Saying 'divorce' consecutively should be punishable, rules CII!

[Norwegian]

"Saying the word talaq thrice consecutively is against the Sunnah," said Islamic Idelogy Council’s chairman Maulana Muhammad Khan Sherani.

The Council of Islamic Ideology recommended on Wednesday punishment for individuals who say ‘divorce’ three times consecutively in a bid to finalise the finality of their marriage.

Citing increasing divorce rates, Islamic Idelogy Council’s chairman Maulana Muhammad Khan Sherani said repeating the word talaq (divorce) ‘thrice’ is unlawful and rather a spouse should say the words over a period of time.

“Saying the word talaq thrice consecutively is against the Sunnah,” the chairman said.

Islam requires the divorcee to pronounce ‘talaq’ thrice for it to be legalised. However, the council has upheld it should not be said consecutively.

Maualana Sherani said people get divorced without any hesitation nowadays and much more care should be taken while ending such a ‘sacred’ relationship.

Islam takes distinction over other religions when it comes to women’s rights, going as far as allowing a woman to seek divorce from her husband if he fails to fulfill his obligations. However, despite laws concerning litigation over matrimonial disputes Pakistani women, face great humiliation and hardships when it comes to safeguarding their rights.

RELATED POST: Know your rights: Rights of a spouse

Further, last year several rights activists condemned a report of the CII declaring the law requiring consent from first (second or third) wife for another marriage un-Islamic. The CII had said that Sharia did not bind a husband to seek permission from any of his wives before contracting another marriage.

RELATED POST: Women’s rights: ‘Anti-poor, anti-women CII should be abolished’

Aurat Foundation manager Mumtaz Mughal said, “The CII is acting as a supra-state body it has nullified the little constitutional and legal gains working classes, women and non-Muslims had made so far. It nullified land reforms of the 1970s, it dismissed tests as evidence of criminal violence against women and now it is attacking the civil rights of women in Pakistan.”
Saying ‘divorce’ consecutively should be punishable, rules CII – The Express Tribune

Seriously? Thank God we haven't faced Iranian style Mullah revolution or such nonsense would have become daily routine applied automatically for millions of innocent people!

@cb4 @sreekumar @RescueRanger @W.11 @MastanKhan @Dr. Stranglove @Gufi @TankMan @Selous @ArsalanKhan21 @haman10 @Junaid B @Pakistani Exile @Slav Defence @Not Sure @jamahir @Faizan Memon @Hasbara Buster @venu309 @powastick @Umair Nawaz @F-15I @DRaisinHerald @Itachi @yesboss @BDforever @Rashid Mahmood @Jazzbot @Pakistani shaheens @chauvunist @Ahmad1996 @ghazaliy2k @Akheilos @Spy Master @TheFlyingPretzel

 

[TankMan]

Yeah, I saw the headline a while ago, thought it was too retarded to even look at. These idiots haven't done anything about extremism, the fifty dozen sects murdering each other on a daily basis, essentially everything actually important has been ignored by this Council of Incompetent Idiots.

Thousands of Muslims killing eachother? Meh. People saying talaq too many times?OMG Haram, very important issue! Crisis situation in the council!

Retards.

 

[RescueRanger]

It is very hard for a woman to leave an abusive relationship in Pakistan, those who are brave and strong willed enough to have to face the nightmare of local courts, the recent changes have really meant a lot of women can claim their rights, but still a lot of work remains.

 

[Gufi]

It is very hard for a woman to leave an abusive relationship in Pakistan, those who are brave and strong willed enough to have to face the nightmare of local courts, the recent changes have really meant a lot of women can claim their rights, but still a lot of work remains.

I wonder if these scholars ever bother talking about the men who are abusive and what should be done with them

 

[ashok mourya]

In Islam, marriage is a legal contract (Literary Arabic: عقد القران ʻaqd al-qirān contract"; Urdu: نکاح نامہ‎ / ALA-LCNikāḥ-nāmah) between two people. The bride is to consent to the marriage of her own free will. A formal, binding contract is considered integral to a religiously valid Islamic marriage, and outlines the rights and responsibilities of the groom and bride. There must be two Muslim witnesses of the marriage contract. Divorce is permitted and can be initiated by either party.



