Stoning to Death Call in Kashmir of 2019: child rape fuels call for Shariah law

The Telegraph

Kashmir child rape fuels call for Shariah law

A partial shutdown was observed across Kashmir against the crime
By Muzaffar Raina in Srinagar

Published 14.05.19, 7:51 AM


Kashmiri women participate in a protest against the alleged rape of a 3 year old girl from north Kashmir at Mirgund, outskirts of Srinagar on Monday, May 13, 2019. (AP)

The rape of a three-year-old girl in Kashmir last week triggered violent protests in the Valley on Monday and prompted a rare call for the imposition of Shariah law so that the perpetrator could be stoned to death.

Sectarian tensions have gripped the Valley since the May 8 rape of the Shia girl in Sumbal, Bandipora. A school principal’s discredited certificate showing the accused as a minor, apparently to shield him, has worsened matters.

Police sources said a preliminary medical examination of the accused, Tahir Ahmad Mir, had revealed that he was not a minor and could be around 20. But the principal had stated his date of birth as July 23, 2009, making him just nine years old.

North Kashmir deputy inspector-general of police Suleman Choudhary said Mir had been arrested and charged with rape. But he added that the police were still awaiting the medical report.

“We have material evidence of rape and are collecting other evidence too, but the medical report is yet to come,” he told The Telegraph.

Choudhary said the school principal had been detained for questioning to ascertain the circumstances under which he had issued the certificate. The government has formed a special investigation team for a fast-track probe.

Former chief minister Mehbooba Mufti was among those who called for stoning the culprit to death.

“What kind of a sick pervert would do this? Society often blames women for inviting unwanted attention but what was this child’s fault? Times like these, Shariah law seems apt so that such paedophiles are stoned to death,” she tweeted.

Mufti Nasir-ul Islam, chairman of the Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Personal Law Board and the Valley’s Mufti Azam, echoed Mehbooba’s call to say there was a need to enforce Shariah law in such cases.

A partial shutdown was observed across Kashmir against the crime. Sectarian clashes broke out at several places, with the protesters seeking action against the accused as well as the principal.

At some places, Shia protesters waved the flags of the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah.

A police spokesperson said clashes at multiple spots on the Srinagar-Baramulla national highway had caused injuries to 47 security personnel, including a Sashastra Seema Bal assistant commandant who was hit by a stone in the head.

“However, the police maintained restraint. Seven miscreants too got injured but all are stable,” he said.

People’s Conference leader Sajjad Lone claimed the police had fired pellets but the force denied the charge, saying it had used only tear gas.

“Use of pellets against protesters protesting the rape of a 3 year old girl goes against all norms,’’ Lone tweeted.

Divisional commissioner Baseer Ahmad Khan released a video appealing for calm. “I am personally monitoring the inquiry and it will be concluded very soon…. Justice will be done and the culprit will be given severe punishment,” he said.

India: Hindu Mahasabha sets up first Hindu court on the lines of Shariat court

The Times of India

This I-Day, Hindu Mahasabha sets up first Hindu court on the lines of Shariat court
TNN | Aug 15, 2018, 04.33 PM IST

This I-Day, Hindu Mahasabha sets up first Hindu court on the lines of Shariat court
MEERUT: In a first of its kind move, the members of Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha set up the first Hindu court – on the lines of Shariat court, as the country celebrated Independence Day on Wednesday. Set up with an aim to make decisions on Hindu affairs, and have an equivalent court-like system in place just like Darul Qaza (Shariat courts) – which resolves issues in line with Islamic Laws, the first Hindu Court also got its first judge in a ceremony that was held here at the party’s office on Meerut’s Sharda road.

“We had challenged the establishment of Shariat Courts a few days ago and asked that they should not exist at all because there should be one constitution for all. We had even asked the government in a letter that we sent demanding this, that if our demands are not met, we will set up a similar court for Hindus. Since no action was taken in our favour, we set up the first Hindu court here on Wednesday,” said Pandit Ashok Sharma, national vice president, Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha. Sharma is also the head of the five-member sangrakshak mandalof the Hindu court.

Pooja Shakun Pandey, national secretary, Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha, who has been appointed as the first judge of the Hindu Court, said, “We will deal with matters related to Hindus only and the issues will range from harassment of Hindu women, Hindu marriages, disputes of property or money, and many others. When the BJP came to power in the centre and the state, we had high hopes from them but since they have started playing divide and rule among Hindus on the basis of caste, Hindu court is a way to bring them together. We will have proper jails and our maximum punishment will be death.” Pandey, it should be noted, was a professor until five years ago and has masters in Maths, Computer Science, and also is an M.Phil in Mathematics and Ph.D in Mathematics.

The party members plan to declare the bylaws of their court on October 2 and appoint a total of five judges in different parts of the country on November 15, so that “Hindus can get justice at five different places,” said Shrma.

Abhishek Agarwal, district president, Hindu Mahasabha, said, “The civil courts already have lakhs of pending cases and it gets difficult to get justice for a person who is poor. So by means of the Hindu court, people will be able to get quick and affordable justice.”

Alternative legal redress systems are welcome but remember as experience in UK has shown sharia councils are the preserves of clerics who are intolerant of women’s equality

Courts of injustice
Alternative legal redress systems are needed and welcome. But, as debate in the UK has shown, sharia councils are the preserves of clerics who are intolerant of women’s equality and rights.
Written by Javed Anand

https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/courts-of-injustice-sharia-law-triple-talaq-5282103/

Now CPM get into sharia compliant Islamic banking in Kerala (Asianet Newsable)

In a first, CPM launches Islamic bank in Kerala

By Team Asianet Newsable | 12:33 PM July 09, 2017

Quick Summary

• This is CPM's first sharia-compliant banking institution in Kerala
• The cooperative bank is named Halal Fayida Coop Society
• The bank will start functioning on July 11 and will be located in Kannur

Kerala CPM is all set to launch its first Sharia-compliant banking institution. The cooperative bank named 'Halal Fayida Coop Society' will be located at Kannur.
Minister for Local Administration K T Jaleel will inaugurate the first fund collection event on July 11.
CPM had made the announcement at a seminar conducted by Minority Cultural Coordination Committee of the party on May 25. The move aims to lure Muslim minority into the party.
Like any other Islamic institution, the society will not pay interest on deposits or charge interest on loans. It will also follow ethical financing practices and refrain from lending money for industries like gambling, pornography and liquor, which are considered harmful in Islam.
The party wants the society to function under cooperative banking laws as the state government will have the power to take decisions.

source: Asianet Newsable

India: Madras high court bans sharia courts operating in Tamil Nadu

Madras high court bans unauthorised Sharia courts in Tamil Nadu

Dec 19, 2016 18:19 IST

Aditya Iyer
Hindustan Times, Chennai

 

The Madras high court on Monday banned all unauthorised Sharia courts in mosques across Tamil Nadu, saying centres of worship were only to be used for religious purposes.
The first bench of the court, comprising chief justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and justice M Sundar, directed the state government to ensure that unofficial courts were banned. It was asked to file a report in this regard within four weeks.

The court’s direction came in response to a PIL filed by a non-resident Indian, Abdul Rahman, who alleged that the Makka Masjid Shariat Council was operating as a court of law from a mosque on Chennai’s Anna Salai. He said the council dealt largely with matrimonial disputes, even going to the extent of passing divorce orders. [. . .]

FULL TEXT AT: http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/madras-hc-bans-unauthorised-sharia-courts-in-tamil-nadu/story-LAYh4RyesKrK5fZLvSuokK.html
 

 

The Sharia debate in the UK: who will listen to our voices? (Pragna Patel)

opendemocracy.net

The Sharia debate in the UK: who will listen to our voices?
Pragna Patel 14 December 2016

Over 300 abused women have signed a statement opposing Sharia courts and religious bodies, warning of the growing threat to their rights and to their collective struggles for security and independence.

We are women who have experienced abuse and violence in our personal lives. Most of us come from Muslim backgrounds, but some of us come from other minority faiths.

We are compelled to voice our alarm about the growing power of religious bodies such as Sharia Councils and their bid for control over our lives. We oppose any religious body - whether presided over by men or women - that seeks to rule over us: because they do not have any authority to speak or make decisions on our behalf and because they are not committed to women’s rights and social justice. Whether we are women of Muslim, Hindu, Sikh or Christian faiths or of no faith, we have much in common with each other in the face of cruelty, tyranny and discrimination in our families, in our communities, and in the wider society. Many of us are deeply religious, but for us religion is in our hearts: a private matter between us and our God. Religion is not – and must not be – something that can be used to deny us our freedom or the little pieces of happiness that we find by mixing and borrowing from many different traditions and cultures which give meaning to our otherwise difficult existence.

We know from personal experiences that many religious bodies such as Sharia Councils are presided over by hard line or fundamentalist clerics who are intolerant of the very idea that women should be in control of their own bodies and minds. These clerics claim to be acting according to the word of God: but they are often corrupt, primarily interested in making money and abuse their positions of power by shaming and slandering those of us who reject those aspects of our religions and cultures that we find oppressive. We pay a huge price for not submitting to domestic violence, rape, polygamy and child abuse and other kinds of harm. For this reason alone, we are fearful of religious laws and rulings from such bodies. Our experience in our countries of origin and in our communities tells us that they are deeply discriminatory and divisive. They will weaken our collective struggles for security and independence.

We struggle to fit into this country and to educate our children, especially our daughters, and to protect them and give them a better life. We struggle to have our experiences of violence and abuse addressed properly in accordance with the principles of equality and justice for all. We do not wish to be judged by reference to fundamentalist codes that go against our core values of compassion, tolerance and humanity. We do not want to go backwards or to be delivered back into the hands of our abusers and those who shield them.

Many of us have not made public comments on this issue, because we are afraid of the consequences of doing so openly. All of us have faced abuse and we are desperately trying to rebuild our lives in the face of constant and continuing threats and trauma. Some of us have used only our first names to support this statement, but we feel strongly enough about this matter to do so.

We do not want Sharia Councils or other religious bodies to rule our lives. We demand the right to be valued as human beings and as equals before one law for all. We demand the right to follow our own desires and aspirations.

Signed by the following:

Bekhal Mahmod, Sister of victim of honour killing and survivor of honour killing. User of Southall Black Services (SBS) services

Afsana Lachaux, Survivor of domestic violence and Sharia Court abuses. User of SBS Services

Kiranjit Ahluwalia,Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Ravinder Kaur, Sister of victim of honour killing. User of SBS services

Swinder Singh, Sister of victim of honour killing. User of SBS services

Geeta Nazmi, Sister of victim of honour killing. User of SBS services

"Nina Ather", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"H. Ahmed", Survivor of domestic violence and honour based violence. User of SBS Services

Yasmin Hussein, Survivor of forced marriage. User of SBS Services

Sabah, Survivor of domestic violence and abandonment. User of SBS Services

Yasmin Aijaz, Survivor of domestic violence and honour based violence. User of SBS Services

Ayesha, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Tayiba Shah, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Madiha Shah, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Namra Khan, Survivor of domestic violence and honour based violence. User of SBS Services

Fateha Ali, Survivor of domestic violence and Sharia Court abuses.User of SBS Services

Nimo Abdulahi, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Syeda Akbar, Survivor of domestic violence, honour based violence, Sharia Court abuses and victim of a fatwa issued by an Imam. User of SBS Services

Salina Akter Ali Bebum, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Shabana Chaudhary, Survivor of domestic violence and sexual grooming. User of SBS Services

"Tracy", Survivor of domestic violence and Sharia Court abuses. User of SBS Services

Hiba Akhtar, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Sadia Khan, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Joelle Pott, Survivor of domestic and sexual violence. User of SBS Services

Munir Ibrahim, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Rubia", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Rubina", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Farah Wyne, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Ayesha Asghar, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Jane Doe", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Shamsi Bokharisaz Hagiahghei, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Nabila", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Sara H", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Hiba N", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Soraya Arian, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Faith Pink, Survivor of domestic violence, forced marriage and honour based violence. User of SBS Services

"Aneesa K", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Anaya Jamal, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Yousra Abdulla, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Fatima Rafeek, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Asgari Ebrahim, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Madihah Ebraim, Witness to domestic violence. User at SBS Services

Amirah Ebrahim, Witness to domestic violence. User at SBS Services

"Leila H.", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"M. H.", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"D.H", Witness to domestic violence. User at SBS Services

"Nadia Khan", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Refat Begum, Survivor of domestic violence and Sharia Court abuses. User of SBS Services

Iram Shah Nawaz, Survivor of domestic violence and forced marriage. User of SBS Services

"Shamim Akhtar", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"N. Karim", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Nosheen Anwar, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Ayesha Rahman, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Amber", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Munira Quraish, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Malaika M", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Suhilla Ahmed, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Rabia G", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"N.J", Witness to domestic violence. User at SBS Services

Amina Fajal, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Anjumben Virani, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Amal Jamac, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Sara Malik", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Falak Khan", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Shahida Iqbal, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Kulsoom Riaz, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Rekha Kumar", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Gihan Dessouky, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Zaynub Hasina", Witness to domestic violence. User at SBS Services

"Saima", Survivor of domestic violence and abandonment

"Neelam", Survivor of domestic violence and abandonment

"Rukhshana", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Mehnaz Ali, Survivor of domestic and sexual violence and Sharia Court abuses. User of SBS Services

"Mubeen S.", Survivor of domestic violence, forced marriage and abandonment. User of SBS Services

Suraya Ahmed, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Jannat", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Zartasha Azeem, Survivor of domestic volence. User of SBS Services

Ayesha, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Hena Zaman, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Saida, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Nadia F, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Syeda Neshat Jahan, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Shazia", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Maida Mansoor, Survivor of domestic and sexual violence. User of SBS services.

"Ameena Mohammed", survivor of domestic violence and forced marriage. User of SBS Services

"Muneera Shaam", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Shahrukh Hussain, Witness to domestic violence and sexual, emotional and financial abuse

Salma Emara Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Laboni Khondokar", Survivor of domestic violence and Sharia Court abuses. User of Nari Diganta services

"Shirin Islam", Survivor of domestic violence and Sharia Court abuses. User of Nari Diganta Services

"Sanjida Ahmed", Survivor of domestic violence. User of Nari Diganta Services

"Nazmoon Nahar", Survivor of honour based violence. User of Nari Diganta Services

Kully Malhi, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Alice Vahdat, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Halina Marasinghe, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Ms D", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Helena Kamra, Witness to domestic violence. User at SBS Services

Maria Laurenco, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Ms Lola", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Patricia Waterkemper, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Tina Tanna, Witness to domestic violence.

Mamta Anand, Witness to domestic violence.

Dorothy Udealor, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Annabella Ferreira, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Genevieve Lobo, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Alicia John, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Keisha Douglas, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Helen T", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Lauren Robeson, Survivor of domestic and sexual violence. User of SBS Services

Elena Villarreal, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Jollie Joyce", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Ronell Jacobs, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Elsie Blake, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Shemika Joseph, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Delrosa Williams, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Marlene Folson, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Mithula Mariyathas, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Tina Hos", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Nikova Webb, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Jasmine", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Grace Wilson, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Jennifer, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Aisha Habib, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Rebecca N, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Violet Antuan, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Agnes, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Razia, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Niru Prajapati, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Sonia Devshi, Witness to domestic violence.

