Aside from Religion, few things have spilt more blood and ink than the battle of the sexes. Even those beholden to the most strict and twisted notions of piety recognize the one domain where the rules sometimes just don’t apply –
Mr. Moussaoui said there were times when a Muslim can lie without being immoral: to reconcile Muslims, to answer “yes” when a wife asks, “Am I beautiful?” and to carry out jihad.
Because any man knows that answering that question honestly is tantamount to jihad unto itself. Best to save that energy for a battle you might actually win.
Now while mere questions of spousal beauty allow for wiggle room, in a different corner of the world, we learn that divorce is rather literal –
A Muslim couple in India has been told by local Islamic leaders to separate after the husband “divorced” his wife in his sleep, the Press Trust of India reported.Sohela Ansari told friends that her husband, Aftab, had uttered the word “talaq,” or divorce, three times in his sleep, according to the report published in newspapers on Monday.
When local Islamic leaders heard of the sleep talking, they said Aftab’s words constituted a divorce under an Islamic procedure known as “triple talaq.” The couple, married for 11 years with three children, were told they had to split.
<
p>Husbands and wives are known to lash out at small annoyances as a way of signalling something deeper; in this case, maybe it really was just the small annoyances –
A jobless man burned himself to death after his wife refused to serve him meat for dinner, Indian police said Sunday.The wife, who works as a domestic, refused to cook meat, saying they could not afford it.
Irritated by this, Sanjivan locked her in the house before setting himself on fire outside.
Poor Sanjivan, if he only knew about the Triple Talaq.
The lack of a uniform civil code is why this crap keeps happening. There was an earlier episode in which a drunk husband shouted “talaq talaq talaq” to his wife and they were asked to separate inspite of him wanting to take it back.
An attempt by the supreme court of india in 1985 to get into muslim personal law caused the proverbial shit to hit the fan. That was only for alimony. They weren’t even trying to get into the talaq part of it. The congress party stepped up to the plate to placate the mullahs and changed the law to nullify the supreme court’s decision.
I realize culturally tribal laws are maintained and upheld but they are full of holes and is it me or does every tribal law somehow unfairly screws the women? India is stepping into the 21st century with such incredible advancements and is finally gaining visibility and respect. Why the hell is this big democracy still allowing tribal law? They need one uniform law of the land for everyone.
I think the really messed up part is that she has to marry, live with and divorce another man before she can remarry her husband
Jane,
It is more complicated than that. Let me reiterate that these laws are really retrograde. There are two reasons why these laws still remain in the civil code:
1) Social backwardness of the Muslims and their reluctance in separating laws that govern life of ordinary people from religion.
2) Democracy in India – The Indian political scene has become so fragmented that the votes of Muslims (14% of the population) can swing the results of an election in favour of a party. Therefore, most parties barring BJP do not have the courage to start making changes in these laws. Even BJP refused to touch the civil law reforms when they were in power for the five years.
In my opinion, various civil law codes based on ethics of different religions are really hard on women, especially when it comes to property inheritance laws. Lot of women and minors in India have been denied their rightful inheritance by the application of these laws and there is no political will to change them.
Regards,
Aninda thanx for the response. This is really depressing to hear. I was unaware about the political swing muslim votes can carry in India. That the powers to be won’t do anything towards making all these small factions of governments go away because it jeopardizes their future.
anyone else thinks that the last story is too tragic to be in any article in the humor section?
“When local Islamic leaders heard of the sleep talking, they said AftabÂ’s words constituted a divorce under an Islamic procedure known as “triple talaq.” The couple, married for 11 years with three children, were told they had to split.”
reminds me of the unfortunate twists in early American family law when married couples had to show fault on the part of (just) 1 party in order to be granted a divorce – i.e. if both parties were at fault, they were left married to one another -yikes!
That is the nature of democracy pretty much everywhere. How else would a party remain in power unless it appeases all the groups that got them there? Would you vote for someone who previously promised one thing but delivered another?
Let’s not blame everything on the ‘social backwardness of Muslims.’ The blame rests squarely on politics – that the Congress party has always dealt with the most retrograde mullahs as though they were the most authentic voice of Indian Islam. The blame rests on Rajiv Gandhi for overturning the Supreme Court’s verdict on Shah Bano. At any rate, now the Muslim Civil Code has become a symbol of sorts for the rights of Muslims in India so statements about Muslim backwardness only makes the problem worse and the mainstream Muslim position more recalcitrant. If the issue was no longer framed in terms of Muslim backwardness and brought back into the realm of politics (for ALL religious groups involved), then Muslims wouldn’t be afraid to give up the Code and there would be light at the end of the tunnel.
I’d like to believe that in developed parts of the world the majority is informed about the government and not blindly swayed by buying their votes as well with false promises. A vast majority of congress for example especially senior tenure congressmen are there because they followed thru on their promises. If they didn’t they wouldn’t be there. Poverty plays such a huge role in a vote swings in India as well I’d think. I don’t know if all countries fall into the grossly powerless category.
Get with it mutineer! It’s called “black humour“.
(personally, I think black humour is just a euphemism for “lets laugh at another person’s misery”).
That’s precisely my point. These Indian politicians promised the muslims something (that you may not agree with) and delivered it and subsequently kept their votes. It’s democracy in action.
“A vast majority of congress for example especially senior tenure congressmen are there because they followed thru on their promises.”
Yes, but only in one sense of the word: “pork”.
In cruder sense, the Indian politicans do the same. It is just how you package yourself. On the contrary, Indian politicans take their constituents for a ride. I guess India still does not have much pork to spread around, maybe in 10 years, there will be.
On the other hand, Indian lawmakers get unseated often.
Here, once you are elected as a lawmaker…….unless in the words of Edwin Edwards, the former Governor of Louisiana, “you are found with a dead boy in the bed” [Note: I am paraphasing, the original quote is much more colorful], you are pretty much safe.
@bengali, #11
i did not ask for a definition of black humor. but now that your wisdom has opened my eyes to a grand new world, my life has suddenly acquired meaning.
poverty, underachievement due to poverty and the resultant angst are things i have seen at close quarters. you can laugh if you like. there is no way i can, i am not sufficiently insulated.
I think I heard that triple talaq is legal only in India. That even Saudi Arabia does not permit it. Is this true? What about Pakistan and Bangladesh?
Jane,
Since the majority in the supposedly most developed country in the world, the US, were led into the Iraq war by a bunch of lies, and will no doubt be led into a number of other idiocies by more lies, your assumption about voters in developed countries is somewhat naive…not to mention condescending.
Poverty does not make anyone stupid. Indian villagers have been shown to vote for very concrete and logical things like ‘the Congress guy built two new wells in our village’. How is that any different from the guy with kids who votes Republican because they crack down on, oh, pedophiles for example?
As for communal, bloc voting, that happens everywhere – in the States, parties won’t pass certain laws in fear of offending specific communities.
If you follow the msnbc link and scroll to the bottom it says.
So, before we lay too much of the blame on Islam, it sounds like there are people with knowledge of Islamic law who also find the situation absurd.
I also think ridiculing the poor and the dead is in poor taste. Just my opinion though.
The wife was an idiot for telling people “hey guess what my husband triple-talaqed me in his sleep last night”…granted she didn’t see this consequence happening, but it was still stupid.
Divya:
It looks like triple talaq, on its own, hasn’t been legitimate since the introduction of the Muslim Family Law Ordinance in 1961 in these two countries:
“Talaq: Persons willing to divorce his wife shall immediate after pronouncement of talaq (divorce) in any form inform the chairman in writing for his having done so, and shall supply a copy of the notice to the wife. A talaq unless revoked earlier shall not be effective until the expiration of ninety days from the day on which notice is delivered to the chairman. On receipt of the notice, chairman shall constitute an arbitration council for the purpose of bringing about reconciliation between the parties, and shall take all steps necessary to bring about such reconciliation. If the wife is pregnant at the time of pronouncement of talaq, talaq shall not be effective until the expiration of 90 days or the end of the pregnancy period, whichever is later. This ordinance shall not debar a wife whose marriage has been terminated by talaq effective under this section from remarrying the same husband without an intervening marriage with a third person unless termination is for the third time so effective. In other words, this ordinance repeals the bindings to marry another male before marrying the same husband. Whoever contravenes the provisions shall be punishable with simple imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year or with fine which may extend to five thousand taka, or with both.”
“Section 5 of the ordinance imposes a ban on polygamy” – interesting.
source
bytes:
Hey, I didn’t say it was amusing. I generally don’t think black humour is funny.
Amitabh, you have a point. The more I think about it, the only witness to this whole triple-talaqing is the wife. Why would she be advertising this? Maybe she wanted to dump the dude respectably – with clerical sanction. My God, it’s brilliant. From what I gather, she has to get married again to remarry her original hubby. Maybe she’s doing it cause the sex with hubby no.1 is boring. I see it all now! She’s a desperate housewife!!
