.
[This message has been edited by CM (edited June 05, 2002).]
thanx 4 replying. course i am serious, is this a joking matter. not from where i am standing!
Desi Larki,
If you are abroad, let's say, North America or UK and, are a permnent resident then just go the Civil Court; have the judge annul the marriage; get all necessary injunctions against him and, mail the damn thing over to him. Consult a divorce lawyer; you may get the first consultation free!
According to Khula requires that you return the mohr and then ask him to divirce you; He may even be allowed to ask for ransom; at least that's how I understand it!
If you require more info then write about it and it will be made available!
yes ur right about mailing it over 2 him, tricky thing is he so dammned persistent and liable to cause one hell of a fuss and probably drag it through 4 yrs 2 come
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/frown.gif
Desi larki,
He would have no choice once the western court annuls the marriage!
Let the Islamic process drag on; NOTE, I hope you 're not thinking about returning back to Pakistan! This advise is based on premise that you're not thinking about returning back to Pakistan in the near-term!
yes i get what u mean but HELL i have 2 go back all my family lives there and worse yet he's my relation!! a close one actually and his parents are already threatning all sorts of reprisals!!! and i already am made 2 feel like a leper and a branded woman!!! I cant understand pk logic!!!!
Fitai Muu!!
¡QÜÉËñ!
I take it u're refering to moi(well i could say same to u as well, but hell i am not suited to life down amongst the gutterfolk and anyway mudslinging was never one of my fav pastimes.!!!)
To Separate Fact From Fiction...
Contrary to widespread erroneous belief,
Contrary to widespread negative stereotyping, and
Contrary to regrettable practices in some Islamic societies
where anti-Islamic culture traditions have won over Islamic
teachings and where women are subdued (and men even more so)
This information has been written with the objective of briefing you on the true Islamic teachings regarding women laid down by the Quran and prophet Mohammad over 14 centuries ago.
Islam declared women and men equal.
Islam condemned pre-Islamic practices degrading and oppressing women.
The same injunctions and prohibitions of Islam equally apply to both sexes.
Islam gave woman the right of inheritance and the right of individual independent ownership unhampered by father, husband, brother, son or anyone else.
Islam gave women the right to accept or reject a marriage proposal free from pressure, and by mutual agreement to specify in the marriage contract that she has the right to divorce (if she misses that option she has the right to seek court divorce if she deems the marriage to have failed beyond repair).
Islam does not require woman to change her name at marriage.
Islam protects the family and condemns the betrayal of marital fidelity. It recognizes only one type of family: husband and wife united by authentic marriage contract.
"Heaven is at the feet of mothers", is a basic Islamic teaching.
"The best of you are the kindest to their wives and I am your best to mine", is a teaching by prophet Mohammad.
Islam enjoins sounds morality in thinking, behavior and appearance. Dress fashions and social patterns that reduce woman to a sex object and exploit her as such are not acceptable to Islam.
Fe Aman Ullah
CM (chowdary mian)
Where is that explanation/clarification you were going to provide re: the justice in the Islamic Talaq; you promised 1 week ago! Someone didn't delete all the qurans in the world, did they?
And, on the 7th you promised to post about Women's rights in Islam. Come on, man your wahabi creed is hanging by a thread here!
Check out what CM(chowdary mian) had to say:
1) "To all you Indian and "so called muslim". I mean that in the most condisending and rude manner imaginable!!"
2) "Next weeks Islamic lesson will be on the issue of WOMENS RIGHTS IN ISLAM.
So until then keep your mouths shut about islam as you have no idea what it states."
3) "Firstly if you have read all the drivel against Islam here, you would open with that also.But in the surah, there is no mention of incompatibility"
4) June 7: "And i am typing a long posts on women and islam for friday."
This LONG shewwwwwww!!!
