Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Maryland's highest court has rejected a talaq divorce performed by a Muslim man in order to prevent his wife from getting anything in their divorce under state law (see full ruling here). Under Islamic law, a man can divorce his wife merely by saying "I divorce you" three times. In this case, the man, Irfan Aleem, a World Bank economist, went to the Pakistani embassy and signed a piece of paper saying that so they would immediately grant him an official divorce and he would not have to split up his $2 million estate with his wife. The Maryland court said no, they will not recognize that divorce and he still has to go through the laws of the state in order to get one, saying, "the enforceability of a foreign talaq divorce provision, such as that presented here, in the courts of Maryland, where only the male, i.e., husband, has an independent right to utilize talaq and the wife may utilize it only with the husband's permission, is contrary to Maryland's constitutional provisions." They further said:
talaq divorce of countries applying Islamic law, unless substantially modified, is contrary to the public policy of this state... where, in the absence of valid agreements otherwise, ... marital property is subject to fair and equitable division.... Additionally, a procedure that permits a man (and him only unless he agrees otherwise) to evade a divorce action begun in this State by rushing to the embassy of a country recognizing talaq and ... summarily terminate the marriage and deprive his wife of marital property, confers insufficient due process to his wife. Accordingly, for this additional reason the courts of Maryland shall not recognize the talaq divorce performed here.
The decision is absolutely correct. And it appears that Islamic law experts agree:
Experts in Islamic law and religion who are based in the U.S. said they agreed with the court's ruling. Abdullahi An-Na'im, a Muslim scholar and law professor at Emory University in Atlanta, said "there can only be one law of the land."An-Na'im, who wrote Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Shari'a, said that "if Muslims wish to influence what the law of the state says, they must do so through the normal political process and in accordance with civic discourse that is equally open for debate by all citizens, and not on the basis of religious beliefs."
Julie Macfarlane, a law professor at the University of Windsor, Ontario, who has spent two years on a research project titled "Understanding Islamic Divorce in North America," said she was surprised that Aleem had tried to force the notion of talaq on a U.S. court.
"It's unclear how he even thought he was going to make a successful legal argument on this point," Macfarlane said.
Comments
This is going to be fun to watch. I hope he appeals all the way to the SCOTUS. (Not that they're likely to grant cert, but maybe.)
Please follow this if he does appeal, I'd love to see the arguments made and the courts' smackdowns.
Then again, I'm betting we can get a few wingnuts to whine about activist judges if you change Islam/Muslim to Christian (and other appropriate grmmatical changes).
Cheers.
Posted by: FastLane | May 8, 2008 10:23 AM
If you want to write to the World Bank. Here is their media officer's email.
astilwell@worldbank.org
And telephone.
Amy L. Stilwell
Media Manager
Phone: (202) 458-4906
I am going to tell her what to do with muslim misogynist pig Irfan Aleem. Unfortunately, I didn't find an email for him.
More contacts here.
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:20035595~menuPK:36691~pagePK:36694~piPK:36693,00.html#dc
Posted by: bernarda | May 8, 2008 10:29 AM
This one is pretty simple if you remove the Islamic angle. The Embassy has no jurisdiction over the marriage, no notice was given to the wife, and the Court is under no duty to recognize affronts to public policy.
Posted by: kehrsam | May 8, 2008 10:38 AM
Probably the closest correlation we have in the US is the annulment process in the Catholic Church. Annulment does not supersede the law of the land in which couples must go through a legal divorce. What annulment does is say that the marriage never existed in the eyes of the church.
I would be shocked if the wingnuts jump on this one; as no other Christian denomination has a divorce process like this. Although...their stupidity has shocked me before...
I agree wholeheartedly with this decision.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | May 8, 2008 11:04 AM
I found another article with more information about this case:
http://www.mddailyrecord.com/article.cfm?id=5305&type=UTTM
I think there's more to this than the Islamic angle - this is more about the Pakistani embassy getting involved in something they shouldn't have. The convolution is occurring because Pakistani civil law is Islamic, so you have a religious angle on it that you don't get when you're comparing this situation to, say, Catholic Church annulments.
It seems like he wanted their marriage contract to be read and adjudicated as it would have been under Pakistani law (where the default was very favorable to the him for things not defined in the contract), rather than as it was under Maryland law (where the default is an equitable split for things not defined in the contract). Islam only comes into play because a lot of civil law things (like contracts and marriages) are handled by Islamic law in Pakistan.
A pretty cynical ploy on his part. I doubt he really thought he was going to get away with it - he was probably pulling out all the tricks he could think of to avoid having to split his pension with his ex.
Posted by: NonyNony | May 8, 2008 11:18 AM
Bernarda - As much as I agree that this, Irfam Aleen, is a character of questionable moral and legal sense, I would would NOT encourage anyone to email either him or his employer to express their feelings.
