Conversion of Convenience II
Vor Monaten habe ich darüber berichtet, dass der indische Regionalpolitiker Chand Mohammed/ Chander Mohan und seine Geliebte zum Islam konvertiert sind, damit er sie als zweite Frau heiraten kann. Die Ehe endete schnell wieder, der Vorfall führte aber dazu, dass das Muslim Personal Law wieder in die Diskussion gerät. Die Muslime sind sich nicht einig, wie sie mit solchen Konversionen umgehen sollen:
At this dark hour, a vague hand of support came from Mufti Ahsan Kasmi, deputy in-charge of the fatwa department of Dar-ul-Uloom, Deoband. “Nikaah (marriage) after converting to Islam is legal under Shariah,” he declared. But it was hardly a ringing endorsement—not surprising
when you consider Kasmi had gone on record as recently as July 2008 saying, “conversion of a woman to Islam for the purpose of marrying someone from the faith is illegal and against Shariah”.
ähnlich ein anderer traditioneller Gelehrter:
For Dr Sayeed Qasim Rasool Ilyas, spokesperson of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, such cases reflect a failure of society at large, and Islam shouldn’t be blamed for allowing them to happen. “There are many cases of second marriage by those already married,” he says, “but they don’t come to light because they happen in poor and rural areas, and the first wife either doesn’t complain or is intimidated into silence. In cases where people fear legal hassles, they convert and use the Muslim Personal Law to save themselves.” Moreover, adds Ilyas, because under Islamic law a man’s faith is a matter only between him and god, a cleric has no authority to question why he is converting, so there is little the ulema can do to stop this abuse.
Islamisten lehnen Konversionen aus unlauteren Motiven jedoch ab:
“We condemn this. We have always condemned such cases,” says Mujtaba Farooq, the political affairs secretary of the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind. “Second marriages, even if they happen within Islam, are not done lightly. And when people (outside the faith) use Islam in this manner, they make fools out of themselves and a joke out of Islam.”
Anscheinend gibt es jedoch eine eindeutige Rechtslage, die aus mir unbekannten Gründen unberücksichtigt bleibt:
For Ilyas, the issue was settled by the 1995 Sarla Mudgal case, in which the Supreme Court held any second marriage solemnised after conversion while the first marriage was existent to be void. Supreme Court lawyer Pinky Anand points to wider implications. “In the light of the Sarla Mudgal judgement, Chand can be prosecuted for bigamy. But that’s not the end. The Supreme Court judgement envisioned a uniform civil code that would ban the practice of second marriage by Muslims or non-Muslims.”
Das wäre in der Tat die beste Lösung.
–––