The Triple Conspiracy

``Maulana Abdul Quddus Kashmiri, vice president of the council, said, “When talaq is uttered the first time it is called ‘talaq-e-rajie’ and it is followed by ‘talaq-e-baien’ and the final one is called ‘talaq-e-mugalazza’. If talaq is uttered the third time, the divorce is final. Those misusing this provision deserve to be condemned since they are acting against the spirit of Islam. But that does not give the right to anyone to declare a divorce invalid just because the word talaq was uttered thrice in quick succession.”

This is the correct position of Fiqah-e-Hanafi, which is followed by overwhelming majority of Muslims in sub-continent.

There is a built in safeguard to protect women from men running amock and uttering three talaqs in quick succession whenever they feel like it, and that is called ``Mehr``. Mehr is an amount in the form of currency, asset, or property that is compulsory to be paid by groom to her bride according to the contractual agreement called Nikah Nama. This is a legally binding document. The amount of Mehr is set by bride and she may demand it to be paid before the marraige is consumated. However, she may deffer this request if she like. A man who divorces her wife with three talaqs in in quick succession automatically loses his right on this mehr as well as all the gifts and property (assets, gold, land etc) he gifted to his wife before talaq. In case women requests a divorce through khula`a she loses her right over mehr and possibly all the gifts etc. I think this forces men to act more responsibly. However, as a cultural norm marriage in subcontinent is considered an act of faith rather than a contractual agreement. Sometimes women even forego her right to demand mehr and thus lose an effective leverage. Women can still have the control if they start exercising their right effectively and intelligently.

# 1

How wonderfully enlightened and current Islam is! Only if Muslim women excercised their `Islamic` rights like demanding the return of the Mehr :)

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

Farzana

When the maulvis bring the Nikah Nama form and register, they themselves mostly strike out the column, beforehand, which gives the woman the right for ``Khula`` (divorce). (I do not know the procedure in India)

Most families are not even aware that such a Right has to be recorded on the Nikah Nama to avoid long hassels in the court. And why should this right not be printed on the FORM for all cases as such. Now the media is putting up this aspect to the public.

Also the amount of Meher (bride money) is kept ``as per shariet`` - a ridiculously low figure.

And even now the parents advise their daughters that now ``that`` is your home - and only your coffin should come out of ``that`` house.

Long way to go yet!

NHK

NHK

Shariat does not prescribe a `ridiculously low` figure for mehr. As a matter of fact the second caliph Omar (Ra) did try to fix the amount of mehr on prorated basis as the Qazi (justice) deemed fit but as per tradition a women protested his dicision right in Masjid-e-Nabawi saying that if apostle of allah (pbuh) did not fix mehr then what authority he (Omar) has to forefiet the right of woman that Allah has given to her. Since that time the amount of mehr is not a fixed amount. However, people following the footsteps of Holy Prophet try to fix the amount of mehr in the prorated amount equivalent to that which he (prophet) set for his own daughter. (I think in present day money this amount somewhere falls below Rs. 1500). This is all out of respect and faith whereas sharia (as per Quranic injunction) gives this right to the woman to set the whatever amount she wants fixed.

As far as striking out the column is concerned it is not the Mehr column that is strikken out but Qazi strikes one of the two columns - One column is for Mehr-e-Mo`ajjal i.e. mehr is required to be paid to the bride by groom as the Nikah Naama is signed and before the marriage is consumated; the other column is for Mehr-e-Mojal i.e. bride reserves the right to demand the amount of mehr anytime during the marriage. This is her right and she can demand it even if she is not requesting a divorce. The man as per Islamic law is required to pay her on her demand. It is one of the two choices that Qazi writes in the Nikah naama after asking bride. Even if woman is illiterate he asks bride three times whether she accepts Mr. X as her husband in exchange for a Mehr of xxxx, or not and if she does she must say ``Qabool Hay``. The four witnesses must sign the Nakah Naama then, attesting that they heard bride say ``Qabool Hay``. The same procedure is repeated with groom in the presence of hundereds of guests and four appointed witnesses.

As an outsider to the tradition, I don`t see anything wrong with triple talaq per se. If the relationship is broken, then dragging it out over a period of time where the second and third talaqs hang over the woman`s head and act as an emotional blackmail may actually be more damaging to the woman. The question I have is whether the woman has a similar right to end the marriage. If not, then the system is not keeping up with the times. That`s perhaps where reform needs to be. The system of mehr that would act as a check against frivolous divorce is brilliant but once again, the gender inequity must be addressed.

Way to go. I especially like the ``jokers in disguise`` bit, never mind what happened to Mohinder Amarnath with BCCI, for the masses he will always be a hero. If perception is bigger than fact, then this one single step of rationalising the marriage contract for Muslims in India, is likely to be worth acres of shallow debate by the so-called scholars.

Democracy must prevail.

1) An overwhelming majority of Muslims in India (women as well as many sects of Islam) already follow more progressive systems than the Fiqah-e-Hanafi.

2) The Ulema Council in India can agitate all it wants, on behalf of its shadowy paymasters. An overwhelming majority of Indians are of the democratically assimilated and ensured opinion that this triple talaq law has been viciously misused.

Whatever is done in Nikah Naama is equivalent to what whiteman calls Pre-Nuptual Agreement. You people must check how your own perception changes while using different terminology for same thing. When we use the terminology Nikah Naama you say ``aaakh! thui! thui! what an outdated concept - give me a barf bag``. And when we use the terminology `Pre-Nuptual Agreement` you say ``wah kia baat hay goray sahib ki - qanoon qaida to koi un se seekhay wah!``

I think you are a Genius :))

The tripple talaq has been a shame of us Indian muslims for the longest while. This is good news...now, what we need is the proper attitude to follow up.

