Zia's fallen into the "change" trap
In this week's New Statesman, there's an article by Ziauddin Sardar, entitled Can Islam Change, which approvingly documents how Muslims everywhere are abandoning traditional Islamic law in favour of various kinds of "modernity". The article is disturbing, because it plays directly into the hands of the enemies of Islam who demand that we "change" the religion of Allah Almighty, when in fact they would be satisfied with nothing less than its elimination. In India and Morocco, according to Sardar, "modern" laws are being introduced which are supposedly superior to "traditional" Shari'a, and Islamically justifiable. Notably in India, what has come under attack is "triple talaq", by which a man can irrevocably divorce his wife in a drunken rage, or in anger, or when under threat. This has "inherent absurdities" for Sardar, but this is the Shari'a, by absolute consensus, and it has never been challenged until the enemies of Islam challenged it. As for the drunken rage bit, everyone knows that Muslims are not allowed to drink alcohol, and if he does something rash in a drunken state, it's his own fault. Our shaikh has said that "divorce" is not part of our vocabulary.
In Morocco the attack on Muslim marriage law has struck at both the beginning and the end of marriage. The new Mudawwana increases the age of marriage for women to 18, bans polygamy except where a judge gives his permission, and removes the right of a man to unilaterally divorce his wife. This ignores the reality of marriage and divorce in Islam, which is a marriage becomes a fact when the parties agree to make it so, as long as their agreement is itself Islamically correct. There are rules concerning suitability, which differ from school of thought to school of thought, but a minimum age for the bride is not one of them in any school of thought, nor is the permission of a judge. The Salaf married girls who were much younger than the age of consent in any western country, and by agreeing to the attack by Moroccan crypto-secularists on Islamic marriage law, he falls into the trap set by the kuffar - setting laws which would class the Salaf as criminals. In the case of the Prophet (sall' Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam), this is outright kufr.
In the case of Morocco, the age of marriage for girls is actually higher than that in some countries in Europe! In the UK the age of both consent and marriage is 16, and recently I had to abandon plans to conduct a marriage in Morocco to a 16-year-old lady, which would have been quite legal in the UK if the father had agreed. The new law helps nobody, certainly not the urban intelligentsia who don't marry young anyway, nor the peasantry, for whom early marriage may be a necessity, and has been part of their culture for centuries, even millennia.
Of course, some of the pseudo-Sharia laws which are in place in some countries are unjust and should be reviewed. Nobody could not be horrified by a young girl being punished for being raped, but the answer is a return to genuine Sharia under the control of people who know its ins and outs and are willing to "ward off the hudood by means of ambiguities" as one of the Sahaba (I believe A'isha, radhi Allahu anha) told us, and don't regard large numbers of hand-cuttings and floggings as the mark of an Islamic state. The fact is that our decline began after un-Islamic ideas penetrated our thinking, and we can gain nothing by succumbing to pressure from the enemies of Islam.
Comments
Good points there, mate.
Rgds Dave
Posted by: Dave | September 15, 2004 11:09 AM
"The new law helps nobody, certainly not the urban intelligentsia who don't marry young anyway, nor the peasantry, for whom early marriage may be a necessity, and has been part of their culture for centuries, even millennia."
I'm not sure you can appeal to Islamic laws being eternally cast for all time on the one hand, and then talk about marriage customs being part of some "culture" for millennia and what benefits this or that law may have. "Law" is either something fixed and eternal, transcendent if you will (and revealed by God); or it is something local and driven by "culture" and cutsom (and totally humanistic, devoid of anything above ourselves); or it is a combination of the two (the transcendent element of law makes entries into human history in a number of ways). Muslim scholars and jurists have, obviously, recognised all of the above, which is why Muslims have had a rich and varied legal culture, which has sadly been lost due to need for modernisation and centralising all law-making in the hands of the state.
But when we begin to entertain the possibility of "benefits" of this or that law, we open the debate on what is and isn't law to those outside of the specialists who make or derive laws, almost by default. If you wish to make a comment on the benefits of a particular law, then you must equally allow someone else to discuss benefits (or lack of) of laws you happen to agree with. Otherwise, the criticism seems a little unfair.
I think Sardar is guily of being sloppy in his usage of words (he doesn't pay enough attnetion on how words and terms are derived, created and impact people), and even of ignoring history when it suits him. But I doubt he was trying to "change the religion of Allah"; at least I doubt this was his aim.
assalaamu `alaykum
Posted by: thabet | September 19, 2004 10:09 AM
About the possibility of a man "irrevocably divorcing his wife while in a drunken rage", is there no provision to declare such a decision invalid if it were made under the influence of drink or drugs?
Posted by: George Carty | December 8, 2004 6:12 PM
George: the provision is, people are told not to drink. People know about the stupid things which can be done under the influence of drink and drugs, including making rash decisions like dumping one's wife because of a momentary annoyance.
Posted by: Yusuf Smith | December 9, 2004 8:12 PM
I am a irish Christian who has fallen in love with a young College Educated Muslim Woman. She holds a senior position with a large Moroccan Company and is very ambitous. I met her while in the process of purchasing an Apartment in Agadir in 2004. We have been out to dinner on numerous occasions and are about to go into business together in 2006. I have met her sister and have spoken to her Mother on the phone on a few occasions. Her Father is dead but she is nervous of any reaction of her brother who is studying law in College. She rises for prayers at 6.00am every day and is a devout Muslim in all respects. We want to get married and start a Family and make our home in Morocco. There are numerous obsticles in our path but we could do with some advice in our endevours. I will fully support this Lady in her devotion to Islam and will bring all of our children as Muslims. Is our dream possible.
KG ireland
Posted by: kevin gallagher | August 7, 2005 3:08 PM
In Morocco (perhaps elsewhere too) many men use their right of unilateral divorce to keep their wives in line; if their wives displease them in any way they can end up on the street, often having to support themselves and their children by begging. These men don't care that such behaviour is against the spirit of Islam, and I support the introduction of laws which would make the 'spirit' of Islam enforceable - eg giving wives more economic rights and more clout in general.
Posted by: Ummabdirrahman | March 15, 2007 11:12 AM