The so-called Islamic marriage contract recently proposed by the Muslim Institute has attracted a lot of attention in the Muslim blogosphere lately, much of it negative, for reasons anyone who has read it will understand. It contains brazenly anti-Islamic elements, much of the rest is useless boilerplate, and they have dishonestly claimed (by placing their logos on the front) support from Muslim organisations which do not, in fact, support the finished product even if they supported the idea of such a contract before. Haitham al-Haddad, one of the imams at al-Muntada al-Islami in London, explained this, along with a lot of the other Islamic legal issues, in this series of YouTubed lectures. (More: Traditional Islamism, Muslim Matters with a letter from Sh. Tawfique Chowdhury of AlKauthar Institute, IslamicPolitik.)
It was Ed Husain, in this article on the Guardian's website, which drew my attention to this lecture. He dismisses it as "a rant" from "an Arab male cleric with extreme Wahhabi leanings, denouncing the contract as kufr, or non-belief". Well, most "clerics", or scholars as Muslims actually call them, are male. This has always been the case, although the fact that there are not enough female scholars (as there used to be plenty) is acknowledged in some quarters at least. Ed is also male; why should anyone take any notice of him if this trait is a black mark against Haitham al-Haddad? The lecture's biggest offending seems to be that it rubbishes a point of view Husain agrees with, and does so pretty comprehensively, and I cannot call its delivery a "rant" although I think he over-eggs the pudding a bit regarding the decline of the West.
"Ed" starts off with a sob story about a female former colleague of his, who caved into parental pressure to marry a cousin who then treated her badly. Given how much of what Ed has told us over the past couple of years has been debunked, I wonder how much of what Ed says about this woman is true, or if she even exists. Ed reckons that, if this contract had been used, his friend might have been able to divorce this abusive husband, or indeed, to have married her "first love" whom she had sacrificed to marry this man. The fact is that it would have had no such effect.
You can download the Muslim Marriage Contract (PDF) here. You will notice that the first page contains a substantial array of logos, including that of the Islamic Shari'ah Council and Muslim Council of Britain, both of which have withdrawn their support for the contract. The MCB have explained their position thus:
In furtherance of its policy to work with others for the unity of Muslims and for the common good, the MCB had collaborated on a worthwhile initiative on enabling parties to a Muslim marriage to understand and respect their rights and obligations and to enable Courts to enforce the rights of parties in accordance with what is agreed at the time of the Nikah. That initiative has regrettably led to misinterpretation of Shari'ah by those who the MCB had trusted to take the lead on this matter. Those representing the Muslim Institute were reported as saying that the documentation produced was a "re-invention of Shari'ah" or that it was a "modern" or " reformist" view of the Shari'ah. These types of glib generalisations on sharia councils are unhelpful and not in keeping with MCB's evidence-based approach to community issues. Moreover the MCB looks to the traditional Islamic institutions of ijma (the consensus of scholars) as the way forward in resolving the issues of our times.
The MCB rejects the misguided and incorrect assertions made by and ascribed to the Muslim Institute.
Given that the Muslim Institute is run by Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, one would have expected that the MCB would have checked up on his record, which includes rubbing shoulders (if not literally) with Cassandra Balchin of the secularist pressure group, Women Living Under Muslim Laws. I saw him present a lecture at SOAS on a bill which included Balchin and Chetan Butt, a Harry's Place type based at Goldsmith's College. Ed accuses the Council of having a position "as retrogressive and insular as its previous decision to boycott attending Holocaust Memorial Day", a decision they had every right to take, particularly given that the memorial was all about an event which had nothing to do with Muslims, particulary those from the Indian subcontinent. Ed thinks that the City Circle were ahead of the MCB on that issue as they are on this one. The City Circle is run by Asim Siddiqui, who is the son of Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, who has run the so-called Muslim Parliament and Muslim Institute for years, whose name is on this contract, a fact that Ed does not bother to mention in his article. Whatever the inadequacies of the MCB, it is not a family affair.
The tolerance the Muslim Institute gets from the secular establishment is amazing; the Muslim Institute and Parliament have been part of the same establishment since the 1980s, and were then noisily pro-Iranian, and both have degenerated into vehicles for Ghayasuddin Siddiqui; both are run out of the same address (109 Fulham Palace Road, London W6). In 1989, they were among the foremost cheerleaders for the Iranian fatwa on Salman Rushdie, while UKACIA (UK Action Committee on Islamic Affairs, run by the same people who later set up the MCB) stuck to demonstrations and lobbying. Perhaps the Iranian money has dried up, or perhaps Siddiqui has realised that the Muslim community no longer regard Iran as a great hope for the revival of Islam, or have decided that they do not want to be dominated by Shi'ites after all; or perhaps the secularist lecture circuit provides more money nowadays. The Muslim "Parliament" still exists, or at least its website does, but its website lists just two people as Personnel - Siddiqui himself and one Jaffer Clarke - and it seems to contain no references to past or forthcoming elections. Is a man really to be taken seriously when he runs a "parliament" to which nobody is ever elected? Running front organisations for oneself is normally the hallmark of a kook, not a respectable community leader.
