Halala : Another Name For Rape Of Muslim Women.

Given modern distractions, the need to understand Islam better has never been more urgent. Through this forum we can share ideas and hopefully promote the true spirit of Islam which calls for peace, justice, tolerance, inclusiveness and diversity.
ghulam muhammed
Posts: 11653
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm

Re: Halala : Another Name For Rape Of Muslim Women.

#91

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Fri Jun 28, 2013 5:57 pm

Much of the "Shariah" that now prevails actually evolved much after the demise of the Prophet Mohammed SAW. The Khalifas and the Imams had brought out their interpretations and that is how the four schools evolved. However, the maximum damage was done to the administration of Muslim law during the British period. The evolution of the absurd triple talaq concept is, I suspect, a British innovation. It has been interpreted in a most unfair manner by the courts during the British period, thus making it more draconian than what was contemplated. Any law that invests one party with caprice and arbitrariness cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny. This is a fundamental principle of jurisprudence. How the courts under the British regime could have permitted such capricious and arbitrary exercise of power beats reason other than that the British wanted the Muslims to look like fools. And to make Muslims look like fools does not take much of an effort, based on how irrationally Muslims can react to any perceived threat/insult to their religion. We have many recent examples of such idiotic behaviour.

Looking at triple talaq from a purely Muslim perspective, should we believe that Islam can permit an obvious injustice being done to women when in fact, we claim that Islam was one of the first systems under which women were given their identity and were raised from the position of mere chattels to the status of thinking, feeling human beings? How is it then our respected "Ulema" allow Islam to be painted as such an unfair and misogynist religion? And the less said about our esteemed AIMPLB (All India Muslim Personal Law Board) the better. Every time they claim to be contemplating some reform, they keep running round each other in circles and end up making Muslims look more foolish than before.



ghulam muhammed
Posts: 11653
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm

#92

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Fri Jan 23, 2015 5:48 pm

Triple Divorce Un-Islamic: Pakistani Scholar

Pakistan’s top religious body has ruled that pronouncing triple talaq (divorce) at once contradicts with the Islamic laws on marital issues, pressing the government to declare it a criminal offense punishable by the law.

“Iterating the word Talaq (divorce) ‘thrice’ in a row is against the teachings of Islam,” Chairman Council of Islamic Ideology (CII), Maulana Mohammad Khan Sherani, was quoted by Samaa TV.

“Shari`ah says a husband should utter these words over a period of time,” he added.

The scholar added that this ban was urgent these days as people were casually jumping to divorce their spouses without giving it a serious or second thought.

These cases have never appeared during the era of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), the scholar added.

“It is a dangerous trend that should be discouraged as ending a ‘sacred’ relationship like marriage should not have to be impulsive," Sherani said expressing serious concern over a skyrocketing divorce rate in Pakistan.

He added that the country's judiciary should set the penal code for it.

In Islam, marriage is a sacred bond that brings together a man and a woman by virtue of the teachings of the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

Each partner in this sacred relationship must treat the other properly and with respect.

Divorce is not at all viewed favorably in Islam and is discouraged unless warranted by valid reasons.

In Islam, husband can divorce his wife whether she is present or absent.

As for triple talaq, scholars state that it is a bid`ah (innovation) and most reprehensible to pronounce divorce three times in one setting.

http://www.onislam.net/english/news/asi ... lamic.html



KA786110
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 9:20 am

#93

Unread post by KA786110 » Fri Jan 23, 2015 6:57 pm

The ease of divorcing a woman from marriage is another example of how current Islamic culture has diverged from original nature of the faith. This is all due to tribal/regional values overtaking religion principles. Until we start treating woman as equal to a man and accept women's right to make their own decisions Muslim countries/societies will keep regressing towards stone age.



qutub_mamajiwala
Posts: 992
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 4:17 am

#94

Unread post by qutub_mamajiwala » Wed Jun 08, 2016 6:47 am

3 words to toss her out after 10 yrs of marriage

Rubina was a bright-eyed woman of 22 when she got married to Karim Sheikh about 10 years ago

Originally from Naupada in Thane, Rubina is among 30 women from across the country who have, as part of the campaign, chosen to relate similar ordeals on social media, one on each day of the holy month of Ramzan.The hope is that the movement will gather enough force to mount pressure on the government to abolish oral divorce, under which the husband unilaterally declares separation from his wife simply by saying the word talaq three times; she gets no say.

"It is the most heinous practice in today's time. Those three words spoken by my husband destroyed not only my life but also my two children's lives," said Rubina.

"It is so easy for men to simply walk away and restart their life," said Rubina. "Oral divorce has to stop."

Her regret is not that her husband left her, but that he could do it with complete impunity, without having to answer to anyone, not even their children.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 648706.cms



anajmi
Posts: 13400
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

#95

Unread post by anajmi » Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:39 pm

Why do these women want to live with a man who doesn't want them? As far as children is concerned, Islamically, the kid's are the dad's responsibility after the age of breast feeding, cause obviously men do not have breast. We know a household where a man doesn't want the wife but is unable to divorce her, will torture her either mentally or physically or both. Then the women will complain of domestic abuse. And since she is still married to him, if he wants sex, she will complain of domestic rape.