Does the Quran clarify reasons for divorce?

In the first place, the Quran doesn’t really stipulate what are the valid reasons for divorce. Here are basically all the references where the word divorce is mentioned:

For those who take an oath for abstention from their wives, a waiting for four months is ordained; if then they return, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. But if their intention is firm for divorce, God heareth and knoweth all things. Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods. Nor is it lawful for them to hide what God Hath created in their wombs, if they have faith in God and the Last Day. And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish for reconciliation. And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And God is Exalted in Power, Wise. A divorce is only permissible twice: after that, the parties should either hold Together on equitable terms, or separate with kindness. It is not lawful for you, (Men), to take back any of your gifts (from your wives), except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by God. If ye (judges) do indeed fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by God, there is no blame on either of them if she give something for her freedom. These are the limits ordained by God; so do not transgress them if any do transgress the limits ordained by God, such persons wrong (Themselves as well as others). So if a husband divorces his wife (irrevocably), He cannot, after that, re-marry her until after she has married another husband and He has divorced her. In that case there is no blame on either of them if they re-unite, provided they feel that they can keep the limits ordained by God. Such are the limits ordained by God, which He makes plain to those who understand. When ye divorce women, and they fulfil the term of their ('Iddat), either take them back on equitable terms or set them free on equitable terms; but do not take them back to injure them, (or) to take undue advantage; if any one does that; He wrongs his own soul. Do not treat God's Signs as a jest, but solemnly rehearse God's favours on you, and the fact that He sent down to you the Book and Wisdom, for your instruction. And fear God, and know that God is well acquainted with all things. When ye divorce women, and they fulfil the term of their ('Iddat), do not prevent them from marrying their (former) husbands, if they mutually agree on equitable terms. This instruction is for all amongst you, who believe in God and the Last Day. That is (the course Making for) most virtue and purity amongst you and God knows, and ye know not. S. 2:226-232 Y. Ali

There is no blame on you if ye divorce women before consummation or the fixation of their dower; but bestow on them (A suitable gift), the wealthy according to his means, and the poor according to his means; - A gift of a reasonable amount is due from those who wish to do the right thing. And if ye divorce them before consummation, but after the fixation of a dower for them, then the half of the dower (Is due to them), unless they remit it or (the man's half) is remitted by him in whose hands is the marriage tie; and the remission (of the man's half) is the nearest to righteousness. And do not forget Liberality between yourselves. For God sees well all that ye do. S. 2:236-237 Y. Ali

Those of you who die and leave widows should bequeath for their widows a year's maintenance and residence; but if they leave (The residence), there is no blame on you for what they do with themselves, provided it is reasonable. And God is Exalted in Power, Wise. For divorced women Maintenance (should be provided) on a reasonable (scale). This is a duty on the righteous. S. 2:240-241 Y. Ali

O you who believe! when you marry the believing women, then divorce them before you touch them, you have in their case no term which you should reckon; so make some provision for them and send them forth a goodly sending forth. S. 33:49 Shakir

O Prophet, when you divorce women, divorce them when they have reached their period. Count the period, and fear God your Lord. Do not expel them from their houses, nor let them go forth, except when they commit a flagrant indecency. Those are God's bounds; whosoever trespasses the bounds of God has done wrong to himself. Thou knowest not, perchance after that God will bring something new to pass. S. 65:1 Arberry

As anyone can see not a single reference stipulates the grounds for divorce, but only speak of what to do when a divorce is about to take place or has already occurred. The closest one gets to a reason is Sura 4:34-35:

Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they svpend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye FEAR rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, AND SCOURGE THEM. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great. And if ye fear a breach between them twain (the man and wife), appoint an arbiter from his folk and an arbiter from her folk. If they desire amendment Allah will make them of one mind. Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Aware. Pickthall

 

[syedali73]

It is very hard for a woman to leave an abusive relationship in Pakistan, those who are brave and strong willed enough to have to face the nightmare of local courts, the recent changes have really meant a lot of women can claim their rights, but still a lot of work remains.

