Comments (38)

♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥

--- Prince LOVEO, your immortal SON says:

.
|.*.|.|.*.|.|.*.|
|.|.....?.....|.|
C...(♦ (♥
.|.........~
..|..\...C………(((((((( "...Eternal Huggs..!"
......\__/

--- Princess LOVEA, your immortal DAUGHTER says:

|.|^*^.*.^*^|.|
|.!.....?....!.|
c...(♥ (♦
.|.........>
..|..\...c………(((((((( "...Eternal Kiss's..!"
......\_/

.

♥WE♥♥LOVE♥♥YOU♥♥MOM♥n♥Dad♥n♥Siblingstoo!

P O E M For LADY's:
♥
"Mother are Givers of Youth to Youth"
Every Girl is a golden loom:
♥
The fibers of LiFE & LOVE to weave,
Every Woman is youth in bloom,
no matter how much she grieve,
Every female is a MOTHER inside
The fabric of manners she wears,
Every MOTHER is a Lover; beside
the looming bloom she wears.
♥
Every DAUGHTER came from a MOTHER
And every SON came from a womb,
Already Pre-Baptized and Confirmed via
The Holy Cosmic Oceanic Megaplume Womb,
thus every SISTER and every BROTHER
is the MOTHERS YOUTH in Bloom.
♥
Every GRANDMOTHER ever alive
is the MOTHER of another in Youth,
Every MOTHER of a CHiLD to arrive
is the giver of Youth to that Youth.

♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥

O’ EVE, Bearer of Children, Hear this.

The connection between the MOTHER & the CHiLD is different from that between the FATHER and the
CHiLD because the FATHER breeds the Child Forth by the joys of SEX he has with the MOTHER ,
Married OR Not to each other, whereas

the MOTHER must suffer the pains of giving birth through cramps, sweat , labor & joy's of tears, which can never be explained to the FATHER sufficiently for him to KNOW what a MOTHER must go through "SYNERGETICALLY" with 'Her-G-d' , her ECLAT, during those awesome and

Miraculous moments that change the structures of her brain-Cells and her Emotional self Rescue & for the deliverance of the child(s), so that she looks upon the newly Child through eyes of love connected with that experience.

Note: SYNERGETiC Apocalyptically means:

"An iNTROViSiONing of how the "RELATEDNESS OF EVENTS" ((The RELATiViTY between the LAWS OPF IT's NATURE (clauses) and the things Produced by those LAWS)) of Two Things or more interact in such a way, that the Total effect is G-R-E-A-T-E-R than the Sum of their effects, IF they acted w/out influencing each other, such as 2-people who Never-Met each other, as compared to a Couple in LOVE with Each Other);

WHEREFORE: MOTHERS are destined to "Magnify The Law," Uphold IT & Thus "Make Them Honorable!"

THIS, is why MOTHERS are more closer to G-D in NATURE consciously; and the WORLD can be saved through-them SYNERGETICALLY and

ECLAT (eponymous SOURCE-ONE, who salutes them) is beginning to work through them for that purpose right now; So They are entitled to EQUAL-RIGHTS they Seek or seek’d for themselves, AND truly (opposite of Myth) They , Future bound & spaceforth thinking Mothers, will save the world and ADAM's too, in the 'long-Run!"

Yes! Prophetically announcing: That At the End Of The Day, IT WiLL always Be The “LADY's” Who Will Save Us, not the "GENT's!" This is Nature at IT's best for Us ALL!

---

May Xtra Photons shine at the Sides of All those Brave Boy's & Girl's , who are defending the Holy Cosmic Made REPUBlIC of Space-Ship Momma/Poppa EARTH, and whom Seeme to Die, in Iraq, Afghanistan, WTC et al, Yet Ye Never Have nor can ever Die!

Birth is Truly (opposite of MYTH) a MIRACLE, never a Sin nor any unkind Bible(s) Curse Story!

♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥ ♥♥

HALLALUYA! Praise The HOLY NO-MAN!

Thank God. All civilized societies should stand up against a barbaric, backward, insular, bigoted, rigid and violent set of laws like the Sharia.

The Sharia are not a set of laws, it is a system of exploiting and oppressing women. Can anyone make sense of law that allows a husband to divorce a wife of 20 years with just the talaq (repeated 3 times) and payment of an insignificant amount written into the contract 20 years ago ($2,500 in the case of the Pakistani marriage)?