If you are able to get out of this shit with 3 words, take it and be happy. If the guy said it in a fit of anger, but did not mean it, too bad. The fool just lost his wife. He should've realized that if he wants to use Islam, then he needs to use it fully and completely. The most hated of halal acts in the sight of Allah is divorce. And anger is the door that let's the devil in. Islam is there to make life easier. Do not treat it as a toy. Even toys these days have warnings on them for kids. These adults are like kids with toys.

Now before he gets her back, she has to sleep with someone else. And the two might decide not to divorce. And the foolish husband will be left holding it in his hands!! And then some half chaddi will talk of halala. Halala doesn't happen without the consent of the woman. Islam doesn't force a woman into halala. It is she who wants to go back to the guy who ditched her and is ready to sleep with anyone who will make that possible. And then eventually she is going to get divorced again and start another facebook page.



anajmi
Posts: 13400
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

#96

Unread post by anajmi » Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:47 pm

“Iterating the word Talaq (divorce) ‘thrice’ in a row is against the teachings of Islam,” Chairman Council of Islamic Ideology (CII), Maulana Mohammad Khan Sherani, was quoted by Samaa TV.
This is a pretty contradictory statement. Why is iterating the word Talaq thrice in a row against the teachings of Islam? Does Islam teach not to utter words 3 times in a row? Can I say "Candy" three times in a row or is that haraam too?

The real point should be, is a Talaq final after uttering talaq 3 times in a row? They should come out and say that saying talaq 3 times in a row doesn't have any effect on a marriage. Then it wouldn't have to be haraam. The fact that they say it is haraam implies that saying it 3 times in a row has consequences.



ghulam muhammed
Posts: 11653
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm

#97

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:47 pm

The Indian Media’s Focus on Shayara Bano Betrays an Ignorance of Important Precedents

Muslim personal laws and Indian secular laws already provide a two-tiered system of protection for Muslim women.

Over the years, numerous Indian Muslim women have approached the courts to overturn the arbitrary procedure of instantaneous triple talaq. Some of these cases, such as the Shayara Bano case filed recently, catch the attention of the media. Consequently many commentators with little knowledge of Muslim personal laws become interested in the need to reform them.

We are witnessing one such phase where the terms of the debate are pre-decided – it’s Islamic law vs. the secular law, the archaic vs. the modern, the oppressive vs. the civilised – without even a cursory glance at the thousands of Indian Muslim women who file cases in courts for enforcement of their rights under various legal provisions such as the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Prevention of Dowry Act, 1961 or maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

Just because a Muslim personal law exists, that does not automatically debar Muslim women from approaching the courts for remedies. This in turn creates a two-tiered system of protection for them which is not available to women of other communities. Moreover, this system reduces the load on our already overburdened judicial system by resolving matters outside the courts.

The Shayara Bano case

After many years during which he physically and mentally abused her, Shayara Bano’s husband sent her a talaqnama in absentia and barred her access to her children. Shayara Bano has filed a public interest litigation to challenge instantaneous triple talaq, polygamy and halala (a practice where a woman who wishes to remarry her husband from whom she is formally divorced has to consummate a second marriage).

The headline of an Indian Express report on April 24 read, “Shayara Bano’s fight against triple talaq”, followed by the subheading: “… She thus becomes the first Muslim woman to challenge a personal law practice, citing her fundamental rights”. Although domestic violence and desertion are common enough among women across the board, it seems the Muslimness of Shayara Bano makes her newsworthy. Otherwise how is it that a reputed newspaper completely ignores the numerous case laws declaring instant triple talaq invalid? The verdict in this case will not set the first legal precedent. It is a given.

Instantaneous triple talaq or Talaq-ul-Biddat does not apply to all Muslims as is commonly believed and propagated. Out of the four schools of jurisprudence in Sunni law and the fifth Shia school of jurisprudence, only one – the Hanafi school – allows for instantaneous triple talaq. Shia jurisprudence prohibits Talaq-ul-Biddat. So before we exclaim ‘Muslims aren’t a monolith but…’ we should also consider that not all Muslims practice the Hanafi school of law.

Fourteen years ago, in a landmark judgement in the Shamim Ara vs State of UP case, the Supreme Court invalidated arbitrary triple talaq and held that in order to be valid, talaq has to be pronounced as per the Quranic injunction. The term “pronounce” was explained as “to proclaim, to utter formally, to declare, to articulate”. The Supreme Court said, “None of the ancient holy books or scriptures mention such form of divorce. No such text has been brought to our notice which provides that a recital in any document, incorporating a statement by the husband that he has divorced his wife could be an effective divorce on the date on which the wife learns of such a statement contained in an affidavit or pleading served on her.”

