A SECULAR COURT’S DIVORCE DECREE IS NOT TALAAQ

A BROTHER FROM ENGLAND WRITES:
“Your response to my question on civil divorce and talaaq has generated much discussion and debate. However, some scholars still insist that the fatwa of the local Mufti is correct (that is, a court’s decree of divorce is a valid Talaaq according to the Shariah). They proffer the following arguments:

  1. As the husband is asking the court to issue him a divorce, his intention is inconsequential.
  2. Although the defenders of the fatwa cannot escape the reality that a non-Muslim judge has no wilaayat over a Muslim, for the purpose of fatwa, they argue, the judge has to be divested of his position and duties as a judge, and be treated as an ordinary person who is being appointed a wakeel by the petitioner. And since the wikaalat of a non-Muslim is acceptable, the divorce issued by him is also valid. A further piece of sophisticated incoherence they employ is to argue that a wakeel does not have to know that he has been appointed as wakeel while he may be acting as one.
    There seems to be much confusion among the scholars who agree that a civil divorce results in talaaq. In
    the US, the position adopted is that a talaaq raj’i comes into effect, whereas in the UK the ruling is for a talaaq baa-in.
    Reliance on this ruling is causing considerable heartache to Muslims in the UK. Women are walking away from their marriages using the fatwa as justification. Innocent men are accused of ‘living in sin’ simply
    because they have ended their legal marriage registration. I would appreciate further comments and advice on the matter. (The initial question was discussed in The Majlis, Vol.19 No.2)
    COMMENT:
    It is truly surprising that Ulama fail to grasp the simple reality of a secular court’s divorce decree not being a Shar’i Talaaq. The arguments they are proffering are like an attempt to squeeze blood from a stone.
    (1) The argument that “in divorce matters the spoken word or written word takes precedence over any interpretation the speaker or writer may attach to his words” has absolutely no relevance to the issue
    of a husband seeking annulment of the legal registration of his marriage. The argument
    presented here pertains to Talaaq, while the court application pertains to an entirely different matter. It does not relate to Talaaq. It pertains to cancellation of a secular registration by a secular court. Thus the
    argument is fallacious because what is being said applies to Talaaq while the application to court does not remotely relate to Talaaq.
    (2) The argument of Wikaalat (Agency) in this context is obnoxious and downright stupid. Neither does the husband appoint the judge to be his Wakeel nor does the judge accept that he is a Wakeel of the husband nor does he issue verdicts in the capacity of a wakeel of anyone,.
    (3) The judge cannot be treated as an ordinary person who has been appointed a wakeel.
    To imagine that the judge sitting in his court as a judicial official executing his judicial obligation is not a judge but an ordinary man who has been appointed the wakeel by a man who denies having appointed
    him the wakeel, is to defy reason, logic, brains and reality. If this type of corrupt and utterly baseless imagination could be regarded as valid for the extrapolation of Ahkaam (Shar’i laws), then one may employ such corrupt, stupid and baatil imagination to imagine that a prostitute is one’s wife and the
    relationship with her is lawful. There is no scope in the Shariah for the formulation of laws on the basis of imagination.
    (4) The petitioner denies appointing the judge as his wakeel. Reality totally precludes the operation of Wikaalat in the judicial procedure. And, if by some bizarre assumption it should be stupidly accepted that the judge is a wakeel, then too, the husband denies appointing him as his wakeel, and he denies the assignment of Talaaq to the judge who is imagined to be the wakeel. There must necessarily be some semblance of reality before one could ever entertain the idea of Wikaalat.
