l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 By Karen Lugo
A young Muslim woman moved to America from Morocco with her husband in 2008.
She was married at age 17 to a man that she did not know before the
wedding. She filed for divorce after arriving in America the next year,
complaining of abuse and what her husband called "punishment." She told the
courts that her husband continued to torment and rape her during the
divorce process.
This 18 year-old girl asked the New Jersey judge for a restraining order but
the request was denied after the judge considered an imam's testimony
saying that Islamic law requires a wife to comply with her husband's sexual
demands. The imam explained that the husband is prohibited from obtaining
sexual satisfaction elsewhere so the wife must obey. The judge acknowledged
that this was a case in which religious custom clashed with state law and
that the wife had a right to refuse husband's advances. However, the judge
also found that domestic violence and assault did occur, but the judge ruled
that the husband did not act with criminal intent since he believed that
his estranged wife was required to comply with his demands.
It is true that this ruling was overturned when the appellate judge found
the husband's conduct in forcing sexual relations was "unquestionably
knowing," but why was an un-American standard of justice applied by the
trial court judge in this young woman's case?
In 2006 another woman, born and raised a Muslim, came to America. She had
escaped an arranged marriage and fled to the Netherlands where she applied
for asylum. While in Holland, this woman fell in love with Enlightenment
values and became a leading activist in the cause for reform of sharia laws
like the ones under which the Moroccan girl above suffered. The harder this
brave woman worked to draw attention to the plight of Muslim women in
Western countries, the more Ayaan Hirsi Ali was in personal danger from
Muslim retaliation. After a high profile friend was murdered, and she was
warned she would be next, this determined activist came to the United States.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali has a message for Muslims in America as written in her book
Nomad, and this anniversary of 9/11 is a good time to think about what her
message means. She says that multiculturalism often deprives women of their
rights when it is tolerance for the sake of consensus.
In other words, tolerating all cultural practices to the point of
sacrificing foundational human rights and gender equality is wrong.
Tolerance that bargains for approval from all parties undercuts objective
standards of justice, individual liberty and self-determination. In America
, our consent to be governed by the rule of our laws means that both the
democratically driven laws and the uniquely empowering liberties apply to
all. Validating cultural practices to the degree that American notions of
justice and equal protection are denied is accommodation gone too far.
Many Muslims do not want sharia rules imposed in America. As Ayaan Hirsi
Ali notes, this system of laws "arose from an honor and shame culture." As
divinely inspired, and clerically interpreted, sharia does not recognize
democratic participation or rule of secular law. It certainly does not
allow for the expressive rights, equal treatment, and choice of religion
that Americans hold so dear.
A very recent confirmation of this comes from news last week that a German
journalist has concluded what France and Great Britain have already publicly
acknowledged; that is, that sharia communities operate outside the law and
do not respect national law as legitimate. The German study by Joachim
Wagner revealed that German law and evidence standards were not a part of
the sharia arbitration process. Rather, he learned that Islamic dispute
compromises often turn on violence and threats and family is more powerful
than the individual.
In Great Britain, Baroness Caroline Cox has proposed an initiative in the
House of Lords to stop parallel legal, or quasi-legal, systems from taking
root. Her goal is "that discrimination against women shall not be allowed
within arbitration" and her coalition intends "to make sure [Muslim women]
are free from any coercion, intimidation or unfairness." She notes that
many women say, "we came to this country to escape these practices only to
find the situation is worse here."
Constitutionally-oriented Muslim leaders in America and Canada have endorsed
the Michigan legislation called American Law for American Courts. This
legislation has passed in four states and would establish American law as
the transcendent authority over sources of foreign or sharia law. The
American Islamic Leadership Coalition supports this initiative for the
purpose of "protecting Muslims and non-Muslims alike from extremist attempts
to use the legal instrument of sharia (also known as Islamic jurisprudence,
or fiqh) to incubate, within the West, a highly politicized and dangerous
understanding of Islam that is generally known as 'Islamism,' or 'radical
Islam.'"
Last month, the Pew Center released a study showing that 60% of American
Muslims are "very concerned" or "concerned" "about the possible rise of
Islamic extremism in the United States." American Muslims responded to
other survey questions to show overwhelming support for women's
participation in business and politics. Significantly, 48% of American
Muslims said that "Muslim leaders in the United States . . . have . . . not
done enough to speak out against Islamic extremists."
At this time when Americans remember a devastating attack on our very way of
life, there is momentous opportunity to speak with one voice against the
forces of terror and extremism. We must not only focus on the threat from
terrorists who would instantly change the way we live -- but also the
equally alarming threat from radical Islamists who seek to incrementally
change the culture in which we live.
Karen Lugo, Constitutional Law Attorney, is Co-Director -- Center for
Constitutional Jurisprudence. |
|