The World Bank is not responsible for the (shabbily illegal) actions of their employees (when nothing to do with their business anyway), and presumably any email address for Irfan Aleen will be for work purposes (how would you feel if someone emailled you at work giving you a peice of their mind for cutting them off on the highway or the like). Plus the address will be monitored anyway, don't open yourself up to charges of sending threatening emails & etc.
No, Let the courts do their job, I agree with Kehrsam sounds pretty open and shut to me. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 8, 2008 11:20 AM
DingoJack, I didn't propose any threats, only to state one's mind about this pig.
The World Bank itself is a criminal organization making poor people poorer.
Posted by: bernarda | May 8, 2008 5:03 PM
Re DingoJack
As distasteful as it is, I have to agree with Mr. bernarda in this instance. The World Bank should be required to fire his fucking ass out the door forthwith and any financial contributions from the US should be withheld until they do so.
Posted by: SLC | May 8, 2008 6:15 PM
What? But just today Rick Santorum told me that Islam is incompatible with democracy because they insist on imposing sharia law on the government! Are you saying that old Man On Dog is wrong?
Posted by: Skemono | May 8, 2008 11:16 PM
I was not supporting this "person" or the World Bank, simply pointing out that illegal activity won't actually help bring this clown down, and besides there could be "blcwback" for you and the clown's (innocent) wife.
Let the courts smack him down, they do it harder and with the added benefit that they to it legally. Just my $0.02, can't force you to not do or do anything. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 9, 2008 12:29 AM
Unfortunately not the guy is going to claim that not being able to divorce his wife on a whim and benefit financially, like the rest of his buddies back home, is an insult to his honor. So he quietly ships the money offshore, douses her with lighter fluid and sets her alight. Before the fire department has the fire out he is on a flight to Pakistan. Where he and his money are reunited.
I hope this isn't true but in my limited experience dealing with religion through rationality and any law that says all are at least tacitly equal seldom ends well. People who assume God is on their side tend to get mean, vindictive and destructive when thwarted.
Posted by: Art | May 9, 2008 3:10 AM
Based on the article in the 5/8 Washington Post, an additional reason that emailing the World Bank would be pointless is that Irian Aleem is NOT currently employed by the World Bank.
(Incidentally, the article also quotes Farah Aleem's attorney as saying that Irian currently lives in Pakistan.)
Posted by: Michael I | May 9, 2008 6:10 AM
It would be interesting to review this case alongside the famous Shah Bano case in India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shah_bano more aptly known as Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs. Shah Bano Begum & Ors.. Shah Bano a mother of five petitioned the Supreme Court of India that she be paid a maintenance by her ex-husband. The Court ruled in favour of Shah Bano but buckling under pressure from the religious right, the government of the day passed a law nullifying the court's decision. In India there are separate family codes for Hindus, Muslims, and Christians, as well as common code that becomes applicable should both parties agree to be governed by it. In my case for instance, my wife and I have been married by the Special Marriages Act, and swore an oath not on any holy book, but with our "conscience as witness".
Posted by: rimpal | May 9, 2008 10:43 AM
Seems pretty clear to me, the legal norms in Pakistan don't apply in the US, and the Islamic provisions for divorce have no more legal standing than the get of Jewish law applies in Brooklyn (King's county) courts.
Now, if Aleem wants to go through this in his own country, that's his right. But it seems odd to me that a presumably past-high-school-educated guy (he was at the World Bank, for goodness' sake) would understand that.
Also, divorce laws in Pakistan even can get complicated, even for people who insist on a strict interpretation of sharia. You'd have to get a pretty conservative judge, and one from a certain school of Islam. (I'm NOT endorsing this system, simply pointing out that it isn't monolithic). One of the problems they are having right now in that country is the whole debate between how much religious law and civil law should overlap (if at all). That means the rulings given in a cosmopolitan place like Karachi or Islamabad will differ greatly from those in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas or Northwest Frontier Provinces.
Seems to me Aleem was just being vindictive.
Oh @ Art -- bride burning is common to many cultures in South Asia, and sadly appears in Hindu areas a swell as Islamic. But thankfully, it's no longer all that common.
Posted by: Jesse | May 9, 2008 6:51 PM
Should have added: it's usually done at funerals when the husband dies. The woman would throw herself on the funeral pyre. No longer common in urban areas. Depressingly it shows up in rural provinces where literacy rates are lower. Funny how that works.
Posted by: Jesse | May 9, 2008 6:57 PM
Based on my limited understanding of Islamic law, the Pakistani court's judgment isn;t even consistent with sharia.
Posted by: Ian Gould | May 11, 2008 2:23 AM