Does anyone know why it is always portrayed in the media that islamic law disadvantages women in the context of child custody?
From what i've read about Sunni Fiqh at least there many different opinions on this issue and there isn't really a predominant opinion among them.
because "muslim countries" give custody to the father ALWAYS
this is the law of the land in Saudi
which is SUPPOSED to be an Islamic country
:evil:
http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDetails.do?item_id=695412&extID=10026
This article says that women in Saudi can get child custody and I know that many salafi Saudi scholars have the same opinion.
have u read "Not without my daughter?"
There are whole offices at the state dept and american embassy dealing with the abduction of children by Saudi men.
They marry an American woman, have children, eventually divorce and if the woman gets the children in an American court, the Saudi has the children kidnapped - and in the case of daughters, they will marry the daughters off at a very young age so that there is even less hope they could ever escape the kingdom.
It is such a problem that the Saudi Embassy has from time to time had to intervene, there are lots of support groups as well like http://www.victimsofsaudikidnapping.org/
It's not a big deal officially the administrations try very hard to portray Saudi Arabia as modern and forward thinking and cosmopolitan, they sweep this kind of stuff under the rug so people won't pressure them into serious change or push to alter our relationship.
Probably one of the touchier subjects in our "friendship"
Thats set in Iran.
Doesnt Iran claim to follow the Islamic law?
My point was that they may have different laws because they're shi'ites.
If the Shi'ites automatically give custody to the father then that shouldn't be portrayed as applying to all muslims.
It probably is a Shi'ite thing because I've only ever heard the issue brought up in the context of Iraq and Iran.
Fact is in islamic law after a certain age the custody of the child necessarily goes to the father.
Ya ALLAH Madad.
Haq Chaar Yaar
That isn't the opinion in all of the madhabs.
What happens when there is no concensus from the madhabs?
There are only four are there not?
When there is not a consensus then the ones who follow MADHAB 1 must go with that ruling, ones who follow MADHAB 2 must follow their ruling etc.
Yes salaf I agree.
Ya ALLAH Madad.
Haq Chaar Yaar
Doesn't that sort of destroy a lot of the integrity of Islam - it being a lifestyle and all?
In what sense?
I think the Shia have a couple.
In Sunni Islam there are only four that have survived history.
PS Don't believe the Irshad Manji lie that these four have been "allowed" to survive because they are all conservative (as if the liberal-conservative dialectic has always existed). There were plenty of other madhabs that were perfectly legitimate in their time but died out for various reasons e.g. the Zahiri madhab died out because it wasn't flexible enough. [/quote]
That there is no clear agreement from all four. Either 2 say yay and 2 nay, or one or more doesn't offer an opinion while the rest do?
What then?
Nothing happens.
Its called difference of opinion.
What do you mean? Because Islam allows for pluralism it is devoid of integrity?
lol no I don't mean moral integrity - I mean in the structural sense.
It's a way of life to be strictly followed right?
What happens when the authorities have an irreconcilable difference of opinion on a matter such as child custody or some other legalish facet of the way of life?
Doesn't that present a pretty big obstacle?
Salaam
A scholar explained this issue once and pointed out that after a divorce the mother gets the custody of the child.
The Holy Prophet
said to a woman that got divorced: “You have more right to him [the child] so long as you do not remarry.” (Abu Dawud).
The mother is closer to the child than the father, and this is why she gets priority in custody….
However, the law implemented in certain Muslim counties is a different matter altogether.
Child kidnapping by the father and taking the children into countries where the government takes their side is a serious cause for concern…(and does happen a lot)
Wasalaam
The authorities?
The government doesn't interpret Shariah the ulema do. The government implements whatever law they what. They may allow numerous madhabs to operate on issues such as child custody. I know that in Kuwait both Shia and Sunni Hanbali jurisprudunce are considered by the authorities in family legal matters.
Islam is not some rigid moral dictatorship.
I think you are looking for an insult where there isn't one...
Let me dilute this one to the base question. What happens when the authorities do not agree on a certain aspect of islamic life (like divorce or child custody?
Obviously the person in such a situation wants to have it resolved in a manner that is within the bounds of their religion.
Is there some sort of authority that can clarify when the schools cannot or is it just decision time for the individual?
Any decision taken in accordance with the schools of thought is valid, I would think.
The authorities are not the ones who interpret the shariah though. They will implement whatever they want. If they want to enforce Maliki fihq on all inhabitants then they will. If they want to accomodate multiple schools of thought as is the case in many modern muslim countries then they'll do that. The Ulema don't generally control the government historically or in modern times. At one point the Ummayed sultan tried to enforce the creed of the Mutazili even though the majority of the ulema followed other theological interpretations.
So they (the schools) claim authority they do not really have or they simply do not address such matters?
They do not claim authority they offer opinions. It is up to the Amir to execute the shariah as he see's fit.
I follow you now.
The Amir is in charge of implimenting the Shariah, and he is advised on what Shariah is by the schools.
However that does not necessarily mean the Ulema has to accept it as religiously valid.
So there is a fair amount of give and take.
Well if the ruler is a hanafi madhab follower as was the case with the ottomans he would likely only take advice from hanafi scholars (who still may not neccessarily agree on everything. For example the hanafi ulema say that at a certain age children should be given to the father in contrast to the Hanbalis and Malikis. However they differ on the age children should be given to the father from the mother.
Is the amir given the responsibility of implimenting Islamic law by the Qur'an or is that something they simply took upon themselves over the years?
The mother has custody until a son is 7, and a daughter before she hits puberty, usually between 9 and 12. Should the mother pass away, or be deemed unfit, the next in line by right would be the maternal grandmother. Then the father.
Needless to say, each case has it's own individual merits - parents/guardians have to be deemed fit enough to care for the child. Also, the child's wishes must be taken into account. Granted this doesn't always happen, but it is supposed to.
In most cases (in the UK at least) the children tend to stay with the mother even after those aforementioned ages
as a preference.
~Judgements prevent us from seeing the good that lies beyond appearances.~
"God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things. Right now I am so far behind that I will never die" ~ Bill Watterson