بريطانيا: رفض تطبيق أحكام الشريعة في قضية طلاق إسلامية

- خبر من مصادر إنجليزية.

رفضت إحدى المحاكم البريطانية الاتفاق المسبق بين زوجين مسلمين بأن يتم تنازل المرأة عن حقها في مقاسمة مسكن الزوجية مقابل المهر الذي دُفِع لها أول الزواج.

حيث أكدت المحكمة أن ذلك "غير مُعتَبَر"، وأنها ستُنفِّذ القانون الإنجليزي الذي يقضي بأنه عند الطلاق يدفع الرجل للمرأة نصف قيمة مسكن الزوجية.

وقد أعرب الزوج المسلم عن غضبه لرفض المحكمة اعتبار اتفاق الزوجين على التحاكم للشريعة الإسلامية وما تقتضيه، مشيرًا إلى أن هذه الواقعة ممارسة تمييزية ضد المسلمين، خاصة وأن القضاء يسمح لليهود بالتحاكم إلى شريعتهم في قضايا الأحوال الشخصية.

وقد أشارت مصادر صحفية إلى أن انتقاد الزوج المسلم لنظام القضاء البريطاني يأتي وسط ارتفاع أصوات المسلمين المطالبين بالسماح لهم بتنظيم شؤونهم طبقًا لأحكام الشريعة الإسلامية. المصدر: شبكة الألوكة.

يرجى الإشارة إلى المصدر عند نقل الخبر – شبكة الألوكة.

الخبر من مصدره الأصلي:

This country recognises the equal rights of husband and wife in a divorce, so will not recognise a prenup agreement that is unfair to the woman

Like many men who divorce, Dr Zaid Al-Saffar thinks the amount that the courts have ruled he must pay to his ex-wife is outrageous. But he has a further complaint. He thinks that “family law in this country is biased against Muslim people”.

He and his wife formalised their marriage according to Islamic law, and he expected their relationship to be governed by those rules. They even made a “prenuptial agreement” which specified that, in return for his paying her a sum of money when they married, she would give up her rights to a share of their home. Dr Al-Saffar was furious when England’s courts ruled that the agreement didn’t count, and he had to pay his wife half the value of the house they had shared.

After all, English law allows Beth Din courts to settle disputes between Orthodox Jews according to Jewish law. Why wouldn’t the English courts let Islamic law decide what Dr Al-Saffar should pay his wife? It was just another example of anti-Muslim prejudice: other religions are allowed to regulate marriages by their own rules – but Muslims are not.

Does Dr Al-Saffar make a fair point? The short answer is no. In 2010, the Supreme Court recognised the validity of pre-nuptial agreements that vary the division for marital property from the 50-50 split that the English law says should be the basis of every divorce. But they did so with important caveats: if there was evidence that one party had been pressurised into signing an agreement that disadvantaged them, or if the courts just thought the agreement was unfair, then a “pre-nup” would not be valid, and the settlement would revert to an equal division.