UK: Muslim claims his estranged wife doesn’t deserve a divorce because polygamy allowed under Sharia

But Sharia is not British law. At least not yet. “Muslim tycoon in divorce fight over affair ‘allowed under Sharia Law,'” by Andrew Hough for the Telegraph, September 4 (thanks to all who sent this in):

AN unfaithful millionaire Muslim does not believe his estranged wife deserves a divorce because polygamy is allowed under Islamic law, he told a court today.

Houshang Jafari, 60, was unfaithful to his wife, Aghdas Bidaki, 53, with a younger woman by whom he has two children.

He moved out of the family home and moved his mistress, Katrina, 20 years his junior, into his £1.2 million apartment. She has taken his name despite not being legally married.

In a tense divorce hearing today, the property developer, who styles himself ‘Lord” and was once jailed for attacking a helicopter, told Bristol county court that he was allowed a second wife under sharia.

Ms Bidaki argued that her husband’s affair and illegitimate children were grounds for a divorce.

They married in Iran in 1978, when she was 19, before moving to Britain, where they had three children and he built his business, the court heard.

In the following years, her husband had numerous affairs, Ms Bidaki said.

She ignored them, hoping he would grow out of his infidelity, but their marriage soon came under great pressure as he complained about her “cooking” and family life, she said.

He would stay out overnight several times a week, never tell her where he was or answer his phone because he had “no signal”.

After threatening to end the marriage, she spoke to her husband about her concerns and he promised to buy her a new three-bedroom home and a car and pay her a monthly allowance.

But she decided to go ahead and seek a divorce after becoming aware that Katrina, who calls herself “Lady Jafari”, had become pregnant again two years after having a son with the developer.

Her husband moved out of the marital home in Downleaze, Bristol, to a flat in a converted former hospital in Stoke Park.

Ms Bidaki said she had wanted to divorce him earlier but under Islamic law she would not have been able to take custody of her children, who are now grown up.

“He had other relationships but I put up with it for the sake of my marriage,” she said.

“I put up with it because my family would say it would pass and once he was older and wiser it would be fine.

“What I didn’t know was that this time it was serious. I could not compete with a woman 20 years younger than myself.”

She added: “He says he never loved me but I am not ashamed to say that I loved him.”

Jafari, who represented himself, admitted that he had never said “I love you” during their marriage.

He rejected her claims. “What she is saying is being orchestrated by her children,” he said. “She is saying it so she can get them money.”

He also argued with Recorder Susan Jacklin after the judge accused him of shouting and ruled that many of his questions in cross-examining his wife were “irrelevant”.

Jafari was jailed for a year in 2010 after he attacked a helicopter in a rage after it landed outside his flat….

James M. Arlandson: Thirty Shariah Laws That Are Bad For All Societies
Egypt: Adviser to Muslim Brotherhood President says Egyptians have "an overwhelming desire to implement Islamic Sharia"
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    1. “told Bristol county court that he was allowed a second wife under sharia.”

    Only two? Are you sure?

    2. “before moving to Britain, where they had three children”

    However:

    “”orchestrated by her children,” he said.”

    Huh?

    3. “she had wanted to divorce him earlier but under Islamic law she would not have been able to take custody of her children”

    And she’s an idiot, too.

  2. says

    Is this guy a moron? How can he argue that his religion allows him to marry a second wife when he didn’t even marry his mistress? Is he claiming that Islam permits him to keep mistresses?

    You just know “Lord” Jafari wants to claim that in court:)

  3. says

    But the important thing is: this couple is standing before a British civil law court, petitioning for a British divorce. Since the man has frankly admitted to adultery, the divorce will be granted.

    This story only made the newspapers for its isn’t-he-anti-social value. There is little doubt that British law will prevail. The only anomaly is that Mrs Jafari apparently failed to grasp that British law would have granted her custody of her children had she applied for a divorce twenty years ago. What this story highlights is that Muslim women and children need to be made aware of their rights.

    Muslim women have hearts like any other women, and nobody’s heart should be broken by adultery. But if anyone does fall victim to an adulterer, the law is there to provide some redress. Ayesha, don’t you wish you had been born in modern Britain?

    Is he claiming that Islam permits him to keep mistresses?

    Quite likely! Islam allows him to keep prisoners-of-war as sex-slaves. If he perceives Islam as “at war” with Britain, then any British woman whom he happens to capture is a prisoner-of-war whom he may keep as a concubine. It sounds as if Miss Katrina was easily captured and does not realise that he perceives her as his slave.

  4. says

    She added: “He says he never loved me but I am not ashamed to say that I loved him.”

    In checking on Islam’s rules regarding women it’s easy to see why a Muslim man would never say “I love you”….to love is Un-Islamic….

  5. says

    Since he did not marry the women with whom he had affairs, with each of them he committed adultery. Under Shari’a law, adultery by a married man is a crime for which the penalty is death by stoning. If Shari’a is applicable in the UK, he might deny his wife a divorce but he will shortly be executed.

  6. says

    British legal system needs to sort this defiance of the law before it gets out of hand – we end up paying benefits to multiple wives and children – it is a business to them, which must be eradicated – apart from anything else, we cannot afford to fund their medieval life-style

  7. says

    “What this story highlights is that Muslim women and children need to be made aware of their rights.”

    I’m sure that’s true; to some unknown degree.

    But this woman and her husband immigrated to GB between 20-30 years ago (children born and reared there, and now grown).

    It is difficult for me, as the husband of an immigrant who’se been in the U.S. for almost 40 years, that she hasn’t been exposed–by radio, television, newspapers and magazines, her own children, personal experience, other divorced/divorcing Muslim women, etc.–that the shari’ah is not the law in the U.K.

    When they’re new to a secular society–when they’re young and unworldly and under their husband’s complete control–I agree that they need to be told what they’re rights are; but I just don’t know for sure that they aren’t; or how many aren’t.

    I will send a polite letter to Mr. Hough (the Telegraph journalist) to bring these things to his attention (if he isn’t aware already.

    As he notes at the conclusion of his article that the trial continues, perhaps he’ll keep an ear out for the answers to them, or will do further work on his own to learn more about this.

    We live in a rapidly accelerating age of information, and I just have a hard time believing that Muslims (women, in particular) might remain so ignorant of such issues for so long.

  8. says

    “he might deny his wife a divorce but he will shortly be executed.” .. Where did you find that? The moslum men living in the Western secular system,are continuously look out for women outside their marriage. Jihad doesn’t stop when you are married. There were a whole bunch of Muslim men caught actively grooming kid girls in the UK, known to their community, wives, daughters, sons etc.. did anyone of them complain? They were caught after some victims complained (i used plural of victim).

  9. says

    This is only true if the adulteresses were Muslims or monotheists paying the jizya tax.

    If they were non-Muslims and not paying jizya, then they were legitimate “right-hand possessions”.

    A man does not literally need to use a sworsd (what he holds in his “right hand”) to categorise a woman as a prisoner-of-war. If he manages to capture her by verbal tricks or bribery, she is his “right-hand possession” just the same.

    Muslims simply do not perceive polygyny as adultery. The only problem is if a woman is stolen from another Muslim who is her father, husband, slave-owner, etc.