This was going to be a comment on Done With Mirrors, but it's a bit long for the comments box, so I'll post it here instead.

Callimachus's co-blogger Reader_Iam links to this story headlined, "A German Judge Cites Koran in Divorce Case". In her post, Reader_Iam expresses mild skepticism but seems mostly in agreement with the story. In the comments box, Callimachus is suspicious:

I'm with Callimachus on this: The story smells very fishy. It is heavily spun as if the judge is trying to impose Qur'anic law in Germany, but in the one and only place where the judge's decision is actually quoted, the judge is saying that the Qur'anic verse which suggests a husband may beat his wife is not sufficient reason to grant the speedy divorce.

So if the judge doesn't think so, who does? Clearly, the woman's lawyer does. Her client is in a bad marriage and wants out. German law requires a one-year waiting period unless a spouse demonstrates sufficient hardship to warrant an exception. Seeking that exception, the lawyer has argued that this wife is in special danger because not only is her husband violent but he also belongs to a religion which condones marital violence -- and to make the point she cites that verse of the Qur'an as evidence. (The article doesn't say, but I assume the verse in question is an-Nisa 34.)

This scenario is speculation on my part, but how else could the verse have come up if not raised by the lawyer? The judge isn't going to invent an argument just for the sake of rejecting it in her decision. (Yes, "her" again; both the judge and the lawyer are female.)

I think the lawyer made the argument and it went something like this: Islamic law says that a man is allowed to beat his wife; therefore my client needs an immediate divorce because once they are no longer married he will no longer feel he has the right to beat her. The judge heard the argument but didn't buy it, ruling that German law is adequate to deal with the case -- there is already a restraining order and so forth, and she feels these are sufficient protections with no need for further. In other words, it is the judge who wants to keep the Qur'an out of German law, and it's the lawyer who wants to make it a factor.

Having lost the case, the lawyer -- who is obviously the source for the news story -- now turns this on its head and lambasts the judge for citing the Qur'an in her decision. That idea becomes the headline of the news story (with an even more provocative subhead: "Justifying Marital Violence"!) and all of it is suggested by the lawyer:

The story doesn't say what this new verse is, and since the verse already mentioned meets the description, I can only assume it's the same one.

It sure looks to me like Ms Becker-Rojczyk is deliberately twisting the story and sensationalizing it in order to kick up a fuss. Why would she do that? The answer is right there in the story: As a result of this brouhaha, the judge was removed from the case for a conflict of interest. Now the client gets a new trial, and thus she has another chance at getting the desired result.

So what is the judge's conflict of interest? Again, the story doesn't say. All it tells us is that the lawyer "felt that, because of the point of view presented by the judge, she was unable to reach an objective verdict." That's it: her "point of view" constitutes a conflict of interest. No hidden financial interest, no prior relation with any of the involved parties, no nothing. But she came up with an answer that the press and the politicians don't like, so she got the boot.

I'm reading all of this only from the one-sided story in Der Spiegel. Obviously I don't know all the facts of the case, and I'll be happy to revise my opinion if and when I get more information. But judging just from what this story presents, I'd say there's no issue here at all of shari'a infiltrating German law. I'd say the real story here is an ambitious lawyer who is willing to manipulate the media and politicians in order to get results for her client -- and she's getting away with it.

Footnote: The translator and editor who provided the English version of this story haven't quite mastered the idiom. One does not "adapt a Western lifestyle". One may adapt to a lifestyle, or, more likely, one may adopt it.

2:08:47 AM  [permalink]  comment []