The Triple Conspiracy

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

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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.

A very intresting article and topic to discuss about , I was just today having a heated discussion with my work mates about `divorce and marriage system in Islam and same system in Christanity) ;
to my limited knowledge of Islam ( I assume) and I know lot of normal Pakistanis think of `talaq and marriages and re-marriages as follows`
a) husband / wife could go for divorce ( with a good reason ; in Pakistan in most cases family members are a bridge to save marriages in most cases)
b) a husband after divorce could always marry a woman so does women could marry (though its still thaught as ` awkward ` ...
c) husband could marry another woman or women only after ` a permission ` from his wife and that too if he`s economically stable !

( yes, I believe at times that Islam gives `less rights` to women then men but I assume, that is because of Arabic Traditions at that time inplaced `

``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. ``

Ferzana, your aim is very clear. Its part embarassment, part attempt to white-wash. I suspect that in future posts (as soon as some of our favorites indulge in muslim bashing) you will say things like law itself is not a sufficient thing, look how poorly the indu married girls are doing etc. A more nuanced debate of womens plight in india blah blah. The somone will soon come up with beauties like muslim law is actually really very egalitarian, but in india its implementation got corrupted due to age-old hindu practices.

No need to explain, the aim is always clear, message comes thru loud and clear.

Happy weekend folks.

Nice piece, I really liked Rukaiya Hussein`s story. I think triple talaq is an anachronism that should be repealed... here`s hoping that it is.

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

Temporal bhai …

If you (and other Muslims) are going to believe in one prophet … why count me out? I am all for him …

However, if you want to expand the circle of prophets … you’ll include Moses, Jesus, Ibrahim, etc. In addition to these, I would include … Buddha, Krishna, Mirza Sahib. So as far as Islam goes … we’re on the same page … I think!

+++++++++++

Coming back to the talaq issue … I am of the view that Quran supports three declarations over a few months … in order for a divorce to be complete. This is a safeguard against having the husband get carried away momentarily … and uttering something in anger … that he and the family may regret forever.

A divorce can potentially ruin lives … especially those of the children, who are likely to suffer psychological consequences. There is nothing worse for a man and wife than to see their children suffer. Every couple has problems at some point or another in their lives. When this happens, emotions run high … harsh words are exchanged … and it seems that all is lost.

During such times, a time-out is needed. Couple should separate, seek counseling, think things over … all in somewhat dispassionate manner. Sometimes things get back on track … in some cases the couple gets back together and manages to get by … and in some cases it is better to go ahead and divorce. It is for this reason that Quran insists that divroce must by finalized over several months.

Of course, keeping up with the age-old tradition of jihalat, our enlightened ullema insist that three declarations … in one breath … constitute a divorce. Nonsense. This is yet another example of exploitation of people by the custodians of faith … this time to suppress women.

Farzana,

You may like to look into ``The Stepford Wives.`` An ironic comedy with an interesting story!

Bye Bye.

Anil:

You have brought in another dimension altogether.

[Why should religious thoughts / laws govern relationship between man and woman?]

Why should any laws, ideally speaking, govern a relationship? Even in today`s liberal times, there are very few people who would not want to legalise/legitimise their relationship. It has to do with security and commitment. And in the Indian subcontinent, I am well aware of many couples who do not feel `completely married` unless they go through some religious ceremony.

[The questions about Dowry or Mehr are economic in nature. A separation is important. Important decisions about Dowry or Mehr during the emotional moment, like wedding, are plainly silly and wrong. The economic well being is not in anyone`s mind at that time. The intentions behind such ritual or contract may be good. Results are horrendous, because these are performed or executed during the emotional time.]

In India, the emotionalism is very well channelised by the families to sit and bargain. As you know, in Islam marriage itself is seen as a contract, and Meh`r is a part of it. The couple does not decide; the families do. In situations where many marriages are arranged even today, the silliness is inherent in the very nature of the `transaction`. Our society is such that a woman is `taken over` by the other family and an important way for her to feel a part of it, is to know that she is not entirely dependent, therefore streedhan and meh`r act more in the nature of emotional security. They do not empower women.(The pre-nuptial agreements in the West do because the women are taking the initiative.)

If you say a wedding is an emotional moment, then a divorce is even more so. Imagine the plight of someone like Asma who I interviewed.
- - -
Zahra:

[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.]

A civil marriage is the best option, but as I have elaborated above, for the majority in our subcontinent there are several issues attached. I had once interviewed the writer Salim Khan and his wife (now he has a second wife, actress Helen) and he had a civil marriage, then to appease his family they went through a nikaah. He told me that Salma felt a vacuum even after all this, so they went through a Hindu ceremony! And this was a cosmopolitan, cross-cultural alliance between two educated people.

Btw, re. the July 4 verdict, no one asked the Ulema Council to intervene; they got into the act of their own accord.

Thanks for `The Stepford Wives` recommendation. Need a comedy:)
- - -
temporal:

Thanks for the succinct explanation. Okay, so we have one book and one Prophet, and several Allahs...agree not...we have several books (how many interpretatiosn are there?), and even re. the Prophet is there any consistency of approach? But we probably have only one Allah -- as in Allah maalik hai, Allah ki dein hai, Allah ka shuk`r hai...get the drift?! Allah is an invisible, non-controversial entity, therefore there is no problem agreeing in principle to have one. We can play around with words and the harbinger of those words, though, which is where the problems arise.

What has surprised me even more is that the Raza Academy, that comes out in the streets to prove its secular credentials, dragging even children in, has protested the Muslim Personal Law Board`s initiative.

(On another note entirely...I should imagine people would have fewer problems dealing with triple T than they do with one T :)

F

Hello Farzana Sahiba
Hope you are doing well. You wrote

``Islam on paper gives woman a right, but does it imbue her with the courage and wherewithal to exercise it?``
As far as the courage is concerned, doesn`t the responsibility lie with the society and not so much with religion when it comes to implementing those rights? It has become almost natural to blame things on the religion when in reality they should be blamed on the patriarchal guardians of our society.
Women do have the right of tafweed given that its proclaimed at the time of contracting the marriage.
Take care and regarding ``fly in the soup,`` shouldnt it be changed to ``poisoned fly in the soup`` considering how greatly you contribute to the disgust of chowkies with your articles;)
Faiza Hussain