But in India we are held hostage by a resurgent Muslim population and politicians who are impotent and corrupt like the CPI(M) in West Bengal. I have grave doubts whether the political establishment in India will be able to withstand the onslaught of increasingly radicalized Muslim population and infiltration/rehabilitation of illegal Muslims from Bangladesh. Many Indian politicians basically are only interested in hanging on to power and playing vote-bank politics. They are not interested in the future of India as a democratic nation. It is a relief that the Maryland court has demonstrated to the world how to handle idiotic Sharia and the Islamic mind-set.

Excellent outcome!

If Mr Aleem or any other Muslim in the U.S. wants to implement his religious laws, then let's use equality here.

I am an American who was married under California law in a Christian church to a Muslim. The day the Shari'iah courts here allow me to use the laws of my marriage in Kuwait, is the day I approve of Muslims in my country using their laws. Under my laws I would be very comfortable, under his laws I have suffered immensely trying to raise my children on a pittance.

This man chose to live in the U.S. for the sake of improving his life, his educatin and his income. The Islamic khula law takes forever for a woman, and she must forfeit any alimony, and her dowry if she cannot prove abuse.

The woman chose to divorce in the state she resides in, under civil law after years of suffering. She had little education, and no work visa for several years. I am very pleased with this outcome.

She won.

Victoria asks:

"why would people have unequal punishments standing equally before the god?"
You tell us why in light of your prophet's behavior as described below.

Sahih Bukhari as related in
Volume 3, Book 49, Number 860 by
Abu Huraira and Zaid bin Khalid Al-Juhani:
”A Bedouin came and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Judge between us according to Allah's Laws." His opponent got up and said, "He is right. Judge between us according to Allah's Laws." The Bedouin said, "My son was a laborer working for this man, and he committed illegal sexual intercourse with his wife. The people told me that my son should be stoned to death; so, in lieu of that, I paid a ransom of one hundred sheep and a slave girl to save
my son. Then I asked the learned scholars who said, "Your son has to be lashed one-hundred lashes and has to be exiled for one year." The Prophet said, "No doubt I will judge between you according to Allah's Laws. The slave-girl and the sheep are to go back to you, and your son will get a hundred lashes and one year exile." He then addressed somebody, "O Unais! go to the wife of this (man) and stone her to death" So, Unais went and stoned her to death.”

Victoria writes: "islam also instructs us to have suspicion for the best intentions in people- not the worst intentions."

You seem to have difficulty following this part.

Thank you for your informative reply.

the premise of your question was based upon misinformation- that women are somehow half of the worth of men-
i assumed the dispelling of that premise would logically lead you to conclude the obvious-

there is no sharia law that that metes punishments out separately based upon gender, or race or religion.

all human life is equally valuable-
man, woman, muslim, non-muslim-

why would people have unequal punishments standing equally before the god?

sharia is man's interpretation of the gods laws- the purpose of sharia is justice-

you seem to have no problem accepting ridiculous interpretations that are clearly unfair and unjust-
and yet balk at just and fair interpretations?

when you encounter people who attempt to justify their own twisted agends with some supposed sharia- (like the stories of mr mahfouz- or the complaints ms namiz has about her misleading imam) you are encountering the weaknesses and manipulations of individuals-
which are not representative of anything but their own desires to support their worldview.

if you are really interested- i will come back with solid info on a real subject-

islam also instructs us to have suspicion for the best intentions in people- not the worst intentions.
thats a negative suspicion- with negative repurcussions.

that is one of the frameworks of the mindset of islam.

Victoria writes: "there are no witnesses in the case of divorce-the rest of the parody falls apart on that fact."

That's not really the question I asked so I'm not sure what you're on about. I specifically asked about punishment. Would you care to address the question that I asked him?

Let me restate it for you:

Would the murder of one woman by a man carry half the punishment of the murder of one man by a man?

and continues: "in matters of business- it says that 2 women are required to equal one man as witnesses. most jursits today agree that a woman today has enough experience to be her own singular witness."

I thought Sharia was your god's law. How easily these jurists bend it. You seem to support them. Don't you fear your god's wrath for agreeing with the people that break his law?

Also, please quantify 'most' for me. Is that 51% or 99%?

and foolishly carries on: "but i recognize a setup when i see it-"

If it were my intent to slam Islam, I would have already done so. Your skills of recognition are poor Victoria.

NAMIZ- if your imam is misleading you- and clearly you are aware of this as it is your leading statement- you would do well to find a lawyer who is knowledgeable about islamic law also.
Do not take the advice of myself- or any other stranger on the internet for such an incredibly important life altering decision.
not all imams are scholars- by any means.
seek those well versed in this area.
it is far too important to trust to novices like me.

TJ- mr mahfouz gives an excellent example of the parody of divorce that i touched upon before - particularly in his native egypt. (which is the country i mentioned where this debate rages)

there are no witnesses in the case of divorce-
the rest of the parody falls apart on that fact.

he can certainly inform us as to the content of egyptian cinema- but tv is hardly a source of valid info- anywhere, is it.
just as i would not go to muslim to learn about christianity- the reverse is true.


in matters of business- it says that 2 women are required to equal one man as witnesses.
most jursits today agree that a woman today has enough experience to be her own singular witness.

it is only in the case of a business contract-
all other instances where witnesses are required, such as marriage for instance-
a woman is the same as a man in her witness.

but i recognize a setup when i see it-

and a hypocrite is a hypocrite- i doubt the pakistani man is any less of a hypocrite in his home country than he is here.
hypocrites shame us all, no matter what their affiliation.

Ibrahim Mahfouz, thank you for your informative reply.

TJ asks me:
Is this typical in Sharia? 2 females are equal to 1 male?
While I do not claim to be an authority on Sharia yet I am familiar with much of the Koran and the Ahadith, or the history and sayings of the prophet of Islam.
In testimony when accepted a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man. In cases of violent crimes women testimony are not accepted . Women also in theory inherit half as much as their brothers. Fathers have over time perfected a way to deny their daughters any inheritance by signing a document that they sold their property to the sons.
The Quran has an abrogated verse that says adulterers and adulteresses are to be stoned. Another verse condemns a ‘sinning “ women for a house arrest till death, while calls for pardon for the male counterpart “if he promises to repent”. Hadith, or tradition of the prophet mentioned in Sahih Bukhari speak of a young man committing adultery with a married women. The husband of the woman and the father of the young man asked the Prophet about the proper punishment. The Prophet ruled that the young man pay the aggrieved husband one hundred camels and that he be exiled for a year while the woman be stoned to death.
In cases of the so-called “honor “ killing in the countries I am familiar with i.e. Palestine and Jordan, if a woman kills her male relative the punishment is death by stoning , by hanging or by chopping of her head, while a man killing his female relative because of an "immoral act" will at present gets a jail sentence of no more than six months.

Ibrahim Mahfouz: "A man could under the Sharia laws divorce any of his wives by simply uttering ”I divorce you thrice” in the presence of two male witnesses or four female witnesses or one male witness and two female witnesses."

Is this typical in Sharia? 2 females are equal to 1 male?

Does it apply to punishment as well? Would the murder of one woman by a man carry half the punishment of the murder of one man by a man?

Victoria explains:

“the wife would have to contract a real marriage- not a marriage for the purpose of reuniting with her husband but a real one- get divorced, and then remarry.”

This requires some clarification. A man could under the Sharia laws divorce any of his wives by simply uttering ”I divorce you thrice” in the presence of two male witnesses or four female witnesses or one male witness and two female witnesses. If the couple wish to reconcile afterwards, the woman had to marry another man and then have him divorce her before she could remarry her original husband. I know that at least in Egypt there is a way out of that embarrassing predicament. The husband hires a man, who is referred to as Muhallel, who agrees to marry the wife in theory only for few days. At the agreed upon time, the Muhallel is paid an agreed upon amount and would be expected to “divorce “ his new “bride”. What happens in many cases is that the new ”husband” would renege on the agreement. This drama was the subject of many Egyptian comedy movies and plays.

Re: No dice
Denying women equal rights is an integral feature of the Muslim culture, which is based on the Sharia laws. This is a code of conduct based on the text of the Quran and the tradition of the Muslim prophet and is referred to by Muslims as the “Divine “ law.
To expect a Muslim man to give up his “Allah’s granted” privileges of dominance and superiority over women simply because he is living in a non-Muslim country is unthinkable to them. What if that (denying women equal rights) is against the civil laws of the host country? To them the “Divine “ laws trump any “man made “ laws. This Pakistani man lives in Maryland and abides by the laws of that state when that serves his purpose, but when the Pakistani Sharia laws favor him more, such as in his divorce case, he goes and files the divorce at the Pakistani embassy. Such people are in this country but not of it and so strive for what is best for them in the two worlds. They shall keep trying how far they can go in compromising the host country's laws and get away with it.

If you use your religion to strip the rights from others... no dice.

Good question, Nazima. Perhaps Victoria could also tell us the number of the suras that detail the divorce process by men.

Salaam Alaikoom, Sister Victoria

I always enjoy reading your wise posts.

I need your advice because our Imam is misleading us.

My mother wishes to divorce her husband/my father. She wishes to do it the Islamic way and go back to Pakistan if need be. What are the guidelines in the Holy Quran when the wife wishes to divorce her husband? Could you cite the relevant verses.

Thanks

Victoria

When Muhammad divorced one of his wives because she had leprosy, he did not go through all the motions you say Islam requires. It was three talaaqs uttered within minutes.

Hmmm.. and now you're offering half-baked opinions on one of the world's great religions. Would you care to get back to us some time in the next decade with some thoughts on your Scientology debacle?

The missing key: The US was founded upon a Judeo-Christian worldview. Good luck trying to accomodate alternative, conflicting ethe. Like we should allow satanic clubs in high schools, sharia law in barrios, etc? Applying its cultural ethos to its body of law is hard enough; once the nation abandons that central identity it descends into an abyss of legal wrangling trying to reconcile deeply held irreconcilable tenets in an attempt to redefine itself. And since there are no principles that can overarch the conflicting tenets, victory goes to the powerful.

Which sounds a whole lot like political correctness.

p.

When muslims marry in America, they have to apply for a marriage license and the officiate of the marriage has to be certified by the state.

a marrage is both a social and legal cotract entered into willingly by 2 parties.

The Qur'an states very clearly the process of divorce- the 3 talaq divorce is not the process described in the Qur'an, and is an abuse of the religion.
This is a debate that rages in some spots of the islamic world- egypt for example has had many public debates on this subject.

the process is a divorce is pronounced- then a period of 3 months a cooling off period is enacted. Within this period, (called iddah which ensures that the woman is not pregnant) the husband can reconcile with the wife if desired- and arbiters from both sides mediate the couple and try to reconcile if possible their differences.

the wife is to be supported by the husband in this period- no matter who wealthy her own personal assets are.

if no reconciliation occurs- divorce is granted.
or the wife may decide she wants a divorce and enact the previously mentioned khul.

or the couple may reconcile, only to have another divorce declared- and the same process happens again.

if it happens again, with a reconciliation- the marriage continues.

but - if a third time, another divorce is declared- this is final and irrefutable.

if such a 3rd talaq occurs-the husband and wife are forbidden to each other to remarry.

the wife would have to contract a real marriage- not a marriage for the purpose of reuniting with her husband but a real one- get divorced, and then remarry.

this is a deterrent to carelessly given divorces.
there are many steps along the way- to the decree of final divorcement.

and divorces uttered in states of agitation, anger, intoxication or any other altered state of mind- are also not recognized.

and we have not even touched upon the financial aspects of it.

ms hoffman is so unqualified to comment on this subject- and her perceptions so ridiculous-
that she should really stick to subjects she has some remote degree of familiarity with.

Mr. Mofi Alkamudi,
I stand corrected when I said ' state versus religious fanatics'. I am wrong. As you told it is a civil suit when a husband tries to cheat his wife of the dues he ows to her.

I am very happy to know that the court has given the sensible ruling in society versus the religious fanatics.
As the author of the article has mentioned 'affairs that are said to be that of God'. Definitely they are not that of God. It is that of men, I repeat men, who have been fooling the beguile masses since time imemmorial. Even in this twenty first centuary educated people are flocking to various Godmen to prostrate on their feet and get their blessings and a fistfull of ashes which any street magician can do. So it should have been much much more easy to fool the masses a millenium and half ago. The masses who sincerely believed that the thunder and lightning and all are divine wrath.
So somebody with a little oratory can say that he had the vision of the Almighty and the Almighty has given these rules to be followed the ignorant people would have believed it to be true . Even now people belives the words of oracles. Probably he must have told it with a very good intention say to get support of the people to ward off the enimies or due to some other necessity. But to think what was told some thousand and five hundred years ago is Gods own words and one should follow without questioning is too bad. Times have changed and accordingly the laws will have to be changed. You cannot kill someone for blasphemy. One should understand that women are no more a chattel of man. She is his partner.
Religion and state should be completely seperated.
You should be ruled by the laws of the state and your soul should be ruled by your religion. All ones religious feeling should be confined to his heart. Please don't take it out. It is not only bad for you but dangerous to others as well. How many innocents are getting killed.

My apologies.

I meant to say "Of course the Buddists AREN'T all organized under one leader" in my previous post. Not "ARE".

