German Court Rules: Polygamy Not Against the Constitution

An original translation from Stuttgarter Zeitung by Egri Nök.

German Top Court Decides:
German Passport And Two Wives: Both Is Permittable
By Eberhard Wein
August 27, 2017

According to the Koran, a man can marry a second woman; but in Germany, too, this is not against the constitution. At least this is what the two highest administrative law judges say. Photo: ‘Arab with Three Wives and Two Servants’, Wikimedia Commons

A Syrian, who is married to two wives, can still become a German national. The city of Karlsruhe cannot revoke his naturalization, the administative court says.

Karlsruhe – if you contract a second marriage abroad, you can still be a good and loyal citizen. This is the gist of a verdict of the administrative court (VGH) in Mannheim. The highest administrative law judges of the country repealed a contrarian decision by the administrative court Karlsruhe. The city of Karlsruhe had revoked German citizenship from a native of Syria, after it surfaced that he had married a second wife in his old homeland.
The 36 year old Kurd came to Germany in 1999, studied and became a construction engineer in 2008. He married a German that same year, and applied for German citizenship shortly thereafter. At the naturalization test, he scored 33 out of 33 possible points. He received his naturalization certificate in October 2010.

Shortly after the wedding he married a second wife
In 2010, 2013 and 2015, three children were born. But then the man recognized fatherhood for another child born in Damascus in 2012. What surfaced now led to the city of Karlsruhe revoking the naturalization. The man allegedly had married another woman in Syria, already in June 2008, only seven weeks after his marriage in Germany. The charge is that he had given incomplete information in his application.
In the verdict, the administrative court leaves open the question if the plaintiff gained naturalization by willful deceit. It is true that the application form only asked for “previous marriages” and not “additional marriages”. Still, the judges of the previous instance were not wrong to say that a second marriage should have been stated “all the more”. But at the same time, the senate does not share the administrative court’s opinion that the principle of singular marriage was part of the constitution.

Marriage saved woman from ostracism
The city of Karlsruhe had argued that polygamy violated the dignity of man as guaranteed in article 1 [of the German constitution – translator] – in the judges’ opinion “an absolutely unique legal opinion”. They pointed to a decision by the administrative court Regensburg: Who violates the principle of single marriage, is not necessary an “enemy of the constitution”, it said “boldly and correctly”.
In the case at hand, the court also acknowledged the special circumstances. The plaintiff said that he had married the woman, his cousin, because their affair from the year 2006, was busted. Only this way he were able to save her from social ostracism in Syria. His Muslim belief allowed a multiple marriage. At the same time, he admitted, he could not imagine to be one of several husbands.

Case of fundamental importance
After detours over Istanbul, Abu Dhabi and Sweden, the wife now lives in Karlsruhe, too, but in an apartment of her own. His first wife always knew of her, allegedly. There would be no marital contact. The city of Karlsruhe already lodged an appeal against the verdict. The administrative court allowed the revision at the Federal Administrative Court. „We deem the clarification of this legal matter of fundamental importance for generality and consistency”, a townsspeaker said.
(File Reference 12 S 2216/14).

Australia now under the sharia in all but name

In a stunning act of dhimmitude, Australia has turned down an application to build a Synagogue in what was traditionally a Jewish area, because it will be a terrorist target.

This is using the language of national security to enforce sharia law, in exactly the same manner that the rest of the West uses the language of postmodernism, read ‘hate speech’ etc., to do the same.


A LOCAL council has banned the construction of a synagogue in Bondi because it could be a terrorist target, in a shock move that religious leaders say has caved in to Islamic extremism and created a dangerous precedent.


The decision, which has rocked the longstanding Jewish community in the iconic suburb, was upheld in court this week as the nation reeled from the alleged airline terror threat and debate raged over increased security measures at airports and other public places.


The Land and Environment Court backed the decision by Waverley Council to prohibit the construction of the synagogue in Wellington St, Bondi — just a few hundred metres from Australia’s most famous beach — because it was too much of a security risk for users and local residents.

