India gets rid of discriminatory Sharia law : No more triple talaq: India court bans Islamic instant divorce

“Three of the five Supreme Court judges called the controversial practice ‘un-Islamic, arbitrary and unconstitutional’. One of the judges, Justice Kurien Joseph, said the practice was not an essential part of Islam and enjoyed no protection.”

Presumably if the court had determined that the practice was Islamic, it would not have outlawed it.

The Qur’an does say that a man can divorce his wife unilaterally, and that the third time is final:

“Divorce is twice. Then, either keep her in an acceptable manner or release her with good treatment. And it is not lawful for you to take anything of what you have given them unless both fear that they will not be able to keep the limits of Allah. But if you fear that they will not keep the limits of Allah, then there is no blame upon either of them concerning that by which she ransoms herself. These are the limits of Allah, so do not transgress them. And whoever transgresses the limits of Allah – it is those who are the wrongdoers. And if he has divorced her for the third time, then she is not lawful to him afterward until she marries a husband other than him. And if the latter husband divorces her, there is no blame upon the woman and her former husband for returning to each other if they think that they can keep the limits of Allah. These are the limits of Allah, which He makes clear to a people who know.” (Qur’an 2:229-230)

But there is supposed to be a waiting period, not simply an instant divorce through the declaration that a woman is divorced repeated thrice — and that’s the basis on which the Indian court says this practice is un-Islamic:

“O Prophet, when you divorce women, divorce them for their waiting period and keep count of the waiting period, and fear Allah, your Lord. Do not turn them out of their houses, nor should they leave unless they are committing a clear immorality. And those are the limits of Allah. And whoever transgresses the limits of Allah has certainly wronged himself. You know not; perhaps Allah will bring about after that a matter. And when they have fulfilled their term, either retain them according to acceptable terms or part with them according to acceptable terms. And bring to witness two just men from among you and establish the testimony for Allah. That is instructed to whoever should believe in Allah and the Last day. And whoever fears Allah – He will make for him a way out.” (Qur’an 65:1-2)

“Triple talaq: India court bans Islamic instant divorce,” BBC, August 22, 2017:

India’s top court has ruled the practice of instant divorce in Islam unconstitutional, marking a major victory for women’s rights activists.

In a 3-2 majority verdict, the court called the practice “un-Islamic”.

India is one of a handful of countries where a Muslim man can divorce his wife in minutes by saying the word talaq (divorce) three times.

The landmark court decision came in response to petitions challenging the so-called “triple talaq” custom.

The cases were filed by five Muslim women who had been divorced in this way and two rights groups.

Women’s rights campaigners have hailed the court’s decision as a historic win.

What is instant divorce?

There have been cases in which Muslim men in India have divorced their wives by issuing the so-called triple talaq by letter, telephone and, increasingly, by text message, WhatsApp and Skype. A number of these cases made their way to the courts as women contested the custom.

Triple talaq divorce has no mention in Sharia Islamic law or the Koran, even though the practice has existed for decades.

Islamic scholars say the Koran clearly spells out how to issue a divorce – it has to be spread over three months, allowing a couple time for reflection and reconciliation.

Most Islamic countries, including Pakistan and Bangladesh, have banned triple talaq, but the custom has continued in India, which does not have a uniform set of laws on marriage and divorce that apply to every citizen.

What did the court say?

Three of the five Supreme Court judges called the controversial practice “un-Islamic, arbitrary and unconstitutional”. One of the judges, Justice Kurien Joseph, said the practice was not an essential part of Islam and enjoyed no protection.

The judges also said it was “manifestly arbitrary” to allow a man to “break down (a) marriage whimsically and capriciously”….

Montreal mayor opposes law forcing burqa-wearing women to show faces to access public services
Victory: PayPal removes ban on Jihad Watch

Comments

    1. epistemology says

      August 22, 2017 at 9:46 am

      India is the largest democracy and this custom isn’t compatible with either democracy or civilization. The times of the mogul dynasties are long gone, so Indian judges shouldn’t care whether something is Islamic or not. Anyway we all know the problem muzzies always claim to be victimized when their bloody sharia and their stupid inhuman customs aren’t respected. The Indians just shouldn’t care.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Superstitious belief that water makes atonement for future sins

(4) Narrated Humran: (the slave of ‘Uthman) I saw ‘Uthman bin ‘Affan asking for a tumbler of water (and when it was brought) he poured water over his hands and washed them thrice and then put his right hand in the water container and rinsed his mouth, washed his nose by putting water in it and then blowing it out. then he washed his face and forearrlns up to the elbows thrice, passed his wet hands over his head and washed his feet up to the ankles thrice. Then he said, “Allah’s Apostle said ‘If anyone Performs ablution like that of mine and offers a two-rak’at prayer during which he does not think of anything else (not related to the present prayer) then his past sins will be forgiven.’ ” After performing the ablution ‘Uthman said, “I am going to tell you a Hadith which I would not have told you, had I not been compelled by a certain Holy Verse (the sub narrator ‘Urwa said: This verse is: “Verily, those who conceal the clear signs and the guidance which we have sent down…)” (2:159). I heard the Prophet saying, ‘If a man performs ablution perfectly and then offers the compulsory congregational prayer, Allah will forgive his sins committed between that (prayer) and the (next) prayer till he offers it.  (Book #4, Hadith #161)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Superstitious power of dirty water in Islam. The adoration and worship of a man

