27 May, 2019

Blog

Resolving The MMDA Reform Dilemma – A Priority For the Muslim Community! 

By Mohamed Harees –

Lukman Harees

Certainly We have sent Our messengers with clear guidance; and We sent down to them the Book and the scale so that humans may conduct themselves with justice.” (Quran : Surah al-Hadid, 57:25),

When Justice Saleem Marsoof (JSM) handed over his Committee Report on Muslim Marriages and Divorce Act (MMDA) Reforms to Hon. Minister of Justice in December 2017, ending a long period of wait and suspense, the Muslim community in particular and the country in general eagerly expected that its’ recommendations will carry much hope and promise for those affected by certain aspects of this legislation. However, shattering all such hopes, it came to light that the Report was not ‘unanimous’ as it was initially thought to be; in fact there were two separate reports in one, with another ‘rival’ Report being also submitted alongside by another prominent member of the Committee Faisz Mustapha PC (FM) representing a dissenting group within, including the powerful ACJU, which basically challenged and disputed many key recommendations in the Main Report. This state of affairs obviously reflected adversely on the ability of the Muslim community to resolve its’ own issues amicably even after a long period of time. 

Ever since then, much debate and discourses have ensued in the public domain, with various parties even washing dirty linen in public, which have unfortunately generated more heat than light. Frustratingly, both the Justice Minister, the Government and even the Muslim Parliamentarians will therefore drag their feet in proceeding further in the absence of a consensus due to the political risk involved in taking sides/ implementing unilaterally. It would have been much nicer and productive for JSM as Chair if more time was taken to resolve contentious issues with the dissenting sub-group to come up with a unanimous set of recommendations in the several areas which are in dispute , rather than creating this quagmire, which many believe, arose out of egoistic reasons on both sides. 

The general law administered through civil courts governs marriages of other ethnic and religious communities – the Sinhalese, Tamils and Burghers, while the MMDA established a parallel Quazi (Muslim judge) court system to administer the Act. Throughout the period in which the MMDA has been implemented, there have been serious concerns raised by women’s groups with regard to discriminatory provisions as well as the quality of service and practices of the Quazi courts, which put Muslim women and girls in socially and economically vulnerable situations. Many Muslim women’s rights groups have therefore been highlighting this dire plight of multitude of affected Muslim women. Thus, there is definitely a dire need to reform this piece of law, and Muslims should seriously reflect whether to allow token cultural and religious rights embedded in the present MMDA , which has been traditionally passed off over the years as namesake ‘Islamic law’ to triumph over concepts of justice and equality as articulated and promoted under the objectives of Sharia (Maqasid Sharia) as laid down in the Quran and practices of the Holy Prophet of Islam (OWBP). However, as it stands now, many community initiatives to reconcile both positions taken up by both JSM and FM groups  have not been as effective as they should be. 

A cursory look at the general acceptability of the JSM-FM reports shows mixed reactions. On the one hand, the Muslim women’s groups and human rights groups which demanded drastic reforms showed an inclination to favour JSM recommendations, which appears to address the main concerns of the affected people to a greater extent and therefore they hailed this report as progressive and forward looking. They in fact even referred to FM as the distractor in chief. On the contrary, the FM-led dissenting report which was backed to the hilt by the influential ACJU, found favour with the conservative sections of the Muslim community, visibly due partly to intense lobbying at grass-root levels by the ACJU and partly as a result of misinformation , as the report sought to basically  maintain (almost) status quo in respect of substantive law and major areas which generated controversy, however suggesting administrative changes. They took up the position that JSM Report, sacrificed some aspects of the Sharia to appease those demanding drastic reforms to the MMDA without thoroughly thinking through the implications- a measure which may have long term impact on the religious and cultural sensitivities of the Muslim community. However, it has been fact that JSM Committee (JSM) has even authored books and written many research earlier on this area), has clearly done lot of research based on Sharia and comparative study about the law reform process even in other Muslim countries as well and his report was a comprehensive one. Thus any attempts to brand his Report as ‘anti-Sharia’ is both misleading and erroneous. The blame about his Report has been that there are no Religious scholars who has signed his report. 

On the other hand, the Muslim community consider MMDA as a great legacy left behind by the earlier generation of legal minds, politicians and religious scholars and therefore their fears are reasonable in that, reformation to this legislation should be undertaken with utmost  circumspect, caution and foresight, without merely seeking to resolve current societal issues. Thus, FM groups which was consisting of ACJU representatives, Dr Shukri(Director Jamia Naleemiah), Shibly Aziz(a former attorney general) and many others felt that some measures may be too drastic or radical, given the present cultural context within the Sri Lankan Muslim community as the reform process need to proceed with extreme caution; thus, may need further discussion with the community/religious leaders or education at the grass-root levels, for example, areas like ‘far reaching’ implications arising from changing the substantive law, polygamy and divorce procedures. Many administrative changes were however proposed to resolve current issues raised by the women’s groups.

A very sensitive issue considered by the Committee was the substantive law applicable to determine the validity of marriages and divorces as well of the status, mutual rights and obligations of the parties. It was recommended in the JSM Report that any reference to “sect” (or mazhab) be done away with, so that all matters contemplated by those provisions will be governed by the principles of “Muslim law”, and the opinions of all recognized schools of thought may be considered in making orders and decisions of the Quazi Court and the appellate courts. This was contrary to the status quo where our courts have held consistently that as Sri Lankan Muslims largely belong to the Shaffi sect “the Shaffi doctrine is generally applicable” and a party should be presumed to be a Shaffi unless there is evidence to the contrary.  The FM report did take exception to this major change in law, taking into consideration cultural sensitivities of the Muslim community, fearing that it will open up avenues for more controversies. Other areas of major disagreement were appointment of Female Quazis, requirement of registration for validity of a marriage and bride’s signature, minimum age for marriage, requirements for a polygamous marriage and divorce procedures, among others.

JSM, in one of his previous articles on the subject refers to the fact that some provisions of the MMDA do not fall in line with sharia requirements. He says for example, ‘although the sharia’t regards marriage as a contract as opposed to a religious sacrament, there is no provision in the Act for the bride to place her signature in the marriage register, and the consensual nature of marriage has been overlooked in most of the judicial decisions relating to the exercise of the option of puberty (khyar-ul-bulugh) by girls given in marriage by their marriage guardians.  Obsessed by the self imposed need to apply Shaffie law to the followers of the Shaffie mazhab, our Courts have forced such girls to abide by marital bonds which they had not voluntarily entered into’. Further, it is also a fact that even the un-Islamic practice of Kaikooli (dowry from a bride’s party to the bridegroom ) has been given validity in the Act. Thus, the assertion that MMDA is based on Sharia principles does not hold water. More-so, in the context of much injustice caused to the women, it cannot be said that the MMDA in Toto falls within the spirit of justice and fairplay as envisaged by the Sharia. Therefore , it is true as JSM says, ‘from the foregoing, it would be apparent that most of the problems in the Muslim Law of Marriage applicable in Sri Lanka arise from the deficiencies in the statutory framework within which the sharia’t rules operate, and the failure of the Courts to appreciate and give effect to the wisdom of the sharia’t’.

In fact, a prominent Sri Lankan Muslim scholar Ustad Mansoor drove home this point during a recent online video interview series on the subject, where he stressed the need to understand the overall laudable objectives of the Sharia(which is ensuring justice and fairness in dealings) in bringing about the much needed amendments to the Act without some sections feeling discriminated against. If the exercises to amend this Act defeats this objective, then they will be futile and cannot be considered as justice and fair. He quotes the Quran verse quoted above, to prove this point where all parties should feel the just and fair-play nature of the Islamic law as it happened in earlier times. He stated that ‘earlier Imams (Jurists) did formulate laws according to the conditions prevailing then; however they are not to be taken as set in stone, but will provide a basis for modern law making. If circumstances and conditions change like in modern times, then those changed situations should be considered in amending laws, which is the larger objective of Sharia.(this progressive and forward looking character (flexibility)is embedded in Islamic law making)’ 

Muslim scholars reflecting on the larger objectives of Sharia have said that laws derived from it must always protect the following: life, intellect, family, property and the honour of human beings. These five objectives create what we may consider to be a pre-modern Islamic Bill of Rights, providing protection for civil liberties. Islamic Shariah calls people to the middle path in all things in belief, worship, ethics, morality, behaviour, individual interactions, social interactions and in intellectual understanding. In pre-modern Muslim lands, Fiqh (jurisprudence) authority was separate from the governing authority, or Siyasa. Colonialism centralized law with the state, a system that carried over when these countries regained independence. By using state power to force particular religious doctrines upon the public, they would essentially create Muslim theocracies, contrary to what existed for most of Muslim history. In order to create a legal system that could do both address issues of their time and tackle questions yet to come, scholars used different hermeneutics that enabled them to extent what they found in the finite body of scripture such as Qiyas (analogy),  Istiḥsān (equitable discretion), maṣlaḥa (public good), qawāʿid (maxims) and the role of the spirit of the law. Earlier legal practice therefore has shown that the Islamic legal system has been flexible enough in reacting to and accommodating social change.

Another myth about Sharia is that it is anti-women. While it’s true that certain majority-Muslim societies have laws that treat women unfairly, many of these laws, have no basis in Fiqh and/or cherry-picked to suit the needs of the rulers. The Quran recognizes the absolute equality of men and women as human beings and proclaims that they are each other’s partners in promoting the common good. Shariah therefore requires that both men and women have equal access to knowledge; it requires a woman’s consent before marriage; and it allows her the right to initiate divorce under certain conditions. Muslim jurists allowed abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy, especially if the mother’s health was in jeopardy. Above all, Sharia allows a woman to inherit property from her male relatives and to keep this property for herself, even after marriage – her husband cannot lay any claim to it. In contrast, European Christian women were not allowed to hold on to their property after marriage until the 19th century. Muslim feminists campaigning for equal legal rights in Muslim majority societies today draw their arguments and strength from Sharia. Some hold that the Quranic verse that men are the “protectors” (Qawwamun) of women, as signifying inferiority of the woman. However, as scholars like Wadud, Azizah al Hibri (1982) and Riffat Hassan(1999) argue, linguistically  Qawwamun means ‘breadwinners’ or those who provide a means of support or livelihood’. Thus this verse charge men with maintaining women from their economic resources in which they have been preferred(given more of than women). Many Muslim countries have female judges too.

After all, family life is where the individual sense of religious and cultural identity is most strongly embedded and it is there that justice, equality and fairness should begin. Family law even in Muslim-majority countries has undergone tremendous change over the past century, and this process continues today with intensity and even controversy. The Quran and the Holy Prophet(OWBP)’s traditions urge Islamic society to do justice to all human beings. Thus, there seems to be no reason ‘why justice should be denied to the suffering Muslim women in the redress of their grievances in the implementation of family laws’. 

It is therefore nothing but fair (and also not too late) that both JSM and FM groups (which represents some of the best brains in the community) should look beyond their set of recommendations conflicting with those of the opposing one and sit around a table with or without (a) moderator/s to look for ways and means of finding common ground and a way out of this frustrating stalemate, in the best interests of the community and those crying out for redress from the injustices of the present MMDA. The ACJU as a responsible body should discontinue its’ damaging dissemination campaign against the JSM report recommendations and act sensibly to bring about a consensus ; the wider Muslim community too cannot be caught napping and should also bring pressure on all of them to consider this as a priority .

The differences are not totally irreconcilable or absolutely at tangents; it only needs a holistic approach in the wider spirit of the Sharia and also dispelling fears harboured by the other. Further, at a wider level, greater questions also need to be answered as well : Will mere reforming the Act restore and offer full protection of the rights of Muslim women, men and children? Is a reform of the MMDA the answer to address issues facing the Muslim community and particularly Muslim women and girls?. Be it as it may, the history and Almighty Allah will judge them eventually if they unduly delay further or fail to grasp this golden opportunity to correct the historic injustices in the Act and make MMDA ‘fit for purpose’. 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 7
    0

    “It is therefore nothing but fair .. that both JSM and FM groups .. should look beyond their set of recommendations conflicting with those of the opposing one and sit around a table with or without moderators to look for ways and means of finding common ground and a way out of this frustrating stalemate, in the best interests of the community and those crying out for redress from the injustices of the present MMDA.”
    .
    Both groups (JSM & FM) strongly believe that their respective proposals are in the best interests of the community.
    .
    One group (JSM) strongly believe that their proposals will address the needs of those crying out for redress from the injustices of the present MMDA.
    .
    The other group (FS) believe equally strongly that the present MMDA is perfect in it’s present form and therefore do not cause any injustice to the Muslims and that those crying out for redress are figments of somebody’s wild imagination.
    .
    Neither group is willing to even concede the possibility that there might be some truth in what the other is saying.
    .
    Both groups are on the other hand taking steps to build support and in effect harden their respective positions on this issue.
    .
    If, after more than 8 years of debate and discussion, the members of these groups, which according to the Writer represents some of the best brains in the community, are unable to follow the advice of the Holy Prophet (sal) that any disagreements among the Ummah must be resolved through Consultation (Shura) and Ijma (Consensus), how dare they claim that their proposals are in the best interests of the Muslim community ? Have these honourable men and women not realized as yet that the prestige battle they are waging against each other, in an attempt to protect and boost their personal reputations, is tearing our community apart ?

    • 2
      0

      Mohamed Harees,

      “Both groups (JSM & FM) strongly believe that their respective proposals are in the best interests of the community.”

      In the best interests of the Ulama and Mullahs so that they can maintain their hegemony. In the meantime, the Muslims are the laughing stock of the world.

      Islam destroyed its own “Golden Age” – Neil deGrasse Tyson & Steven Weinberg

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvkBlpfbFJM

      Steven Weinberg and Neil deGrasse Tyson describe how the “Golden Age of Islam” collapsed under islamic dogma and has not recovered intellectually or scientifically to this day. V. S. Ramachandran adds an extra cherry on top..

      • 1
        0

        Mohamed Harees,

        “Both groups (JSM & FM) strongly believe that their respective proposals are in the best interests of the community.”

        In the best interests of the Ulama and Mullahs so that they can maintain their hegemony.

        The productivity loss of memorizing Quran. Then they become Ulama. No math, no science, no logic, no general knowledge. Why not get a smart phone and download the whole Quran and its translations?

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kK_yvraiONk

        https://www.timesofisrael.com/uk-jails-mom-who-beat-son-to-death-for-not-memorizing-quran/

        UK jails mom who beat son to death for not memorizing Quran
        Sara Ege sentenced to at least 17 years in prison for murdering her child, burning the body to hide the evidence

    • 1
      0

      Lukman Harees,

      RE: Resolving The MMDA Reform Dilemma – A Priority For the Muslim Community!

      This is Ulama-ism gone wild. 1,100 yrs ago, they battled the rationalist, the Mut’zalites, and using the politicians, the rulers, prevailed in the Revelation vs.Reason debate. The the Muslims gradually entered the dark ages, and still are.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d8NthEFWow

      A collection of clips of Lawrence Krauss speaking about why religion is outdated in the 21st century at the World Economic Forum in 2013.

      Burning a woman’s car, a new trend by the Wahhabis. The ACJU and the Ulama, who follow Ulama-ism, are no different.

      http://saudigazette.com.sa/article/544438/Opinion/OP-ED/Burning-a-womans-car

      Over the last months, several cars owned by women have been burned by men who wanted to express their opposition to the decision permitting women to drive. The perpetrators have set women’s cars on fire thinking that doing such a thing makes them more masculine or displays their strength and power. It is a daring act but at the end of the day it expresses nothing but weakness. Those men see the right of women to drive as a form of competition, so they want to leave a message saying that they are stronger.

      .Their behavior and all forms of violence and harm against women stem from the fact that those men believe they own and control women. That is why some men act irresponsibly when they have an argument or have a problem with a woman.

