I recently posted quotes from an opinion article written by Mahmoud Aldebe of the Muslim Association of Sweden regarding the demand to let Muslim women be divorced in Sweden according to Muslim law. Here is a translation of the original article he was referring to, written by Mehrdad Darvishpour and Zenia Hellgren, sociologists at Stockholm University.
---
Mahmoud Khalfi, president of the Islamic Association and imam in Stockholm has recently expressed himself about women's difficulties in getting divorces approved according to the Muslim faith verdicts in Swedish courts. According to Khalfi, Sweden's imams need more support and resources to strengthen their position in Swedish society.
Khalfi thinks that imams in Sweden should have a right to decide if a divorce is authorized according to Islam, side by side with Swedish laws. At the same time, the president of Sweden's Muslim association, Mahmoud Aldebe, wants to facilitate Swedish Muslims "living according to Swedish and Islamic law". He thinks moreover that the religious courts in Muslim countries "in priciple are like courts in Western countries" and denies that they systematically discriminate against women.
We think that the thought of requiring the implementation of parallel legal systems in a multicultural society builds on a stereotypical and static perception of "culture" , and that it an illusion to find cultural unity among ethnic minorities. That stereotype is often blind to the different perceptions and power relations that exist within ethnic or religious groups. Who defines which living conditions and norms should hold for an ethnic group and specifically for a Swedish Muslim, and which laws should be left behind?
Many women who come from Muslim countries, fight, both in those countries and in Sweden for more power over their own lives and the right to interpret Islam on their own and are hardly served when Swedish society promotes the enforcement of religious laws which explicitly subordinate the woman to the man.
To accept unequal divorce laws for Muslim women - as would never be accepted for any other group of women in Swedish society - is nothing but treachery, a way to show that these women are worth less in the eye of the law.
We think instead that Sweden should work towards having divorce according to Swedish family law for the country's immigrants - regardless of origin - be accepted and recognized in other countries.
Moreover, we suggest to increase resources given to efforts for promoting equality among Swedish Muslim, from a perspective that emphasizes that men also have what to gain from a more equal relation with women.
Not least, the Islamic association, Sweden's Muslim association and all imams active in Sweden have an important function to fill here. A clear standpoint for equality will also lessen the rift between Swedish Muslims and the majority society and show that equality is fully consistent with Islamic belief and practices. Khalfi's and Aldebe's remarks are rather a step in the opposite direction.
Source: City (Swedish)
See also: Sweden: The problems of civil divorce
9 comments:
The Swedish authorities should never accept such a thing. The point is that these so-called "Islamic divorce laws" are objectively and truly unjust and demeaning to women and violates their unalienable human rights. According to these laws a woman has no right to get a divorce unless her husband wants to grant it to her, but a man can divorce his wife anytime he wants without her consent, and the custody of the children over 6 y.o. will automatically go to their father and he will decide whether the mother is allowed to see them and how often. This is an unjust and shameful system which should be eradicated even from the Islamic country in the name of human rights and sexual equality. It is a source of much evil in those places too. As an Iranian ex-pat I have seen first hand the damaging and tragic effects of these laws in the lives of many women. Many mothers live with abusive husbands from the fear of losing the not only the custody of their children but also the right to visit them. Many women who wish to divorce cannot get it from their husbands and are forced to live with them against their will. Many people from Muslim countries migrate away from their native countries exactly because of the existence of such unjust laws in their countries of origin. If these abominable rules and injustices are going to follow them all the way to their newly adopted countries then where should they run away to, to be safe from these laws. Besides I highly object the fact that some Imams and so-called Islamic originations own the monopoly on representing "the Muslim community" which is very diverse and complex. The Swedish or any other European government should not get tricked into thinking that by granting the wishes of a few Imams and Mullahs, they are doing the Muslims community as a whole any favor and showing them openness and tolerance. These Imams and Mullahs and Islamic organizations have no other intention but to do away with the Swedish law so that they can impose their own power and interpretation of religion and religious life on the Muslim community as a whole. I think they should not be trusted and they should not be allowed to speak for the community as a whole. Many of us immigrants from Muslim countries came to Europe because we prefer to live the European way of life and our rights must be respected as well and our destiny should not be entrusted to the hands of some questionable people that we never openly chose to represent us! If that happens it would be a tragedy!
As a Westerner living in the Middle East, if I demanded or even asked for Christian or Western laws I would be totally ignored.
Let's see. You allow foreigners into your land of freedom, then allow them to dictate to you what laws they can choose when it suits their purpose.
