Marriage Protection & Recourse in Law and Faith

[Veiled Princess 1]

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.

Please show your proof for this. USCIS is fully aware of my Islamic marriage contract. And my petition was approved with no problems at all.

Yes Layla, but things may be totally different at the embassy level.

A friend of Amr works at TNT and knew a lot of people that worked in the embassy there in Cairo. He could tell the craziest stories about men trying to get a visa. He made it very clear to Amr NOT to mention to people he didn't know that we had a "contract" because there were a few cases where the couple were denied at embassy level and were told to bring the contract back and have it registered. Sometimes too much info isn't a good thing.

A copy of my marriage contract (Arabic and English) is in my file with USCIS and so the embassy now has it... no one has questioned me about it. Perhaps it has more to do with being upfront and honest with them, I don't know... but it doesn't constitute 'fraud' as I'm being accused of on this thread.

[Veiled Princess 1]

If fraud wasn't an issue, then why'd you bring it up?

Yes, non-Muslims were invited, but I didn't expect all of you to understand the discussion. I was right. Why should you? Some of the MENA girls don't either. Keep laughing!

Let's be clear; I'm not slamming Islam and I'm more than capable of understanding the discussion. I may be mocking you (and VP, maybe, tho' she has a good sense of humor about it), but that's hardly the same thing. You've studied Islamic law and believe you have a duty to 'stand out firmly for justice', but from this angle, it doesn't look so much like a debate about religious law as a catfight due to a personality conflict.

So, some questions:

1) A contract requires enforcement. That's basic contracts. But there are many attempted contracts that fail, and so I'm wondering what you do if your marriage contract isn't enforceable in the society where you live. Because I imagine there are some marriage contracts that wouldn't be enforceable in the U.S.

2) 'Protections' are required, but we haven't said what they are here, so it's hard to know what's being contracted.

3) If there is no higher central authority in Islam, then how is interpretation decided? If it's just 'schools of interpretation', then how can you be speaking as the one true voice of Islam as you're representing yourself here? Maybe VP isn't up-to-snuff on religious law, but you seem to be against any imam or religious website or anything that disagrees with you as obviously wrong, but I'm not seeing where that authority derives.

I admit... I don't understand the discussion... here's what loses me... we're discussing religious law, however, I'm being quoted "basic" US contract law. As far as I understand it... taking into account I could be wrong... God did not Himself reveal US contract law to any prophet. I thought that was a bunch of laws that men got together and voted on The Quran, which He did reveal, does not require registration of any marriage with any entity. It is not required in the Quran that anyone other than the parties making the contract and the witnesses even recognize it. It is, however, stressed that we are to take personal responsibility for our actions and that, even if we are not judged on Earth for them, we will all stand before the Creator on JD and answer for them.

I, at one time, took a great interest in the US legal system... I lost interest when I began to actually learn about the process though because it seems to be a corrupt system in which the point of civil law is how rich people can weasle their way out of responsibilities... who can find the best loophole...

If a person makes a contract with another person, they are honor bound by the contract regardless of religion or social status. Just because a judge from a corrupt system tells you otherwise does not change how you will be judged for your actions on JD.

I didn't see any slams against Islam here... maybe I just don't have my offended glasses on properly today... let me readjust

[Bosco 1]

If fraud wasn't an issue, then why'd you bring it up?

Yes, non-Muslims were invited, but I didn't expect all of you to understand the discussion. I was right. Why should you? Some of the MENA girls don't either. Keep laughing!

Let's be clear; I'm not slamming Islam and I'm more than capable of understanding the discussion. I may be mocking you (and VP, maybe, tho' she has a good sense of humor about it), but that's hardly the same thing. You've studied Islamic law and believe you have a duty to 'stand out firmly for justice', but from this angle, it doesn't look so much like a debate about religious law as a catfight due to a personality conflict.

So, some questions:

1) A contract requires enforcement. That's basic contracts. But there are many attempted contracts that fail, and so I'm wondering what you do if your marriage contract isn't enforceable in the society where you live. Because I imagine there are some marriage contracts that wouldn't be enforceable in the U.S.

2) 'Protections' are required, but we haven't said what they are here, so it's hard to know what's being contracted.

3) If there is no higher central authority in Islam, then how is interpretation decided? If it's just 'schools of interpretation', then how can you be speaking as the one true voice of Islam as you're representing yourself here? Maybe VP isn't up-to-snuff on religious law, but you seem to be against any imam or religious website or anything that disagrees with you as obviously wrong, but I'm not seeing where that authority derives.