Shayara Bano’s divorce will certainly be overturned, but what difference would that make to her life? Here is a woman who doesn’t want a divorce but her husband has made up his mind to abandon her. Once the instantaneous triple talaq is revoked, he will divorce her by pronouncing it over a period of 90 days. The mode of divorce, therefore, is not as important as the consequences faced by the woman who is being divorced.

The current laws

Unless we are looking at banning all Muslim men from initiating a divorce altogether, the problem of women being deserted without proper maintenance will still remain, as it does universally. Women stay in bad, abusive marriages for a number of reasons. They face societal and cultural pressure in form of stigma surrounding divorce. There could also be familial pressure, where members of the woman’s family refuse to help or support her in situations of marital distress. But it is financial pressures which often supersede any other consideration, especially when young children are involved.

If our efforts are geared towards empowering and enabling Muslim women, especially those who tend to find themselves in the double bind of religion and culture, it will be worthwhile to study some of the protections that are already enshrined within the systems of marriages and divorce which are familiar to them and compatible with their beliefs. In putting all our efforts into banning triple talaq we are catching the wrong end of the stick.

The current laws that determine Muslim marriages and divorces in India are the Sharia Act, 1937, which declares that the personal affairs of Muslims will be governed by the Sharia, the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 and the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. Increasingly middle and upper class couples register their nikah under the Special Marriage Act in order to access travel documents or bank accounts. Marriages registered under the Act, even if they are carried out subsequent to a nikah, have to be formally dissolved in a court of law.

A nikah is conceptually a contract (Aqd-e-Nikah) and the wedding is a contract-signing ceremony between two parties. Like any other contract, the nikahnama can be modified or added to at the time of the marriage. Lawyers can be brought in to draft it. It may perhaps be better understood if I say it’s a pre-nuptial agreement sanctioned by religion. The Aqd-e-Nikah not only registers the mehr to be paid to the bride but can also contain rights and the logistics if the couple were to divorce.

There are broadly four ways in which a divorce can be granted:

Talaq – The granting of divorce by the husband (inclusive of instantaneous triple talaq among the Hanafis).
Khula – A divorce initiated by the wife.
Faskh-e-Nikah – The dissolution of marriage when the wife wants a divorce but the husband is refusing to grant it.
Tafweedh-e-Talaq – The transfer of the rights of talaq to the wife.
Islamic law also lays down certain safeguards for women. One of the safeguards comes in form of the mehr, which is a pre-negotiated amount that a bride is entitled to and it is recorded in the nikahnama. Mehr is in the form of money or property meant for the exclusive use of the woman. It should ideally be paid on the night of the marriage. The wife can allow her husband to breakup the payments of the stipulated mehr by accepting a substantial part of it on the day of marriage and allowing the husband to pay the rest at a later date. Without payment of the mehr, the nikah is not considered valid.

The problem of implementation

However, the situation plays out differently in India. First and foremost, pre-wedding interactions usually end up in conflict over mehr negotiations. Generally, the groom’s side prevails and further discussions on mehr are pushed away because it’s considered bad shagun to talk of divorce when a marriage is taking place. The purpose of the mehr then just becomes customary whereas it should be the primary concern as it’s a safeguard in case a woman finds herself in Shayara Bano’s situation. These are complicated things and a lack of information and education have an impact on how they play out.

Dowry is not just a non-Islamic concept, but is in fact anti-Islamic. However, dowry has now become a prerequisite for all Indian marriages and so it is also prevalent among Indian Muslims. I was pleasantly surprised to come across a video doing the rounds of small town in Uttar Pradesh. In it, a Muslim gentleman explains the meaning of the nikah contract to the bride at her insistence. The bride then asks why is it that the dowry that is promised and the arrangements for the wedding that are made by her father are not recorded in the document, whereas the mehr is recorded.

The maulana admits that if the dowry is recorded in the nikahnama then the groom and his family can be booked under the Prevention of Dowry Act. He also admits that acceptance of dowry is a mistake and the groom eventually refuses all dowries. It’s heartening that such videos are becoming popular among young Muslim women, as they can help women to understand their rights within the religious set up. However, what is more interesting is that they are also being informed of the ease with which divine laws are interacting with secular laws, forming a two-tiered system of protection for them.

The question of maintenance after divorce will immediately throw up the Shah Bano case. But before that, a word on the Islamic law regarding the maintenance of children after divorce. According to scholarly consensus in Islam, the maintenance of children is the duty of the father. Whether the husband remains married to his wife or divorces her and whether the wife is poor or rich, she is not obliged to spend money on the children while their father is alive. In case of very young children, a divorced woman can ask her husband for payment for breastfeeding. If the mother wants to breastfeed in return for payment, she has the first right to do so, even if the father can find someone else to breastfeed for free.

The woman is entitled to the custody of children until the children reach the age of tamyiz. Then, the children are given a choice of whom they prefer until the age of bulugh. The age of tamyiz is generally around seven or eight years old. Special consideration has also been given for children with disabilities who have reached the legal age of adulthood. In case of the woman has remarried, the father’s approval of his children remaining with their mother is necessary.

