Marriage Protection & Recourse in Law and Faith

[Sofiyya 1,687]

• Condone or instruct, either directly or indirectly, others on how to commit fraudulent or illegal immigration activities in any way, shape, manner or method.

How did I miss that rule?

[AngelK96 0]

I had an islamic marriage and contract, and no I didn't let my husband decide or choose. I enter and asked for my own terms regarding it. I wasn't ignorant to the whole process of an islamic marriage. Even though I love my husband dearly I still wanted rights I was entitled to. Thanks to all arab friends I made over the years and had discussions with about what an islamic marriage entails. So I went into my marriage just like an arab women would. Is that a bad thing..no I wouldn't say so. Actually I basicallly got a marriage contract that was similar to my sister in law the only sister of my husband and his brothers. If my husband thought the contract was unreasonable he would have never married me and I would have not married him. We all have to remember once we are in the USA for instance in my state we have a no fault divorce law here, so if my husband and I ever wanted to divorce and we reside in the usa we follow the laws here and not in the country we married. Of course we can go to that country and try to enforce our contracts but if your husband has nothing there than basically it's a mute point.

[Henia 11]

I'm really not sure I understand this poll question? Maybe it's an inside conversation that I'm not aware of?

I do believe it is a contiunation of a conversation locked in another thread

No Dawn you're not the only one. I am grateful for VJ as well along with all the people who share their stories and advice everyday.

I third that notion!

I think I need to come back after I broke fast and read all this... I am getting a headache

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I had an islamic marriage and contract, and no I didn't let my husband decide or choose. I enter and asked for my own terms regarding it. I wasn't ignorant to the whole process of an islamic marriage. Even though I love my husband dearly I still wanted rights I was entitled to. Thanks to all arab friends I made over the years and had discussions with about what an islamic marriage entails. So I went into my marriage just like an arab women would. Is that a bad thing..no I wouldn't say so.

Good for you, angel! Seems as though you went into a nikah the way right way, and with a CR1/IR1. I'm Arab, and I've had two nikahs, both on terms that my husband and I both could live with. What makes it a good thing is when you have the ability to back it up and not allow it to be merely a piece of paper with nothing more than sentimental meaning so that you are stilll dreaming of the day that you are married for real when no one can doubt you, and not only married in your heart. Married in your heart does you little good, not here and not there. It's a sad day when you have to convince Muslim women of the benefits of real marriage, but it seems as if that day has come!

Edited October 15, 2006 by szsz

[Veiled Princess 1]

I had an islamic marriage and contract, and no I didn't let my husband decide or choose. I enter and asked for my own terms regarding it. I wasn't ignorant to the whole process of an islamic marriage. Even though I love my husband dearly I still wanted rights I was entitled to. Thanks to all arab friends I made over the years and had discussions with about what an islamic marriage entails. So I went into my marriage just like an arab women would. Is that a bad thing..no I wouldn't say so. Actually I basicallly got a marriage contract that was similar to my sister in law the only sister of my husband and his brothers. If my husband thought the contract was unreasonable he would have never married me and I would have not married him. We all have to remember once we are in the USA for instance in my state we have a no fault divorce law here, so if my husband and I ever wanted to divorce and we reside in the usa we follow the laws here and not in the country we married. Of course we can go to that country and try to enforce our contracts but if your husband has nothing there than basically it's a mute point.

There is no reason why your marriage contract should not be enforcable here.... it is a contract after all.

I believe I've read about some already having been enforced already... in the US I believe they consider it a pre-nup.... but then again it's still up to the court to decide if it wants to enforce it or not and they can make the ruling in your favor and the man can go back to his country and 'get lost' and you'll never find him again so in the end it's really up to whether or not the parties involved fear God during the process and retain honorable intentions from the beginning through the end.

• Condone or instruct, either directly or indirectly, others on how to commit fraudulent or illegal immigration activities in any way, shape, manner or method.

How did I miss that rule?

no one here has come within 40 miles of violating this particular part of the TOS.

[Caladan 19]

Don't know how Islam works, but there's nothing in Catholicism as far as I know about that would invalidate a Catholic sacrament because a civil contract wasn't available or enforceable. (You could be a married Catholic in the absence of a functioning or tolerant government that recognized the marriage.) So let's not group all the Abrahamic faiths under one mantle here, as there just isn't a requirement of civil protection in a Catholic marriage. I haven't voted in the poll as its horribly biased. Like asking in a poll 'when did you stop beating your wife?'

