Islamic Marital contract: The historical background and benefits of drafting your contract

 

In many Muslim communities, the idea of stipulations set by the wife is deemed unacceptable and un-Islamic. However, this is far from true! In this video, I discuss the historical background of women drafting their marital contracts. I also explain the importance of doing so, both in Muslim majority countries, but more importantly in Muslim minority countries! 

 

 

Honor Killing from an Islamic Perspective

 

It’s a well-known fact that Islam maintains the protection of life and does not sanction any violation against it. In the Glorious Qur’an, Allah, Most High, says, “Whoso slayeth a believer of set purpose, his reward is Hell for ever. Allah is wroth against him and He hath cursed him and prepared for him an awful doom.” (An-Nisa’: 93) `Abdullah ibn Mas`ud, may Allah be pleased with him, reported that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “The blood of a Muslim may not be legally spilt other than in one of three [instances]: the married person who commits adultery; a life for a life; and one who forsakes his religion and abandons the community.” (Reported by Al-Bukhari and Muslim).

Sh.Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer and an Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, states: “There is no such concept in Islam that is called “honor killing”. Islam holds every soul in high esteem and does not allow any transgression upon it. It does not allow people to take the law in their own hands and administer justice, because doing so will be leading to chaos and lawlessness. Therefore, based on this, Islam does not permit such killings. First of all, in order to sanction killing, it must be through a binding verdict issued by an authoritative law court. Individuals themselves have no authority either to judge cases or pass judgments. 

Therefore, a Muslim should not sanction such killing because doing so will be leading to the rule of the law of the jungle. A civilized society cannot be run by such laws.” Shedding more light on it, Sheikh `Atiyyah Saqr, former head of Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, states: “Like all other religions, Islam strictly prohibits murder and killing without legal justification. Allah, Most High, says, “Whoso slayeth a believer of set purpose, his reward is Hell for ever. Allah is wroth against him and He hath cursed him and prepared for him an awful doom.” (An-Nisa’: 93) The so-called “honor killing” is based on ignorance and disregard of morals and laws, which cannot be abolished except by disciplinary punishments. 

It goes without saying that people are not entitled to take the law in their own hands, for it’s the responsibility of the Muslim State and its concerned bodies to maintain peace, security, etc., and to prevent chaos and disorder from creeping into the Muslim society.” Moreover, the eminent Muslim scholar, Sheikh Muhammad Al-Hanooti, member of the North American Fiqh Council, adds: “In Islam, there is no place for unjustifiable killing. Even in case of capital punishment, only the government can apply the law through the judicial procedures. No one has the authority to execute the law other than the officers who are in charge. Honor killing could be a wrong cultural tradition. It is unjust and inhumane action. The murderer of that type deserves punishment.”

Read More on islamonline

Khaled Abou El Fadl on The Prophet's Pulpit, Shari'ah, and Justice in Our World

A tale of divorce

 

I found this quite an eye opener:

How did we get here? I genuinely don't know whether or not to laugh or cry or fume with anger. This is another divorce case I am helping with right now. The wife came from abroad, lives in a tiny London flat, has no family here, struggles to speak English, completely financially dependent for the past 20 years and looks after their disabled (adult) child.

Man: We will divorce according to Islam. I will maintain her for the waiting period. That is all.
Sheikh: Where did you read this?
Man: There is a fatwa website online. Proper scholars. I only share the truth. This is the Shariah.
Sheikh: And what should she do after the three months?
Man: I don't know. Get benefits.
Sheikh: And your son? The extra care, hospital visits, appointments, you will not even leave her a car? London is an expensive city.
Man: I will pay for the boy. He gets benefits. I don't pay for her. This is the Shariah. I work hard.
Sheikh: And she doesn't work hard? You think, this is what Allah wants?
Man: I don't make the rules. Allah says:
وَعَسَىٰٓ أَن تَكْرَهُوا۟ شَيْـًۭٔا وَهُوَ خَيْرٌۭ لَّكُمْ ۖ وَعَسَىٰٓ أَن تُحِبُّوا۟ شَيْـًۭٔا وَهُوَ شَرٌّۭ لَّكُمْ
 "Maybe you hate a thing, but it is good for you and maybe you love a thing, but it is bad for you" (Qur'an 2:216)
Sheikh: This verse is about people who do not like to fight, when they must.
Man: Yes, marriage is jihad.
(It is explained to him that the majority of the "classical" rules of divorce and settlement were written in the context of Muslim majority communities, where women had support structures and family that could take care of them and furthermore, there would be Zakat readily available to support someone who could not earn. In the absence of these, he must continue to support her and/or give her a financial settlement. Cherry picking fatwa online is not Islam. He refuses. Sheikh now getting ruffled.)
Man: If she goes to the courts, it is haram. She is stealing from me. Anyways, I will fight her and it will cost so much, she will be left with very little. I don't believe in this modern Islam. The deen is the deen. This is the Shariah.