(6) Narrated Abu Juhaifa: Allah’s Apostle came to us at noon and water for ablution was brought to him. After he had performed ablution, the remaining water was taken by the people and they started smearing their bodies with it (as a blessed thing). The Prophet offered two Rakat of the Zuhr prayer and then two Rakat of the ‘Asr prayer while an ‘Anza (spear-headed stick) was there (as a Sutra) in front of him. Abu Musa said: The Prophet asked for a tumbler containing water and washed both his hands and face in it and then threw a mouthful of water in the tumbler and said to both of us (Abu Musa and Bilal), “Drink from the tumbler and pour some of its water on your faces and chests.”  (Book #4, Hadith #187)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Mohammed and the Medinan Jews, an article from the Jewish Encylopaedia

Second sacred city of Islam; situated in the Hijaz in Arabia, about 250 miles north of Mecca. It is celebrated as the place to which the Hegira (Mohammed’s flight from Mecca) was directed, and as the capital and burial-place of Mohammed. According to Arabic tradition, Yathrib and the Hijaz were originally peopled with Amalekites, who were displaced by the Israelites. There are different accounts as to when this displacement was effected: some say that it occurred under Moses (comp. “Kitab al-Aghani,” iv. 263); some, under Joshua; and some, under David, who it is stated resided in the Hijaz during Absalom’s rebellion.

Jews may have settled in the Hijaz after the sack of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar; and it is probable that they came in successive colonies, e.g., after Pompey’s attack upon Judea (64 B.C.), after Titus’ conquest of Jerusalem (70 C.E.), and again after Hadrian’s persecution of the Jews (in 136 C.E.; see Arabia).

Jewish Tribes at Medina.

The Jews had a very rich and flourishing settlement at Yathrib and built strongholds in the city and vicinity. The principal families were the Banu Ḳainuḳa’, the Banu Ḳuraiẓa, and the Banu al-Naḍir. The latter two were known as the “Al-Kahinan,” because they traced their descent from Aaron. In the fourth century Arab tribes from Yemen began to encroach upon the Jews in Medina. They were divided into two clans, the Banu Aus andthe Banu Khazraj. By calling in outside assistance and treacherously massacring at a banquet the principal Jews, these Arab clans finally gained the upper hand at Medina toward the end of the fifth century (for date see “J. Q. R.” vii. 175, note). From this time the Jews retired into the background for about a century. About four or five years before the Hegira the Jews took an active part in the battle of Bu’ath between the Banu Aus and the Banu Khazraj. The Banu Naḍir and the Banu Ḳuraiẓa fought with the Banu Aus, while the Banu Ḳainuḳa’ were allied with the Banu Khazraj. The latter were defeated after a long and desperate battle.

Mohammed’s Attitude Toward Jews of Medina.

It is probable that the presence of Jews in Medina did much to prepare the way for Mohammed’s teaching. When the prophet first went to Medina he was inclined to be friendly toward the Jews. They were included in the treaty between him and the inhabitants of Medina. He also made certain concessions to them on the ground of religion, and adopted their ḳiblah—Jerusalem—in the hope of winning them to his cause. They, however, ridiculed him, and delighted in drawing him into arguments to expose his ignorance; so that his conciliatory attitude was soon changed to enmity. A few Jews were converted to Islam, among them Abdallah ibn Salam, whom Mohammed called the “servant of God,” and of whose conversion the prophet made much.

Mohammed Attacks Jews.

Finally Mohammed began to use actual violence toward the Medina Jews. After the battle of Bedr a woman called Asma, said by some to be a Jewess, wrote satirical verses, and was killed in her sleep, probably with Mohammed’s consent. Not long before, Abu ‘Afak of the Banu Amr, who had been converted to Judaism, had been assassinated for having displeased Mohammed by writing verses ridiculing the new religion. Mohammed then seems to have decided to get rid of the Jews in a body, since they were a constant menace to his cause. He began with the Banu Ḳainuḳa’, who were goldsmiths, and lived by themselves in a fortified suburb. He first summoned them to accept his religion, and they refused. Soon a pretext was found for an open attack. A Moslem girl was insulted by a Jew of the Banu Ḳainuḳa’; the Jew was killed by a Moslem, and the latter in turn was killed by the brothers of the murdered Jew. Mohammed immediately marched against the Banu Ḳainuḳa’ and besieged them in their stronghold. After a siege of fifteen days they surrendered, and their lives were spared only at the urgent request of Abdallah ibn Ubai, the influential leader of the Arab opposition, whose pleading Mohammed dared not ignore. Being allowed to leave the country, they emigrated toward the north. Their departure weakened the Jews, who if they had been united might have withstood Mohammed’s attacks.