UK Planning lawyer AKA The Mosque Buster was kind enough to give us ten minutes of his time to discuss this underrated issue from yesterday’s news:

On a related matter.

Quite often brutal antisemitic comments appear under some of the Youtube videos we upload. As a general rule, I delete them and ban the poster.

I very much believe in freedom of speech. And blocking people who attempt to hijack our very hard earned platform for irrelevant posts which in 90% of the cases are 100% irrelevant to the issue in the video, is no more blocking people’s freedom of speech than when Kieth Richards smashed the head of a man who jumped on stage at Altamonte was interfering with that man’s right to play guitar.

I do not want the government to regulate them, arrest them, or otherwise interfere with their right to hate on Jewish people. But I will not allow people to hijack a thread on a specific subject to make it about their pet issue and that applies to any issue, although antisemitism is the most common hijack of a thread.

This video was about a Synagogue. But not about Jewish rights per se so much as about the fact that the secular government of Australia denied a permit on the basis that Muslims will attack it. This issue would have been exactly as important if it was any other kind of building. An art gallery, a Church, a school for girls. So I have been deleting attempts to make this about Jews as the central evil under this video on its Youtube page.

Jihadwatch Comes To Town.

PJG has written a guest post over at JihadWatch about Robert Spencer’s vist to Melbournistan.

I’ve known PJG for quite some time now, and we’ve attended the occasional demo together, so I’m happy to agree with what s/he has to say. Rather than rehash that, I’ll add my observations of the evening. (This is your opportunity to rush over to JW and read the report!)

Continue Reading →

Extreme Dawa Downunder.

Recently here in Australia, there’s been an islamic convert in the news.

Ibrahim Siddiq-Conlon is no shrinking violet when it comes to speaking his piece.

He was recently gave an interview on the radio station 2UE in Sydney.

Transcription here.

If you listen to Ibrahim, his tone is quite reasonable. This is because he’s trying to persuade us peacefully, as he’s supposed to.

That’s all well and good, but of course keeping it nice means that he can’t answer a question about bringing the stoning of adulterers into the legislation here. He can only dance around it and say, “Oh, not that old thing.”

Unfortunately for Ibrahim (formerly Shannon), those sorts of practices under sharia law are rather well-known, and have been getting plenty of airplay.

Another thing to consider is that there are muslims in Australia who agree with the message, but not the way it’s presented.

In Ibrahim’s case, he’s out and proud when it comes to sharia, even to the extent of participating in a public debate on the subject.

He thinks it’s inevitable, but there are a lot of people who disagree with him.

People like his debating partner Jack:

00:10 Masked audience member: My question is, what are you gonna do the day the mujahadin, the sons of allah come here, whether by air by plane [?] or by foot?

0:21 Jack: When I was sixteen years of age, I gave an oath to defend this country against all enemies foreign and domestic. I have not been relinquished [sic] of that oath.

One last point that Ibrahim seems to have forgotten, and muslims don’t seem to get. Here in Australia, we are known for taking the mickey out of people. People who are full of themselves, who presume to tell others what to do.

We don’t take too kindly to being ordered around, and we find ways to puncture pomposity:

CIA’s Clare Lopez on Lowell Green show, CFRA hosted by Nick Vandergragt

Today, as a part II to Nick’s two show series on sharia law and Islam in the west, Nick had special guest, Clare Lopez, who’s bio is below:

Clare M. Lopez is a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on Middle East, national defense, and counterterrorism issues. Currently a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy and vice president of the Intelligence Summit, she formerly was a career operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency, a professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies, Executive Director of the Iran Policy Committee from 2005-2006, and has served as a consultant, intelligence analyst, and researcher for a variety of defense firms.

