During her divorce, a migrant woman filed a lawsuit demanding the district court enforce Sharia law. Unfortunately for her, the ruling judge had a different plan.
When Muslims are a small minority, they appeal for their right to practice their religious compulsions free of government inference. When they’re a large minority, they demand special privilege and accommodation for their religious compulsions, dictating that the government step in and advance their agenda. Once they’re the majority, however, they deny religious minorities basic human rights.
As the Muslim population grows to an effectively sized minority in Europe, Westerners are discovering that the once moderate Muslim demographic that merely wanted acceptance and respect is now demanding the recognition of Sharia law. One step at a time, this small yet vocal minority is propelling Europe toward an Islamic caliphate, due in part to their ever-growing populous and the Western majority’s willingness to capitulate.
As a Muslim woman finalized her divorce in a German court, she not only wished for the state to dissolve her union in accordance with German law, she also requested that it enforce Sharia law. The unnamed Turkish Muslim woman, who only holds a German passport, filed a lawsuit with the Munich District Court, insisting compensation for her dowry, which was paid under Islamic compulsion to her husband.
In the lawsuit, the Sunni Muslim woman stated that she has a religious right to reclaim her dowry, which was around $4,600 at the time of her engagement since her 2016 marriage came to an end just one year later. She argued before the judge that because this is the standard in the Quran and Sunni Muslim culture, the court should mandate that the dowry she had paid to her ex-husband be returned. Unfortunately for her, the judge had a better idea.
According to German online newspaper Bild, a Munich District Court judge rejected the Muslim woman’s demand for Sharia law enforcement against her ex-husband, instead reminding her that “in Germany, the Civil Code applies,” not the Quran. The judge refuted that the Muslim plaintiff was owed compensation from her estranged husband in accordance with an Islamic marriage contract deeming it so, reiterating that German courts must recognize the law of the land.
If a marriage is divorced, then in Germany the Civil Code applies. Civil judges are not particularly interested in the Koran.
They agreed to a so-called Mahr, also called dowry – in a sense, a divorce insurance. If it came to separation, the man would have to pay 4000 euros ($4,643) to the woman, they wrote in their religious marriage certificate.
Although the couple had certified their union through a German registry, they officiated the marriage with a Sunni rite of passage. Before the ceremony, the couple had signed a religious contract stating that, in the event of divorce, the man would return the dowry to his wife. However, when the couple separated just months after the marriage, the man refused to honor his part of the agreement, keeping the payment for himself, according to Journalisten Watch.
The Muslim woman attempted to justify her demand of the payment, arguing that not only is this a stipulation of the Quran but that it is part of the “cultural circle” and “gender community” of the participants.
Despite the fact that the couple entered into a contract, it was not upheld in the German district court, as the agreement was a religious one and not legally binding. The court maintained that because the couple did not have the contract notarized by a German official, it was invalid. The judge added that if a couple wishes to stipulate such an arrangement, they must do so under the conditions of German marital law. As such, the woman’s claim was denied and the lawsuit was dismissed.
While Muslims often insist upon living under Sharia law, they are subsequently oppressed by their own religious laws. Disturbingly, the most oppressed participants in Sharia, aside from religious minorities, are women.
According to the Quran, women are inferior to men and, thus, are subject to their every command.
Quran (4:34) – “Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them.”
Quran (2:228) – “and the men are a degree above them [women]”
Quran (2:223) – “Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will.”
In a Sharia court, women are considered subhuman and are, therefore, denied basic human rights.
Quran (2:282) – (Court testimony) “And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not found then a man and two women.”
Quran (4:3) – (Wife-to-husband ratio) “Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four” Inequality by numbers.
The irony in this particular case is that the Muslim woman demanded recognition and enforcement of Sharia law, the same legislation that denies her basic human rights. She is so devoted to her religion that she is willing to reject Western law and culture, which defines her as equal to a man, in favor of a law which disparages her.
This, the subjugation of women and religious minorities is what the left advocates when it campaigns for Islam as a respectable and tolerant ideology.