So, if they're proven guilty of stealing, do you amputate their hands? Or adultery. Do you stone them? Do you demand the 4 witnesses? Do you allow polygamy since this is also a fact of the Shari'ia. When does it end?
It amazes me how wishy washy the West has become. Wake up! If they cannot comply to the laws let them return to their free country they ran from.
To all Muslims in Europe
If you like Democracy, don't try to change Europe to Sharia.
If you like Sharia, please leave Europe and live in a Sharia-country.
You have plenty very nice Sharia-countries to live in: Iran, Somalia, SaudiArabia and many more.
1000 years ago people from Middle-East forced Europe to adopt their religion, now people from the Middle-East will force (!!) us to convert again.
To Muslims: Resepect OUR Culture, and be sure we will respect your culture.
In Europe we have democracy and in the Middle-East you have Islam. These two can NOT be combined. Never. Impossible.
2008?-No, it's 1938
It's been 70 years since British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain flew back to London from his meeting with Adolf Hitler in Munich and waved a piece of paper in his hand proclaiming, "Peace in our time." Of course, the following year, the world was plunged into World War II. Today, instead of Nazism, the world is faced with a new scourge, Islamo-Terrorism, Islamo-Fascism or whatever you want to call it. One would think that we had learned the lessons of history when it comes to appeasing the forces of evil. Yet, it seems that when it comes to Islamic terror, we have forgotten the lessons of the past. There are some notable parallels, in my view, between today and the 1930s.
After his failed 1923 Putsch, Hitler found himself incarcerated in Landsberg Prison near Munich in 1924, where he wrote Mein Kampf. In this book, he spelled out his hatred of Jews and plans to re-establish Germany's greatness through re-militarization and territorial expansion to the east. The world did not take him seriously. They thought he would never be able to attain that kind of power, even within Germany. They were wrong.
Islamic terrorists take their inspiration from passages in the Koran that they feel give them guidance in killing those who don't share their religion. Virtually every sura (chapter) reinforces the belief that non-believers will burn in Hell.
Once Hitler took power in Germany, after years of agitation and street brawls, he acted quickly to establish a dictatorship. On April 1, 1933, Nazis launched the boycott of Jewish businesses. In 1935, the so-called Nuremberg Laws were promulgated, codifying the second-class status of German Jews.
In 1936, German troops reoccupied the Rhineland-in violation of the Versailles Treaty. Great Britain and France took no action-further emboldening Hitler.
In 1938, Hitler marched into Austria, annexing that country into a greater German Reich. Great Britain and France stood by and watched.
Then, the same year, Hitler demanded the Sudentenland region of Czechoslovakia, based on the fact that it was primarily inhabited by ethnic Germans who were being mistreated. This brought Europe close to war. Within the space of a fortnight, Neville Chamberlain flew to Germany three times to meet and negotiate with Hitler. Chamberlain was determined to avert war over "a people of whom we know so little" to use his words. When the meeting was over, the Czechs were advised that the Sudetenland would have to handed over to Germany-or they would be on their own-previous commitments notwithstanding. Chamberlain flew home to announce "Peace in our time."
In November of 1938, the world watched in shock as the Nazis carried out Reichskristallnacht (Night of Broken Glass), by which Jewish shops, homes and synagogues were smashed, Jews were dragged to jail, and-in some cases murdered. Once again, the world stood by and did nothing.
It wasn't until Germany invaded Poland in 1939 that the scales dropped from the eyes of the British and French and war began. It was only then that the Brits and French realized that they could not negotiate with Hitler.
Meanwhile in the US, President Roosevelt, who understood the threat, was thwarted by public opinion that wanted no part of another European war. Famed aviator, Charles Lindbergh, was an ardent admirer of Hitler. He led the fight to keep America nuetral. Another prominent voice for nuetrality was Joseph Kennedy (father of JFK), even though he was the American ambassador to London. Then there was the Nazi-supporting German-American Bund, a 5th column German-American organization on our soil. It was only after Pearl Harbor, when the US declared war on Imperial Japan, and Hitler declared war on our country, that we entered the European war.
Today, we see similarities vis-a-vis Islamic terrorism. In spite of everything that has happened and continues to happen every day, there are many in the West who will not face reality. We have experienced 9-11. The British experienced the subway and bus bombings. Madrid experienced its train bombings. How did the Spaniards react? They voted out their government in favor of a new soft-line prime minister who pulled his troops out of Iraq.
