Report comment

Peter Ryder at 00:19:

I would say that there are two main aspects to the points you raise, pertaining to form and to content.

As regards form, whatever the forum for resolving disputes, the procedure should be fair and the parties should be given the same opportunity to be heard, whatever their gender and whatever their wealth. The person(s) making any decision must be sufficiently well informed and inwardly balanced (and preferably wise) to be able to do justice.

For example, the Prophet Muhammad (whose birthday it is today, the 12 Rabi'al-Awwal), may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said that a qualified judge should not sit in judgment if angry or constipated.

Since all humans are fallible, there is always room for improvement amongst those who administer justice, in whatever context, but certainly in my lifetime I have met and observed judges, arbitrators and mediators who are exemplary in the way they behave towards others when administering justice.

In this respect, I would say that those who really do fear God in their awareness that they will ultimately have to answer to God for all their intentions and actions – which will inevitably lead to their being either in the Garden or the Fire in the next world – are more keenly scrupulous in administering justice in this world than those who are simply motivated by altruism and a love of excellence.

In my experience, those who have this awareness are not violent and do not countenance violence. They are the first to protect people who are subjected to violence, whether verbal or physical or psychological. In the scenario which you describe, they are swift to assist in ending a marriage in which either party is being subjected to violence, since the point where reconciliation might be reached (the usual first step when divorce is being contemplated) is already clearly past.

In fact the khul' divorce is a no blame divorce – a wife who seeks it is not obliged to prove, for example, that her husband has committed adultery behind her back with a woman to whom he is not married, or that he has behaved unreasonably. It is enough that she no longer wishes, for whatever reason, to continue in that marriage.

In my experience the main victims of impossible life situations are not those with deeply held religious beliefs, but rather those who are ignorant of what they are free to do. I have witnessed well informed Muslim women swiftly decide not to bow silently to any form of tyranny, whether it be personal, familial, cultural, or a combination of these. As the Qur'an states, there is no compulsion in these matters.

When it comes to the aspect of content, which is usually defined in one way or another by religious belief, then this is where differences do arise. To give a very basic example, the religion of secular human rights permits a man to have anal sexual intercourse with either a man or a woman if the parties involved are consenting adults. In contrast the original Judaic, Christian and Muslim teachings forbid a man to have anal sexual intercourse with anyone – and only sanction sexual intercourse between a man and a woman who are married to each other in accordance with these teachings. The adherents of these religions, whether man-made secular or divinely revealed, are inevitably convinced that their belief is better than the others – and in an ideal world should have jurisdiction over the others.

To give another example, the religion of secular human rights permits people to leave, in their will, their property to whomever or whatever they wish and to exclude whomever or whatever they wish (although there is some recourse for close relatives who have been excluded to apply to the court to be included). In contrast, under the Shari’a, close relatives are entitled as of right to fixed shares in a deceased relative’s estate and their entitlement cannot be excluded by any will. Some non-Muslims make a big fuss over the fact that the Muslim male relative is entitled to twice the share of a Muslim female relative – but do not appreciate that under the Shari’a the menfolk are responsible for the maintenance and wellbeing of the womenfolk in their family – whereas the womenfolk do not have a similar duty towards the menfolk. So the freedom of the menfolk to spend their inheritance as they wish is limited by this duty, while the freedom of the womenfolk to spend their inheritance as they is not so limited. As I understand it, the same duty is incumbent on the menfolk in a Jewish family who are entitled to inherit more than their womenfolk. On the face of it, there is inequality – but in fact as long as the duty is fulfilled, there is balance and equity.

Of course non-Muslims such as Baroness Cox focus their attention on the examples of those who do not apply the teachings of Islam in their lives – but then that isn’t Islam that she is attacking, it is the failure to practice Islam.

As regards the different forms of divorce available and a Muslim woman not being entitled to have more than one husband at a time, volumes could be written on why this is so, ranging from the different temperaments involved to the difficulty in establishing the paternity of a child whose maintenance is the responsibility of his or her father. What it comes down to is this: if there was good in it, then Allah would have permitted it.

An in depth understanding and acceptance of the Shari’a of Islam inevitably involves a recognition that what is forbidden is forbidden because it is bad for people – and that what is permitted is good for people, provided of course that there is moderation and balance in everything. Cherries are permitted and are good for you, but if you attempt to eat 5 kilos of cherries in one sitting, it will probably make you ill.

It is with this understanding, that Muslims accept the parameters and criteria which are delineated in the Shari’a and do not wish or seek to change them.

It is difficult for non-Muslims to recognize, whether out of ignorance or out of arrogance, that sincere Muslims accept that the Qur’an which exists today is a divinely revealed revelation which has not been altered by man – and that there is no better example of how to be and live as a human being than that of the Prophet Muhammad and his family and his companions, may Allah bless them and grant them peace. Those who understand this Message and who wish to emulate the Messenger to whom it was revealed, see no need to re-form or change it in any way, as the followers of the secular religion of human rights (who have no shared human exemplar whom they love) demand.

If God has not got it right, then who can possibly get it right?

Yes, there is always a danger of the revelation and the example being misinterpreted and distorted. This has happened to every divine revelation, including the Torah of Moses and the Ingil of Jesus and the Qur’an of Muhammad, blessings and peace be on them, in every age – but the remedy for misinterpretation and distortion is to revive the original teaching and not to re-form either the original teaching or any amended version of it.

When I accepted Islam at the hand of the Raja of Mahmudebad, may he rest in peace, more than forty years ago, he said to me, “No-one can bring you to Islam and no-one can take you away from Islam.”

This is a matter of Allah’s decree – Who has already decreed that both the Garden and the Fire will be full! As William Blake put it, “Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to endless night.”

And may you enjoy the current celebrations of the births of the last two Messengers to be sent from God to mankind, Jesus and Muhammad, blessings and peace be on them and on all who follow them with sincerity!