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.

#61

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:31 pm

Aarif wrote:But again FGM is part of prophet’s preachings
Could you please quote some references ?



anajmi
Posts: 13399
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

#62

Unread post by anajmi » Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:52 pm

Aarif

You are far more ignorant about the prophets teachings than I had previously thought. You should first try to understand his teachings before trying to reform them.



anajmi
Posts: 13399
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

#63

Unread post by anajmi » Thu Jan 12, 2012 12:58 am

The Indian Supreme Court has banned that practice on human grounds. According to the new law the court will listen to both the husband and wife and ONLY if it approves the divorce the man can pronounce talaq three times and complete the divorce. The Indian courts have eliminated the problem or the vito power of muslim men given to them by Sharia law to divorce their wives at will by uttering talaq three times.
That is good news for the women mentioned in this article. They slept with other men for no reason I guess. Someone should go and tell them that they were never divorced in the first place. Now they might be accused of having committed zina!!
and ONLY if it approves the divorce the man
There is nothing a court can do to prevent a man from divorcing his wife or a wife from divorcing her husband. The court can only order/decide settlements. Triple talaq as per the correct interpretations of the sharia is better than any court ordered proceedings. But unfortunately, most people are people like you, who start shouting before they have understood even a fraction of it.
I can ask you the same question. What are you doing on this forum since you are neither a reformist nor a dawoodi bohra?
Yes, you can ask me the same question, but unfortunately for you, I can actually provide answers. When I ask Dawoodi Bohras to reform themselves, I bring arguments from the Quran and the Sunnah of the prophet (saw). You however, have failed to do so even after repeated prompting. Infact, you have done the exact opposite. You have actually blamed the Quran and the sunnah of the prophet (saw) as being wrong. So, for you to insist on calling yourself a muslim is like these women who sleep with other men to get back to their original men and then complain about both of them.



humanbeing
Posts: 2195
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 2:30 am

#64

Unread post by humanbeing » Thu Jan 12, 2012 3:43 am

What are the rights of the women, in case men has pronounced Talaaq against her will ? I m asking from the context of compensation and rights to property and children ?

Can women pronounce Talaq and dissolve the marriage, if she is not willing to continue with the husband ?

If not ! what is the process for women to seek divorce from husband ?



anajmi
Posts: 13399
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

#65

Unread post by anajmi » Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:40 am

Children are the responsibility of the father. There is no compensation for divorce other than the Mehar agreed upon at the time of marriage, which is why women need to be careful when they agree to a mehar. It is a pre-nuptial agreement which needs to be carefully thought through. Other than that, anything that the man gave to the woman should remain with the woman. Please look at the link provided above by GM. It has some good information.



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

#66

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:02 pm

humanbeing wrote:What are the rights of the women, in case men has pronounced Talaaq against her will ? I m asking from the context of compensation and rights to property and children ?
From a pure legal angle, the woman can file a suit in the court of law and contest her claim whereby in many cases, the court directs the man to pay maintainence to her and the children.
humanbeing wrote:Can women pronounce Talaq and dissolve the marriage, if she is not willing to continue with the husband ?
The woman can ask for 'Khula' in some cases, details of which I will post later.



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

#67

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:50 pm

Is Talaaq = Mazaaq?

In Islam marriage is a contract as per which a man has the right to divorce his wife in extreme situations. Also, a woman can seek 'khula' and get out wedlock. But the abuse of the religious sanction of talaaq is aquiring bizarre proportions lately.

Shouldn't Muslim society see the need and do something to ensure that the sacrosanct contract of marriage does not get so abused and the talaaq hangs on the head of women like a sword. At least, it should be decided that triple talaq is one sitting be held as single pronouncement and the next pronouncements should come after the proper duration. (Though this is the way in several Muslim countries as per Shariat). But we have not yet managed to get a consensus on this.

We have given up on Ulema, some of whom are just happy getting Rajya Sabha seats like the Madani family that heads the influential Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind. Blogging and giving vent to our frustration wouldn't help.

Time for the Muslim society to stand up. Evolve a consensus and do something. Devise an internal mechanism and later approach government to get the needed changes in the Personal Law. The Muslim society must decide whether they have to take the marriage seriously or at least in the name or observing religious tenets strictly. Redeem the institution of marriage. Otherwise it will be nothing but Mazaaq.


http://www.anindianmuslim.com/2006/04/i ... azaaq.html



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

#68

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Sat Feb 04, 2012 4:30 pm

Some excerpts from Dr.Asghar Ali Engineer's speech during Muslim Women's Workshop at Colombo in January 2012 :-

Most of the women have to face the problem of co-wives. In some cases they abandon first wife and marry another one and in many cases they marry more than one wife. They were thus keen to know whether Qur'an permits polygamy unconditionally as a privilege for men. This is how it is projected by the Ulama in Sri Lanka. They tell women that Allah has given this privilege to men to marry four wives simultaneously.

In order to put the whole thing in perspective I first began by throwing light on women's plight in pre-Islamic Arabia. I told them that situation varied from place to place. One situation prevailed in Mecca, an urban area which was also a centre of international finance and trade and where tribals had formed inter-tribal trade corporations and were quite prosperous. Another situation prevailed in Madina, an oasis and primarily an agricultural area which was quite fertile due to fertile soil. Madina had Jewish population also who followed written law of Torah.

Third situation prevailed in desert areas where nomadic Bedouins lived. Whereas Mecca and Madina were urban settled areas with considerable population following age old traditions. Nomads, on the other hand did not live at one place and their traditions and customs varied from tribe to tribe. Among Bedouins there were some tribes where polyandry prevailed and there are instances of one woman having around 10 husbands. In Mecca there are, on the other hand, instances of one man having 10 wives. Of course polyandry was more of an exception than rule among the Bedouins.

The Arab society, like other societies, was fiercely patriarchal society and one cannot expect patriarchal societies to empower women. In fact for women empowerment patriarchal societies are main obstacles. In Mecca women's situation was very precarious and in initial stages women responded to Islamic mission quite enthusiastically and one of the first respondents was Prophet's (PBUH) wives and subsequently also many women responded before their husbands or sons did.

Another common feature in all three categories mentioned above was absence of any written law. Every things depended on oral traditions. Thus Qur'an came as a first written text containing definite laws in respect of women. Also I told them, Qur'an gave women equal status with men and concrete rights in respect of marriage, divorce, inheritance, property etc. without asking for it. They did not have to demonstrate or agitate or even they did not expect it in their dreams and got equal rights whereas in the West they had to come out on streets to get those rights. They had to agitate and got these rights only in early twentieth century. Qur'an gave them 1400 years ago without asking for it.

For the first time they got written rights in a region where literacy was as good as non-existent. No doubt women responded to Islam enthusiastically. I also explained to them grave misunderstanding about polygamy. It is not, according to the Qur'an a privilege but responsibility for men. This verse about polygamy i.e. verse 4:3 was revealed after 2nd battle the Prophet (PBUH) had to fight in which 10 per cent of Muslim men were killed leaving behind widows and orphans.

