Registered user login:

Modern marriage

Ziauddin Sardar

Published 04 September 2008

A new arrangement means a young Muslim is free to marry whomever he or she wishes, without their parents' consent

My friend Mufti Barkatullah is an unusual chap. He is a fully qualified "mufti", a traditionally educated and recognised expert in Islamic law. You cannot guess by simply looking at him, and his attire would definitely fool you, but in western terms he is also highly educated. He is just the kind of person who can combine tradition and modernity to produce something new that retains the best features of the old - and I think this extra ordinary mufti has done just that. He is the driving force behind the "model Muslim marriage contract" launched by the Muslim Institute.

I first met him in the mid-1970s, wandering in the streets of Jeddah. Both of us were in our mid-twenties. I was working for a local university; he was looking for gainful employment in a country overburdened with traditionally educated religious scholars. I started a conversation by making a few caustic remarks about Islamic law - it was outdated, irrelevant, that sort of thing. To my surprise, he agreed with me. What we need to do, he replied, is to update it, make it relevant to Muslim life, purge it of obscurantism. I found him exceptionally congenial, always smiling and laughing, and far removed from stereotypical religious scholars, who tend to be austere, arid and obsessed with the legal opinions of Dead Muslim Men from bygone ages. Even my sarcastic remarks about his beard - "a dozen hairs in agony", I seem to recall - only produced a smile. "There isn't much hope for a man of your calibre in the kingdom of obscurantist scholars," I told him. And advised him to move to London.

He took my advice. He had to struggle financially, but he managed to get through a university degree. Over the years, he has worked tirelessly to shape a more progressive outlook among British Muslims. He developed a database of classical Islamic sources that is readily available and easily accessible to young Muslims - "to make muftis like myself irrelevant", he once said, jokingly. He played an important role in introducing sharia banking to Britain, which generates more than £2bn a year for our economy. Now, his standard Muslim marriage certificate is set to make a profound impact on British Muslim family life.

When Muslims say they want the sharia in Britain, what they mean is that they want their marriages and family life regulated by it. In particular, they want marriage, or nikah, performed according to Muslim law. The problem is that the nikah system is biased towards men, is often not registered in civil courts and, in the case of divorce, leaves women without financial support.

The new standard contract adjusts this imbalance. It provides women with written proof of their marriage, with clearly laid-out terms and conditions that both parties have to follow. Men are required to waive their so-called "right" to polygamy; women are not required to have a "marriage guardian", or wali. Conventionally, it is the parents who play the role of wali and whose consent is required.

What the new arrangement means is that a young Muslim is free to marry whomever he or she wishes, without their parents' consent. Women also have an automatic right to divorce while retaining their financial rights to alimony. The two witnesses to the marriage, by custom Muslim men, can now be any adults of any gender, Muslim, non-Muslim, or of no faith at all. The overall emphasis in the contract is on mutual consultation, the financial independence of both parties, shared obligation to support the family, and a relationship based on mutual love, respect and kindness.

Rather simple and obvious stuff, you might say. But the point is that all of this is based on the sharia. The new contract is not only couched in Islamic terminology, it also provides Islamic rationale for the changes it introduces. That is why it has the consensual support of all the major Muslim organisations of Britain, including the Islamic Sharia Council, the Muslim Women's Network UK, the Imams and Mosques Council (UK) and the Muslim Council of Britain. It demonstrates, as Mufti Barkatullah told me all those years ago, that the sharia can be updated and made relevant to contemporary times. And it can be done relatively easily.

For me, the new marriage contract also says something else. It shows that orthodox Islamic seminaries can occasionally produce individuals of profound intellect and capability. It is a pity - nay, a tragedy of grand proportions - that not all traditionally educated religious scholars are of the calibre of Mufti Barkatullah. If we had a critical mass of muftis like him across the Muslim world, I reckon many, if not most, of our religious problems would be solved with relative ease. If only.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

11 comments from readers

Stephen Gash
04 September 2008 at 12:14

For those who do not want sharia law (the supposedly unchallengable word of a deity) in English law, please go to the "No sharia here!" demo on 11th September between 18.00 and 20.00 outside Lambeth Palace.

This demo is organised by Stop Islamisation Of England - SIOE whose motto is "Racism is the lowest form of stupidity. Islamophobia is the height of common sense!"

Shaykh Rattle 'n' Roll
04 September 2008 at 12:31

Ziauddin Sardar has selectively quoted this new contract.

The contract includes provisions that state that the husband must promise not to:

* abuse his wife/children verbally, emotionally, physically, or sexually

* be absent from the marital home for more than 60 days unless by agreement

* withhold money towards his wife/family

* transmit disease

* interfere with the wife’s property

Not only have the authors of this contact inherently decided that Muslim men cannot be trusted, they’ve also decided that Islam isn’t good enough for them. The “default” marriage contract - the nikah - seemingly needs additional provisos and conditions added to it; those provided by Islam aren’t enough.