The main problem with this contract is that parts of it are simply not religiously valid. The right of a man to take other wives, for example, is one which the Islamic community has agreed upon for its entire history. This contract, meanwhile, lists among the "special conditions" that the husband "is not to enter into formal or informal nikah (Muslim marriage) contract in the UK or abroad with another woman, as it is unlawful under the laws of England and Wales as well as the Scottish legal system". If this really were illegal in this country, there would be no need for it to be included in this contract (more on that issue later, insha Allah), but as it is, informal marriages are not unlawful; what is unlawful in the UK is registering them. Even in the USA, where polygamy was outlawed as a response to the Mormon practice, informal polygamy is tolerated, whether among the Christian sects which practise it or among Muslims. However, in Islamic law, polygamy is a right men have, and no contract can take that away. A woman can stipulate a right to divorce for herself if she is particularly averse, but cannot stop it happening altogether. So, this part of the contract is null and void. Similarly, since the fact that a man's divorce of his wife is binding is a matter of consensus among the scholars, and is well-known, no contract can make it non-binding, or bind a man to seek counselling or judicial approval.
While not part of the terms and conditions, the certificate also specifies that the marriage be witnessed by "two adult witnesses of good character", which it alleges is "gender/faith neutral". This has never been accepted by any Muslim authority; rather, some authorities accept one male and two female witnesses, while others insist on two men. Furthermore, they must be upstanding Muslims, and some suggest that, if there is a shortage of upstanding men, that the marriage be witnessed by a large number of people. Needless to say, classical Islamic jurisprudence does not insist that the witnesses be resident in the country where the marriage takes place, or that the marriage certificate records the postcode of their place of residence.
I suspect that this contract is, for British legal purposes, highly dubious. It mixes boilerplate rhetoric better suited to a preamble into the terms of the contract, and makes stipulations which are completely redundant. Among the terms and conditions is too much vague material. For example, it requires the couple to "undertake to stay loyal to each other and never to engage in extra-marital affairs", the second of which is already a condition on which a marriage can be ended, and the first is too unspecific to be enforceable, since one person's idea of what is acceptable as loyalty will differ from another's, and in the case of marriage, may well go beyond merely not having affairs. The entirety of the "mutual rights and obligations" section is boilerplate and does not belong in the section on terms and conditions; some stipulations, such as the obligation not to spread sexually-transmitted diseases or sexually abuse the children, are already more than adequately covered by civil and criminal law; it also carries the offensive presumption that Muslims will sexually abuse their own children unless you really spell it out to them that you can't do that sort of thing. It is rather like making people sign an agreement not to throw someone under a train every time they buy a train ticket or enter a station.
So, this contract is legally shoddy, and Islamically invalid. I doubt very much whether it would have helped Ed's supposed friend, because the right not to marry someone you don't want to marry is already established, at least in the Hanafi school followed in Pakistan, as is the ability to stipulate a right to divorce at the instigation of the wife. Would this woman have been offered the chance to enter a marriage based on this particular contract when caving in to family pressure to marry a clearly undesirable man? I really do not think so. It is my contention that Muslim women who want to escape from difficult family situations, or to study against the wishes of their family or whatever, do not need outside meddling in Muslim family structures or institutions; they need actual material help, which means money. If these people, and their secularist liberal supporters, wanted to help people other than themselves, they might put their hands in their pockets to help these women pay for food, accommodation and other needs, rather than drawing up a silly little document which is so badly researched and drafted that it will end up helping nobody.
Have you seen this fatwa issued in the name of the Islamic Shariah Council by Sheikh Suhaib Hassan which seems to denounce anyone connected with the Quilliam Foundation? Your analysis would be interesting! (NB - you have to read all 4 entries).
http://clarifyislam.wordpress.com/
I know facts can be quite awkward sometimes, but it might be useful to list all the endorsements this contract received from those who had read the contract in full before its launch:
Source: http://www.musliminstitute.com/article.php?id=1247
- Dr Reefat Drabu, the Chair of the MCB Social and Family Affairs Committee: "The Muslim Council of Britain (the MCB) is pleased to have collaborated
with the Muslim Institute in this important initiative. It meets a pressing need
of our communities by explaining in clear and simple language the importance
of marriage, the process leading to its solemnisation and the rights and
responsibilities flowing from it for the parties. I congratulate and commend
Mufti Barkatullah and the Muslim Institute for making the template for the
Certificate of Marriage. It is very well constructed and the explanatory notes
reflect the consensus of opinion amongst leading Islamic scholars on the rights
and responsibilities of parties to a marriage under the Shari'ah. The MCB calls
upon all the Imams/Qadis involved in performing nikah to use the
documentation, as its correct use will facilitate the success of marriage and will
lead to harmonious and healthy family life"
- Ann Cryer, MP: "This document has been carefully researched over a 4-year period and I feel confident in recommending its findings to women (and men) of the Muslim Faith contemplating Marriage.
The advice contained will, I am sure, help thousands of young people and I congratulate the Muslim Institute for having the foresight to prepare, publish and launch this excellent piece of work."
- Dr Ziba Mir-Hoseini, Centre of Islamic and Middle Eastern Law, SOAS, University of London: "The idea of marriage as a contract is one of those powerful concepts in Islamic legal tradition that allows two individuals to regulate their most intimate
relationship not only within the bounds of the Shari'a but also in accordance with the demands of time and place. The launch of the new standard marriage contract is a welcome initiative, a right step in the right direction, that provides the Muslims in UK with a model for a harmonious and egalitarian marriage."
- Anne-Marie Hutchinson OBE, Leading family lawyer: "I am delighted to support this very important and inclusive initiative. The Muslim Marriage Contract will provide certainty in marital obligations. Most importantly it will provide civil law protection to many women and children through the obligation on the parties to enter into a binding civil marriage. All too often spouses have found themselves marginalised and cut off from the legal and financial protection afforded by the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973."
- Dr Usama Hasan, Director, The City Circle: "This new Muslim marriage contract is an excellent development, since it draws on those traditional Islamic legal opinions that are more in keeping with the spirit of gender equality. Too many fathers have abused their right of wilayah (guardianship) over their daughters and too many husbands have abused their right of initiating divorce for us to continue with law rooted in patriarchal societies. It is high time that Muslim women enjoy the same rights and freedoms under Islamic law as they do under present legal systems in the UK."
- Shaykh Haytham Tamim, Director of Utrujj Foundation: "We welcome the initiative. It meets the aspirations of our young people."
- Shahid Raza, OBE, Secretary, Imams and Mosques Council (UK): "It is a commendable initiative and likely to enhance the family life of Muslims in Britain."
As-Salaamu 'alaikum,
The real test of this document is whether it will be accepted by imams up and down this country who actually deal with marriage, rather than the two or three people whose names appear on the press release. As for Usama Hasan, his links to the Quilliam Foundation are well-known, and I do not think Ann Cryer's first priority is whether it is Islamically binding.
The MCB has re-endorsed the Contract:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/21/islam.religion
Yes but, not but, yes but...
Excellent post.
Mashallah, well done.
Ibrahim, what are you up to?
I have seen your two posts - listing those who endorsed the contract & mentioning that MCb has 'supposedly' reendorsed the contract - at a number of sites..
what's your game buddy?
Holding bloggers to account I suppose. And there's no "supposedly" about it. MCB: "The marriage contract produced by the Muslim Insititute is simply one interpretation of shariah." So now are you going to attack the MCB? Or maybe you will apologise to all the progressive institutions you have attacked?
"The main problem with this contract is that parts of it are simply not religiously valid."
Your definition of what is relgiously valid is highly problematic and cuts right to the heart of the debate: can those who consider themselves Muslim be given the freedom to apply those portons of Islam they consider pertinent, whilst rejecting others? Probably not according to your understanding of 'religiously'...
The contemporary quandary over the conflict between national and religious affiliation can be viewed through the medium of this contract. Until about half a century ago, the inhabitants of the British Isles had experienced minimal immigration flows over the course of history.
Each successive group of immigrants had influenced the indigenous population to a certain extent. Yet, it was not until the arrival of significant numbers of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs from the sub-continent, that social cohesion and the democratic rights of the majority began to be usurped by alien cultural practices of a small minority with the complicity of the political and legal establishment.
Given that a significant minority of the cultural and relgious practices of those who arrived from the subcontinent and their descendants are considered contrary and antithetical to the established traditions of the overwhelming ethnic, linguistic and cultural majority, wouldn't some form of accommodation be the most amicable solution for the establishment of just, tolerant and equitable society?
It has not passed unnoticed amongst the indigenous population that many of the most recalcitrant, vociferous and obstreperous individuals and organisations demonstrating their non-conformity, diapproval and inconsideration of society's cultural norms, standards and laws are from the Islamic community and originate or have family who originally resided in so-called Islamic countries.
Could those whose ancestors have inhabited the British Islaes for millenia be forgiven for feeling slightly more than disenchanted with the UK's intemperate Muslim population? And, given the 'relgious', to use your term, opposition to even the most mild form of compromise in the interests of social cohesion, could non-Muslim citizens be forgiven for desiring the 'resettlement' of those who persist in opposing all attempts to reframe some of the most anachronistic components of Islamic faith?
