The Times of India Wednesday 18 June 1997 [INLINE] Email Bangladesh Court interprets Quran in favour of women By Asghar Ali Engineer The Bangladesh High Court has passed two very significant judgments that promise to greatly advance the cause of Muslim women. Muslim society, not only in South Asia but almost all over the world, treats women in a manner not in keeping with the pronouncements of the holy Quran. The past oriented Muslim men not only to legitimise their resistance to change in terms of the Quranic pronouncements but also justify it by using their own inverted logic. The two recent judgments by the Bangladesh High Court are, therefore, very welcome. The first judgment is on the lines of the Shah Bano judgment by the Indian Supreme Court in the mid-eighties and the other is about the validity of polygamous marriage. Many Muslim countries have brought about significant changes in laws. For example, polygamy is banned in Tunisia. Turkey has abolished the Sharia law and imposed the Swiss code. Iraq, Jordan, Pakistan, Bangladesh and others have subjected bigamy or polygamy to statutory control. But much remains to be done. The reported judgment on maintenance was delivered by Justice Mohammad Ghulam Rabbani and Justice Syed Amirul Islam in an appeal filed by Hefzur Rehman vs Shamsun Nahar Begum. The Family Court had decreed the suit directing the petitioner to pay Taka 48,000 as the balance dower money and pay Taka 3,000 to his divorced wife as maintenance for the iddat period. However, on appeal the district judge reduced the maintenance to Taka 600 per month for each of the opposite parties.(i.e. the wife and child). The High Court judges held that both the wife and child are entitled to get from the petitioner an amount of Taka 1,000 each per month as maintenance commensurate with the status and means of the petitioner. The learned judges then addressed the legal query as to whether the wife could have claimed maintenance beyond the period of iddat. The judges referred to the injunctions of the holy Quran (Abdullah Yusaf Ali's translation which was consulted by the Supreme Court of India also in the Shah Bano case). They referred mainly to two verses of the Quran: ``Those of you who die and leave widows should bequeath for their widows a year's maintenance and residence, but if they leave (the residence), there is no blame on you for what they do with themselves. Provided it is reasonable. And God is Exalted in Power. For divorced women maintenance (should be provided) on a reasonable (scale). This is duty on the righteous. Thus both God make clear His Signs to you, in order that you may understand'' (2240-242). Then the judges observe,``Quran itself prescribes its rule of study: He it is who has sent down the Book; in it are verses basic or fundamental. They are the foundation of the Book; others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, searching for its hidden meanings, but not one knows its hidden meaning except God and those who are firmly rounded in knowledge say, `We believe in the Book, the whole of it is from our Lord'; and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.'' (3:7). From the above verse the learned judges conclude that``... according to Quran... its verses are easy to understand. That is to say, the Quran prescribes the rule of literal construction of its verses.'' The judges also refer to the fact that, ``This literal study of the Quran is discouraged by a section of Muslims. They insist that the readers should follow the interpretations given by the recognised early scholars.'' But the judges refer to yet another verse of the Quran, ``Those to whom We have sent the Book study (it) as it should be studied: they are the ones that they believe therein'' (2.121) and conclude that all believers have the right to study and understand these verses. These verses, the judges say, direct continuous study of the Quran which is in conformity with the dynamic, progressive and universal character of Islam. They then proceed to consider the literal meaning of the verses about maintenance (by referring to the Arabic dictionary for key words like maroof and mata) and come to the conclusion that ``a woman who is divorced is entitled to household stuff, utensils, goods, chattels, provision, convenience which is known, recognised, honourable, good, befitting. Abdullah Yusuf Ali is, therefore, correct in translating the expression mata un bil maroof as `maintenance should be provided on a reasonable scale'.'' Then they observe, ``One of the meanings of the word maroof is `recognised'. This meaning is to be considered with regard to the amount of maintenance and not with regard to the period of maintenance. This is apparent in view of the fact that the Quran directs a woman who is divorced to undergo a period of iddat elsewhere (2.228) and herein Quran directs a man to give maintenance in case he divorces his wife.'' Thus the two provisions for iddat and for maintenance are two different things; they have been dealt with the two separate verses and should not be confused with each other. The maintenance period, therefore, should not be necessarily confined to the period of iddat. Then the learned judges finally conclude, ``Considering all the aspects we finally hold that a person after divorcing his wife is bound to maintain her on a reasonable scale beyond the period of iddat for an indefinite period, that is to say, till she loses the status of a divorcee by remarrying another person.'' This bold judgment by the Bangladesh High Court is precisely what our own Supreme Court had said in its judgment in the Shah Bano case which was opposed by many Indian Muslim leaders. The judgment was then overturned by enacting another law i.e. the Muslim Women's Act which deprived Muslim divorcees of their right to maintenance beyond the iddat period. The second landmark judgment by the Bangladesh High Court relates to banning of polygamy. Though its details are yet not available, a recent news report in the Bangladesh Observer says that a division bench of the High Court has observed in a recently delivered judgment (Jesmin Sultana vs Mohammad Elias) that Islam has not approved polygamy and therefore Muslim Family Law should be suitably amended providing for prohibiting polygamy. The judgment, according to the paper, was delivered on behalf of the court by Justice Mohammad Ghulam Rabbani on November 26 and Justice M Fazlur Rahman Talukder agreed with it. The learned judges observed that,``We find that Section 6 of the Muslim Family Law Ordinance, 1961, is against the principle of Islamic law. We recommend that this section be deleted and be substituted with a section prohibiting polygamy.'' The judges further continue,``The Court has examined the verse of the holy Quran and the Hadith and has pointed out that polygamy is prohibited in Tunisia under the law of Personal Status, 1956. Both the Quranic verses on polygamy (i.e. 4.3 and 4.129) insist on rigorous justice in dealing with all wives, and while verse 1:3 says if you fear you cannot do justice then (marry) only one and the verse 4.129 clearly warns that even if you like you cannot do justice and do not leave the (first wife) hanging in air. The message of the holy Quran is very clear: marry only one wife. Even in the verse 4.3 permission to remarry more than one wife has been given only in case of orphans and widows (in order to protect their interests); it is far from being a general permission. Thus the Bangladesh High Court has rightly recommended abolishing polygamy. It is quite clear then that things are moving ahead in Muslim countries and women's struggle for justice (as ensured in the holy Quran) will not go in vain.