So, you are getting married. Congratulations, and get yourself a prenuptial.

While marriage has been talked about very positively in the Quran, divorce has not only been permitted, but its technical and legal aspects have been discussed in more details than marriage itself, and that makes sense: it is a conflict situation, and that deserved more elaboration. 

But divorce has been look down upon in most Muslim communities - though not by Islam as a religion - as an irresponsible act showing a weak character that prefers personal convenience over the hard work needed to establish a healthy family.

That negative attitude towards divorce unnecessarily deprived many Muslims of a legitimate, and frequently needed, social procedure. Divorce rates thus have been exceptionally low (as low as 2-3%) in the Muslim world for centuries, reflecting the social pressure against divorce rather than how happy marriages are.

But that low divorce rate is changing rapidly. American Muslim divorce rates are very close if not actually equal to divorce rates among non-Muslims. That increase by 10-15 fold in the span of one generation has its own problems.

Divorce was discussed and organized in the Quran 1500 years ago not as an evil thing, but rather as an occasional social necessity.  It was thus to be discussed and regulated. But the focus in the Quran was on:

a) preventing hasty and abusive actions the husband,
b) explicitly mandating mediation and counselling before divorce is finalized,
c) establishing the children's financial rights,
d) providing some security to women against instantaneous eviction from the family residence at a time when husbands were exclusively responsible for providing family residence,
e) the Quran also established the right of women to divorce themselves at will using a clear and simple procedure known as khol'a, a definite revolutionary social concept that most Muslims are not even aware of.

The Quran, however has not provided any rules for asset sharing, or guidelines for financial settlement between spouses.  The contemporary rules were that the wife, as much as the husband, was entitled to trade, to buy and sell, and to have full financial control over her own wealth, inheritance and business.  When divorced, each spouse kept their own property and assets. Also, issues like children custody, alimony, etc, were not discussed much and the prevalent common law was followed.  

Over 2-3 centuries after the Prophet's death more 'common law rules' (or 'عرف'  in Arabic), that did not contradict obvious Quranic principles, crept into Islamic law, which by that time became known as shari'a.  These new laws and rules reflected mostly the common law of those times as understood by different scholars, almost exclusively men.  Those also were the times women's rights took a significant step backward, from the earlier and enlightened phase of Islamic thought process at the time of the Prophet and early civic leaders after him.

At this point it is important to highlight that while common law has frequently been adopted by Islamic legal system, it should never be considered integral to the religion of Islam. Islamic religious rules (Quranic and 'mutawater' Prophetic teachings) are immutable, while common law accepted by different societies in different eras should be freely changed if the circumstance under which they were accepted change.

Over the last century, most of the Muslim countries amended their Family Law to include more rights for women that were not traditionally included in early jurisprudence, such as alimony and mother-favoring custody of children, in some cases granting near exclusive rights to the mothers.  In Egypt, for example, mothers have full custody over boys until age 16, and over the daughters until they reach the age of majority or get married.

These modern changes in family law illustrate that those laws are mostly of civic nature, not a religious one.  Despite these facts, many first generation American-Muslims think of those laws as 'Islamic laws'.  And that is where the problems is.

Having been involved at different levels in many divorce cases among friends over the last few years, I have made several observations.  The most alarming of which is that most of the individuals in those cases have no clue what is mentioned in the Quran about divorce.  That is a shameful thing truly as it all can be contained in 3-4 medium size pages. 

In many of those divorce cases, an argument was frequently made that ' … as Muslims, we are obliged to follow Islamic law when it comes to divorce'.  Advocates of that opinion usually refer - unknowingly - to the 'civic' law that ruled over them or over their parents when they lived in the old motherland.  Many of those laws were not mentioned in the Quran, and are not necessarily followed by any other Muslim country, since each country had it own set of unique family laws. Therefore, those old homeland rules are NOT Islamic.

Another common observation was that the apparently 'wise and pious' suggestion to follow Islamic law was usually made by the party that was most likely to lose financially if the 'American law' is applied.  In other words, advocating the so-called Islamic law for divorce was frequently a gimmick to keep as much money as possible in the hands of the wealthier spouse, be it the husband or the wife.

But considering the high cost of the legal system in the US, the demand (or suggestion) to follow Islamic law does seem to have merits, if it were not for ignorance and possibly the ill-intentions that were behind it.  

And to complicate matters more, there is usually some social pressure within the community to follow 'Islamic law' even though most people do not know what that precisely meant.  If one spouse preferred follow American divorce and family laws they were sometimes made to feel as if they were rejecting of Islam.

My advice for whoever asked for my opinion was always the same: "Get a good lawyer, never negotiated without your lawyer being informed of what you are doing, and avoid court if you can, but do not yield under the assumption that it is 'Haram' or 'Islamically unethical' to settle your divorce in court."

As more women and men of our Muslim-American community get divorced, we need better ways  to educate ourselves regarding the rules of divorce in Islam and the many aspects it does not handle.  We also need to know that marriage in Islam is a contract – a real contract, in which ANY condition can be stipulated.  The spectrum of those stipulations can surprise most of us: from granting women right to divorce on demand, to financial and custody stipulations and all the way to stipulating, that the family must have hired help, nannies, cooks, or in which city to live, etc.

I would like marriage within the Muslim community to take full advantage of the flexibility of Islamic marriage contract by discussing some issues that can save the families a lot of trouble in the future, when one out of every two or three marriages ends in divorce.  The most important item should be: which legal system the couple should follow if divorce process is initiated.  And if they choose 'Islamic law' they need to spell out what that means.  And if they have no clear idea what Islamic law of divorce means, then they should explicitly state the American legal system would be the reference, so it does not as a surprise to any spouse if that ends up being the case.

It is difficult for a couple busy planning their wedding party to consider prenuptial. And that is understandable.  But if our community is wise, it should try to minimize or avoid the acrimony that comes with hostile divorces, and avoid the drainage of resources wasted on lawyers that could otherwise go to secure better future for the divorcees and their children.

Our community is still young in this country.  Many individuals are in the middle of an identity transition, from a Syrian-Muslim, Pakistani-Muslim, Bosnian-Muslim or some other 'hyphenated Muslim' to American-Muslim.  Most of us have not put much thought into what these terms mean. 

That is where most of the friction comes from: unclear terms, and an identity-in-transition.

In my opinion, it could be a great service to our community if the marriage certificates issued by Islamic institutions in the US for American Muslim couples getting married is expanded from the simple contract it is now, to a more developed format that offers a collection of simple choices that may save many couples a lot of heartache and money in the future. That 'expanded' marriage contract could function as a 'default' prenuptial agreement that provides the couple with some idea how things could be handled when married life does hits some road bumps.

If you were to have a prenuptial agreement, as an American Muslim, what would you want to see in it?

Khaled

A Jew Re-redfining Jihad: a lesson in cross-cultural communication

Most Muslim know very well what Jihad means. We know that it is not about beheading 'infidels' - whatever 'infidels' mean. We know it is not about forcing the world into submission to an Islamic Caliphate. And above all, we know its meaning is more about deep and very personal struggle with one's own desires and inclinations than about war and bloodshed.

That true Jihad is not the Jihad that the Western media talk about. Islamic Jihad has been redefined for us as an ugly hateful and scary ideology that the civilized world must eliminate. And, as some Islamophobes propagate, if eliminating all Muslims is the price needed to eliminate Jihad, it is a small price to pay to save the Civilization of Mankind.

I, and 99.99% of Muslims in the world, have not done anything that helped tarnish the meaning of the word Jihad. But I am certain we do not do enough to restore the word to its real glory either. Many Muslims have legitimate grievances against Israel, former and current colonial powers, international media, international religious bodies, .. etc, etc. Many of us, though, have little experience in presenting our cases and causes in a way that is conventional and accepted by centers of power in the world. We are even miserably less experienced in communicating with the average person in Europe and North America, where public opinion has serious impact on the decision making of current super powers.

Many of us take a 'defiant oppositional stance' that alienates many of the non-Muslims that could be our allies in straightening the record, and in addressing the grievances that Muslims legitimately have.
Learning the skill of cross-cultural communication is probably the single most important goal that good Muslims should aspire too to help the cause of Islam.