About a month after the emigration of the Ḳainuḳa’, Abu Sufyan, the leader of the Meccan opposition, visited Ḥuyayy of the Banu al-Naḍir, but, being refused admittance by him, spent the night with another influential man of the same tribe and obtained information from him concerning the state of Medina. Another Jewish poet was assassinated about this time at Mohammed’s desire. This was Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf of the Banu Naḍir, who had been stirring up the Ḳuraish at Mecca by his verses after the battle of Bedr. Ibn Sanina, a Jewish merchant, was killed on the day after Ka’b; and the Jews now began to fear to leave their houses. In the summer of 625 Mohammed attacked and besieged the Banu al-Naḍir. There appears to have been no satisfactory pretext for the attack. Mohammed claimed that he had received a revelation telling him of the treachery of the Jews. After a siege of fifteen or twenty days Abdallah ibn Ubai prevailed on the Naḍir to surrender. They were exiled, being allowed to take their goods with them, and emigrated toward the north, settling in Khaibar and in Syria.

Fate of Medina Jews.

There were now left only the Banu Ḳuraiẓa, and Mohammed soon found a pretext to attack them. Some of the Jewish exiles, chief among them being the above-mentioned Ḥuyayy, had stirred up the Ḳuraish and other Arab tribes against Mohammed, and they persuaded the Banu Ḳuraiẓa to join them in their plans. Mohammed, however, succeeded in making the Jews and their Arab allies suspicious of each other; and the allies, who had been besieging Medina, suddenly departed in the midst of a storm, thus leaving the Ḳuraiẓa unsupported. Mohammed marched against them, claiming to have received a special revelation to that effect, and laid siege to their fortress, which was a few miles to the southeast of the city. They surrendered after a month’s siege, without having risked a fight. Their fate was left to the decision of Sa’d ibn Mu’adh of the tribe of Aus, who, in spite of the pleading of his own tribe, condemned the men to death and the women and children to slavery. The sentence was executed; and 750 Jews were killed in cold blood. Ḥuyayy was the last to die, with his last breath denouncing Mohammed as an impostor. The prophet wished to make a beautiful woman of the tribe, by the name of Riḥanah, his wife, but, tradition says, she preferred to be his slave instead. Thus the last of the powerful Jewish tribes in Medina was destroyed. Neither Mohammed, however, nor his successor drove all the Jews out of the country. That extreme measure was taken by Omar, who claimed to have heard the prophet say that all Jews should be exiled. Medina is one of the Moslem cities that neither Jews nor Christians may enter. See Banu Ḳainuḳa’; Banu Ḳuraiẓa; Banu al-Naḍir.

Bibliography:

  • Caussin de Perceval, Essai sur l’Histoire des Arabes, passim;
  • Grätz, Gesch. iv. 66, 75 et seq., 81-83;
  • Hirschfeld, Essai sur l’Histoire des Juifs de Médine, in R. E. J. vii. 167 et seq., x. 10 et seq.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Muhammad in the Holy Bible Pt. 1, a clip by Sam Shamoun

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Islam has no corraborating evidence from archaeology or other ancient historical sources to provide evidence for it’s assertion that monotheistic warners and messengers were sent by Allah to ancient pagan civilizations in the distant past. Islam could only resort to stealing the historical details from the bible. Mohammed thus shows his complete and utter ignorance and dependence on biblical sources. If Allah was real and giving Mohammed revelations why did he not reveal all these things to Mohammed?

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

Is true Islam always violent? Robert Spencer vs James White

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

One of the great deceits of Islam is that Mohammed was reluctantly forced to fight in response to others fighting against him. This was never the case. He was always the instigator of the fighting in which he was involved. He projected his own plotting to kill onto the minds of others in the form of the classical conspiracy theory. In biblical ethics a conspiracy to attack is still not enough to justify a pre-emptive violent attack on other human beings. On the other hand a conspiracy to defend, as in the case of the Jews and Pagans against the extreme agression of the license to kill prophet Mohammed, is the legitimate human right of all societal groups. The pre-emptive attack on non-Muslims by the Ummah is a sacred duty or obligation according to the later revelations and hadiths attributed to Mohammed

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

George Orwell said: Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past. I say: Islam is a giant thought control apparatus underpinned with the terror of Sharia Apostasy and Blasphemy laws combined with the law of the Freedom of unrestrained Jihadic warfare against non-Muslims by whoever, wherever and however you please to harm Infidels and further the cause of Islam.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Michael Stürzenberger sentenced to 6 months jail for posting HISTORICAL FACT on Facebook

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment