No Sharia divorce in UK: Muslim told to pay ex-wife maintenance even though he owes her nothing according to Islamic law

"I would like to know more about the circumstances about their marriage breakup - why after only 8 years - "

May be he was sexually impotent and couldn't afford the "Viagra" meat pot sent by Allah to Muhammad!!!

http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2011/01/prophetess-of-islam.html

Why should British law consider any of that?
I don't know much about British law, but around here, if you get a divorce, it is always the mans fault, and the man always pays...And the judge does not want to hear any sob stories...If there are children involved he will pay a lot...You follow that? The man is always at fault, and the man always pays, he is entitled to no refunds of any dowry and the judge does not care if they were married sharia style or not...You are going to pay...Women and children are protected...The X hubby is not...

Okay, let me see how well I remember the British Divorce Act of 1970... perhaps I can clear up some of your questions?

British law does not require a groom to pay an *agreed* dowry to the bride ...

No, it does not. British law assumes that all the assets of husband and wife belong to both of them as long as they are married. After they separate, assets are split. After that, calculations are made for the best way to maintain the children. So a dower is not really needed under modern law.

... and clearly the judge has not taken this into consideration.

That would be because sharia law has no legal force in Britain. Whatever sharia-compliant documents this couple originally signed, these documents cannot be interpreted in such a way as to contradict British law.

He married her under Sharia rules and traditions, he DID give her a dowry, and she DID agree to waive ANY claim to 50% of his wealth in the event of a divorce.

A wife would not be allowed to sign away her financial rights just because her husband once gave her a present.

Can you see how he has quickly become disadvantaged i.e. The marriage was based around Sharia law but now British law has been applied to the divorce.

I agree - they should not have married under sharia law. They should have chosen a prenuptial agreement that conformed to British standards. But the bottom line is: British law always applies in Britain, and any contract that breaches British law is legally void. It was foolish to enter a sharia contract without acknowledging that it was actually unenforceable.

I would like to know more about the circumstances about their marriage breakup - why after only 8 years - Was she having an affair with someone else?

Well, we don't know - but it isn't relevant. British law usually takes the view that it is so often impossible to sort out who was right/wrong in a complex matter like a divorce that it is a waste of time to legislate so that the "guilty party pays financially". Not necessarily fair in every individual case; but the same law applies to all of us, and it saves us from the risk of leaving innocent people to starve. It's a 50/50 split, regardless of how badly either or both parties behaved.

The truth is, divorce usually increases poverty. One home becomes two, each of half-value. That is the price of ending your marriage.

Perhaps the "dowry" was insignificant compared to his later income.

Steffen, we don't know how much dower he paid, but here's what we do know. When Mohammed was negotiating to marry Asma bint Numan, her family, who were high nobility in Yemen, complained about the miserly dower. Mohammed replied that this was all he ever gave any of his wives, or expected to receive for his daughters, and the Yemenites could take it or leave it.

This standard sum that Mohammed considered an adequate dower was 400 dirhams, or the price of five camels - in today's money, about £1,000. It was a nice present if the wife wanted some furniture or jewellery or cash for the next emergency, but it was rarely a half-share of the assets in the case of divorce! In fact Mohammed divorced Asma on their first day (because Ayesha played a trick on her, and Mohammed didn't find it funny). Whether Asma kept the 400 dirhams is not quite clear. Mohammed did give her a farewell present of two linen gowns. This is hardly a shining example of practical provision, let alone generosity!

If Dr Al-Saffar followed the "perfect" example of Mohammed and allowed his wife a dower of £1,000, then it is not surprising she felt she had not received a half-share of the marital assets.

My previous point may not have been quite clear.

Muslim apologists often say that Muslim wives don't need full divorce settlements because they have received dower. They also talk about the guaranteed right to a dower as if it is some kind of wonderful innovation that preserves women's rights.

What I am saying here is that the dower argument is a red herring.

The Muslim dower is usually a trivial amount of money. Indeed, these same apologists rarely mention actual numbers. Anyone who boasts with pride of the dower system is setting a very low bar for the rights of women.

We once had dowers in England. The Anglo-Saxons (pagans) paid them to their brides long before Islam existed, and landed people settle them on wives who had no other inheritance rights to this day. Hence our word dowager - a widow who lives off her dower. But in most strata of society, we have found a better way to share out our assets.

Tom,

Thanks for pointing out the dimensions of the problem of multiplying Muslim marriages in Britain that are not registered or legally recognized.

The Muslim women are kept ignorant, and kept in the houses and mosques, centers of superstition, oppression, and ignorance.

There is no indication that Muslim women, as a group, are rebelling against their oppression. Once in a while someone like academic Hanan Al-Saffar is actually literate, and asserts her rights when she is being put through the ringer. But, I'm certain part of her award will go to Zakah, or a Muslim charity with the objective of spreading Islam.

In no way should we assume Muslim women are allies of any freedom movement. They are fully complicit in their own oppression, as a group.

It comes to the same question in Britain and the US: will the society assert its own value, and come down hard on people engaging in illegal activity? This includes denying benefits to Muslim husbands with multiple wives (and of course to the wives as well), prison terms for bigamy, and deportation for Muslims engaging in polygamy if they are not citizens.

Right now, the Muslims are gaming the welfare system big time.

"He is a professional; she is a nobody,..."

That is how Muslims view a marriage...I am glad you brought that to our attention...

"He married her under Sharia rules and traditions, he DID give her a dowry, and she DID agree to waive ANY claim to 50% of his wealth in the event of a divorce. "

She had no choice...as you say she did so "under Shar'ia rules and traditions"....Muslim marriages are highly discriminatory against women having any rights..If Muslim don't like the laws of the country they're trying to take over they have the option of going to a Shar'ia law abiding Muslim country...

"The problem with Muslims is that they only read the Quran. If they read news articles they would learn that the divorce rate in Muslim countries is almost as high as in the US 1.
I don't know who Muslims are trying to deceive, themselves or infidels. The problem in many Muslim countries is that divorce is too easy for men because of triple Talaq where a Muslim man only has to say talaq (divorce) three times to be divorced.
Muslim women have no such option. In fact, Muslim women have the darndest time getting divorced, what with beheadings, torture or acid thrown in their face if they ask for one.
If Muslim women were not maimed, tortured, or murdered for asking for divorce, I have no doubt that the Muslim divorce rate would be higher than for any other culture or religion; after all, what sane woman would want to be married to a Muslim?"

Do you remember the case of Muzzammil Hassan?...This was in Buffalo, New York....his wife asked for a divorce and he beheaded her...I suppose this was acceptable "under Shar'ia rules and traditions"...right?

No Sharia divorce in UK: Muslim told to pay ex-wife maintenance even though he owes her nothing according to Islamic law

Sharia and Western law are incompatible and the conflicts will inevitably grow, but the Infidels are standing their ground on this one in the UK. For now.
............................

Some sanity from the UK.

More:

Lord Justice Ward told Dr Al-Saffar: ‘The rule in this country is that you share and the starting point is equal division.
...

But Dr Al-Saffar said after the case: ‘By playing the system and pretending to be a victim she got everything, which I think is totally unfair.
............................

Typical male Muslim supremacism—according to his "hurt feelings", Zaid Al-Saffar believe that "half" is "everything".

More:

‘Family law in this country is biased against Muslim people.’...
............................

What he means, of course, is Muslim *men*—since all of Shari'ah law is biased against women, children, and Infidels.

The appalling Rezali Mehil wrote:

I would like to know more about the circumstances about their marriage breakup - why after only 8 years - Was she having an affair with someone else? Will she use his money to settle with someone else - how ironic and cruel is that?
He has been shanked good and proper.
............................

Or maybe *he cheated on her*. Perhaps he beat her—this is all too common in Muslim marriages. Perhaps they merely had irreconcilable differences. The article doesn't say, and we don't know.

But—as always—you assume that the failure of any relationship is based on "Zina" on the woman's part. Typical "Muslim-think".

More:

He is a professional; she is a nobody...
............................

A "nobody"? Court records refer to her as an "academic", which surely denotes a professional, as well. More knee-jerk Islamic male supremacism from Rezali...

More:

...the judge has ruled under the only law he understands - clearly though Parliament needs to look further into cases such as these, and reconsider/re-apply some clauses of the law.
............................

You mean that Britain needs to start imposing Shari'ah. Too bad Lord Justice Ward disagrees...

Diana,

thanks. Your clarifications are excellent.

"He is a professional; she is a nobody,..."

Writers have been circling around this assertion yet, because it's factually incorrect, they are missing the main point of the underlying attitude.

So what if only one of them had been a professional?
Are professionals more valuable than other people?
Are people who lack professional membership nobody?

Fortunately, labels such as "professional" and "labourer" are purely social. They have no legal force in Britain, any more than do "slave" or "free". People arrive in a divorce court equal before the law, regardless of their qualifications, income or membership.

All human beings are equally valuable. People who cannot grasp that are not going to grasp much else.

In islam there are two forms of dowry. One is "mehr" that is a "gift" that is given at the time of marriage which a woman does not have to return (but may chose to do so if she needs to "buy" a divorce). Sometimes this "mehr" may be something paltry like a verse of the quran.
This has nothing to do with alimony in case of divorce. The mehr usually it ends up with the wifes 's family (her owners who sold her)
There is a second dowry which has not been given at the time of marriage and is merely a promisory note. It is the amount the husband must give if he divorces the wife. Since it was formulated by ignorant savages of the 7th century, It does not take into account any factor such as number of years of marriage, the income during the marriage etc. If the bride and her family were smart they would have demanded a decent amount which would take care of inflation, economic downturns etc. Usually the bride has very little say in it and it could be a paltry amount that will leave her on the streets.
According to this case, the woman had not received anything when her husband divorced which is why she had to go to the court.

somehistory wrote:

When muslims get married, are there promises to love and cherish made?
...............................

Absolutely not. This is one of the disturbing elements of marriage in Islam from the very beginning.

While Christian and even most secular marriages in the West use some version of the "love, honor, and cherish" vow, Muslim marriages are a contract between the bride's father or guardian and her husband-to-be.

Essentially, the contract stipulates that the father agrees that the husband can f*ck his daughter, often in consideration of a payment in cash or goods—the dowry goes to the bride's family, not the bride.

Not exactly the sort of thing romantic dreams—or equal partnerships—are made of...

No, billposer, there is no common law marriage in Britain.

It is really easy to get married. The unhappily married complain that it should have been more difficult. Those who are married have the rights of spouses.

Those who are not married have no rights, beyond perhaps a basic right not to be bashed up, incarcerated or starved.

It is relatively easy to get divorced. Since 1970 there have been three types of divorce.

(1) Traditional divorce, in which you prove your spouse is guilty of adultery, "unreasonable behaviour" or desertion. If you can establish the facts (an admission of guilt from the other will suffice, should the two of you be colluding), the divorce will be granted in a matter of weeks.

(2) No-Fault divorce, in which you live separately for two years, then sign a joint petition because of your "irreconciliable differences".

(3) The Deserter's divorce (I've forgotten its technical name), in which you live separately for five years, and then only one of you needs to sign the petition complaining of your "irreconciliable differences".

So the biggest thug/bitch in the country can easily secure a divorce from the greatest saint. It's simply a case of waiting five and a half years to process the machinery and agreeing to lose half your assets. And the two most reasonable incompatibles in the country can also secure their amicable divorce, provided they accept that the process will take around 27 months and will cost half their assets.

Oh, and there's the risk that there might not be full justice for the children.

Was anyone considering any persons so insignificant as the children?

"He GAVE her a dowry? I bet he pocketed it, she is not entitled to a bank account under Sharia, is she? She is property."

Considering that most Muslim marriages traditionally, and into the present, are to underage girls, the dower likely was a gift not to the wife, but to the wife's family (i.e., father). I.e., Muslim men in effect purchased a girl to nikah-nikah.

Gravenimage,

My question wasn't serious in regard to "love and cherish." More tongue-in-cheek. I was just saying that IF they said anything of the sort, it would be to further their goals, not out of a sincere regard for the girl.

It just steams one to read of the callous treatment of little girls and women by these thugs who follow something that, according to my understanding of Mr. Spencer's book on whether or not the cult leader even existed, is just a bunch of stuff made up for men to do whatever they wish to do whenever they wish to do it and can give a "religious" reason for doing it.

It all just makes me sick to my stomach.

somehistory wrote:

Gravenimage,

My question wasn't serious in regard to "love and cherish." More tongue-in-cheek...
..............................

Sorry I took you so literally, somehistory. Some people really do post here with questions, which I try to answer whenever I am able.

More:

It just steams one to read of the callous treatment of little girls and women by these thugs who follow something that, according to my understanding of Mr. Spencer's book on whether or not the cult leader even existed, is just a bunch of stuff made up for men to do whatever they wish to do whenever they wish to do it and can give a "religious" reason for doing it.

It all just makes me sick to my stomach.
..............................

I couldn't agree more. And Zaid Al-Saffar's whining that "family law in this country is biased against Muslim people" means, of course, that it treats Muslim men equally with other people—including Muslim women.

What could be more "un-Islamic"?