Let me first of all say very clearly that there is no such thing as fiqh which can be taken as something separate from, or put in opposition to Qur'an or Hadith. Fiqh is a branch of Islamic scholarship which explains the details of Islamic legislation on the basis of commandments and instructions stated in the Qur'an and the Hadith. Different scholars may arrive at different conclusions on a particular subject, because they may not have the same statements in Hadith available to them. The Qur'an is available to all, but some of its statements may be given in general terms with Hadith explaining or qualifying them. The two rulings your nephew received from scholars in his home town are both given by scholars of fiqh on the basis of the Qur'an and Hadith. Wherever a person goes in the Muslim world, he is bound to be given the same two rulings by scholars. Not only so, the same scholar may explain to him both rulings. How is this possible? The answer is the supporting evidence for each ruling. There is no doubt that both have very valid evidence. We cannot dismiss either ruling out of hand, nor can we ignore its basis. Scholars of highest repute in our history subscribed to either one or the other. How can then a layman manage his own situation and which ruling he should follow? The simple advice is that he should go to a broad minded scholar and explain his case. He should make sure that the scholar does not strictly follow a particular school of thought but rather is one who gives a judgement on each case according to its merit, and as he deems most suitable to the people concerned, using any judgement given by different schools of thought as long as it has sufficient supporting evidence to keep the enquirer within the boundaries of what is acceptable from the Islamic point of view. I do not think that much purpose can be served by a detailed discussion in a newspaper like ours of the different factors relevant to each of the two rulings. However, I can say very briefly that the one which makes a divorce pronounced three times on the same occasion count as three divorces came into operation during the time of Umar without disagreement by any of thelearned companions of the Prophet. It was more in punishment for a degree of abuse of the Islamic process of divorce. There is no disagreement among scholars that to divorce one's wife three times or more on the same occasion is forbidden from the Islamic point of view because it is an abuse of a legitimate procedure. When the Prophet was told by one of his companions that he divorced his wife one hundred times on the same occasion, the Prophet was very angry. He addressed his companions in such terms, "Is Allah's Book to be trifled with when I am still alive among you?" However, the overwhelming majority of people who divorce their wives three times on the same occasion nowadays do so out of ignorance. They think that unless they pronounce the word of divorce three times, the divorce is not valid. Hence an explanation of the divorce process in Islam needs to be given time and again until people get to know how to approach divorce, which is disliked by Allah, should they ever need to resort to it. Perhaps I should add that divorce in Islam is a very simple process but well entrenched misconceptions tend to obscure it. Here it is in simple terms : Essentially marriage is a verbal contract and its dissolution is normally made verbally. When a man intends to divorce his wife, he should make sure that she is not in her menstruation period and that the two of them have not had sexual intercourse during her current period of cleanliness from menstruation. If either case is there, i.e. if the woman is in the period or if sexual intercourse had taken place, then to effect a divorce at that particular time is forbidden. Thy should wait until the woman has finished her period or until she has had her next period. The divorce process is started with a simple utterance of the words "I divorce you," or "I divorce_"(naming one's wife). This should be done ONCE ONLY. This can also be done in writing and sent by post. From that moment, a woman starts her waiting period which lasts until she has completed three menstruation periods or three periods of cleanliness from menstruation. If she does not have the period either because she is too old or too young, then her waiting term lasts three months. If she is pregnant, the waiting term continues until she has given birth. During this time, she stays in her home, i.e. her family home where she has been living with her husband. He is not allowed to turn her out. He is required to maintain her through this period but may not share the same bedroom. She is not required to do any housework. The waiting period provides both divorcees with time to reconsider their situation. If they wish to be reunited in marriage, they may do so within the waiting period without any need to have a fresh marriage contract or to pay a fresh dower. If they do not resume their marriage until the waiting period is over, then the divorce process is complete and the woman returns to her parents' home and is entitled to get any deferred portion of her dower. She is not entitled to any maintenance for herself from her ex-husband. If, however, she has the custody of any young children, they are entitled to be supported by their father. Both are also entitled to maintain their normal relationship with their children. On the other hand, if the divorcees want to be reunited in marriage after the waiting period is over, they may do so provided they have a new marriage contract and the woman receives a new dower.
This whole process may be done twice. If a man and wife go through the divorce process for a third time, whether they were reunited each time during the waiting period or after it, their divorce this time is final, in the sense that they cannot be reunited again in marriage without an intervening marriage by the woman who must be married to another man in the normal course of events. This means that to all intents and purposes the divorce is final. If the woman receives a proposal from someone else and accepts it and marries him, her marriage must be intended for life. If, however, she gets divorced after a period of time, may be a year or may be ten years, or longer or shorter, she may return after the end of her new waiting period, to her first husband if both of them think that this time their marriage may be successful. I must emphasize here that this intervening marriage must not be arranged for this purpose, as many people unfortunately do. If it is specifically arranged for this period, and the man hired for the purpose agrees to go through it for one night or a week or whatever, everyone involved is committing a serious sin. Moreover, such an arrangement has no effect whatsoever. In other words, the woman cannot return to her first husband on the basis of such an 'arranged' intervening marriage. Having explained the process of divorce, I should say to my first reader that his nephew may consider his divorce to be a single divorce. He can be reunited with his former wife after having a new marriage contract, since her waiting period is over. He should tell his nephew that to divorce his wife three times on the same occasion is forbidden. Perhaps I should add that the family law of several Muslim states adopts this ruling as the standard one. By doing so, the scholars who have codified the family have given due consideration to what serves the interests of the Muslim community and the fact that many people pronounce three divorces at the same time out of total ignorance. His nephew should not be confused by the two rulings and let him not think that to follow fiqh is different from following the Qur'an and the sunnah.
Jaawan
Till next time**Keep_It_Simple_Stupid**©
.
[This message has been edited by CM (edited June 05, 2002).]
Logical and to all you 'Modernist Muslims'
You claim to believe in the Qur'an and authentic Hadith. You say that Shariah was okay for past times and not for our humane modern society. This is an argument which is devoid of any sound reasoning.
Since if you claim Shariah laws are inhumane, but were OK for people in the past, then where is you human decency, human rights and equality. Are you saying the people in the past were inferior to us. And if you say No, they have not been OK since their begining (i.e. from time of Messenger(saw)) then you have just commited the greatest unbelief, since most of Shariah laws are found directly in Qur'an whereas others are explained in the authentic hadith.
Take the example of divorce. In order to gain divorce a woman must go through a Muslim Jurist. Whereas the man can divorce her by pronouncing 'I divorce you' on three separate occasions. If you say this was OK in the past times but not today, you are implying that the women of past were inferior to those of today. So much for clamouring about human rights and saying all humans are equal. Clear contradiction. You see, your arguments might sound good individually, but when they are all put together, then it's nothing but mumbo jumbo.
You see.. this modernist school is nothing but a disguised attack upon the foundations of Islaam and it will fail miserably in it's mission sponspored by the CIA.
And next time you put a challenge out,
quote from logical:
"To all wahabiyas and their scholars (dead & alive) pls refer to the new thread:ARE SHARIA LAWS ANTI-ALLAH?"
think again.
Yes! refer to the new thread and see how the attcks of these modernists have been smashed.
Salafi,
I really believe that you people cannot think anymore!
What I am saying, now pay attention & read slowly, is that the sharia'h laws that we have were written back in the 7th century based on Quran & Sunnah. They may have been fine for the 7th century but NOT for the 21st century.
The point that is being made is we need to have re-interpretations/upgrade to those laws so they are more practical today. Note: we're taking about the LAWS, okay; nobody is changing Quran or Sunnah. Mujthahids can make new Sharia'h laws again based on Quran & Sunnah.
This is how Quran can be for all eternity; that is by adapting laws that reflects time & place and, NOT by getting stuck in the 7th century or making 7th century for all eternity!
I hope this helps!
ASALAM-U-ALAIKUM EVERYONE,
A point i would like to make clear here is that, by mutual agreement a woman has the right to specify in the MARRIAGE CONTRACT that she has the right to divorce!! (if she misses that option she has the right to seek court divorce if she deems the marriage to have failed beyond repair)
- the wife can insert a clause in the marriage contract ensuring that
(a) incompatibility of temperament
(b) maltreatment
(c) refusal of maintenance
(d) unannounced journeys
(e) the taking of another wife without consultation
are so provided against that if any of the above five conditions is broken she can approach a lawyer to obtain a divorce for her through the courts.
the wife can make it impossible for her husband not to divorce her by being intolerably refractory, vexatiously shrewish or deliberately incompatible in relationships, familial, sexual or social;
the wife can resort to the courts if the husband has been incapable or negligent in supplying her with maintenance or has put obstacles in the way of her obtaining it ; or if either partner deprives the other of conjugal rights or fails in marital duties; the Muslim Qadhi, if the woman' s plea is proved, can compel the husband to treat her right, to be reconciled, to disburse the proper sums, to confer her rights upon her in every form : and if the husband proves recalcitrant, or refuses to obey the judge's orders, the judge can then compel him to divorce his wife;
the wife can enter a plea in the Islamic court and obtain an injunction if the husband accuses her of lewdness, unchastity or unfaithfulness, or denies his own paternity of her child : if the husband cannot prove his case the judge will order the husband to separate himself from his wife in accordance with the relevant legislation;
the wife may, in the case of intolerable revulsion or aversion, in a simple fashion bring about a discontinuance of their union by renouncing a large part of her marriage portion, while freeing her husband from his obligation to pay her alimony during the "Iddat" breathing-space period;
6 the wife, if the husband absents himself so that no news of him reaches her and she falls into financial or other difficulties, can resort to the courts and request a divorce. the judge will then perform the necessary formalities to annul her marriage contract.