Sir there is no nightmare that the woman has to face in the local courts. The procedure of 'kulaa' is made ridiculously easy and a woman can get rid of the husband for good or bad reasons within one - three months. If the husband chose (or for any reason could not) not to appear in the court, the Judge can unilaterally grant Khulaa too. This has happened in my immediate family just last year so talking of personal experience here. And let me add one more thing, it (the expedited khulaa) is not good at all because as a husband I know (perhaps you do too), married life is nothing but a compromise and we don't want to part for petty reasons let alone complications that would arise with regard to the children.

 

[karakoram]

Yaar its not a big issue and it is completely islamic.

 

[syedali73]

Yeah, I saw the headline a while ago, thought it was too retarded to even look at. These idiots haven't done anything about extremism, the fifty dozen sects murdering each other on a daily basis, essentially everything actually important has been ignored by this Council of Incompetent Idiots.

Thousands of Muslims killing eachother? Meh. People saying talaq too many times?OMG Haram, very important issue! Crisis situation in the council!

Retards.

These morons have not done many things but this particular suggestion is a commendable act. Please give the credit where it is due. Besides, the committee maybe chaired by this ultra-moron Shirani, but is composed of many highly reputable scholars (not mullah) with high scholarly credentials.

 

[That Guy]

@TankMan @syedali73 Allow me to present an opposing view to your criticisms towards the council.

While it is easy to say that the CII isn't doing enough to combat extremism, and is only worrying about useless issues (at least what the public deems to be useless), it's mandate was never meant to combat extremism. The CII was simply an advisory board on Islamic law, helping the government make sure that Pakistani laws did not conflict with Islam, and giving religious advice to the government. One could argue that it's past fatwas against extremism were in fact stepping over it's boundaries, as issuing such fatwas are not apart of it's mandate.

Here, a bit of reading on the CII.

Council of Islamic Ideology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I feel that the organization gets unjustified criticism sometimes, through no fault of it's own. It is simply doing what it is mandated to do, nothing more.

 

[TankMan]

These morons have not done many things but this particular suggestion is a commendable act. Please give the credit where it is due. Besides, the committee maybe chaired by this ultra-moron Shirani, but is composed of many highly reputable scholars (not mullah) with high scholarly credentials.

It may be a positive thing but it certainly isn't prioritized correctly. I have no problem with the suggestion itself and I do believe that it is good for the society (making divorce a bit more serious and a proper process) but the issue is that they don't have any priorities in order, just like the rest of Pakistan's politicians and officials.

However, I do apologize for the overly-impulsive post that did not give credit where it is due.

@TankMan @syedali73 Allow me to present an opposing view to your criticisms towards the council.

While it is easy to say that the CII isn't doing enough to combat extremism, and is only worrying about useless issues (at least what the public deems to be useless), it's mandate was never meant to combat extremism. The CII was simply an advisory board on Islamic law, helping the government make sure that Pakistani laws did not conflict with Islam, and giving religious advice to the government. One could argue that it's past fatwas against extremism were in fact stepping over it's boundaries, as issuing such fatwas are not apart of it's mandate.

Here, a bit of reading on the CII.

Council of Islamic Ideology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I feel that the organization gets unjustified criticism sometimes, through no fault of it's own. It is simply doing what it is mandated to do, nothing more.

It's not just about extremism. As an advisory body on Islamic Law, the CII should at least be actively working on clarifying what Islamic law is and preventing the abuse of Islam and religion in general. Socio-religious issues such as sectarianism and religious-based hate speech do fall into its mandate of giving religious advice.

If its only mandate was to make sure Pakistani laws did not conflict with Islam, in that case you'd be correct in that those issues are not their job. In that case, it is imperative that the government form a body specifically to handle the greater religious issues (like extremism).

Their mandate is clearly not defined properly, makes it vulnerable to criticism and way too easy for them to make excuses.