Ms. Hoffman,

It appears that this is an interesting form of spin control for the Scientology debacle from yesterday.

What you are aiming for, I see, is to position yourself as an Academic, who's discussing issues of Government intersecting with God.

Of course the Scientologists HAVE no God.

But to be fair, neither do Buddists. Of course the Buddists are all organized under one leader, collecting money from them all, and using dirty tactics to constantly maximize his profits and suppress opposition.

Anyway, another thing is that in yesterday's piece you definitely put your foot in too far and stepped in manure, tracking up the whole house when you couldn't get it all off your shoe. You took a side yesterday, you didn't Academically stand back and point out both points of view. This time? Maybe you came a smidgen closer.

To avoid arbitrary law, induced from the plethora of religions, and to ensure true separation of State from Religion, it is absolutely necessary for State law to supersede any religious law.

Regarding the polygamists. I really do not care about the polygamists, except for the over riding issue of child endangerment. The polygamists can and did whatever they cared to do in their "perfect" world. The State took custody when the health and safety of the children came into question.

Usama: your statements on divorce in America are assuming and prejudiced.

Nice Ruling!

Enforcing, not the Koran/Koran/Bible/Gita/Kangyurs/etc.., But A Classic "Equal Protection" & "Due Process" of The LAW(s) for Men & Woman! Only on America!

Ps: Bloger "M A T T-M" is correct about "Preneptual" contract/marriage Law! Yes, Learn From Donald Trump et al!

Note: Preneptual Agreements should never be allowed with GAY-Same-Sex Couples!

Ya Ya Momma Poppo's Monsa Mono's!

I don't trust Ms Hoffman's depiction of this event. Her condescending desciption of 'trotting' down the embassy?
Where is the evidence of this case?
Why didn't Ms Ho.ffman mention khul of which women can initiate?

Islam puts the responsibility of maintaining the wife on the husband She can sit at home her entire life if she wants and not lift a finger. He has to spend all of his income to do this. In contrast, the woman does not have to spend any of her wealth on anything but what she wants.
It is NOT a equitable relationship: the wife is essentially getting a free ride.

In turn, the authority to grant a divorce/talaq resides with the husband, or she can go to a judge for a modified divorce, called a khula.
But Ms Hoffman didn't mention this.

American family law essentially renders spouses equals in all things, including the husband's income. So a practicing Muslim who follows Islam, taking care of his wife while keeping hands off her income, and then goes through a divorce in America, will turn out the loser. American courts don't care that the husband spent all of his wealth on his wife. In fact, she will recieve alimony for decades if his income allows it.

One could argue that divorce in America is antithetical to marriage. It essentially renders the man indebted to his xwife. Very rarely do women ever have to pay alimony or give part an equitable share of her wealth to her xhusband.

Not to mention that divorces take 6-9 months to litigate. During this time, spouses and children suffer in the long, drawn out process which is much like a person dying over several months.
During a litigated divorce in America, work production decreases, mental illnesses occur, criminal behavior often emerges.

Really, is this any forum to discuss Islamic divorce? Why is Hoffman using only one case to discuss a complex sociological issue?

My god has just whispered in my ear that, in order to stop global warming, I must become a pirate. Dressing up as a pirate isn't enough to save the planet. I must commit acts of piracy on the high seas. I must rape and pillage.

It's expected that courts uphold the laws of the land in which they operate. I don't find it exciting. As a taxpayer and a citizen it's what I expect and it's what I demand.

Thank God we've got more than religions to count on in matters of society. Why are so many of the gods sexist? Get a prenuptial agreement!

i completely disagree with the comment that: "Still, it is exciting and worth paying attention to when state courts decides to nose into affairs that are said to be of God."
this case has nothing to do with "god and religion," and the maryland high court acted properly and competently to expose a fraudster!
this case simply involved a muslim immigrant from pakistan living in the USofA, who wanted to divorce his wife of many years without giving her her fair share of jointly-earned assets, while living in the state of maryland.
to that end, he absconded to the pakistan embassy, where he filed defective and fraudulent papers of the "so-called talaq," granting the wife a mere pittance of $2,500 out of an estimated $2M.
this is a clear case of fraud in the eyes of both, secular and religious law. the maryland high court granted proper relief and deserving to the wife. muslim men have historically cheated their wives of their fair share, not only in divorces but in their obligatory dowry prior to formal marriage! i am pleased with the court's ruling!
correction: under valid islamic law, a man cannot simply parrot "i divorce you" three times to effect a divorce from his wife. this is a complete distortion of the laws of talaq. lastly, a woman can also file for divorce (talaq) under a variety of conditions, including incompatibility, physical abuse, and male impotence!
sincerely
mofi alkamudi

1 Peter 2:13-16

"Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing right you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God."