Fe aman Ullah
Masooma
.
[This message has been edited by CM (edited June 05, 2002).]
THE LOGICAL AND MODERNIST MOVEMENT TAKES ANOTHER BLOW
Logical,
your arguments and information you provide is nothing new, just re-worded and re-phrased. All you have done is list the Shariah laws and failed to say how they are out of time and place and what the alternative is. Do you know what the requirements of a Mujtahid are? I think you don't have the slightest clue. Yes, a Mujtahid can derive a ruling within the limits set in the Qur'an and Sunnah. E.g. organ donation is something recent. So a Mujtahid can refer to the Qur'an and Sunnah, bring together the texts that are related to the subject and then give a ruling based upon that. Not change a law that the whole of the Muslim nation since it's existence has unanimously agreed upon(e.g. forbiddance of Ribaa/Interest). In order to that, you must have EVIDENCE, i.e. a statement from Allah or the Messenger(saw), that this law can be changed in the future. Don't waste your time looking for one, because you will NEVER find one. Anyway, which Mujtahid on the face of this earth is ready to say that these laws of Shariah are obsolete and out place and time. Name me one.
Let's take one example, that of Ribaa/Interest. According to your theory, this must be changed since the entire banking system today is based upon Ribaa/Interest (nothing new, so was that of the pagan arabs.) First Allah, has declared war upon the people who deal in Interest in the second surah. Secondly, reflect upon the following Hadith narrated from ibn Umar:
Allah's Messenger(saw) said:"When you take part in 'eenah' (an interest based transaction), take hold of the tails of cows, become satisfied with cultivation and abandon jihaad, Allah will send humiliation upon you and He will not remove it until you return to your deen."
(Reported by Aboo Dawood(eng. trans. no. 3455), Baihaqee(5/316), Ahmad(no. 4825) amongst others.)
Therefore the Messenger(saw) predicted that the muslims will take part in interest based transacations which will lead to their destruction and they must return to their religion (i.e. this interest will never be part of our religion). This is a clear evidence that this law cannot be changed.
Another hadith reported in at-tirmidhee. "The Messenger(saw) recited to Adiyy bin Hatim (who was a christian before embracing Islamm) Allah's words:
'They (the christians and jews) have taken their rabbis and monks - as well as the Messiah, son of Mary - as lords besides Allah, although they had been commanded to worship none but the One God...' (9:31)
Upon hearing this Adiyy responded 'But we did not worship them'. The Messenger(saw) asked him 'Did they not make lawful for you that which Allah had prohibited, and you (obeyed them and) took it as lawful? And (did they not) make prohibited for you that which is permissible, and you (obeyed them and) accepted it as prohibited? He replied 'Yes! indeed' The Messenger(saw) concluded 'This then is worshipping them.'"
You see you are just following the path of the jews and christians as the Messenger(saw) mentioned in many narrations and warned us against it. So if just following these new rulings leads to worshipping the one who changed, then how about the one who actually creates this ruling, are they not competing with Allah in his authority.
And I think it's appropraite to mention this hadith reported by ibn Adiyy: The Messenger(saw) said "This knowledge will be carried by the trustworthy ones of every generation - they will expel from it the alterations made by those going beyond bounds, the false claims of the liars, and the false interpretations of the ignorant."
Pick your category!
You say "nobody is changing Quran and Sunnah". Yeah, you won't change it, then what will you do, just add another chapter to it? Show me how, from where and why you would change the Shariah laws, e.g. stoning to death of adulterer, cutting hand of thief, execution of murderer, business contracts, etc. I've just listed a few laws from your thread "ARE SHARIAH LAWS ANTI ALLAH."
You talk about about getting stuck in the 7th century as though we have forbidden the making of cars, planes, ships, communications, electronics, tanks, missiles, etc. Rather this is something permissible and in certain instance obligatory. But what is different about non-muslims of now and the seventh century. Our position towards them is still the same as that of the Messenger(saw). Only thing that may have changed is they've become more vicious (Chechnya, Bosnia, Israel, Kashmir, Phillipines, Burma, Eritrea...).