---

Urstruly,

So, meher is to be the safeguard but religiously we are compelled to keep it low. Not much of a safeguard is it, then? There are social pressures to keep meher low, and to keep the threat of divorce over women to keep them in line. This has to be rectified, and the only way to do it is by imposing limits. No mindless axiomatic regergetations of fiqh will address the issue. The meher solution may have been adequete safeguard in the past, but we may well have a unique set of social conditions that make that solution non-applicable, at least not so in a timely manner (the kind of `education` you want could take generations). Thus, a novel solution is required.

The fact is, the time-spread talaq is to the spirit and letter of Islamic law. If you think the quick tripple-talaq is a misuse, then what punishment do you suggest for those who misuse it? And this is the problem with your line of reasoning...you admit to a misuse, you even suggest a (flawed) way to safeguard against the misuse, but yet suggest no punishment to those who are commiting a clear abuse. The tripple talaq is not a force of nature, it`s an interpretation. Not all interpretations are equal. In this case, the Muslims of India have adopted another legitimate ,relevant, and less harmful ruling. I see no problem with that.

---

Ralph,

Meher is not returned, it is owed. Meher originates from the grooms side, not the brides.

---

I`ve known a few Pakistani and Arab families who start the meher bidding at $500k and settle around 100-200k!!!! Meher is not limited...Urstruly is right on this, nazar.

---

soysauce,

Tripple talaq may be useful at times (why drag out a bad thing), however in general it`s prone to abuse. Just like legal loopholes, this possibility of abuse has to be hit on the head.

As for women getting the right to divorce, they can always shove it in the Marriage contract (essentially a pre-nup). The procedure is a bit more involved than the quick`n dirty tripple talaq, as the women needs to make a pettition to the Qazi. Alas, fat chance any Imam will insert this clause into the contract or any groom would accept it (although it is her God-given right). The buck stops with the people on this one...social pressures and gender political maneuverings is the real culprit here. Untill the institutions take the possible abuses into account, they will be prone to misuse.

Vertex

The enforcement of a certain law is not an issue or responsibility of Fiqah (jurisprudence). The enforcement is an issue of Executive or for that matter it is the responsibility of people. I think it is the stupidest argument that I have ever come across that goes something like this `` since we are not able to enforce a law so lets make another law``; where do we stop then if we again fail to enforce the new law? Whether we like it or not, Mehr or a pre-nuptual agreement is THE safeguard that woman have. Now suppose if we take the right of three Talaqs from men and in return if man demands that women forego their right of Mehr or pre-nupt then wouldn`t we then be living in the law of jungle? Women have rights in Islam by law. We cannot take these rights away from her just because we want to copy white man. It will be the greatest injustice to the women. What we need to do is to educate woman and men about their pre-nuptual rights through education and then make sure that the law is enforced by the Executive to the letter. It is a continuing battle that we have to fight everyday of our lives. Having laws on the book, merely, amounts to nothing.

Ref Sangilikaruppan #7

[As an outsider to the tradition, I don`t see anything wrong with triple talaq per se.]

You can chop off your foreskin but, since you live in the US, YOU still cannot use the triple talaq to get away from your wife.

She has got you castrated by now anyway and knowing the ways of Tamil Nadu, you ain`t getting away with any divorce; your in-laws will chop off your dick if you try anything funny.

So just sit there salivating at the possibility of triple talaq... so close yet so far away!

Ref Urstruly #1

[Sometimes women even forego her right to demand mehr and thus lose an effective leverage. Women can still have the control if they start exercising their right effectively and intelligently.]

If the woman is not even literate, how is she expected to know and enforce her rights?

The first freedom required for women is the freedom to go to school.

vertex

It`s the height of absurdity to believe that mehr-which seems like a traditionally small amount for the divorced woman`s upkeep- in any way justifies or rationalizes this barbaric talaq-talaq-talaq business on the part of Islamic men. In any civilized society, the process of granting divorce should be evaluated on its own terms.

harimau # 13

If the woman is not even literate, how is she expected to know and enforce her rights?

This is a very pertinent question. In order to overcome this obstacle and to retain the rights of woman, Islamic law prescribes the concept of Wali. A rough translation of word ``Wali`` can be `a guardian`, `a custodian`, `an attorny`, or `a solicitor` etc. However by default the father of a woman is her Wali. In case a woman does not have a father or if she does not want to appoint her father as her Wali she can appoint any other person that she trusts as her Wali. In case a woman cannot find a person to act as her Wali she may request the state to act on behalf of her as her Wali. A necessary condition in the Nikah Nama is that in addition to four witnesses the woman must appoint her Wali. The Qazi when starts proceedings of Nikah the first thing he asks the bride is that she has appointed Mr. X as her Wali to safeguard her interests and whether she agrees to this appointment or not. The woman must express her agreement in front of four witnesses so that the further proceedings must go thru.

I wrote this in the afternoon, IST, and the evening news has already talked about the Ulema beginning its agitation, not only in Mumbai where the news originated but in most parts of the country.

Sadly, on a panel discussion, the representative of the Muslim Personal Law Board almost seemed to be retracting from what could be pathbreaking changes. All the panelists were men. Why are the women not being consulted?

---

The meh`r does not in any way compensate. It is invariably a small amount, as low as a few hundred rupees. While it is true that a woman can put down a few conditions in the nikaahnaama, she is either not aware or not encouraged to do so. And I doubt if there would be any follow-up after the divorce.

I would dearly like to see these laws executed.