The situation in Britain is most disturbing. Muslim clerics in mosques preach hate and violence against British society. Muslims demonstrate on London streets demanding that anyone who "insults" Islam be "butchered" or "beheaded". How does Britain react? They bend over backwards to toe the politically correct line. Just in the past few days, "The Three Little Pigs" has been suppressed because pigs are offensive to Muslims. Now acts of terror are officially being called "anti-Islamic acts" since they do damage to Islam's image. British jails have re-installed toilet seats to ensure that Muslim prisoners don't have to face their backsides toward Mecca.
Meanwhile in the Netherlands, they have witnessed the bloody murder of film producer Theo van Gogh on a Dutch street for the "crime" of making a film critical of Islam's treatment of women. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali immigrant and Muslim apostate, who collaborated in the film, has been living under intense security ever since. Currently, a Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, is trying to produce a 10-minute film critical of the Koran. Not surprisingly, he lives under threat of murder while Iran makes veiled threats against the Netherlands, trying to force them to prohibit the showing of the film.
In other major European cities like Paris, Rotterdam and Malmo, Sweden, police are afraid to enter Muslim enclaves, where practices like "honor-killings" and female circumcision are carried out though in contravention of national law.
Here at home in the US, where have we been so far spared the Muslim violence seen in Europe, we are witnessing a growing disaffection from American society on the part of many Muslims. On many universities (like mine-UC-Irvine), Muslim Student Unions regularly bring in radical Muslim speakers who advocate hate and violence toward Israel and "Zionist Jews". Many of these speakers also direct their vile hatred toward America as well. In some places, like Minneapolis, some Muslim cab drivers refuse to carry passengers who have alcohol. Some Muslim check-out clerks in grocery stores will not service customers purchasing pork. Not long ago, a group of radical Imams deliberately provoked airline passengers while boarding a flight, managing to get themselves removed from a flight so that they could start a lawsuit, aided by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). So how do we react to all this effrontery? The University of Michigan at Dearborn has installed foot baths in their restrooms-courtesy of the Michigan tax-payers. Secondary schools all over the nation have initiated courses for children to provide them with a positive image of Islam-while any recognition of Christianity or Judaism is considered unacceptable.
The problem is that both here and in Europe, we are being governed by political correctness. We must all proclaim that we respect Islam, and we consider Islam to be a religion of peace. It doesn't matter how much violence and expressions of hate are carried out by certain Muslims. When was the last time you heard a Democratic politician use the term, "Islamic Terror"? The reality is that most Americans, while trying to be fair and not punish decent, innocent Muslims, really are wondering about the true nature of this religion. Religion of peace? Well, we have doubts. We want to believe the best about other faiths, but how can we not have doubts given what is going on in the world, not just in the Middle East, but in Western countries where large numbers of Muslim immigrants have settled? This is not to paint all Muslims with the same brush, but some have not conducted themselves like ideal guests.
How great it would have been if the millions of decent Germans had risen up to overthrow Hitler and the Nazis. Tragically, they did not-or could not since the police state was too powerful. Similarly, how great it would be if the decent, peace-loving Muslims would rise up and defeat the murderers and hate-mongers among them. Whether they will remains to be seen.
My point is this: While we want to live peacefully with our Muslim neighbors, we must make it clear that we will defend ourselves against Islamic terror. We will not throw away our own religions, traditions, customs and laws because they are "offensive" to Muslims. There will be no Shariah law in our countries. We will not submit to them. Unfortunately, Western Civilization has been infected with a "peace in our time" mentality that says that, if we just make a few more concessions here and there, we can peacefully co-exist.
Neville Chamberlain would be proud.
Gary Fouse
Orange County, Calif usa
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com
Many years ago I thought that Europeans were really democratic. The fact it is far from reality. You don't even understand the nature of democracy. How pity you are, Europeans!
Crusades anyone?
I agree with Anonymous. I would like to add that if a woman has a justifiable reason as to why she wants to get a divorce she is permited to get divorced. refering to the comment about only men are allowed to divorce the woman when ever he wants that is not true I have a muslim friend who has choosen to be the person to decide on a divorce not her husband. When I got married (to my wonderfully patient muslim husband) I choose to let my husband have this right because I am very emotional and at times of anger would instantly choose to divorce unjustly. Therefore It is a choice. Islamic law is a law based on justice.
this is to MR.Gary Fouse ur work is gud but its half it wud have been gud if u studied the complete histroy about not just hitler but also all of those who got and those who are forced to invlove in wht happen
Post a Comment