The Triple Conspiracy

Farzana:

Howdy.

[Jameda, a sprightly young woman, had gone up to the Prophet and told him that she wanted to leave her husband. The Prophet, not one bit perturbed, had asked, “Why, is he not a good Muslim?” “Oh, he is a very good Muslim,” she replied. “Does he not love you?”“He gives me more than I need.” “Then what is it?” asked the Prophet. Jameda, without any hesitation, replied, “I don’t like him anymore.” The Prophet granted her the divorce.]

I think the above example is pretty self explanatory.

[On July 4, the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board, the highest body governing civil law for Muslims in India, is likely to adopt a resolution scrapping the ‘triple talaq’; it is set to adopt ‘phased talaq’, with the couple being given three months to think it over. According to a report, the AIMPLB believes this is in line with Shariat-approved procedure. Many Islamic countries, including Pakistan, do not follow the ‘triple talaq’ system. Even within India, there are differing opinions about its validity. But the system has persisted.]

I am not sure if it is good or bad. What`s the end result ? I guess you will know that on July 04th. I ask this since you have mentioned the likelihood vs. a definite move. The worst part is that these ulema(duffers) make every little aspect of life so convoluted that it`s simply silly to consult them on any matter. The simplest thing is to opt for a civil marriage. Kick out all the entitities that add ``any`` confusion to life! My two cents.

Urstruly # 38 - It was very eloquently put and added to my knowledge about this very important civic matter. Thanks.

By the way, while we are focusing on HOW MANY rights Islam gives to woman in asking for divorce, lets also remember that NO such rights exist as per Church. Marriage is indissolubile, especially in Roman Catholic Churches.

Here is what St. Paul says: ``To them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband. And if she depart, she must remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband.`` (I Cor., vii, 10, 11).

Of course, this does not give a free license to Muslims to play havoc with the Islamic jurisprudence governing marriage/divorce issues. I simply brought up the above point for those who instead of productively engaging in this VERY important debate - simply look at it as an opportunity to bash Islam.

Vertex

Probably we do not understand each other`s point of view because we come from different backgrounds. My point is that ``procedure`` is an integral part of a law. A law is just a statement of a principle, however, it is the procedure that the enforcement agency and justice must follow to implement that law. That is the reason when a law is enacted, a whole procedure is written for court and police. This Procedure Code, as it is called, is a host of ``IF``, ``THEN`` scenarios. In addition it dictates the prosecution and defense (plaintiffs in case of Talaq) a protocol as to how to sum up their respective cases so that court (judge) is able to judge whether the principle (law) applies or not. This is a very intensive science.

Now lets come back to the main topic of this article – which is the ``three Talaqs``. It is a common conception that as a man utters the word Talaq three times the separation happens and it is irreversible. But what people don`t know is that it is only the ``law`` or the ``principle``. But in order to understand how this law applies or is implemented, we must look into the procedure.

Now there are two possibilities that the law is applicable. In the first case, let us suppose that we live in a society where institutions of law and justice do not exist. In that case the principle is applicable as it is. In such society when a husband utters three Talaqs the talaq happens immediately. The couple still have a choice to keep living together or get separated if the ignore the word of God. Either way they are answerable to Allah. In this case this principle is applied in its most basic form and it is totally voluntary. That was the situation in early days of Islam.

In the second case, let us suppose that we live in a society where institutions of law and justice are established and laws are enforced thru state apparatus. This is the actual life that we live in now. It is now a fact that whenever a Nikah i.e. a marriage contract is executed, it is executed by a state appointed Qazi, who registers this document as a legally binding document and Nikah is registered with state. Similarly, when this contract is annulled, in case of a talaq or a khulla, the state is also involved – the talaq has to be registered with state.

According to the Ijtehad done in 1962, when Mulim Family Law was being formulated in Pakistan, the state assumed the role of an arbiter while executing the Talaq or Khulla proceedings. This Ijtehad was based primarily on the Quranic injunction ``And if you fear a breach between the two, then appoint judge from his people and a judge from her people; if they both desire agreement, Allah will effect harmony between them, surely Allah is Knowing, Aware.`` The Women 4-35. The jurists argued that since the contract of Nikah is excuted by state, therefore state has the right to interfere in the proceedings of its annulment as well. The majority of Mujtahideen i.e. Jurists have a consensus (Ijma`a) over this Ijtehad. Thus it became the law of the land.

Now as far as procedure of implementation of this law is concerned there are two possibilities:

First possibility is that man uttered Talaq for three times. In this case court has no choice but to execute the annulment of marriage contract and man loses the right to mehr and also whatever was agreed in the pre-nuptial the man is liable to pay./

The second possibility is that man (or woman) seek separation thru court. In this case man informs judge that he is divorcing his wife; in this case regardless of how many times man has utterd Talaq the court assumes it as one Talaq. The court informs the women and since one Talaq is reversible, the court give man and wife a mandatory period of three months to reconcile. If reconciliation does not happen, at the end of the period court assumes that the second talaq has happened, which is also reversible. The court again give the couple a three month period for reconciliation and may appoint arbiters to make mends between them. At the end of this period if reconciliation does not happen, the court assumes that the third talaq has happened, which is irreversible. The same procedure applies when woman requests a Khulla i.e. certain mandatory period is given to couple to make mends etc.

