Tuesday, March 28, 2006

The Triple Talaq Divorce

There was an interesting article about a couple in India who were proclaimed divorced because the husband said "talaq" three times in his sleep. According to religious leaders, this constituted a procedure known as "triple talaq" that, under Islamic law, results in divorce.

One Islamic scholar contradicts the religious leaders:
"The law clearly says any action under compulsion or in a state of intoxication has no effect. The case of someone uttering something while asleep falls under this category and will have no impact whatsoever," Khan told Reuters.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Will the courts hold that speaking while asleep falls under either the category of an action under compulsion or in a state of intoxication? At first glance, it doesn't seem like it fits naturally within either category.

I also wonder how this may affect the adoption of Shari'a law in Canada. It would certainly disrupt our current Canadian laws on divorce. If I say "talaq" three times to my future wife but we're not Muslim, could the triple talaq divorce apply? (Don't worry, dear.)

2 Comments:

At 10:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm surprised how little discussed is the history of this "talaq" business.

Historically each "talaq" was divided by a couple months, during which time the extended families of the husband and wife met and tried to reconcile the differences. If at the first meeting there was no agreement, the husband could say a talaq, and then they would meet again in a couple months.. etc.

Somehow that other stuff got dropped along the way, which is too bad. It's actually rather progressive, considering..

 
At 5:08 PM, Anonymous Viet Armis said...

"...The case of someone uttering something while asleep ... will have no impact whatsoever," Khan told Reuters.

The scholar's right. The husband here was a real wuss. A "real man" would have killed his inlaws in his sleep. The divorce is guaranteed, and in Canada, he walks free as well. See R. v. Parks, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 871.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home