Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Will the EU Recognize Sharia Divorce?

According to Danish Radio, that’s what lies ahead for Europe, if the EU Commission has its way. But Denmark may be able to escape the mandate from on high, due to its EU opt-outs.

Thanks to Steen for pointing out this article (my translation):

Opt-outs protect against EU Sharia

Muslims living in EU countries will in future be able to divorce according to sharia law. This is the belief of the EU Commission, which recommends that a couple be able to choose which country’s law they will follow if they divorce — as long as they have some kind of connection to the country they choose.

Because of Danish opt-out provisions, the EU regulation will not have a direct impact on Denmark. But Danish People’s Party EU spokesman Morten Messerschmidt is still greatly concerned about the proposal:

“It’s a completely lamebrain idea, the possibility that the Commission will use inhumane sharia laws in the EU,” he says to MetroXpress.
- - - - - - - - -
Aalborg University EU expert Soren Dosenrode concludes that this is a spanner in the works of the government’s ambition to abolish opt-outs.

“It will clearly make it harder, because people are concerned about just this sort of far-reaching proposal.”

Denmark should be prepared to fend off a flood of would-be refugees in the next few years, because a lot of us will want to escape to the only sane country left in the West.


Fjordman said...

What people don't understand is that this is a part of long-term deals that have already been signed and agreed upon by our so-called leaders through the EU. Virtually all Western European leaders have already surrendered. There is no longer a question of whether or not sharia will be officially accepted as law (as it now has been for Muslims living in Britain), it is only a question of how to implement this.

Fjordman said...

Also about Denmark, here is a comment by Hugh Fitzgerald on how to behave in case of Jihadists poisoning of the water supply:

I assume that were such an attack to be made, the Danish people would demand that as a matter of national security, the Muslims living in Denmark would be expelled. At this point, after all that has been said and done, if you continue to self- identify as a Muslim, it is perfectly reasonable for Infidels to assume that you know what Islam teaches, or rather inculcates, and that you agree with it, or at least are not about to do anything to prevent or denounce such teachings. And your mere presence in Infidel lands swells ranks, and the perceived power, of Muslims -- and that, itself, makes Islam more likely someday to dominate, and Muslims to rule, even if you yourself have no such intention.

Only those Muslims who have openly and willingly denounced the teachings of Islam about Infidels, without sly equivocation or the ambiguous use of such words as "innocents," or "defensive war," can conceivably be permitted to continue to live within Infidel lands, where the large-scale presence of Muslims has led to a situation that is far more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous, for indigenous Infidels and, as well, for non-Muslim immigrants.

End of story. Any more attempts on the lives of Infidels has to be treated as an act of war, by Muslims on non-Muslims. In World War II the Allied bombers did not selectively bomb only full-fledged enthusiasts for the Nazis, but bombed German cities -- and Japanese ones, too -- into rubble, to defeat the enemy. It is the collective that counts in wartime, and we do not have to spend our time delicately distinguishing between this or that degree of support, by Muslims, for Jihad, violent or otherwise. We can make assumptions, and the first assumption is that those who claim that the Qur'an is the literal word of God mean it, and that those who claim that they are Muslims and therefore are taught that Muhammad is the Model of Conduct, the Perfect Man (uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil), do believe it, and so should be held to endorse his Hadith, endorse his life, including the mass-murder of the bound prisoners of the Banu Qurayza, the murders of Abu Akaf and Asma bint Marwan, the attack on the inoffensive farmers of the Khaybar Oasis for loot and women, and the marriage to little Aisha when she was nine. It is absurd to deny that Muslims believe what they are taught to believe, absurd to think that only those directly and immedidately caught in the act of participating in violent Jihad are the only promoters of Jihad, the only threat to the legal and political instiutions of Infidel nation-states, and ultimately, to the physical security of Infidels.

Enough sentimentalism. Sentimentalism kills.

Esther said...

And yet it is dhimmi Sweden who lead the opposition to this plan, precisely because it might lead to the application of Sharia marriage law. Jihad fighting Italy supports the measure. Go figure.

Henrik R Clausen said...

I consider this whole idea a violation of a fundamental principle of the EU, namely upholding the Rule of Law.

If one gets to choose which law to live under, the Rule of Law of the countries is dismantled. More dissolving of nation-states...

As far as I remember, this principle (of law being determined by ones' religion) was applied in the Ottoman Empire and elsewhere through extensive periods. Fjordman?

My hopes for a workable EU are failing :(