Ms. Lopez is deputy director of the U.S. Counterterrorism Advisory Team for the Military Department of the South Carolina National Guard and serves as a member of the Board of Advisors for the Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia, the Institute of World Affairs, and the Intelligence Analysis and Research program at her undergraduate alma mater, Notre Dame College of Ohio. She has been a Visiting Researcher and guest lecturer on counterterrorism, national defense, and international relations at Georgetown University. Ms. Lopez is a regular contributor to print and broadcast media on subjects related to Iran and the Middle East and the co-author of two published books on Iran. She is the author of an acclaimed paper for the Center, The Rise of the Iran Lobby and co-author of the Center’s Team B II study, “Shariah: The Threat to America”.

Ms. Lopez received a B.A. in Communications and French from Notre Dame College of Ohio and an M.A. in International Relations from the Maxwell School of Syracuse University. She completed Marine Corps Officer Candidate School (OCS) in Quantico, Virginia before declining a commission to join the CIA.

Part I is available here and is a call in show only with no guests, but some of the calls are interesting.


Clare Lopez on CFRA Jan 6 2011 from Vlad Tepes on Vimeo.

Calgary: Muslim beats sister with belt for flirting. Avoids criminal record. Imam applies taqiyya.

From The Calgary Herald

Calgary teen belted his sister for flirting

By Daryl Slade, Calgary Herald November 19, 2010

A Calgary teen will avoid a criminal record after beating his younger sister with a belt for flirting with boys at school.

Court heard a relative had told him it was his duty to punish her under Islamic culture, but a local imam says that’s not part of the religion’s teachings.

In a judgment released on Thursday, youth court Judge Lillian McLellan granted a conditional discharge to the offender, who pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon and says he wants to become a police officer.

Defence lawyer Jim Conway said there was definitely a cultural aspect to the case.

He said the sister, then 16, was doing something improper and a relative told the brother he had a duty to discipline her as the oldest male in the family.

Conway said the girl reported the assault to her school counsellor and her brother, then 17, was charged.

Syed Soharwardy, lead imam at Almadinah Calgary Islamic Centre, told the Herald it was wrong for the boy to assault his sister, but blamed parents and the community for not properly educating young people.

“The boy should not have done it. There is no such thing in Islam that a brother, sister, father or mother should hit someone with a belt, bat or stick,” Soharwardy said on Thursday.

“A girl flirting with someone is not seen as good in Islam. Both of them made a mistake, but I blame the boy more when he went ahead and hit his sister. He should have gone to his parents, community leaders or counsellors. I blame the whole community for not teaching them the right things.”

Court heard that the teen, who cannot be named under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, became angry over rumours about his sister and entered her bedroom on Sept. 27, 2008. He grabbed her by the shoulders and threw her to the ground. He then followed her to the kitchen, removed his belt and struck her seven to eight times on the right arm and leg.

If he complies with all conditions, the charge will be withdrawn and the teen will avoid a criminal conviction.

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
From Grace:
It’s important to note that the imam quoted in this article is none other than Syed Sohawardy of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, the same imam who aggressively argued that sharia law be implemented in Canada. He was also one of the chief complainants against Ezra Levant, who found great offense in his decision to reprint the Danish cartoons in the now defunct Western Standard. You can see his barely legible, scribbled application of complaint here.
Here is Sohawardy’s article defending sharia as he tries to counter oft ‘misunderstandings’ of it’s inherent beauty. The attempt here is an obvious one; to deny the truth of sharia’s twisted, illiberal principles and to convey it as a system of gender equality, tolerance of other religions, sincerity, honesty, piety and purity- a blessing for any society. The imam does though acknowledge some ‘ills’ within Muslim nations by stating yet again another remarkable defense of sharia:
“The current chaos in Muslim countries is not because of sharia. It is because of an absence of sharia’.
I am baffled as to why responses are sought from Muslim leaders whose group efforts seek to implement sharia within Canadian society, who constantly defend it, lie for it and apologize for it. Why anyone would ring up these people for comment is beyond me. I am even more disturbed that this young woman-hater will not receive a criminal record for his crime and the relatives who guided him were not subsequently charged with criminal complicity in their role of aiding and abetting him. Those who practice the art of taqiyya, another golden sharia principle, will no doubt pass this off too, as just one more  ‘misquote’ or ‘misunderstanding’. Here is one of many found in the Qur’an relating to the pre-approved, pious sanctioning of women/wife abuse:

The Qur’an:
Qur’an (4:34)“Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.”