Avni Maisuria, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Renu Khosla, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Jasmin Dhirajlal, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Vaibhavi Szyszka, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Kohilarani Kulalayagam, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Amritpal Kaur, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Shveta M.", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Vibha, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Nabila Mujassam, Maan Witness to domestic violence, honour based violence and Sharia Court abuses. User of SBS Services

Sehur Chowdhary, Witness to domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Rehana Zaman, Witness to domestic violence

Mayuraben R Patel, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Anjali Makwana, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Rekha Manani, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Jalpaben Pandya, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Ganga Karki, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Sunny Chhetri, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Zaynub McMurran, Witness to domestic violence. User at SBS Services

"P. Josh", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Alpa Patel, Survivor of domestic violence and forced marriage. User of SBS Services

Teena Gupta, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Rani V. Papi", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Ruja Thapa ,Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Kirti,Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Jo", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Sonam Madhaan, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

S. Devi, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Christine", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"R.K", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"R.S", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Seema Banga, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Saima", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Nisha F", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Resham", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Madhu, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Shantini Chettiar, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Balbir Kaur Hans, Witness to domestic violence. User at SBS Services

Rupinder Kaur, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Gurdeep Jaggi, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Rupseshwar Kaur, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Manjeet Kaur, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Savita Parmar, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Maninder Kaur, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Jane", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Deepika", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"April Kaur", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Kiranpreet Kaur, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"May Kaur", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Jagkit Kaur", Survivor of domestic violence, harassment and stalking. User of SBS Services

Sudharshan Daffu, Survivor of domestic violence and criminal damages. User of SBS Services

Navjot Kaur, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Harpreet Kaur, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Kanwaljeet Kaur", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Sonia Singh", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Navdeep Rana, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"M.B", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Navjot Kaur, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Anita Anita, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Noori Kaur", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Suman Sund, Survivor of domestic violence. Ex-user of SBS Services

"Baljit Kaur", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Baljeet Kaur, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Parveen Aujal, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Sukhwinder Kaur, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Kiranjit Talwar, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Darshan Kaur", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Rose", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Harjeet Dhillon", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Rajwinder Kaur, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Sawinder Das, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Raminder Kaur, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Kamalpreet Kaur, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Manpreet Kaur, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Jasmin Kaur, Witness to domestic violence. User at SBS Services

Tavnish Bajwa, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Aman", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Rupinder Kaur, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Jaswinder Kaur Kansall, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Sabrina, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Ruby Ali, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Hind Elhinnawy, Survivor of domestic violence and financial abuse. User of SBS Services

"Nasima Chowdhury", Survivor of domestic violence and honour based violence. User of Nari Diganta services

“Razia Begum”, Survivor of domestic violence, polygamy and Sharia Court abuses. User of Nari Diganta services

"Rhea Ali", Survivor of Polygamy and Sharia Court abuses. User of One Law for All Services

"Mrs Jabeen", Survivor of polygamy and Sharia Court abuses. User of One Law for All Services

"Mrs Farhat Khan", Survivor of polygamy and domestic violence. User of One Law for All Services

"Ms Nadia Sadiq", Survivor of Sharia Court abuses. User of One Law for All Services

"Mrs Soffina Rind", Survivor of Sharia Court abuses. User of One Law for All Services

"Mrs Sajida Choudhury”, Survivor of ‘triple talaq’ (unilateral divorce) and Sharia Court abuses. User of One Law for All Services

"Habiba Jaan", Witness to polygamous marriage and survivor of domestic violence. User of One Law for All Services

Mrs Shabnam Khan, Witness to domestic violence and polygamy. User of One Law for All Services

Mrs T Khan, Witness to polygamy. User of One Law for All Services

Mrs Samina Javed, Survivor of domestic violence and polygamy. User of One Law for All Services

Mrs Kanwal Hussain, Witness to polygamy. User of One Law for All Services

Mrs Parveen Khan, Witness to polygamy and ‘triple talaq’. User of One Law for All Services

Miss Komal Iqbal, Witness to polygamy and ‘triple talaq’. User of One Law for All Services

Miss Tanya Mahmood, Witness to polygamy and ‘triple talaq’. User of One Law for All Services

Miss Alisha Iqbal, Witness to polygamy. User of One Law for All Services

Mrs Mehvish, Witness of polygamy. User of One Law for All Services

Four Choudary sisters, Witness to polygamy, ‘triple talaq’ and Sharia Court abuses. Users of One Law for All Services

Mrs Saeeda Choudary, Survivor of polygamy. User of One Law for All Services

Mrs Zohra Haq, Witness to polygamy. User of One Law for All Services

Tabassum Begum, Witness to polygamy and Islamic divorce in Sharia Courts. User of One Law for All Services

Bajis Neighbour, Witness to ‘triple talaq’ and polygamy. User of One Law for All Services

Mrs Kiran Dhanjal, Witness to polygamy. User of One Law for All Services

Nighat Hussain, Witness to polygamy and ‘triple talaq’ and domestic violence. User of One Law for All Services

Mrs Selina Khan, Witness to polygamy and ‘triple talaq’. User of One Law for All Services

Einas Bassim, Survivor of domestic violence. User of Safety4Sisters services

"Shazia T", Asylum seeker and survivor of domestic violence. User of Safety4Sisters services

"Naz", Asylum seeker and survivor of domestic violence and. User of Safety4Sisters services

"Amina", Survivor of domestic violence. Volunteer at Safety4Sisters

"Dorcas", Survivor of domestic violence. User of Safety4Sisters services

"Diane Pokua", Survivor of domestic violence. User of Safety4Sisters services

"Sadia K", Survivor of domestic violence and asylum seeker. User of Women Asylum Seekers Together (WAST) services.

"Fahret Khan", Founder of WAST, survivor of domestic violence.

"Rutendo", Survivor of domestic violence. User of WAST Safety4Sisters services

"Roze Lea", Survivor of domestic violence. User of WAST services

Maimuna Ibrahim, Survivor of domestic violence. User of WAST services

"Malvina B", Survivor of domestic violence. User of Safety4Sisters services

"Angela", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Yegana Mammadova, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Neha Naghar, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Kamaldeep Dhesi, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Beverley Hoskins", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Julie Zhang, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Deepa", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Shahana Shanu, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Casherral Beltran, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Gabriella Aman", Survivor of domestic violence and trafficking. User of SBS Services

Nurjahan Ali, Survivor of forced marriage. User of SBS Services

"A.M", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Vanessa Tigenoah, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

"Archie", Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Rosana Ikeji, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Susan M., Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Shaban Afzal, Witness to polygamy and ‘triple talaq’. User of One Law for All Services

Shazia Hobbs, Survivor of polygamy. User of One Law for All Services

Maryam, Survivor of domestic violence and abandonment. User of SBS services

"Merita S", Survivor of domestic violence. User of WAST services

Syeda Jahan, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS services

"Sarah", Survivor of forced marriage, domestic violence and financial abuse. User of SBS services

Blessing, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Mamie Malundama, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Theresa Osei, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Ravendro Lall, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Fatima Akbar, Witness to domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Evelyn Yaghoubi, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

“Samina”, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

“Ash”, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Nergiz Bekam, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Ashima Arora, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Parmjit Soor, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Anam Azam, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

“Simi”, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

“Mahnoor”, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Hema Joshi, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Inderjit Kaur, Witness to domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Rajwant Virdee, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

“Anna”, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Maliha, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

“Sarah”, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

“Laila”, Survivor of forced marriage and domestic violence. User of SBS Services

“Georgina T”, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Selamawit Tadesse, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Nazia Shabbir, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Stella Appana, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Farnaz Moghanchi, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Ranjeet, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Shama Haram, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Gurvinder Kaur, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Tahia, Survivor of domestic violence. User of SBS Services

Supported by:

Mr Imran Khan, Witness to polygamy. User of One Law for All services.

Mr K Khan, Witness to Sharia Court abuses. User of One Law for All services.

Mr Zaid Hussain, Witness to polygamy. User of One Law for All services.

Mr R Tahir, Survivor of polygamous family and witness to Sharia Court abuses. User of One Law for All services.

Mr Hader Mahmood, Father of three daughters who wishes to protect them from polygamy and ‘triple talaq’. User of One Law for All services.

