prenups in indian weddings and islam

[jamahir]

you might have noticed that, when they write something about Muslims it's only jihadi sunni,,,,,,,,, they maliciously try to put shia's in another box as if they are something out of the blue and not related to Islam or Muslims.........we all know about their newly found love of shias

good observation.

the sanghi love for the shia is only till the time the shia carry protest banners against what the sanghis, in their bigotry, perceive to be the face of muslims - sunnis and groups like taliban and the new scarecrow - isis... if one speaks of progressive sunnis like nasser, gaddafi and arafat then they are declared dictators and terrorists... so hate for the muslim by any means is valid for the sanghis.

the moment any shia in india begins to talk of sanghi extremism or doesn't toe the sanghi blindly nationalist and religio-nationalist line, all love for the shia fades away.

a prime example is journalist saba naqvi, daughter of senior journalist saeed naqvi... below are from her twitter account[1] - her tweets and retweets...

https://twitter.com/x/status/676702557209796608

https://twitter.com/x/status/681827545319256069

https://twitter.com/x/status/680436511460823040

https://twitter.com/x/status/677183368363020288

https://twitter.com/x/status/676205726080106496

https://twitter.com/x/status/671729533578416129

and this[2] is from a recent article of hers...

On not standing up for national anthem in movie hall
Isn’t it diminishing the larger ideas on which this nation was founded if citizens are forced to make a display of a rather hollow brand of patriotism?

There are also a few political reasons why some individuals may choose not to stand up for the anthem. They could be from the North-East or Kashmir and thereby uncomfortable with an overt display of Indian nationalism. They could be radical leftists from a central belt that also includes parts of Maharashtra who have many clear ideological positions against the Indian state. They could be free-thinkers who are inclined to challenge socially imposed norms. And yes, they may be Muslims. But, equally, they could just be the average aam aadmi or aurat, who’d had a run-in with a system that’s often corrupt and insensitive and seeking escape in a movie, were not in the mood to display patriotism.

Rabindranath Tagore, the author of the national anthem, could certainly give some moral lessons to the self-appointed upholders of cinema hall patriotism. Here’s what he said: “Patriotism cannot be our final spiritual shelter; my refuge is humanity. I will not buy glass for the price of diamonds, and I will never allow patriotism to triumph over humanity as long as I live.” What he is actually suggesting is that putting on a display of nation worship cannot be an excuse for becoming mean-spirited even if you join a herd just like you.

But if we in India go by the ethics set by Tagore, it would be a travesty to describe the hecklers in the movie hall as patriots. We must also recognise that such incidents take place with some frequency in the city of Mumbai, not because its residents are less tolerant than others. It is because the city has bred a particular political culture; it has over the years become accustomed to bouts of mob chauvinism that consists of nothing more than chest thumping and bashing others over the head and accusing them of denigrating the nation. But isn’t it diminishing the larger ideas on which this nation was founded if citizens are from now on forced to make a display of a rather hollow brand of patriotism? Not one that’s rooted in any notion of service or humanity.

saba is a progressive therefore sanghi propaganda media agencies must discredit[3] her... i have seen this article posted by a sanghi member of pdf in the "indian political discussions" thread...

Her illustrious father Saeed Naqvi would have never imagined that his daughter Saba Naqvi would not even be a pale shadow of him. But it seems he has now resigned to his fate. In private meetings with close friends, Naqvi senior has often admitted, after a bit of coaxing by a scotch on the rocks, that his daughter disappoints him on regular basis. He aspired her “to be a Sagarika, but she remains a poor man’s Rana Ayyub.”

Saba, has somehow managed to hold on to her job as Political Editor at Outlook. At Outlook, she is looked at like a female Rahul Gandhi. As a staffer puts it bluntly “She evokes the same sentiments as Rahul Gandhi evokes amongst us, a dynastic scion stuck in a job in which the person is incompetent, but is grinding it out to save face and to try and carry on the humongous legacy that precedes her.”

in this article, the sanghi author has managed to fuse the sanghi hate for rahul gandhi too.


----

[1] Saba Naqvi (@_sabanaqvi) | Twitter

[2] On not standing up for national anthem in movie hall

[3] Saba Naqvi – a career fading away as she desperately clutches on to the straws?

 

[Plenipotentiary]

if inda is to progress... then the sanghis should accept one thing that Muslims are not going anywhere. better to reconcile with them and accept them as a part of their brahmin society

 

[Anuj Tagra]

India knows hot to progress,Let pakistan sort out its problems first.

They have a long way to go before catching up with India.

Whether Shias or Sunnis are alike or different is not our business but there are so many wahabbi funded fundamentalist groups which talk trash and do things to Shias and more often than not the Muharam procession is a problem in Muslim areas,no hindu has a problem with it.

So it is for the sunnis and the shias to reconcile or not.

We only call a spade a spade or a jamahir a jamahir.

 

[jamahir]

@Mentee, please read the OP.

And you have been in this thread.

 

[ChennaiDude]

Jamahir,Hindus dont have the concept of Divorce then why have pre nup?

Hindu law never polygamy,Hindu men always have only one wife,the second one becomes a rakhel or an illegal one.

Thats the case today also,second you want to talk of Mehr,Arabic society treated women as commodity and thats you have the concept of money being paid to buy the wife,in india the girl takes the liquid cash and gold with her as a part of her inheritance,whereas the brothers get the immovable property which is often never sold.

Why should any woman have a child with a married man out of wedlock,he should first divorce before marrying another woman.

Even in muslim households,the first wife and her children deeply resent the second wife and step siblings,then how is it justice for the woman?

If a woman falls for a married man,it is her problem and sin,it is not the problem of the first wife,she ll always retain her rights?

I have no comments on Muhammad as thats your troll bait.

The day women gets the opportunity to be as educated as Men and get the same salaries/opportunities as men do. The debate on divorce laws will evolve. My personal opinion is divorce laws is set to protect women and children so they are not impacted.

There should be common sense law on divorce and not a religious one to define it.

if inda is to progress... then the sanghis should accept one thing that Muslims are not going anywhere. better to reconcile with them and accept them as a part of their brahmin society

For India to progress- UCC is a must- No religion trumps the law of the land.

India knows hot to progress,Let pakistan sort out its problems first.

They have a long way to go before catching up with India.

Whether Shias or Sunnis are alike or different is not our business but there are so many wahabbi funded fundamentalist groups which talk trash and do things to Shias and more often than not the Muharam procession is a problem in Muslim areas,no hindu has a problem with it.

So it is for the sunnis and the shias to reconcile or not.

We only call a spade a spade or a jamahir a jamahir.

Now there lies the problem- Take responsibility man- what does it matter what Pakistan thinks- Both sects are Indian and there is a problem with your thought-"They have a long way to go before catching up with India."- Is Pakistan the standard on how to integrate with different religions?- Hindus are not superior to Muslims or vice versa-End of the day all are Indians

 

[Shantanu_Left]

I'm not sure how it works in Islam (some users are drawing parallels of the prenup with the Nikah-nama). But prenups in Western countries and even in Idnia has become a scam to mint more money. You have to be a real desperate to enter into such an arrangement.

Marriages can, and will lead to divorces. So it's better not to accept any liabilities in advance. As if child custody and maintenance wasn't bad enough...usually the men get screwed in the event of a divorce/separation.

The Islamic nikah-nama system isn't too bad because it does work out everything in advance, and you're expected to honour the arrangement. But not everyone does it for sure. Maybe others should copy the Islamic system.

The common law prenups will be a bigger disaster than what it is now.

 

[jamahir]

@magra, please read the OP of this thread and the subsequent discussion. It will answer some of your points in your now closed thread.

 

[magra]

@magra, please read the OP of this thread and the subsequent discussion. It will answer some of your points in your now closed thread.

Thank you for adding me to this discussion.

I agree wholeheartedly that Islam has added a useful flavor to Indian society. Concept of divorce was introduced by Islam in India, which is necessary as at times it is better to end marriage rather than suffer endlessly in a broken one.

I also like that in Islam it is the husband who needs to collect money to give to the wife (mehr) rather than the wife's family collecting money for dowry. The concept of prenup agreement (which will protect the wife and children in event of divorce) and concept of woman agreeing to marriage are also good ones.

All these can be included in the UCC and then the individual marriage acts can be scrapped.

I disagree with the polygamy and triple talak concepts in Islam though and we can debate on those. They may have some relevance in 7th century but they are a tool to abuse women in modern times.

 

[jamahir]

I disagree with the polygamy and triple talak concepts in Islam though and we can debate on those. They may have some relevance in 7th century but they are a tool to abuse women in modern times.

