Article

2003-12-20 India-Pakistan

Court rules Pakistani Muslim women free to choose spouse

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred Pruitt 2003-12-20 00:17|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Islamic courts disagreeing about Islamic Law within the last decade? Wait a minute. My Britannica here has an essay on Islam that says,

...Ijma set the final seal of rigidity on the doctrine, and from the 10th century onward independent juristic speculation ceased. In the Arabic expression, "the door of ijtihad [interpretation] was closed."...

In context this means Sharia should be concrete now. Of course, it's from 1986, maybe Islamic thought has ~~not~~ changed ~~in the last millenium~~ over the years.

Posted by Glenn (not Reynolds) 2003-12-20 5:38:44 AM|| 2003-12-20 5:38:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Look, the fact that the couples who challenged the decision in the Supreme Court were still alive marks a real turning point. I mean, where were their brothers, fathers, etc. who had to do the Honor Killing!!

Posted by SamIII 2003-12-20 9:10:34 AM|| [www.samlindsey.com] 2003-12-20 9:10:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Wow! These are tough questions the court is facing. Have they decided a woman is (in theory) a person yet?

Sorta of like are Jews white? Technically yes but..... LOL!

(Yes I know, Eskimos, Ethiopian etc.)

Posted by Shipman 2003-12-20 11:12:55 AM|| 2003-12-20 11:12:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 For Glenn (1): There are different meanings of interpretation. One meaning has to do with methods of study, and the other has to do with which rule or which anology applies. New rulings appear all the time, and frequently disagree with each other. If your library has
World of Fatwas by Arun Shourie you might find the book amusing.

Posted by James 2003-12-20 12:46:26 PM|| [http://www.idontknowbut.blogspot.com] 2003-12-20 12:46:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 James: Family Law: relationship, marriage, succession, inheritance is basic. Societies developed their Law as they formed and tend to be conservative about them. The very words used to discuss these things (e. g., Mother / Father / Brother / Sister) tend to be among the oldest ones in any language. The apparent fluidity of Family Law in the US is a reflection of diversity, and the fact that we are still a very young society. But court decisions in this realm, once made, are respected by other courts, and changed reluctantly. The early-on decision to adopt English Common Law makes this conservatism necessary. To decide these things by fatwa, by definition subject to change without notice, strikes me as extraordinary. Or maybe this shows contentment with Sharia as long as it goes along with what you want. Been in a bitchy mood lately. Sorry

Posted by Glenn (not Reynolds) 2003-12-20 1:51:02 PM|| 2003-12-20 1:51:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Why be sorry? That's one of the problems, according to Arun. A well-connected man can often get the decision he wants, however contorted the analogies required to arrive at it. And you don't have one court system, but at least 4, which don't have to respect each other's rulings. Of course this leaves all sorts of land mine precedents around for the not-so-well connected...

Posted by James 2003-12-20 10:22:37 PM|| [http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com] 2003-12-20 10:22:37 PM|| Front Page Top

05:54 JenLArt
05:46 JenLArt
23:53 Lucky
23:06 CrazyFool
22:43 john
22:22 James
22:09 Super Hose
22:05 Islam Sucks
22:03 Paul Moloney
21:17 JAB
21:16 Pappy
21:10 Pappy
20:47 Mercutio
20:13 Mark
20:00 rkb
19:34 Raj
19:32 Raj
19:15 Alaska Paul
18:15 Chef
18:14 Robert Crawford
18:13 rkb
18:05 rkb
17:29 Super Hose
17:21 Super Hose