 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 20 - 26 January 2000 Issue No. 465 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 20 - 26 January 2000 Issue No. 465
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Features Profile Travel Living Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Roosters' wrath
By Mariz Tadros
Families will be broken up, crime will soar, and all hell will break loose if divorce is made easier for women -- at least, that's what many MPs debating the draft Personal Status Procedure Law this week would have us believe. The People's Assembly was decidedly more boisterous than what people have come to expect, with a larger-than-usual number of deputies present to fuel the furor.
After two intensive debates, House Speaker Ahmed Fathi Sorour declared that the Assembly has given its approval to the draft law, in principle, but that the draft would be discussed in detail beginning next Tuesday. The proposed legislation aims at facilitating and speeding up litigation in personal status disputes, particularly divorce. While some MPs wondered why there was a need for a legal change now, others jumped right into discussing the proposed articles.
Of the 81 articles making up the draft law, three articles monopolised the discussions: One on a woman's right to a court divorce -- irrespective of her husbands' consent -- if she forgoes her financial rights (the much-contended Khul'); another on a woman's right to travel without the permission of her husband (depending on court approval); and another on granting divorce to couples married the Urfi (unregistered) way.
But it was undoubtedly Khul' that had the lion's share of debate. Objections to Khul' were numerous during the two sessions and came from both opposition parties and the ruling one. During the first session on Sunday, Yassin Serageddin of the Wafd party raised question marks whether Khul' was in line with Shari'a [Islamic law], insisting that women should not be allowed to get a divorce without their husbands' consent. Serageddin worried about women misusing the right to Khul'. "If a woman sees that her husband is less handsome than his friends, should she seek a divorce?" he asked.
Justice Minister Farouk Seif El-Nasr responded that a woman like that is not "worth her husband holding on to her and should be divorced". Seif El-Nasr also argued that "marriage is not supposed to be a prison for women," and that "the draft law aims to alleviate sufferings and ensure equality".
Present at the debate to defend the draft was Sheikh Mohamed Tantawi, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, who affirmed that the draft had been examined and revised to ensure that it complied fully with Shari'a. He also said that the Islamic Research Academy, which is made up of 40 scholars, has expressed satisfaction -- by a majority vote -- that the draft complied with Shari'a. Khaled Mohieddin, head of the leftist Tagammu party, expressed support for the draft, saying that he believes it contains many positive points. He argued that Khul' resolves the dilemma that exists for Egyptian women who are trapped in marriages because their husbands will not consent to a divorce.
The second session of the People's Assembly was aptly termed in the press as the "hens and roosters session", thanks to Ali Nasr, an MP from Beni Suef. He objected to the draft law, asserting the supremacy of men over women and citing an example from the animal world: "A rooster can have 40 hens and a lion marries more than four wives, but it has never happened that a hen married two roosters". Kamal El-Shazli, minister of state for parliamentary affairs, objected and Sorrour interrupted to say that Nasr's opinion was insulting. This prompted Nasr's fellow MP from Beni Suef, Mustafa El-Ridi, to apologise on his behalf. Nasr said he had nothing to apologise for and walked out, fuming, with El-Shazli trailing him to bring him back.
In the meantime, a group of 31 Al-Azhar scholars had sent a plea to President Hosni Mubarak asking that the draft be withdrawn from parliament and revised, during a three-month grace period, to ensure that it complies with Shari'a. The plea claimed that it was not enough for the Islamic Research Academy to give its consent because the views of other scholars have not been taken into account. Yehya Halboush, one of the scholars who signed the plea, told Al-Ahram Weekly that he believes the Sheikh of Al-Azhar did not adequately discuss the law with Islamic scholars, "especially when many of the 40 members of the Academy are not Shari'a experts."
Halboush insists that there is no need for reforming the Personal Status Law. The greatest reservations he expressed focused on giving women the right to Khul'. Halboush argues that Khul' was allowed in Islam only in one case -- that of the wife of Ibn Qays, often cited by Islamic scholars as proof that Khul' complies with Shari'a. "This one case cannot be generalised to all, because the divorce was granted in exceptional circumstances," which, according to Halboush, was "after the husband had hit the wife" -- an unusual version of the story.
There are six reasons under which women can apply for divorce without giving up their financial rights. One of the six is injury or harm. However, lawyers have pointed out that it is very difficult to prove harm and, at the end of the day, it is up to the judge to decide whether the woman is entitled to divorce. Many applications for divorce have been rejected because women were unable to talk about their personal relations with their husbands before male judges.
Fawzeya Abdel-Sattar, a law professor, is not surprised by the reactions to the draft law. "The way that they have opposed changes is not strange or unexpected because Egyptian men are scared their throne might be shaken. For many years, they have come to believe that with a marriage contract, they own their women -- that their will, and their will alone, is what is to prevail," said Abdel-Sattar. With the introduction of Khul', she argued, the status quo has been challenged. Women would no longer be at the complete mercy of their husbands. "The shock for men is to be told that women can go to court and seek an end to a relationship, without having to prove that they are victims," she said.
Abdel-Sattar insists that the principle of Khul', which she maintains is enshrined in Shari'a, should have been legally enforced a long time ago, "to maintain balance in a marital relationship and, in turn, guarantee the stability of the family as a whole". Just as a wife takes into consideration the fact that her husband can leave her if she treats him badly, suggests Abdel-Sattar, so too should her husband know that he cannot get away with abuse and maltreatment. That is, his wife should also have the power to get out of her marriage if she is unhappy.
Abdel-Sattar rejected the assumption that crime will increase as children become the victims of women using their right to Khul' to get out of unhappy marriages. "I can tell you, as a criminal law professor, incidences of crime increase because of the lack of balance in rights between husbands and wives. When women are trapped in unhappy marriages, and they cannot find a way out, it may be that they are driven to take drastic measures. Although they tend to be few, some of the most atrocious crimes committed by wives against their husbands are sheer acts of desperation".
Abdel-Sattar suggests that if there were more women in the People's Assembly, the overriding voices would not be those of men, and women would have an opportunity to defend and fight for their interests. She is, however, optimistic that the draft law will pass next week, adding: "Why shouldn't it? It is in compliance with Shari'a."
But that, of course, is a matter of interpretation.