Sheikh: Okay. You want to follow only classical Islam? Khalas. Show me this website, let me see which Mufti.
*Man pulls out website, a very popular Q&A website, with British 'scholars' giving many of the answers, including this one.*
Sheikh: Okay, great. Let me search something - *Sheikh looks through the website* Okay, perfect. Here. What about this?
Man: *He reads* Ermm.. Errrr.
Sheikh: Just to confirm, you did admit to having multiple affairs during the marriage after your wife caught you?
Man: I repented from this.
Sheikh: Okay, but we are we only want to follow classical Islam, right? Right. So what is the "classical Islamic" way to deal with your infidelity according to these same scholars and the same website you showed me?
Man: You know this. It is not possible to do here.
Sheikh: Okay, but maybe you can go to another country and they can fulfil the Shariah? You are a man of truth, right? Tell me, how much of your wealth with your wife get in this case?
Man: I don't understand.
Sheikh: If we follow the Shariah, according to this website, your punishment for your actions is to be killed. So when you die, your wealth will be split between your wife and your children, right?
Man: Yes, but...
Sheikh: You don't have any parents alive or other wives or children?
Man: No, but...
Sheikh: This is the Shariah, right?
Man: We don't live in Darul Islam.
Sheikh: You are correct, we live in Darul England. So, please make your mind up on which system you want to follow.
*sigh*
I find it fascinating that the website in question, for the adultery question now has this big disclaimer at the top:
"An Important Clarification - In light of recent attempts by some to sensationalise my views by taking them out of their intended context, I would like to categorically express that the answer below does not, in any way, call for stoning or capital punishment in non-Islamic states... the implementation of the law on adultery and fornication is only applicable under an Islamic State, and as such, this is merely an academic and theoretical discussion, since Britain is not an Islamic state... I do not of course endorse the implementation of this law in places where people choose not to have it."
Very funny that this disclaimer is not found on the divorce questions. Why aren't they "academic and theoretical discussions" when they are literally citing fiqh rulings from about 800 years ago that are being used to literally make Muslim women homeless today.
Marriage is hard. Divorce is messy. Using or rather, "abusing" Islam to line your pocket while leaving a woman vulnerable, not least the mother of your disabled child, is one of the most despicable things you can do.

Alhumdolillah, over the past year, we've been able to help a number of women in this exact or similar situation with cash/Zakat. If you can help, little or large, please reach out. At the very least, please like, comment and share to raise awareness on this oppression in our midst.

Is There Any Leeway in Keeping A Pet Canine?

Usuli Institute Khutbah: On Preserving Women and Female Reciters of the Quran

On Female Circumcision

How Zia ul Haq Demonised Rape Survivors Instead Of Punishing Rapists

Whether it is a former president of Islamic Republic of Pakistan or the current CCPO of the capital of Pakistan’s largest province, the mindset of our male dominated society hasn’t changed in the last four decades.

In 2005, President Musharraf made comments in the context of a question about the treatment of a rape survivor Mukhtar Mai whose case gained international attention.

“You must understand the environment in Pakistan … This has become a money-making concern. A lot of people say if you want to go abroad and get a visa for Canada or citizenship and be a millionaire, get yourself raped.”

The president said that the newspaper had misinterpreted what he had said and that he was misquoted. But co-author of the Washington Post article, said: “The president’s comments were tape recorded and they were quoted verbatim and in context.”

On September 9, 2020, a woman was gang raped in front of her children during a robbery bid in Gujjarpura along the recently inaugurated Lahore-Sialkot Motorway.
Lahore Capital City Police Officer (CCPO) Umar Sheikh blamed the victim of gang-rape incident instead, for taking the route that she had chosen and said that she should have checked her petrol tank before getting on the said route. Umar Sheikh added that the woman had left Lahore’s Defence area at 12:30am for Gujranwala.
“I am surprised that a mother of three, a lone driver after leaving Defence should have taken the straight route from GT Road — a generally well-populated area.”

Did public hangings in Zia era stop rapes?

A false and deceptive claim has been circulating on social media by many accounts since the rape incident last week to justify public hanging of rapists: “During 1981 — in late Gen Ziaul Haq’s tenure — the public hanging of a killer and rapist of a young boy, had effectively worked as a deterrent for the next 10 years.