 

[That Guy]

It's not just about extremism. As an advisory body on Islamic Law, the CII should at least be actively working on clarifying what Islamic law is and preventing the abuse of Islam and religion in general. Socio-religious issues such as sectarianism and religious-based hate speech do fall into its mandate of giving religious advice.

If its only mandate was to make sure Pakistani laws did not conflict with Islam, in that case you'd be correct in that those issues are not their job. In that case, it is imperative that the government form a body specifically to handle the greater religious issues (like extremism).

Their mandate is clearly not defined properly, makes it vulnerable to criticism and way too easy for them to make excuses.

I would argue that it is actually their ONLY mandate, anything more is stepping across dangerous lines. If they start issuing fatwas, that would be a direct challenge to the government and parliament, which would start a power struggle.

As for issues such as hate speech and sectarianism, they've already issued advice to the government based on such topics, in the past; it is up to the government to follow their advice. From what I can remember (and others are welcome to prove me right and wrong), regulating madrassas and putting Imams on government paychecks was a CII advice that was issued years ago; the argument was that it was the government's responsibility to make sure that Islamic values were a priority, and this way extremist Imams could be held responsible and punished if they towed the extremist line.

 

[syedali73]

It may be a positive thing but it certainly isn't prioritized correctly. I have no problem with the suggestion itself and I do believe that it is good for the society (making divorce a bit more serious and a proper process) but the issue is that they don't have any priorities in order, just like the rest of Pakistan's politicians and officials.

However, I do apologize for the overly-impulsive post that did not give credit where it is due.

I am sorry for a bit harsh tone but I am bit sensitive towards issues such as talaq and khulaa. The ex(???)-wife of my brother-in-law (also my dear cousin) decided to part for as ridiculous reasons as the husband could not take her to McDonalds for dinner every week - yes Sir. The couple have two kids, 12 years old daughter and 9 years old son. The lady went to her mother's place and the two filed for the khulaa petition while my cousin did not know about it. This happened in Karachi whereas my cousin lives in Islamabad. During all this time, not only him, but my family too tried to contact the lady and/or her mother but our phones weren't attended. Finally the brother of the lady told that court has granted khulaa!!! what? how? when? By the help of my lawyer friends in Sindh high court, I somehow managed to extract the court's proceedings and learned that the notice (to the husband) was sent to a wrong (and deliberately for the address was provided by the wife's lawyer) address hence my cousin could not make himself available at the proceeding and the Judge granted khulaa unilaterally. I don't want to go into the emotional and psychological stress my cousin and his children had to go through.

Question is, is this khulaa correct? Whatever little I know about Islam and Islamic jurisprudence, that lady is still my cousin's wife and the Judge simply cannot grant khulaa without hearing the husband. At any rate, this has happened and is happening in the family courts throughout Pakistan. Sorry state of affairs.

 

[TankMan]

I would argue that it is actually their ONLY mandate, anything more is stepping across dangerous lines. If they start issuing fatwas, that would be a direct challenge to the government and parliament, which would start a power struggle.

I'm not talking about issuing fatwas, I was simply talking about the topics and issues they will touch, not the extent to which they will go. That can remain the same, as long as the pertinent issues are (at least) discussed.

As for issues such as hate speech and sectarianism, they've already issued advice to the government based on such topics, in the past; it is up to the government to follow their advice. From what I can remember (and others are welcome to prove me right and wrong), regulating madrassas and putting Imams on government paychecks was a CII advice that was issued years ago; the argument was that it was the government's responsibility to make sure that Islamic values were a priority, and this way extremist Imams could be held responsible and punished if they towed the extremist line.

They made such a statement back in Musharaf's rule, after Lal Masjid I believe. But it was more about condemning 'deviant' Molvis (who disagree with the CII) than it was about actually defining what classifies as extremist and the Islamic perspective on it.
Can't seem to find any links, will keep looking.
EDIT: Found one
Madrassas might be shifted out of Islamabad
Now that I'm reading through it, I have to say they did make pretty good recommendations back then. Too bad they weren't implemented.

I am sorry for a bit harsh tone but I am bit sensitive towards issues such as talaq and khulaa. The ex(???)-wife of my brother-in-law (also my dear cousin) decided to part for as ridiculous reasons as the husband could not take her to McDonalds for dinner every week - yes Sir. The couple have two kids, 12 years old daughter and 9 years old son. The lady went to her mother's place and the two filed for the khulaa petition while my cousin did not know about it. This happened in Karachi whereas my cousin lives in Islamabad. During all this time, not only him, but my family too tried to contact the lady and/or her mother but our phones weren't attended. Finally the brother of the lady told that court has granted khulaa!!! what? how? when? By the help of my lawyer friends in Sindh high court, I somehow managed to extract the court's proceedings and learned that the notice (to the husband) was sent to a wrong (and deliberately for the address was provided by the wife's lawyer) address hence my cousin could not make himself available at the proceeding and the Judge granted khulaa unilaterally. I don't want to go into the emotional and psychological stress my cousin and his children had to go through.

Question is, is this khulaa correct? Whatever little I know about Islam and Islamic jurisprudence, that lady is still my cousin's wife and the Judge simply cannot grant khulaa without hearing the husband. At any rate, this has happened and is happening in the family courts throughout Pakistan. Sorry state of affairs.

That sounds really problematic. Thankfully I haven't had such an experience yet, so I can't really contribute much to it, except my opinion that there is no way, from an Islamic perspective, a Judge can grant khulaa like that and in those circumstances.

 

[That Guy]

I'm not talking about issuing fatwas, I was simply talking about the topics and issues they will touch, not the extent to which they will go. That can remain the same, as long as the pertinent issues are (at least) discussed.

These are issue I think the CII is ill equipped to handle, they simply don't have the mandate to discuss and debate the implementation of potential new laws and regulations without the government go ahead. Their mandate is simply making sure that current laws are Islam compatible, it's up to the government to ask the CII to come up with advice combating extremism, so the ball is in the government's court. The CII cannot take unilateral steps to start a debate to figure out a solution, it is up to the government to ask, not the other way around.

They made such a statement back in Musharaf's rule, after Lal Masjid I believe. But it was more about condemning 'deviant' Molvis (who disagree with the CII) than it was about actually defining what classifies as extremist and the Islamic perspective on it.
Can't seem to find any links, will keep looking.

No, I'm pretty sure it was during Zardari's rule. Zardari apparently hesitated because he thought it would bring down his government, as he was in a coalition with multiple parties. Zardari wanted to have a comprehensive anti-terrorism strategy and wanted to get religious justification and advice to go ahead with it, but the lack of funds, and fragile coalition made that next to implement. At least that's what I remember.

Again, feel free to prove me wrong, I like learning new things.

 

[TankMan]

These are issue I think the CII is ill equipped to handle, they simply don't have the mandate to discuss and debate the implementation of potential new laws and regulations without the government go ahead. Their mandate is simply making sure that current laws are Islam compatible, it's up to the government to ask the CII to come up with advice combating extremism, so the ball is in the government's court. The CII cannot take unilateral steps to start a debate to figure out a solution, it is up to the government to ask, not the other way around.

You are probably right about this, that's why I was saying that if the CII's mandate does not include said issues, the government should form a separate body for them or give the CII mandate. Either way, it is essential to discuss those issues from an Islamic perspective so that they can be handled effectively and without going against Islam.

No, I'm pretty sure it was during Zardari's rule. Zardari apparently hesitated because he thought it would bring down his government, as he was in a coalition with multiple parties. Zardari wanted to have a comprehensive anti-terrorism strategy and wanted to get religious justification and advice to go ahead with it, but the lack of funds, and fragile coalition made that next to implement. At least that's what I remember.

Again, feel free to prove me wrong, I like learning new things.

The link I found was from April 2007 (edited the post), so unless they said something similar later on during Zardari's term, you've got the timeline a bit wrong.
If it was infact in Zardari's term, well, Zardari is Zardari, what can we say. The PPP government had a lot of problems, but it'll be off topic if we tried to discuss them.