Oh, and one other thing- the young lad who dutifully, honestly, sincerely and piously obeyed Islam’s sharia by assaulting his sister with his belt wants to become……. a police officer.

Quran quote courtesy of The Religion of Peace, Got Quran?

Australia: male journalists ordered out of courtroom while Muslim woman testifies without niqab.

I predicted this. I knew it would only be a matter of time before sharia standards would be granted formal legitimacy and folded into western court proceedings. This woman refused to remove her niqab at a previous hearing, so to satisfy her irrational sensibilities, the judge decided that sacrificing Australia’s own laws of gender equality to suit Islamic gender apartheid practices would be a fair cultural exchange.

From The Australian

Muslim woman removes niqab to give evidence, as male journalists are barred from court

  • From: AAP
  • October 18, 2010 5:28PM

A MUSLIM woman who sparked a national debate when she asked to give evidence in court wearing a niqab has uncovered her face to testify in a fraud trial.

Tasneem, whose last name has been suppressed by the Perth District Court, gave evidence for just 15 minutes today in the trial of Anwar Sayed.

Mr Sayed, 50, is accused of falsifying student numbers at the Muslim Ladies College of Australia in Kenwick, in Perth’s south, to fraudulently obtain part of $1.125 million the school received in state and federal government grants.

Tasneem, 36, has worn a niqab since the age of 17 and wanted to wear it while giving evidence in the trial.

But Judge Shauna Deane in August ruled she must remove the face-covering garment so that the jury could see her facial expressions.

Tasneem only removes the niqab when she visits the doctor and dentist, at customs in airports and when she has her driver’s licence photograph taken.

Judge Deane last week ruled that to make it easier for Tasneem to give evidence comfortably, men would be removed from the court.

The only men allowed in the courtroom while she gave her evidence today were male jurors, the judge’s usher, Mr Sayed and the lawyers.

While female journalists were allowed to stay in the court to report on Tasneem’s evidence, male journalists were ejected.

A lawyer representing Network Ten and the Seven and Nine networks made an application on Friday to alter the order so that male journalists could remain in court, but the application was rejected.

Giving evidence via video link today, Tasneem appeared comfortable, flanked by a security person and a support person, both of whom were female.

During her brief evidence she explained that she worked at the school as an Islamic studies teacher for two hours a day, five days a week.

Tasneem said that “from time to time” some students would go overseas on holiday or to visit family, mostly in Afghanistan, so it was possible they were enrolled at the school, but did not attend for long periods of time.

Mr Sayed is the director of Muslim Link Australia, which runs the Muslim Ladies College.

He allegedly knowingly signed a declaration that in the 2006/07 census year, more than 180 students were enrolled in the school when there were 80 to 100 fewer than that.

The school received about $164,000 from the state government and about $961,000 from the federal government.

The trial continues.


Shariah law has come to Canada.

From The Ottawa Sun

Court decision puts veil over women’s rights


Last Updated: October 17, 2010 2:00am

It is illegal for a woman wearing a face-obscuring veil to board a plane in Canada. But a unanimous ruling last week by the Ontario Court of Appeal says it’s just fine for that same woman to give testimony in court with her face covered.

There’s more. Ontario’s highest court says veiled women can ask for an order to clear men out of the courtroom — any men in the public gallery, any male court staff, even her opponent’s lawyer, even the judge himself — in return for taking off her veil. It’s paragraph 85 of the ruling.

Shariah law has come to Canada.

Face-obliterating veils called niqabs are a medieval tool for gender apartheid. They destroy a woman’s identity. They turn her into an object, a chattel owned by her master — which is why they’re the norm in Saudi Arabia, where women have fewer rights than men and only slightly more than animals.