The Qur'an asked men to look after these widows and their property and children and if they cannot marry these widows up to four but if they fear they cannot do justice they should better marry one. Thus it is clear from this verse on polygamy that they cannot marry any woman they like but only war widows and that too with stringent condition of justice. It is great responsibility and not privilege in any case. Muslim men were also advised to look after widow's children which are even greater responsibility but later on this verse was used by men in a patriarchal society only to marry more wives and treat it as privilege. It is gross distortion of the Qur'anic responsibility thrust on men. And verse 4:129 makes it further clear that even if you want you cannot do justice with more than one wife and do not leave first wife hanging in the air. This verse is more than clear that monogamy is the rule and polygamy is an exception for exceptional situation to help needy widows with children who cannot look after their properties. A great responsibility indeed.

A woman who was studying law in the university put a question is it not duty of Muslim woman to obey her husband and she quoted a hadith from Bukhari. She was very much insistent that a Muslim woman must obey her husband and cannot go out of her house in his absence even if her father is severely sick or even if he is dead.

I told her there is no such thing in Qur'an and Qur'an nowhere requires wife to obey her husband but instead advises both to do anything which mutual consultation. In fact entire discourse in Qur'an about women is right based and entire discourse about men is duty based. How can then wife be made obedient to husband. Both are independent agents and can act independently as mature moral agents without being subservient to each other.

I also told her that Qur'an does not even use the words husband and wife but uses the word zawj and zawjah or simply zawj which abundantly makes it clear that both are absolutely equal (zawj means couple). In Arabic husband was called ba'ul which was one of the gods of pre-Islamic pantheon and Qur'an did not want to give husband such a status. Unfortunately she kept on insisting that hadith cannot be wrong. I told her hadith cannot be above Qur'an or contradict Qur'an. Such hadithes were used in a patriarchal society to make women subordinate to men and women being ignorant of Qur'an accepted these ahadith without critically examining them in the light of Qur'an.

Another common abuse of women in Sri Lanka is wife beating. They maintain Qur'an permits wife beating as per verses 4:34. I told them in fact this verse was revealed when a woman complained to the Prophet that her husband slapped her without any flaw on her part the Prophet (PBUH) allowed her to retaliate. How can then Qur'an allow wife to be beaten? The word daraba is wrongly translated. Qur'an itself uses it in more than 12 different senses. It can in no way allow wife beating. Our Ulama also suppress another verse 33:35 which is very important verse about gender equality in Qur'an.

I discussed host of other questions including woman as half witness, her property rights and question of inheritance. Women were extremely happy as for the first time someone told them with great emphasis that women are equal to men and enjoy all those rights which men do, nay are bit more privileged in some respects.



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

#69

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:02 pm

SOME THOUGHTS ON UNDERSTANDING QUR’AN

Asghar Ali Engineer

How to understand Qur’an is an important question. Generally we pick and choose a verse to prove our point. Then the commentators also tell us that some verses were cancelled out (*mansukh*) And that some verses replaced them (*nasikh)* and this creates further confusion in the minds of common Muslims. Thus different Muslims are in different positions in understanding verses of Qur’an.

There is nothing wrong in different understandings but this at the same time should not lead to anarchy. There has to be a definite methodology so that Qur’an, despite different ways of understanding it, should be understood under certain guidelines. There would be some uniformity of principles. Here I would like to throw light how, under certain definite and well defined methodology one can try to understand Qur’an so as to avoid arbitrariness.

Taking one verse when there are so many other verses on the subject cannot yield proper result but this is precisely what is done by our theologians. Let us take for example the question of polygamy. Our ulama generally quote
the verse 4:3 to justify polygamy unconditionally. But there is another verse on this subject i.e. 4:129 and if both the verses are read together it would yield different result.

The second verse i.e. 4:129 is so emphatic on the question of justice that marrying more than one becomes secondary and justice becomes more important and yet our jurists and theologians hardly refer to 4:129 and keep on referring to 4:3 only though 4:3 also puts emphasis on justice as it also says if you fear you cannot do justice then marry only one. If both the verses are read together it becomes duty of the qadi to make a rigorous inquiry as to why a person is taking second, 3rd or 4th wife and whether the man taking more than one wife really needs to take another wife. Also in view of such strong emphasis on justice definite rules will have to be laid down to define what would amount to do justice. This has never been done by our conventional theologians.

Another important question is of wife beating referring to verse 4:34 which is cited as Qur’anic permission to beat ones wife. But all other verses about women’s rights and women’s treatment in Qur’an contradict this. What is needed in this case is to read all verses on women in Qur’an together on one hand, and to read all verses using the word *daraba* (for beating) in Qur’an together and the result would be very different

This would show that Qur’an can never allow a wife to be beaten by husband. First of all it should be noted as I have shown in one of my essays that all verses on women in Qur’an emphasise their rights vis-à-vis their husbands and all verses relating to men emphasise their duties vis-à-vis their wives. If it is so how Qur’an can permit being of ones wife. Also, all verses on treatment of wife after marriage or even divorce say that they (wives) should be treated with *ihsan* and *ma’ruf* (i.e. good and morally approved behaviour).

Then Qur’an also says that Allah has created love and compassion (*mawaddat*and *rahmah*) between husband and wife. If then husband is allowed to beat his wife, love and compassion has no meaning whatsoever at all.

Now one can argue that beating is allowed in case of *nushuz* (rebellion, uprising) but then if *nushuz* is rebellion how serious is that rebellion to warrant beating but Qur’an does not use any word with *nushuz* to show its seriousness. One of the theologians I had discussion with said it amounts to extra-marital elations but if it is so, it warrants more serious punishment and that punishment cannot be meted out by husband but by the court of law or qadi court.

Also, there are several other verses in Qur’an which use the word *daraba*in several other meanings like to give example, to travel etc. and Raghib, a 12th century lexicographer of Qur’an points out that in pre-Qur’anic Arabic
*daraba ‘ala* meant he camel going to she camel (for sexual intercourse) and if we take this meaning as suggested by Imam Raghib the verse would amount to suggest that if she desists from rebellion husband could go near her and this seems to be more appropriate as previous line of the verse advises man to isolate her in bed. Thus it would mean if after reconciliation between husband and wife after she is isolated in bed, husband should go near her.

Thus the above verse (****4:35**) would yield very different meaning if we adopt proper methodology of understanding Qur’an. It makes all the difference. So far the theologians, using pick and choose method have
concluded that Qur’an permits wife beating. This meaning is in total contrast to another verse in Qur’an 33. Thus the above verse (4:35) would yield very different meaning if we adopt proper methodology of understanding Qur’an. It makes all the difference. So far the theologians, using pick and choose method have concluded that Qur’an permits wife beating. This meaning is in total contrast to another verse in Qur’an 33:35.

This verse equates man and woman in every respect and says both will be rewarded equally for their good deeds and hence one exercising authority over the other does not arise. Also one has to keep in mind that Qur’an avoids using the word husband and wife and instead uses the word *zawj*(couple) for both again indicating that both are treated absolutely equally.