    • 1
      0

      Lukman Harees,

      RE: Resolving The MMDA Reform Dilemma – A Priority For the Muslim Community!

      Is ACJU a delusion?
      Delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.
      “the delusion of being watched”

      Q1,. Is MMDA Man Made? Yes. So, it should be reform-able.

      Q2. Is ACJU Man Made? Yes. So, it should be reform-able.

      Q2. Is Religion Man Made? If so, it should be reform-able.

      Is Religion Man Made? Evolution of Belief | Daniel Dennett

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KF5MSo-WtOU

      Daniel Dennett gives a lecture about the evolution of belief. Get a religious friend to watch this. Maybe they’ll learn a thing or two. Answers in insanity says: “This is an old video so I tried to clean it up a bit and also cut out all the fat (introductions and questions) that didn’t contribute much. This lets you get right to the point.”

  • 2
    0

    Justice in Quran and the justice as defined in British LAw are one and the same. So which national list Muslim MP going to make hay out of this and Stupid Muslims get caught. I hope at least this time they can win.

  • 4
    0

    These mullha never understnad all those legal principles …that is the problems ..
    It is mere a problems of understanding

    • 1
      0

      Lankan

      “It is mere a problems of understanding” or is it hegemony?

      Is it the Intellect, IQ and the Incoherence of the Ulama and Mullahsand Hegemony?

      Lust look at the Revelation Vs. Reason Debate. Look at the Quran vs, Hadith Debate.

      Ibn Rushd in his darkest hour

      https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/artsandculture/2015/4/9/ibn-rushd-in-his-darkest-hour

      Ibn Rushd is the most capable rationalist philosopher in the history of Arab civilisation, and the best versed on the achievements of his age and the ages before him

      The reasons for the persecution of Ibn Rushd vary according to those who studied his struggle and their intellectual levels.

      A final reason offered was Ibn Rushd’s book The Incoherence of the Incoherence, in which he responded to the fallacies of Abu Hamid al-Ghazali’s The Incoherence of Philosophers. He did this despite knowing Ghazali was the master of the Almohad dynasty who were in power, and believed the earth was located between the horns of a bull.

  • 3
    1

    ACJU has decreed tat MMDA1950 is perfect as is. The silence of Muslim MPs and the use by ACJU of social boycott to miff dissent within community, makes one suspect as to whether Lankan Muslims are externally driven.
    MMDA1950 violates human rights.
    .
    ACJU must accept the laws which are applied to ALL Lankans.

    • 4
      0

      “ACJU must accept the laws which are applied to ALL Lankans”

      When the SL Law says “Except Muslims” is the issue here. Is ACJU above the Govt? Just abolish MMDA, no reform talks please.

      • 2
        0

        M.
        Spot on.
        ACJU is playing politics and has tremendous “influence” over the ” corrupt, current set of “Muslim politicians” who want to maintain the “(1950MMDA}” which serves the views of the local Mullahs, whose expertise is questionable .
        Justice SM in his wisdom, after nine long years, has painstakingly produced his report which in his wisdom corrects the problems affecting the Sri Lankan Muslim women.
        Unfortunately, the present lot of Muslim Sri Lankan Politicians supporting the present government in power are influenced by the defunct ACJU and with the fluid Sri Lankan politics at the moment; in spite of the 1st Female
        Justice Minister in history; it’s a shame that nothing is been done to rectify the plight of the young Muslim girls to help them, in spite of all the progressive voices of various Muslim Organisations in SL.
        S L Muslim Girls will be better off under the circumstances if they are guided by the laws applicable to all Sri Lankans. No EXCEPTIONS and the ACJU is banned.