Burkas — an even more prison-like shroud, with just a tiny beekeeper’s screen to peek through — are the Taliban variety. Those are now allowed on the witness stand in Canada, too.

Rip the Ten Commandments off the wall, because we must have separation of church and state. But when the most un-Canadian expression of radical Islam walks in the court, our judges follow the Qur’an.

But that’s not fair to the Qur’an. No verse in that book requires face-covering. But our judges now say it’s a Charter right.

To their shame, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association intervened to support this. They have demanded Bibles be removed from schools and the Lord’s Prayer be banned from legislatures. But Muslim veils — a chastity belt for the face — have their support in a secular court.

The CCLA has found religion. And LEAF, the feminist law organization built with Canadian tax dollars, has a new view on a woman’s proper place. They argued for the niqab, too.

As National Post columnist Barbara Kay points out, a survey of Muslim women in France found 77% wear the veil out of fear of men.

Australian Imam Taj Din al-Hilali put it another way, in a sermon about rape: “If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street … and the cats come and eat it … whose fault is it, the cats’ or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem.”

LEAF supports covering up “the meat.” Now our courts do too.

The Ontario ruling came about because a Muslim woman alleged she was molested as a child by her uncle and her cousin in the 1980s. It’s a horrendous accusation and, if true, the woman deserves our sympathy and the accused deserve our most punitive punishment. But before we get there, there’s the matter of a trial.

In Canada, even accused rapists have the right to question their accuser and the court has the right to observe her demeanour. It’s why we don’t allow testimony from someone wearing a mask.

But this accuser didn’t want to take off her mask.

“It’s a respect issue, one of modesty and one of — in Islam, we call honour,” she told the judge at the preliminary inquiry “It’s to conceal the beauty of a woman.”

She had only been wearing a veil for about five years and the judge found her religious belief was “not that strong.” But “I would feel a lot more comfortable if I didn’t have to, you know, reveal my face.”

Sure, she took the veil off to get her driver’s licence. But that was important, you see. Not like accusing a man of a horrendous crime.

The judge told her to take off her veil. That’s what was over-ruled last week.

This could be great, says the Court of Appeal. The reliability of her veiled testimony could actually be better.

“Without the niqab … one could not expect her to be herself on the witness stand … her embarrassment and discomfort could be misinterpreted as uncertainty and unreliability.”

But it’s more than law. It’s politics, they say. Allowing the niqab “could be seen as a recognition and acceptance of those minority beliefs and practices.”

That’s exactly the problem.

In heaven, Aqsa Parvez is screaming again.

— Read Levant’s blog at

Canadian Court of Appeal ‘decides’ on niqabs in courtrooms

From The Ottawa Sun

Putting face on religion


Last Updated: October 13, 2010 10:08pm

TORONTO – It is a typically Canadian solution.

The Ontario Court of Appeal won’t ban Muslim witnesses from wearing a face veil. Nor will the highest court in the province grant them an automatic right to do so.

Instead, in its highly anticipated decision, the appeal court has ruled right down the middle, saying “each case must turn on its own facts.”

As long as it doesn’t prejudice a fair trial, the court ruled, Muslim women should have the religious right to wear their niqab when testifying.

But if a judge is convinced by the accused that he can’t properly defend himself if she’s testifying against him behind a veil, the witness must remove her niqab and allow the face-to-face confrontation that is the norm in Canadian courts.

Justice system

“The criminal justice system as it presently operates, and as it has operated for centuries, places considerable value on the ability of lawyers and the trier of fact to see the full face of the witness as the witness testifies,” wrote Justice David Doherty in the ruling released Wednesday morning on behalf of the three-judge panel.

“There is no getting around the reality that in some cases, particularly those involving trial by jury where a witness’s credibility is central to the outcome, a judge will have a difficult decision to make.”

It was not a clear-cut victory for any side, but one cautiously applauded by all.

“It’s a real step forward,” said David Butt, lawyer for N.S., the Toronto woman who was ordered to remove her niqab at a preliminary hearing. “This walks a middle ground that balances two very important, competing rights.”

N.S. came forward in 2007 and accused her uncle and cousin of sexually abusing her as a child. When the case went to a preliminary hearing in 2008, she said she wanted to testify while wearing her niqab. When the judge ruled against her, she took her case to the Ontario Court of Appeal in June.

In its 54-page decision, the three-judge appeal panel ruled that there needs to be a “case by case assessment” and for the first time set out guidelines for judges in these previously “uncharted waters”.

For N.S., the appeal court overturned her niqab ban and said she must be given a proper hearing to show why her religion requires her to cover all but her eyes.

The defence must also be allowed to call evidence on the issue before the judge decides if she can testify wearing her veil or whether accommodations can be made for her testimony — such as an all-female court.

“The court did not decide the crux issue of whether the niqab comes off or stays on,” said N.S.’ lawyer.

“On the other hand, the court has given us a very firm set of factors to guide us.”

The Criminal Lawyers’ Association had argued that a witness can’t be properly cross-examined if their face is concealed but was satisfied with the ruling.

“It is a paradigmatic, Canadian decision insofar as it strikes a very workable compromise rather than making a choice between two important competing values,” noted association president Paul Burstein. “Time will tell.”

Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, was relieved the court of appeal did not grant an automatic right to give testimony behind the veil, which he insists is a political, not a religious, symbol. But he was troubled the appeal court seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate women wearing a face covering many in the west see as backward and misogynistic.

“They do not think that Muslim women are women per se, but some kind of exotic species that they have to nurture in the laboratory that’s called Canada,” Fatah complained.

For its part, the appeal court wisely shied away from making a definitive ruling on a piece of cloth that continues to divide.

“The wearing of a niqab in public places is controversial in many countries including Canada,” Doherty wrote.

“The controversy raises important public policy concerns that have generated heated debate. Those difficult and important questions are not the focus of this proceeding and cannot and should not be resolved in this forum.”

Niqabs in Canadian courts???

From The National Post

Ontario court to rule if woman can wear niqab while testifying

The Ontario Court of Appeal is expected to rule if women can testify in court while wearing a niqab.

For the first time in Canada, an appellate level court is going to rule on whether a woman can testify in court while wearing a niqab.

The Ontario Court of Appeal is scheduled to release its ruling Wednesday in the case of a 32-year-old Muslim woman who says she was sexually abused as a child by two male relatives.

The decision will be issued just days after the constitutional council in France approved legislation that will ban the wearing of a burqa or a niqab in public places. Women who wear the face-covering clothing could face fines of nearly $200. Anyone in France who forces a woman to wear a burqa or niqab could be sentenced to a year in jail.

In the case before the Ontario Court of Appeal, the woman was originally ordered by a provincial court judge in October 2008 to remove the Muslim veil, which covers most of her face except for her eyes, while testifying at the preliminary hearing of the defendants.

The alleged sexual assault victim refused and the Ontario Court of Appeal heard arguments from the Crown and defence, as well as several other groups, during a two-day hearing in June.

The Ontario government urged the court not to issue a “blanket statement” and instead set out a legal framework for courts to decide the issue on a case-by-case basis. The appeal court could for example, allow limited questioning of a female Muslim witness, to ensure that her religious reasons for wearing the niqab are legitimate.

A lawyer for one of the two defendants argued that there is a long-standing right to assess the demeanor of witnesses when they testify and the woman should have to remove the niqab. The Muslim Canadian Congress sided with the defendants and its lawyer told the court that wearing the niqab is a political statement and the issue is not about religious freedoms.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) argued in favour of the woman’s right to testify while wearing the niqab. The lawyer representing LEAF suggested the woman should not have to “relive being forcibly uncovered,” if ordered to remove the niqab in court.