Hmm, seems some people have problems with reading english here, the article by the lady from the MCB makes it quite clear that the MCB are NOT endorsing the "Muslim Marriage Contract" but want to start working on drafting a shariah compliant contract which actually reflects traditional scholarship.
Ibrahim, you seem to be a trouble maker who wishes to defame the MCB. The comment from Dr Reefat is clearly not re-endorsing, your real name isn't Ed 'no more hijab, free-mixing, promote homosexuality'Hussain by any chance is it. Anyway let me asure you brother, the MCB has today has broad and astute representation of young and old activists who are not easily subdued or rattled. With Allah's grace many of them have firm grounding in the essentials of this noble Deen whilst understanding their contemporary context, so button your lip.
Ahh, Badr ud-Deen al-Huthi. We meet again.
I rather appreciate your approach, since it no doubt leads to some being reactionary, and hence intrinsically allow you to set the agenda. You also have a penchant for expressing the rhetorical in order to express an opinion.
If my fellow commentators would please oblige, I'd like our "Imam" friend to first respond to his own questions before we choose to reply.
Do YOU think Muslims can ignore parts of Islam? Take some, leave some? Do you think Muslims ought to adjust the religious/political practices in order to accommodate the "majority British population"? Surely you would accept that Muslim citizens of Britain are as entitled to determine British societal, cultural and political values? You don't honestly expect "conformity and approval" from British Citizens at risk of "resettlement"?
Does historic British ancestry confer a right over British-born Muslim Citizens to set the standards of social conduct? Surely even you would accept that we ought to be considering the strength of an idea rather than simply counting the number of adherents? If Muslims decide to use the existing British civil freedoms to express their opinion, would you object?
Ed Husain claims to have wanted to help his "friend". He also takes a fancy to using the existing British Legal system to solve his problems and derides those who would refer to Islamic alternatives.
Why not inform the police? He knew his "friend" was being threatened, attacked and raped. That doesn't sound very friendly. Something so clearly against the British law that he knows and loves; something that would have left a paper trail for us all to check; something that would show his true colours... except he seems to have done precisely that: His recourse was to publish her story and to deride Muslims for lacking "balls".
To the extent that this type of un-Islamic action is taking place, I would sincerely love to see it stopped. I am just not naive enough to believe that someone would start being "nice" because of a contract.
Ismaeel - which part of "The marriage contract produced by the Muslim Insititute is simply one interpretation of shariah" are you struggling with? Plus, the MCB had already endorsed the Muslim Marriage Contract (MMC) as per my point # 2 above. So they want to produce one identical to the MMC which they can claim as their own. Fine. If they instead wish to concede to hardline clerics, then they will be rejected by Muslim women and human rights groups.
Brothers Assalamu'Alaikum,
I would request brothers to seriously consider taking this document and presenting it to these sell-outs at the JIMAS conference. Yes you heard me correctly, Ed 'no more hijab free-mixing promote homosexuality' Hussain and Majid 'no more soverignty of Allah' Nawaz are boldly walking the campus...they are invited guests at the conference. I received 4 calls from different brothers who were in shock and completely aghast. If anyone has time I would recommend that they travel to Leicester University this weekend and firmly but with civility present this and all their excesses and insults to them in front of the community they continually denounce and unjustly berate. They are being naturalised brothers and we as a community should not allow this. I am a clean-shaven British Muslim who is trying his best to implement our way of life and even I can see that these people are sponsored architects, of fitna, dicord and dissension amongst us. And Allah(swt) knows best.
Ibrahim,there are many thousands of interpretations of shariah but muslims, non-muslims, mad people, does that make them all valid. No and what is clear from the article is that the MCB doesn't regard this contract as being in line with traditional scholarship. Secondly they have also made it clear that the contract proper is what was endorsed not the bizarre guidance notes which they did not see prior to its launch.
There are still problems with the contract proper but it is nowhere near as bad as the version envisioned in the guidance notes.
I think its important that we see ourselves as answerable to Allah azza wa jal not to Muslims whether they be men, women and certainly not to "human rights" activists who in many case hate our din.
"I think its important that we see ourselves as answerable to Allah azza wa jal not to Muslims whether they be men, women and certainly not to "human rights" activists who in many case hate our din."
However, unless the versions of muslim marriage law put forward conform to European standards of human rights they will have no legal validity whatsoever in the UK so there's no point discussing them.
Of course these Muslim marriage contracts have no validity. Men and women do not have equal rights in Islam, and it is misleading to pretend that they do.
Under English law, however, they do have equal rights, and English law prevails.