“The abductors and killers were arrested and executed in public and their bodies remained hanging till the sunset. This stern punishment served as an effective deterrent as no child was reportedly molested and murdered in the next decade or so. And Islam closes the door to the criminal who wants to commit this deleterious and truculent crime. The laws of Islam came to protect women’s honour,” they say.

On February 10, 1979, General Zia ul Haq promulgated four ordinances, collectively referred to as the Hudood Ordinance. The intent of the ordinances, as stated by him was to bring Pakistan’s legal system closer to the precepts of Islam.

Four years after the Zina Ordinance was adopted, a law of evidence was promulgated that did not allow women to testify at all in certain cases and in others considered a woman’s testimony irrelevant, unless corroborated by that of another woman. This essentially gave men and women different legal rights, underscoring that the state did not regard women and men as equal actors.

In 1983 Asma Jahangir and other women rights activists from the Women’s Action Forum organized a protest against Zia’s proposed law of evidence stipulating that the value of a woman’s testimony was half that of a man. This was the first time Zia’s laws and his regime was publicly challenged. In 1987, she co-founded the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, the only independent watchdog for human rights with a nationwide presence.
Following are the few examples of rape victims who suffered for years because of the Hudood Ordinance:
Rafaqat Bibi applied to the martial law authorities to instruct the police to file an FIR against influential people in her village who raped her. She was arrested by the police and in 1984 the court convicted her of Zina for being pregnant without proper explanation.

Safia Bibi, a blind girl, was convicted of Zina by a court in Sahiwal. Her confession was her unexplained pregnancy. The alleged rapists were given the benefit of the doubt and acquitted.

Tasleem Bibi was sentenced to five years’ rigorous imprisonment and awarded 30 lashes in public by the Federal Shariat Court in 1985.

Jehan Mina, who gave birth to a still-born child, suffered the rigours of imprisonment and went mute with the shock of her experience. Her uncle had filed a report with the police, alleging that his orphaned niece had been raped by his brother-in-law and nephew. The trial court convicted Jehan of Zina, as she was pregnant. She was awarded 100 stripes in public. Later the Federal Sharia Court reduced her sentence to three years of rigorous imprisonment and an infliction of 10 lashes in public.

In 2002, Zafran Bibi went to the police to register a case of rape, but she herself was instead charged with having an adulterous affair. A court sentenced her to stoning by death under Pakistan’s Hudood Ordinances, which effectively equate rape with adultery. Despite Bibi’s repeated charges that her brother-in-law had raped her on multiple occasions, the presiding judge convicted her of Zina. She gave birth to a son. She remained in jail with her seven-month-old baby until 2005, when a judge in Peshawar suspended the sentence and allowed her appeal to be heard by a full bench of the Sharia court in Islamabad.

In 1996 Benazir Bhutto’s government brought the Abolition of Whipping Act, forbade sentences/punishments of whipping offenders except when imposed as a Hadd punishment. Those aligned with the clerics argued that the Hudood are God’s law and term any tampering of them un-Islamic.

On 15 November 2006, National Assembly of Pakistan passed Women Protection Bill to amend the heavily criticised 1979 Hudood Ordinance laws. Under the new bill, death penalty for extramarital sex and the need for victims to produce four witnesses to prove rape cases were removed. Death penalty and flogging for people convicted of having consensual sex outside marriage was removed. However, consensual sex outside marriage was still treated as a criminal offense with a punishment of five years in prison or a fine. The punishment for rape under 2006 Women Protection Bill is either death or imprisonment of between ten and twenty-five years. For cases related to gang rape, the punishment is either death penalty or life imprisonment.

On 7 October 2016, Pakistan’s parliament unanimously passed new anti-rape and anti-honour killing bills. According to the new anti-rape bill, DNA testing was made mandatory in rape cases. According to the new law, anyone who rapes a minor or a mentally or physically disabled person will be liable for the death penalty or life imprisonment. Recording of statement of the female survivor of rape or sexual harassment shall be done by an Investigating Officer, in the presence of a female police officer, or a female family member of the survivor.

Despite the revisions of laws over the period of time, we are not getting anywhere because of non-implementation of laws. Until and unless there are serious reforms in Police and judiciary, nothing is going to change. Pakistan’s social structure is not accommodating women as equal citizens. Women in Pakistan live within an environment of retrogressive cultural practices that are often viewed as religious mandates. Progressive voices are often labelled as radical because of Pakistan’s legacy of conscious Islamisation. From Benazir Bhutto to Asma Jahangir to Mukhtar Mai and thousands of unnamed women made it possible to force the successive parliaments to make changes in Hudood Ordinance. Whatever rights they have now, because of their own struggle. There are no contributions of men I am afraid.