I suggest you go back to your employer (the CIA) and fill in a form requesting more training because it looks as though you are running out of ideas.
It is sad to see what is going on here.
I can not make judgements on someone's intentions based on posted messages, but I fear there may be more to this long-distance divorce than can be discussed here.
I hate to remind, but THIS ISN'T A JOKE.
And neither is a discussion forum the place to come to get Fatawa (legal rulings) on the permissibility of divorce.
Perhaps, the lady who would like to separate from her husband, would wish to speak to a local Imam, who may be more knowledgable than any of us on these matters.
The general attitude in this discussion seems to be of giving out self-professed rulings on Islamic authority, or of encouragement of this unfortunate, and devastating(esp. to children if any), situation.
I pray Allah(swt) guides you to the best course of action, and grant you peace of mind. Ameen.
Salafi, CM:
I agree 100% that Masooma did the job - MASHA ALLAH!
What Masooma says re: a Contract OVER-RIDES the Sharia'h; it makes a statement that Sharia'h alone cannot protect a Woman! Way to go, Masooma!
Here's some excerpt from the Masooma's contract - this, my friends, is a civil law and can only be enforced in a civil court in a secular society:
"....by mutual agreement a woman has the right to specify in the MARRIAGE CONTRACT that she has the right to divorce!! (if she misses that option she has the right to seek court divorce if she deems the marriage to have failed beyond repair)"
"...the wife can resort to the courts if the husband has been incapable or negligent in supplying her with maintenance or has put obstacles in the way of her obtaining it.."
"the wife.....can resort to the courts and request a divorce. the judge will then perform the necessary formalities to annul her marriage contract."
She proved by what she wrote that the Sharia'h alone doesn't guarantee justice & protection for women and, that is why a "CIVIL CONTRACT" enforceable in a secular, civil court be used by muslim women to protect herself. Tell me, is this any different than what we "the MODERNISTS" have been pressing for!
The Sharia'h in its present format abuses women, minorities and other religions and, should be made flexible to time & place!
p.s.
A note to CM - thnx for telling me that you're a sunni; you should also know - I USED to be one myself!
A note to Salafi - you're the same BB or bubblebuster that ran out of here a few months unable to defend other than to chant stuff that was/is good for "your ears" only. One more thing - salafis are not muslims, they are "Ghoom rah, gone astray, heretics", so, kindly conduct yourself accordingly.
I have been on GUPSHUP for a grand total of 2 days and am already quite sick of the stubborness of people like "Logical".
[QOUTE]She proved by what she wrote that the Sharia'h alone doesn't guarantee justice & protection for women and, that is why a "CIVIL CONTRACT" enforceable in a secular, civil court be used by muslim women to protect herself. Tell me, is this any different than what we "the MODERNISTS" have been pressing for![/QOUTE]
By what freak of "logic" did CIVIL become equivalent to SECULAR ???
The point was that a man/woman can approach the courts to make a ruling. Why this court suddenly had to be SECULAR I don't understandd!!!
And how this PROVES Shari'ah does not protect women I also don't get.
Logical, you seem hell-bent to twist anything to suit your need.
A court system is not independant of Islam, and does not act outside the boundary of Shari'ah. It judges on the same principles on which the marriage contract (or any other for that matter) was initially made.
The fact that a man/woman can seek a decision from a court is PART OF SHARI'AH and not an example of its shortcoming.
And I would like to ask again: what is this SHARI'AH that everyone keeps referring to, as if its sitting in some vault waiting to be implemented by the world? The Shari'ah is a continually evolving system of laws and regulations, based on a core set of values derived from Qur'an and Sunnah.
It has to DEVELOPED, by legal jurists, etc.
and as far as I know no such complete Shari'ah EXISTS today since there are no Islamic states trying to implement it (and don't give me crap about Saudi Arabia being an Islamic state), so nobody feels the need to tackle this issue.
Shari'ah today exists in the texts and minds of modern-day scholars, the best they can do is to put it on paper and publish it, since no body cares to put it into practise.
So maybe we should be talking about what the Shari'ah SHOULD BE, and how we can establish it,instead of what the Shari'ah WAS since it would be incomplete as is.
As-Salaamu A'alaikum.