Marriage And Religion

"A man should marry four wives: A Persian to have some one to talk to; a Khurasani woman for his housework; a Hindu for nursing his children; a woman from Mawaraun nahr, or Transoxiana, to have some one to whip as a warning to the other three."

"There is the Islamic view of marriage. Apologists of Islam, ever so anxious to show how progressive and avant-garde and modern their religion has always been, never tire of saying: In Islam marriage is not a sacrament, it is just a contract. Woman, as we shall see when we turn to the Quran and the Hadis, is just an ‘affliction’ that man has to suffer; she is just a field that he may irrigate or not irrigate as it pleases him; at best she is one of the things that Allah has created for him to enjoy; when on top of all this marriage is but a contract specifying the terms on which he may enjoy the thing—the mehr, as Ram Swarup reminds us being literally the ‘wages’ or ‘hire’ for using the woman—the ulema naturally visit all the consequences on the woman. The husband has but to enjoy the woman, and when he tires of her can just cast her off paying her the nominal maintenance, and the mehr which had been agreed to in the contract. And Allah, in His mercy, has not put these latter at anyonerous level. The minimum mutah, the consolatory gift, we learn, is one pair of clothes and the maximum is one slave or slave girl. The maintenance is to be board and lodging for just three months. And while it is fashionable nowadays to fix the mehr at poetically grandiloquent levels, it is just as fixed a practice to have the wife agree to forego it on the nuptial night itself. [...] The Quran (2.241) explicitly says, ‘Those of you who die leaving surviving widows shall bequeath to their widows provisions for a year without (their) being turned out.’ In direct contravention to this the compendium of Islamic law, the Hidayah, states, ‘Maintenance is not due to a woman after her husband’s decease...’ The Imamia goes even further to say, ‘A widow has no right to maintenance even though she be pregnant.’"

"Malik said, "The mourning of a young girl who has not yet had a menstrual period takes the same form as the mourning of one who has had a period. She avoids what a mature woman avoids if her husband dies.""

"The thing which is lawful but disliked by God is divorce."

"The woman who asks her husband to divorce her without a cause, the smell of Paradise is forbidden her."

"There are three things which, whether done in joke or in earnest, shall be considered serious and effectual, namely, marriage, divorce, and taking a wife back."

"Every divorce is lawful except a madman's."

""Cursed be the second husband who makes the wife (divorce) lawful for her first husband, and cursed be the first husband for whom she is made lawful." - (Mishkat, xiii, c xv.)"

"Whenever attention is drawn to the absolute and inhuman power that the Shariah gives to the husband to throw his wife out, to terrorize her into submission, the apologists say, ‘That is just a smear. Allah and the Prophet have declared repeatedly that of all things, talaq is the worst.’ They have indeed. ... That is all very well. But, having recounted such declarations, the apologists never explain how that which is the most detestable thing has been made so easy for the husband! For, while in theory talaq is said to be so abominable to Allah, in practice the position is entirely the opposite. The jurists repeat the counsel that divorce is something from which one should abstain. But this is just counsel. As to the power, they are unanimous: it is a power which lies with the husband, and it is untrammelled. Should the husband choose to exercise it, no one, and no consideration can save the wife. The counsel itself has the caveat invariably built into it, a caveat large enough to drive an elephant through it: you should not give talaq, the jurists say adding, except when there is need for it! In the typical instance, we read in Durr-ul-Mukhtar, one of the great works of Sunni jurisprudence, ‘And giving of divorce is permissible, according to all (the jurists) because the verses (of the Quran) are unconditional (in this respect). And it has been said by Kamal, that the most correct view is that one should abstain from it, except when there is need for it, for example, in cases of suspicion (about the character of the wife) and old age (of the wife)...’ and so on, each clause permitting that which the previous one had counselled against. In theory talaq may be abominable but in practice the husband has the power—the absolute, unconditional power, a power for exercising which he is not accountable to anyone on earth—to throw the wife out by just uttering the word ‘talaq’... The fatwas enforce these rules with the utmost rigour. They enforce two rules in addition: the rule that, faced with such a pronouncement, the wife has no recourse at all, there is no one, no authority which can intervene to save her as wife; and the rule that once she is thrown out she is entitled to no maintenance at all, save the minimum sustenance during three menstruations, that is she is entitled to nothing at all after three months are over."