Mr Dawood Azhar, Against practice of polygamy and ‘triple talaq’. User of One Law for All services.

Mr G. Choudary, Father of 4 daughters who wishes to protect them from practice of polygamy and ‘triple talaq’ and witness to Sharia Court abuses. User of One Law for All services.

Dr Shaaz Hussian, Father of daughters - against practice of polygamy and ‘triple talaq’. User of One Law for All services.

Dr Amer Mukhtar, Father of daughter - against practice of polygamy and ‘triple talaq’. User of One Law for All services.

India: Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against ‘kangaroo courts’ in mosques

The Hindu - CHENNAI, September 22, 2016

PIL against ‘kangaroo courts’ in mosques

• Sureshkumar

inShare

Hundreds of marriages are dissolved deceptively and property issues settled as per the whims and fancies of religious leaders with the help of lawyers in a court like set-up inside mosques, alleges a 29-year-old man who was allegedly duped by one such court.

According to Abdur Rahman, who has approached the Madras High Court seeking action against such kangaroo courts, people heading them neither followed shariat nor regular law.

Admitting the Public Interest Litigation petition, the First Bench of Chief Justice S.K. Kaul and Justice R. Mahadevan ordered notices to the State government, the DGP, and the Commissioner of Police, Chennai.

The petitioner, who holds an MBA degree from the U.K., submitted that the petition has been moved to safeguard the interests of a large number of Muslims who were silently suffering because of the functioning of the Makka Masjid Shariat Council and similar other forums. “By its name and by various publicity methods, the council has created an impression that it had been functioning in accordance with shariat laws and all its orders were religiously and legally binding upon them,” Mr. Rahaman said. Claiming that the council had a similar set-up, he added, “The council has an elevated dais for the presiding officer just as in courts and the presiding officer wears robes like judges, but in different colour.”

Religious injunction

It would even send summons on complaints received from Muslims facing family disputes. Under the name of religious injunction, the parties are forced to appear before it, he added.

In fact, the petitioner himself once approached such a council believing that it was an authentic forum with a plea to be reunited with his wife. But the council forced him to sign a letter stating that he was willing for a divorce, he alleged.

Pointing out that the government authorities were not initiating appropriate action on a representation made by him in this regard, the petitioner approached the High Court for action.

Alleges that forums like Makka Masjid Shariat Council are functioning like regular courts

×

Source URL: http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/article9133891.ece

UK: Campaigners Urge Government to Fully and Impartially Investigate Sharia bodies - Press release from secular feminists in Britain

4 July 2016

Today, an unprecedented number of women's rights campaigners and organisations from Britain and internationally have submitted a letter to the Home Secretary raising serious concerns about the government's 'independent review' into Sharia courts in Britain. The letter states that the limited scope of inquiry and its inappropriate theological approach will do nothing to address the discriminatory effect and intent of the courts on private and family matters: areas where, arguably, the greatest human rights violations of minority women in the UK take place.

Rather than taking a human rights approach, the government has constituted a panel and terms of reference more suited to a discussion in theology than one which serves the needs of victims whose human rights are violated.  By making these religious appointments, the government has lost a vital opportunity to examine the discriminatory nature of not only Sharia bodies but all forms of religious arbitration fora including the Batei Din.

The panel chair, Mona Siddiqui, for example, is herself a theologian. One of the scholars, Sayed Ali Abbas Razawi, is the joint secretary for Majlis Ulama-e-Shia, which sends delegations to the Islamic Republic of Iran. In his sermons, he has supported the death penalty in Islamic states, advised Muslims to go into government “and change the system” and says women dressed in "tight clothing" are "corrupted". Another scholar, Qari Muhammad Asim, speaks of "men retain[ing] their wives in marriage" and sees women in relation to their male guardian: "Each women is someone’s mother, daughter, sister or wife". He also trivialises violence against women by saying "women as well as men can be victims of domestic abuse".

Both scholars advising the panel are on Imams Online. Khola Hasan, a judge at the Islamic Sharia Council, is a contributing editor to Imam Online. Clearly, Imams and Islamic scholars cannot investigate themselves.

"Women and Sharia Law: The Impact of Legal Pluralism in the UK" by Elham Manea published in May 2016 documents the harmful and even life threatening consequences for vulnerable minority women in matters pertaining to the family.  Testimonials gathered by campaigners highlight some of the emotional, mental and physical effects of the courts on women and children.

The women’s rights campaigners are calling on the Home Secretary to establish a thorough and impartial judge-led human rights investigation, which will fully examine arbitration in family matters and whether violations of human rights are condoned or even promoted by Sharia bodies. Some examples are: women's testimony being worth half that of a man's, marital rape, sexual violence and domestic abuse, the age of consent, guardianship, forced marriage, honour based violence, ritual abuse, child custody and child protection, polygamy, divorce, sexuality, inheritance, inter-religious relationships, female dress codes and abortion. Broader issues such as the treatment of religious minorities including minority sects in Islam and decisions pertaining to apostasy and blasphemy must also be examined to understand the full range of threats faced by people affected by religious laws, and indeed, by the State promoting these laws.

The law and not religion is the key basis for securing justice for all citizens. Campaigners urge the government to do the right thing and ensure that the same principles of human rights, equality before the law, duty of care, due diligence and the rule of law are applicable to all British citizens.

NOTES:

1. On Sharia Council and Muslim Arbitration Tribunals: Frequently Asked Questions and Answers.

2. Video footage of a 30 April conference on Sharia Law, Legal Pluralism and Access to Justice with author Elham Manea and other women's rights campaigners.

3. Crowdfunding campaign to get a copy of Elham Manea's book: “Women And Sharia Law: The Impact of Legal Pluralism In The UK” into the hands of every Minister, MP and Peer.

4. For more information, please contact:

Pragna Patel
Southall Black Sisters
pragna@southallblacksisters.co.uk
020 8571 9595
@SBSisters

Gita Sahgal
Centre for Secular Space
gita@centreforsecularspace.org
079 7271 5090
@GitaSahgal

Gina Khan and Maryam Namazie
One Law for All
onelawforall@gmail.com
077 1916 6731
@GinaKhanUK
@MaryamNamazie

India: Supreme Court ruling of 7 July 2014 said Sharia courts are NOT legal

Excerpt from the ruling: "In any event, the decision or the Fatwa issued by whatever body being not emanating from any judicial system recognised by law, it is not binding on anyone including the person, who had asked for it. Further, such an adjudication or Fatwa does not have a force of law and, therefore, cannot be enforced by any process using coercive method. Any person trying to enforce that by any method shall be illegal and has to be dealt with in accordance with law."

Text of Court ruling is available here:
http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=41747

see related news report

Daily Mail / Mail Today

Supreme Court says Sharia courts are NOT legal

By Harish V Nair 00:43 08 Jul 2014, updated 00:43 08 Jul 2014

In a landmark judgment pertaining to India's more than 160 million Muslims, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that Sharia courts run by clerics have no legal sanctity and that their fatwas are not binding on anyone

The top court said Islamic judges, who interpret religious law, can only rule when individuals submit voluntarily to them and their decisions, or fatwas, are not legally enforceable.

A bench of Justices C.K. Prasad and Pinaki Chandra Ghose restrained forums like Dar-ul Qaza, Dar-ul-Iftaa and Dar-ul-Uloom Deoband from giving verdicts or issuing fatwas against a person who is not before it on the basis of complaints by "strangers".

+3

Key excerpts from the judgment

Rights

"No Dar-ul-Qazas or for that matter, anybody or institution by any name, shall give verdict or issue fatwa touching upon the rights, status and obligation of an individual unless such an individual has asked for it. No religion including Islam punishes the innocent," the bench said in its 20-page judgment.

"Religion cannot be allowed to be merciless to the victim. Faith cannot be used as dehumanising force. Fatwas touching upon the rights of an individual at the instance of rank strangers may cause irreparable damage and therefore, would be absolutely uncalled for. It shall be in violation of basic human rights. It cannot be used to punish innocent."

The Supreme Court's ruling came in response to a petition filed in 2005 by Delhi-based advocate Vishwa Lochan Madan, who challenged parallel courts run by institutions like Darul Qaza, Darul-Iftaa and Dar-ul-Uloom Deoband that issued fatwas.

He cited the case of a woman named Imrana who was asked by Dar-Ul-Uloom Deoband to leave her husband and children and live with her father-in-law after he had raped her.

Fatwas

The court, however, refused to declare fatwas as illegal, saying they were part of an informal justice delivery system for providing amicable settlements between parties, and it is for the persons concerned to accept, ignore or reject it.

It said there is nothing wrong in issuing fatwas so long as they do not infringe on rights of individuals guaranteed under the law.

"We observe that no Dar-ul-Qazas or for that matter, anybody or institution by any name, shall give verdict or issue fatwa touching upon the rights, status and obligation of an individual unless such an individual has asked for it," the bench said.

"In any event, the decision or the fatwa issued by whatever body being not emanating from any judicial system recognised by law, it is not binding on anyone including the person who had asked for it. Further, such an adjudication or fatwa does not have a force of law and, therefore, cannot be enforced by any process using coercive method. Any person trying to enforce that by any method shall be illegal and has to be dealt with in accordance with law," the apex court said.

The apex court said it is the fundamentals of any legal judicial system that power to adjudicate must flow from a validly made law, and a fatwa has no place in independent India under the constitutional scheme.

"In our opinion, the decisions of Dar-ul-Qaza or the fatwa do not satisfy any of these requirements. Dar-ul-Qaza is neither created nor sanctioned by any law made by the competent legislature. Therefore, the opinion or the fatwa issued by Dar-ul-Qaza or for that matter anybody is not adjudication of dispute by an authority under a judicial system sanctioned by law.

Powers

"A Qazi or Mufti has no authority or powers to impose his opinion and enforce his fatwa on any one by any coercive method. In fact, whatever may be the status of fatwa during Mughal or British Rule, it has no place in independent India under our constitutional scheme," the bench said.

+3

Key excerpts from the judgment

Challenging the validity of Sharia courts

By Mail Today in New Delhi

The Supreme Court ruling came on a petition filed in 2005 by Delhi-based advocate Vishwa Lochan Madan challenging the validity of the "parallel courts" run by institutions such as the Dar-ul Qaza, Darul- Iftaa and Dar-ul-Uloom Deoband, which issue fatwas.

He cited the case of a woman Imrana who was asked by Dar-ul-Uloom, Deoband, to leave her husband and children and live with her father-in-law who had raped her.

Madan argued that Sharia courts illegally interfere with the religious and social freedom of Muslim citizens and that fundamental right of Muslims cannot be controlled and curtailed by fatwas issued by qazis and muftis appointed by Muslim organisations.

Madan argued that fatwas have the support of All India Muslim Personal Law Board and it is striving for the establishment of parallel Muslim judicial system in India.

According to the Madan, adjudication of disputes is essentially the function of a sovereign State, which can never be abdicated or parted with.

Muslims divided in their reactions

By Mail Today Bureau

The Supreme Court's ruling that Sharia courts have no legal sanction evoked mixed reactions among Muslim leaders and experts, with some saying the order had created more confusion and others welcoming the judgment for demolishing myths about Islamic jurisprudence.

Kamal Faruqui, a founder member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), felt the order had created confusion.

"While on the one hand, it is widely known that Darul Qazas and Darul Iftaas are religious institutions, Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution give the people full freedom to practice and manage the affairs of their religion," he said.

"Those who want can follow the rulings of Darul Qazas and Darul Iftaas. Those who don't want to, need not do so. So this order is being unnecessarily hyped. The court has said nothing should be done to affect fundamental rights, but the people also have the right to freely profess their religion," Faruqui told Mail Today.

However, former minister Arif Mohammed Khan said there was nothing in the apex court's order that went "against the facts". Sections of the clergy had become a "nuisance" and were interfering in the rights of the people, he contended.

"This is nothing but sheer exploitation," Khan said.

"Persons with no authority were issuing fatwas and there is a need to prosecute such elements," he said.

"The political establishment has been patronising and using these religious elements since 1986 for personal and commercial gains," he said.

In Lucknow, Muslim leaders welcomed the SC decision but said they were of the view Darul Qazas and Darul Iftaas were working within the ambit of the Constitution.

"The court's order has said religious laws cannot be superimposed on someone. We are happy that the court has made the facts clear and demolished myths related to Shariah," said Sunni cleric Sajid Rashid.

Mufti Azam Mufti Bashiruddin, patron of the Sharia Supreme Court of Jammu and Kashmir, said his court was much older than the Supreme Court and the latter has no jurisdiction over it.

"Muslims have always followed Sharia even before the existence of the Indian Constitution. We are not bound by any verdict of the Supreme Court," he said.

India: The opinion survey that led to a fatwa - What it reveals about sharia law and Muslim women (Ajaz Ashraf)

Firstpost.com - April 22, 2015

The opinion survey that led to a fatwa: What it reveals about sharia law and Muslim women

by Ajaz Ashraf

The opinion survey that led to a fatwa: What it reveals about sharia law and Muslim women

Shumaila Anjum popped out of the inside pages of a national newspaper before she stopped coming, at least temporarily, to the Mahatma Jyotiba Phule (MJP) Rohilkhand University in Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh.

Perhaps this Ph.d student is lying low in the hope that the controversy triggered by a fatwa decrying her academic survey subsides, and her life returns to what it had been before the episode.

Anjum's survey became contentious because she elicited the opinion of 100 Muslim women in Uttar Pradesh's Rohilkhand region on the personal laws governing them. Worse, three of her findings turned popular beliefs about Muslim Law on its head – 60 percent of the women said they wanted to have the same right to divorce as Muslim men; 50 percent felt that the mere payment of mehr or dower by a husband to his wife at the time of divorce was grossly insufficient for her maintenance; and a whopping 80 percent said they wanted equal property rights.

The women who were surveyed were drawn from different economic classes and included working women, housewives, and those who do the purdah.

"Anjum had planned to seek the opinion of 500 women for the survey, but could manage only 100. It is difficult to access women in the region infamous for patriarchy, regardless of which religion they belong to,” said Dr Amit Singh, who heads the department of law of MJP University.

Anjum's survey was stridently criticised by the three muftis (those who give opinion on religious matters) of Bareilly's much-revered Dargah Ala Hazrat. They said Anjum had erred because she had sought the opinion of women on those aspects of Shariat, or Muslim Law, which they believe are immutable.

It would have been alright, they say, had her questions pertained to those laws which are changeable.

One of the muftis, Mohammed Saleem Noori, told this writer, "The Muslim woman's right to divorce can't be expanded. A divorcee's settlement can't exceed the amount of mehr affixed at the time of marriage plus the gifts her husband gave her during their marital relationship, and women can't ask for a larger share in the ancestral property than fixed under the Shariat.”

Undoubtedly, Mufti Noori's interpretation of Muslim law is not only a manifestation of an extreme, and enslaving, notion of patriarchy, but is also both outdated and bad in law - secular as well as Islamic. Muslim women do have the unilateral right to divorce through the process called khula.

Over the last three decades, it is also a settled legal principle that a fair and reasonable provision for the maintenance of a Muslim divorcee can be in excess of mehr.

Against this backdrop, it would seem the respondents in Anjum's survey, as also the muftis of Bareilly's Dargah Ala Hazrat, are oblivious of the expansion of women's rights under Muslim Law.

Says Supreme Court advocate Saif Mahmood, who with his father and legal luminary, Tahir Mahmood, has authored the seminal Muslim Law in India and Abroad, "Even courts in India are unaware of the rights community members enjoy under Muslim Personal Law.”

So then, how was the Muslim woman's right to divorce expanded to match that of her male counterpart?