Let me quote Asma Jahangir to close the long timeline of women’s struggle in Pakistan:
“You cannot have human rights in a society if you do not have women rights”

Link

Are Muslims allowed to be double faced about bringing Shariah to the west?

A good explanation from brother Dr. Yasir Qadhi about Muslims being double faced. As a Muslim minority in the west, we are expected to follow the law of the land and not try and overthrow the goverment to try and bring Islamic laws to the country.


Julmp to 1 hour 9 mins if it doesnt automatically take you there.

Khaled Abou El Fadl: "Reasoning with God: Reclaiming Shariah in the Modern Age,"

Fox News Claimed a "Sharia Law Court" Is Enforcing Islamic Law in Texas. So I Went to See It.

Since deciding to study law, Shaukat said: "I've walked about with a shroud wrapped around my head."

The woman in the brown burqa stood at the gate of court complex as men in suits shouldered past. With one hand, she clutched her son, and in the other, a piece of paper scrawled with a name.

The district police officer gave it to her when she complained about her husband's abuse. He told her to present it at the entrance of the sprawling court administration that serves the Swat Valley. Noorshad Begum couldn't read it, being illiterate.
She handed it to a court guard.

He immediately strode toward the woman whose name was scrawled on the slip: Mehnaz. She was easily identifiable — the only female lawyer there on a recent spring day, wearing a a black lawyer's robe over her long white outfit, her hair covered by a headscarf and face by a veil.

"I often fight cases free of cost for poor people," said Mehnaz, who, like many Pakistanis, goes by one name. "This woman can't afford to pay for a lawyer," she said, flipping through referral documents Noorshad Begum kept in a plastic bag.
"My husband married another woman," Noorshad Begum explained. "He abandoned me. I have five children. He doesn't bother to ask about us."
The final straw: he took the dowry money she'd saved for their daughter's marriage.

"She wants justice and her rights," said Mehnaz, summarizing the woman's case. Then, summarizing her life's desire, she said: "I want women to have rights like men."
Minutes later, the guard stopped Mehnaz again — to direct her to a nearby room, where another woman sat with a baby. She appeared to have recently been crying and spoke to Mehnaz in confidence.

Mehnaz and other women lawyers do what they can, helping women to obtain divorces, custody of children and inheritance. In the seven years since she's been practicing law, Mehnaz estimates that she's helped hundreds of women in the Swat Valley, offering free legal counsel to some and representing others. She handles cases for male clients as well.
The Pakistani Taliban ruled here a decade ago, imposing their harsh interpretation of Islamic law. The military pushed them out in 2009 and the government mostly resumed control.

But many women lead cloistered lives, regardless of who is in power. They are rarely seen on the grubby streets of Mingora, Swat's main city. When they do appear, they are draped in scarves that cover their hair and much of their faces. Other women don burqas. Few women work outside the home.

Mehnaz is one of 12 female lawyers in this administrative district within Swat that numbers 700,000 people, according to Gohar Ali Khan, a senior advocate based in Mingora. Khan said there were about 500 male lawyers.
As a teenager, Mehnaz saw her male relatives cheat their sisters out of their inheritance of land – a key asset in the fertile Swat River plain. Traditionally, Swat's women do not inherit, even though under Pakistani law, they are entitled to half the amount that their male siblings would receive.
Mehnaz recalled her male relatives saying to their sisters: "Our parents died in our house. There's nothing for you." She said those women were poor and that inheritance could have helped them.