"The rationale for throwing the wife out even in these circumstances is telling. It is set out in the Hidayah: The divorce of one acting upon compulsion, from threats, is effective, according to our doctors—Shafi’i maintains that it is not effective, because a person who is compelled has no option, and no formal act of law is worthy of regard unless it be purely optional: contrary to the case of a jester, who, in mentioning divorce, acts from option, which is the cause of its validity. Our doctors, on the other hand, allege that the person here mentioned pronounces divorce under circumstances of complete competency, (maturity of age and sanity of intellect), the result of which is that the divorce takes effect equally with that of a person uncompelled, for with him necessity (namely, the necessity of separation from a wife who may be odious or disagreeable to him) is the reason of its efficiency; and the same reason applies to the divorce of a compelled person, as he is also under necessity of divorce, in order that he may be released from the apprehension of that with which he was threatened by the compeller. The foundation of this is that the man alluded to has the choice of two evils; one, the thing with which he is threatened or compelled; and the other, divorce upon compulsion; and viewing both, he makes choice of that which appears to him the easiest, namely, divorce; and this proves that he has an option, though he be not desirous that its effect should be established, or, in other words, that divorce should take place upon it; nor does this circumstance forbid the efficiency of his sentence; as in the case of a jester; that is to say, if a man pronounce a divorce in jest, it takes effect although he be not desirous that it should; and so likewise the divorce of one who is compelled."

"The point is put in perspective on the very next page. If there is some doubt about a woman, the Fatawa-i-Rizvia rules, or if she is a sinner, or if she does not observe namaz, or if she has become old, then talaq given without detestation is proper and valid. In fact, in certain cases it is desirable to do so, says the Fatawa-i-Rizvia. The ulema hold, it declares, that if she does not observe namaz, then, even if he is unable to pay the dower, even then the husband should give the talaq. In certain circumstances it is proper to do so, the fatwa reiterates. For instance, if the mother and father order one to give talaq and if not doing so will upset them or if they will be put to hardship, then to give talaq is wajib, it is proper, even if she, the wife, is not in the wrong at all. Yes, in the Hadis it is said that talaq given without need or justification is detestable or prohibited, notes the fatwa. But if the husband gives it, it shall certainly be effective. His sinning and doing that which is detestable does not stop it from taking effect, it says. For instance, it is haram to give talaq during menstruation, it is disobedience of the hukum of Allah. But if it is given, it shall certainly take effect, the fatwa declares."

"In glaring contrast to the gloss which modern apologists try to put on the matter, Islamic jurists have faithfully followed the view of women embedded in the Quran and Hadis. They have enforced the true position: that the husband has absolute power in the matter of divorce; that he need assign no reason for throwing his wife out; that he owes the wife no maintenance beyond providing her the barest minimum in the three months following his pronouncement of talaq; and that the wife has no corresponding power. The apologists make much of the fact that in certain circumstances under Islamic law the wife can divorce herself—this, they say, is a unique facility which Islamic law alone gives to the wife. But they glide over two facts about the matter: the wife acquires this power only if the husband delegates it to her; and, the moment the wife exercises this power, that is the moment she dissolves the marriage by divorcing herself she loses even the meagre rights she would otherwise have had upon the dissolution of the marriage. Far from being a facility for the wife, the practice becomes a facility for the husband: by driving the wife to divorce herself, the husband is not only able to rid himself of her, he is able to rid himself of anything that might otherwise have been her due. The total inequality of the relationship is brought home by the hundreds of pages which the law books and the volumes of fatwas devote to what is called ‘Conditional Divorce’. In this form the husband makes the divorce contingent upon some act or event: the moment that act or event transpires, the wife is out."

