| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
"No marriage of an adult or minor female" is "valid without the guardian's approval." Sharia Alert. "Marriage sans consent is over" by Mohsen Rashid for The Khaleej Times:
Dubai — The Dubai Court of Cassation has upheld a verdict issued by the Shariah Court ordering the termination of a five-year marriage between a national woman and an Egyptian man after the wife’s guardian filed a lawsuit against it saying it was solemnised without his consent.
The case unfolded when the woman’s brother filed a lawsuit on behalf of his father (her guardian) before the Dubai Shariah court in July, against the couple who have a daughter.
The plaintiff demanded the termination of the marriage contract, as it was signed without the consent of the guardian of the wife (according to Shariah). The husband argued that since the marriage was done in mid-August 2000 in Egypt it had become subject of the Egyptian personal status law. A previous civil lawsuit, issued in Egypt, resulted in validating the marriage.
However, the court referred to the personal status law, whereby each one of the spouses needed to obey the laws of his or her country of origin, and since the wife was a UAE citizen, the UAE law stipulated that no marriage of an adult or minor female was valid without guardian’s approval. The court thus recommended termination of the marriage contract.
Meanwhile, the husband appealed against the verdict, arguing that the marriage lasted since the year 2000 without any lawsuits, what should be considered as evidence that her father had no objection to it. He also stated that they were living in the UAE and were maintaining good relations with the wife’s family.
He also urged the court to confirm the authenticity of the power of attorney granted to the sons by their father (guardian), who lacks basic skills of reading and writing. The appeal, however, was rejected.
The husband then moved the Court of Cassation, which too upheld the previous verdict and pulled the curtain down on the case by terminating the marriage.
Posted by Marisol at November 29, 2006 12:17 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
it looks like to me this couple needs to apply for refugee status in Canada or the United States on the grounds that the wife is in danger of a forced to marry someone else again her will, since her brothers are involved I would question what their motives are and why they're so anxious for her not be married to this man, I'm glad we live in the United States and Canada because it will laws here were like they are in the middle East more likely my mother-in-law would tried many years ago that my wife and I marriage dissolved. And yes I have the mother-in-law from hell can I sell her cheep to anyone on jihad watch.
Posted by: islamakapigeaters![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 29, 2006 4:19 AM
And yes I have the mother-in-law from hell can I sell her cheep to anyone on jihad watch.
Posted by: islamakapigeaters
Maybe nazeem can send your mother in law a nice burka. LOL. She offered FREE burkas to Jihadwatch members earlier. Of course since moslems always LIE there's not much chance that you will actually get that burka. oh, well!
at November 29, 2006 5:28 AM
German in America,
Naseem's handing out free burkas? Great, I need one because I want to clean up a big oil spill in my garage and trash day is the day after tomorrow. Do you think she'll Fed-Ex me one?
at November 29, 2006 6:21 AM
This is unbelievable, there is no respect for the concept of family at all in this decision. A father, mother and child can just be torn apart because someone who claims previous 'ownership' of the female can demand it. She isn't even able to claim independence as an adult in her own right.
Slavery, that is how the women are treated under Sharia. Disgusting.
Posted by: chrisse at November 29, 2006 6:34 AM
It's pathetic that this woman's future lies with the whims of an illiterate muslim male. He lacks not only the three R's, but he probably doesn't bathe.
Since stupidity runs rampant through the minds of the males, it doesn't surprise me the judges take this guy's side. So the idiot's don't give a thought as to the child of this union.
You'd think, after 1400 years of this crap, some muslim male would think of the consequences of this and say enough is enough.
This ignoramous may have just come of age, or he may have just realized his sister was worth a couple extra camels and goats.
Posted by: freewoman at November 29, 2006 7:28 AM
I am so glad that I live in modern-day Canada, where I have equal rights under the secular, and only, law. I am deeply grateful that I am not the property of my mean-spirited brother because then he would have the power to ruin my life.
I'm reminded of the saying, "You've made your bed, now lie in it." Under Sharia law, it would be: "He's made your bed, now lie in it."
Posted by: Josephine at November 29, 2006 8:37 AM
Somebody please remind me again. We protected a place like this from Saddam Hussein in 1991 because......?
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 29, 2006 8:40 AM
"We protected a place like this from Saddam Hussein in 1991 because......?"
Excellent question! Especially since under the Ba'ath secular legal system, adult women were free to choose their own husbands and (at least in the cities) forced marriage or divorce was not permitted. Now the US and Brit occupation forces have allowed this more (by Mideast standards)enlightened legal code to be replaced by Sharia.
Posted by: Provoslavni at November 29, 2006 12:08 PM
"Somebody please remind me again. We protected a place like this from Saddam Hussein in 1991 because......?"
Because that was at the end of the cold war, and there was some uncertainty as to what middling-sided nations could get away with under the new shift in powers. While the cold war was going, the UN was largely a meeting place for the Free world and the Communist world to negotiate disagreements without
Had Saddam gotten away with grabbing at his resource-rich neighbors, he would have only been the first of many, worldwide, and the resulting conflicts would have resulted in a far less stable world. A world in which many of subjects of totalitarian regimes die in wars over land grabs, a world in which carrying on commerce and peaceful connections internationally would have been far more difficult, and a war in which nasty folks like those who occupy the Axis of Evil would have developed even more and more longstanding cooperative and blackmarket connections (because of the extra assets that could have been gotten by such connections in a more anarchic international setting).
The context for this is understanding what the focus of the UN and of the international community was like in the cold war. The focus was preventing full-blown war, and especially nuclear war, between the US and the USSR. This generally--not always, but generally--meant much care taken to 1) uphold existing national boundaries in order to avoid the sort of conflict that might result if a country aligned with one superpower did something threatening to the sphere of the other super power, and to 2) refrain from getting involved in the internal affairs of other countries. With the cold war resolved, and with the US left as the sole superpower, it was not very clear to Saddam that that first factor would still hold. From his position, it might have appeared as if the fall of the USSR meant open season for those on neutral to good terms with the US to take what they liked, unchecked by other powers.
at November 29, 2006 12:56 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)