"When I saw that women weren't given their rights," she says, "I decided I would be a lawyer. I'd help them get justice."
Her father, a schoolteacher, told her to forget it. He wanted her to be a teacher like him — it was a respectable job for women. Lawyering was for men, she recalled him saying. Mehnaz fought back. It was the first of many battles. Her mother sided with her. Eventually, her father relented.
Then the Taliban took over her village of Matta in 2007 and burned down the girls' schools months later. Mehnaz had already finished high school, but Taliban insurgents were also attacking women who tried to commute to study in other areas. So Mehnaz moved to her aunt's house in Mingora, Swat's main town. It hadn't yet fallen to Taliban control and there was a coed institution, the Muslim Law College.
But clashes between the Pakistani army and the Taliban in 2009 upturned her studies again.
"I did my exams under very difficult circumstances," she recalled. "There was curfew, clashes," she said, "and I was afraid of the Taliban, too, that they might kill me for getting an education."
Mehnaz says at the time, the Taliban even threatened her parents.
By then, her father was her biggest cheerleader. He counseled her to not think of the threats: just focus on exams.
She did. And two years later, in 2011, Mehnaz began practicing as a lawyer. On her first day, she recalled, people exchanged glances as she entered the court complex in her black lawyer's robe.
"People found it strange," she said. "They'd say, 'Why has she joined a male profession?' "
Mehnaz said she decided to make a point of sitting in the large, shady courtyard reserved for lawyers.
"There were no girls at all!" she said with a laugh. "It was very difficult to sit here." Other lawyers stared at her; she says they made her feel out of place. But she tried as much as she could to ignore this and keep working. She felt she was fighting two battles — one on behalf of her clients in the courts and the other, to be taken seriously by the court administration.
On a recent day, Mehnaz was again the only woman in the courtyard, but her male colleagues greeted her with respectful salaams. "Now, thank God, things are better," she said.
Although the Taliban weren't in power after the army took control of the Swat Valley, extremists still threatened women trying to work and girls getting an education. Malala Yousafzai was shot in the head by a Taliban gunman as she returned home from school in 2012.
During the same year, Taliban insurgents kidnapped the father of female lawyer Humaira Shaukat – to pressure her to quit her profession, Shaukat said. Although he was released after a month, the threats against her and her father have continued, she said – but she declined to provide further detail, saying it could put her in danger.
Since deciding to study law, Shaukat said: "I've walked about with a shroud wrapped around my head."
Also in 2012, as Taliban threats continued against women who worked and girls pursuing an education, Mehnaz said threats resumed against her own father.
"He was threatened through letters. Mobile phones. Sometimes through the post," she said.
Her father kept it secret from her, not wanting her to worry. But her siblings told her, fearing that she, too, might be in danger. "They were terrible years for me," she said. "It was risky. But I didn't lose courage."
These days, Mehnaz says she doesn't get threatened by the Taliban. But she recently joined a movement demanding rights for her ethnic minority, the Pashtuns. The movement emerged in January, and activists have been subject to arrest and disappearance.
Days after Mehnaz was interviewed by NPR, she sent a photograph of herself at a small protest. She was holding a sign saying, "We are demanding rights according to the constitution." She was the only woman, and she stood in the front row.

Link

The female face of Islamic law in Malaysia

Islamic law enforcers are not often credited with being feminist pioneers, but Judge Nenney fits both those descriptions.

She made history in Malaysia last year when she was appointed one of the first two female Syariah High Court judges in this Muslim-majority nation. "Syariah" is the Malay spelling for the Arabic word "sharia", meaning Islamic law.

And the 42-year-old mother of three doesn't shy away from imposing the harshest punishments prescribed by Islamic law.

"When I'm on the bench, I'm not a woman, I'm not a man. I'm a judge," she says. "I need to deal with the case fair and firm, to follow the law, no bias."

In Malaysia, more women are pursuing careers in the Islamic justice system, from judges and lawyers to court mediators.

Under Malaysia's two-tier court system, Islamic law courts deal with family and morality cases involving Muslims, such as consuming alcohol, gambling and polygamy, while secular courts hear criminal and many civil cases.

Malaysia appointed its first two female Syariah judges in 2010.

Now, 27 of the country's 160 Islamic court judges are women.

Full article 

Men deny us equality, not the Qur'an: a female Islamic judge in India speaks out

Do you want to take her back alive? Or do you want her corpse?” That’s what Jahanara’s husband asked her mother as he beat his wife 10 years ago. That night, Jahanara gave up on her brutal marriage and left her home and four children.

Since then, her husband has refused to let her see the children, though they live in the same city, Jaipur. He has paid no alimony. He has refused to give her the 15 grammes of gold promised as part of the mandatory payment that Muslim men must make to their wives if the marriage ends. Her share in the marital home has also been denied her.

‘If a man can do it, why can't I?’: turning the tables on India's instant divorce law

 

Read more

Seeking justice, 45-year-old Jahanara (who goes by only one name), went to see her local kazi or Islamic judge, who adjudicates in marriage, polygamy, divorce, triple talaq (instant divorce) and custody. The job of the kazi, usually a man, is to dispense justice according to Qur’anic principles. The post is generally passed down from father to son and is steeped in tradition.

However, like so many women before her, Jahanara came away disappointed and bitter. “He refused to help me get my rights,” she says. “I refused to believe that my situation was just. I went around Jaipur asking ulemas [scholars] if the injustice done to me was permitted by the Qur’an. I asked them: Is this my status as a woman in the Qur’an? Is this the ‘justice’ the Qur’an gives me? They all told me: ‘Yes. This is your position. Endure it.’”