The Shah Bano case

Shah Bano Begum was 70-years-old when her husband divorced her without paying her maintenance costs beyond the period of three months (iddah). She sued him for maintenance under the CrPC Section 125, according to which he had to maintain her until she remarried or died, if she had no means for her own for survival. The Madhya Pradesh high court decided in Shah Bano’s favour and granted her maintenance for life. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind challenged the decision in the Supreme Court.

The story goes that while the case was going on, Shah Bano’s lawyer Danial Latifi was looking for a copy of Sir Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s widely acclaimed and accepted English translation and exegesis of the Quran to submit as evidence to the Supreme Court. The edition of the Quran clearly states that women are entitled to maintenance after divorce. The verse 2:241 is translated thus: “For divorced women maintenance (should be provided) on a reasonable (scale). This is a duty; on the righteous”.

Latifi could not get his hands on a copy, but to his utter amazement and bewilderment, the AIMPLB and Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind submitted the edition to bolster their argument against maintenance. Clearly neither the legal team opposing Shah Bano nor the Muslim personal law interveners in the case had bothered to read it. The Supreme Court, basing its judgment on Yusuf Ali’s translation, upheld the high court order and granted alimony to Shah Bano. It can be said that in case of Shah Bano it was the Supreme Court that upheld the Islamic law, even as the AIMPLB was ready to abandon it.

The judgment brought in its wake a baffling round of protests from the Muslim orthodoxy. The Supreme Court verdict was seen as a war against Islam; Islam khatre me hai (Islam is in danger) was the regular sentiment expressed by its leadership. The then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, in an act of singular political opportunism, overturned the Supreme Court verdict by an Act of parliament. The parliament passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, that nullified the Supreme Court’s judgment and exempted Muslim women from the purview of Section 125 of the CrPC. The act allowed maintenance to a divorced woman only during the period of iddat, or until 90 days after the divorce.

Judgments on post-divorce maintenance

Despite the circumstances under which this Act was drafted, it still leaves room for the courts to interpret the amount of payment to be made within the first 90 days. Therefore, for several years, maintenance for Indian Muslim women post-divorce was dependent on the varying high court opinions on the matter. This finally came to an end with the Danial Latifi vs Union Of India case, where the full bench of the Supreme Court confirmed that “reasonable and fair provision” meant lifelong post-divorce maintenance to be paid by the husband within the iddat period or 90 days. Since then, courts have been pronouncing judgments regularly interpreting the Section 3(a) of the Muslim Women’s Act, 1986 in conjunction with the Section 125 of the CrPC. The courts are ordering large one-off payments as maintenance to be paid to the wife and unlike with the CrPC, there is no ceiling to this quantum of maintenance.

The Calcutta high court, while deciding Shakila Pervin’s case, opined that she should be given the sufficient amount of maintenance within the iddah period to last her for life. Justice Basudev Panigrahi said, “A divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance after contemplating her future needs and the maintenance is not limited only up to the iddat period. The phrase used in Section 3 (I) (A) of the Act, 1986 is reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made to see that the divorced woman gets sufficient means of livelihood after divorce and that she does not become destitute or is not thrown out on the street.”

The full bench of the Bombay high court also held that while deciding the amount of the provision, several factors including the standard of life enjoyed by the divorced woman during her marriage and the means of income of her former husband will have to be taken into account. If the husband is unable to arrange such a lump sum amount he can ask to pay in instalments and the court shall consider granting this to him.

Despite these judgments, no protests such as those during the case of Shah Bano have taken place. No effigies were burnt, no marches were taken out, no communal tensions were flared, no fatwas threatened us with a brain seizure and most importantly, no media outlet thought them newsworthy. Why does Shayara Bano get so much news space while thousands of progressive judgments don’t find any mention in the media?

Television commentators should note that these judgments don’t just appear in a vacuum; they have been pronounced in response to Indian Muslim women approaching the courts to settle their matters. Again we see a two-tiered system coming into play where a woman who is unhappy with what she is being offered in the divine law, can approach the courts for redress. It’s almost as if a system has found a buffer or has corrected itself quietly.

It will be worthwhile to put our efforts behind standardising the nikahnama and educating Muslim women about their rights, both in religious and in secular law. Tafweedh-e-talaq is a very important provision in the Quran that transfers the rights of talaq to the wife and this can be recorded in the nikahnama. Indian Muslim women should know that their nikahnamas can be upheld in family courts. We should encourage them to fully exploit the unique two-tier system of protection which is not available to their counterparts in other communities.

The problem with the Uniform Civil Code

It is the accepted view that the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is inoperative in India because of Muslims. In a regular drawing room conversation, one invariably comes across arguments such as: ‘But the Christians are alright with it. Look at Goa!’ It is true that the Christian civil code, the Hindu civil code and the secular laws are more or less in conjunction with each other. Although many activists feel that even the latest amendment to the Hindu Marriage Act in 2013 is ambiguous about the division of property and is limited to a class of people who own property, Muslims are envisaged as the only hurdle to the glorious future of UCC.