Practically, there's a number of civil benefits under American law that occur with a legal marriage that are a pain in the behind to contract individually: default power of attorney, inheritance rights and the like go to spouses automatically, but if you're not legally married, all of those contracts can be contested in court more easily. And that's before we get to all the immigration stuff.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Don't know how Islam works, but there's nothing in Catholicism as far as I know about that would invalidate a Catholic sacrament because a civil contract wasn't available or enforceable. (You could be a married Catholic in the absence of a functioning or tolerant government that recognized the marriage.) So let's not group all the Abrahamic faiths under one mantle here, as there just isn't a requirement of civil protection in a Catholic marriage.

Catholics, like everyone else in America, are not married under the law until their union is recognized by the state. Unlike Catholocism, marriage in Islam is not a sacrement, and I think that's where some Muslim converts get confused. They maintain a mindset of marriage in Christian doctrine as a sacrement before God when it is a contract, a business and social contract that requires an entity to promote and enforce the provisions within. We sign a contract, like a pre-nup, in front of two witness, and that is the ceremony. But, as in any contract, it is only valid if it is enforcable.

For example, The Quran states that it is not permissible for a man to marry his aunt. They can have the ceremony, sign the nikah, have two witnesses, etc., and it looks like a marriage, but it is unenforcable because it is haram. Not having protection and recourse to sustain the rights in a marriage is not doing justice, and the Quran calls for justice more than 50 times, including in marriage. Without the ability to legitimize and enforce the nikah contract, one is not married. And that is a paper marriage.

I haven't voted in the poll as its horribly biased. Like asking in a poll 'when did you stop beating your wife?'

Basically, it's a yes and no poll, do you or don't you want protection and recourse? Nothing horrible or biased about that if you want yes or no answers, which is what I wanted. Do you or don't you? I kept it simple.

Practically, there's a number of civil benefits under American law that occur with a legal marriage that are a pain in the behind to contract individually: default power of attorney, inheritance rights and the like go to spouses automatically, but if you're not legally married, all of those contracts can be contested in court more easily. And that's before we get to all the immigration stuff.

And there is considerable complaining going on here about the cost of civil letigation already. Add to that the additional burden of having your union legally recognized before you can even proceed with trying to claim any of the proceeds from a illegitimate union. Azizah Al-Hibri, a Muslim attorney and feminist, writes about this often because she has found in her practice, as the attorneys I work for in theirs, that Muslims can be arrogant and ignorant about their rights in the US, thinking that they can do pretty much as they please, then have the court straighten it all out.

no one here has come within 40 miles of violating this particular part of the TOS.

Tell that to Sister Goldenheart who learned the hard way about paper marriages and the USCIS. Advocating it on this board is irresponsible, Layla, and you have done that repeatedly.

You're not supposed to post to me, remember? Stick to it because I will respond.

Edited October 15, 2006 by szsz

[Veiled Princess 1]

Don't know how Islam works, but there's nothing in Catholicism as far as I know about that would invalidate a Catholic sacrament because a civil contract wasn't available or enforceable. (You could be a married Catholic in the absence of a functioning or tolerant government that recognized the marriage.) So let's not group all the Abrahamic faiths under one mantle here, as there just isn't a requirement of civil protection in a Catholic marriage. I haven't voted in the poll as its horribly biased. Like asking in a poll 'when did you stop beating your wife?'

Practically, there's a number of civil benefits under American law that occur with a legal marriage that are a pain in the behind to contract individually: default power of attorney, inheritance rights and the like go to spouses automatically, but if you're not legally married, all of those contracts can be contested in court more easily. And that's before we get to all the immigration stuff.

It actually has little to do with Islamic marriage contract either. Some people just like to try to govern Islam with man made laws.

If 'giving up' rights or not being able to enforce them invalidated marriages in Islam then the prophet's (sal allahu alayhi wa salaam) marriage to Sawdah would have been invalid because she gave up some of her nights to Aisha because she thought it would please him. Equally shared nights between co-wives is a God-given right in Islam so if there was no sin in her giving this up then there most certainly is no sin in giving up rights that men have made up.

[004:128] And if a woman fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, there is no sin on them both if they make terms of peace between themselves; and making peace is better. And human inner selves are swayed by greed. But if you do good and keep away from evil, verily, Allâh is Ever Well-Acquainted with what you do.

What it really comes down to is it is a contract and we have been commanded to honor our contracts... if it is enforced here in this life that's great, if it's not it's also God's will and we'll be compensated on JD if He wills.

Edited October 15, 2006 by Veiled Princess

[Veiled Princess 1]

Tell that to Sister Goldenheart who learned the hard way about paper marriages and the USCIS. Advocating it on this board is irresponsible, Layla, and you have done that repeatedly.

You're not supposed to post to me, remember? Stick to it because I will respond.

I'm not gonna let you post lies about me either so if I get banned for defending myself against your attacks then I just do huh?

I have never advocated anything on this board.. I have never claimed to or instructed anyone else on this board or elsewhere to lie to immigration. If you somehow got that from my posts then you have a serious problem with reading comprehension.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Any time a Muslim acquieses to the fatwa of a scholar, she is following a man-made law. So it is not man-made law that is the problem here; she will follow them when they serve her purposes. Allah tells us to follw the law of the land where you are (man made law included), but she ignores that law too. It is pretty narcissistic and prideful to follow only that which pleases YOU, not God.

Giving up a night with your husband is in no way comparable to giving up all of them, which is the debate here. Protection and enforcement are obligations, whereas sleeping with your husband is conditional (you have tried to tell us that you may not have slept with your yet). If you start with nothing, you end with nothing. At least Salwa had a right to give up.

God has required enforcement and protection in contractual law. Muslims who disobey this rule are treading on thin ice. If you look for perfection in this life, and, finding none, you throw up your hands and take the least that you can get, then you are doubting God who, in His Wisdom, has told you that you can follow man's laws when they are not detrimental to you. We have settled that these are not, but defiance is the order of the day. May God have mercy on the least accepting among us.

I'm not gonna let you post lies about me either so if I get banned for defending myself against your attacks then I just do huh?

I have never advocated anything on this board.. I have never claimed to or instructed anyone else on this board or elsewhere to lie to immigration. If you somehow got that from my posts then you have a serious problem with reading comprehension.

You said I was lying about you using the word kufar too, and I proved you wrong, so don't scream lie again, you are too transparent for that. This entire debate began on Goldenheart's thread where you repeatedly insisted that a paper marriage was fine, as you do now. Her fiance got kicked out of the US for misrepresenting to the USCIS that he was married and now they have to do your favorite thing, pay a lot of money to try to fix their situtation.

She was told by an imam that it was ok to do this, but he was wrong then, as you are now. You have a nerve coming to this immigration board and continuing to represent paper marriages as acceptable. If others believe you, and have the problems Goldenheart and her man have, and no one spoke out against it, I would not be able to look at myself in the mirror because I was one of them.

You may not have a problem, but I care about others who may. So far, you only seem to care about yourself. And, yea, that's the way I see it.

Edited October 15, 2006 by szsz

[Sofiyya 1,687]

BTW, it's not my intent to see you banned, and I hope that doesn't happen, but this defense of paper marriages is not condusive to the need for proper information regarding immigration.

[crazyinEgypt 0]

You gals really need to make a forum of your own to debate in. My husband and I had the Nikah contract without the "nikni" and I still called him my husband till we were married here in the states. We both felt strongly that we were already married in the eyes of God. Once again, it's none of my business how people go about with their marriage. Stop the flippin debating cuz really it's going nowhere. *sorry*

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Ok for you, but the USCIS considers paper marriages a fraud and misrepresentation for a K1, so it should not be advocated on this board.

I still don't get this idea that you can be married in the eyes of God, tho. I've been a Muslim for 53 years and that sounds like Christian talk to me.

This is a good article to repost.

Islamic weddings leave women unprotected

Community leader urges mosques to register for solemnisation of marriages so that British law will recognise ceremonies

Tania Branigan

Monday November 24, 2003

The Guardian

The leader of Britain's Muslim parliament has warned that many women are legally unprotected when their marriages end because they wrongly believe that Islamic wedding ceremonies are recognised by British law.

Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui has asked imams not to carry out weddings unless they are accompanied by civil registration, after being contacted by an increasing number of women who have found that their marriages were not legally binding.

That means they can be left with minimal rights on divorce or the death of their partner. Legal experts compared the situation to the widespread but unfounded belief in "common law marriage", when in fact cohabitees have far less rights than spouses.

"It's partly a lack of knowledge; couples think the marriages are legal," said Dr Siddiqui. "But some women tell me they were promised civil ceremonies which never came. People are doing it knowingly and exploiting women and that was what really horrified us.

"Some people take the cover of religion and say marriage is in the eyes of God and they don't trust in manmade laws - this sort of nonsense.

"Then one day the locks are changed and it's all over. The woman has no legal protection."

Widows can find that they lack pension rights and have no rights to their partner's property if he has not left a will.

Mosques and other Islamic centres can be registered for the solemnisation of marriage, but according to the Office of National Statistics, only 160 have done. Couples who wed in unregistered ones must arrange a civil ceremony for their marriage to be legally binding.

Dr Siddiqui urged mosques to register and asked imams at unregistered venues not to perform weddings without evidence that the civil ceremony had taken place or had been scheduled for the immediate future. Other possible solutions will be discussed at a conference of imams in February.

Aina Khan, a London-based solicitor specialising in family law and Islamic law, said that she had been surprised to see an increase in the problem recently. "We thought it would go away with more education and awareness of women's rights," she said, adding that many of those affected were educated professionals such as solicitors and accountants.

Unlike spouses, unmarried partners have no rights to claim maintenance from each other when the relationship breaks up, and no automatic right to a share of property in the other's name.

"You have to ask a judge to decide what were the couple's intentions over property. That's not easy" Mrs Khan said.

Women who have been through an Islamic ceremony have some advantages over other cohabitees. The Nikah, or marriage certificate, records a "haq mehr": the financial sum the wife will receive in the event of divorce or widowhood. That can be enforced as a form of contract.

"Judges do listen to what the intentions of the parties were as Muslims; English law is open to that," added Mrs Khan.

But while some mosques encourage couples to state that assets will be split 50-50, the mehr is often a symbolic sum, such as £50 or £101.

"Islam was very radical; letting women work and keep their assets 1400 years ago. We weren't even allowed to own property in Britain until the 19th century," said Mrs Khan.

"It is also a very pragmatic religion. If women knew how important [the mehr] was they would play more of a role in deciding what it should be. Islam says this must set up a woman to be independent; it can't just be a nominal sum.

"Women don't raise it because it's seen as being a bit in your face. But look at the women of early Islam and in no way were they submissive. Women need to wise up."

'I thought I would have rights, but I didn't at all'

More than 500 guests enjoyed the week-long celebrations of Shabana Delawala's wedding in 2001. But when the teacher's marriage ended less than a year later, she was shocked to discover that she and her husband had never been married in the eyes of the law.

"A religious ceremony means much more to you than a civil one: I would never have lived with that person if we had only had a civil ceremony," she said.

"I thought a religious marriage was seen as something within the law in England and Wales. I thought I would have rights. But of course, I didn't at all."

Shabana, 23, from Woodford Green in Essex, cannot discuss her financial situation as she is engaged in a legal battle with her former partner.

But she said that Islamic wedding certificates often recorded a token settlement such as £50 in the event of marital breakdown.

"That's hardly enough for a pair of shoes these days," she said. "You're expected to go back to daddy's house and that's it. It's atrocious.

"Because divorce is such a taboo within the culture, it's never mentioned. I'm not stupid; I'm educated, articulate and confident. But because of the cultural pressures it's not proper to have a woman saying, I want 50% of the assets [if the marriage ends]."

Another woman she knew found out that her marriage was not legally recognised a few months after her wedding, but her husband said he wanted to see how well they got on before arranging a civil ceremony. A few years later, he left her.

"I want to make other women aware of this, because I believe this is affecting hundreds of women," Shabana said. "People are having just the religious ceremony so the man can protect his assets."

She asked women in her situation to contact her at shabana117@yahoo.co.uk

No copyright found on the article or the site.

Edited October 15, 2006 by szsz

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Bristish law has many similarities to US law, in fact, the concept of common law marriage, discussed here previously, has its roots in British law. They have had a big problem with Muslims who have no honor and take no presonal responsibility for the harm thay leave in their wake. At least they have caught on and are trying to educate the Muslim population about their rights.

[Veiled Princess 1]

You said I was lying about you using the word kufar too, and I proved you wrong, so don't scream lie again, you are too transparent for that. This entire debate began on Goldenheart's thread where you repeatedly insisted that a paper marriage was fine, as you do now. Her fiance got kicked out of the US for misrepresenting to the USCIS that he was married and now they have to do your favorite thing, pay a lot of money to try to fix their situtation.

She was told by an imam that it was ok to do this, but he was wrong then, as you are now. You have a nerve coming to this immigration board and continuing to represent paper marriages as acceptable. If others believe you, and have the problems Goldenheart and her man have, and no one spoke out against it, I would not be able to look at myself in the mirror because I was one of them.

You may not have a problem, but I care about others who may. So far, you only seem to care about yourself. And, yea, that's the way I see it.

Your poor reading comprehension skills have shown through to your involvement in GH's case as well.

She did not have a marriage certificate and yet apply for a K-1 visa as would have been a violation of immigration law. As long as immigration chooses not to recognize a person's marriage by their standards then they are not elligible to apply for K-3 or CR-1 visas.

Her case involved a misunderstanding at the POE and not in the visa issuing process itself.

You are the one who began accusing people here of fornication because a marriage is not registered with a govt entity. That was not the topic then until YOU made it as such and it has been YOU who have felt the need to keep it going all this time by personally attacking me at every chance you get.

I came to the defense then because you were then and are now misrepresenting Islam by declaring anything haraam based on man-made laws.

GH also had a different situation completely because her marriage contract was conducted over the phone and that was the issue that she discovered was wrongly approved of by her imam.... that however had nothing to do with immigration. Her problem with immigration came in because of a misunderstanding at the POE.

I did not ever tell anyone that an Islamic marriage contract would be enough for the purposes of immigration.

It's not illegal to have a marriage contract without having registered the marriage either so no law has been broken and it has not been advocated to break any laws.