The biological father than found out about the child. He sued to gain custody of the child. Even though a paternity test proved that the child was his, even though the law grants him rights, even though he proved he was deceived by the biological mother, the court decided, in the interests of the child, it would be best at this time to keep custody with the adoptive parents. The court ruled that the child was at a delicate emotional stage and had formed bonds with the adoptive parents and therefore ruled that the original contract between the mother and the adoptive parents was valid. It also ruled that the biological father would be granted more rights, but later, and not full custody at this time.
Smith (the judge) said in his ruling that the child's welfare must always be the most important consideration.[source]Even though I disagree partly with the verdict, you can see where the ruling is coming from. It is stemmed from a desire to ensure the child's welfare is paramount. This is why laws in the West are constantly re-written because new situations arise and the judges are always urged to look beyond the letter of the law. This is why Canada was so opposed to mandatory minimum punishments because they treated each case on its own merits.
Now contrast this to the following ruling in a so-called Islamic court upholding so-called Sharia.
The Dubai Court of Cassation has upheld a verdict issued by the Sharia Court ordering the termination of a five-year marriage between a national woman and an Egyptian man after the wife's guardian filed a lawsuit against it saying it was solemnised without his consent. [source]In other words, this was a man and a woman, happily married to each other, WITH A CHILD, for five years. And the judge saw it fit, "Islamically", to break up the family. All because the law of the land stated that for a woman to marry, she must have the consent of her guardian. The law of the land that is derived from the Maliki/Shafi schools of thought where a woman requires such a consent.
If you want to know why clear thinking Muslims should oppose Sharia in the West, it's because of dick-headed judges like these, who clearly have no concept of fairness and justice and cannot look beyond the boundaries of their tents. And from what little I have seen, the mullahs in the West who advocate Sharia are no better.
To those who says Islamic laws are final, unchangeable and just, I give you Caliph Umar's example, a man about whom the Prophet had said the following:
"If there was to be a Prophet after me, it would be Umar."
Umar realized that when the Sharia was imposed, the end result of each ruling must be to ensure that justice has prevailed. Upholding the letter of the law is not as important as ensuring that each ruling is just.
It was this spirit of justice that led to Umar to decide at one point during his Caliphate that he would not punish thieves who stole above a certain limit by cutting off their hands, as mandated by orthodox Islamic rule. At that time the Islamic empire was going through a drought and a plague, and people were forced to steal out of poverty. Umar decided that it would not be fair to punish those thieves who stole just enough to feed their family during the drought. The punishment to cut off hands is mentioned in the Quran, and IS A COMMAND of Allah, yet Umar felt it would not be just according to those circumstances, and so he temporarily suspended that law. All in the spirit of ensuring justice.
Yet today we break up families.
Once a woman brought a claim against the Caliph Umar. When Umar appeared on trial before the judge, the judge stood up as a sign of respect towards the Caliph. Umar reprimanded him, saying, "This is the first act of injustice you did to this woman!"
If you want justice, fair play and equal rights, it seems the non-Sharia laws of the West are more Sharia-like in spirit than the so-called Sharia laws of these Muslim countries!
