From:
Judaism 101: Divorce
Judaism recognized the concept of "no-fault" divorce thousands of years ago. Judaism has always accepted divorce as a fact of life, albeit an unfortunate one. Judaism generally maintains that it is better for a couple to divorce than to remain together in a state of constant bitterness and strife.
Under Jewish law, a man can divorce a woman for any reason or no reason. The Talmud specifically says that a man can divorce a woman because she spoiled his dinner or simply because he finds another woman more attractive, and the woman's consent to the divorce is not required. In fact, Jewish law requires divorce in some circumstances: when the wife commits a sexual transgression, a man must divorce her, even if he is inclined to forgive her.
This does not mean that Judaism takes divorce lightly. Many aspects of Jewish law discourage divorce. The procedural details involved in arranging a divorce are complex and exacting. Except in certain cases of misconduct by the wife, a man who divorces his wife is required to pay her substantial sums of money, as specified in the ketubah (marriage contract). In addition, Jewish law prohibits a man from remarrying his ex-wife after she has married another man. Kohanim cannot marry divorcees at all.
By drawing these comparisons between various Religious codes you are actually hurting the proposition that there is nothing especially "weird or unusual" going in Islam.. Because the DIFFERENCE IS --- The Sharia Law gets incorporated in the fabric of daily life in Arab cultures.. Where is it given co-authority with whatever tyrannical forms of civil governments exist. Whereas in Western culture and places where both Judaism and Islam are practiced -- NONE of this matters a whit.
I disagree with your analysis of drawing comparisons. The comparison is valid, and this is why I think it is. Part of the argument against Sharia specifically, is that it is somehow UNIQUELY EVIL, that it's criminal codes are uniquely barbaric, and that because it is within the text of the religion, it is "unchangeable" (unlike other religions). This is stated over and over and it denies Islam the potential to evolve beyond a medievil interpretation. Almost the same rules exist in Halakah yet Judaism for the most part has moved into a modern view of it with exception of the ultra religious where it is incorporated into their daily fabric.
There is not a single Western culture where a Jewish man is prohibited from re-marrying his ex-wife or REQUIRES him to divorce him for sexual transgressions. However -- the similar Sharia practice is ENSHRINED in many many places. Likewise the Jewish wife is NOT obligated in any secular Western culture to culture to obtain a RELIGIOUS divorce before remarrying. IN FACT -- in the ONLY Jewish nation in the world -- Israel -- I DOUBT this is a REQUIREMENT. (could be wrong).
I'm not sure about that - or I'm misunderstanding you. In any secular Western culture - NO ONE is required to obtain a religious divorce before remarrying. That applies equally to Muslims, Jews, etc. However - within their own communities, that isn't necessarily the case - both Jews, Muslims (and Catholics) need a religious divorce if they are devout.
Applying God’s Law: Religious Courts and Mediation in the U.S.
In Orthodox Judaism, a woman cannot obtain a divorce – and therefore cannot remarry – without her husband’s consent. Sometimes, in order to obtain money or attempt to stop a divorce, a husband will refuse to grant his wife a get, no matter how broken the marriage may be. In such cases, a beit din cannot divorce the couple. But both Perlman and Weissmann say that to sway an obstinate husband, rabbis may issue rulings calling on the community to exert social pressure on the man by, for example, barring him from the synagogue or protesting outside his home or workplace until he relents.
They can get divorced without it, but then they risk being ostracized from their community or family and unable to remarry within their community.
In Israel (again, if I am understanding it correctly),
marriage and divorce are religous, governed by the doctrine of each of it's religious groups. For Jews, Israel's political system, despite being democratic, is still a religious system and marriage and divorce reside solely with religious authorities:
Jewish marriage and divorce in Israel is under the jurisdiction of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, which defines a person's Jewish status strictly according to halakha. The rabbinate's standards and interpretations in these matters are generally used by the Israeli Interior Ministry in registering marriages and divorces.
Halakhic and biblical restrictions on marriage are applied in Israel. So, for example, a kohen may not marry a convert to Judaism. Similarly, children of adulterous and incestuous unions are restricted as to whom they can marry.
Up to 1999, any marriage council had the option to send a person to a Judaism test (Hebrew). A governing document[11] that defined rules of marriage had been finally concluded in 2001. Contrary to guidelines, some councils didn't fulfill the guideline; several petitions had been sent to the high court.[12] A research showed that 93.5% of people sent to Judaism test had been from the former Soviet Union and 83% of them succeeded and 10% left the process. In 2010 a final ruling defined that all immigrants after 1990 must go over a Judaism test.[citation needed]
However, Israel does recognise civil or religious marriages entered into outside Israel. It is usual for couples who may not or choose not to marry in Israel to travel overseas to marry.[13] One out of every ten Israelis who married in 2000 did so abroad mainly because they could not marry in Israel. 2,230 couples who married abroad consisted of two Israeli partners, and another 3,660 couples consisted of an Israeli and a non-Israeli partner.[13]
The issue of civil marriages is a major issue for secular Jews and members of non-Orthodox streams of Judaism, who are required to meet the Orthodox standards to be able to marry in Israel.[14] There is a debate over whether civil marriages would divide the Jewish people in Israel by increasing interfaith marriages and marriages that do not meet halakhic requirements, and over the character of the Jewish state.
Divorce is similarly complicated and dictated by religious rules:
Israel divorce law traps women in marriages that died long ago
Under the court's interpretation of Jewish religious law, a husband's, or wife's, consent is necessary to end a marriage. As has been the case for centuries, a Jewish divorce is not final in Israel until men deliver handwritten divorce decrees into the cupped hands of the women, who then must hold the paper aloft. A rabbi tears the document, called a get, into pieces, which are then filed for record-keeping.
The rabbis can order a reluctant spouse, usually a man, to grant the divorce, and Israel's parliament is considering a bill to expand the court's power to apply pressure. But if a spouse refuses to undertake the religious rite, the court says, it doesn't have the power to dissolve the marriage.
Rabbis have upheld the need for consent even in cases where a man has abused his wife, disappeared, lied about his sexuality or molested their children.
There is no such thing as a secular marriage or divorce in any of Israel's religious communities.
Both Halakah and Sharia are extremely important to observant Jews and Muslims in America. Does the fact that they wish to follow their rules, within the context of modern society and the country's prevailing legal system (which many of them do) mean they have no "business being in America" as one poster claimed?
In America -- this is matter between individuals and their RELIGIOUS authority. NEVER a matter of law. And the difference is I've never been aware of a Jewish movement to FORCE secular authorities to recognize their religious authorities to impose "laws" contrary to Civil codes. And while this is RARE in America for Muslims, it's been kicked out there as a proposal on a few occasions.. No different than the consequences of a ex-communication from the Catholic church for instance.
I agree with what I bolded.
Specifically though - when has there been ANY movement to force secular authorities to recognize Islamic religious authorities to impose "laws" contrary to Civil codes in the US? I haven't heard of any.
Really don't NEED to become a religious scholar to see where the REAL PROBLEM exists. THIS ---- is the center of the storm in America about sharia law.....
Sharia Law In The USA 101: A Guide To What It Is And Why States Want To Ban It
(RNS) North Carolina lawmakers on Wednesday (July 24) approved a bill to prohibit judges from considering “foreign laws” in their decisions, but nearly everyone agrees that “foreign laws” really means Shariah, or Islamic law.
North Carolina now joins six other states — Oklahoma, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, and Tennessee — to pass a “foreign laws” bill. A similar bill passed in Missouri, but Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed it, citing threats to international adoptions.
The bills all cite “foreign laws” because two federal courts have ruled that singling out Shariah — as Oklahoma voters originally did in 2010 — is unconstitutional.
In countries with classical Shariah systems, Shariah has official status or a high degree of influence on the legal system, and covers family law, criminal law, and in some places, personal beliefs, including penalties for apostasy, blasphemy, and not praying. These countries include Egypt, Mauritania, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, the Maldives, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and certain regions in Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, and the United Arab Emirates.
Mixed systems are the most common in Muslim-majority countries. Generally speaking, Shariah covers family law, while secular courts will cover everything else. Countries include: Algeria, Comoros, Djibouti, Gambia, Libya, Morocco, Somalia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, Gaza Strip, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Oman, and Syria.
In several Muslim-majority countries, Shariah plays no role: Burkina Faso, Chad, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Tunisia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Albania, Kosovo, and Turkey.
Some countries have Islamic family law courts available for their Muslim minorities: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, India, Israel, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the United Kingdom.
In the United States, there are no Islamic courts, but judges sometimes have to consider Islamic law in their decisions. For example, a judge may have to recognize the validity of an Islamic marriage contract from a Muslim country in order to grant a divorce in America.
Some Islamic scholars argue that true Islamic belief cannot be coerced by the state, and therefore belief in Shariah should only come from the individual and not be codified by the state.
So what's really happening in these threads is that folks you call "right-wingers" are actually taking the side of KEEPING govt in America secular. So hit them up on hypocrisy -- but don't try to tell them the ISSUE does not exist because "all religions" do it..
And BTW -- why is it that only "some" Islamic scholars argue for separation of state and religion?
But THOSE SAME RIGHT WINGERS (and keep in mind, I'm using this term scornfully because folks are using "leftwingers" in the same derogatory scornful manner) - are not REALLY interested in keeping America secular because they are the same one's who are typically supporting pro-religious "freedom" bills geared towards Christians. They are interested in keeping America Islam-free, not secular.
Lastly....is it only "some"....or, is this too, a reflection of culture?
...I tend to agree. But I think for the most part (at least in the US) - people dealing with religious councels are dealing with their own religious authorities. The sticky point seems to be ... where does it cross the line? That's why it seems to me a just way to handle it would be to make any legally binding resolutions subject to ratification by a secular court.
You think a County Judge ought to be "ratifying" something that is contrary to Civil Code? Not gonna happen in America likely. Now HOW all those "religious courts" operate and IF they operate as actual LEGAL mediators is another issue. 