These are illustrative examples and not exhaustive. If we use this methodology, our many problems can be easily solved and it would be easier to guess more correct meanings of Qur’anic verses and many objections hurled at Qur’an can be easily met.



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

#70

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:57 pm

DIVORCE AND MAINTENANCE IN THE MIDDLE EAST

Several Arab countries have modified their family codes to require men who divorce their wives to give them maintenance beyond the three-month idda period. Article 17 of the 1953 Syrian Law of Personal Status provided that if the qadi judges that a husband has repudiated his wife without reasonable cause, the qadi can require the husband to pay compensation up to the equivalent of one years maintenance.

In Iraq, the Personal Status Act of 1959 required either a declaration from the court for a divorce or registration of repudiation during the wife's iddat for the divorce to be valid.The 1976 Jordanian Law of Personal Status stipulates that in cases where the husband has arbitrarily repudiated his wife, she is entitled to ask for a maximum of one years maintenance.

Although Syrian women are entitled to register a right to divorce in their marriage contracts, few women know it and it is considered socially unacceptable for brides to ask to preserve their right to divorce their husbands. Meanwhile Syrian men in some cases have the right to divorce their wives without the women attending court. Courts rarely enforce the payment of compensation to divorced women. In most cases, the husband owns the house and can force a divorced wife to leave.

In Iran, the marriage contract consists of a power of attorney from the husband to the wife, permitting her to divorce herself on twelve different grounds. Regardless of the marriage contract, an Iranian man must secure the court's permission to divorce his wife. In 1994, the Iranian parliament enacted a law giving a divorced woman the right to monetary compensation for the years she worked in her husband's home as a mother and housewife.In 1997, a law was passed requiring courts to calculate the payments husbands must pay divorced wives according to an index updated for inflation.


TAIL PIECE

DIVORCE IN IRAN: Court Orders 80-Year Wait to Receive Dower

Under the marriage law of Iran, dower is not the exchange of property or a consideration given by the man to the woman for entering into the contract; rather, the effect of the contract is as a token of respect for its subject, the woman. Marriage, in its original Islamic sense, means conjunction, and requires only the union of the parties. The
amount of dower is considered to be an indication of the social status of the woman, and therefore there is usually a serious process of negotiation prior to marriage. When it is agreed upon by the parties, the mahr becomes the absolute property of the woman, who may demand that it be delivered to her any time during the marriage.

In the case at hand, the divorced wife, who had not received her mahr of 350 gold coins during the marriage, sued her former husband and asked the court to enforce the dower promise made under the marriage contract. The former husband, however, declared bankruptcy, leaving the court with no option but to order the husband to pay one gold coin tri-monthly, for a total period of 1,056 months. The 30-year-old divorced woman, left with a baby daughter under her guardianship and maintenance, will receive the last gold coin when she is 118 years old, if she is alive.



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

#71

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:49 pm

Muslim scholars discuss pro-women reforms in divorce laws

New Delhi: In a development which will have far reaching implications on the situation of Muslim women in India, Muslim religious scholars and clerics have recommended a more pro-women reforms in the Muslim divorce laws.

The clerics reportedly said that the purpose of the pro-women reform is to ensure that wives don't have to go through unnecessary hassles and atrocities by their husbands while taking khula (divorce).

As opposed to "Talaq", which is divorce given from husbands to wives, Khula is the divorce sought by wives from their husbands. It’s a provision which essentially aimed at empowering women with a right so that they can demand divorce from their husbands in case they didn’t want to stay in the matrimonial relationship.

The Islamic clerics also discussed on how much power can be given to Qazi (judge) in order to deal with such conditions; because its normally seen that in the present patriarchal system, even when Islam empowers women to take divorce on her own in the form of Khula, husbands blackmail/oppress their wives and ensure that they don't get khula (divorce).

http://twocircles.net/2012mar11/muslim_ ... im+News%29



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

#72

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:36 pm

Ex-deputy mayor came to know of her talaq from newspaper ad

She was once a deputy mayor of Bangalore, but is today in the same situation that has affected thousands of Muslim women in this country — a husband who has summarily severed all marital ties through the pronouncement of ‘talaq’. Shahtaj Khanum, 39, says her husband’s announcement of ‘talaq’ through a newspaper advertisement is illegal and has vowed to fight it out in court, a la Shah Bano in the 1980s whose plea for maintenance was upheld by the Supreme Court (but nullified subsequently with Parliament enacting legislation that restricted the right to maintenance of divorced Muslim women).

“I think this is the first time a man has issued a newspaper advertisement to pronounce talaq on his wife in this country. I am that unfortunate victim. The incident took place in May 2011. I suffered silently for six months, scared that my reputation would be tarnished if the matter became public. Then I realised I was making a mistake by not fighting it out. I have gone to court challenging my husband’s action. I will fight against this illegal method of a man divorcing hiswife. No other woman should suffer like me in the future,” Shahtaj told Bangalore Mirror.

http://bangaloremirror.com/article/1/20 ... er-ad.html 



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

#73

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:15 pm

Draft Divorce Bill is a direct attack on Shariah: Badruddin Ajmal

Mumbai: The Draft Divorce Bill, prepared ostensibly to make the divorce process easier, is a direct attack on the Shariah and against the personal law of Indian Muslims, said Maulana Badruddin Ajmal on Sunday in Mumbai.

The draft of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, crafted in Maharashtra and sent to the centre has now received the cabinet’s stamp of approval and may shortly be presented in parliament for being passed.

Maulana Ajmal emphasized that Muslim personal law provides for the safety and security of Muslim women in all respects and there is no need to make any changes. Right from her nubile stage to when she gets married and bears children and grandchildren, all her needs are taken care of by her father, her husband and then her children. She is genuinely entitled to a share of the property on the death of her husband and other relatives.

Islam has given the wife, on having children, an eighth share of the property and on not having children, a fourth share of the total property of the husband. To increase her share to half will deprive her children and other heirs of their rightful share in the inheritance and this will undermine the safety and security provided by the Shariah not only to the wife, but also to the other closely related inheritors. And this is directly tampering with the Islamic law of marriage and inheritance derived from the Qur’an and Sunnah, he said.

Read More :-

http://twocircles.net/2012mar26/draft_d ... im+News%29



asad
Posts: 777
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 12:54 am

#74

Unread post by asad » Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:31 am

6 Halala Nikah's of a Mosque Imam's wife

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n06MaoU ... re=related



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

#75

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:55 pm

The mistranslated word is *wazribu hunna *which is derived from the root *zaraba*. Renowned commentators of the Quran including Ibn Kaseer, Pickthall, and Maulana Maududi, the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami, have rendered this word as “beat them,” albeit “lightly,” ignoring the fact that the word *zaraba *has various other shades of meaning. The verse 4:34 (please refer to *talaq*) actually talks about the various means at the disposal of a husband to bring about reconciliation with his wife and, obviously, beating the wife cannot be an option to sort out differences.