She decided to fight back. Today, Jahanara is one of the first female kazis in India.

Since marriage is a legal contract under Islam, not a sacrament, the terms and conditions of the nikah (marriage) must be discussed and negotiated with the kazi. At the moment, contracts tend to favour the husband.

On a hot and muggy day, Jahanara and Begum sit in a small office in a winding alley off a noisy bazaar in Jaipur’s Muslim quarter. They are trying to soothe the acrimonious exchanges between Imran Khan and his young wife, Huma. Their one-year marriage has hit turbulence, and they hurl accusations at each other, with their parents egging them on.

Jahanara and Begum listen to the grievances of both sides. They tell the parents to keep out of the marriage and counsel the couple that they need to be more tolerant.

“A male kazi would have told Huma to go back home at once and obey her husband,” says Begum. “Most Muslim women don’t know anything about their rights. But now things will be different because we have learned what the Qur’an says.”

Sitting with them is Nishat Husain, head of the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (a women’s group) in Jaipur, who says that the two kazis have much work to do.

“Before these two new kazis perform the nikah, they are going to ask the man for proof of his qualifications, for a death certificate if he says his wife died, and for a divorce certificate if he says he is divorced, for a medical certificate, for job proof. This has to be done to protect women, but traditional kazis don’t do it,” says Husain.

Link

UK sharia councils don’t prejudice women’s rights — they defend them

I spent last year travelling through Muslim Britain, partly in an attempt to address this niggling question of inherent misogyny. My findings surprised me. Take, for instance, the practice of sharia here, the system so widely viewed as inimical to the rights of women. In Oldham, 15 minutes up the road from Manchester Arena, I sat in on a session of the Wuzara Ulama sharia council, whose sole function turned out to be to grant divorces to women trapped in bad marriages, often over the heads of abusive husbands who didn’t want to separate. These women had no other escape route. Maulana Ejaz, the cleric from Dewsbury who heads the Council, estimates that in northern England where he operates, some 60 per cent of Muslim marriages are not registered under English civil law — which of course renders the English legal system powerless to offer would-be divorcees any redress at all.

None of Ejaz’s customers felt repressed by sharia. On the contrary, he was able to produce a dozen feedback forms from past clients, all of them women escaping abusive marriages, and all of them expressing gratitude for the councillors’ help and describing as ‘excellent’ the service they had received. In other words, the Wuzara Ulama — who do not charge for their services — are set up to defend, not prejudice, the rights of women.

There is much talk of ‘creeping sharia-isation’ in Britain, of the frightening notion that Muslims are evolving a parallel legal system that challenges and subverts the ancient principle of ‘one law for all’ laid out by Magna Carta in 1215. In the wake of the 2015 Paris attacks, the then Ukip leader Nigel Farage claimed there were more than 80 sharia courts in the UK. ‘Big ghettos’, he said, were being run according to sharia law while the authorities ‘turned a blind eye’ out of ‘moral cowardice’.

British sharia is not without its problems. The way it is implemented varies too much from council to council, and there is a good case for greater regulation. A formal government review has been underway since last year. But the notion that it is subversive is nonsense. Sharia scholars meet in councils, not courts, which operate subserviently to and in careful conjunction with English law, not in parallel to it. Islam, Ejaz told me, is clear on the matter of jurisdictional precedence: a good Muslim must follow the law of the land in which he lives. I found no Sharia ‘ghettos’, and the figure of 80 councils in Britain is a myth: Ejaz knew of no more than six. Given the essential public service his ulama provide, it may be that we need more of them, not fewer.

There is, of course, no punishment for crimes against God, such as adultery and drinking alcohol, in Britain, nor any likelihood of it ever being introduced. Stoning and hand-chopping — hudud punishments — are against the law. Sharia, in any case, may be a much gentler legal code than its public image suggests. I later heard an intriguing defence of hudud from a Salafi traditionalist in Oldham, a secondary school teacher called Samir, who thought of it as a kind of nuclear option, a weapon of deterrence rather than one intended for actual use, except in the most extreme circumstances. Adultery, for example, may be punishable under sharia by stoning to death. But the charge has first to be proven, not by one but by four independent witnesses to the act — and as he said, how often does that happen in real life? ‘There’s dogging, I suppose,’ said Samir after some thought. ‘But to be honest there’s not much of that going on in Oldham.’