I admit... I don't understand the discussion... here's what loses me... we're discussing religious law, however, I'm being quoted "basic" US contract law. As far as I understand it... taking into account I could be wrong... God did not Himself reveal US contract law to any prophet. I thought that was a bunch of laws that men got together and voted on The Quran, which He did reveal, does not require registration of any marriage with any entity. It is not required in the Quran that anyone other than the parties making the contract and the witnesses even recognize it. It is, however, stressed that we are to take personal responsibility for our actions and that, even if we are not judged on Earth for them, we will all stand before the Creator on JD and answer for them.

I, at one time, took a great interest in the US legal system... I lost interest when I began to actually learn about the process though because it seems to be a corrupt system in which the point of civil law is how rich people can weasle their way out of responsibilities... who can find the best loophole...

If a person makes a contract with another person, they are honor bound by the contract regardless of religion or social status. Just because a judge from a corrupt system tells you otherwise does not change how you will be judged for your actions on JD.

I didn't see any slams against Islam here... maybe I just don't have my offended glasses on properly today... let me readjust

I think what you are really debating is whether not registering your marriage rises to the level of "haram", right?

I think you agree that the contract is better off enforcable, but you argue that the couple should be trusted to be God fearing, that the government enforcement is imperfect anyway, and also that if you have followed the steps in the Qur'an, that is enough.

SZSZ, if I am correct, says that while you may have followed the steps (mahr, wali, etc), you have missed the whole purpose of marriage to begin with (an enforcable contract) so the steps alone are "empty" so to speak. Thus, she feels it is haram because it doesn't fulfill the essence of marriage as a social contract. Part of this is also that Muslims are supposed to act in accordance with the laws of the land they live in, conduct business in, etc.

I think why scholars haven't come right out and declared it haram but rather discourage it is because it is sort of is a gray area. The Qur'an doesn't require registration, yet marriage is a contract, and the very nature of contracts is that they are enforcable. So if you follow the Qur'an but the contract is unenforcable, where do you stand?

Haram can be a loaded word, akin to kafir. I think this exacerbates the debate. I really think this is the only sticking point for you VP, right? The declaration that is haram and that the contract would be better off with means to enforce it.

Edited October 16, 2006 by Bosco

[Veiled Princess 1]

I think what you are really debating is whether not registering your marriage rises to the level of "haram", right?

I think you agree that the contract is better off enforcable, but you argue that the couple should be trusted to be God fearing, that the government enforcement is imperfect anyway, and also that if you have followed the steps in the Qur'an, that is enough.

SZSZ, if I am correct, says that while you may have followed the steps (mahr, wali, etc), you have missed the whole purpose of marriage to begin with (an enforcable contract) so the steps alone are "empty" so to speak. Thus, she feels it is haram because it doesn't fulfill the essence of marriage as a social contract. Part of this is also that Muslims are supposed to act in accordance with the laws of the land they live in, conduct business in, etc.

I think why scholars haven't come right out and declared it haram but rather discourage it is because it is sort of is a gray area. The Qur'an doesn't require registration, yet marriage is a contract, and the very nature of contracts is that they are enforcable. So if you follow the Qur'an but the contract is unenforcable, where do you stand?

Haram can be a loaded word, akin to kafir. I think this exacerbates the debate. I really think this is the only sticking point for you VP, right? The declaration that is haram and that the contract would be better off with means to enforce it.

Haram, invalid, fake, whatever.

My arguement is that there is nothing in the Quran or the Sunnah which states a marriage has to be registered or recognized by a govt party. Period. We are told to honor our contracts. Simple.

She can have her opinion but she needs to recognize on this board... as I have been warned of and had to adjust my posting etiquettes to fit... that it's really no more than an opinion and no one on this board should be judging anyone else here based on their opinions...

If the opinions of scholars don't count here then certainly the opinions of a nameless entity, who makes a lot of claims about who she is but offers no proof, isn't going to be the authority of Islam here or anywhere else.

Who says that anyone has to enforce a contract for it to be valid? Other than civil law? It can be used as evidence from one to the other and there are witnesses there to remind the parties involved if they dispute later on but who says any court system has to uphold it for it to be valid?

If I make a deal with you to pay you $20 for something you made for me and you give it to me but I refuse payment then we take it to court and the judge decides there just isn't enough proof or something's missing from our contract so he chooses not to enforce and declares it invalid or void... does that really mean I don't owe you what I promised you? Is God going to tell us both on JD that I wasn't bound by that contract because that judge didn't enforce it??? Subhanallah.

We're treading on dangerous ground when we start letting laws invented by godless govts and men determine our religion for us.

And yes the other things you mentioned as well

[Caladan 19]

If fraud wasn't an issue, then why'd you bring it up?

Yes, non-Muslims were invited, but I didn't expect all of you to understand the discussion. I was right. Why should you? Some of the MENA girls don't either. Keep laughing!

Let's be clear; I'm not slamming Islam and I'm more than capable of understanding the discussion. I may be mocking you (and VP, maybe, tho' she has a good sense of humor about it), but that's hardly the same thing. You've studied Islamic law and believe you have a duty to 'stand out firmly for justice', but from this angle, it doesn't look so much like a debate about religious law as a catfight due to a personality conflict.

So, some questions:

1) A contract requires enforcement. That's basic contracts. But there are many attempted contracts that fail, and so I'm wondering what you do if your marriage contract isn't enforceable in the society where you live. Because I imagine there are some marriage contracts that wouldn't be enforceable in the U.S.

2) 'Protections' are required, but we haven't said what they are here, so it's hard to know what's being contracted.

3) If there is no higher central authority in Islam, then how is interpretation decided? If it's just 'schools of interpretation', then how can you be speaking as the one true voice of Islam as you're representing yourself here? Maybe VP isn't up-to-snuff on religious law, but you seem to be against any imam or religious website or anything that disagrees with you as obviously wrong, but I'm not seeing where that authority derives.

I admit... I don't understand the discussion... here's what loses me... we're discussing religious law, however, I'm being quoted "basic" US contract law. As far as I understand it... taking into account I could be wrong... God did not Himself reveal US contract law to any prophet. I thought that was a bunch of laws that men got together and voted on The Quran, which He did reveal, does not require registration of any marriage with any entity. It is not required in the Quran that anyone other than the parties making the contract and the witnesses even recognize it. It is, however, stressed that we are to take personal responsibility for our actions and that, even if we are not judged on Earth for them, we will all stand before the Creator on JD and answer for them.

I, at one time, took a great interest in the US legal system... I lost interest when I began to actually learn about the process though because it seems to be a corrupt system in which the point of civil law is how rich people can weasle their way out of responsibilities... who can find the best loophole...

If a person makes a contract with another person, they are honor bound by the contract regardless of religion or social status. Just because a judge from a corrupt system tells you otherwise does not change how you will be judged for your actions on JD.

I didn't see any slams against Islam here... maybe I just don't have my offended glasses on properly today... let me readjust

Not basic U.S. contract law, just basic meaning of contract. If people have contracted to do something -- marriage, pay $20, whatever -- and one of them doesn't follow through, then the other person has certain recourse against them. The idea is that it can be enforced; it's supposed to be something stronger than a mere promise.

What sort of recourse? Depends on the contract. If it's a legal contract, then the recourse can take the form of legal sanctions. If it's a religious contract, then the recourse is whatever the religion holds (excommunication, or just God pwning your butt on Judgment Day, whatever.) The question, I guess, is whether God's judgment counts for enforcing a marriage contract or if you need to have the civil paperwork filed.

So it seems that you, VP, have a religious contract but not a civil contract with your fiancé, and there's some debate among Islamic scholars as to whether a religious contract requires a civil contract or not in order to be a legit contract. Fair enough. I don't know if there is a consensus of religious scholars on this point, but I'm going to guess 'no', as half of the point of being a scholar is to have no consensus.

As far as the consulate is concerned, you've been completely open with them, so we're hardly talking fraud! They could *deny*, perhaps, a fiancé visa on the grounds that you two are married enough for the consulate's purposes, which would suck, but it isn't fraud unless, you know, there's lying & deceit.

[Veiled Princess 1]

Not basic U.S. contract law, just basic meaning of contract. If people have contracted to do something -- marriage, pay $20, whatever -- and one of them doesn't follow through, then the other person has certain recourse against them. The idea is that it can be enforced; it's supposed to be something stronger than a mere promise.

What sort of recourse? Depends on the contract. If it's a legal contract, then the recourse can take the form of legal sanctions. If it's a religious contract, then the recourse is whatever the religion holds (excommunication, or just God pwning your butt on Judgment Day, whatever.) The question, I guess, is whether God's judgment counts for enforcing a marriage contract or if you need to have the civil paperwork filed.

