Muslim women need protection beyond sharia law

w1z4rd

w1z4rd

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
52,146
Reaction score
8,340
Location
127.0.0.1
The Muslim Marriages Bill has brought to light the potentially embarrassing problem of the many Muslims who live their lives, and their marriages, according to shariah law when it suits them, but throw those rules away when it's less convenient for their pockets and desires.

It has also shown up the gap between Muslims living in the ivory towers of financial and familial happiness and those from poorer backgrounds, whose daughters often don't get to go to university -- and in some cases to finish school -- or to be independent.

If the Bill is passed, it will enable the state to enforce the provisions of shariah law for those Muslims married under its provisions. Those opposing the Bill are either unaware of the problems faced by many Muslim women in a country that doesn't recognise their marriages, or are holding on to a religious system of laws without realising that even though the system is thorough, it works only if it is thoroughly followed.

Organisations such as the Muslim Women's Association, a body with a presumptuously representative name, are opposing the Bill because they feel that it would make the Constitution, and not the Qur’an, supreme. What they seem to be forgetting is that the laws of the Qur’an can be enforced only if there is a body to ensure that these laws are followed. But Muslim judicial bodies have no power of enforcement and they rarely champion the cause of Muslim women.

One Muslim woman told the Mail & Guardian ("Marrying rights with tradition", May 22) how when she went to the Jamiat ul Ulama (the regional judicial council) in Pietermaritzburg to complain about her physically and emotionally abusive husband, she was told to "go back to him and make sabr [be patient]".

Had the council stood up for her rights, she would not be in the situation she is now. Soon after her complaint, her husband threw her out of the house with only the clothes on her back, but refused to give her a divorce.

And had a court been able to enforce shariah law, she would be able to get divorced and receive the maintenance owed to her. At present she has no husband for all intents and purposes, but cannot remarry.
Click to expand...

Lots more:
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-07-09-muslim-women-need-protection-beyond-sharia-law

I thought a really good article by Ilham Rawoot.
 
blunomore said:
She has to go home and 'be patient' with an abusive husband??

Please.

These people do not have an inkling of the rights of women, or basic human rights for that matter. And the so-called religious leaders are leading the pack of wolves.

Disgusting and despicable.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with you.
 
I had a very interesting discussion with our IT guy the other day. He is muslim and we started talking about the muslim way of life etc. My thoughts on it were basically that as soon as you adopt sharia law (which was basically designed by the muslim religion) then you are playing with fire and peoples lives. The state should be removed from religion, but still provide human rights to allow its citizens to follow a religion of their choosing, provided that those citizens do not try to impose their religion and views onto others.

The country's constitution should and must be removed as as as possible from any kind of religion. You can get married in churg, temple or mosque and have it sanctioned by God...but it must also be sanctioned by the state to be legally binding. If it is not sanctioned by the state, then you are legally a single person and should be able to do as you please. If your religion wont grant you a divorce (even when you are being abused) then I am sorry, but that religion must catch a wake up and realize that the marriage is false and hurtfull to a person that deserves better.
 
What I meant by a marriage should be sanctioned by the state is this:

Should you want a divorce like the case mentioned above then you go to the country/state's courts and get divorced that way. This way, should a conservative religious leader not want to grant you a divorce because in his eyes you "made your bed and must now lay in it" even though you are being beaten into a pulp every night you have the avenue of getting a divorce legally through the state...whether your religious leader likes it or not.

If I were to get married and my "dominee" told me that I can not get a divorce even if my partner kicks me in the kidneys every night then he must go jump.
 
Agreed 100%, but surely you all see where the problem starts and resides, namely in the religion. Show one civil union, or non religious marriage, where the partners are forced to stay together no matter what happens in the union.
 
I agree with you fully Balstrome. Thats why I say...if you Christiaan, get married in church or if you muslim get married in mosque....but for it to be legal, it obviously needs to be registered with the state as is the case already im sure. If you want a divorce, then you go to court, not the church. Your churce or religion might have a issue with the divorce, but it is not up to them...it is up to the state to grant you that divorce on what ever grounds you provide. If your religion does not like the fact that you wanted out of the marriage due to you being beaten and treated like a piece of crap...then you know what, perhaps your religion is not worth it. I am not knocking religion, just saying that religion in some cases can be very stiff and do not see what is happening in the real world. Life is not black and white....lots of grey arreas and circumstances that they also need to consider. Thats why State and Religion must always be very far removed. When you have religion trying to interfere with peoples human rights etc...you are heading for a cliff.
 
I know there is a process of divorcing someone if they cant be found. But what about if the spouse refuses to agree to the divorce? There must be a way around it.
 
Agreed. Secular state that provides the right to its people to follow whatever religion, but for you to be recognised as legaly married and enjoy the benefits thereof, it must be sanctioned by the state, and the state will divorce you should you request and provide valid grounds for it (he/she is no longer good in bed is not valid grounds though people) :-D

And religion will and may not interfere with the state or its constitution.
 
Balstrome said:
So the state can decide what and how a religion may act, while the religion can have nothing to say about the state?
Click to expand...

Oh hell yeah. Thank goodness religions cant tell the state what to do anymore.
 
This reminds me of that Durban Muslim lady who's husband divorced on the phone and left her on the street without support and access to her kids - I'm not sure how her case is progressing but sure hope it works out for her in the end.

Doesn't common law protect the individual in such cases - forcing the ex husband to pay maintenance and decide on who gets custody of the kids?
 
In my view religion has got nothing to do with the running of the country. They should keep their nose out of politics and peoples civil rights. They must keep to their business of keeping their congregation in good spiritual health and provide guidence when it comes to matters of the soul. Forcing someone to stay married to someone on the grounds of religion is interfering with that persons right to a divorce (if valid reasons are provided) and therefore it is interfering with the state as legally the state via the courts have the last and final say regarding a legal matter. Therefore the religion must stay out of it. If your religious leader does not want to re marry you to someone else because he/she does not agree with your previous divorce, then you can get married in courst...as once again, the state and the court have the last and final say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X