I wondered about CCTV footage, but Samir said the jurists had thought of that and ruled it inadmissible: an adulterer can only be deemed in flagrante delicto if seen by actual people using their actual eyes. Islam, he went on, is more interested in contrition for sin than punishing people for it. The seriousness of the crime is clear from the sanction it theoretically carries, but the ‘four witnesses’ condition — introduced, as Samir saw it, by Muhammad himself — deliberately makes the punishment almost impossible to issue. To Samir, this was proof of the Prophet’s wisdom and ultimate humanity.

Terrible misogyny does exist in some Muslim communities, including British ones — of course it does, and it is a great social curse. The details of domestic violence I heard at the sharia divorce council were appalling. But inherent to Islam? A religion founded by a prophet married to Khadija, a rich, successful and very unrepressed-sounding business woman? I don’t think so. Many of the misogynistic ‘Muslim’ practices westerners most object to — arranged marriages, say, or honour violence — are sociocultural in origin, not religious. Female genital mutilation is millennia older than Islam. The clue is in the procedure’s medical name, Pharaonic infibulation. Non-Muslims often view the veil, particularly the Arabian niqab that leaves nothing but the eyes exposed, as a symbol of submissiveness rather than self-assertion, of repression rather than progress and liberation. At the beginning of my journey around Muslim Britain I felt sure I would find at least one niqabi who had been coerced into wearing it by a husband, a father, a brother. But I was wrong. I conducted more than a dozen interviews with niqabis and every one of them said they wore it out of choice; not one of them said they had been or felt forced.

Their explanations were startling in their variety. Some wore the niqab out of religious fervour. Some were political activists. Some, like Ahlam Saed, 25, from White City in west London, even wore it out of vanity.

‘I’m a make-up kind of girl,’ she told me, ‘and my eyes are my best feature. So I bought a niqab to draw attention to them.’

Saed became a fleeting internet sensation in 2016 when she posted footage of herself being abused in a shop in Shepherd’s Bush. Her assailant, an Afro-Caribbean who called her ‘Batman’ and ranted about Britain being a Christian country for Christians, was later arrested. ‘I only went in to get a packet of Starburst,’ Saed later told the Evening Standard. In the febrile debate over British Islam, nothing is ever as it seems.

Source

The twisting of Shariah

Shariah is a word many are terrified of these days. Muslims will be asked do you adhere to Shariah? Are you committed to implementing it? Are you trying to replace our (of course much more civilized laws) with it?

I am married according to Shariah, I eat meat slaughtered by its rules and have a bank account organized on its economical principles. I assure you that is nothing to panic about!

Shariah is simply laws that have been enacted on Islamic principles, they are not uniform, they should be pragmatic and above all justice should be the goal. However miscarriages of justice occur in all  legal systems, human beings are capable of making errors and justice is the casualty. This has occurred in Shariah too. In my homeland of India, triple talaq is upheld as part of Shariah, despite being banned in other Muslim countries. Pakistan unfortunately upholds blasphemy laws which many have argued contradict Shariah. Saudi Arabia refuses to let women drive citing all sorts of pseudo-religious/cultural reasons, none of which the vast majority of Muslims agree with.

Those in power will often twist or misinterpret Islam and its principles for their own benefit/ to suit their agenda. Indeed we must be wary of this and call it out every time. This is an ongoing struggle.

Being a history buff I enjoyed watching some clips/episodes of Turkish historical drama Magnificent Century. One of the most disturbing practices of the Ottomans was fraticide. (I certainly condemn the imperialism, incessant warring and entire concept of the Harem too) However it was quite sad to realize that Fatawa were given by the Ulema of Islam to Sultans to murder of their own brothers/half-brothers. Many Sheikhs argued it was better that a few princes were executed, rather than entire wars be fought between brothers for succession (for example the War of the Roses in Europe). One Sultan murdered nineteen brothers! Another killed his innocent and very capable son in a 'preemptive strike'!

Why the Ulema couldn't stress cooperation between brothers, the need to serve the wider Ummah not the Dynasty, the sanctity of human life, the great sin that is fratricide is a great shame. However it has to be noted many Ulema also opposed this barbaric practice and gave Fatawa against it. For details please read this excellent article.

As enacted in the clip above this particular Sheikh certainly misrepresented the Quran to give Sultan rather bogus reasoning to murder his own friend whom he had sworn to protect. (This may not be entirely historically accurate I am simply using as a possible example).  So Shariah is certainly not safe from being twisted to serve the needs of those in power. Indeed it has been argued quite robustly that Daesh are doing exactly that.

The interpretation of Shariah is dependent on the conscience of the people/scholars/jurists of Islam. Above all Shariah is a means to an end which is paramount. The end that is justice and compassion. That is what we must aspire to.

