$50,000 mahr goes to court

[At-Ta'if]

I hope Mrs Mohamed gets her dowry as per the contract!

Court to rule on divorced Islamic couple's $50,000 'deferred dowry' deal

May 30, 2012

A SYDNEY man whose Islamic marriage included a contract that he pay his wife a $50,000 ''deferred dowry'' if he left her is arguing the contract is unenforceable under Australian law.

But the wife's lawyer has told a Sydney court the contract had been signed without undue influence and was enforceable under common law like any other valid contract.

It is believed this is the first time Australian courts have been asked to decide on the enforceability of such contracts.

The couple, who had both been previously married with children, had married under Islamic law in 2004 but the man divorced his wife under Islamic law four years later by telling her during an argument ''you are divorced'', the court heard.

Soon after their Islamic marriage, Mostafa and Neima Mohamed, both of Egyptian background, planned to marry under civil law and drew up a prenuptial agreement. It provided they each keep their assets but that he should pay her $50,000 if he initiated a separation or divorce. If she initiated it, or it was mutual, no money was payable.

The arrangement was ''contrary to public policy'', Mr Mohamed's barrister, Jonathan Cohen, told the Supreme Court yesterday.

Mrs Mohamed had won the case in the local court but Mr Mohamed appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the magistrate had erred and lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court yesterday heard the parties could not settle their dispute, despite the cost of a
hearing.

Mrs Mohamed's barrister, Peter Lange, said courts in the US and Britain had ruled such Islamic dowry contracts were enforceable and his client should be paid.

The couple appear to have a history of arguments. In a statement, Mrs Mohamed, 54, said in April 2007 she called police after Mr
Mohamed allegedly threatened her and he had then asked her to leave the marital home.

But the following year they had tried to reconcile and it was not until September 2008 he divorced her under Islamic law during another argument.

She claims he again tried to reconcile the following year but she asked that they go to a sheik to remarry and he refused. ''I said:
'Well, if you don't want to remarry me, then give me my dowry of $50,000 and each of us will go their separate ways,' '' she says in her statement.

Jamila Hussain, a lecturer in Islamic law at the University of Technology, Sydney, said the use of a dowry in marriage contracts among Muslims was ''pretty well universal'', though most Muslims conformed to Islamic and Australian civil law.

[Precious_Diamond]

Good, I'm glad she took it to court. It's just unfortunate that a lot of men write these dowries with no intention of ever paying it. It's even more unfortunate that if the human judge rules that these men must pay, then they will most likely pay. Whereas a sheikh telling them, and the fact that Allah (swt) has ruled they have to pay doesn't seem to mean anything to them. (I'm being general and using "them" because none of us know the full story in this particular case).

[At-Ta'if]

Touché.

If she is successful, it will set a precedent and hopefully be a point of contemplation for future potential couples.

[Abu Coburg]

What a pathetic lose-lose situation!

One loser, and he's the bigger loser who is responsible for this situation, he doesn't honor his marriage contract.

Another loser takes it to the courts of the kuffar, to rule on an Islamic legal matter, something that's none of their damn business, and places them in a leader position above Muslims!

If that's not enough, the man's lawyer says that the Islamic marriage contract is "contrary to public policy"!

Why couldn't the woman just go for a western-law based separation/divorce against the man if she really wanted to hurt him, and not bring the Islamic contract into all of this? She could have extracted the same or a higher amount for sure!

The man's a bigger, more pathetic loser, but the woman is one too!

[Khaled]

If that was the agreement, she should definitely get paid.

Just a quick Q though.. What stance does Islam take on deferred mahr? I'm not talking about the "I'll pay you this much now and this much later." I'm talking more bout ones like this, "I'll pay you this much now and IF we ever get divorced, i'll pay you this much."

Is such a stipulation found anywhere in the Sunnah?

[Ummi_Abdulmalik]

I think it's more a cultural thing Khaled, I've only heard it as that from different cultures.

[falah]

Touché.

If she is successful, it will set a precedent and hopefully be a point of contemplation for future potential couples.

http://islamqa.info/en/ref/108806

[At-Ta'if]

http://islamqa.info/en/ref/108806

Link is broken.

