The Triple Conspiracy

t bhai …

Agreed with everything you said … but must ask … why “maulana” me?

When did I ever argue against basic decency … or objected to someone worshipping a monkey or two lesbians exchanging love vows … ? I am all for civility and paying property taxes on time. On occasion I did condemn bad poetry … but does that make me a maulana? Huh??

Urstruly,

Sorry for the late reply. Was out of town for the long week-end...

Some clarification: are you implying that the recourse for women is to try to pre-empt the triple talaq by going to the courts first? Also, I am confused as to why the first procedure (i.e. the triple talaq without court involvement) is a viable option. Since the court has executed the marriage contract, and is necessarily involved when the divorce takes place…how can the man get away with uttering triple talaq. Wouldn’t the courts be justified in treating it as one?

Thanks…

Vertex # 66

You ask ``Since the court has executed the marriage contract, and is necessarily involved when the divorce takes place…how can the man get away with uttering triple talaq. ``

Good question. In Pakistan, in 1962 when Muslim Family Law was enacted - prior to that there was no formal procedure to register the Nikah i.e. pre-Nuptial agreement. Most of the nikah, especially in villages were done verbally in front of four witnesses. or even if a nikahnama was written down, it was written by qazi so qazi and not the state were the executors. This evil was handed down to us by british who abolished the centuries-old institution of Qazi-ul-Qazat in just one instance. So after 1962 state of Pakitan had no jurisdiction over a pre-nuptial contract that was not executed by itself in the first place. Threfore, that is the reason there are both provisions in law. In law abiding societies such -necessary evils have a sunset clause - but pakistan is a banana republic where rulers are the one who gang rape all laws including constitution, what to expect a law that protects a lowly creature like woman.

In addition, even though there is this law of progressive talaqs in the books, state has no interest in it to enforce it. People have no confidence in courts either and they try to settle outside. The judges take bribes sitting right in their courtrooms. Even if you want a court date you have to bribe judge through his registrar otherwise you wont get a date in years. Now since men are financially stronger than woman they can bribe judges to not give dates to the women who is seeking a khulla. Usally such cases drag on for years and by that time childrens are old enough and woman loses the right to their custody any way. So this is the situation with law and its enforcement in real world. That is the reason I am against enacting new laws because it just opens up new avenues for judges and enforcvement officials to take bribes and make the life of human beings miserable. I will favor new laws when I will be sure that laws will be enfored as well.

Dear dost-mittarji:

Let me answer some of your queries...
``If there are different interpretations, to whom will the APMLB interpretation apply, or do the courts use different interpretations for different IM communities?``

The MPLB`s interpretation would not apply to Ismailis, Bohras and certain other communities; the courts come into the picture only when both the parties resort to legal separation.

``Regarding registration, can either spouse register the marriage or do both parties have to agree to register it?``

Both the parties have to be present at the registration together with their respective witnesses.

``Do you know how many women are there on the APMLB and who appoints/nominates/elects them?``

I am sorry, but am not certain; trying to get info on this.

``Finally, did you publish this article elsewhere too?``

Not this version. Although I had written about the Khatoonisa case a few years ago and was usd in some Gulf newspaper as well! I have also written about different forms of talaq earlier...

PS: It is difficult for some people to digest it when I do in fact question certain practices of the Muslim community. I have chosen not to respond to the few cynics who seem to know about an agenda even here. My silence has left this board free of an inter-religious battle, which I most certainly did not want, and the reason why I have refused to discuss other laws.

- - -
Satire:
What is this about allowing women to have four husbands? Does this amount to equal opportunity? I think not...

Anil:

You asked whether there have been any attempts in the past to bring about social reformation. I had written about it elsewhere and had in fact reproduced it a while ago...re-posting a large excerpt for you...

Rediff On The Net, Life/Style: Farzana Versey traces the Islamic pilgrim`s progress

The Islamic Pilgrim`s Progress

It`s such a funny situation. Some years ago, people found me terribly
liberal whenever I made a critical appraisal of Islam. Today, if I say
something in its favour, they brand me regressive or a closet fanatic!
There is a mistaken notion that every believer in Islam is blind to its
flaws. Way back in 1948, Sheikh Muhammad Ashraf published a journal called
The Islamic Literature, which listed, among its objectives, a need to find
a new interpretation of Islam to fit the changed conditions prevailing
then. The social conditions and mores the prophet had to deal with then
were primitive.

Tied as the religion is to a single source -- the holy book -- it is an
easy target. Every time it is sought to be evaluated, its authority gets
diminished for it is invariably evaluated on the basis of the Shariat.
However, in 1951, Jordan brought in a legislation ostensibly based on the
Ottoman Law of Family Rights which set down many changes, especially
regarding divorce. According to it, a woman can stipulate in her marriage
contract that she has the right to divorce her husband; he, on the other
hand, might be permitted to utter the word talaq, but on three separate
occasions.

Besides this, reformers within the community have raised important
questions -- when the text lays down certain commandments, do they mean,
``You shall (not) or you may (not)? Are they matters of conscience which
will be tried in heaven, or are they subject to the action of an earthly
court? How far is a divine ordinance binding when the conditions under
which it was promulgated have passed away?``

For the purpose of discussion, we may voice aloud Koenraad Elst`s
apprehensions: ``Reason is bound to defeat Islam.`` All belief systems do
not depend on systematisation, but on belief. What Kierkegaard said about
Christianity`s appeal lying in it being transempirical and untestable
could as well apply to Islam or any other religion.

What makes Islam`s position peculiar is that it cannot cope with the
essential duality of the sacred and the profane within its ambit, unlike
other religions. One reason for this, seen purely from the sociological
perspective, is the painstaking attempt by academicians to demarcate
Islamic fundamentalism from Islamic revivalism.

There is no complementary attempt to make a distinction between Islam and
the Muslim although, even according to the Koran, the Muslims are not a
unified body of people: ``Those believers who sit at home are not equal to
those who fight in the way of God with their goods and their persons.``

``I have chosen not to respond to the few cynics who seem to know about an agenda even here.``

this is lame..i claim pre-emption.

Anyways this law-shaw stuff is nonsense. There are plenty of laws that non-muslims have which seem in-step with modernity, but still the result is miserable marriages akin to slavery.

This is because we have rotten non-darwinian family systems. We still ``arrange`` our childrens marriages. This is the single-most source of all evil. This is what gives a foot-hold to undue interference and power to the respective families. Arranges marriage is a vestige of tribalism, where the clans economic and political interests are the most important.

Men and women (and not chidren) need to get kicked-out of homes and need to find their own mates, by using their olfactory organs if needed, and fight it out. And then they need to breed with each others support (watching a childbirth is the best contraceptive). They need to fight stuff out without help of their tribes.

In a couple of generations egality will be a rule irrespective of law. People who cannot participate in the cosmic mating rituals will watch their genes perish and all will be well. So, in short, its not the talaq or the kerosene-wielding mother-in-law the problem, its the evil doting families.

Farzana, quality over quantity every time!

Farzana:


``What is this about allowing women to have four husbands? Does this amount to equal opportunity? I think not... ``

My point exactly. Fairness and equality is not just about one law, hence the need to change more than a few. Also, people need role models, hence the female prophet ...

There`s little point in giving someone a right to do something if they are too afraid or shamed to use it. Either we give women what men have or take away what men have unfairly hoarded.

Competetion makes things better, even the other sex.