    (5) While the wikaalat of a non -Muslim is valid, the issue here is that a non-Muslim has not been appointed the wakeel. No one has been appointed the husband’s wakeel for issuing Talaaq on his behalf. Should we momentarily descend into the dregs of stupidity and assume that the judge is the husband’s wakeel, then too, it is binding on the wakeel to execute only the task which has been assigned to him by his Muakkil (principal). If a man appoints a wakeel to purchase for him a horse, the wakeel may not buy a donkey. If he
    does buy a donkey, it will be for himself, not for the muakkil. Now, if we should stupidly accept that the judge is the wakeel, then he has to act according to the instructions of the husband who has ordered
    him to cancel the secular registration of his marriage. If the wakeel who has not been appointed to administer Talaaq, issues talaaq to the man’s wife, such talaaq will not be valid. If a man appoints another person to strike his wife a few shots with a whip, and he (the wakeel) instead of giving her a beating issues Talaaq, such talaaq will not be valid for the simple reason that he did not act in accordance with the terms of his wikaalat.
    (6) The averment that a wakeel’s act will be valid even if he is unaware of his appointment as the wakeel, has no relevance here. The contention applies to an instance of ‘appointment’. But, in the matter under discussion there is no appointment. The husband flatly denies any appointment of a wakeel. This argument
    germane to our context is ludicrous. It is absurd.
    (7) The confusion among the scholars on this simple issue is the product of unprincipled reasoning. The matter is simple and conspicuous. There is no ambiguity. But because they have not applied their minds,
    they stumble in incongruities. The scenario is as simple as follows:
    A. The husband wants, for example, that after his death his estate should devolve to his heirs according to the Shariah. In a secular state he has to leave an Islamic Will to ensure conformity with the Shariah. However, in certain secular marital property regimes, an Islamic will is not valid. Or he requires cancellation of the secular registration for some other reason.
    B. To achieve this objective, he instructs an attorney to apply to the secular court for the cancellation of the
    registration. For accomplishing this, there is a secular legal procedure to follow. The attorney adopts this legal procedure, and makes the application to the court.
    C. The judge in his own right as the judge of the court decides and issues an order to cancel the registration.
    Now regardless of what the secular process is for achieving this objective, it is never Talaaq. The husband has not uttered Talaaq to his wife nor has he appointed the attorney or the judge to administer Talaaq
    to his wife. He only requires cancellation of the haraam registration.
    (8) Women who regard the kaafir court’s verdict as a Talaaq should understand that their Nikah remains valid. They cannot get Islamically married to any other man. Any subsequent mock ‘nikah’ with
    another man will be an adulterous relationship. It is therefore, imperative for the Muftis at your end to exercise caution and fear. They will be plunging people into the cauldron of zina with their highly erroneous fatwa.
    Furthermore, we do not understand how “women are walking away from their marriages, using the fatwa as justification”. Although the fatwa is highly erroneous and has no validity in the Shariah, as preposterous as it is, it nevertheless, has been issued for a case where the husband makes the application for cancellation of the registration. The fatwa does not bring within its scope a court’s decree of divorce applied for by a woman. If the wife makes the application, we are sure that the Muftis at your end, despite their inability to have comprehended the judge’s role and the husband’s petition, do not extend their
    idea to a case where the woman applies for ‘divorce’ regardless of whether the husband defends or does not defend the application. Thus, the issue of ‘women walking away from their marriages’ is incomprehensible to us.

