92% Of Muslim Women In India Want A Total Ban On Oral Talaq, Survey Finds

[N00B]

Now the time has come...

http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2015/08/21/muslim-women-talaq_n_8018674.html

Majority of Muslim women In India want a complete ban on oral and unilateral divorce, a survey by an NGO that fights for the rights of the community in India have revealed in a survey.

92.1% of women wanted a total ban on oral and unilateral talaq, 75.5% women want the age of marriage to be above 18 years for girls and 93% favoured an arbitration process to be mandatory before divorce, according to the survey by the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA) released on Thursday.

Muslim women have also unequivocally opposed polygamy, with 91.7% saying they do not want their husbands to marry another woman in the subsistence of first marriage.

Here are some other highlights from the survey:

88.3% want talaak-e-Ahsan to be the method of divorce.
93% want arbitration process to be mandatory before divorce.
72.3% want the arbitration process to be between 3 to 6 months.
88.5% want the qazi to be punished who sends notice of oral divorce.
The annual income of 73.1% of the families is below Rs.50,000.
55.3% have married before the age of 18.
46.5% of the women surveyed have 1 or 2 children.
53.2% of the surveyed women have faced domestic violence.
78.7% of the women are home makers.
95.5%, i.e., 4499 women have not heard of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board.   
88.9% want women to retain the custody of children after divorce.
95.6% want ex-husband to pay for children?s maintenance even if she holds their custody.
92.7% want consent and well being of the child to be the deciding factor for custody.
79.8% want the adopted child to be treated as a natural heir to the property.

Indian Muslim women have expressed concern over divorce through social media platforms such as Skype and Facebook. The divorce is instant and binding. The study of 4499 respondents, or 95.5%, have also revealed that these women have not heard of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board.

53.2% of the women interviewed have faced domestic violence, the survey, which covered states like West Bengal, Maharashtra, Bihar and Jharkhand, found. Most of the respondents live in poverty and half of the numbers polled have faced domestic violence.

?This is a very important finding which suggests that women want an elaborate codified law based on the Quranic justice framework to cover matters such as age of marriage, divorce, polygamy, maintenance and custody of children,? the Hindustan Times quoted Mumbai-based Noorjehan Safia Niaz, who along with Zakia Soman conducted the survey.

"In 2014, of the 235 cases that came to women Sharia adalats that we run, 80% were of oral talaq,'' Soman told Times of India.

BMMA plans to take the issue up with the government, Law Commission and the National Commission for Women, the TOI report added.

[Neptin]

It appear from the stats that these women are rural, underprivileged folks. Don't you feel that the degree of poverty, illiteracy of these women coupled with the patriarchal Indian culture is being ignored in discussing the root of this problem?

IMO, educated, financially independent and modern women are by far less vulnerable to such abuse as triple talaaq than than their less privileged counterparts. Perhaps, this could explain why we 've been hearing these cries only from India.

92.1% of women wanted a total ban on oral and unilateral talaq ,

75.5% women want the age of marriage to be above 18 years for girls

88.3% want talaak-e-Ahsan to be the method of divorce.

93% want arbitration process to be mandatory before divorce.

72.3% want the arbitration process to be between 3 to 6 months.

88.5% want the qazi to be punished who sends notice of oral divorce.

Wouldn't it be of more benefit for these women and their daughters if they rejected Shari'ah family law and embrace the state secular law that is more liberating for them? To demand all the above while supporting Shari'ah is stark contradiction. Shari'ah sanctions child marriage, oral talaaq and arguably triple talaaq and doesn't deem arbitration necessary before divorce.
If these women want these changes, they have to reject Shari'ah else it is all in futility. These laws will continue to plague them because Shari'ah authorities regard Shari'ah as immutable and the government cannot interfere in religious courts.

Before the revolution, Iranian government repealed many of these misogynist Shari'ah law and gave  Iranian women the rights that today Indian Muslim women are craving. After the revolution, those misorgynist Shari'ah law were returned and enforced. Today, Iranian women can only dream of the rights their mothers enjoyed till about 35 years ago. As long as Shari'ah is the main stay in the Muslim community, as long as Muslims stand for Shari'ah against secularism or reform, nothing can be done to help these women.

Peace!

[Man of Faith]

Hi,

Divorce is normally not allowed by God but detrimental for the soul. This ancient saying should be contemplated by all: "Man and woman created He them; they should cleave unto each other and become as one body" and what God has joined together nothing shall separate".

Obviously, if there is abuse involved this is another case, but divorcing as easy as with an oral pronunciation is only allowed by God's direct authorization.

Abuse prevents the bonding, so the merging is yet held off anyway, minimizing the negative impact of divorce, but the abusive person will have their requital.

Those who utter "talaq" thrice to divorce for no valid reason disobey God tremendously. Egotism, being tired of the woman or similar excuses are not acceptable. The woman being barren is not acceptable either. Only severe misconditions is an acceptable excuse. Otherwise the couple has to find some sort of reconciliation and mind their egos.

Be well
Emanuel

[عوني]

Today, Iranian women can only dream of the rights their mothers enjoyed till about 35 years ago.

Yes and when you ask those moronic Islamist supporters why they supported these Islamists in taking over Iran they will be like "BUT SHAH OF IRAN WAS A DICTATOR!!". It still doesn't change the fact that Iranians had more rights under Shah of Iran than your silly primitive Khomeni regime. They are trying to pull the same stupidity on Syria, supporting Islamists while pretending to support freedom fighters as a way to destroy Syria. When somebody on this forum claims to support the 'revolution' of Syria what they are supporting in reality are Islamists that behead, destroy churches and impose restrictions on woman rights. Ironically these people live in the West and come from countries that are completely terrible and Islamist to the core but enjoy living in the West due to secularism and democracy while supporting Islamist takeover in other countries.


If you oppose a particular regime then DON'T support Islamists.

[huruf]

53% domestic violence is a lot of violence. I do not know what the domestic violence in India is for the whole population, but 53% is a lot.

Salaam

[N00B]

It appear from the stats that these women are rural, underprivileged folks. Don't you feel that the degree of poverty, illiteracy of these women coupled with the patriarchal Indian culture is being ignored in discussing the root of this problem?

IMO, educated, financially independent and modern women are by far less vulnerable to such abuse as triple talaaq than than their less privileged counterparts. Perhaps, this could explain why we 've been hearing these cries only from India.


Wouldn't it be of more benefit for these women and their daughters if they rejected Shari'ah family law and embrace the state secular law that is more liberating for them? To demand all the above while supporting Shari'ah is stark contradiction. Shari'ah sanctions child marriage, oral talaaq and arguably triple talaaq and doesn't deem arbitration necessary before divorce.
If these women want these changes, they have to reject Shari'ah else it is all in futility. These laws will continue to plague them because Shari'ah authorities regard Shari'ah as immutable and the government cannot interfere in religious courts.

Before the revolution, Iranian government repealed many of these misogynist Shari'ah law and gave  Iranian women the rights that today Indian Muslim women are craving. After the revolution, those misorgynist Shari'ah law were returned and enforced. Today, Iranian women can only dream of the rights their mothers enjoyed till about 35 years ago. As long as Shari'ah is the main stay in the Muslim community, as long as Muslims stand for Shari'ah against secularism or reform, nothing can be done to help these women.

Peace!

It's true the demographic of this survey is lower-class Muslim women. Muslims from rural areas are definitely not the minority. Ghettoization in India strongly affect Muslims than other minority groups. Yeah, poverty and illiteracy are the biggest obstacle for women in India regardless of religion. Poor Muslim women face this while Hindu women from poverty face high dowry demands and other social problems. Even Muslim women from middle and high class face this Muslim Law but to the lesser extent compare to poorer women. The major problem about this issue is ignorance and privileges of Indian men in patriarchal society.

As for abandoning Sharia Law, Muslim from such demographic would probably not understand the concept of secular family law which Western countries have.
In India, marriage law courts differs based on religion. There are Hindu marriage law, the Muslim one, Christian, Sikh etc.
Muslims from middle-high class secular family are more likely to support abolishing Indian Muslim Law. If Sharia family law in India is abolished, then other religious family courts would be as well and secular universal law would be used instead.
Based on my possibilities, the Muslim Marriage Law will more likely to be codified and the laws will be changed.

Women rights under Shah's rule is way better than Khomeini's rule, but the Pahlavi regime is not a heaven for ruling Iranian citizens. Going from Shah's rule to Ayatollah's rule is like going from hot frying pan to hotter frying pan. Iran would be in different place if the democratic elected leader, Mossadig was not overthrown in 1953.

[N00B]

53% domestic violence is a lot of violence. I do not know what the domestic violence in India is for the whole population, but 53% is a lot.

Salaam

Sadly, domestic violence is a big problem in Indian society, it mostly affect women from lower class. The demographic of Muslim women comes from lower social class, so violence affected them badly because of the low privileges. I even hear threatening and violence stories from Indian middle class families.   

[Man of Faith]

Such a shame, Bollywood movies seem to portray such respect for women.

Be well
Emanuel

[عوني]

Levant Front (Whom Westerners enjoy refering to as 'moderate' rebels) in Azaz (Syria) urge women to abide by Sharia and put on a niqab.


In order to fight backwardness you also have to fight the Muslims that are supporting Islamists in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and so on too. There are Qur'anists that have been sugarcoating Islamists in Syria. It's not Saudi-Arabia, Israel or the US I'm blaming at the moment, it is THEM I'm blaming. Ironically these Muslims come from countries that are completely terrible and Islamist to the core but enjoy living in the West due to secularism and democracy while supporting Islamist takeover in other countries. The only thing the average Westerner knows is to sugarcoat terrorist groups as it suits their interest. These Western Muslims have certainly not changed. They are no different than Islamists. The Islamists in Syria aren't going to last very long. It is thanks to their Western and Gulf buddies that they have survived so long otherwise they are complete junk infact they are already junk. IMO they should start digging their graves.

[عوني]

Women rights under Shah's rule is way better than Khomeini's rule, but the Pahlavi regime is not a heaven for ruling Iranian citizens. Going from Shah's rule to Ayatollah's rule is like going from hot frying pan to hotter frying pan. Iran would be in different place if the democratic elected leader, Mossadig was not overthrown in 1953.

Good analogy. Iran would definently be a lot different. Guess who's supporting Islamists right now. People that live in the West and don't want to live in an 'Islamic' country. One day they will get a taste of their own medicine.