In what will undoubtedly be a MILESTONE in justice for Muslim WOMEN in the United States, a Maryland appeals court has ruled a husband cannot divorce his wife simply by saying three "I divorce thees," and walking away with all their acquired wealth and property.
The precedent-setting decision is a welcome change to the way wives can be treated when a marriage is ending and the wife faces a very short end of the stick.
Perhaps in several decades the ruling might make its way into the divorce "customs" of Muslim communities in other nations. But given centuries-old Muslim pro-male practices that accord virtually NO legal rights to women, maybe that's expecting too much.
But for starters, if "men" in countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan would stop stoning, burning, and beheading women in "HONOR KILLINGS," some humanity, charity, kindness and enlightenment might start to be squeezed into the behavior of Muslims everywhere.
-----------------------------------
"Islamic Divorce Ruled Not Valid in Maryland"
"Custom Allowing Men to End Marriage With Oral Declaration Lacks 'Due Process'"
By Ruben Castaneda Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, May 8, 2008; B02
After his wife of more than two decades filed for divorce in Montgomery County Circuit Court, Irfan Aleem responded in writing in 2003, and not just in court.
Aleem went to the Pakistani Embassy in the District, where he executed a written document that asserted he was divorcing Farah Aleem. He performed "talaq," exercising a provision of Islamic religious and Pakistani secular law that allows husbands to divorce their wives by declaring "I divorce thee" three times. In Muslim countries, men have used talaq to leave their wives for centuries.
But they can't use it in Maryland, the state's highest court decided this week.
The state Court of Appeals issued a unanimous 21-page opinion Tuesday declaring that talaq is contrary to Maryland's constitutional provisions providing equal rights to men and women.
"Talaq lacks any significant 'due process' for the wife, its use, moreover, directly deprives the wife of the 'due process' she is entitled to when she initiates divorce litigation in this state. The lack and deprivation of due process is itself contrary to this state's public policy," the court wrote.
The decision affirms a 2007 ruling by the Court of Special Appeals, the state's intermediate appellate court, which also said that talaq does not apply in the Free State.
Under Islamic traditions, talaq can be invoked only by a husband, unless he grants his wife the same right.
According to the Court of Appeals' opinion, Irfan Aleem, who worked for years as an economist with the World Bank, is worth about $2 million, half of which Farah Aleem is entitled to under Maryland law. When Irfan Aleem tried to divorce his wife under the concept of talaq, a sum of $2,500 was mentioned as a "full and final" settlement, according to the appellate decision.
That amount was written into the marriage contract Farah Aleem signed the day she married him in their native Pakistan in 1980, according to the appellate decision. The contract was in accordance with Pakistani custom. At the time, he was 29 and she was 18. The couple moved to the Washington area in 1985.
"I don't even know how to express how happy I am. I am ecstatic, relieved," Farah Aleem, 46, said yesterday.
Over the years, a lack of financial support from her ex-husband caused hardship for her and her son and daughter, who are in college, she said. "All I ever wanted was my fair share, not a penny more," said Aleem, who lives in the Washington area, works full time for an accounting firm and is pursuing an accounting degree at night.
At the direction of the judge who presided over the Aleems' divorce proceedings, the couple's Potomac home was sold, and half the proceeds -- about $200,000 -- went to Farah Aleem, said Susan Friedman, her attorney.
Friedman said she thinks that Irfan Aleem, who retired in recent years, invoked talaq to avoid paying Farah half of his World Bank pension, which provides him with $90,000 annually, the attorney said.
"It will be very pleasant when [Farah] gets her share of that," Friedman said. "She's delighted about that."
Friedman said she will serve papers on the World Bank showing that the original order from the Circuit Court -- that Farah Aleem is entitled to half her ex-husband's pension -- is now final and that the bank has to give her half.
Irfan Aleem, who is in his late 50s, lives in Pakistan, Friedman said.
His attorney, Priya R. Aryar, said, "We're very disappointed with the decision. We think this could have adverse ramifications for a whole bunch of people who reside in the D.C. area under diplomatic visas and assume that their family law rights and obligations are governed by the laws of their country of citizenship."
A legal scholar and an Islamic leader said the appellate court's decision was not surprising.
"For the most part, Muslims expected this kind of ruling," said Muneer Fareed, secretary general of the Islamic Society of North America in Plainfield, Ind. "The contrary would be a surprise to them. They do not expect the U.S. legal system to give full recognition of talaq."
Julie Macfarlane, a legal scholar who is researching a book about Islamic divorces in North America, said the decision was not surprising. "There's no legal enforceability [for talaq] in U.S. courts," said Macfarlane, a professor at the University of Windsor in Canada.
jisso wrote: > In what will undoubtedly be a MILESTONE in justice for Muslim WOMEN in > the United States, a Maryland appeals court has ruled a husband cannot > divorce his wife simply by saying three "I divorce thees," and walking > away with all their acquired wealth and property.
> The precedent-setting decision is a welcome change to the way wives > can be treated when a marriage is ending and the wife faces a very > short end of the stick.
> Perhaps in several decades the ruling might make its way into the > divorce "customs" of Muslim communities in other nations. But given > centuries-old Muslim pro-male practices that accord virtually NO legal > rights to women, maybe that's expecting too much.
> But for starters, if "men" in countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, > and Pakistan would stop stoning, burning, and beheading women in > "HONOR KILLINGS," some humanity, charity, kindness and enlightenment > might start to be squeezed into the behavior of Muslims everywhere.