"To begin with, the rulings of the jurists show that the husband has the total, absolute, unbridled power to tell his wife, ‘Unless you do “X”,’ or, in the alternate, ‘Unless you refrain from doing “Y”,’ ‘you are divorced’. A mere listing of the ‘X’ and ‘Y’ which the Islamic jurists have held to cause, unless complied with, full and final divorce, a mere listing of these takes one’s breath away. It shows that under the much-vaunted Islamic law of marriage and divorce, at a mere statement of the husband the wife must either reduce herself to totally submitting to the whim and fancy of the husband or stand divorced. She has absolutely no option in the matter. Indeed, once he has stated his whim or condition, the husband has no option either: he cannot ex post facto take pity or give in to the entreaties of the wife and let her stay unless she fulfils the condition he had laid down—unless she fulfils it, that is, as completely, and as fervently, and as promptly as he had specified."

"But, to proceed. In the rulings of which the foregoing are representative the wife can survive by submitting herself completely to the whims and fancies, the commands and worse of the husband. The rulings thus entail subjugation, complete subjugation, but only subjugation. At least there is something the wife can do—namely, submit herself completely to the husband’s whims and wishes—to keep herself from being thrown out on the street. The next set of rulings entail much more—they reduce the woman to a condition of terror. For the husband may by his mere statement—a statement he may make in anger, a statement he may make just to emphasize a point, and of course a statement he may make when he in fact wants to plunge the wife into terror—the husband can make the continuance of the marriage contingent on events over which the wife has no control whatsoever. In the face of the hundreds of rulings to this effect which Islam’s canonical law books contain, to maintain, as the apologists do, ‘No religion has given a higher place to women than Islam’, is not just ludicrous, it is chicanery. Three reasons alone explain how such assertions continue to be made, and continue to be repeated in our newspapers: first, hardly anyone among us looks up, or even knows about these rulings—although they are the very stuff of the fundamental books of Islamic jurisprudence; second, echoing, and adopting as one’s own the assertions of Islam’s champions is the way to be secular in India; and third, there is the power of terror—to recall that these rulings are what constitute the truth about the position of Muslim women is to open oneself to the terrorism of Islam’s champions. While reading the rulings, one should assess whether this kind of jurisprudence leaves any room for the kinds of reform that some would like to bring about by relying on ‘the principles of Islamic jurisprudence’ themselves."

"The question whether in the particular circumstance the wife shall stand divorced or not is ever so often put alongside the question whether in the analogous circumstance a slave would be freed or not: if in those circumstances, according to some previously settled ‘principle of Islamic jurisprudence’, the slave would be freed, the wife stands divorced; if in those circumstances the slave is to continue in bondage, the wife continues as wife.... That perceptual equivalence—between the wife and the slave—marks the Durr-ul-Mukhtar too. There is not a trace of concern for what shall pass on the wife. The concern is with the power of the husband, the concern is that he should not fall short of having his oath prevail."

"One can safely presume that Muslim women would want to be liberated from the extreme insecurity it foments as much as non-Muslim women would if the latters’ husbands had been given the same power. The Muslim husband can scotch any thought his wife may have of expressing support for reform by declaring, ‘If you ever question the Triple talaq rule, you will be thrice divorced.’ He can go further and have her demonstrate in favour of her continuing to live in bondage. He can say, ‘Unless you join the demonstration against the Triple talaq judgment (or the Shah Bano judgment, or whatever) on Wednesday, three talaqs on you’—and unless she joins the demonstration she is out without maintenance, without rights, without any authority from which she may seek succour. And our editorialists will marvel at the miracle: so devoted are the women to the shariah, the editors will write, that they are out shouting that they would rather continue in servitude than allow anyone to touch it!"

"O ye who believe! When there come to you believing women refugees, examine (and test) them: Allah knows best as to their Faith: if ye ascertain that they are Believers, then send them not back to the Unbelievers. They are not lawful (wives) for the Unbelievers, nor are the (Unbelievers) lawful (husbands) for them. But pay the Unbelievers what they have spent (on their dower), and there will be no blame on you if ye marry them on payment of their dower to them. But hold not to the guardianship of unbelieving women: ask for what ye have spent on their dowers, and let the (Unbelievers) ask for what they have spent (on the dowers of women who come over to you). Such is the command of Allah. He judges (with justice) between you. And Allah is Full of Knowledge and Wisdom."