The Instant Triple Talaq ( I think I was the first to use that phrase on PDF ) done through SMS, voice on phone, other methods and done by uttering "Talaq" over three seconds or sending "Talaq" thrice at the same time is a fraudulent and non-Islamic practice as is said in the OP. The real Triple Talaq happens over three months. AFAIK the couple who wish to separate have to approach a Muslim counselor ( generally the local qazi ) and speak of their reasons for separation desire. The qazi counsels them and they go back home and give a month to sort out the differences amongst themselves. If they still have problems they approach the qazi who will get them to repeat the previous procedure. This happens totally over three months and if by that time they still have problems they are let to separate. It is mostly this system that inspired the modern Western marriage counselling arrangement.

About polygamy, I can't make up my mind. If you read the sublime Dune sci-fi book series written by the American writer and journalist beginning 1965 and set thousands of years from the 20th century you will find the known universe populated by humans, humanoids and non-human animals and the humans ruled by an emperor and the dukes under him. In the beginning of the book we are introduced to Duke Leto Atreides who has a concubine named Lady Jessica who is the mother of their son Paul ( the first hero of the story ). Leto and Jessica have not married because they have an understanding between themselves that Leto can enhance his political status by marrying women from the other royal houses. Though the series has Islamic themes and elements ( like Paul being seen as the Mahdi on planet Arrakis aka Dune ) I suppose Frank Herbert drew upon non-Muslim cultures when he wrote about dukes having concubines and not multiple legal wives.

 

[magra]

The Instant Triple Talaq ( I think I was the first to use that phrase on PDF ) done through SMS, voice on phone, other methods and done by uttering "Talaq" over three seconds or sending "Talaq" thrice at the same time is a fraudulent and non-Islamic practice as is said in the OP. The real Triple Talaq happens over three months. AFAIK the couple who wish to separate have to approach a Muslim counselor ( generally the local qazi ) and speak of their reasons for separation desire. The qazi counsels them and they go back home and give a month to sort out the differences amongst themselves. If they still have problems they approach the qazi who will get them to repeat the previous procedure. This happens totally over three months and if by that time they still have problems they are let to separate. It is mostly this system that inspired the modern Western marriage counselling arrangement.

Can Triple Talaq (the real one) be initiated by either spouse or does the husband has that right but not the wife?
Also, if the husband wants to divorce for no fault of the wife, what recourse does the wife has? Is their a concept of life long alimony which the husband needs to pay to the wife and kids or is it that the husband only needs to pay the Mehr and be done with all obligations?

About polygamy, I can't make up my mind. If you read the sublime Dune sci-fi book series written by the American writer and journalist beginning 1965 and set thousands of years from the 20th century you will find the known universe populated by humans, humanoids and non-human animals and the humans ruled by an emperor and the dukes under him. In the beginning of the book we are introduced to Duke Leto Atreides who has a concubine named Lady Jessica who is the mother of their son Paul ( the first hero of the story ). Leto and Jessica have not married because they have an understanding between themselves that Leto can enhance his political status by marrying women from the other royal houses. Though the series has Islamic themes and elements ( like Paul being seen as the Mahdi on planet Arrakis aka Dune ) I suppose Frank Herbert drew upon non-Muslim cultures when he wrote about dukes having concubines and not multiple legal wives.

You are quoting hypothetical or medieval scenarios.
In a modern age, what moral justification does a man has to simultaneously enter into a relationship with multiple women. At the very least, such men need to be ridiculed and shamed rather than given the religious protection that they are entitled to 4 wives.

 

[jamahir]

Can Triple Talaq (the real one) be initiated by either spouse or does the husband has that right but not the wife?

From the OP :

Though Muslim law stipulates many different ways to end a marriage, including a woman’s right to dissolve her marriage (khula)

So I think the procedure for the wife-initiated divorce would be the same Triple Talaq as with the husband initiating it.

Also, if the husband wants to divorce for no fault of the wife, what recourse does the wife has? Is their a concept of life long alimony which the husband needs to pay to the wife and kids or is it that the husband only needs to pay the Mehr and be done with all obligations?

The Mehr is a one-time obligation to be pledged during the wedding procedure. If the pledge is in form of money then there is a certain way to calculate the percentage which I don't recall now. But the Mehr can be in others forms too. From the OP :

My mehr was a house in my name and my nikahnama includes necessary clauses to safeguard my and my children’s rights.

Life-long alimony isn't provided because :

1. Both the wife and the husband can remarry. So the former wife can get another Mehr. And the former husband will become economically deprived if he remarries but keeps paying his former wife despite her remarriage.