Out of the 50 times it occurs in the Quran, *zaraba* has been used 31 times in the meaning of “to explain by giving an example.” Only 10 times has it been used to mean “to strike” but mostly in the context of Moses “striking the rock” or the sea, and angels “striking the faces” of the sinners. Let’s summarise the five different meanings of *zaraba* in the Quran.

*Meaning No.1 - “to explain through an example”– used 31 times *

(2:26), (4:34), (13:17), (14:24, 25, 45), (16: 74, 75, 76, 112), (17:48), (18:32, 45), (22:73), (24:35), (25:9, 39), (29:43), (30:28, 58), (36:13, 78), (39:27, 29), (43:17, 57, 58), (47:3), (59:21) and (66:10, 11).

*Meaning No.2 – “to strike” or “to hit something” – used 10 times *

(2:60, 73), (7:160), (8:12, 50), (20:77), (24:31), (26:63), (38:44) and (47:27).

*Meaning No.3 – “to travel through the earth” or “to go” – used 5 times*

(3:156), (4:94, 101), (5:106) and (73:20).

*Meaning No. 4 - “to draw a veil over something” or “to cover” – used twice

(18:11) and (24:31).

*Meaning no.5 – “to take away” or “to withdraw a favour” – used once*

(43:5).

Given the different connotations in which *zaraba* has been used it would be logical to conclude that only the context will define the meaning of the word. A look at 24:31would prove this. In this verse, *zaraba* is used twice but in different meanings. The first usage occurs in the beginning in the clause *walyazribna **bi khumoori hinna alajuyoobi hinna *(*let them draw *their coverings over their bosoms), and the second one is found at the end of the verse in *walaayazribna** bi arjuli hinna liyu’lamamaayuqfeena min zeenati hinna* (*let them not strike *their feet
so that the adornment that they hide may be known). The words highlighted in bold italics denote the two different connotations of *yazribna*, a derivative of *zaraba*, which are context-specific and not inter-changeable. For instance, it would make no sense if the first clause is read as “let them strike their coverings over their bosoms.” The same would hold true for the second clause when the meaning of *yazribna* is changed to “let them draw.”

Let’s apply this rationale to 4:34 where the entire discussion is about marital discord and how to resolve it. In other words, the context of verse 4:34 is spousal rapprochement and therefore, *wazribu hunna* would take the meaning “explain to them” and not “beat them.” If by *wazribu hunna* the Quran had meant the beating of wives, then it strikes at the very purpose of the verse which is to end the marital discord. For, how could the husband expect his wife to be amenable to reconciliation after beating her up no matter how “lightly”? It should be kept in mind that it is not a question of beating lightly or heavily. It is about self-esteem. The humiliation that results from a physical assault is far greater than the assault itself. And the dehumanising effect it has on the dignity and self-respect of a person cannot be empathised. And to think that the Quran authorises men to subject their wives this affront is nothing short of an insult to divine wisdom.

It is surprising that most exegetes of the Quran seem to have not only ignored this truth but sought to support their misogynist translations with help of some selectively quoted *ahaadees*. For instance, they bring as evidence *ahaadees* in which the Prophet is supposed have instructed men not to beat their wives brutally as to leave any mark on their bodies. This contradicts a well known *hadees *found in *Kitab al adab *of Sahih Bukhari in which the Prophet asked: "How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then embrace (sleep with) her"? Muslim jurists have also conveniently ignored Prophetic pronouncements such as those that praise men who are “good to their wives” as “the most perfect of believers, or the famous *hadees* in Sahih Bukhari that quotes the Prophet as saying that a true Muslim is he who does not harm people with his tongue or hands.

Nevertheless, the saying that is often cited along with verse 4:34 in support of wife-beating is part of a *hadees *found in *Kitabul Hajj* of Sahih Muslim. The relevant directive, which is mentioned in the context of a wife acting against the interests of her husband, says *fazribu hunna zarban ghaira mubarrahin *that is, “beat them but not severely” or “give them a beating that is not severe.” The phrase “not severe” (*mubarrahin*) here is taken in the sense of a light beating that does not leave a mark.

Such a translation is not possible if *fazribu hunna* is rendered as “explain to them” as discussed above. Moreover, why would a Prophet, who had fought for gender justice throughout his life, instruct husbands to strike their wives as first resort to stop them from wrongful actions particularly when his own behaviour towards his wives had been exemplary? And what happens when a man acts against the interests of the wife? Should he be spanked by his wife? The ridiculousness is obvious. The correct translation of the above clause would therefore be; ‘explain to them in a
manner that does not hurt them.” This is supported by a Quranic verse which advises Muslims saying “Invite to the way of God with wisdom and in a manner that is soft and agreeable; and debate with them in ways that are
best and most gracious” (16:125). Raising one’s hand to correct somebody is not an option in Islam.



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

#76

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Wed Apr 04, 2012 5:53 pm

The continuing tyranny of the triple talaq

AT THE RECEIVING END: Despite the clarity of the Koran on the issue of divorce, the Muslim patriarchy has stubbornly refused to adopt the procedure

Darul Uloom Deoband is once again in the news for the wrong reasons, having validated a recent instance of triple talaq uttered in a drunken state by a Muslim husband

The Deoband fatwa is also wrong because of its inherent presumption that the pronouncement of three talaqs in one sitting breaks the marital tie instantaneously. This practice finds no support in the Koran or Prophetic pronouncements. Indeed, the Prophet when informed about a man who gave three simultaneous divorces was so enraged that he said, “Are you playing with the Book of Allah, the Great and Glorious, while I am still amongst you?” (Mishkat)

Muslim institutions must understand that Koranic ontology revolves around the principles of justice, fairness and equity, and therefore, any law that contravenes or abridges the rights arising out of these standards of ethics automatically becomes unacceptable. But the continued refusal of the Muslim patriarchy to see reason makes it imperative to analyse the procedure of talaq in the Koran to expose the illegitimacy of some of their fatwas. The Koran has dealt with the issue of talaq at length in chapters 2, 4 and 65, namely, Al-Baqara, Al-Nisa and Al-Talaq.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/a ... 277908.ece



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

#77

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Fri Apr 13, 2012 6:51 pm

Deoband Advises Muslims Against Second Marriage

“It is hard to provide equal justice to two wives in Indian custom,” it said, replying to a query by a person who wanted to marry a second time while his first wife was alive.

“Though Islam permits two wives at the same time, Indian tradition does not allow it,” the seminary said.
Moreover, the husband generally cannot do justice and cannot maintain equality between the two wives.
Hence, he may have only one wife as the Quran has said. You should discard the idea of a second marriage, otherwise you will feel sorry,” the Darul Ifta said.

President of Uttar Pradesh Imam Organisation, Mufti Zulfikar said though Islam allows for second marriage on the condition that the husband ensures equal maintenance, “it is difficult to provide same treatment to both women”.

http://www.siasat.com/print/english/new ... d-marriage



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

#78

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Wed Apr 18, 2012 6:48 pm

Militant Kashmiri Women’s Group Rejects Deoband Fatwa saying Four Wives Must for a Man

By Ishfaq-ul-Hassan

Rejecting the Deoband fatwa against polygamy, the radical Kashmiri women’s separatist group Dukhtaran-e-Millat (DeM) has gone a step further saying a Muslim man should marry not only two but four wives.