They always had the option of khula, or separation from the husband in return for payment. This included remitting the mehr the husband paid to her, or waiving it in case he hadn't already. But she could also free herself from the knots of marriage through a payout heftier than mehr.

The Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, specifically laid out conditions which the woman could invoke to opt for khula. These included cruelty to the wife, or if the whereabouts of her husband were not known for four years, or insanity and such like. Over the years, though, the scope of the Act has been widened to allow women to seek khula regardless of any conditions.

Then again, khula earlier required the woman to ask her husband to release her from marriage, but the divorce came into effect only when he gave her talaq. But this requirement is no longer mandatory. Should a husband refuse to accede to his wife's wish for divorce, she can now approach the court or the qazi (judge) to have khula enforced.

In fact, khula constituted the nub of the controversy surrounding the marriage between cine star Sanjay Dutta and Manyata. Her former husband, Meraj Ur Rehman, petitioned the magistrate's court in Mumbai claiming he hadn't divorced her and she was, therefore, guilty of bigamy. Manyata's counter was that she had obtained the decree of khula from a qazi and her marriage to Dutt was therefore legitimate. The magistrate's court asked the couple to appear before it for responding to the charges of adultery and bigamy.

The case then went in appeal to the sessions court. Mahmood was among the three lawyers who represented her. He said, "The court went through cases in Pakistan and examined the practice of khula as it evolved there (following the 1939 Act.)” The sessions court ruled in Manyata's favour, upholding the view that a Muslim woman doesn't have to depend on the husband to divorce her for the annulment of marriage. This view the Bombay High Court subsequently upheld as well.

In the Masroor Ahmed vs State (NC of Delhi) and Another, Justice BD Ahmed of the Delhi High Court ruled in 2007, "Khula is a divorce which proceeds from the wife which the husband cannot refuse subject only to reasonable negotiation with regard to what the wife has offered to give him in return. (Italics mine).” He further noted, "It is important to note that…under khula…there is no need for specifying any reason for the divorce.”

AFP

AFP

Justice Ahmed also opined that the Muslim woman could obtain divorce outside the court through khula.

Bareilly's Mufti Noori hasn't heard of these judicial pronouncements on khula. He insists that the wife can either ask her husband to release her from marriage or approach the qazi to persuade the husband to do the same. But her marriage wouldn't be annulled until the husband accedes to her request and gives her talaq. "If the husband doesn't agree, then the woman remains his wife,” said Mufti Noori.

His opinion is in violation of the court rulings which mirror the practice of khula in many Muslim countries and is also followed by the Islamic Sharia Council in London. Call it a consequence of illiteracy or patriarchy or the sway of orthodoxy, the muftis and qazis as well as ordinary Muslims, evident from Anjum's survey, are not aware of the evolution of Muslim Law which has helped expand the divorce rights of women.

This ignorance is precisely why Muslim women believe their right to maintenance at divorce includes only the payment of mehr and possession of assets mutated in her name. This the Shah Bano case sought to alter, making it incumbent upon her husband to pay her monthly allowance for her upkeep.

However, the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, sought to overturn the judgement, reaffirming the notion that maintenance to the divorcee entailed merely the return of mehr and making provision for her during the iddat period, which corresponds to roughly three months.

The 1986 Act was challenged in the Danial Latifi & Another vs Union of India.

The Supreme Court interpreted the Act creatively to find a way out for Muslim divorcees. It held, "A Muslim husband is liable to make reasonable and fair provision for the future of the divorced wife which obviously includes her maintenance as well. Such a reasonable and fair provision extending beyond the iddat period must be made by the husband within the iddat period.” This meant a certain amount for the "maintenance” of the divorcee until her remarriage could be fixed.

The Supreme Court's interpretation of the 1986 Act has had women approach the courts to seek maintenance in excess of the one-time payment of mehr. But do shariat courts, considered an informal mechanism for dispute resolution, recognise and execute the Supreme Court verdict in Danial Latifi? Mahmood says the shariat court in Phulwarisharif, Bihar, has indeed handed out very generous settlements to divorcees who have approached it.

This is decidedly not a universal practice. As Mutfi Noori told this writer, "No, the divorcee is entitled to just mehr and gifts her husband gave her. She or her family should have foreseen the future and fixed a higher amount of mehr at the time of marriage.” This is easier said than done – a demand for a high amount of mehr can become an impediment to her marriage.

Complicating the issue even further is that a large percentage of Muslims prefer to take family matters to the qazis and muftis, both because it is a process infinitely less expensive than going to the courts, and because they believe it is the religiously right course to adopt. The denial of rights to divorce and maintenance to Muslim women arises because of the variance between the judiciary's interpretation of Muslim Law and that of the mufti and the qazi.

However, there is no difference between them as far as property rights under Muslim Law go.

Property rights under Muslim Law are both hellishly complicated and iniquitous, even though Islam was arguably the first religion to bestow on women a share in ancestral property. It was indeed a radical measure for the seventh century, not so for the 21st century. To begin with, a Muslim can bequeath only one-third of his property. The female's share is roughly half of that of male. Other relatives of the deceased too have rights to his property. For instance, the mother of the deceased is entitled to a one-third share in case he had no children, but it is reduced to one-sixth in case he had an issue or issues.

The inequitable shares of males and females under Muslim Law have been justified on the grounds that the woman is entitled to a percentage in the husband's ancestral inheritance as well. But Mahmood and others feel the unequal property right of Muslim men and women is patently unfair. However, nobody quite knows how to overcome this inequity without flouting the sacrosanct Shariat. Perhaps the way out is to have the Muslim couple declare at the time of marriage whether they wish to be governed under secular or Muslim laws.

The debate over property rights apart, there is no denying the pressing need to educate Muslim women on their rights to divorce and maintenance under the personal law governing them. It is because of their ignorance, and perhaps the self-serving orthodoxy of males, they have been denied their just and fair due. It's time pressure is mounted from inside the community on the mullahs to adjust to the changing times and laws.

(Ajaz Ashraf is a journalist from Delhi. His novel, The Hour Before Dawn, published by HarperCollins, is available in bookstores. Email: ashrafajaz3[at]gmail.com)

Double-layered veils and despair … women describe life under Isis

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/17/isis-orders-women-iraq-syria-veils-gloves

Veiled women sit on a bench in Raqqa

Veiled women sit on a bench in Raqqa in March last year. Women are now instructed to wear double-layered veils, loose abayas and gloves. Photograph: Reuters

Women living under Islamic State’s control in Iraq and Syria are facing increasingly harsh restrictions on movement and dress, which are rigorously enforced by religious police and are leading to resentment and despair among moderate Muslims.

Residents of Mosul, Raqqa and Deir el-Zour have told the Guardian in interviews conducted by phone and Skype that women are forced to be accompanied by a male guardian, known as a mahram, at all times, and are compelled to wear double-layered veils, loose abayas and gloves.

Their testimonies follow the publication this month of an Isis “manifesto” to clarify the “realities of life and the hallowed existence of women in the Islamic State”. It said that girls could be married from the age of nine, and that women should only leave the house in exceptional circumstances and should remain “hidden and veiled”.

Sama Maher, 20, a resident of Raqqa who has been detained several times by Isis religious police, known as Hisbah, for violating Isis rules, said: “It is prohibited for a woman in Raqqa or Deir el-Zour to move anywhere outside without a mahram, a male guardian. It is a big problem as I do not have any, we are only five sisters.”

Isis has closed universities in areas under its control, she added. “I had to quit my university studies in Aleppo because I’m not allowed to cross the checkpoints without a mahram and leave the city by myself like before.”

Male guardians are subject to punishment if women are not complying with the prescribed dress code. In Mosul, Isis published a charter within weeks of taking taking control of the city, restricting women’s movements and imposing dress requirements. Women were instructed to wear a Saudi-style black veil of two layers to conceal their eyes and a loose robe designed by Isis after it said some abayas revealed body outlines.

Many women initially objected to the Isis order but complied when they realised they could be beaten, humiliated and fined, and their husbands might be punished. Men are now forcing their wives and daughters to stay at home to avoid confrontations with Hisbah, which issues orders via the internet or by posting written statements at shops warning against violations of Islamic rules in the city.

“They forced women of all ages to wear a veil, even though the majority of the women in Mosul wear a hijab,” paediatrician Maha Saleh, 36, said. “The Hisbah would hit a woman on her head with a stick if she was not wearing a veil.

“At the beginning, some female doctors refused to wear veils and went on a strike by staying at home. Hisbah took ambulances and went to their houses and brought them by force to the hospital. One of my colleagues was alone in her clinic in the hospital and thought it was all right to strip off her veil. All of a sudden, two Hisbah broke in her room and reproached her for not wearing the veil and warned her not to do that again.”

In Raqqa, the Isis “capital” in Syria, women were initially ordered to wear a black abaya covering the entire body. Soon after, a command to wear a veil was issued, then a third ordered a shield on top of the abaya. Women are also instructed to wear only black, including gloves and shoes. Isis subsequently ordered women to hide their eyes, requiring a a double-layered veil.

I was shocked to see that women in labour were denied access to the hospital unless they put veils on

Mosul resident Sabah Nadiem said: “I went once with my wife to one of the old souqs to do some shopping, and after a short while I lost her among the crowd. The problem was that all the women were wearing veils and it was hard to know who was my wife. I was utterly scared to make a mistake and go for the wrong woman. It would be a disaster to fall into Hisbah hands. I could not even use my mobile as the network was down.” Nadiem said he called out his wife’s name loudly in the souq until she heard him and they were reunited.

Hisbah patrols tour Isis-controlled cities to ensure that women and men are behaving in accordance with Islamic rules. If they spot a woman in the street not wearing a shield or gloves, sometimes they offer her “Islamic dress” with a pair of gloves and advise her not to go out again without them, or they take her to Hisbah headquarters and keep her there until her mahram arrives. The mahram may be fined or could be subjected to lashes.

Children are not exempt from strict dress codes. When schools opened in Mosul last October, Samar Hadi, a mother of five, sent her two daughters – Hala, six, and Tiba, seven, – to school without a hijab, as she had the year before.

“After two days, the headmistress told them that they all have to wear the hijab when they come to school. So I made them wear the hijab. Then an Isis order came to stipulate that only girls in 4th, 5th and 6th class in primary school have to wear hijab, not 1st and 2nd classes.”
A veiled woman walks past a billboard urging women to wear a hijab
FacebookTwitterPinterest
A veiled woman walks past a billboard urging women to wear a hijab. Photograph: Reuters

In Deir el-Zour in Syria, the rules for female pupils and students appear to be stricter. “Little girls in primary schools have to wear an abaya until the 4th class, when they have to wear a veil too,” said Sali Issam, 15, a secondary school student. “Though all the teachers in girls’ schools are female, neither students nor teachers are allowed to lift the veil of their faces inside the classroom.”

Many families stopped sending their children to school after recent air strikes by the Syrian regime army, she added. “Families are scared of Hisbah and Assad’s warplanes.”

Women in labour in maternity hospitals in Mosul are forced to comply with dress codes. “When I was in labour, I went to the hospital wearing a veil though it was too hot. Isis Hisbah were at the front door of the hospital. I saw some women in labour who seemed to be in a panic and did not have time to wear a veil. I was shocked to see that they were denied access to the hospital unless they put veils on their faces,” said Salah.

Women over the age of 45 are exempted from the order to wear the veil, but often find themselves in difficulty. On a routine trip to Mosul University where she teaches, Saleh shared a taxi with an older woman who was not wearing a veil. “The taxi driver turned to the woman and said: ‘Why are not you wearing a veil?’ She told him that Isis said the veil was imposed on women who are less than 45. The driver answered: ‘I’m afraid if I have you in my car, Isis Hisbah will stop me at a checkpoint and fine me.’”

Buses are also stopped for passengers to be checked. If a woman is found without required dress or mahram, all passengers are forced to disembark and the bus is refused permission to proceed. “If Hisbah spot a woman without a mahram in a bus, the whole bus is evacuated and sent back because the driver accepted her,” said Maher.

In Mosul, single women are not allowed to be the last passenger on a bus, alone with the driver. Women are forced to get off buses before their destination if there are no other passengers present. Bassma Adel, 35, who works in a bank, had to get off a bus to avoid being alone with the driver even though she was not near her home.

I was fined $1,500 and got 10 lashes on the bottom of my feet

“I had to walk to my house though the distance was long in inclement weather. One of my male colleagues passed by his car and offered to give me a lift. We drove for a short distance before we were spotted by Hisbah. They asked us for a document that proves my colleague was a mahram to me. When we failed to do that, they reproached us for being together in the car and humiliated us and ordered me to step down.”

Hospitals in Raqqa are almost empty of female doctors, according to residents. The few female nurses are forbidden from lifting their veils or wearing anything but Islamic dress. All woman visiting doctors must be accompanied by a mahram, who has to wait outside the clinic. If Hisbah discovers a man inside a clinic, he will be arrested. A woman is permitted to be checked by a male doctor but is not allowed to lift her veil during examination.

Recently Isis ordered all female hairdressers to be shut down in Mosul. Samah Nasir, 43, had her own hairdressing shop for more than nine years – the only source of income for her three children as her husband is ill and unable to work. “I decided to reopen my shop despite the Isis embargo because I had nothing to feed my children and pay for my husband’s medications.”

Shortly after, Hisbah broke in her house and took her and her husband to a sharia court. “The judge ruled that I should pay $1,500 [£977] as a fine and get 10 lashes on the bottom of my feet in one of the rooms in the sharia court. I have not been in such a situation all my life.” Now Nasir rarely leaves her house.

India: Shariah-compliant financial products will only advance a retrograde political agenda (Sadanand Dhume)

http://blogs.economictimes.indiatimes.com/et-commentary/shariah-compliant-financial-products-will-only-advance-a-retrograde-political-agenda/

Shariah-compliant financial products will only advance a retrograde political agenda

by Sadanand Dhume

Should the secular Indian state advance the religious norms enshrined in Islamic shariah law? This is the question raised by an ill-advised move by SBI Funds Management to start an Islamic mutual fund called the SBI Shariah Equity Fund. The fund, whose scheduled launch this week has reportedly been deferred, will be benchmarked to the S&P BSE 500 Shariah Index. Managers will pick stocks guided by a shariah board, whose responsibilities include procuring appropriate fatwas, or religious edicts, for permissible investments.

To understand why this is a terrible idea, go back to the roots of modern Islamic finance. First proposed in pre-Partition India by Jamaat-e-Islami founder Abul Ala Maududi (1903-79), shariah-compliant financial practices are part of a larger Islamist project to order every aspect of the state and society by the medieval norms enshrined in shariah law. According to Duke University’s Professor Timur Kuran, Maududi’s goal was not to foster prosperity in his community, but to underscore the idea that “to be a Muslim is to live differently”.

Islamic finance ostensibly hinges on three principles: a ban on interest, a wealth tax (zakat) and honesty in business. More broadly, it applies religious norms to business decisions. Shariah-compliant funds, for instance, will not invest in companies whose practices are frowned upon by Islam, such as pig farms or banks that charge interest.

Historically, Maududi’s idea languished for decades before being given a boost by Saudi oil wealth in the 1970s. Since then Islamic finance has grown steadily. Standard and Poor’s estimates that shariah-compliant assets are worth about $1.4 trillion worldwide, the vast majority in Muslim-majority countries such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Malaysia.

Maududi envisioned Islamic finance as accomplishing three goals: minimising Muslim interaction with non-Muslims, deepening the transnational identity of the community of believers, or ummah, and injecting Islam into every aspect of daily life. Over the years, Islamist groups worldwide, including the Muslim Brotherhood in the Arab world and the Jamaat-e-Islami in the Indian subcontinent, have worked tirelessly to advance these objectives. It’s no coincidence that Islamic finance has grown along with a broader swing in the Muslim world away from secularism and toward literalist interpretations of Islam.

MAINSTREAM THE GHETTOES

What does all this mean for India? Simply put, policymakers need to gauge products such as the new SBI fund not merely in narrow financial terms, but in terms of their larger implications.

They can start by asking some basic questions. Should state-owned institutions in an avowedly secular republic advance Islamist political goals? Is India better served by integrating its 150-million strong Muslim population into the financial mainstream, or by ghettoising it in the economic equivalents of Ahmedabad’s Juhapura or Thane’s Bhiwandi? Does the new fund inch India closer toward accepting Islamic banking, which it has so far avoided?

The answers ought to be self-evident. That the questions were apparently not asked highlights a certain naiveté at the heart of India’s financial establishment. Last year, during the waning days of D Subbarao’s tenure as RBI governor, the central bank set a poor precedent by granting a licence to a non-banking finance company in Kerala based on shariah principles. The new SBI fund would further strengthen the dubious principle of mixing religion and finance. It would also make India only the second non-Islamic country (after Britain) with a stateowned bank that offers a shariahcompliant fund.

For the BJP-led government, the shariah-based fund ought to be a litmus test. In the 1990s, the BJP rose to prominence in part by critiquing the Congress’ tendency to equate secularism with pandering to the most orthodox elements in Islamic society. At its heart, stripped of financial complexities, this is what the proposed new fund represents.

Indeed, when given a choice, ordinary Muslims worldwide show no special affinity for shariah-based financial products. Most are happy to use regular banks that pay interest. Moreover, pious Indian Muslims already have the option to channel their investments through shariahcompliant private funds such as the Tata Ethical Fund. There’s no reason for state-owned institutions to follow.

GIVE IT A QUIET BURIAL

More broadly, instead of promoting Maududi’s divisive vision, India ought to do exactly the opposite. Rather than minimise Muslim exposure to regular financial instruments, India should encourage more Muslims to enter the financial mainstream.

And instead of spawning financial products that appeal to religious identity, state-owned banks should simply treat Muslims like they treat all other Indians. Indeed, if properly implemented, the prime minister’s ambitious financial inclusion plan, the Jan Dhan Yojana, could offer a template of sorts by increasing the number of Muslims with bank accounts.

For now, though, the ball is in SBI Fund Management’s court. If it’s wise, it will give the SBI Shariah Equity Fund a quiet burial and move on to more sensible projects. The last thing India needs is clueless bankers who strengthen a dangerous ideology without understanding the consequences.

India: Faith and fatwa | Upendra Baxi

The Indian Express - July 22, 2014

Faith and fatwa

Upendra Baxi

Summary
The Supreme Court injunction is welcome, but limited.

Nothing prepared us for the pleasant constitutional surprise, an incredibly brief order by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court that “the decisions of Dar-ul-Qaza or the fatwa” are neither “created nor sanctioned by any law made by the competent legislature”. The fatwa issued by Dar-ul-Qazas (a sharia court) or “for that matter anybody, is not adjudication of dispute by an authority under a judicial system sanctioned by law”. In our constitutional legal system, a “qazi or mufti has no authority” nor any legal powers to impose “his opinion and enforce his fatwa on anyone by any coercive method”.

However, any decision affecting 65 million Indian Muslim women must be read closely. First, the decision is not a judgment at all; it is merely an advisory. The court does not overtly declare the law; it merely dismisses the petition with an observation “that no Dar-ul-Qazas or for that matter, anybody or institution by any name, shall give verdict or issue fatwa touching upon the rights, status and obligation of an individual unless such an individual has asked for it”. Fatwas that do not do so are constitutionally valid. And a non-citizen may still fall under the sway of a fatwa.

The court’s observations deserve to be given great weight, but in so far as the sharia is a matter of faith and that faith is interpreted by its custodians, only rebelling women may take recourse to civil courts. And even they must bear the intolerable ambiguities of constitutional as well as pious Islamic interpretation of the Quran. For example, the 2005 “model nikahnama” issued by the Muslim Personal Law Board (MPLB) says, in its last clause, that the “Ulema would take the decision and whatever judgement he gives would be binding on us”. As sociologist Sabiha Hussain points out, this “clause apparently closes the option for women to approach the secular courts”.

Second, the court does not make prior fatwas invalid. Victims may file for proceedings with the police or approach the courts. But whether a crime has been committed by the issuance of a fatwa remains a matter for the police and courts to decide, eventually.

Third, only the fatwas “touching upon the rights of an individual at the instance of rank strangers”, which “may cause irreparable damage” and so are “absolutely uncalled for”, would “be in violation of basic human rights” and “cannot be used to punish innocent”, as no “religion, including Islam, punishes the innocent”. Religion, moreover, cannot be “allowed to be merciless to the victim. Faith cannot be used as dehumanising force”. These great words do not, for example, help Muslim women forced to marry their fathers-in-law under some strained interpretation of the Quran. Women are dragged to so-called sharia courts not by “strangers” but by near relations. Is it any relief if the fatwa were asked for “by the person interested”?

Fourth, although a fatwa can be asked for on behalf of a person in “case of incapacity”, what constitutes that incapacity and who is best suited to represent physical or mental disability or impairment is a vexed question. Would the judicial injunction on the “stranger” seeking a fatwa deter pious Muslims from taking genuine care of the incapacitated? The question is not fully answered by the clarification that “any person interested in the welfare of such [a] person may be permitted to represent the cause of [the] concerned individual”.

Fifth, what does the very last judicial observation signify? It says that, in “any event, the decision or the fatwa issued by whatever body being not emanating from any judicial system recognised by law is not binding on anyone including the person who had asked for it”. Does the word “binding” refer to law or religion or both?

The MPLB had already argued for the “necessity of establishment of a network of judicial system throughout the country” through which “Muslims should be made aware that they should get their disputes decided by the qazis”. True, “this establishment may not have the police powers but [it] shall have the book of Allah in hand and sunnat of the Rasool and all decisions should be according to the Book and the Sunnat”. But according to the MPLB, “this will bring the Muslims to the Muslim Courts. They will get justice”. The judicial position that while fatwas may be enforced as religion, they cannot be coercively implemented by the religious community, does not address the problem of pious Muslims being asked to believe, often to the point of harm and even death, that the decisions of the Islamic tribunals are always “just”.

According to Dar-ul-Uloom, Deoband, which admitted issuing the fatwa in the Imrana case “as per Fiqah-e-Hanafi, which is based on Quran and Hadith” it is “not running [a] parallel judiciary”. It contended that it “has no agency or powers to enforce its fatwas” and it is up to “the discretion of the persons or the parties who obtain fatwas to abide by it or not”. It can, however, do nothing if “God fearing Muslims being answerable to the Almighty, obey the fatwas”. But such coercive implementation of community decisions on deeply religious matters is not new. Hindus succeeded in maintaining untouchability for nearly 5,000 years and some are doing so even today, despite it being constitutionally and legally outlawed. Even now, caste biradari panchayats deliver patently unconstitutional decisions violating the equal rights of women as persons and as citizens. This does not, however, justify the hurtful, and even wounding, Muslim apartheid against Islamic women, if only because several wrongs never make a right.

Overall, the court is discharging its duty under Article 44 of the Constitution to “endeavour” towards a uniform civil code. But nowhere does it say so, and wisely. Wisely because the code raises complex issues of the politics of cruelty, survival and identity, which the representative institutions find unfeasible to answer. The court rightly asserts that, in the meantime, the Constitution normatively forbids barbaric treatment of Islamic women citizens of India. Although the Hindu law lacks the institutional piety of fatwas, its viciousness towards women seems impliedly addressed.

The writer is professor of law, University of Warwick, and former vice chancellor of Universities of South Gujarat and Delhi.

express@expressindia.com