This is basically the law based on Hanafi Fiqah which all Mulsims who follow the Ehl-e-Sunnat-wal-Jammat (non-Shia) follow and that includes both Deobandi and Brelvi school of thought as well. As far as Shia (Fiqah-e-Jafria) is concerned I plead my ignorance. Probably, what is happening in India is being demanded by Fiqah-e-Jafria, can someone confirm?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

stuka #26

``Interesting, And what about Zafar?``

That many Muslims continue to be model Indians shouldn`t blind us to the strange fact that very many Indian Muslims turn into active anti-nationals. These Muslims transfer their loyalties to unfriendly countries the moment they have a chance to leave India. That couldn`t be because Muslims have a terrible existence in India. A look at minorities in other countries will establish that.

In essence, we appear to be feeding enemy children. The game has been so rigged that nobody is supposed to be even talk about it. This is wilful self-destruction.

The primary aim here, besides lauding the move being initiated, was to highlight the fact that the triple talaq is not followed across the board even among all Indian Muslims.

I would have liked more women to participate in this discussion...

NHK, vertex, urstruly, warpster...your inputs are educative. Soysauce...huh? Harimau...!! Mahesh...glad you still read me, even though you have resolved not to talk with me:) Anil, temporal...will have more to say later.

Ferzi:

…all this brouhaha is so very understandable…we muslims may have one book and on prophet (sorry Sattar saheb;)…but we do subscribe to several Allahs…each small group of us has their own Allah….this is the only explanation one can proffer…otherwise if Allah was one…then how in Jam-the camel driver’s name would these various factions and off shoots would be killing each other and dispatching them to some hell in the name of the same Allah?…

khair…on talaaq!

(…all the following is from memory…don’t have my books or notes here…so if any one you wants to assign me a choice spot in hell…hopefully they will have the courtesy to afford me some good defense lawyers first)

Islam is a deen…the approache to practice this deen is called a madhab (or mazhab in urdu: plural madhaib/mazhaib)…

in the days of Muhammed (saw) there was only one deen and one madhab ..understandably…the various madhaibs…and splits came later…the sunnis with their hanafis, humbalis, shafii, malikis…and the shias with ithna asharis, ismailis, khojas, bohris….and then the minor offshoots….druzes, naziris and so on…each of these groups and sub groups practice Islam their own way…naturally!….:)

so back to utterances of three talaqs:

during the lifetime of Muhammed (saw)..the overwhelming occurrences of talaqs were ‘delayed’ talaq…in stages….the quickie divorce was tolerated but not kindly looked upon…

..this continued for about three years after his death…( am relying on memory again)…this continued through abu bakr’s caliphate and went on unchanged during omar’s first or second year…somewhere around that time hazrat omar seemed it fit to change the rules!….since then…the quickie divorce came into fashion over the delayed divorce…and is continuing to this day in the mostly sunni world…

..to be fair to omar…towards the end of his caliphate he broached this subject in one of his letters and wondered aloud if he had done the right thing and also speculated aloud about the misuses of the quickie divorce and expressed a desire or hope to revert things back to the older way…but he died shortly afterwards…

lve,

t

*** Removed for violating InterAct Guidelines ***

Let us hope the resolution will pass. It should, given the advance declaration.

stuka,

That difficult to believe? :-)

stuka,

Oh, I think I just got it...no, I don`t currently reside in India. Guju`s assesment is 2/3`s right. Some sort of brain block has no doubt inserted the final 1/3.

But then, me being Muslim neccessarily means I can`t have any association with India to old Gujuman there...

This book review from 1995 sounds relevant.

---

Looking In From The Out

J.N. DIXIT

THE WORLD OF FATWA OR THE SHARIA IN ACTION
by Arun Shourie
ASA PUBLICATIONS
RS:450;PAGES:685

THE World of Fatwas or The Sharia In Action is a meticulously researched work on the application of Islamic precepts to practically every aspect of the existence of the ``faithful``.

It is a somewhat daunting book in volume; 669 pages of writings by the author, and the remaining pages containing basic texts and index. In terms of intensity and detail of research it is in the genre of two previous books by Shourie, namely Mrs Gandhi`s Second Reign and Missionaries in India. Going through the book, one comes to the conclusion that the premise Shourie wants to prove is the quotation from the Quran reproduced on the back cover—"Moham-mad is the messenger of Allah. Those who follow him are firm and unyielding towards unbelievers, yet full of mercy towards one another.`` (Quran XL VIII 29).