What is overlooked in this simplistic argument is that neither the Sastrik law nor the Christian canon recognizes divorce. Unlike Hinduism and Christianity, marriages are not imagined as preordained or sacrosanct in Islam. Islam recognises the right of a person to end a marriage and puts the power to end it in the hands of the individuals involved by laying down extensive laws regarding divorce. When these laws fall within the realm of the ‘divine’, they become sacrosanct for the people who believe in them yet laws considered ‘divine’ are also grounded in a historical context . Shari’a laws too have a context and have over the centuries made compromises.

The UCC promises us non-negotiable processes to maintenance and child custody as well as other rights within a marriage. The existing provisions in the Domestic Violence Act and the CrPC take care of quite a few of these concerns as do general pronouncements by courts. So till such time that the UCC is not just a stick to beat up Muslims, but something more substantial than what we already have, let us try and support Muslim women in a manner that really helps them.

http://thewire.in/42276/the-indian-medi ... recedents/



ghulam muhammed
Posts: 11653
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm

#98

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Thu Jun 23, 2016 5:51 pm

This Muslim organisation’s campaign for a ban on triple talaq is commendable but blinkered

The Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan is making no effort to address wider concerns faced by triple talaq victims, like domestic abuse and economic deprivation.

As part of its campaign against triple talaq, the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan has been circulating short personal stories of women on social media in a series titled “3 Seconds Divorce”. One story is posted for every day of the month of Ramzan to remind religious members of the Muslim community of the need to ban instant triple talaq to secure the dignity of the affected women.

Among the eight women whose stories have been posted so far, the first is from Mumbai, the next four are from Tamil Nadu, one is from Rajasthan and the last from Maharashtra.

Most of the women were married young. Their literacy levels are not known but the fact that they have little earning skills is apparent. These hard-hitting narratives of these women rooted in their socio-economic context of poverty and destitution are authenticated with photographs and names. They end with a one-point agenda in support of the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan campaign – ban triple talaq.

Address wider concerns too

I find the rigour and singular focus with which the andolan has pursued its cause and gained public support both from the media and progressive Muslims commendable.

But my point of discomfort is that while the narratives provide a socio-economic context of the women’s lives, and suggest that these are the root cause of their misery, there is a disconnect.

There seems to be no effort to address these wider concerns. The women do not seek any other mechanism for redressing the acute domestic violence, economic deprivation, desertion, extra-marital affairs of their husbands. All they desire is a ban on triple talaq, as if it is a magic wand that will end the multiple issues that are causing misery in their lives.

These women are entitled to legal remedies and protections within their marriage and upon divorce. However in these stories, and throughout its campaign, the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan has consistently ignored this. The framing of these stories makes me wonder if this is a deliberate manipulation of these women’s personal miseries to suit the agenda of the andolan.

I find the first story of Mumbai-based Rubina Sheikh, 32, most tragic. As her husband had deserted her, she wanted maintenance. She approached the Andolan’s Aurat ki Shariah Adalat, or women’s court, in 2015. She did not approach the family court in Mumbai or the magistrate’s court to secure her right to maintenance.

In her own words:

“[The] adalat called him for reconciliation. While negotiations were still going on, he orally pronounced talaq three times and walked off. The adalat did not accept the divorce and pressurised him to pay maintenance. My husband said he had divorced me because he did not want to stay with me and wanted to marry another woman. He remarried after giving divorce to me.”

No legal standing

Here the use of the word adalat itself is a manipulation. Anyone reading it may think it is a formal court or at least a recognised sharia court or a qazi court – which also does not have the power of a civil court but there is an acceptance of these courts within the Muslim community – but this is neither.

It is an NGO devoid of any power or authority to enforce its orders, yet the name Aurat ki Shariah Adalat conveys the impression that it is a formal sharia court, vested with authority. The adalat is similar to thousands of counselling centres run by NGOs, which offer “counselling and reconciliation” either in their own offices or in police stations. But rather unfortunately, Islamic scholars such as Zeenat Shoukat Ali seem to endorse this illegal practice.

If the woman wanted maintenance all she needed to do was to file an application in the magistrate’s court under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and secure orders which are enforceable.

The story also shatters two more myths which the andolan propagates – of Muslim polygamy and that a Muslim woman has no rights after talaq.

Sheikh states that her husband gives her Rs 5,000 a month as maintenance but he is in a position to give more as he is working in Qatar and her children are studying in an English medium school. The so-called adalat is still negotiating with him to increase her maintenance. This refutes the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan claim that after pronouncing talaq the woman is not entitled to any maintenance from her husband. So I fail to understand whether Sheikh’s need is to a higher amount of maintenance, or a ban on triple talaq. Secondly, remarriage after divorce is not polygamy.

In these stories, one can identify the socio-economic barriers that are faced by women in broken marriages across communities.

Why only triple talaq?