So it seems that you, VP, have a religious contract but not a civil contract with your fiancé, and there's some debate among Islamic scholars as to whether a religious contract requires a civil contract or not in order to be a legit contract. Fair enough. I don't know if there is a consensus of religious scholars on this point, but I'm going to guess 'no', as half of the point of being a scholar is to have no consensus.

As far as the consulate is concerned, you've been completely open with them, so we're hardly talking fraud! They could *deny*, perhaps, a fiancé visa on the grounds that you two are married enough for the consulate's purposes, which would suck, but it isn't fraud unless, you know, there's lying & deceit.

How can any court see to it that God judges anyone anyway on JD?

Those are limitations society has placed on contracts... before there were courts did people not make agreements with each other???

If there is no functioning govt do the people of that society not still make agreements with each other? Are there agreements invalidated because the govt doesn't recognize it? I don't think so but then again this is just my opinion I guess.

I'm not worried about my husband's visa... USCIS and the embassy both have a copy of my marriage contract with a detailed explaination that we are "married" but didn't get a chance to register it with the local govt in order to file DCF or CR-1 or K-3 or whatever. If they were gonna deny because of this the petition probably wouldn't have been approved in the first place or I would have at least gotten some kind of RFE.

Edited October 16, 2006 by Veiled Princess

[mybackpages 0]

So it seems that you, VP, have a religious contract but not a civil contract with your fiancé,

But the problem is muddled because in Islamic jurisprudence there is no such separation as religious and civil law.

[Bosco 1]

Not basic U.S. contract law, just basic meaning of contract. If people have contracted to do something -- marriage, pay $20, whatever -- and one of them doesn't follow through, then the other person has certain recourse against them. The idea is that it can be enforced; it's supposed to be something stronger than a mere promise.

What sort of recourse? Depends on the contract. If it's a legal contract, then the recourse can take the form of legal sanctions. If it's a religious contract, then the recourse is whatever the religion holds (excommunication, or just God pwning your butt on Judgment Day, whatever.) The question, I guess, is whether God's judgment counts for enforcing a marriage contract or if you need to have the civil paperwork filed.

So it seems that you, VP, have a religious contract but not a civil contract with your fiancé, and there's some debate among Islamic scholars as to whether a religious contract requires a civil contract or not in order to be a legit contract. Fair enough. I don't know if there is a consensus of religious scholars on this point, but I'm going to guess 'no', as half of the point of being a scholar is to have no consensus.

As far as the consulate is concerned, you've been completely open with them, so we're hardly talking fraud! They could *deny*, perhaps, a fiancé visa on the grounds that you two are married enough for the consulate's purposes, which would suck, but it isn't fraud unless, you know, there's lying & deceit.

This is really the crux of it. In Muslim countries, the Islamic contract and civil contract are usually one and the same, *if* you do it that way (with a judge, official, etc). In the US, there would be two separate certificates. Mine were done at the same time, with the same witnesses and same Imam officiating both. He would not perform an Islamic marriage unless the state marriage was already done or if he was doing the civil marriage at the same time.

[Veiled Princess 1]

But the problem is muddled because in Islamic jurisprudence there is no such separation as religious and civil law.

Well I agree that it shouldn't be but I don't think it's fair to say that it's not today.

Church and state should not be seperate but it is and it's not my prefernce to take civil law as God's law.... even in pretty much all muslim countries God's law is slowly/quickly being replaced with man's law.

[Ban Hammer 13,343]

Hehe. To me it's reading a bit like the More Muslim Than Thou Olympics. Judged sort of like figure skating or gymnastics:

'Bob, she's got the veil, which is a conventional style often appreciated by the judges, but she's pushing new frontiers with her insistance on a paper marriage, something new and daring! It could work in her favor, but it's got a very high degree of difficulty. I hope she sticks the landing!'

'Here's our classically trained rising star, who has incorporated shouts of 'fornicator! fornicator!' into her routine, in an attempt to garner artistic accolades.'

yes, i was inspired!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

But the problem is muddled because in Islamic jurisprudence there is no such separation as religious and civil law.

The nikah contract is both religious and civil; the chain is broken without both. In the Prophet's day, both were incorporated because he was the head of state and his authority was from God. We don't have that today; we are obliged to examine the intent of the Word as a whole. How we are directed to conduct social intercourse, what contracts represent and how they are meant to be serviced.

Bosco and mybackpages are correct; to not be in contradiction of the concept that there is no separation between religion and state, one needs to close the circle and connect them. Caladan is also right that the marriage contract is much more than a mere promise; it's validity is inherent in its ability to be enforced.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Let's be clear; I'm not slamming Islam and I'm more than capable of understanding the discussion. I may be mocking you (and VP, maybe, tho' she has a good sense of humor about it), but that's hardly the same thing. You've studied Islamic law and believe you have a duty to 'stand out firmly for justice', but from this angle, it doesn't look so much like a debate about religious law as a catfight due to a personality conflict.

I don't know you, Caladan. Perhaps I misjudged you and could not see your humor objectively as there are those who come to make fun of our faith and us. If that is the case, I do apologize.

As far as a catfight, it may be so for one, but that is certainly not how I approach it. For me, this is serious and has little to do with personality.

So, some questions:

Thank you for your questions.

1) A contract requires enforcement. That's basic contracts. But there are many attempted contracts that fail, and so I'm wondering what you do if your marriage contract isn't enforceable in the society where you live. Because I imagine there are some marriage contracts that wouldn't be enforceable in the U.S.

There may be some elements of a contract that would not be enforcable here, and I have addressed that in earlier posts. For example, to allow for more than one wife would fail because, in the US, a man cannot legally have more than one wife. There certainly are boundaries to contracts, but it is unlikely that if it conforms with the basic tenets of marriage in Islam, that the entire contract would not be not enforcable. In US courts, it is often treated as a prenup.

2) 'Protections' are required, but we haven't said what they are here, so it's hard to know what's being contracted.

Protection is generally the ability to enforce the rights and responsibilites, which is dependent on the validity of the contract which defines the validity of the marriage.

3) If there is no higher central authority in Islam, then how is interpretation decided? If it's just 'schools of interpretation', then how can you be speaking as the one true voice of Islam as you're representing yourself here? Maybe VP isn't up-to-snuff on religious law, but you seem to be against any imam or religious website or anything that disagrees with you as obviously wrong, but I'm not seeing where that authority derives.

One normally marries within the laws of a particular judicial school of thought. For example, when you marry in Morocco, family law is based on the Maliki school. Laws in schoools can vary widely, from whether a man can marry his daughter the man of his choice without her say, to when and if a wali (guardian) is required to represent the bride. Even within a school, regional necessities can provoke variances from one part of a country to another. In addition, the interpretation of the validity of a nikah can and does often differ between the Muslim country recognizing that particular school and a western secular court.

But, Islamic law is hypothetical and cautious, designed to prevent harm as well as cure harm. We are to be moderate in out dealings, but the tendency is to be conservative whenever there is doubt about an issue. On balance, it is considered to be prudent to take more precautions rather than fewer precautions to avoid harm. While it may sound romantic to escue registration, leaving protection and recourse open to abuse is not prudent. By giving us guidance that allows for following man-made law when necessary, God has permitted us to adjust his law to the best circumstances we have when not in Dar-Al-Salaam.

I hope that helps or even makes sense. It's 12:35 am, and I'm a bit tired, but this is the only time I had to come today.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

He made it very clear to Amr NOT to mention to people he didn't know that we had a "contract" because there were a few cases where the couple were denied at embassy level and were told to bring the contract back and have it registered. Sometimes too much info isn't a good thing.

Why did I bring up fraud? Not to accuse VP of committing it, I cannot judge that based on what I know. My primary intent in the context of fraud is to discourage a practice that can be seen as a fraudulant misrepresentation of the relationship when petitioning for a K1.

As crazyinegypt and goldenheart have shown, there is precedent in immigration law of paper marriage being seen as a fraudulant representation of a relationship when filing for a K1. In addition, the American presense in a host country is reliant on reciprocity of good will and cooperation. Egypt, like other Arab countries, requires marriage registration, even of urfi marriage. American COs cannot afford to encourage or ignore violations of the host country's laws. Also, they can interpret one's willingness to break laws as a character flaw in ruling against a visa. We are not to lie in the visa process, but admitting law breaking is not a good substitute for lying.

Our consulates/embassies need reciprocity and cooperation between the guest and the host to do their jobs. If marriage is required to be registered, the omission of registration could become the precursor for commanding registration in order to absolve the consulate/embassy from appearing to sanction its citizens' flaunting of host laws, challenging the couple even further. Or, the visa could simply be denied on the basis of intentional fraud. It's best to avoid such issues.

Edited October 17, 2006 by szsz