This is not an innovation into Islam. This is a directive that God has made as part of the Quran over 1500 years ago:

• "CALL THOU (all mankind] unto thy Sustainer's path with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the most kindly manner ..." (Ch 16.125)
• "AND TELL My servants that they should speak in the most kindly manner [unto those who do not share their beliefs] ..." (Ch 17.53)
• "But [since] good and evil cannot be equal, repel thou [evil] with something that is better - and lo! he between whom and thyself was enmity [may then become] as though he had [always] been close [unto thee], a true friend!" (Ch 41.34)

Wisdom, good exhortation, speaking in kindly manner, and repelling evil deeds with good ones have been the eternal advice by God that many, even most, of us have not followed closely with sad consequences for all of us.

Many of us accuse the West of double standards when they judge Arab and Muslim causes - a legitimate charge in many cases. But we rarely look at the way we judge issues ourselves. Many of us are profoundly guilty of the same thing we accuse the west of: having double standards. Yet we do not easily and willingly identify it in our own behavior and the behavior of other Muslims. It is not healthy to scream loudly to complain of what many of our own practice with our complicit approval, attempts at justification, or at best benign negligence.

Speaking up against our own for injustices they commit is an Islamic duty. God is very explicit in enjoining us to stick to one standard: upholding truth and justice no matter who is at fault:

• "... Be ever steadfast in your devotion to God, bearing witness to the truth in all equity; and never let hatred of anyone lead you into the sin of deviating from justice. Be just: this is closest to being God-conscious..." (Ch 5.8)
• "... when you voice an opinion, be just, even though it be [against] one near of kin..." (Ch 6.152)
• "... Be ever steadfast in upholding equity, bearing witness to the truth for the sake of God, even though it be against your own selves or your parents and kinsfolk." (Ch 4.135)

For those who are still reading, it is about time to know what any of this has to do with re-redefining Jihad by a Jew.
while doing my daily world newspaper tour I came across this title in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz:

"This year, this Jew is embracing Jihad"

And before you start wondering about any subliminal hidden vicious meaning for the title let me tell you: He is not talking about fighting till death against Muslims, Arabs or Palestinians. He is not talking about beheading the enemies of Israel, and he is not talking about establishing a Jewish theocratic Caliphate in Muslim Land.
He is actually, and simply talking about Jihad the way it was meant to be in the glorious days of Islam "... [as it] has been used in the Koran in its root meaning, i.e. to strive and to strive for betterment of society, to spread goodness (maruf) and contain evil (munkar)."

I would not quote every great sentence in the article, otherwise I will be quoting a lot. I promise you this: you will feel a lot better after you follow the link at the end of this posting and read the article in its entirety.
A Jewish Journalist embracing Jihad in the pages of the major Israeli Newspaper ... How did this happen?
Simply he came a across two Muslims who followed the teachings of the Quran that I mentioned earlier:

First, use wisdom when presenting you case and,
Second, be fair in judging the world: you own and the others.

Bradley Burston simply came across an article (see link below) by Asghar Ali Engineer explaining true Jihad, and how different it is from what some violent Muslims claim it to be. He also came across a Muslim, Peter Dames, commenting on the latest violence between Arabs and Jews in Akre, Israel, during the cerebration of Yum Kippur.

Peter Dames wrote:

"As a man who practices Islam, I have to say both sides ought to be ashamed of themselves. Why are you committing such crimes? In the name of religion? No, I don`t think so, because God-fearing men contemplate God throughout their day.

This has got to end. We are children of Abraham - not children of Satan. People, wake up! Monotheism is under attack because of such actions. Let not ignorance prevail over your emotions but rather let your intellect achieve peace, love, stability & closeness to God. Let's stop pointing fingers. Let's forgive and forget and live for the future for the sake of our children. Salaam/Shalom/Peace everyone. - Petere Dames"

Wouldn't it be great if we read more articles by non-Muslim journalist embracing Jihad? Or at least using the the word the way it was meant to be? Unfortunately, this is not going to happen until we have a lot more Muslims embracing Jihad the right way, communicating their understanding to non-Muslims the right way, and applying justice using the same standards accross the board.
It is about time to 're-redefine' Jihad.

Khaled

Links:

Read Bradley Burston's article here:

This year, this Jew is embracing Jihad - by Bradley burston in Haartez.

Burston is one of my favorite journalists of the Israeli daily Haaretz. I may not always agree with him, but he rarely talks like an ideologue and, mostly, the reader feels he thinks of the issue at hand, then decides how he should react and what to write about it. No foregone conclusions, and no prejudging.

Also, check the article that moved him to writing the article listed above:

Making Mockery of Jihad - by AsgharAli Engineer

Genuine or Political: Turkey's radical revision of Islamic texts

From the BBC online: Turkey in radical revision of Islamic texts

This article on the BBC website was quite a jolt for me this morning. Turkey occupies an important place in the Muslim world, and in the world in general. Being at the fault line between the East and the West, belonging to Europe (and NATO) with EU aspirations on one hand, and being governed by a democratically elected Islamic party on the other hand. Turkey has close to 75 million people, 99% of them are Muslims, and 30% of the population is under age 15. It is a country that that has a growing strategic influence for many decades to come.
There is a definite revival in Islamic spirit in Turkey, as evident by the recent lifting of the ban on Islamic head cover in state universities, which - believe it or not - required a constitutional amendment to be lifted. But the country is still very secular, and a significant portion of its practicing Muslims see no contradiction between strongly believing in Islam and practicing it on one hand, while fully supporting a secular mode of governance for the state on the other hand.
Turkey also occupies a big place in Islamic history, being the headquarter of the last transnational Islamic state (Ottoman Caliphates).
That is why reading this article on the BBC was quite interesting for me.

There is no doubt in my mind that Muslims for 1500 years have had different approaches to the understanding of the same religious text. That is why we see so many ways of implementation of Islam that varies by geographic location.
At least in some case, one may find that the daily life, moral values, and cultural norms in one Muslim group more similar to those of non-Muslims living in the same geographic location, than to Muslims in a remote country on a different continent, even though both communities are predominantly Muslim.
That is not necessarily bad. Islam is strong yet flexible enough to accommodate to peoples across different culture and over many centuries of history. This is almost a prerequisite for any successful ideology. A space-age scientist in cutting edge high-tech lab in California can be a proud and a practicing Muslims. An illiterate cattle herder in the middle of a small village in central Africa or Afghanistan can be also a proud and a practicing Muslims. They both can get together, share in performing the rituals, and enjoy and learn a great deal form listening to the Quran, and at the end they each can go back where they live and work and carry on with there lives.

My point is that prevalent culture has always colored what we individually think Islam is. Many of us, Muslims, think that we know THE ONLY WAY to practice properly, while we actually only know how we were raised (or taught) to practice. This invasion of prevalent culture into religious thinking and interpretation leads to many problems, with 'cultural baggage' that gets stuck to Islam and makes it difficult to reconcile our differences withing the Muslim community, and more importantly, it confuses the non-Muslim world as to what Islam really is.

Now back to the article. I truly hope that such academic effort is conducted with utmost consideration for the spirit of Islam, and with truth seeking as the ONLY motive behind it. But I also cannot help get worried a bit because we keep hearing the words 'reforming Islam' coming from individuals and groups that are also explicitly islamophobic and inherently hostile to Islam and Muslims. It is frequently the code word for those who believe Islam is genuinely evil, but talking about reforming it seems more politically correct than suggesting to throw it all away.
I cannot imaging the Turkish researchers belong to the latter, so i am hopeful.
I do believe Islamic thinking needs revitalization, and that serious effort is needed to strip Islam (the religion) from the dead weight (cultural baggage) that associates with it more frequently than not. Local culture and societal traditions are valuable. they tell us a lot about who we are. And, as long as they do not contradict with core Islamic beliefs, they are totally acceptable. But they should never sneak on us to become part of our religious beliefs.

And as for judging the effort by Turkish scholars, I will wait until the document mentioned in the article is out there for all of us to see.

Click below to read the BBC article:
Turkey in radical revision of Islamic texts