While browsing through the Jordan Times website, I found the following statistics, which I found very intriguing:
The number of Jordanian women filing for divorce at the Amman Sharia Court, under what is widely
known as the khuloe law, has doubled over the past two years. In 2003, 376 women filed khuloe cases, of which 37 cases were settled. But in 2004, the number increased to 852 khuloe cases at the same court, and Sharia judges settled 111 cases, the Jordan News Agency, Petra, reported.
While I should not celebrate the breakup of families, I’m quite happy that women are getting equal rights as men when it comes to divorce. This victory, however, may not last thanks to the brilliant work of some Jordanian MPs.
Women’s rights campaigners suffered a blow when the Lower House twice rejected the amended Personal Status Law in 2003 and 2004. Many deputies charged then that the law encouraged immorality, was against Islamic Sharia and disintegrated family values.
However, there is still hope. Let’s just wait and see.
The Upper House upheld the government’s amendments but no date has been set for a joint session vote, which will require a two-thirds majority for the legislation to be passed. The temporary khuloe law remains in effect until the two Houses vote on it.
Natasha, yes you are mistaken if you allow me to say that.
Iran is an Islamic republic. So what? An islamic state is not one where u change the name of the country’s political genre, put a couple of mullahs in charge and sit back and let it operate. For example, Iran actually cuts people hands off for stealing! In an islamic state the state would have to provide for the poor, or their community or their mosque. Hence there’d be no reason to steal other than pure greed and vindictivness. In the 400 years of the height of the islamic empire less than 4 hands were cut off..and this is from Spain to Persia.
It’s the same here. You can buy 3 jigsaw puzzles, mix them up and try and force the pieces together to make something coherent (jordan)…or you can buy one jigsaw puzzle, shake the box and hope it puts itself together without your help (iran). an Islamic state as you’ve guessed by now, is neither.
Linda, you are right, if the women is hurt in any way a divorce is a legitamite reason. this depends on the situation. the prophet pbuh said: “None of you must beat his wife as a slave is beaten”, he expressed how bad beating was on many occassions as it was a common practice back then.
as for the saying…the man needs only say it once, 3 times is cultural i believe. they then enter a period known as iddah’, which is sort of like a last chance for reconcile.
Well, Nas, do you think women in Iran are in a good shape? Isn’t Iran supposed to be an Islamic state, or am I mistaken?
Maybe they need more social things that will fix their marriages, like marriage therapy, etc. but heck if a woman is being beaten up, the first resort should be divore because her last one would probably be something she would not choose.
But wait a minute Nas, i thought in ISlam, (please tell me if i am mistaken) that the man only has the right to divorse and he says it three times? or is that a cultural thing.
The problem Jordan faces is that the law is mixed to such a degree it is almost impossible to diffrentiate and more importantly contradictions arise. It is part Shari3a, part french, part tribal, part british, etc. The shari3a law cannot operate properly without an Islamic state, which we dont have, and more importantly it cannot operate with the interference of other laws. If we had the full shari3a in an islamic state we’d be ok. Women would actually have more rights than they do now. Islamically divorce can be initiated by either gender. The man has what may be seen as control simply because he has financial obligations of the family. It would be unfair to grant women the same rights if they have no such responsibilities. So there is a level of protectionism to ensure the stability of a family even after the divorce goes through.
What I see happening is a skyrocketing number of divorces. why? because the message it is sending is if anything goes wrong get a divorce. Whereas islamically there are measures which ensure divorce as a last resort and not the first.
Metal, so giving rights to women to divorce will mean a borderless United States of Arabia? Or is it an insinuation that these countries will just become the next American states?
well, they keep attributing bad habbits to islamic laws, and when it comes to good laws like the Khola divoce, they claim it is against islamic laws… well, I have news for these people, this kind of divorce is our right, and we will take it in spite of what these men want! not that i like to break up families, but i believe in some cases, it is better to be divorced than to suffer in an unhappy marriage!
There won’t be a Jordan in 30 years. Or Syria. Or Iraq or Lebanon. Neither Egypt nor Saudi Arabia. Kuwait and the GCC will perish too.
Nope, just wildflowers bending in the arid desert air.
Yep Linda, you really don’t know how good you have it until you live in this region.
wow, u know reading this stuff makes me really appreciate what i have. but then looking at how women in JOrdan are fighting for their rights also reminds me of how the rights i have as a woman in the U.S. came because of women who had the guts to fight for them.
it will be interesting to see how things develop over the years. i wonder if in let’s say 30 years from now if gays in Jordan will be the ones fighting for their rights like they are now here in the states.
so many things to look forward to 🙂