
"A Muslim couple in India has been told by local Islamic leaders they must separate after the husband "divorced" his wife in his sleep, the Press Trust of India reported.
Sohela Ansari told friends that her husband Aftab had uttered the word "talaq," or divorce, three times in his sleep, according to the report published in newspapers Monday."
How lame. Come on, this isn't the dark ages. But it does seem like we're heading back there more and more everyday. I think it's a cycle - civilization gets really developed and then goes back to superstitions and people divorcing each other in their sleep. "I'm getting bored of Martha, I think I'll pretend to be asleep and say talaq a few times tonight. Maybe I'll finally get my chance at hot Sandra then!"
The couple, who live in the eastern state of West Bengal, have refused to obey the order and the issue has been referred to a local family counseling center.
Ah! That's good then.
@Simran: Yes, it is good that they are refusing, but aren't they still bound by the decisions of the sharia court? I was under the impression -- and the article implies -- that the national and state governments defer to religious laws in matters like this. Which one has precedence?
@evano: The Indian government protects its citizens against adverse (or otherwise) religious decisions, that the parties in concern do not want to comply with, like forcing someone to get married, in this case get divorced etc.. Basically, it's the Indian government that has precedence, not religious groups, not anybody. I love the way the Indian constitution gives each the right to follow any religion or faith they choose to, but not force it upon another. The Muslim court cannot legally make these this couple get divorced. Recently, an Act (bill) has been passed, making it compulsory for all marriages to be registered with the government. Earlier, religious marriages in the presence of a priest/cleric were enough, not any more. This Act aims at reducing/getting rid of child marriages, incest etc.
Ah damn... I was going to say these two people, but then decided to say this couple. Sorry. I wish Newsvine would start with the editing of comments thing. these
I read this article on MSNBC a couple days ago. There does seem to be some mitigation for the couple. Isn't part of Islamic law that such utterances are void if they are said in a state of intoxication or other mental inability? Wouldn't sleep fall under this?
@Simran and @evano
In this case, for the purposes of religious freedom, the Indian government defers to the judgement of the religious courts. This prevents such things as the homosexual marriage debacle that is currently taking place in the U.S. But @Simran is right, the Indian government can step in and take judicial responsibility at any time. While the act has been passed, and the spirit of the law is to reduce child marriages, the actual enforcing of the religious implications of marriage and divorce still seem to be left up to the religious courts/councils. That is, they still have the power, and the leeway to perform the marriage or validate a divorce. Simply, the status is to be registered with the Indian government.
The ridiculous part of this situation is the fact that she has to sleep with another man (and that means getting married to another man by religious law) before they can be married again. What sort of bull@!$%# is that? One again, her life is back in the hands of another man. Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.
@Vinay: I completely agree, it's so ridiculous and sick. Can it be called rape? I don't know. Does she get to choose the man?
Simply, the status is to be registered with the Indian government.
Yeah, but the marriage won't be registered and therefore won't be valid in the eyes of the law if the couple doesn't meet the age requirements etc.. That will discourage the marriage since the couple won't get the legal rights that a married couple gets. Have any idea of what those privileges/rights are?
I imagine it's much the same as in those in the U.S. You have some possibility of citizenship status, some claim of ownership to the household, etc, as well as some tax and other economic breaks. Those are I think the limit of the legal ramifications of marriage. I'm not sure, and I'd have to look it up. I can give you a slightly more detailed set of rights/privileges that come with "legal marriage" in the States. But, I don't imagine that it's significantly different in India from a legal standpoint.
While child marriages will be discouraged by the Act, I'm not sure that it really has anything to do with this particular story. If we're done discussing it however, we can, I suppose, feel free to threadjack.
Ooh, added point. Anyone know the status of homosexual marriage in India? While hinduism is ambivilant to the topic of homosexuality, I'm not so sure about the sexually conservative culture currently in existance today. How do they treat it? Is it recognized? If it isn't, what is the likelyhood of opposition to it?
I don't think it is recognized nor is there much opposition to it. Actually, I remember there being support for the gay community when a man was murdered because of his sexual preference.
a seriously sorry state of affairs!!!
to execute divorce according to Islam, the husband and the wife must both be fully consicious and then the husband has to say the word "talaq" three times...
how can a divorce take place during sleep!
this is seriously not a divorce... it is just a way to popularize both the husband and wife by getting press coverage!!
I'm glad to hear that the national or state governments can supersede the sharia law in a situation like this. (The spellchecker recognizes "sharia" but it still flags "online"... go figure!) Marriage -- and divorce -- is actually part of two systems, the spiritual and religious union of two souls in the eyes of their God, and the legal contract enforced by the state regarding rights and property distribution. @Simran, you say that all marriages now have to be registered with the government, but, what about divorces? Until the advent of the moronic homosexual marriage debate, here in the US, divorces were a much more contested issue.
you say that all marriages now have to be registered with the government, but, what about divorces?
Ofcourse they have to, for it be legal anyway. And if it's not legal, they can't get remarried without problems. If one of them manages to get remarried anyway (regional court etc. - our country still functions on paper), will be filed with polygamy if caught.
Either both parties of the couple apply for a divorce or one of them. The one that has applied for divorce may have to go to court if the other refuses to get divorced. If the person who's applied lives separately (after a separation etc.), he/she must send a letter/legal notice, telling the other partner that he/she would like a divorce, if there is no reply within 3 years, an automatic divorce occurs.
Wonder why a 17 year old knows so much about this?
@Simran: I don't wonder why you know anything. :) I was just like that -- still am -- always picking up facts and info and when some one asks, "How did you know that?" I just smile and say, "I read everything!"
I figured that divorce was probably registered, just because split-ups are always messy, and the state has to be there to guarantee terms of the split. So... how do you know so much about divorce?
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |