Читать книгу A Dictionary of Islam. Being a cyclopedia of the doctrines, rites, ceremonies, and customs, together with the technical and theological terms, of the Muhammadan religion онлайн

309 страница из 560

“Apostasy annuls marriage in Haneefa’s opinion, and in apostasy separation takes place without any decree of the magistrate. Cases which might decide this point have been lately tried both at Lucknow and Allahabad: at the former place in re Afzul Hosein v. Hadee Begum, and at the latter Zuburdust Khan v. Wife. But from certain remarks to be found in the judgment of the High Court, N.W. P., the Courts of Oudh and N.W. P., appear to differ on the most essential point. The point before the Oudh Court was (Hadee Begum’s plea) that her marriage contract was dissolved by reason of her own apostasy, a sufficient answer to a suit brought by her Mahommedan husband for restitution of conjugal rights; i.e. Does the apostasy of a Mahommedan wife dissolve a marriage contract against the express wish of a Mahommedan husband in dar-ool-harb (land of war)? for India, it is contended, is not, under its present administration, dar-ool-Islam (land of safety). The Oudh Court held (admitting that apostasy by the husband dissolved the marriage and freed the wife) that apostasy by the wife did not free her if her husband sued for restitution of conjugal rights. They argued that apostasy by the wife, without the wish of the husband, could not be entertained; in fact, that as regards her husband’s volition, the apostasy could not exist, and would not be recognised. That a suit for restitution of conjugal rights before the competent court of the time, seemed to them to be equivalent of the suit before the Cazee (Judge). The Oudh judges, in the absence of distinct precedent, say they fell back on the customs of the people amongst whom they lived. The Oudh Court evidently considered there was an essential difference between apostasy of a man and apostasy of a woman, of the husband or the wife; also between apostasy to a faith in a book and apostasy to the idol worship Mahommed and his followers renounce. Does such an essential difference exist? The point before the High Court N.W.P. was: Can a Mahommedan professing Christianity subsequent to his marriage with a Mussulmani, according to the Mahommedan law, obtain a decree for dissolution of that marriage under Act IV. of 1869, his wife having subsequently to him professed Christianity, and they under their new faith having lived together as man and wife? or whether the wife’s contention is sound, that her marriage was cancelled by her husband’s apostasy? They held the apostasy of the husband dissolved the marriage tie. This the Oudh Court admits, but the point before the Oudh Court was not before the High Court, N.W. P.; nevertheless from comments made by the High Court, N.W. P., on the Oudh decision, they evidently did not agree with the finding come to by the latter Court, on the point before it.