If its recent rulings are any evidence the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) is never short on stirring up intense public debate on matters of general interest. Sometime ago its version on the validity of treating DNA as part of forensic evidence in rape cases made to the front pages of newspapers and now its rulings on marriage without consent of first spouse and childhood 'nikah' tend to provide grist to gossip mills and an informed public debate. Perhaps, the Council could have spoken its mind on issues of immediate relevance to the people of Pakistan, like sectarian strife, religious militancy, gender-based taboos and lingering deprivation of weaker sections of our society. On Monday, it said man need not seek consent of his wife for his second marriage. And on the following day it ruled ban on childhood marriage un-Islamic. Both the verdicts fly in the face of whatever little progress has been made in breaking down the barriers to women empowerment and amelioration of abused children. Perhaps, as MNA Nafisa Shah said, the Council should tell the people why it has failed to stop notorious practices such as vani, swara and karo kari. Isn't that the Council finds itself incapacitated to interpret basic injunctions of Islam by seeking guidance from other acknowledged and recognised sources of law-making like Qias and Ijtehad, as is the case in a number of other Muslim countries. The Council's rulings seem to reflect a particular mindset that needs to be reoriented in order to obtain conditions that help harmonising dire realities of modern age that we confront within our faith.
The Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) says the law seeking consent from first spouse for second marriage is un-Islamic. Ever since the Ayub era Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (1961) it is mandatory that second marriage should be registered with the Arbitration Council which shall ensure that permission of first wife was obtained. The CII says that man is not bound to seek permission of the first wife as he goes for second marriage. Given that the constitution (Article 227) mandates that all existing laws shall be brought in conformity with Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such Injunctions the ball is in the government's court how to go about its compliance. Since codification of Muslim family laws has always been a matter of intense public debate, it is quite likely the CII verdict on the idea of consent by first wife for second marriage is challenged in the Federal Shariat Court either by a citizen or the government. The government is expected to defend some other sections of the ordinance also, like right to inherit by children who lost fathers while their grandfathers lived. Ayub Khan, a retired general and a man of military mind, was essentially motivated by his desire to do something for the grandchildren who as per Islamic law could not inherit their grandfathers' property in case their fathers died in war.
But no less significantly, Maulana Muhammad Khan Sherani also clarified that 'a man is bound to treat all his spouses with justice and equity'. The anti-consent justification seems to stem from thinking that given the fact man is polygamous by nature in case his first wife refuses to consent to his second marriage he may divorce her thus leave his children from her without a roof on their head. Or, he may have to keep his second marriage secret, depriving her of her right as a legitimate partner in his life. In case he cannot commit himself to give his second wife equal status and honour worthy of a spouse and cannot fulfil prescribed duties and responsibilities among them with equity and justice he should not go for this venture. In case the recommendation to do away with consent of the first wife for second marriage is made into law it would be necessary that the new law carries a stiff proviso seeking firm assurance that he would treat his spouses equally. And that is a huge challenge with life becoming so hard to live. And no less controversial is the Council's second ruling which declares the law setting minimum age of marriage as un-Islamic. Here too Maulana Sheerani has predicated the ruling upon condition that the child couple should get together only on their obtaining puberty. And that they can refuse to live together and go for annulment of their 'nikah'. Indeed the Council seems to be anxious to create balance between its support for childhood marriage and the ample scope for its annulment on the couple reaching puberty. If so, why in the first place these controversial interpretations that tends to cast our religion nothing more than medieval way of life no more relevant to the times we live.
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Pakistan's Council of Islamic Ideology: out of tune with the times
If its recent rulings are any evidence the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) is never short on stirring up intense public debate on matters of general interest. Sometime ago its version on the validity of treating DNA as part of forensic evidence in rape cases made to the front pages of newspapers and now its rulings on marriage without consent of first spouse and childhood 'nikah' tend to provide grist to gossip mills and an informed public debate. Perhaps, the Council could have spoken its mind on issues of immediate relevance to the people of Pakistan, like sectarian strife, religious militancy, gender-based taboos and lingering deprivation of weaker sections of our society. On Monday, it said man need not seek consent of his wife for his second marriage. And on the following day it ruled ban on childhood marriage un-Islamic. Both the verdicts fly in the face of whatever little progress has been made in breaking down the barriers to women empowerment and amelioration of abused children. Perhaps, as MNA Nafisa Shah said, the Council should tell the people why it has failed to stop notorious practices such as vani, swara and karo kari. Isn't that the Council finds itself incapacitated to interpret basic injunctions of Islam by seeking guidance from other acknowledged and recognised sources of law-making like Qias and Ijtehad, as is the case in a number of other Muslim countries. The Council's rulings seem to reflect a particular mindset that needs to be reoriented in order to obtain conditions that help harmonising dire realities of modern age that we confront within our faith.
The Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) says the law seeking consent from first spouse for second marriage is un-Islamic. Ever since the Ayub era Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (1961) it is mandatory that second marriage should be registered with the Arbitration Council which shall ensure that permission of first wife was obtained. The CII says that man is not bound to seek permission of the first wife as he goes for second marriage. Given that the constitution (Article 227) mandates that all existing laws shall be brought in conformity with Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such Injunctions the ball is in the government's court how to go about its compliance. Since codification of Muslim family laws has always been a matter of intense public debate, it is quite likely the CII verdict on the idea of consent by first wife for second marriage is challenged in the Federal Shariat Court either by a citizen or the government. The government is expected to defend some other sections of the ordinance also, like right to inherit by children who lost fathers while their grandfathers lived. Ayub Khan, a retired general and a man of military mind, was essentially motivated by his desire to do something for the grandchildren who as per Islamic law could not inherit their grandfathers' property in case their fathers died in war.
But no less significantly, Maulana Muhammad Khan Sherani also clarified that 'a man is bound to treat all his spouses with justice and equity'. The anti-consent justification seems to stem from thinking that given the fact man is polygamous by nature in case his first wife refuses to consent to his second marriage he may divorce her thus leave his children from her without a roof on their head. Or, he may have to keep his second marriage secret, depriving her of her right as a legitimate partner in his life. In case he cannot commit himself to give his second wife equal status and honour worthy of a spouse and cannot fulfil prescribed duties and responsibilities among them with equity and justice he should not go for this venture. In case the recommendation to do away with consent of the first wife for second marriage is made into law it would be necessary that the new law carries a stiff proviso seeking firm assurance that he would treat his spouses equally. And that is a huge challenge with life becoming so hard to live. And no less controversial is the Council's second ruling which declares the law setting minimum age of marriage as un-Islamic. Here too Maulana Sheerani has predicated the ruling upon condition that the child couple should get together only on their obtaining puberty. And that they can refuse to live together and go for annulment of their 'nikah'. Indeed the Council seems to be anxious to create balance between its support for childhood marriage and the ample scope for its annulment on the couple reaching puberty. If so, why in the first place these controversial interpretations that tends to cast our religion nothing more than medieval way of life no more relevant to the times we live.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment