of the country, not the downfall.
"that would be fine..." I'm not sure what is "that". I assume it was referring to something in one of my posts, but it's vague, since if you read my posts, especially recently, they are quite a mix of admiration for Islam and a certain fear of its falling into a cerain Dark Age. So please clarify specifically what you're referring to here, thanks.
I challenge you that at this very moment there are Islamic fanatics dedicated to creating the downfall of many western civilizations in many lands. If immigration is not going to weed these monsters from those who come in peace to contribute to a new land....who will do it? The local mullahs? And how do we determine which is peaceful and which is mad?
Actually, in one of my recent posts, I'd blasted the Mullahs; they are extremely dangerous, and I could even accept a banning of Mullahs in Canada, believe it or not. I can't underestate how dangerous they are to the Muslim community itself.
As for immigration, we do need to weed the terrorists, but how. Plese feel free to provide an answer. CSIS is doing a reasonably good job I'm sure. But I'm also sure some are getting through.
What we have witnessed in our western democracies in Europe and the U.S. even as far away as Australia and Indonesia, are those who have received the beneficence of an open arms government systems which treat all people as equals - and in return we have 9/11, railway bombings, school destruction, peaceful people killed while going about their personal days....
Is this what you are recreating as "peaceful" members of our society???
Again, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You're speaking as if there's a major disagreement between us, so I'm reading your post trying to find the major disagreements. My confusion stems from the fact that you seem to agreeing with me, at least in principle to much of what you're saying, but in an argumentative manner. :?
And your words: It did not explicitly give women equality, but certainly granted them more rights than anything they'd ever had previously. Surely you jest! Women under Sha'ria Law are treated like animals - what "more rights" are you speaking of? Less barbaric mutilation of their genitals?
Reading about the world in which Muhammad was born might be very revealing. It is well documented that he had been born to such a perverse society that men would literally bury their 7-year old daughters alive, men could threaten their wives with death for bearing him a daughter, and sons would claim each others' mothers and sisters as lawful property upon the death of their father. Conquering tribes would kill all the men and claim all the women and children as slaves. Men could divorce their wives at will, and she had no recourse whatsoever. And at that time, poligamy not only occurred in Arabia, but Europe as well, though the situation in Europe at that time was still much better. The Qur'an says nothing of genital mutilaiton, and should you read it in light of the society in which it was revealed, you'll find that while it never explicitely granted equality, it certainly granted women not only protection from the barbary mentionned above, but even granted them otehr special rights relating to the husband's responsibility towards her in the event of divorce, her right to witnesses in the event of an accusation against her, etc. I think I've said enough on that. But certainly if you read up on the circumstances of teh time, and read the Qur'an, you'll see that it was indeed light years ahead of its time.
I wonder if you yourself are not on some kind of recruiting mission.
Tell me - if you and your wife divorced...did you have to repeat the divorce three times, or did you go through the legal necessaries of western law to fully divorce her??? I direct your attention to the kind of muslim who frightens me...who wishes to rewrite the legal system or make special exemptions for those of Islamic faith.
A recruiting mission for what? I'm not a Muslim, and never have been, so why sould I have repeated the divorce three times? My wife wasn't Muslim either, although she hadd been. A major contributor to the divorce did in fact have to do with outide religious harassement and intimidation, and so she made teh decision to divorce civilly whether aI liked it or not. Although that's a personal issue which I'd rather not discuss or even think about for that matter. I only brought it up within the context of Islamic fanaticism today and how it can affect the wider community.
http://tinyurl.com/ge5q3
Islamic law fails to sway court
Divorce (American style) upheld
By ANNMARIE TIMMINS
Monitor staff
February 18. 2006 8:00AM
The state Supreme Court recently got a lesson in Islamic divorce, specifically that part that says a man can divorce his wife by saying to her three times, "I divorce you." But don't get any ideas. In a decision handed down Valentine's Day, the justices upheld the American way.
The case before the court involved the divorce of Sonia and Samer Ramadan of Newfields. The couple married in Tripoli, Lebanon, in 1986; their wedding included a deferred "dower" of 250,000 Lebanese liras.