  • 0
    1

    Dear Amaeasiri…
    I appreciate your love for ibn Rushd and his logic..
    But I’m.sorry to say I disagree with you…
    I prefer al- ghazali to ibn Rushd ..
    Why?. .
    Rationalist or pure rationalists think that reason is complete and comprehensive ..
    What we call.an an abstract intellect ..
    People of abstract intellect…always take refuge on reason …for them.reason is the primary source of reference for all things ..
    But I disagree with this .
    Why ..
    Man is limited by time and space ..
    You live in USA and I live in Europe ..
    Our thoughts are influenced and limited by our contexts ..
    Likewise; by our social contexts and time ..
    We Can not go beyond that ..but to.know some ultimate truth we need to go beyond the time.and space factors .to know about nature of unseen world…the world of soul; the world.of jinn or next life or about spirit .
    We should go beyond reason?…
    What is that which could tell us about ultimate truth this life; next life and about our souls and spirits ..
    Only divine ‘revelation..
    I’ve been trying to direct you to Islam many time but you are so rational..you have an abstract intellect which is not supported divine guidance …
    All what I can do is to tell the truth..
    But guidance is with Allah ..
    It is He who opens the hearts of people to guidance ..
    I wish you are guided by the teaching of al- Ghazali..
    Read some of his books ..
    Then come we could discuss more ..
    You cannot judge him by reading one book for him ..
    I wish we could debate this in detail in email.or.whatups…

    • 1
      0

      Lankan,

      Q1. “I appreciate your love for ibn Rushd and his logic..
      But I’m.sorry to say I disagree with you…
      I prefer al- ghazali to ibn Rushd ..
      Why?. .”

      A1. It is not love, but respect for Ibn Rushd for pointing out the fallacies of Hamid Al-Ghazali, using reason and theology. In fact, there were 17 fallacies, in the 20 arguments raised by Ghazali. It was good enough for the confused Ulama, to continue on business, just like the ACJU, who claims that MMDA is perfect.
      For example, take argu,ment 17, cotton burns because of agent, and become black. Ibn Rushd would ask for demonstration. Here is a simple experiment. Burn the cotton, and cover it with a glass jar. The cotton will stop burning, even though the agent, Al-Ghazali’s agent is still inside the glass.

      Q2. “Man is limited by time and space ..
      You live in USA and I live in Europe ..
      Our thoughts are influenced and limited by our contexts ..”

      A2. Where we live should be immaterial for facts.

      Q3.” We should go beyond reason?…
      What is that which could tell us about ultimate truth this life; next life and about our souls and spirits ..
      Only divine ‘revelation”

      A3. It should be demonstrated. Without demonstration, it is just belief, just ;like burning cotton example of Ghazali.

      Q4. ” I wish we could debate this in detail in email.or.whatups…”

      A4. One-on-ones are inefficient. It has to be wholesale and transparent with referees, umpires and judges, to throw in their comments as well, limited to 300 words.

      Listen to Christianity Debunked Using Science and History Richard Carrier

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nk5OXnQRr6M

      The speaker claims that the Islamic, Christian, Jewish and Zorastrian Gods are the same, based on history and reason. It is belief that thinks otherwise, based on the theology.

    • 1
      0

      Lankan,

      Q. “I appreciate your love for ibn Rushd and his logic..
      But I’m.sorry to say I disagree with you…
      I prefer al- ghazali to ibn Rushd ..
      Why?. “

      A. Why Religion is Outdated in the 21st Century – Lawrence Krauss

      Why Ghazali is outdated , no demonstration, per Ibn Rushd. Nobody burmed Ghazali’s books., but the Ulama got Ibn Rushd’s books burnt.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d8NthEFWow

      A collection of clips of Lawrence Krauss speaking about why religion is outdated in the 21st century at the World Economic Forum in 2013.

  • 1
    0

    Mohamed Harees,

    RE: Resolving The MMDA Reform Dilemma – A Priority For the Muslim Community!

    “‘Certainly We have sent Our messengers with clear guidance; and We sent down to them the Book and the scale so that humans may conduct themselves with justice.” (Quran : Surah al-Hadid, 57:25),”

    You should not let the Ulama, ACJU to take refuge in Hadith., and abuse Sri Lankan Muslim girls and women.

    “The blame about his Report has been that there are no Religious scholars who has signed his report. “

    Why?

    What is the Ulama, Mullah, Moulavi Syllabus of the ACJU?
    1. Quran, written within 20 years, per Islamic sources.
    2. Hadith and Prophetic Traditions, Sunnah. described and written in the Hadith 200 years later, per Islamic sources.

    It is claimed that 95 to 99% of the Hadith have been dismissed as unreliable. There is a group called the Quranics, who rely only on the Quran, not Hadith, and claims that Hadith is unreliable (Abdur Rab. ISBN-13:ISBN-3:978-49528776 AND ISBN-10:1495287173).

    After all, there was Islam for 200 years before the Hadith were written.

    (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Hadith 421)

    In a narration, again from Sayyidina Abu Dharr, there appear the additional words to the effect:

    “I asked the Prophet about the Statement of Allah: — ‘And the sun is quickly proceeding towards its destination. That is the designing of the All-Mighty, the All-Knowing ‘ (36.38) He said, ‘Its course is underneath “Allah’s Throne.’” (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Hadith 327)

  • 4
    2

    MMDA is acronym for Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act. The Act places equal emphasis on Marriage AND Divorce. This says it all!
    The Marriage part virtually allows the female as a fruit to be eaten ripe or green and treat them as chattels.
    The Divorce part is all about male authority.
    MMDA is discussed in sermons to young boys. At that age other Lankan children play, talk cricket.
    .
    MMDA is the mother of all misogyny.
    MMDA is over seventy years past the use-by date. It must go. Heard it ACJU?

    • 2
      2

      You nutty Pillai, ash made out of cow dung you apply on your forehead as vibhuti, drinking cow urine to purify your body, worshiping hundreds of idols as your gods to make your brain more muddy, WHAT THE HELL YOU KNOW ABOUT MMDA? Just buzz off without being a mouth piece to your white masters or Muslim haters.

      • 1
        1

        mohomad
        ‘nutty’ or ‘Dubai cashew-nutty’?
        Wearing ash on the forehead, worshipping hundreds of idols and the like are not mandatory. Have you actually met someone whose cup of tea is cow urine based? This practice is as stupid as FMG.
        MMDA1950 is law.
        Human rights activists point out that the particular law is bad. They are not ‘Muslim haters or slaves of white masters’.
        By the way mohomad, Are you inside ACJU? Or in the fringe?

        • 0
          2

          Yes, I personally know many who drinks cow urine not as tea but as holy water. Hindus knows this and if you are not a Hindu you will not know unless you had widely traveled in India. I know British Laws which you follow is mandatory for you so why can’t we follow our Sharia Law which formed when westerners were Veddas? What do you know about Islamic Jurisprudence unless you are an expert on Islamic Law. That is why I am telling you to buzz off without following western media like the most writers do here. MMDA handles only marriage and divorce act and if Sharia court cannot resolve a case the parties involved can go to the civil court. There were many such cases.

      • 2
        1

        Mohomad, please don’t insult cow. That is Pillai’s another goddess.

    • 1
      1

      K.Pillai,

      I am also against MMDA. But where did you get below false info?

      “The Marriage part virtually allows the female as a fruit to be eaten ripe or green and treat them as chattels”

      “MMDA is discussed in sermons to young boys. At that age other Lankan children play, talk cricket”

    • 2
      1

      K. Pillai,

      “MMDA is discussed in sermons to young boys”

      I am now 32 and a Muslim. I have never heard of this in any of sermons during my childhood to adulthood.

      I agree it is old and bad for women. But it does not mean that you can add some lies to exaggerate things? Now I have to start doubting on whatever the topic you comment or commented.

    • 1
      0

      K P.
      Humerous but very apt.
      Well done.
      Time to say eff off to ACJU.

  • 1
    1

    K.Pillai:

    Do you know that every woman fighting for so-called women rights has one of 2 reasons:

    1 – Due to inferiority complex being born as a woman not realizing how better they are being mothers who bring every human being to this world. 2 – One woman wants to show to another woman that she is classy and better than the other because she is an activist and fighting for the rest.

    You in category 1 or 2?

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 300 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically shut off on articles after 10 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.