Muslim women are to be guaranteed equal rights in marriage under a new wedding contract negotiated by leading Islamic organisations and clerics in Britain. >>>>>
“It is high time that Muslim women enjoy the same rights and freedoms as they do in Islamic law as they do under present legal system in the UK today.” This quote is at the bottom of the story, and sets a dangerous precedent.
This style of controlling customs is very common in the Indian subcontinent. In this case, it appears they are allowing their UK masters a sense of compromise – more like an abomination of what is to be God’s word. However, the other ethnic and racial Muslim groups may have a difference of opinion on how this is to be interpretted. The word bida, (innovation), comes to mind.
If it is true, that Muslim women are to be guaranteed equal rights in marriage as men, what is really happening is that they are also giving up rights they have that men don’t, such as right to a dowery, or grant the man the same right? How about her equal requirement to provide the familial economic support, and the like; which means she has a right to care for the kids and not have to work? Would the man be allowed to stay home and compel the woman to work and support the family? If it is, then you have un-Islamic principles with an Islamic brand; – hence, don’t judge a custom by its label.
“Do not forbid what God has permitted. Do not permit what God has forbidden.”
Stumble It!
August 11, 2008 at 7:48 am |
Exactly which problem does this contract solve? Surely a contract is unlikely to stop a man who would abuse his wife. If such a man cared what his Islam stated, he would not abuse his wife to begin with.
If the intent was to being Muslim marriages in line with existing laws in Britain, this could be achieved by simple registration of the marriage. This ALREADY HAPPENS amongst many Muslims in addition to the nikah. The same applies for Hindus, etc, since their religious ceremonies are not recognised by English Law.
Furthermore, the restrictions placed upon men by this innovative contract far exceed those of non-muslims. For example, where in British law does it state that a husband cannot leave his wife (or vice-versa) for 60 days? Do the authors of this contract believe that Muslims need to be suppressed more than anyone else?
Certainly the objective is sinister. This is an attempt to change Islam, not to protect women.
August 11, 2008 at 8:24 am |
To Sir Shaykh Rattle ‘n’ Roll:
Thanks for pointing on specifics I couldn’t. Awesome response…..so Muslims would not EVEN be granted the rights of the general population in the UK. WOW. Is there a lemon law on contracts in the UK? Peace.
August 25, 2008 at 3:13 am |
First off let me say that i love your blog 5pillar.wordpress.com a lot
now.. back to the post haha
I cant say that im 100% with what you wrote… care to elaberate?
August 25, 2008 at 8:16 am |
To Christian:
I apologize for not being clear in what I wrote. It appears that I wrote to an audience that understood shariah on a basic level. If I can make an analogy: Suppose I have two sons; they are both on sports teams; one is a baseball player and one is a football player. As a father, I’m directed to be fair to them. Maybe to them, fair is understood that I am equal (and fair, or just, doen’t mean equal). If I purchase their annual uniforms, one gets a set of pads, a helmet and a football. The other gets a set of bats and baseballs included in his gear.
One could argue that I am not treating them equal. But I treated them fairly; I helped them attain the equipment they needed for their respective sport (role). I presume that in Islam, the sins, accomplishments of certain tasks, and prayers, amongst other things, are measured equally, regardless of your gender. However, the role of the man and woman are not exactly the same.
Their complimentary role, as is described in the books of Torah and New Testament, Leviticus and Ephesians comes to mind, make up for the optimal family structure. The roles of women in Christianity and Judaism are not the same.
The agreement made in the UK about ’shariah marriage contract’ contradicts, or at least alters these roles set out by God. I was trying to point out that while many in the West see that Muslim men have advantages over women in Islam, they ignore the advantages where women seem to be benefit, such as dowery, not being required to financially support the family, complete ownership and control of monies she earns.
A woman has a right to be able to be home with the children, and even get paid by her husband for doing so. If one sought ‘equality’ in this makeup, does the man have the same right — not to want to work, stay home and demand of his wife to be paid for such? I don’t think that the agreement in the Muslim/UK calls for it; hence leaving many residual lapses in this newly factored agreement.
This agreement would only be recognized in the UK, so it seems, for it would not be enforceable nor valid under the terms of the agreement in a nation that follows shariah, should they later care to dispute while in another nation. It’s like going to court in the West and the judge saying this contract is not valid because you didn’t abide by the certain code to be married in the first place. The agreement ignores God’s direction on how it is to be done.
While I recognize an effort that harmony is sought in creating something like this; I see this as this arrangement similar to how I see the blankets offered to American Indians that caused many to later succumb to disease. The efforts are filled with holes that are doomed to kill the importance of God’s law in the institution of marriage, at least in the UK.
Striking at the young, who think they are getting something modern is a great tool toward working on their acculturation from their religion.
I truly hoped I clarified, or elaborated enough for clarity. That’s one of the purposes for the blog, to bring about dialogue. If I am wrong, then it would be noted as such, and it is from me; if I am right, then of course, it comes from God’s guidance. Thank you very much for complimenting the blog.
October 16, 2009 at 11:38 pm |
Nice article, thanks for sharing