Sharia Courts In Action
Here are two articles that discuss Sharia courts in action. The first extract is from the International Herald Tribune:
A Pakistan-born 33-year-old mother of five explained that her husband would beat her and her children. “He threatens to kill us,” she said, as her daughter translated from Urdu. “He calls me a Jew and an infidel.” Hasan told her to immediately get police protection and request an Islamic divorce.
Another woman, 25, wanted out of a two-year-old arranged marriage with a man who refused to consummate the relationship. Hasan counseled dialogue.
“Until we see the husband,” he said, “we can’t be sure that what you’re saying is true.”
There was also a seminar, chaired by Lady Butler Sloss, at which Sheikh Faiz ul-Aqtab Siddiqi of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal argued for the acceptance of polygamy:
Later, after a question from the floor, he clarified his position as being one of confusion as to why relationships such as extra-marital affairs should be recognised under English law, and furthermore how men could be permitted to marry other men, and women other women. He argued that if such relationships were not considered abhorrent, then current attitudes towards polygamy could not, and should not, be justified.
The main problem with using this argument in favour of recognition of polygamous marriages both inside and outside this country is that of proof as to whether these marriages have been entered into willingly and freely by the women involved. No one forces a person to have an extra-marital affair, or to enter into a civil partnership, but there is widespread evidence of the forcing of women into polygamous relationships in many religions and in many parts of the world. To compare consensual relationships with forced ones, whether physical or emotional coercion is used, is completely misguided.
Rosa Freedman relates the full story on CiF.
Comments
| 20 November 2008, 7:18 pm |
He calls me a Jew and an infidel.”
Clearly, from his perspective, this is a redundant use of the word “infidel”.
Is this from the “What they really think of us when we aren’t listening” file?
I mean, “Jew”, what an insult!
I bet she’d rather be called ‘rat puke’ or “cockroach” than “Jew”.
| 20 November 2008, 9:52 pm |
“So, sensing defeat, she brought our her secret weapon: her father.
In walked a bearded man in long robes who described his son-in-law as a hot-tempered man who had duped his daughter, evaded the police and humiliated his family.
The judge promptly reversed himself and recommended divorce.”
From opposite positions of one “halfling” and one entire person then suddenly the “halfling” increase its strength to one and a half persons which change the ruling.
“He threatens to kill us,” she said, as her daughter translated from Urdu. “He calls me a Jew and an infidel.”
Huh, could it get worse, what an insult. Wonder if Zionist is a worse insult than to be cursed as a Jew. Or that maybe is over the top even for a muslim husband.
| 20 November 2008, 10:54 pm |
I would imagine to many Muslims, Jews and Zionists are the same thing.
| 20 November 2008, 11:54 pm |
“I would imagine to many Muslims, Jews and Zionists are the same thing.”
Oh, perish the thought!
| 21 November 2008, 3:58 am |
he clarified his position as being one of confusion as to why relationships such as extra-marital affairs should be recognised under English law, and furthermore how men could be permitted to marry other men, and women other women. He argued that if such relationships were not considered abhorrent, then current attitudes towards polygamy could not, and should not, be justified.
On that matter, I think the Sheikh’s quite right.
| 21 November 2008, 4:05 am |
The main problem with using this argument in favor of recognition of polygamous marriages both inside and outside this country is that of proof as to whether these marriages have been entered into willingly and freely by the women involved.
Ah!
Unimportant really.
What about the awful wife who has many extra marital affairs. Do the lovers have any claim on the wifes estate if she passes into oblivium??
If there is equality in Islam as so many claim, where is the wife with four ‘husbands’.
| 21 November 2008, 5:14 am |
Nick (South Africa) He argued that if such relationships were not considered abhorrent, then current attitudes towards polygamy could not, and should not, be justified. On that matter, I think the Sheikh’s quite right.
Would you suggest that in any of the examples, one or other of the participants is being forced into the relationship??? And legal recognition of same sex marriages still only allows for a monogamous relationship. (But he still saw fit to mention it).
As far as extra marital relationships go, I believe that it enables the survivor to have some claims against the estate of the deceased.
Does it also allow the partner to receive tax payers money based on the relationship???
Seems like a sand screen simply thrown up to confuse uninformed listeners.
Did Sheikh Faiz ul-Aqtab Siddiqi forget to refer to polygamy amongst Jews in Israel???? He’s slipping there.
Should take some lessons from Bungle.
| 21 November 2008, 9:40 am |
What he means is that he wants tax breaks and social security payments for more than one wife. As far as I know if you are a man’s mistress then he is not entitled to claim taxrefunds or social security payments on the strength of it. But then, if Muslims are allowed to do it, then I would argue very strongly that non-Muslims should also enjoy that right. Sauce for the gander and all that!
| 21 November 2008, 12:23 pm |
That should be sauce for the goose, of course.
| 21 November 2008, 1:32 pm |
If there is equality in Islam as so many claim, where is the wife with four ‘husbands’.
Dead?
| 21 November 2008, 2:32 pm |
It’s not polygamy he’s talking about, it’s polygyny.
Write a comment