This past November, The Telegraph report Sharia courts were springing up in England within Muslim communities. Thrown out was the British code of law and inserted was the law of Islam, or at least as interpreted by a group of elders within these communities. During a case in Canada the defendent claimed wanted the verdict decided upon not by Canadian law, but rather by Islamic law.

But in Britain, Sharia only operates in pockets within the nation. In Canada, a federal court turned down the plea for Sharia to decide the case.

In Germany, however, a judge used the basis of the Koran to deny a wife who alleges her husband beats her a “quick divorce” that would circumvent the German statute married couples must remain seperated for one year prior to filing for divorce. A “quick divorce” is often used in abusive cases, and the wife in this case alleges just that.

In January, though, a letter arrived from the judge adjudicating the case. The judge rejected the application for a speedy divorce by referring to a passage in the Koran that some have controversially interpreted to mean that a husband can beat his wife . . .

“The exercise of the right to castigate does not fulfill the hardship criteria as defined by Paragraph 1565 (of German federal law),” the daily Frankfurter Rundschau quoted the judge’s letter as saying. It must be taken into account, the judge argued, that both man and wife have Moroccan backgrounds.

Without getting into whether or not the Koran allows for a husband to beat his wife because it really doesn’t matter in this specific case, why would a German judge use an outside source of law to decide the case? Is German law not good enough to merit a “quick divorce?”

Also see coverage in the New York Times.

Other Coverage:

• Dr. Sanity
• The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
• Western Resistance