Meet the Saudi-stones?

This article appeared on Arab News online. Lubna makes a case for a Flinstone setting in Saudi. Even though I get where Lubna is coming from, I don't quite see the Flinstones analogy. That would be more applicable if the case of the Amish or about some other Saudis, who as I have heard reject modern inventions (like the Amish). Regardless of the failures of the analogy and regardless of the unnecessary addition of cheekiness to the content, I applaud Lubna for bringing to light a case that, at face-value, smacks of injustice and complete insanity.

Fatima, the subject of the story, was married by the consent of her guardian, her father. She now has three children. She is happily-married, yet her half-brothers have discovered a lie made by her husband pre-marriage, and are seeking annulment! How is it that any lies that her husband may have made could make this a case for annulment? This just doesn't make sense at all. The sceptic in me says there is more to the story. But if there isn't, then this is case for clear condemnation and perhaps some action (like calling/emailing Saudi embassy perhaps?) We know that any negative press would make them buckle and free this sister from prison to be with her legally and Islamically established husband. And I concur with Lubna in her final point of her article, “Instead of harping upon the fact that the Western media insists on giving Islam a bad name, we would be well-counseled to realize that with judgments like these we do a pretty good job ourselves.”

So, for the geniuses out there (as well as the non-geniuses), what say you should we do? Another question to the more knowledgable brothers and sisters: is there any Islamic precedent at all for such a ruling on behalf of half-brothers (or even the father, if he was alive)? And FINALLY, I believe there is a HUGE positive in this otherwise tragic story, can anyone venture to guess what?

Meet the Flintstones by Lubna Hussain
Friday, 2, February, 2007 (14, Muharram, 1428)

You would be forgiven if you thought that such a ruling had been administered in the Stone Age. In actual fact, when I read through the case, images of men dressed in Fred and Barnie-like attire and brandishing clubs came to mind. The word “yabbadabbadoo” being pronounced prior to the announcement of the verdict would not have appeared out of place.

The headline “Appeals Court Upholds Ruling in Controversial Fatima Divorce Case” appeared to be the biggest anachronism gracing the front page this week. After all, our palate has been spoiled by the liberal sprinkling of more fashionable and salubrious buzzwords such as “progress,” “reform” and “dialogue” spicing up our daily staple of newspaper fare. That's what made such a pronouncement all the more ironic.

Those of you who haven't been following the case merit an explanation. So here, in a nutshell, is what the furor is all about. A happily married couple, with three children, who expressed the singular desire to stay married, was divorced by the court in absentia against its will. How can someone be “divorced” against their will you may ask? Good question!

Here is the entirely ludicrous and pathetic explanation proffered in justification. Fatima was married to Mansour with the consent of her father. After her father passed away, her half-brothers automatically assumed the mantle of being her legal guardians if she ever got divorced. Several years and two children later, Fatima's half-brothers claimed that Mansour had concealed his true tribal origins in order to win her hand and asked the local court to annul her marriage.

Did Fatima care about her husband's tribal affiliations? No. Did she think that such an issue was important? No. Did she ever consider divorcing her husband upon these grounds? No. But what on earth am I talking about? Why am I even considering that Fatima may even have had an opinion on the subject? After all, Fatima is a woman. Her only real part in the saga is that she was married to Mansour. What gives her the right to decide to stay married to him when her half-brothers think that it's more appropriate for her to bid her husband of so many years good riddance? How dare she even challenge their wise decision that would not only deny her the opportunity to continue her life as a happily married woman, but would also subject her to the mercy of her half-brothers who would subsequently assume total control of her life?

Fatima, as you can clearly see from the story, is one of those strong-willed ingrates who seem to think that they can get away with standing up to male domination. A blight on the face of womanhood!

I wonder if any of you can guess where Fatima is right now? The only sensible place for disobedient women who challenge the authority of their male guardians of course —prison. What's even more bizarre and disgusting is that she chooses the option of languishing in prison over the golden opportunity of returning to the warm and loving guardianship of her half-brothers. This just goes to further prove what a boorish and unreasonable woman Fatima is.

So much for “progress,” “reform” and “dialogue.” How can we sit back in our ivory towers and allow such gross miscarriages of justice to continue? It is nothing short of appalling that such nonsensical illegitimate rulings are not only entertained, but upheld in a country that claims to follow the Shariah. Islam played a major role in abolishing these ignorant practices. To emphasize that all men are created equal in the sight of God, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) presided over the marriage of his cousin to a slave. That is the true spirit of Islam. We are not expected to judge one another according to an accident of birth but rather for the qualities and merits of the individual. However, this basic principle seems to have been compromised in favor of a judge's ruling that has been held above the word of God.

Once again, it sadly appears that the judicial system applies Islamic jurisprudence according to its whim and fancy. There are many very serious and dangerous implications of setting this legal precedent. How can a woman in this country be sure of being granted her supposedly inviolable Islamic rights when tribal considerations and male domination are seen as being of greater importance? Why is it that a woman's opinion is of such little consequence when it is critical to the future of her and her children?

And more importantly, how is it that as a society we can tolerate such a backward, regressive and counterproductive attitude from our judiciary in light of the fact that it flies in the face of our religious beliefs? Does that mean that in some cases it is appropriate to refute the word of God?

What saddens me immensely is that I believe we are making sincere and earnest attempts to improve ourselves and impress upon the world that we are moving forward. However, retaining such archaic illogical procedures not only serves to undo all the good that we are doing, but actually sets us back much farther than whence we started. A pathetic story like that of Fatima will do us far more damage than any feel-good story of the improving condition of women we may seek to portray.

Instead of harping upon the fact that the Western media insists on giving Islam a bad name, we would be well-counseled to realize that with judgments like these we do a pretty good job ourselves.