NASEEHAT FOR MUSLIM DIVORCEES

“VERILY, NASEEHAT BENEFITS THE MU’MINEEN” QUR’AAN)
Every Muslim knows and understands that Islam is the Deen of Allah Azza Wa Jal, and that obedience to the commands and prohibitions of this Deen is imperative. It is essential that the difference between sin and rebellion be understood. While sinning against the Law of Allah Ta’ala renders the perpetrator a faasiq, he/she remains a Muslim. On the other hand, rejection of any tenet of Islam is rebellion which is kufr. Thus, the one who rejects any Law of the Shariah becomes a kaafir even if he/she does not commit it. Allah Ta’ala states in the Qur’aan Majeed:
“It is not lawful for a Mu’min (Believing man) nor for a Mu’minah (Believing woman) when Allah and His Rasool have decided an issue that they have any choice in any of their affairs.”
Allah Ta’ala also declares in the Qur’aan Shareef: “Verily, By your Rabb! They do not have Imaan until they appoint you (O Muhammad!) the judge
in their mutual disputes. Then they do not find within themselves any dissatisfaction with regard to what you have decided, and they fully (and wholeheartedly) submit (to your Ruling).”
Thus, in a dispute, the Mu’min and the Mu’minah turn to the Shariah of Allah Ta’ala, not to the secular courts for relief and resolution. These Qur’aanic verses as well as many other Aayaat and Ahaadith make it abundantly clear that rebellion or rejection of Allah’s Laws or even discontent and dissatisfaction against the Rulings of the Shariah are acts of kufr which eliminate Imaan. One who is guilty of such rejection /dissatisfaction leaves the fold of Islam and becomes a murtadd. Having understood the gravity of rejection of any Hukm of the Deen, we are directing this Naseehat in particular to Muslim divorced sisters who hasten
to enlist the aid of the kuffaar courts to extract haraam money from their ex-husbands. When a marriage breaks down and ends in divorce, the Muslim woman should understand that she is still a Muslim. The acrimony and hurt which the breakdown of the marriage has caused should not impel her to barter away her Imaan, become a murtaddah and ruin her everlasting life of success, happiness and pleasure of the Aakhirah for the sake of gaining the carrion of this world. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi
wasallam) said: “This world is carrion.” Life is short and miserable in this dunya. This world is an abode of trial and tribulation. Difficulties and misery should not be allowed to efface intelligence to cause the ruin of Imaan.
The divorcee should understand that when she proceeds to a non-Muslim court to gain custody of children, to gain maintenance and to claim half the estate of her ex-husband, she stands in open rebellion and violation of Allah’s Laws. She stands in precisely the same position and adopts the same stance as Shaitaan had adopted when Allah Ta’ala commanded the Sajdah for Hadhrat Aadam (alayhis salaam). There he stood erect among the
trillions and trillions of Malaaikah whose heads were all in prostration. The divorcee in the kuffaar court is in this shaitaani category of rebellion. She is
not only transgressing and committing a sin. By her demand that the secular court declares her Islamic marriage to be one in community of property, and that maintenance in conflict with the Shariah be fixed for her and the children, she flagrantly and rebelliously refutes and rejects the Law of Allah Ta’ala on these issues. For the sake of laying hands on ill-gotten wealth belonging to her ex-husband, she rejects Islam’s categoric laws on these issues, expels her Imaan from her heart and leaves the fold of Islam. She does so by rejecting Islamic Law and adopting Jaahiliyyah law. In this regard the Qur’aan Majeed warns:
“What! Do you search for the law of Jaahiliyyah (the law of the kuffaar)? And whose law is better than the Law of Allah for people of Imaan?” Rushing to the kuffaar court to acquire rulings in terms of the law of Jaahiliyyah and Kufr merely to lay hands on haraam money, is tantamount to kufr – such kufr which expels one from Islam.
Imaan is negated. Allah Ta’ala has ordained a Law to which all Muslims have to compulsorily submit. Refusal to submit to the Divine Law is kufr. It is essential that the divorcee who seeks the aid of the nonMuslim court for the acquisition of rulings in flagrant and violent conflict with the Shariah understands that she no longer remains a Muslim. It is also vitally important for the Muslim community to understand that the woman who
becomes murtaddah in this manner, should not be regarded as a Muslim. Nikah with her will not be valid nor will it be permissible to accord her an Islamic burial. She ceases to be an heir in the estate of her deceased parents or anyone else’s estate in which she inherits if she is a Muslim.
Another, vital consideration which should not be overlooked is the status of
such ‘Muslim’ lawyers who aid and abet such a recalcitrant divorcee to gain kufr relief from a secular court. Such lawyers too become murtadd.
The Ahkaam of Irtidaad will become applicable to them.
Muslim sisters are reminded that proceeding to court for the acquisition of rulings in conflict with the Shariah puts them fully within the scope of the
Qur’aanic ruling stated in the following aayat:
“THOSE WHO DO NOT DECIDE ACCORDING TO THAT (LAW) WHICH ALLAH HAS REVEALED, VERILY, THEY ARE INDEED T H E KAAFIROON.”
It is not intelligent to destroy the everlasting life of Pleasure in Jannat for
the decomposing carrion of this transitory worldly life. Aql demands that the bitterness and inordinate demands of the nafs be restrained and regulated within the confines of the Shariah. The trend of committing kufr and becoming murtadd by resorting to the kuffaar court to gain rulings in
diametric conflict and in negation of the Shariah is on the increase among
Muslim divorcees who see an opportunity to lay hands on the money of
their ex-husbands. They should understand what they will be ingesting
when they devour the Suht (haraam rot) which the court of Jaahiliyyah
awards them. Every second they will be under the curse (La’nat) of Allah Azza Wa Jal and His Malaaikah. For the ‘comfort’ of a miserable few short years of earthly life, it most certainly is not intelligent to sacrifice the comfort and success of the Aakhirah.
When shaitaan influences you to proceed to a court of Jaahiliyyah in search
of the hukm of Jaahiliyyah and Kufr, you should reflect and seek forgiveness from Allah Ta’ala for your recalcitrance. Imaan is the most
valuable treasure that Insaan possesses. It is an extremely delicate treasure. A ‘simple’ statement or an attitude can extinguish this treasure to bring everlasting perdition and ruin to the murtaddah. May Allah Ta’ala guide you and preserve your Imaan and the Imaan of all Muslims.
(