Amusingly, this is being described as “equality”, but even with these new changes, the woman isn’t expected to provide financial support to her family; that’s the man’s problem.

The usual slew of MPs and feminists have crawled out to say how they support these wonderful revisions to Islam. However, the best part is that this contract wasn’t the product of a drunken night, but took four years to compile. After four years, they have produced something that tarnishes the Muslim man, and doesn’t for even one second address the underlying problems in some marriages. I mean, seriously, who is going to be “nice” just because some contract says so? Does that work for non-Muslims?! All that stuff about “loving, honouring, richer, poorer” still leads to a lot of battered women and broken homes. This doesn’t solve anything, it just makes us look pathetic.

http://islamicpolitik.com/2008/08/the-problem-with-islam.htm...

Qai Gracen
04 September 2008 at 12:56

QUESTION FOR THE AUTHOR ...

Does this mean that Muslim women are now free to marry NON-Muslim men? Or is she still forbidden to do that?

Anees Khan
04 September 2008 at 14:52

What the author failed to point out is that every major Muslim group in the UK (Sufis, Wahabis, Deobanis, Breilwis, et al) have all rejected this "new contract" outright as incompatible with Islam. Even the MCB has withdrawn their support after it was launched. This article seems to be a last ditch attempt to save the "contract" by ascribing it to Mufti Barakatullah, who incidentally was not, as Sardar claims, the driving force behind the project. The main driving force behind this project were Ghayasudding Siddiqui and his Orientalist cronies. That is the reason why it was launched at the Muslim Institute which is headed by Siddiqui.

Sharif
04 September 2008 at 16:43

Mr. Sardar: I second this contract. Islam is basically centered around men, just like other Abrahamic religions like Christianity and jewish faith. Other have reformed and Islam is still in the 6th century. I am a man and can say that when I know that I can throw my wife out whenever i want without any financial loss, my position becomes strong and waeken wife's position. She is scared and ever pleasing not to be thrown out with a one time Haq meher, a paltry amount that cannot last more than few months, before she drops to below poverty lines.

I know one Muslim guy in Norway, who wanted to pay his wife rupees 100.000,- ($1000) and expect her to go quietly back home. Until authorities got wind of that. He was asked to leave the apartment and pay her a monthly sum of roughly $1500,- After that he changed his attitude and kept on begging her to allow him to come bcak, which she refuse. I don't blame her. Bottom line is that when it hurts, men improve their behavior. I say, Nikah system should be abolished in west. I t may take another 100 years to initiate this change in majority Muslim countries, but then we are not going back there anyway. Are we, Sardar?

Vera
05 September 2008 at 02:53

This intellectiually dishonest man continues to strut his stuff and peddle his lies in our literature.

Iftikhar
05 September 2008 at 16:18

Muslim youths are angry, frustrated and extremist because they have been mis-educated and de-educated by the British schooling. Muslim children are confused because they are being educated in a wrong place at a wrong time in state schools with non-Muslim monolingual teachers. They face lots of problems of growing up in two distinctive cultural traditions and value systems, which may come into conflict over issues such as the role of women in the society, and adherence to religious and cultural traditions. The conflicting demands made by home and schools on behaviour, loyalties and obligations can be a source of psychological conflict and tension in Muslim youngsters. There are also the issues of racial prejudice and discrimination to deal with, in education and employment. They have been victim of racism and bullying in all walks of life. According to DCSF, 56% of Pakistanis and 54% of Bangladeshi children has been victims of bullies. The first wave of Muslim migrants were happy to send their children to state schools, thinking their children would get a much better education. Than little by little, the overt and covert discrimination in the system turned them off. There are fifteen areas where Muslim parents find themselves offended by state schools.

The right to education in one’s own comfort zone is a fundamental and inalienable human right that should be available to all people irrespective of their ethnicity or religious background. Schools do not belong to state, they belong to parents. It is the parents’ choice to have faith schools for their children. Bilingual Muslim children need state funded Muslim schools with bilingual Muslim teachers as role models during their developmental periods. There is no place for a non-Muslim teacher or a child in a Muslim school. There are hundreds of state schools where Muslim children are in majority. In my opinion, all such schools may be designated as Muslim community schools. An ICM Poll of British Muslims showed that nearly half wanted their children to attend Muslim schools. There are only 143 Muslim schools. A state funded Muslim school in Birmingham has 220 pupils and more than 1000 applicants chasing just 60.

Majority of anti-Muslim stories are not about terrorism but about Muslim

culture--the hijab, Muslim schools, family life and religiosity. Muslims in the west ought to be recognised as a western community, not as an alien culture.