> -----------------------------------
> "Islamic Divorce Ruled Not Valid in Maryland"
> "Custom Allowing Men to End Marriage With Oral Declaration Lacks 'Due > Process'"
> By Ruben Castaneda > Washington Post Staff Writer > Thursday, May 8, 2008; B02
> After his wife of more than two decades filed for divorce in > Montgomery County Circuit Court, Irfan Aleem responded in writing in > 2003, and not just in court.
> Aleem went to the Pakistani Embassy in the District, where he executed > a written document that asserted he was divorcing Farah Aleem. He > performed "talaq," exercising a provision of Islamic religious and > Pakistani secular law that allows husbands to divorce their wives by > declaring "I divorce thee" three times. In Muslim countries, men have > used talaq to leave their wives for centuries.
> But they can't use it in Maryland, the state's highest court decided > this week.
> The state Court of Appeals issued a unanimous 21-page opinion Tuesday > declaring that talaq is contrary to Maryland's constitutional > provisions providing equal rights to men and women.
> "Talaq lacks any significant 'due process' for the wife, its use, > moreover, directly deprives the wife of the 'due process' she is > entitled to when she initiates divorce litigation in this state. The > lack and deprivation of due process is itself contrary to this state's > public policy," the court wrote.
> The decision affirms a 2007 ruling by the Court of Special Appeals, > the state's intermediate appellate court, which also said that talaq > does not apply in the Free State.
> Under Islamic traditions, talaq can be invoked only by a husband, > unless he grants his wife the same right.
> According to the Court of Appeals' opinion, Irfan Aleem, who worked > for years as an economist with the World Bank, is worth about $2 > million, half of which Farah Aleem is entitled to under Maryland law. > When Irfan Aleem tried to divorce his wife under the concept of talaq, > a sum of $2,500 was mentioned as a "full and final" settlement, > according to the appellate decision.
> That amount was written into the marriage contract Farah Aleem signed > the day she married him in their native Pakistan in 1980, according to > the appellate decision. The contract was in accordance with Pakistani > custom. At the time, he was 29 and she was 18. The couple moved to the > Washington area in 1985.
> "I don't even know how to express how happy I am. I am ecstatic, > relieved," Farah Aleem, 46, said yesterday.
> Over the years, a lack of financial support from her ex-husband caused > hardship for her and her son and daughter, who are in college, she > said. "All I ever wanted was my fair share, not a penny more," said > Aleem, who lives in the Washington area, works full time for an > accounting firm and is pursuing an accounting degree at night.
> At the direction of the judge who presided over the Aleems' divorce > proceedings, the couple's Potomac home was sold, and half the proceeds > -- about $200,000 -- went to Farah Aleem, said Susan Friedman, her > attorney.
> Friedman said she thinks that Irfan Aleem, who retired in recent > years, invoked talaq to avoid paying Farah half of his World Bank > pension, which provides him with $90,000 annually, the attorney said.
> "It will be very pleasant when [Farah] gets her share of that," > Friedman said. "She's delighted about that."
> Friedman said she will serve papers on the World Bank showing that the > original order from the Circuit Court -- that Farah Aleem is entitled > to half her ex-husband's pension -- is now final and that the bank has > to give her half.
> Irfan Aleem, who is in his late 50s, lives in Pakistan, Friedman said.
> His attorney, Priya R. Aryar, said, "We're very disappointed with the > decision. We think this could have adverse ramifications for a whole > bunch of people who reside in the D.C. area under diplomatic visas and > assume that their family law rights and obligations are governed by > the laws of their country of citizenship."
> A legal scholar and an Islamic leader said the appellate court's > decision was not surprising.
> "For the most part, Muslims expected this kind of ruling," said Muneer > Fareed, secretary general of the Islamic Society of North America in > Plainfield, Ind. "The contrary would be a surprise to them. They do > not expect the U.S. legal system to give full recognition of talaq."
> Julie Macfarlane, a legal scholar who is researching a book about > Islamic divorces in North America, said the decision was not > surprising. "There's no legal enforceability [for talaq] in U.S. > courts," said Macfarlane, a professor at the University of Windsor in > Canada.
Misconceptions About a Pakistani Divorce Letter to the Editor Friday, May 16, 2008; A18
The May 8 Metro article "Islamic Divorce Ruled Not Valid in Maryland" contained several misconceptions that I feel compelled to correct, not only because of my own case but, more important, because they cast aspersions on Islamic marriages and Pakistani law.
First, the Pakistani marriage contract under which my wife and I were married explicitly set forth the division of property in the event of divorce, much as a prenuptial agreement does in the United States. Under that agreement, each party was entitled to retain property in his or her own name as well as half of any property held jointly. My property rights and my wife's property rights were the same in that respect.
Second, the divorce proceeding that the talaq procedure initiated was not unilateral. There is an administrative and court process in Pakistan, in which my wife chose not to participate, that would have safeguarded any rights she wished to assert. The Maryland courts, however, refused to hear any evidence about Pakistani law and procedure on these or any other points -- a fundamental violation of due process rights.
Third, I never took the position that she was entitled to only $2,500 while I would retain $2 million. As a result of the Pakistani order of divorce, my ex-wife received property with a total value of approximately $500,000.
Fourth, the only issue in the Maryland proceeding was the division of my pension. Although the Maryland court found it contrary to public policy not to give half that pension to my ex-wife, I would note that the laws of a number of states also provide that retirement benefits are not shared property in a divorce settlement.
Thus, bizarrely, Maryland has refused to apply a foreign law that is consistent with the laws of its sister states and the federal government, which Maryland courts do recognize and apply. I would also note that Maryland law would enforce a U.S. prenuptial agreement to the same effect.
Only foreign Muslims, it appears, do not get the benefit of such comity.