The book has 12 chapters. The first two chapters, ``Their Ways, Their Power,`` and ``All of Life``, highlight an almost irrational interfering influence which the Muslim clergy exercises and is capable of exercising on the Muslim community. These chapters also describe in examples and by analysis the manner in which the Quran, Hadis and, more importantly the fatwa, permeate every aspect of a Muslim`s life from cradle to death; from sexuality to philosophy; from rituals to spiritual experience.

Chapters three, four, and five dealing with the manner in which the fatwas fashion the Muslims` identity and the manner in which they contrast this identity with the persona and existence of non-believers and lastly political and ideological contrariness which characterised the Muslim leaders of the Khilafat Movement, are an insightful and relevant discovery of the perspective in which Islam is practised, and should be viewed.

Shourie`s recounting the relations between the Ali Brothers and Mahatma Gandhi is a revelation of the Ali brothers` communal contrariness. The Muslim clergy harassing Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Dr Zakir Husain, the aggressiveness with which the Ulema questioned the Islamic integrity of the Jamia Millia University as mentioned in the book, are a pertinent exercise in rediscovering Muslim theocratic perceptions of the rules of existence of the Muslim community in India. What is even more interesting is Shourie`s assessment that even men of eminence like Abul Kalam Azad and Zakir Husain had to succumb to the narrow, pernicious religious bigotry of the Muslim clergy in India. I would not go as far as Shourie inbeing critical about these nationalistic Muslim leaders. If they succumbed, reconciled or compromised, it must have been for the larger tactical purpose of carrying the Muslim community that they belonged to with them, instead of subjecting the community to the emotional trauma of confronting the Ulema, specially when the majority of Muslims were ambiguous about its political identity, and subject to religious superstitions.

Chapter six is entirely devoted to women and the Sharia, and concentrates on proving that the Islamic claim of ensuring justice, equality and dignity to women when compared to other religions of the world, is not just inaccurate, but false.

This chapter titled ``Moon ki naak, balkiraal ki pudiya, balki baarood ki dibiya``, is a most thorough description of the methods by which Islamic scripture, Islamic tradition and convention and religious ``obiter-dicta`` relegate women to a secondary status, even an enslaved status of existence subject to unqualified exploitation.

While all this may be so, the point to ponder is whether all the conventions described, all the fatwas narrated, really transmute themselves to the daily life of Muslims. If they do, then the Muslim community all over the world must have had a traumatic and unstable existence through-out the 14 centuries since the establishment of Islam by the Holy Prophet.

Chapters 7 to 10 dealing with the power of the Sharia are relevant in understanding the socio-cultural and politico-economic ethos of the Muslims. They are also a summation of conclusions derived from the previous chapters. Chapter 10 is a polemical exercise to show that the inequities and rigidities of the fatwa are not just interpretive aberrations of the Ulema, but that they are based on the teachings of fundamental Islamic scriptures and conventions.

Arun Shourie`s desire is to prove that: ``It is the very essence of a totalitarian ideology, that it enforces its right to regulate the totality of life. The Quran, the Hadis, the fatwas, represent one continuous endeavour in this respect. They aim at controlling every aspect of life (page 629).``

Arun Shourie has proved this point not by logic but extensive research. Apart from the Quran, Hadith and the books on Sharia, he has gone through 38 volumes of fatwas (page 5). The book is timely. It is relevant in reinforcing the point of view that religion, when it moves away from the norms of harmony, eclectic and catholic faith and reasonableness, is a destructive force.

My complaint about the book is its hectoring tone. While nobody can question the veracity of the texts quoted, or the authenticity of the interpretations given by the author, I wish he had pondered over why Islam survives today in about 51 to 55 countries, and how is it that nearly 700 million to one billion human beings believe in Islam, which is nearly one-fifth or one-sixth of the population of the world.

The only possible answer is that while in terms of quoting texts and analysing them the book could be accurate, it does not reflect the objective human predicament in Islamic communities. Islam is and must be having a rational and more human application in daily life. Even if the faithful approach the Ulema for fat-was on which to show their posteriors when performing their ablutions. Why is it that Arun Shourie completely omits the impact of the Persian and Indian civilisations on Islam? Why has he chosen to ignore the elements of universal brotherhood and tolerance, scepticism about religious orthodoxy enunciated by the great Sufi teachers of Islam beginning from Jalaluddin Roomi, Nizamuddin Aulia and Sheikh Salim Chishti? Why has he not chosen to adjust his microscope at a wider angle so that he could have seen redeemable elements in Islam?

Having said all this I must take note of the introductory para where he says that the book might help in freeing Muslims from the thrall of the Ulema. If the book serves that purpose it would be laudable. It certainly serves the purpose of educating the secularists who believe in secularism as a mantra rather than as a conviction based on knowledge. The book has only strengthened my conviction in the validity of the Hindu scriptural saying: ``The truth is one, but the wise articulate it in many ways.`` I only hope that Arun Shourie does not insist that only his way of articulating the truth is valid. The World of Fatwas provides a new prism to non-Muslims for observing Islam, and holds up a mirror to Muslims challenging them to necessary introspection for adjusting to a changing world.

#26

Interesting, And what about Zafar?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts