Call for Islamic divorce court

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 06:37 AM
link   
"A SPECIALIST Islamic court is among proposals Muslim leaders have raised with Howard Government ministers to resolve religious disputes such as divorce within Australian Muslim communities.

The imam from Sydney's largest mosque met Citizenship Minister Peter McGauran last week to raise concerns about a failure to adequately resolve religious disputes, a longstanding problem within Muslim communities.
Under Islamic law, a divorce is only recognised when a husband pronounces a talaq (I divorce you). If either party refuses the talaq, the common recourse is to a sharia court, of which there are none in Australia. "

www.news.com.au...

How will this play out? Is this an assault on Islam by western thinking? Or is the 6th century religion recognizing its own ignorance?




posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 06:59 AM
link   
weird... I was under the impression that in Islam, both the man or the woman can initiate the divorce:


4:128
If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves


I also thought that ANY court will do, not just a religious court.



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 07:03 AM
link   
I have far more concerns than that. The Islamic culture, in general, doesn't allow for much female rights. They have next to nothing in marriage, and nothing if divorced....especially if their father/brother doesn't take them back in....*shakes head* If democracy does finally take a hold of the religion, it's going to go through what America did for it's women...but I'm not so sure that it's going to be as nicely done as it was here....don't think they have the same chivalrous code for not beating women....



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 07:23 AM
link   
More weird ideas.....Nothing if divorced??? Where'd that come from? Lookeey what I found:



2:233
The mothers shall give such to their offspring for two whole years, if the father desires to complete the term. But he shall bear the cost of their food and clothing on equitable terms. No soul shall have a burden laid on it greater than it can bear. No mother shall be Treated unfairly on account of her child. Nor father on account of his child, an heir shall be chargeable in the same way. If they both decide on weaning, by mutual consent, and after due consultation, there is no blame on them. If ye decide on a foster-mother for your offspring, there is no blame on you, provided ye pay (the mother) what ye offered, on equitable terms. But fear Allah and know that Allah sees well what ye do.



2:241
For divorced women Maintenance (should be provided) on a reasonable (scale). This is a duty on the righteous.



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 07:54 AM
link   
The Australian Courts should recognize their own Australian laws on divorce for all it's people. If the Islamic communities want to instill their religious courts, fine, let them....but, their decisions would only be good for within the religous institution....so, if the Islamic court refused to grant a divorce that the Australian courts already has, or does in the future, well, the couple still is legally divorced, but the religous community may chose not to acknowledge that fact. I believe we allow the same thing here in america, if the catholic church choses not to accept a divorce and remarriage, I believe they sanction them in some way, and in the jewish faith, they will not acknowledge a marriage with a christian, at least they didn't back in the 80's....
that is their chose....but.....
1. anything that is illegal in the country, is still illegal, whatever their religous court says.
and
2. the people have to volunteerily accept the decisions of that court for them to be acceptably, otherwise, they can just fall back on Australian law, and their decisions.

unfortunately, this isn't what they want.
and, well, it would also probably increase the instances of premature death of inslamic women by unnatural causes.

[edit on 6-4-2005 by dawnstar]



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 10:13 AM
link   
I'd like to offer a little perspective on how I see most (if not all) of these anti-Islamic arguments usually pan out. Maybe then, some progress can be made in future discussions.

Here's what happens in chronological order:
1.) Person posts article on what a small group or country is doing that is either violent or questionable by modern (not-traditional) western constitutional rights.
2.) Babloyi provides Quran quotes that contradict their actions.
3.) Posts follow with additional separate incidences or reasons why this particular action is indeed typical of the Muslim community.

Where I sit, if one is quoting the scripture of their belief, then that's quintessential of the belief system. Therefore, whatever group or country that is doing these things "in the name of Allah" have not first consulted their book first as they're supposed to. The scoreboard right now then looks like this:

Babloyi 2 (1 point for the Religion of Peace thread)
Away Team 0

Now feel not bad Babloyi, the same happens to me. Lot o' peeps claim 'Christians' do things for God that are insane, but anyone who reads scripture and talks to God knows differently. I'll pledge to read what you quote Babloyi and discuss what's written because honestly I don't have the background to discuss the Quran. If you say it's so (and I read it the same way), I'm going to have to trust it's so until anyone else can give an interpretation on what's written or have at least the ability to discuss their own quotes of the Quran to counter the argument. Otherwise, it looks to me like a waste of time with unproven accusations of a religion apparently not understood. Sorry if I've offended anyone, just looking for progress instead of congress...

Pray, train, study.
God bless.





top topics
 
0

log in

join