-
Possible Vulnerabilities Faced By The Husband During And After Divorce
Vulnerability Number 1:
How much child support ought to be imposed by courts? If the woman takes a lot more money and spends only a fraction of it on the child. How does the state and the ex-husband counteract this?Vulnerability Number 2:
If courts impose a “Tanseekh-e-Nikkah“, then I get that the man won’t be financially responsible for the woman. Now, even if the woman was wrong, the man would be deprived of his children. Don’t you guys think its wrong. Because all that I have heard is that the man can deprive woman of his right, that’s why the state should legislate. What if the woman does the same, does Islam provides any remedies to guide the state to legislate? -
17 Replies
-
Possible Vulnerabilities Faced By The Husband During And After Divorce
updated 1 month, 4 weeks ago
3 Members
·
17
Replies
-
Changing Category
-
These are disputes that have to be decided after a complete investigation by some authority. Such cases should preferably be decided by the families with mutual consultation; otherwise, courts decide according to general rules of justice.
-
The problem isn’t this.
If mutual consultation was that effective and everyone parted ways gracefully we wouldn’t even need laws. In practice, mutual consultation rarely works.
These problems arise due to bad actors. General rules of justice have to follow some legislation. If you grant tanseekh-e-nikkah, you grant it because the woman wants separation. She doesn’t have to have a valid reason for it as far as I understand Mr.Ghamidi (Makaamaat). So, now what, man is deprived of his children and still has to financially support them? If a woman misuses those funds, as you said we would need competent investigation. Which in such cases would be impossible to judge, which rupee was spent where. There is no accountability mechanism here
Also within marriage, a man has all the responsibility, but the woman doesn’t have to hold her end up legally. Let’s assume she doesn’t, if a man divorces her he would have to bear financial burden. If he doesn’t he still has to bear the burden for what?
-
@Umer25
I would love to have this problem resolved for me. It has been bugging me for years. The problem is what if the woman doesn’t hold her end up. Who can hold her accountable, if she is smart enough and malicious, she can manipulate the laws and become the de-facto head with all the rights and none of the responsibilities. If a man is head, how can he hold her accountable. I mean the word head here is just a throw away phrase with no practical implications.-
No system, Islamic or secular, can safeguard a marriage if the individuals within it lack sincerity and integrity.
In Islam, the husband’s role as qawwam (head of the household) is not a symbolic label but a responsibility tied to providing, protecting, and guiding the family, while the wife likewise carries clear moral and practical duties such as maintaining harmony, respecting her husband, and safeguarding his trust. If a wife neglects these responsibilities or behaves manipulatively, Islam does not leave the husband without recourse; rather, it outlines a structured and ethical process for accountability. The Quran prescribes respectful communication first, followed by family-based mediation, and if necessary, involvement of community scholars or arbitration. A wife who persistently violates her obligations is not beyond correction, and the husband retains the right to seek resolution or, if the situation becomes harmful, separation. Islamic marriage is ultimately a partnership with defined roles and mutual accountability, designed to prevent either spouse from holding “all the rights and none of the responsibilities,” ensuring fairness rooted in taqwa and justice.
If the matter proceeds to divorce, and manipulation can be proven to the court’s satisfaction, the court may issue decisions in the husband’s favor regarding alimony or the reasonableness of child support. However, as with all legal matters, not every case can be conclusively proven due to human and resource limitations. A believer understands that this world’s justice is imperfect, and ultimate, complete justice awaits in the hereafter; this conviction is part of what distinguishes a faithful Muslim from one who does not believe and gives him the courage to face the trials of this world.
-
-
This is all well and good in theory. Reality is a lot more nuanced.
Let us first agree on the wife’s role (you have the final say here) so that I can explain to you how impractical your fair and just system is.
As far as I understand,
A wife is the primary care giver of children. Her responsibility here is to foster a good learning and respectful environment.
If she has agreed on the marriage, now either she helps the husband out financially, or gives her best to adjust within the finances he provides. I consider this a sacrifice too on behalf of the wife to give her, her due.
As the man has the final decision regarding where to live, how the circle of life works, which school the children go to, her job is to accept these decisions and try her best to defend these decisions in public as a (raazdaan). This I consider as her biggest sacrifice. Because this requires you to sacrifice every ounce of your ego in obedience.
Now, when I have given her her due. Lets begin.
Case No. 1
Fight
First of all, what if the husband and wife are fighting as is common. The fight blows out of proportion. It frequently does in modern marriages. You can’t make the woman internalize the second fiddle role. Internally, she would still be finding ways to have her leg up. Coming to the fight, lets assume the fault is usually shared. But now, see how powerful the wife is with regards to the husband. When it gets to court, she gets custody, she can get tanseekh. The husband is helpless here. Also, leave family mediation out. Its 2026, extended families are gradually becoming obsolete. Even if they exist, neither man nor woman takes their families seriously. Especially in the educated classes where people believe in your theory. The fight is the most common case.