Heartbreak! Divorce filings rise 40 percent around Valentine’s Day: study

Valentine’s Day may be an occasion for sweethearts to exchange gifts, but it has increasingly become a time for divorce, according to a new study.

Data compiled by Avvo.com, a site that offers free ratings and profiles for lawyers and licensed MDs, found that divorce filings skyrocket about 40 percent this time of year.

“Over the past two years we’ve seen an average increase of 40 percent in the number of requests for divorce lawyers around Valentine’s Day, compared to the previous six months,” said Mark Britton, founder and CEO of Avvo.

“Furthermore, the number of questions about divorce has soared 36 percent during that same time. Indeed, there’s definitely a major Valentine’s spike when it comes to divorce.”

Kelly Chang, a Los Angeles-based divorce lawyer said she has seen an increase in divorce filings shortly after Valentine’s Day.

“This can be attributed to two major groups of people: the ‘Delayed New Year’s Resoluters’ who are merely moving forward on their resolution to be single, just a month late, and the ‘Waiting to Exhalers,’ who, depending on the actions of their spouses on Valentine’s Day, will either reconcile or file for divorce,” she said.

New Jersey lawyer Cary Cheifetz agreed, saying, “We see a definite spike in divorce cases around Valentine’s Day. I see it as a combination of cabin fever, people waiting until after the holidays and most importantly, people waiting until they know what their spouse’s bonus and income situation will be in the New Year.”

https://nypost.com/2011/02/09/heartbreak-divorce-filings-rise-40-percent-around-valentines-day-study/

 

 

DIVORCES AIDED BY ZINDEEQ LAWYERS

KUFR DEMANDS OF DIVORCES AIDED BY ZINDEEQ LAWYERS
“They who do not decree (rule/govern/adjudicate) according to that (Shariah) which Allah has revealed, verily they are kaafiroon.” (Qur’aan)
QUESTION: A man divorced his wife to whom he was married only in terms of the Shariah. The marriage was not registered in terms of kuffaar law. After issuing Talaaq, the woman went to court to claim R20,000 monthly maintenance for herself for two years. She also wants a legal divorce. A Muslim lawyer and a Muslim advocate are assisting her in this claim. What is the Shariah’s law pertaining to this matter, and what is the status of the Muslim attorney and advocate? What is the Shariah’s view regarding the minor children? The woman is also claiming legal costs.
ANSWER: The position according to the Shariah is as follows:

1) A divorced woman is entitled to maintenance only during the Iddat period if she does not abandon the marital home.

2) After expiry of the Iddat, she is not entitled to maintenance. Claiming maintenance for her for two years, and enlisting the kuffaar court for this haraam zulm act is tantamount to kufr. Giving preference to kuffaar law over the Shariah is kufr.

3) The father is responsible for the maintenance of his children. The maintenance is for food, clothing, rent, and all expenses necessary for the Deeni welfare of the children. The father is not responsible for paying for secular education if he is averse to sending his children to secular school, nor is he responsible for any such extra expenses incurred by the mother, but which are not required by the Shariah. Usually, a plethora of unnecessary expenses is imposed on the father. All such expenses ordered by a kaafir court are haraam.

4) Whilst the mother has custody of the minor children, the father always remains the guardian. He has the right of access at all reasonable times and on a daily basis unless there are valid Shar’i grounds for curtailment, e.g. he is a drug addict, an immoral person and the like.

5) The mother may not unilaterally make decisions on behalf of the children.

6) The plaintiff has to explain in detail why she is demanding the exorbitant sum of R20,000. It appears that she is claiming maintenance for herself. But this is not permissible. The woman should incumbently present a detailed list – item by item – for the R20,000 to ensure that she is not using the children to siphon off haraam money for herself, and also to ascertain any wasteful expenditure in which women generally excel. R20,000 per month for two small children does appear ludicrously dishonest.

7) If the advocate and lawyer are Muslims, ask them: What is the Shariah’s law pertaining to maintenance for a divorcee? Making claims in denial of Allah’s Law is kufr.
8) Since the marriage was not in accordance with kuffaar law, the claim for a ‘decree of divorce’ is, to say the least, stercoraceous bunkum. It could also be kufr if the plaintiff is unable to provide reasons tenable in terms of the Shariah for her stupid and avaricious demand.

9) When the boy reaches 8 years and the girl 10 years, custody will then be the right of the father, unless the father is Islamically unqualified.

10) It is haraam for the plaintiff to demand costs of suit. She has instituted the action, hence she is liable for the costs. However, if the children’s father had refused to maintain his children, then she would be justified in seeking the assistance of the court.

(11) The attorney and advocate lose their Imaan if they assist the woman to gain her kufr demands. Aiding kufr is also kufr.

22 Safar 1441 – 21 October 2019

THE ‘DIVORCE’ OF A SECULAR COURT

Q. The following are some questions on marriage and divorce posed by a brother in the U.K. to a South African Mufti. The Mufti’s fatwa is also provided herewith. What is the status of this fatwa?

Q: I want to ask you a few questions before I make a decision about marrying a second wife.
I am not satisfied with my marriage with my first wife. This is due to a lack of affection and neglect from my first wife. I have had this problem for 5 to 6 years now and I have tried to talk to my wife to resolve how I feel but nothing seems to better my situation, and I have now given up. I still care about my first wife and I still want to provide for her and our 3 children. I want to marry a second wife but I don’t want to commit a sin. The UK law does not recognise a second wife. It is actually illegal in the UK to have a second wife, although it is fine to have a mistress. As I am aware that there is an Islamic ruling that I should abide by the law of the country that I reside in.
1. My question is, if I get permission from my first wife, and provided I fulfil both wives rights, will I be committing a sin to have a second wife in the UK?
2. Does a divorce through the UK civil court break the Islamic nikah? (From my own research I have found that it does not break the Islamic nikah)
3. I have met a person from Morroco who has accepted to be my second wife, but to bring her to UK I have to first divorce my first wife through the UK civil court. Can I do this in order to bring my second wife into the UK? I do not want to break the nikah to my first wife.
A: 1. Whether it is UK or US, the laws remain the same. The laws do not change. However, we advise that you do something that is free of problems and worries.
2. If the husband consents or instructs the court to divorce then the divorce is valid.
3. The divorce that is issued is recognised and valid in the shariah.
And Allah Ta’ala knows best. (End of fatwa)
Please comment. Is this fatwa correct? To even a layman it does not seem right.
OUR ANSWER:
The Mufti has acquitted himself most stupidly. He is a liberal, hence he issued a bunkum ‘fatwa’. The Muslim does not and cannot ‘instruct’ the court. He can only petition and ask the court.
When a man asks a kaafir court to annul his civil ‘marriage’, which is not a Nikah in Shar’i terms, he is asking for the cancellation of the secular contract, not for the issuance of Talaaq.
Secondly, he ‘asks’ the court for a ‘divorce decree’. The meaning of ‘divorce’ in the context is cancellation of the civil contract. Only a maajin mufti with fossilized brains (jumood) will ignore the context and the circumstances, and baselessly cling to the ostensible meaning if the term is translated into Arabic or Urdu for the context in which it is used. The court issues such a decree at its will and discretion. It is not obliged to comply with the request of the Applicant.
Thirdly, the applicant does not empower the kaafir court to issue Talaaq. Fourthly, the applicant does not employ the kaafir judge to be his wakeel to issue Talaaq to his wife.
It is crystal clear that the Mufti has acted stupidly, labouring in the state of intoxication due to substance abuse. The ‘substance’ in this context is western liberalism which has been adopted for fulfilment of the demands of Hubb-e-Jah.
Just ignore the drivel disgorgement. It is an insult to the Deen and an insult to the mufti’s brains to have vomited such a blatant stupidity.
Furthermore, while it is only proper to inform the first wife, it is not a condition for the validity of the second marriage, nor is her consent necessary for the validity of a second, third or fourth marriage.
The ‘divorce’ decree issued by a secular court whether the judge is a kaafir or posing as a Muslim as all so-called Muslim judges of secular courts even in Muslim lands do, the decree is NOT a Talaaq.