The question then is: what has the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan done to spread awareness among Muslim women for self reliance through skill training, job opportunities or avenues of private entrepreneurship so that they have something to fall back on if the dreaded sword of triple talaq falls on them?

One can argue that this is not the Andolan’s core activity and they are a rights-based or a campaign-based group. So then why did none of the women, with the Andolan’s help, challenge the un-Islamic triple talaq in a court of law, and secure their rights of maintenance and residence under the Domestic Violence Act?

It is indeed sad that to score a point on triple talaq, the andolan deliberately does not refer cases to Majlis – where we deal with thousands of women, both Hindu and Muslim, facing similar problems – or to any other women’s rights lawyer in the vicinity, but decides put out the negative story to score a point.

Our office is situated just about three bus stops away from the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan office and we have addressed many meetings organised by the andolan and also provided legal support to the women who approach that organisation. But now, the andolan does not refer Muslim women in need of legal interventions to Majlis, and instead decides the cases in the Aurat ki Shariah Adalat, set up by them, even if it ends in the denial of crucial rights to the concerned woman.

Would this not amount to the deliberate manipulation of a woman’s misery to create a negative story?

http://scroll.in/article/810020/this-mu ... -blinkered



ghulam muhammed
Posts: 11653
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm

#99

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Thu Jul 21, 2016 6:33 pm

As India Struggles To Abolish ‘Triple Talaq’, RSS’s Muslim Women’s Wing Joins The Fight

The RSS had demanded a uniform civil code for years and it was also a part of the BJP’s election manifesto. Though a lot of people believe that this law has been misinterpreted as the Muslim Personal Law says that “There can be no nikah without the presence of a lawyer and two witnesses.”

http://www.youthconnect.in/2016/06/01/t ... women-rss/



ghulam muhammed
Posts: 11653
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm

#100

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Sun Aug 07, 2016 6:13 pm

This 19-year-old Muslim bride divorced her husband over phone and the reason deserves an applause

You are aware of the three words “talaaq, talaaq, talaaq” that are used by some Muslim men in certain parts of the world to divorce their wives. But this 19-year-old Lucknow girl Mohsina turned the tables on her husband when she said “talaaq, talaaq, talaaq” over the phone as her husband and his family demanded dowry, reported The Telegraph.

Reportedly, during the unofficial panchayat that was held for hearing the case, Mohsina’s husband Mohammed Arif put the phone on speaker and apologised to his bride for asking for dowry. But the woman didn’t relent and said the three words, much to her husband’s shock. The panchayat then asked Arif to say the words and finalise the divorce because it’s the husband’s word that’s followed.

Arif demanded more dowry from Mohsina on the wedding night itself. She called her mother Anwari Begum who immediately asked her to return. A few people from the village went and brought Mohsina back to Bhagwanpur-Nangla, 10 km away from Arif’s house in Baghpat district’s Daha.

The panchayat also asked Arif’s family to pay Rs 2 lakh to the bride’s mother, the money that she had spent on the wedding. Also, they ordered the prohibition of any wedding in Arif’s family for the next three years. These rulings are obviously not legal but hold immense value in the local communities.

“Both Hindus and Muslims had agreed to last month’s decision against the practice of dowry. That’s why the village elders decided to punish Sattar’s family,” Sunil Kumar, who had presided over the panchayat, told The Telegraph.

The imam of Jama Masjid in Daha, Maulana Mohammad Farman, reportedly said that the divorce over the phone was valid. “The village elders heard it. The bride and the groom identified each other on the mobile phone. A community is free to ostracise a greedy family,” he was quoted as saying.

http://indianexpress.com/article/trendi ... e-2938587/



ghulam muhammed
Posts: 11653
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm

#101

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:46 pm

With a rare mehr, this Kerala bride has broken stereotypes

A Malayali Muslim bride demanded 50 books as part of a custom in Muslim weddings, only that the custom has mostly seen woman's family demanding gold or money.

How often do you see a woman demand books as mehr, and not the customary jewellery or gold. In Kerala’s Malappuram district, a woman set an example for her community. A post graduate in political science from the Hyderabad University, Sahla Nechiyil never dreamt of a perfect, fairytale wedding. But when she decided to get married, she also sent across a social message to the “gold-obsessed” Muslims in Malappuram.

Nechiyil decided to demand 50 books from her fiancé as mehr, a mandatory payment in the form of money or possessions paid or promised to be paid by the groom to the bride at the time of marriage. She asked for books as mehr because of two reasons. “One, because according to the religious texts, a girl can demand anything she wants and the groom cannot disagree. And second, because I wanted to show the Malappuram Muslims that a wedding can take place without obsessing over the amount of gold transacted between both parties,” she said.

Her husband (they got married on August 11) cannot agree more with Sahla and supported her stand wholeheartedly. “Mehr is the right of the woman, not the generosity of the man,” he said. Anees Nadodi was promptly handed a list of 50 books by Nechiyil, and he went all the way to Bangalore to find all the books that she wanted. All this amidst much disapproval from both the families. In Nechiyil’s case, however, more than her parents, her relatives disagreed. “They could not argue for long, because we were not doing anything against the religious texts,” said Nechiyil.

Nechiyil explained that this is not the first time that a Muslim woman put up a brave front and demanded something in accordance to her wish. “In the early days of Islam, women would demand mehr. But elders brought the situation to the notice of the Prophet, because women were not allowed to think or decide for herself. Though the Prophet explained that they were doing nothing wrong, the practice saw more and more Muslim women quoting not their demands, but those of the elders as mehr,” she said.

Nechiyil demanded a list of books that include Islamic feminist literature, feminist literature, fiction, politics etc. and with that, Anees and Nechiyil probably became the first Muslim couple to not have any gold or monetary transactions as mehr.

“The religious texts allow us to live according to our wish, yet these girls fear to speak up or decide for themselves,” she said. “Ani (Anees) had to struggle a little looking for the books I demanded. Making your husband struggle a little is the idea of mehr, anyway,” she added.

Anees, on his part, enjoyed the “book-hunt” his wife had organised for him. He went to Bengaluru’s popular Blossoms, Gangaram and Bookworm bookstores looking for the rare titles that Nechiyil had meticulously listed.

http://indianexpress.com/article/lifest ... y-2970808/



ghulam muhammed
Posts: 11653
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm

#102

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Wed Aug 31, 2016 6:44 pm

Muslim Women Can Utter 'Talaq Talaq Talaq,' Says Barelvi Fatwa

The fatwa says that men and women are equal in Islam.

In response to a query from a religious leader in England, Islamic seminary Dargah-e-Ala Hazrat of Bareilly has ruled that a Muslim woman can divorce her husband, and utter "talaq talaq talaq," The Telegraph reported today.

"The woman can give talaq to her husband if he is a drunkard or is immoral, unwell or unable to lead a normal married life. For convenience, the woman should secure this right at the time of nikah," says the fatwa issued by Mufti Salim Noori, a senior leader of the dargah linked to the Barelvi sect, which has millions of Sunni Muslim followers in South Asia.

The fatwa says that men and women are equal in Islam.

Noori's ruling is based on a provision called talaq-e-tafweez, a clause which the fatwa suggests should be inserted into the marriage contract, but this agreement can also be reached after marriage. The tafweez clause allows a woman to divorce her husband under certain conditions, like him taking a second wife, The Telegraph reported.

"The woman can tell her husband any time in her life that she wants to divorce him for certain reasons. The husband is bound to agree if she wants separation. But the elders of both families are expected to see whether she is of a balanced mind and is not misusing her rights," the fatwa said.

Noori responded to the query from England, two years after it was sent to the Islamic seminary in Bareilly, and following the same question from a resident in Kanpur.

"We decided to respond to this question because an intense debate is going on whether women should enjoy equal rights as men in Islam. Talaq is not a one-way right. Even women can exercise this and utter the triple talaq," he told The Telegraph.

http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/08/29 ... n-homepage



ghulam muhammed
Posts: 11653
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:34 pm

#103

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Fri Oct 14, 2016 5:05 pm

Ban triple talaq, punish men who give arbitrary divorce, says AIMWPLB

AIMWPLB has also sought a ban on "nikah halala", where a woman who has been divorced through triple talaq has to marry another man and consummate her marriage with him before being eligible to remarry her ex-husband.

Ban triple talaq, punish men who give divorce arbitrarily and allow women to seek divorce–these are some of the demands over which the All India Muslim Women Personal Law Board (AIMWPLB) has decided to petition the Supreme Court.

Underlining that instantaneous talaq is in contravention of tenets of Quran, President of AIMWPLB Shaista Amber has sought punishment for those men who give triple talaq so it could act as a deterrent.

“Quran says there must be time for reconciliation between partners. It says when a man gives talaq he must pause and consult his wife. Otherwise, triple talaq is like a hanging dagger for muslim women,” Shaista said.

AIMWPLB has also sought a ban on “nikah halala”, where a woman who has been divorced through triple talaq has to marry another man and consummate her marriage with him before being eligible to remarry her ex-husband.

The board is also in favour of women being allowed to practise Khula- a form of divorce initiated by the wife, which is effected with the return of her husband’s wedding gift.

Shaista said while Quran gives the right to divorce to women, there is a need for greater awareness among muslim women about it.

The President of AIMWPLB also hit out at All India Mulsim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) for defending triple talaq in the Supreme Court. The AIMPLB had told the SC recently that triple talaq was “better than murder” as otherwise husbands could kill their wives in order to get rid of them.

“The intent behind their petition lacks empathy, fairness. They should have said that they are in favour of giving justice to women,” said Shaista.

Shaista said her organisation was opposed to a Uniform Civil Code. “When we have Sharia, there is no need for a Uniform Civil Code”.