“Islam permits a man to have four wives. There is no compromise on the tenets of Islam. The fatwa issued by Deoband Mufti is against the spirit of Islam. Therefore I will say a man should have four wives at a time,” Aasiya Andrabi, chairperson of DeM told DNA.

Clerics at Deoband issued a decree last week maintaining that though Islam permits two wives at a time, Indian traditions do not allow it. “It is hard to provide justice to two wives in the Indian custom,” the fatwa says.

Andrabi noted polygamy is important in Kashmir given the large army of widows and orphans left behind by the people who died in the 21 years of turmoil. “We have 30,000 widows in Kashmir. We have a large army of orphans. If a man keeps more than one wife and marries a widow, it is most desirable and in the spirit of Islam,” she said.

The DeM chief said the fatwa is against the holy Quran and Hadees (sayings of Prophet Muhammad). “We reject Deoband cleric’s fatwa. Islam is a complete way of life. What has been said in Quran cannot be changed by anyone come what may,” she said.

Andrabi noted that there are some women in her organisation who are married to men who already have other wives. Andrabi was the face of the 2010 agitation and was arrested under Public

Safety Act before her release last year. When militancy erupted in 1989, Andrabi’s DeM was the only women’s separatist group operating in Kashmir. However, given her stance, the DeM was banned by the government.

She married a militant commander of Jamait-ul-Mujadeen Mohammad Qasim Faktoo in early nineties. She and her husband were arrested with her new born baby and sent to jail. Her husband is facing a life sentence for allegedly killing a human rights activist in Kashmir.

After her release, Andrabi started the Purdah campaign asking women to wear veil or Abhaya. Such was her impact that at one time black cloth went out of stock due to heavy demand. Her cadres had even sprinkled colour on women who did not observe Purdah.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_fo ... up_1676832



Aarif
Posts: 1426
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:01 am

#79

Unread post by Aarif » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:09 am

Finally the Muslim scholars are taking progressive steps to help destitute women. Banning triple talaq the way it is practiced right now and restricting polygamy is a sign of progressive Islam.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... dification



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

#80

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:03 pm

Muslim Women Have Right to Seek Divorce: Indian Muslim Seminary Bareilly Markaz

NEW DELHI: Muslim women, who are victims of domestic violence, have the right to end their marriage by seeking divorce or separation from her husband through 'Khula', the leading Islamic educational institution Bareilly Markaz said here today.

President of the All-India Muslim Women Law Board Shaista Amber hailed the verdict and said in Islam women have been given the right to decide about their life.

While issuing the 'fatwa' in response to a question, Mufti Syed Kafeel Ahmed of Darul Ifta said, "Muslim women have the right to end their marriage if they are the victim of domestic violence and oppression. Islam has given this right to them."

Darul Ifta is the fatwa section of the Bareilly Markaz (centre) based in Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh.

Bareilly Markaz represents the Barelvi sect of Islam. Khula is a separation initiated by wife and Talaq is a separation initiated by husband.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 376839.cms



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

#81

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Wed Nov 21, 2012 4:36 pm

*BMMA RAISES DEMAND FOR A BAN ON ORAL DIVORCE*

Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan held simultaneous press conferences and press releases in Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Karnataka, West Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and UP to demand a ban on oral divorce. Victims of oral/unilateral divorce presented ways in which their husband’s have divorced them.

For many years Muslim women have been the victims of oral/unilateral divorce. State as well as religious bodies have ignored the plight of women who have been divorced by their husbands. Muslim men have divorced their wives through letters, sms, emails and orally. A Muslim marriage is a socio-religious contract which is solemnized with the express consent of both the parties. How can the same contract be terminated on the whims of one party, the man?

Quran has very clearly mentioned the process by which divorce can take place. Arbitration is required as per the Quranic verse 4:35. Talaak-e-Ahsan is a clearly mentioned process in the Quran according to which the divorce should take place. Inspite of these injunctions a Muslim man continues to divorce his wife without any fear of law. And he is supported by qazis, muftis and maulanas who justify this method of divorce.

We believe that a long term solution to this problem is the codification of Muslim family law. BMMA has been working on the draft of a codified law which is based on the quranic verses. While we are working to strengthen the draft by doing nationwide consultations, we demand that the government takes urgent and immediate action to call for a ban on oral/unilateral divorce.

The issue of oral divorce is not new to bodies like AIMPLB who have never taken any step to abolish this practice. They continue to consciously ignore the practice thereby allowing a Muslim man to continue to trouble his wife. One-sided divorce is like a sword hanging on the head of a Muslim woman.

How can the community progress when half of its population lives in fear and insecurity within their own homes? The government must immediately declare unilateral oral divorce as unIslamic and unconstitutional. This practice not only violates the Quranic principles of equality and justice but also goes against the values and principles of the Indian Constitution.



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

#82

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Wed Nov 21, 2012 4:40 pm

Marital problems in the Indian Diaspora living in West Asia

Jeddah: No such study or research has been carried out ever on this subject yet. The history of this phenomenon is not very old. It is as old as the petro-dollar’s flow of wealth in the West Asia from Seventies when the influx of job seekers started in the Oil rich Arab states. Having studied the Counseling in Marital problems, I started writing columns in the local Urdu Weekly “Urdu Magazine” published from Jeddah. In response, the concerned readers began calling for help.

I was surprised to discover the fact that almost every 10th Indian, particularly the Muslims, has strained relations with their spouses or in-laws. The number of children affected is countless. Since the local Arab Governments do not show any sympathy or interest to solve the expatriate’s disputes even if they end up with police case, it was inevitable to form an NGO and coordinate with the embassy where the majority of the cases are reported. At an average, 2-3 cases are reported weekly to the Embassy, Weekly’s office and directly to the NGO.

Nature of complains:

http://twocircles.net/2012nov20/marital ... im+News%29



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

#83

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Sat Dec 01, 2012 6:27 pm

‘JISKI KAHANI USKI ZUBAANI’

PUBLIC HEARING OF VICTIMS OF ORAL DIVORCE

17 DECEMBER 2012

AT THE NATIONAL ANNUAL CONVENTION OF BHARATIYA MUSLIM MAHILA ANDOLAN


Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan [BMMA] is a secular, autonomous and rights based Muslim women’s movement in india established in 2007 which works for justice, peace, democracy and development within and outside the Muslim community. It is leading movement of Muslim women in India with a membership base of 35000 women, more than 10 lakh beneficiaries and an active leadership in 12 states across the country. BMMA addresses the marginalization of the community through Muslim women’s own active leadership at the local, state and national level. It facilitates the
emergence of Muslim women’s and girl’s leadership so that they can lead themselves and the larger community towards social, educational, economic and legal development.