Samer Ramadan brought his new wife to Massachusetts, where he was living, and over the next several years, the couple moved between the United States, Lebanon and Egypt before settling down in New Hampshire in 1999. Four years after their arrival here, the marriage had broken down in Sonia Ramadan's eyes, and on Oct. 14, 2003, she went to the Rockingham County Superior Court and filed for divorce.
Her husband protested and told the judge that Sonia Ramadan was not only a day too late - but in the wrong country.
Samer Ramadan argued that he had, in fact, initiated their divorce the day before by telling his wife three times in succession the words, "I divorce you." He took care of the other Islamic requirement, which requires two witnesses, by calling an attorney in Lebanon and declaring within earshot of the witnesses that he had divorced his wife.
A few day after that, Samer Ramadan flew to Lebanon to see his attorney and "sign the necessary papers," according to court records. He returned to the United States with those papers in December, upset to find the Rockingham County Superior Court had already accepted his wife's filing.
Samer Ramadan insisted the judge dismiss the petition, saying the court had no jurisdiction over a marriage made in Lebanon. The judge refused. Samer Ramadan lost again when he tried to fight the court's decision to award custody of their children to Sonia Ramadan and require him to pay her child support and alimony.
The judge required one more thing, at least temporarily: Samer Ramadan could not refer to his wife in front of their children as a "Muslim or Muslim woman," according to court records.
Having lost his fight in Rockingham County, Samer Ramadan returned to Lebanon, and, through is lawyer, told the court he was ignoring its orders because it had no jurisdiction over him. When Samer Ramadan didn't show for the final hearing, the superior court judge awarded Sonia Ramadan what she asked for, which included most of the couple's assets.
At some point, Samer Ramadan did decide to participate again in the legal process, and he hired a lawyer to appeal his divorce order to the state Supreme Court. Portsmouth attorney Timothy Coughlin argued the case on Samer Ramadan's behalf in January, raising many of the same jurisdictional issues Samer Ramadan had already raised.
But he didn't get any further than Samer Ramadan. "The Supreme Court wasn't buying what I was selling," Coughlin told the Portsmouth Herald this week.
On Valentine's Day, the court upheld the trial court judge and ruled that state courts have jurisdiction over divorces in this state, whether or not the couple was married elsewhere. The justices didn't mince words, either, in telling Samer Ramadan that he had brought this on himself.
"(Samer) deliberately ignored the trial court's orders, failed to answer interrogatories, refused to participate in discovery, declined to submit a proposed permanent divorce decree to the trial court, and did not appear for the final hearing," the ruling said.
"(Samer) cannot now, on appeal, challenge the precise outcome that he could have prevented," the justices continued.
The Herald asked Coughlin how Samer Ramadan had taken the court's order. He didn't know. Last Coughlin had heard, Samer Ramadan was on a pilgrimage to Mecca.
Over the years many stories have been published in the media about western women marrying middle eastern men, to have families with them, and to lose their children (and the husband) as he returns to his familial home in the middle east, and the wife is refused visitation to her children. All of these were happening long before the recent uprisings.
It has been going on a long time. The article I have posted is an example of how it is expected that Islamic religion pre-empts all local (and Superior Court) laws. And you want people to accept that we should embrace this??? Invite this into our peaceful lands?
We have witnessed the truth - it is too late to paint another portrait. Ask the people in Bali, Spain, Australia, France, Britain, New York, and the list goes on....
Whether the Muslim religion had a glorious past or not is irrelevant in the here and now. Christianity had a violent past but we don't drag around excuses for our behavior through religious belief, and if we try, generally the western legal system overrides the excuses.
Which is how it should be.
Separation of church and state.[/quote]
1. I don't understand the relevance of the article to my previous posts.
2. If you've ever been devorced before, I'm sure you could understand that it's not something one wants to dwell on. Thank you very much.
I'd made my reference to it specifically in light of the original topic of the thread , that's it. Not to start nosing about my private life, thank you.