There is no Biblical justification for the leaders of these so called Christian compounds to do anything but obey US Civil Law. To the contrary they are told to obey civil law.

In Islam however, there is not only justification to follow and institute Sharia but it is commanded to do so. We can not allow even one little piece of Sharia to be tolerated or we the door for stepping back into the Middle Ages. If we let these people have Talaq, then stoning women who don't wear the veil is not that far off.

This isn't about religion, it's about a wealthy guy trying to shaft his wife and using religion as a cover.

Same rules that apply to Federal-State law applies to all such "religious" matters.

The States can not make any law Less restrictive than the Federal law, they can only make laws that are More restrictive. For instance, if Federal law said that the minimum age to buy alcohol was 18, States could follow the law, make it more restrictive, to say age 21, but could not make it less restrictive and allow alcohol sales to a 16 year old. Apply that logic to all the folks trying to use religion to get around the laws they don't want to follow.

You reference your Scientology column yesterday. You may not have noticed, but that article has produced over 400 comments. Will you be addressing the questions and concerns posted by your readers, Ms. Hoffman?

I have absolutely no problem with the legitimacy of Talaq as a religious ruling - but marriage is also a civil status which confers special rights on married people vis-a-vis the state. If Aleem wants his marriage ended in the eyes of the state, then he is obligated to follow the rules that pertain to civil divorce. I never understand why religious people seem to think that only their religious law counts for anything. The laws of the civil society in which they live, that protect them and their property and that enable them to make a living must be acknowledged. I hate to be xenophobic, but if this guy wants to follow Islamic tradition so closely that it must take precedence over the civil law where he lives, then maybe he should move back to Pakistan where such is the norm.

Following Aurorage's comment, we too often in the US conflate religious marriage with the related civil marriage. It's probably time to do a complete break between the two: the state "civil union" follows civil law, details things such as the financials, provision for child protection and child care, defaults in the matters of who gets to decide medical care decisions, and defaults in the matters of heirs (e.g. contract law where the state is one of the parties). The church "marriage" - if any - covers only issues specific to the religion and does not trump the civil union in matters of law.

Strangely enough, the multi-cultural/religious arguments to *really* split church and state in marriage may end up becoming an even stronger argument for civil unions than the gender/sexual orientation arguments.

This case is not about religious freedom at all, because Mr. Aleem was not using the talaq as a religious practice. Rather, he went to the Pakistan embassy and used the talaq to get a divorce under Pakistan civil law. Just because Pakistan has chosen to bring aspects of Islam into its civil law does not make it a religious practice when a person invokes that civil law. In the same way, if a man who follows the Ten Commandments files for divorce on grounds of adultery by his wife, he is not exercising is religion. He is only exercising his civil law rights. What Mr. Aleem's case is really about is the right of Maryland to give equal protection of the laws to all people living in Maryland, including Pakistani citizens. For the many years he lived in Maryland, Mr. Aleem enjoyed the rights and protections conferred by Maryland law, and it would be a grave injustice if he were able to deprive his divorcing wife of those rights and protections based on the civil laws (not the religion) of a country they left many years before.

This case is not about religious freedom at all, because Mr. Aleem was not using the talaq as a religious practice. Rather, he went to the Pakistan embassy and used the talaq to get a divorce under Pakistan civil law. Just because Pakistan has chosen to bring aspects of Islam into its civil law does not make it a religious practice when a person invokes that civil law. In the same way, if a man who follows the Ten Commandments files for divorce on grounds of adultery by his wife, he is not exercising is religion. He is only exercising his civil law rights. What Mr. Aleem's case is really about is the right of Maryland to give equal protection of the laws to all people living in Maryland, including Pakistani citizens. For the many years he lived in Maryland, Mr. Aleem enjoyed the rights and protections conferred by Maryland law, and it would be a grave injustice if he were able to deprive his divorcing wife of those rights and protections based on the civil laws (not the religion) of a country they left many years before.

The law of the land should always over-rule religious law, whatever the religion. Wasn't there a case in recent years of a man killing his daughter and claiming it was his religious right to do so as she had disobeyed him?

In a country like this, with such a diversity of religion, it would become a nightmare if religious law was allowed to trump the laws of the people.