BMMA is active in 12 states across the country and its leaders receive many cases of Muslim women who have been orally and unilaterally divorced by their husbands. Muslim husbands have evolved innovative methods of divorcing their wife. For instance one husband himself wrote the khulanama and made his wife sign it. In another instance, a father in law divorced his daughter in law on behalf of his son. There are many instances of women divorced through sms, emails, phone calls, letters and of course orally. Many qazis who are paid by the husband send divorce notices to the wife without even giving an opportunity to the wife to give her side of the story.

Although Quranic injunctions demand arbitration before divorce proceedings, this injunction is clearly forgotten by the husband and the ulemas who justify the practice of oral divorce in the name of religion. As a result Muslim women are deprived of her rights mentioned in the Quran and are subject to harassment by husband and unscrupulous qazis.

To highlight the issue of oral, unilateral divorce, BMMA through its national annual convention is holding a national public hearing of victims of oral unilateral divorce. Women from Maharashtra, Gujrat, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Odisha, Bihar, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh will narrate the different ways in which they have been
divorced by their husbands.

To put an end to this heinous practice BMMA demands that the Muslim family law must be codified. The activists of BMMA have been working on a draft law since its inception. Many consultations have been held across the country to arrive at the various clauses mentioned in the draft.

Through this Convention, BMMA wants the state to hear the voices of Muslim women. The state now can no longer ignore this voice. It must treat Muslim women as citizens of this country and must put an immediate ban on the practice of oral/unilateral divorce.

PLEASE DO JOIN US IN THIS DEMAND FOR JUSTICE BY MUSLIM WOMEN

Date: 17 December 2012

Venue: Mumbai Marathi Patrakar Sangh, 2nd Floor Hall, Mahapalika Marg, Near Azad Maidan, VT, Mumbai – 1

Time: 2pm – 5pm



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

#84

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Sat Jan 05, 2013 7:45 pm

Stress, quarrels and neglect: the 'normal' polygamous family

A large-scale study currently underway across Malaysia uncovers proof that polygamy harms everyone involved: from emotionally scarred children, to wives who think they’d be better off as single-parent households, and even husbands who admit “I wouldn’t recommend it for my son; it’s quite stressful.”

http://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/masja ... ous-family



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

#85

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Thu Jan 10, 2013 6:03 pm

We have started the petition "Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India: Oral/Unilateral divorce to be banned with immediate effect." and need your help to get it off the ground.

Will you take 30 seconds to sign it right now? Here's the link: http://www.change.org/en-IN/petitions/m ... ate-effect

Here's why it's important:
Kadratun Nisa from Orissa, married in 2009 became a victim of triple talaq, when her husband pronounced it during her pregnancy, when she needed his support the most. Such and many more stories of victims of Oral/Unilateral Divorce from across the country came forward for the Public Hearing (Jan Sunwai) organized by Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA) on December 17, 2012 to share about their plight and to urge the government to stop this oppressive and non-Islamic practice. Muslim Husbands have evolved innovative methods of divorcing their wife. There are many instances of women divorced through sms, emails, phone calls, letters and of course orally. Many quazis who are paid by the husband send divorce notices to the wife without even giving an opportunity to the wife to give her side of the story.

Not only Muslim women but also their children have been for very long suffering because of this practice, as the husbands in most cases do not provide any maintenance. The women besides facing an emotional setback also have to struggle to raise a family. This situation worsens as most women are not much educated and are left with fewer choices to earn their living.

In the light of Quranic injunction the practice of oral/unilateral divorce is utmost unIslamic and goes against the principles of equality and justice which are the pillars of Islam. Although Quranic injunctions demand arbitration before divorce proceedings, this injunction is clearly forgotten by the husbands and the ulemas who justify the practice of oral divorce in the name of religion. As a result, Muslim woman are deprived of their rights mentioned in the Quran and are subjected to harassment by husbands and unscrupulous quazis.

The government must intervene in this matter as muslim women are also citizens of India and they have a right to enjoy a dignified life. They must get utmost support from the state whose responsibility is to ensure that all constitutional rights are available to all citizens.

For more information on the Public Hearing (Jan Sunwai) organized by Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA) on December 17, 2012 visit: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... al-divorce

You can sign my petition by clicking here. AND DO FORWARD IT ON YOUR NETWORK.
Thanks!

Noorjehan Safia Niaz



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

#86

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Fri Jan 11, 2013 5:00 pm

Towards a progressive interpretation of Islam

The Delhi court judge who rejected bail to a maulvi in a forcible marriage case was right in saying that there is no blanket sanction for polygamy in the Koran

In a significant judgment pronounced last month (in State vs. Nadeem Khan case) Delhi’s Additional Sessions Judge Dr. Kamini Lau called upon religious heads, priests and maulvis “to ensure that the religious texts are progressively interpreted and to confirm that it is only those beneficial practices which are in the best interest of all sections of humanity which are encouraged and observed.” She was dismissing the anticipatory bail application of a Maulvi accused of forcibly marrying a young Muslim girl to an already married man who raped her soon after the Nikah. The judge’s remarks, which form part of her eloquent 14-page order, were in response to the maulvi’s defence that there was nothing illegal about his performing the Nikah because the Shariah permitted a Muslim man to have four wives at a time.

The importance of Dr. Lau’s order lies in her scholarly refutation of the medieval belief that polygyny enjoys blanket sanction in Islam. Citing Muslim scriptures the judge avers that “polygamy is neither mandatory nor encouraged but merely permitted. The Koran’s conditional endorsement of polygamy stresses that self-interest or sexual desire should not be the reason for entering into a polygamous marriage” because the original purpose of allowing this practice was “to protect the social and financial standing of the widows and orphans in their community.”

Historical context

Dr. Lau is absolutely right in her analysis. Indeed, except conditional polygyny, the Koran frowns upon all types of non-monogamous relationships within in and outside marriage. Significantly, polygyny itself finds mention just once (4:3) in the entire Koran. Yet Muslim men have abused it over centuries without appreciating the spirit behind its exceptional sanction, which is clearly contextualised in the historical conditions of the time when a large number of women were widowed and children orphaned as Muslims suffered heavy casualties in defending the nascent Islamic community in Medina. Even a simple reading of verses 4: 2, 3 and 127 will show that it was under such circumstances that the Koran allowed conditional polygyny to protect orphans and their mothers from an exploitative society.

Verse 4:2 warns caretakers against devouring the assets of orphans either by merging them with their own, or substituting their “worthless properties for the good ones” of the orphans. And, if the caretakers “fear that they may not be able to do justice” to the interests of the orphans in isolation, the next verse allows them to marry their widowed mothers — on the condition that the new family would be dealt justly on a par with the existing one. For those who are not up to it, the instruction of the Koran was: “Then [marry] only one.”

The sanctity of taking care of widows and their children is further emphasised in 4:127: “And remember what has been rehearsed unto you in the Book [in 4:2 and 3] concerning the orphans of women to whom you give not what is prescribed, and yet whom you desire to marry...” This proves that verse 4:3 is not a hedonistic license to marry several women.

Furthermore, the Koran idyllically describes the marital couple as “spousal mates” created to find “quiet of mind” (7:189) and “to dwell in tranquillity” (30:21) in the companionship of each other. In fact, verse 7:189, which traces the origin of man to a single cell (nafsan waahida), refers to the wife in the singular as zaujaha, thereby emphasising monogamy. Thus, in the Koranic conception, marriage is the emotional bonding of two minds which cannot be achieved simultaneously with more than one woman.

Restricted in many countries

For this reason polygyny is severely restricted in many Muslim countries and totally banned in Tunisia and Turkey, a fact pointed out by Dr. Lau in support of her judgment. In Pakistan for instance, Sec. 6 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 states that no man, during the subsistence of an existing marriage, can contract another marriage without the permission in writing of the Arbitration Council — a body consisting of representatives of each of the parties to a matter dealt with under the Ordinance — which would grant the sanction applied for after satisfying itself that the proposed marriage is necessary and just.

The Indian Muslim community is perhaps the only Islamic society in the world where utter confusion prevails insofar as the proper definition of Shariah is concerned. Judge Lau brings this up saying, “… in democratic India, it is time to clear certain misconceptions and misgivings regarding Islam. Merely because the Muhammadan Personnel Law does not stand codified, it does not in any manner entitle a violator/ accused to get away with an interpretation which suits his convenience.” Once again she has hit the nail on the head. One fails to understand why the Muslim clerics have always sought to straitjacket the time-transcending polysemic phraseology of the Koran and restrict its meaning to outdated medieval hermeneutics. It is no wonder that a verse in the Koran (25:30) visualises Prophet Muhammad as complaining to God on the Day of Judgment that after his demise his followers had circumscribed the comprehensive message of the Koran.

In this context, one is reminded of the valiant attempt made by the great 14th century jurist Abu Ishaq al-Shatibi of Muslim Spain who in his celebrated legal treatise al-Muwafaqaat fi usool al-Shariah developed the concept of Maslaha (public good) as an essential element of his doctrine Maqaasid al-Shariah (Goals of the Shariah) which he formulated to make Islamic law adaptable to social change. Shatibi argued that an inductive analysis of the injunctions of the Koran and the teachings of the Prophet would reveal that Maslaha is the universal principle that permeates Islam because, the divine intent behind societal sharaa’i (laws) is the masaalih (benefits, good) of the people, both immediate and future. Therefore, any law that does not have Maslaha as its basis cannot be attributed to the Lawgiver.

Surprisingly, even a staunch traditionalist like Ibn al-Qayyim agreed with Shatibi. In his I’laam al-muwaqqi’in he wrote: “The Shariah is all justice, kindness, masaalih and hikma [wisdom]. Hence, any rule that departs from justice to injustice…from Maslaha to Mafsada is not part of Shariah…” It can, therefore, be stated with a fair amount of certainty that the stagnation of Islamic law in India is a result of ignoring the relevance of public interest in lawmaking. It is time Muslim theologians realised that any interpretation of Islam that is amoral, unfair and inconsistent with principles of natural justice and social ethics, cannot claim to represent the Divine Will, and therefore, does not deserve to be epitomised as the Shariah.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/t ... epage=true



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

#87

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:49 pm

Islamic law does not sanction child marriage
Muslim personal law would be in conformity with the Koran in making 18 the age of marriage for girls

The recent Delhi High Court judgment upholding — on the basis of the “Mohammedan Law” — the right of a Muslim girl to contract marriage at the age of 15 may have shocked many. But it would be unfair to fault the judges. They could not have gone beyond existing laws to arrive at their verdict which is in effect based on Sec. 2(vii) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 (DMMA). It says the marriage of a Muslim girl will stand dissolved when “she having been given in marriage by her father or other guardian before she attained the age of 15 years, repudiated the marriage before attaining the age of 18 years, provided that the marriage has not been consummated.”

In other words, this outdated law presumes that Muslim girls on reaching the age of 15 become legally informed and competent to enter into marital alliances on their own. And Islam is invoked to give legitimacy to such an indefensible supposition as can be seen from the manner in which the All India Muslim Personal Law Board welcomed the aforementioned ruling. Even the Delhi HC, to buttress its decree, cited judgments that have relied on Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan Law and Tyabji's Muslim Law. This brings us to the fundamental question: does Islam sanction child marriage?

Traditions citied by jurists

It is well known that insofar as its legality is concerned, marriage in Islam is a written covenant between two individuals and as such both have to be adults to understand the responsibilities and intricacies of such an agreement. This prescript, that strikes at the root of the concept of child marriage, is supported by verse 4:6 of the Quran which equates the age of marriage (balaghun nikah) with the age of intellectual maturity (rushd), a stage that comes after the age of puberty. Yet traditions are cited by the jurists to justify child marriage as if to suggest the Prophet allowed what the Koran clearly did not encourage. For instance, Sunni law, without any Koranic or Prophetic basis, empowers the father, granting him the status of wali (guardian), to impose marriage on his minor children in their “best interests.”

In fact, Sec. 2(vii) of the DMMA itself appears to be based on an archaic, sectarian law which states that the marriage contracted on behalf of a minor by any guardian other than the father and paternal grandfather can be revoked by the minor on attaining the age of puberty. This doctrine, which also finds a mention in the Delhi HC ruling, is known as khiyar al-buloogh or, option of puberty. It is based on a report in Abu Dawood's hadess collection, wherein the Prophet is supposed to have given a minor girl the option to repudiate her marriage when she informed him that her father had married her off against her will. But a reading of this hadees shows that the girl in question was not a minor because the word used to describe her is bikran which means a grown-up, virgin. Also, there is no mention of puberty in the report and hence, the Prophet could not have advised her to wait until puberty to exercise her right to divorce.

Even if it is hypothetically assumed that bikran refers to a minor, the wordings of the Abu Dawood hadees clearly indicate that the Prophet had the marriage annulled immediately on knowing from the girl that her consent was not obtained. In a similar narrative mentioned in Sahih Bukhari, the Prophet annulled the marriage of Khansa'a bint-e-Khizaam when she complained to him that her father had forced her into a marriage which was not to her liking. The only inference that could be drawn from these reports is that child or forced marriage has no legal validity in Islam. This conclusion is supported by another hadees, found in both Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, in which the Prophet is quoted as saying, “An ayyim (a widow or divorcee) shall not be married till she gives her consent, and nor a bikr (a virgin) be married till her consent is sought.” Therefore, the concept of khiyar-al buloogh is bad in law as it is based on an erroneous premise.

Child marriage in Islam is also justified on the basis of a hadees which claims that the Prophet married Hazrat Aisha when she was just six and consummated the marriage when she was nine. The authenticity of this report is doubtful for several reasons. First, the Prophet could not have gone against the Koran to marry a physically and intellectually immature child. Second, the age of Hazrat Aisha can be easily calculated from the age of her sister Hazrat Asma who was 10 years older than Hazrat Aisha. The author of the hadees collection. Mishkath, in his biography of narrators (Asma ur Rijal), writes that Hazrat Asma died in the year 73 Hijri at the age of 100, 10 or 12 days after the martyrdom of her son, Abdullah ibn Zubair. It is common knowledge that the Islamic calendar starts from the year of the Hijrah or the Prophet's migration from Mecca to Medina.