"Shah Jahan was an orthodox Muslim. In 1632, while returning from Kashmir, he found that some Hindus of Rajauri, Bhimbar and Gujarat accepted Mushm girls as wives and converted them to their own faith. The emperor stopped such marriages and Muslim women, already married, were seized from their husbands who were fined and, in certain cases, even executed. They could retain their wives only on their embracing Islam. As many as 4,500 such women were recovered. In 1635, it was reported to the emperor that a Muslim girl, Zinab, had been converted, given the new name of Ganga and was taken as a wife by Dalpat, a Hindu of Sirhind. The woman, along with her seven children—one son and six daughters—was taken away and the man was executed. Kaulan, a daughter of the qazi of Lahore, had also run away from home, embraced Sikhism and taken shelter with Guru Har Govind, who immortalised her by constructing a new tank at Amritsar named after her, Kaulsar. (311ff)"

"In one respect alone Jahangir deviated from the policy of his father: he did not permit people to embrace Hinduism even of their own free will. He severely punished Kaukab, Sharif and Abdul Latif who, under the influence of a Sanyasi, showed inclination for Hinduism. This policy would have stopped any erosion of Muslim numbers. Besides, while on a visit to Kashmir, when he learnt that the Hindus and Muslims intermarried freely, “and both give and take girls (he ordered that) taking them is good but giving them, God Forbid”. And any violation of this order was to be visited with capital punishment. This indeed was in accordance with the Islamic law. As per the Shariat law a Muslim may marry a Jewess, or a Christian, or a Sabean, but “a marriage between a Musalman and... a Hindu is invalid”. Similarly, it “a female Muslim cannot under any circumstances marry a non-Muslim”. May be it was because of this that Akbar discouraged all kinds of intercommunal marriages. ..."

"According to Mahommedan law, a man mat lawfully marry a kitabeeah, but marriage with a Pagan or polytheist is unlawful. But the principle in Mahommedan law is, that when one of the parties turns to a state of religion that would render the marriage contract illegal if it were still to be entered into, what was legal before is made void. A Mahommedan woman, becoming a kitabeah, does not render the marriage void, for there is nothing to render the marriage contract illegal if it were still to be entered into; but if the Mahommedan woman becomes an idolatress, the marriage is void, for the woman has turned to a state of religion that would render the marriage contract illegal if it were still to be entered into; a Mahommedan woman, becoming a Christian, consequently, would not be separated from her husband, because she belongs to the religion of the book, that is a kitabee faith. If a kitabeeah becomes an idolatress, the marriage is dissolved, but if she change from one religion to another, and still remain a kitabeeah, the marriage is not vitiated..."So far as regards a woman's apostatizing to a kitabee faith, this holds good; but if a woman turns to Paganism ipso facto the marriage is void, and does not depend upon the volition of the husband (having regard to the principle we have adverted to above), so that the husband under such circumstances could not maintain a suit for conjugal rights, ... By Mahommedan law, a marriage by a female Moslem with a man not of the Mahommedan faith is unlawful; applying the principle quoted before, the man having turned to a state of religion that would render the contract illegal if it were still to be entered into, the marriage is void. The apostasy of the husband dissolves the marriage tie; consequently there does exist an essential difference between apostasy of a man and of a woman, of the apostasy of the husband or the wife; also between apostasy to a faith in a book, that is, a revealed religion having a book of faith, and apostasy to the idol worship Mahommed and his followers renounce."

""And do not marry Polytheist women until they believe, And a believing slave woman is better than a Polytheist women, even though she might please you. And do not marry Polytheist men [to your women] until they believe. And a believing slave is better than a Polytheist men, even though he might please you. Those invite [you] to the Fire, but Allah invites to Paradise and to forgiveness, by His permission. And He makes clear His verses to the people that perhaps they may remember"."

"Today the good things are made lawful for you, and the food of the ones to whom the Book was brought is lawful to you, and your food is made lawful to them. And (so) are believing women in wedlock, and in wedlock women of (the ones) to whom the Book was brought even before you when you have brought them their rewards in wedlock, other than in fornication, neither taking them to yourselves as mates (i.e., girl-friends). And whoever disbelieves in belief, (i.e., the religion) then his deed has been frustrated and in the Hereafter, he is among the losers."