[At-Ta'if]

What a pathetic lose-lose situation!

One loser, and he's the bigger loser who is responsible for this situation, he doesn't honor his marriage contract.

Another loser takes it to the courts of the kuffar, to rule on an Islamic legal matter, something that's none of their damn business, and places them in a leader position above Muslims!

If that's not enough, the man's lawyer says that the Islamic marriage contract is "contrary to public policy"!

Why couldn't the woman just go for a western-law based separation/divorce against the man if she really wanted to hurt him, and not bring the Islamic contract into all of this? She could have extracted the same or a higher amount for sure!

The man's a bigger, more pathetic loser, but the woman is one too!

If you entered into a contract and the other party did not fulfill their promises stipulated in that contract, from where will you seek remedies?

[Precious_Diamond]

Another loser takes it to the courts of the kuffar, to rule on an Islamic legal matter, something that's none of their damn business, and places them in a leader position above Muslims!

Actually, a few years back I was speaking to one of the sheikhs from the Board of Imams, who was telling me that he was looking into making Islamic marriage contracts legally binding. A legal prenuptial agreement that is enforceable under western law as well as Islamic law. The reason being that many low lifes don't fear Allah (swt) when it comes to these contracts. It's to teach them a lesson and also to ensure people think twice before they go and write that ridiculous amount they could never afford to pay.

[At-Ta'if]

Actually, a few years back I was speaking to one of the sheikhs from the Board of Imams, who was telling me that he was looking into making Islamic marriage contracts legally binding. A legal prenuptial agreement that is enforceable under western law as well as Islamic law. The reason being that many low lifes don't fear Allah (swt) when it comes to these contracts. It's to teach them a lesson and also to ensure people think twice before they go and write that ridiculous amount they could never afford to pay.

Wouldn't that require it to be administered by an Islamic tribunal?

[Precious_Diamond]

^I have no idea how it would work. I just remember the sheikh saying that he was looking into it.

[At-Ta'if]

^I have no idea how it would work. I just remember the sheikh saying that he was looking into it.

I see, I initiated a thread a while ago on the topic of legal pluralism ... it's floating around somewhere.

[cheesegirl]

Abu Coburg, what a horrible, judgemental thing to say. She has every right to that $50,000 and if the only way she can get it is by going to court, then good for her for not letting her ex walk all over her.

[Cem]

Another loser takes it to the courts of the kuffar, to rule on an Islamic legal matter, something that's none of their damn business, and places them in a leader position above Muslims!

Abu Coburg, going to court to enforce your rights doesn't come under "ruling by other than the Law of Allah". It's just like asking the police officer to assist in finding the thief that robbed your house. She wants to enforce her Islamic marriage contract. Obviously, there is no other option in Australia to force someone into abiding by the contract. There is no notion about Western Law being superior or equal to Islamic Law.
Totally agree wit At-Ta'if.

[knowledge_a_lost_treasure]

Subhana Allah, this reminds me of another case, whereby a husband took his separated wife of 4 years to the Civil Courts to obtain a divorce. Sadly he had no intention of divorcing his wife Islamically, rather he wanted to leave her hanging. The sister challenged the case stating that she would not be free to remarry should the Civil case proceed. The Judge having heard all the supporting evidence provided by Mufti and other local Sheikh's agreed with the female, as result the Judge withheld granting the husband the Civil divorce until he divorced his wife Islamically, wal'hamdulillah!

[cheesegirl]

Wouldn't a civil divorce automatically be an Islamic divorce, since all an Islamic divorce would involve is pronouncing divorce?

[aussiemu]

cheesegirl: no because a judge can dissolve a marriage without one side agreeing to it from memory and since the judge is not a Muslim judge it wouldn't hold up under Islamic law.

kalt - yes unfortunately the games people play to make life hell for women in divorces is so sad. There are numerous cases brought to the Board of Imams about this.

[@sim]

The BOI should name them and shame them.

[aussiemu]

Quite a few of them woudn't care less. Usually with most people if community pressure is applied they will do the right thing but some people just won't and couldn't care who tells them.