By deducting 73, the year of Hazrat Asma's death, from 100, her age at that time, we can easily conclude that she was 27 years old during Hijra. This puts the age of Hazrat Aisha at 17 during the same period. As all biographers of the Prophet agree that he consummated his marriage with Hazrat Aisha in 2 Hijri it can be conclusively said that she was 19 at that time and not nine.

The foregoing scriptural evidence shows that there exists a strong case to delegitimise child marriages and fix 18 as the age of marriage for Muslim girls, thereby bringing Muslim personal law in conformity with the Koran and the teachings of the Prophet. This would prevent right-wing parties from exploiting controversial court judgments to time and again threaten the Muslims with a Uniform Civil Code.

(A. Faizur Rahman is the secretary general of the Islamic Forum for the promotion of Moderate Thought. He may be reached at faizz@rocketmail.com)



feelgud
Posts: 725
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 5:01 am

#88

Unread post by feelgud » Thu Feb 07, 2013 8:57 am

The Holy Qur’an expounds: “So if a husband divorces his wife (for a third time), he cannot, after that remarry her until after she has married another husband and he has divorced her. In that case, there is no blame on either of them if they re-unite, provided they can keep the limits ordained by Allah. Such are the limits ordained by Allah which He makes plain to those who know”. (2:230).

A man is entitled to take his wife back twice after two respective Talaqs and for a third time also before the expiry of her Iddat after he gives her a Talaq for the third time. But after that the separation is irrevocable. She is then free to be married to any other person of her choice. If then in the normal course of life a dispute between them develops leading to first Talaq by the second husband, she is again free to be married to any person of her choice including the second husband (by whom she has got the first divorce) and also including the first husband as well. The relevant point here is that a Halala cannot be planned in advance, as a Nikah between her and the second husband with an understanding of a divorce afterwards will not be valid. If she does so, it will be an illegitimate relationship with the second husband and with the first husband also with whom she comes to live after a pre-planned Halala. The Prophet (Pbuh) has cursed both such men who perform Halala and for whom Halala is performed. The second Caliph Hazrat Umar ruled during his reign that he will punish with stoning to death, those who perform a pre-planned Halala. Imam Sufian Sauri says: “ If someone marries a woman to make her Halala (for her ex-husband) and then wants to keep her as wife, he is not permitted to do so unless he solemnises a Nikah afresh, as the previous Nikah was unlawful.” (Trimizi)


The Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said: "Allah curses the one who marries to make a woman Halal for her husband, and the one for whom this is done (i.e. the first husband and the woman)" (Ahmad, Nasai, Tirmidhi).



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

#89

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:26 pm

Muslim marriage is a civil contract, rules high court

KOCHI: Uncoupling the institution of marriage from sacred or religious connotations conveniently used to deny women their due, the Kerala high court has ruled that Muslim marriage is primarily a civil contract to legalize sexual intercourse. In the same vein, the court held that denying a woman her conjugal rights for an extended period amounts to "cruelty''.

The ruling by a division bench comprising justices Pius C Kuriakose and PD Rajan was in response to an appeal by Sanjan S of Alappuzha against a family court's decision to grant divorce to his wife on the ground that she was denied sex by him for over three years. The profound implications of the March 21st ruling are only beginning to sink into public consciousness.

The judgment authored by Justice Rajan says, "The concept of 'marriage' among Muslims from the very beginning itself (is) regarded as a contract. Muslim marriage has been defined as a civil contract for the purpose of legalizing sexual intercourse and procreation of children. It is not a sacrament but a contract, though solemnized generally with the recitation of certain verses from the Quran. Muslim law does not prescribe any religious service essential for solemnization. Justice Krishna Iyer in 'Islamic Law in Modern India' considered the concept of Muslim marriage and stated that "in its legal connotation, Muslim marriage is essentially a contract, though marriage as a social institution is regarded solemn all over the civilized world, including the Muslims."

Sanjan got married on May 16, 1999 according to Muslim religious rites and his wife delivered a child in August 2004. After February 2004, he avoided sexual contact with his wife, despite her insistence, for more than three years. In 2006 his wife left Sanjan's home and filed for divorce in 2007 in the family court.

Upholding the family court's decision granting divorce, the high court held, "We are of the opinion that if husband refuses to (have) sex with his wife, when she demands for the same, (it) is a ground for "cruelty". As a wife, she is expecting a healthy sexual relationship with her husband for the persistence of happy and harmonious married life."

Sanjan's counsel at the high court, K Ramakumar, contended that the alleged cruelty of denying conjugal relations is not pleaded and proved in this case. There is no allegation that the matrimonial relationship was broken irretrievably, he argued. Advocate PK Ibrahim, who appeared for the wife, opposed this, arguing that the totality of the pleading and evidence show that the marriage was irretrievably broken and that the emotional bond between the couple is extinct.

While deciding the case, the high court cited section 2 of Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939, which states various grounds for divorce. According to section 2, divorce can be granted if "the husband has failed to perform, without reasonable cause, his marital obligations for a period of three years."

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... rt-divorce



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

#90

Unread post by ghulam muhammed » Fri Jun 28, 2013 5:47 pm

Pakistan, a Muslim country has done away with triple talaq. This is what Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 of Pakistan lays down:

7. (1) Any man who wishes to divorce his wife shall, as soon as may be after the pronouncement of talaq in any form whatsoever, give the Chairman notice in writing of his having done so, and shall supply a copy thereof to the wife.

(2) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be punishable with simple imprisonment for term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to 1[<http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/print_secti ... =13539>ten thousand taka] or with both.

(3) Save as provided in sub-section (5), a talaq unless revoked earlier, expressly or otherwise, shall not be effective until the expiration of ninety days from the day on which notice under sub-section (1) is delivered to the Chairman.

(4) Within thirty days of the receipt of notice under sub-section (1), the Chairman shall constitute an Arbitration Council for the purpose of bringing about a reconciliation between the parties, and the Arbitration Council shall take all steps necessary to bring about such reconciliation.

(5) If the wife be pregnant at the time talaq is pronounced, talaq shall not be effective until the period mentioned in sub-section (3) or the pregnancy, whichever be later, ends.

(6) Nothing shall debar a wife whose marriage has been terminated by talaq effective under this section from re-marrying the same husband, without an intervening marriage with a third-person, unless such termination is for the third time so effective.

[Please note: "Chairman" refers to the Chairman of the Arbitration Council which consists, apart from the chairman, of "a representative of each of the parties to a matter dealt with in this Ordinance"]

The million rupee question is: Why cannot the Indian ulema adopt this method of divorce which is perfectly in consonance with the spirit of the Quran?

I am confident that if this information is brought to the notice of the Supreme Court through a PIL and the Muslim community through a mass campaign, the days of instant triple talaq (and other unIslamic provisions of the Muslim
personal law) would be numbered.