Case no. 2
Children Upbringing
Lets suppose a man wants to have his daughters follow sharaafat and reservedness as ghamidi himself says Islam preaches. The woman doesn’t. She wants them bold. It is a huge conflict, which can eventually lead to an honour killing. Similarly, what if a woman is okay with a boy who never goes out of his house out of love. A man in this case, knowing better forces the boy and it leads to everything going downhill. The woman in both cases can spew hate against the man in the minds of the children. A man again is helpless. Shariat had guardrails (as accepted by ghamidi himself) by allowing the man to impose his will. Moreover, the woman can’t get a tanseekh in pure shariat. So, the man was allowed to do his job without any legal implications. You guys removed it. Thats whats causing this conundrum.
Case No. 3
A woman spends house spending on needless items.
It can become a bone of contention. It relates to the third responsibility thats why I have taken it seperately.
You get the point, in all three cases the issue is the same. And I don’t know how a court is going to resolve it. Currently, a court has only three questions
Custody
Alimony
Child support
I don’t know which arbitration you are talking about.
-
Furthermore, if you are going to preach a supposed arbitration court that resolves all matters, there needs to be an arbitration law. Which requires extensive legislation and which is currently non-existent. This comes back to my initial point, in current state of law, a smart woman can have all the rights and none of the responsibilities.
-
@Umer25
Your response would be valued greatly. -
In Pakistan, the arbitration pertains to either wife leaving the house or committing adultery. If she doesn’t do these two things she gets a blank cheque. I don’t know how you can’t see that this law can be grossly abused, with no systematic checks and balances in place.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESVBTnnUpbU&t=91s
In this video
My problems are acknowledged by Mr. Ghamidi. But the thing is that he is advising the state to make suitable arrangements, whatever it deems fit, but the state should propose something that works better than the man having a right to choose whatever punishment he deems fit.
However, in our country if a man does act, the woman can go to courts and the whole situation would turn against him and he would be painted as the aggressor and be deemed punishable
-
Finally, its not about safeguarding an unhealthy marriage. The problem is the abuse of marriage laws. One party’s position has been weakened to the point of helplessness
-
Let us not overlook a basic reality of life. Human beings are diverse, and some will inevitably misuse the special positions or relationships they hold—whether within a family, a community, or society at large. Just as a clever woman may exploit laws that favor her, a shrewd friend, acquaintance, or even a stranger can manipulate someone to the point where the law itself becomes a tool in their hands. Laws can be twisted and exploited, and it is the responsibility of the state to minimize such loopholes. Yet no legal system can ever be completely foolproof.
When it comes to human affairs, the reach of law is limited. Beyond a certain point, relationships and interactions depend on trust, fairness, integrity, and ultimately, accountability before God. If a person chooses to abandon these ethical foundations and deliberately exploits legal provisions for personal gain, they may well succeed in this world. This possibility exists in every sphere—marital, economic, political, and familial.
Even the Prophet (sws) acknowledged that someone might deceive him in his role as a judge through clever arguments, but such deceit would not save them from accountability in the hereafter.
We need to be realistic rather than idealistic. We should strive for better, more just laws, but we must never lose sight of the inherent limitations of this world.
-
Got your point. Thanks for giving your best to answer my questions.
But the answer is simple (in my opinion), for all the rhetoric about roles and responsibilities in marriage Mr. Ghamidi’s interpretation misses a simple practical point.
Either you adopt western laws and equally divide all of the rights and responsibilities
Or
You make the women dependent on her husband’s will.
You can’t have an independent woman and then bind her in marriage and then expect her to yield and if she doesn’t, expect the man (who is bearing all the responsibilities) to yield.
The whole system is rotten to the core because it is against basic human psychology.
Essentially, if you want to adopt the islamic system, adopt it completely or else adopt the western system. Finding an inbetween is wrong on so many levels.
T
-
Btw, if you would have read between the lines, it wasn’t about shrewd woman. It was about the ridiculousness of the proposed marriage law.
-
Finally, in your whole theory, I couldn’t find the exact demarcation between, which commands of the husband are obligatory to obey and which commands aren’t. I mean I couldn’t even get a rough estimation.
We have already agreed in this thread, that when and if she chooses not to, the man is helpless infront of her.
I mean the whole thing is so confusing. I have a guess, it would lead to more conflict than harmony.
-
One more thing, I wasn’t talking about legal limits. I was talking about selective punishment
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