Iftikhar Ahmad

www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk

Sharif
05 September 2008 at 18:07

Iftikhar: you make extremely racist statements when you say: Muslim children are confused because they are being educated in a wrong place at a wrong time in state schools with non-Muslim monolingual teachers.

As a minority, you cannot expect or demand that majority changes for Muslim kids. What a ridiculous idea.

If you go a majority Muslim country, non Muslims are taught Islam without asking these kids if they want it. In fact it goes further and are taught how evil the infidels are. Now you demand something so stupid here.Wake up

Anees Khan
06 September 2008 at 08:05

I just want to make a clarification. When I said Mufti Barkatullah was not the main driving force in the new marriage contract, I did not mean to give the impression that he had nothing to with it. Barkatullah was a contributing partner to this project. He even attended the launch and promoted the document enthusiastically. My point is that it was Siddiqui who was leading Barkatullah and not the other way around.

notodhimmitude
06 September 2008 at 23:40

This lauding of the new marriage contract for women's rights is naive. As if Islamic culture - based upon the intrinsically sexist shari'a, the irrefutable and immutable Word of Allah - will change in practice with this new non-enforceable contract. And the desire for the shari'a is not - contrary to the claims of the author - just about marriage. The shar'a is a total legal system for organising, regulating and restricting the lives of both Muslims and non-Muslims. You cannot take what you want from it - that is just not Islamic.

Check this: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/the_sham_of_womens_ri...

gnuneo
12 September 2008 at 12:22

this is excellent.

it is exactly the kind of movement that Western Islam will generate, in the mingling and mixing of our own, highly adaptable, evolutionary culture with this extremely varied religion.

this simple proposal, resting as it does upon unimpeachable Islamic resources and historic discussion, removes so much of what the normal western person dislikes about Islam, the patriarchal attitudes, the prevention (sometimes by force or even murder) of inter-religious marriages.

certainly, this will not change in any dramatic way, such changes take time to filter through, just as any piece of new, evolutionary practice does (does anyone imagine that if a law is passed tomorrow preventing adults hitting children, that 'spanking' would stop immediately?), but the special circumstances of Islam, the legalistic mentality, will support this measure, and ensure it slowly spreads throughout the population.

people go on and on about how 'reactionary' Islam is, yet it is worth remembering that even here in the West, women could freely be raped by their husbands, were denied the vote, and were second class citizens in every way just because of their gender until very very recently. Compared to Christendom, Islam is a model of liberty!

shaykh RnR:

"Ziauddin Sardar has selectively quoted this new contract.

The contract includes provisions that state that the husband must promise not to:

* abuse his wife/children verbally, emotionally, physically, or sexually

* be absent from the marital home for more than 60 days unless by agreement

* withhold money towards his wife/family

* transmit disease

* interfere with the wife’s property

Not only have the authors of this contact inherently decided that Muslim men cannot be trusted, they’ve also decided that Islam isn’t good enough for them. The “default” marriage contract - the nikah - seemingly needs additional provisos and conditions added to it; those provided by Islam aren’t enough. "

where exactly is the problem with these measures? In fact, i can see a great argument for extending this part of the marriage contract to ALL marriages, not *just* to see the right-wing Islamophobic press choking on their own spleen as such a liberalising measure gets called 'shariahisation', but i cannot deny - it would amuse! :)

you feel that such measures indicate that "muslim men cannot be trusted" - well DUH!! Why do you think people HAVE marriage contracts? Why do you think the Prophet (pbuh) put restrictions on men's behaviour in the first place??

people are not angels, and laws and restrictions do not make them so. But they *can* aid in preventing people from being daemons, and that is what this proposal does.

Sharif: "Mr. Sardar: I second this contract. Islam is basically centered around men, just like other Abrahamic religions like Christianity and jewish faith. Other have reformed and Islam is still in the 6th century."

well... that would be nice, but - no.

actually Christendom has not 'reformed', it has been overturned, debunked and dumped. Most of the idjits out there who claim "the West is built upon Christian Values" - ignoramuses to a person - are simply blissfully ignorant of what life would be like under Christian rule. Here is a little taster, from our backward hicksville cousins across the pond.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/9178374/gods_sena...

like the look of that??

yes, it is time for Islam to flower in its liberal elements, rather than the Talibanesque elements, but really - don't believe the media guff.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

You may enter up to 2000 characters (about 300-350 words)

Characters left:

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

About the writer

Ziauddin Sardar

Ziauddin Sardar, writer and broadcaster, describes himself as a ‘critical polymath’. He is the author of over 40 books, including the highly acclaimed ‘Desperately Seeking Paradise’. He is Visiting Professor, School of Arts, the City University, London and editor of ‘Futures’, the monthly journal of planning, policy and futures studies.

Read More

Vote!

Should Darling have been bolder with the 45% tax rate?