When I yesterday, the preparatory Käsfondue (halal, kosher and vegetarian, but unfortunately not vegan), the headline of the article "Just Right - Sharia" on faz.net saw, at first I did not read it, I do not spoil your appetite.
It Volker Rieble praises the private conflict resolution - basically rightly so - than the Company and the legal relevance and usefulness, but he then sets at such outrageous comparisons that one may be bad.
He heaves namely the activity of Sharia "magistrates" unceremoniously on a level with internal arbitration "in noble houses, sports clubs, craft guilds, etc." or that of a criminal offense in an operation by a council member.
He mentioned - so stupid he is not to do that - not a word that a Sharia "magistrate" of course (otherwise he would have no, or would consider not last long, as such, right?) Bound to the legal concepts of Islam is hereby spanking perceived as a rebellious wife must be regarded as correct, as well as a right that a woman inherits half, only half a male witness, not even wegdarf from the man who, apostasy was very well from it a mortal sin , blaspheming the prophet as well, and which like all the Sharia still brings in "legal concepts" with it.
Here it can be assumed consensus have had consensus have been in the sense that we normally understand it will not exerted pressure on one side to a "consensus have" is not even ridiculous, because the thing is not to laugh.
A to provide such internal conflict resolution with that on one level, as occurs when a meatballs thief is not terminated because it undertakes with not only to take no leftover meatballs more unasked home, rather than properly throw in the trash, but also for six weeks to make coffee for the General Works, or with the sport boy who has fouled his comrades as it is no longer in the frame, which has then to apologize before and four weeks all the equipment up and dismantling, satisfaction with the inside of the noble family when the offspring was public all too drunk and was abusive to him the appanage for a year is halved: Such a trivialization is bold.
Is it stupid? - I do not think so. For me it is hard to imagine (could of course be, who knows?) That the FAZ journalist does not know. He does not know, he is a sad example of its genre.
But he knows it, he commits an intentional deception.
But then the question arises, why he does it. Is it because ... well, I'll save myself speculating about it now had better.
Fortunately, the Käsfondue is already squashed and digested. It may come up to me whether such Geschreibsels advance no more.
This my healthy for me solid egoism, however, good sir Rieble, the Muslim women helps in Neukölln (a nice Lebanese that there's Shariah "magistrate" service does is scanned over the article) unfortunately nothing.
Previously we had been told, "You should be ashamed of yourself!"
Because I do not think that you will publicly apologize for your submissions, after all, I ask you again to think about your statements.
And of course, it is part of the freedom of expression for people to touch the drum so little to nothing on hat have (well, always comes down to is true in the case of Islam, otherwise but not necessarily). Whether that really suits you, you graces you need to decide for yourself.
Since I can not help you unfortunately.
Maybe take time to Neukölln to Mr. Hassan Allouche. You like a cup of tea halallichtem this regard obvious advice.
Addendum: I've only just found that Mr. Rieble really is not a journalist, but a law professor. That makes things worse.
- Advertisement -
Tags: FAZ , Sharia justice of the peace , Volker Rieble
We should all faiths give the opportunity to "right" to speak by their rules.
What may well come out of it when a climate "judge" is based on Bleifußglauben about someone?
Or if the Mafia Church wants to settle a conflict with the pizza church.
No, we do not need more laws. They're only there for the dummies who do not have enough money to make their own laws can be like the financial industry, so another mafia.
actually, it's not worth it over such a mischief also to debate only partially. Extra right, extra dishes for added macro-, occupational and other groups? bad enough that there already approaches are available.
would be normal I suppose that the inhabitants of a State subject to all the same laws and are treated in a uniform way, from the aforementioned "arbitration commissions" apart.
@ Schmitz
As I said, I can hardly imagine that Rieble does not know what he posits there. Lives behind the moon?
And if he knows why he does this? Cui bono?
Anyway, he has ensured that the pro-Sharia Group can now rely on a prominent German law professor.
However, he has also made the error described above the extreme trivialization by objectively baseless comparisons and qua absolute lack of social Inbezugsetzung in his argument.
The latter, which may be safely assume he wisely refrained.
@ Rural residents
Well, I mean, the question is not whether "it is worth" to debate about such nonsense. But it must be unmasked.
Perhaps reads this so many lawyer or law student (maybe even some of his own) and see how the professor treats of such a thing publicly in the FAZ. For such, on laughable compare and embezzlement key (un) pretty powerful aspects constructed standpoint, it can not even give an appearance in the first semester normally.
Probably Mr. Rieble saw that in pretty much any other context as well. Unfortunately for his students.