2. The wife can acquire earnings of her own. This would be apart from her Mehr.

3. She will inherit property, money, company partnership etc from her father or mother or brother.

4. However this Indian courts document also has the below which confuses me. Note the underlined :

Rights of females:

Muslim does not create any distinction between the rights of men and women. On the death of their ancestor, nothing can prevent both girl and boy child to become the legal heirs of inheritable property. However, it is generally found that the quantum of the share of a female heir is half of that of the male heirs. The reason 3 behind this is that under the Muslim law a female shall upon marriage receive mehr and maintenance from her husband whereas males will have only the property of the ancestors for inheritance. Also, males have the duty of maintaining their wife and children.

So about the maintenance part I will have to research. I mean till what time will the maintenance be provided. I don't think it is life-long.

You are quoting hypothetical or medieval scenarios.
In a modern age, what moral justification does a man has to simultaneously enter into a relationship with multiple women. At the very least, such men need to be ridiculed and shamed rather than given the religious protection that they are entitled to 4 wives.

I will answer this tomorrow.

 

[magra]

Life-long alimony isn't provided because :

1. Both the wife and the husband can remarry. So the former wife can get another Mehr. And the former husband will become economically deprived if he remarries but keeps paying his former wife despite her remarriage.

2. The wife can acquire earnings of her own. This would be apart from her Mehr.

3. She will inherit property, money, company partnership etc from her father or mother or brother.

Lets take a scenario - A couple marries when the husband is still poor and struggling in his business, which means the 'mehr' is set at a low amount.

The wife wholeheartedly supports her husband in her business and managing the household and the family is now rich after a decade.

Now the husband wants to divorce his wife in order to marry an attractive younger woman. Will the wife still be entitled to the meager 'mehr' set a decade back and no share in the current prosperity of the husband in which she aided?

 

[jamahir]

Lets take a scenario - A couple marries when the husband is still poor and struggling in his business, which means the 'mehr' is set at a low amount.

The wife wholeheartedly supports her husband in her business and managing the household and the family is now rich after a decade.

Now the husband wants to divorce his wife in order to marry an attractive younger woman. Will the wife still be entitled to the meager 'mehr' set a decade back and no share in the current prosperity of the husband in which she aided?

You present a valid scenario. Hence that is why I mentioned earlier that I think the mehr / mahr can be set at the time of wedding as a percentage of the earning of the husband at the time of divorce. A percentage of the amount instead of an absolute amount.

However the bride can still demand a fixed mehr amount as from this question from a young man to a website called Islam helpline :

HONOURABLE SIR,

MY QUESTION IS:- HOW MUCH AMOUNT OF MEHR A GIRL CAN DEMAND FROM HIS FEATURING HUSBAND?

IM GOING TO MARRY A GIRL, SHE IS DEMANDING US $ 5500/- AS HQ MEHR. SO IM TRYING AND EARNING THIS AMOUNT SO THAT I PAY THIS AMOUNT TO HER ON THE EVENT OF NIKAH AND THEN GET MARRIED.

PLEASE GIVE YOUR USEFUL ADVICE.

The "HQ MEHR" is "Haq Mehr" and the "Haq" just means rightful / right. However if you read that page don't take all of the text at face value because the answer includes a line about the bride to best seek the consent of her father or guardian. That is not proper. The ultimate decision rests with the bride.

But again, the mehr need not be money at all. The woman in this thread's OP says that her mehr was a house. It can be other things like jewelry or business partnerships.

 

[magra]

You present a valid scenario. Hence that is why I mentioned earlier that I think the mehr / mahr can be set at the time of wedding as a percentage of the earning of the husband at the time of divorce. A percentage of the amount instead of an absolute amount.

However the bride can still demand a fixed mehr amount as from this question from a young man to a website called Islam helpline :

The "HQ MEHR" is "Haq Mehr" and the "Haq" just means rightful / right. However if you read that page don't take all of the text at face value because the answer includes a line about the bride to best seek the consent of her father or guardian. That is not proper. The ultimate decision rests with the bride.

But again, the mehr need not be money at all. The woman in this thread's OP says that her mehr was a house. It can be other things like jewelry or business partnerships.

Does 'Mehr' cover compensation only for wife or also for children?

 

[jamahir]

Does 'Mehr' cover compensation only for wife or also for children?

Technically the Mehr is the socio-economic enablement just for the wife but she may do with it as she pleases including say setting up a business fund ( if the Mehr is money and is paid during the wedding and she has saved it ) for her children.

The OP has this :

My mehr was a house in my name and my nikahnama includes necessary clauses to safeguard my and my children’s rights.

So I think in this particular nikahnama ( marriage contract ) the future children's rights were separately arranged other than the house in her name.