Incest & Widow Burning: How Much Can Muslims Stomach?

Must read article by Dr Jonathan Brown.

A few months ago, I wrote that, as a Muslim and as an American:

I support the right of same-sex couples to have civil marriages according to US law. Islam does not approve of same-sex acts, but I don’t believe that the social or religious traditions of any one group should dictate what sort of contracts or unions those of other beliefs can engage in. I want to preserve my right to have my Shariah marriage contract with my wife recognized by US law even though I know many Americans consider Islam’s conception of marriage to be unpalatable. I don’t see the desire of gay couples as any different.

In the near-carpal-tunnel-syndrome inducing outrage that followed that piece, many Muslims objected that I was ‘enjoining wrong’ instead of forbidding it. My response was that the Shariah has always, to a certain degree, allowed practices that Islam condemns as reprehensible among religious minorities (ahl al-dhimma) living under Muslim rule, practices that Muslim rulers could easily have banned (at least on paper). I wrote:

In classical Islamic civilization, Muslim authorities allowed Zoroastrians to engage in brother-sister marriage, Jews to charge interest, and Christians to cultivate wine and pigs. (Correction!  In the previous article I added ‘Muslim judges could even hear such cases brought by non-Muslim litigants by applying the laws of their respective communities instead of the Shariah.’  I cannot actually find any evidence to back this up. To the contrary, all evidence seems to be against this!)

Because the scholars who built up the Shariah system could easily have prohibited such practices among its subjects but did not, the Shariah effectively facilitated them. If Muslim scholars and rulers permitted practices that they considered reprehensible and were in a position to deracinate, a fortiori (min bāb al-awlā), a Muslim minority with no power to regulate the conduct of those around it, like ours in the West, can condone the rights of others to reprehensible practices.

Full article

Innocence Lost: Child Sexal Abuse

 

In England, 85,000 women are raped on average every year; and 400, 000 women are sexually assaulted every year. One in 20 children have been sexually abused, and over 90% of them were abused by someone they knew.

Muslims are far from immune to crimes of sexual violence. The statistics are equally horrifying, if not worse because the number of reports tend to be much lower due to social stigma and lack of trust and access to the authorities.

In Pakistan, nearly 3,000 cases of child sexual abuse were reported in 2013; 40% of abusers were relatives, family friends, or acquaintances; and the most vulnerable age to abuse for both boys and girls was between 11 and 15.
In Egypt, 83% of Egyptian women reported experiencing sexual harassment at least once while half of them experienced it on a daily basis.

Despite these statistics – and numerous horrific anecdotes – sexual violence is an issue that Muslims all over the world still prefer to remain silent about. The stigma regarding sex, which may once have originated out of the Islamic concept of hayaa’ (modesty), has become a disease in and of itself, one that simply perpetuates un-Islamic beliefs and allows these filthy crimes to continue taking place on a daily basis.

An upcoming documentary, “Breaking Silence,” bravely confronts the deep-rooted cancer of sexual violence and particularly sexual abuse of children that exists in many, many Muslim families and communities.

As illustrated by the stories of four Muslim women who were sexually violated as children by those whom they trusted – whether family members or friends – even parents who are aware of the abuse often turn a blind eye or accuse their children of lying rather than admit the truth.

One major reason for the twisted attitudes existing regarding sexual violence amongst Muslims is an ignorance and lack of education about what Islam truly teaches about sex, including the difference between consensual sexual activity and sexual violence (whether against adults or children).

Despite the fact that the Shari’ah discusses and encourages a holistic sexual education from a young age, many Muslims prefer to follow deviant notions of ‘honor’ and ‘shame.’ The true shame and dishonor lies not in admitting that sexual violence takes place, but in allowing them to continue rather than to educate oneself, one’s children, and the entire community about Islamic values regarding sex.
Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and his Companions were very honest and open about sexual education, even with regards to children.

'Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Aswad narrates:
"My father used to send me to A'ishah and (as a child) I used to go to her (i.e. beyond the curtain). When I became adult (i.e. reached puberty; became baaligh), I came to her and called to her from behind the curtain: "O Umm al-Mu'mineen, when does the bath become compulsory?" She said: "So, you have done it, O Luka'! And (in answer to the question), when the private parts conjoin."
(Al-Dhahabi in Siyar A'lam an-Nubala)

Source

Shariah in our Modern Times - Imam Suhaib Webb

Love how he breaks it down. Do follow the sheikh on Snapchat he is such a comfort.

WATCHFUL EYES - A Muslim Woman and Her Dog