Is anyone else as excited as I am to read the apologies soon to be posted by the usual suspects? You know, the ones who call themselves liberals?

And I think this judge is beyond asinine.. She should be drummed out of the legal profession and possibly prosecuted for endangering the woman's life.

Multiculturalism is all well and good but like anything it has limits and I would draw the limit well before this point.

Fundamentalists of any stripe are less than rational and Muslim fundamentalists seem even less rational than the Christian fundamentalists with which I'm most familiar.

Apologies? *crickets*

The Koran, in sura 4:34, explicitly allows men to beat their wives. It is a religious injunction -- the judge was completely correct about a Muslim man's "right to castigate" his wife. A quick search of MEMRI or even YouTube will show you the passion with which modern Muslim males appreciate this verse -- clip after clip of imams discussing the proper methods, weapons, force, and frequency of beatings to be applied.

Another recent case from France saw a man ripping out his wife's eyes after she refused his demand for sex -- a serious breach, in Muslim law, of her obligation of absolute and instant obedience to her husband. Perhaps an excessive punishment, but under an religious ideology where women are genitally mutilated, traded like livestock, forcibly married, beaten, and "honor"-killed on a regular basis in the name of Allah, perhaps an understandable response. Surprisingly, in that case the French judge threw his ass in jail.

But it's their culture and their religion, which we must respect, correct? The judge was only following the modern multiculti rule for which so many posters here argue.

After all, bigamy and polygamy are illegal and prosecutable in the United States -- except for Muslims, as the information emerging from the tragic fire in New York demonstrates. This judge is only the cutting edge of the thrust for Shar'ia in Western countries, seen already in Canada, France, and England, as well as some preliminary feints here in the U.S.

Cue the escalating wails of offense and protestations of inner joy from Muslimahs safely parked in Western countries -- well, except maybe Germany.

Surely there's a German Richard Dawkins, right? What are Germany's secularists doing about this? The last thing they need is to import a new religious right.

It almost like you're starting to apply basic techniques of rational criticism to non-Western cultures and religions. Does Joan Walsh know about this?

No,no, this can't be happening not at Salon. I must be drunk or hallucinating.

While this ruleing was truly bizar, the womens life and well beaing was not in danger. She got the right to keep the formaly common appartment and the husband was forbidden from nearing his still wife.

Hopefully cases like these will show those dense admirers of post-modernism and cultural relativism why those ideas are bankrupt.

The judge should have ignored their religion. Also, as they were in a German court, German culture is what's important. I'm a liberal and I think the judge should be overruled for abuse of discretion.

Not to excuse fundamentalist idiocy, but female genital mutilation seems to be more a cultural thing. I think the great majority of Muslims do not practice that abhorrent ritual.

BTW, I also think circumcision is mutilation... let the flame wars begin.

This should not happen in Germany or any other country. Protection of the laws extends to everyone regardless of their religion. This judge should be disbarred, what a horrible betrayal of western values -- equality before the law, secularism, equality of genders. This is clearly a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights (to which the wife will be able to make recource after she exhausts the appellate resources of Germany), and all sorts of European Union treaties and directives on gender equality, and the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which has quasilegal judicial effect. If she has a lawyer, don't worry about her.

However, this does not surprise me, because the separation of church and state in Europe is a lot more blurry than here in the US. This is what happens when you blend Christianity and the law, as is still done in some places in Europe. You then have to blend Islam and the law when the people in front of you are Muslim. I think both practices should be stopped.

Is it possible that this was not multi-culturalism gone very very wrong, but a perverse jab at Islam: "you're a Muslim women, suck it up"? Whatever the case, it's truly frightening. An honour-killing in Syria confirms the worst aspects of the Religion of Peace, but to see even a hint of the edge the wedge in the West, should get people in the streets. Someone else notes Sharia in Canada; it was suggested in Ontario, and thankfully swatted away.

Oh, and Salon: why can I never write a letter properly because of the stupid ad at right?

Even the Muslims are pissed off that their religious law could have been this badly misread by a judge. Excuse me--a WOMAN judge? They'd better check under her bench for schnapps... she can't be sober...

This case has nothing to do with multiculturalism, cultural relativism, or respect for Islam. It's about valuing secular, civil law over religious law.

So, please quickly and loudly announce your avid support of separation of church and state to the religious right who would subvert American democracy in favor of theocracy.

Waiting...

*crickets*

...Germany should drop its rediculous 1-year waiting period. Talk about being in the dark ages.

As for the case itself, the judge's reasoning is just bizarre. Violence in a marriage is either a hardship or it isn't. What someone is "used to" is irrelevant. Obviously. Not every American judge is a rocket scientist...but it's hard to imagine a decision like that coming down in the states.

Note to Salon: if you want people to comment on your articles, you shouldn't splash advertising banners over the typing space. I like to actually read what I'm typing...