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... b-3067154/



qutub_mamajiwala
Posts: 992
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 4:17 am

#104

Unread post by qutub_mamajiwala » Tue Aug 22, 2017 5:45 am

http://www.rediff.com/news/column/the-s ... 170822.htm


The Strange Bedfellows of Triple Talaq


'As long as true Hinduism survives in India, we need not let the Hindutva fear factor keep us from accepting a change in Muslim personal law with a ban on triple talaq,' says Najid Hussain.

When the issue of triple talaq inhabits the minds of Muslim women, rights activists, lawyers, members of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board and BJP politicians, we must be optimistic that a status quo on the practice is short lasting.

However, if past experience is any guide to the future, that optimism may be misplaced.

For over a quarter of a century most of us believed the Ram Mandir would be built in Ayodhya; Article 370 would be scrapped; black money would be history; the Ganga would be cleaned...

Despite all the noise generated by these issues, the wait for action continues.

Triple talaq (triple divorce) is a practice prevalent among Indian Muslims, which gives a Muslim man the right to instantly divorce his wife.

The practice is despised by most women but defended by Muslim men, with the excuse that it is ordained by Allah in the Qur'an.

Rights groups supporting Muslim women want India's judiciary, or an act of Parliament, to alter, if not abolish, the existing provision on triple talaq, which is seen as biased against women.


The AIMPLB and other supporters of patriarchal laws want to see the status quo maintained on the practice.

In a few high profile cases of triple talaq brought to India's high courts (Shamim Ara; Afreen Rehmat, Shayra Bano), the courts ruled those divorces invalid, but did not declare the practice unconstitutional.

As a result, the statute continues to be a part of Muslim personal law and the practice continues to be an integral part of the community, especially among poor and uneducated members who have little access to courts, or legal counselling.

A judgment on Shayra Bano's PIL (Public Interest Litigation) to ban triple talaq is currently pending in the Supreme Court.

Devout patriarchal Indian Muslims believe that the rule of triple talaq is decreed by Allah in the Qur'an (verses 2:228, 230) and no one can change that.

Progressive moderate Muslims also believe the decree is from Allah, but interpret the verses to mean pronouncing divorce three times in one sitting is equivalent to only one divorce.

So unless three divorces -- each one followed by three months of separation -- is exhausted, it does not qualify as triple talaq, and thus triple talaq rules do not apply.

However, none of these groups have anything against the apparent patriarchal nature of the law that gives so much power to Muslim men and denies a similar right to their women -- a stand that is against the basic rule of contemporary societies requiring equality of race, religion, and gender.

The purpose of this essay is not to chastise either the politicians for their opportunism and inaction, or the legal luminaries who very often end up helping the status quo by muddying the waters with their divergent expert opinions.

The objective is to delve into Qur'anic history to see if Allah has ordained this practice in the Qur'an, or if it is possible that the desire of a few seventh century Arab men, surreptitiously found its way in Allah's book.

After all, the Qur'an is the book for all people and all times, so how can its message lose validity within 1,400 years!

Seen from a Muslim's perspective, such an analysis can neither be easy, nor innocuous. One has to take up the role of the devil's advocate.

There is a common perception among Muslims that the Qur'an as a book was sent down to Prophet Muhammad by Allah. Muslim intellectuals, however, know, and accept, that the Qur'an was not brought down from heaven to the Prophet as a book that we see today, but it was the word of Allah revealed to the Prophet.

Those divine revelations continued over two decades, during which time, as and when the revelations arrived, the verses were recited by the Prophet, and memorised or written down on pieces of leaves, rocks, cloth, or leather, by his companions. Paper was not around at that time, as the Chinese invented it two hundred years later.

At the time of the Prophet's death, the Qur'an was not collated as a single volume. It took several decades after the Prophet's death, well into the period of the second Caliph, Umar, when the Qur'an finally came into existence in the form that we see today.

The final compilation, to a large extent, depended upon the passed down memories of the Prophet's companions, as well as other available writings of the original verses on the shards.

Prophet Muhammad never had a chance to proof-read the Qur'an of today and authenticate every verse in it as the word of Allah.

It is possible that a majority of Muslims will find it hard to accept this analysis -- not because it lacks logic or reason, but because it hurts their sentiments that someone should cast aspersions on their holy book.

This analysis, however, is not to belittle the Qur'an, or cast doubts on its message.

The Qur'an, without doubt, is a remarkable book that has guided and shaped the lives of billions of people over centuries, through faith and creed, and will continue to do so for generations to come.

This is just to open up our minds as believers, and welcome meaningful, independent reasoning in Islam, so that our beliefs are logical, reasonable, gender just, and fair.

It is worth noting that most Islamic countries -- including Pakistan -- have banned triple talaq. But the Muslims of India -- including the moderates -- continue to oppose a similar ban. That is mind boggling.

Moderate Muslims, after all, reject literal interpretations of difficult Qur'anic verses: Such as the ones on the issue on disciplining women (4:34-36), treatment of unbelievers (3:28), virgins as rewards in heaven (78:31-34), and many more.

Why then defend the evils of patriarchy?

http://www.rediff.com/news/column/the-s ... 170822.htm