About the whole “humor” bit: I don’t take offense because I trust that it is all satire. I might be giving the SM bloggers too much credit, but I sense a lot of anger in some of them, especially Manish’s posts. Personally, I find myself resigning to gallows humor because frankly and blatantly expressing anger sometimes gets too intense and awkward (not to mention repetitive, as there is a lot to be angry about). The creativity, I think, just helps to cope.
So, it doesn’t sound like they are seeking a divorce…
I don’t know why someone would burn themselves because their wife didn’t have money to buy meat. But, I found it twisted that he wanted meat, he burned himself, and now they have meat. Sick and twisted, I know, but what would possess a person to do burn themselves over something like this?
The problem with the net is that people assume anytime you state a different POV you are doing it out of malice. There was no malice meant. If anything this is a learning experience for me so I’m asking questions.
Yes lets blame the wife shall we. rolling eyes
Jane,
More details on the debate about Uniform Civil Code and the related controversies in the Indian social milieu can be found in the following link: http://www.rediff.com/news/ucc.htm
If you want to learn more, read the viewpoints of the various columnists in rediff. This will help you make up your own mind about this issue. I am more of a rightist and, therefore, prefer the writings of Arvind Lavakare. However, Dilip D’ Souza’s article has handled this issue in a fair and balanced manner.
Regards,
Now im no expert on muslim law, but I thought you had to be in full control of your faculties when you uttered those words, and somehow saying it in your sleep doesnt really seem to count. Also I thought a witness was necessary in order to corroborate that the divorce actually occured. And if that is indeed the case, then who ever told them that the divorce is legal under muslim law is retarded.
Also Janeofalltrades it seems kind of silly to blame the guy in this case. If he did utter those words in his sleep, obviously it must have been the wife who proceeded to tell everyone about it. Which does make one wonder… I mean why can’t women be as cold and calculating as men are always preceived to be? I think there is a legitemate question as to why this whole thing was brought into public anway. Unless ofcourse she is a devout muslim who actually feared the implications of those words, and the consequences of not following the custom that she seeked religious guidance.
Andrew Jackson said ” Unless ofcourse she is a devout muslim who actually feared the implications of those words, and the consequences of not following the custom that she seeked religious guidance”.
I agree with you, that could very well be the case.
My suggestion that the girl just wanted out so she could play the field isn’t winning any points with the men in this conversation…Ladies?
Hi folks,
I haven’t had time to read all the comments in this, so I’m sorry if I’m repeating. It seems that the guy uttered the magic words in his sleep after the couple fought. The woman then spoke about it with her close friends (I would imagine as a “WTF?” story) and from there it got around.
I don’t see why the woman is being painted as stupid by some here. For goodness sake she shared it with her close friends – since when is that a crime or wrong?
I’m sure at some point we’ve all confided something in friends or ‘friends’ and then wished to God we hadn’t. Maybe she feels like that now.
Jane:
I’m not sure I agree with you. I find that political civil society is mich stornger in “poor” countries like India than it is here in the U.S. If you asked the average man on the street in India who their MLA and MP were and what they’ve done, you would get a pretty decent answer. I don’t think that’s true here at all. The masses in India have consistently voted out people and governments they felt to be inadequate; I’ve seen very few “Strom Thurmonds” in the Lok Sabha.
Also, while certain aspects of having multiple civil codes are clearly harmful to women and minors, its very important overall to protect minority rights and preserve secularism. It gives Muslims an important sense of identity and greater ownership in the Indian nation.
BTW, Arvind Lavakare is an absolute Hindutva note, so be wary when you read his writing, as Aninda suggests.
Hari
For which the system must remain fragmented? The certain aspects that are harmful, usually have the most effect.
Most of the clauses provided in for ‘protection of minorities’ seek to discriminate against women as these clauses largely pertain to family law.
Hari (#30):
This is a brand of secularism I don’t buy because it leaves the law-making to the clerics, so we end up with absurd situations like this one. I don’t see how anyone can look at a set of laws which produces such a scenario as empowering, or one to be proud of.
That said, this is a problem which completely stumps me. I think there is a strong need for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) which takes power out of the hands of religious authorities (both saffron and green), but I don’t trust anyone to make it. When the BJP was clamoring for UCC a few years ago I shuddered to think of what shape a BJP-crafted UCC would take.
Can anybody help me out on this one?
“I shuddered to think of what shape a BJP-crafted UCC would take.”
Oh Boy!
Regardless of who takes over the task of UCC, it’ll be a messay affair. If Indian Muslim identity is seen to be reflected in the Indian fragmented civil code, then it is that that would probably bring the serious backlash and anger from this population. As far as I know, other minorities are not as opposed to it as the Muslims.