Religious circles persistently propagate the narrative that the high divorce rate in the West is a product of atheism or secularism, and that only their religious system can safeguard the family structure. However, ground realities and statistics completely refute this claim.
Before addressing the core subject, it is essential for truth-seekers to understand one fundamental point: no human system, society, or ideology in this universe can claim to be one hundred percent perfect. In the process of evolution, humans always choose the "best available alternative" rather than a utopian perfection.
It has been a favourite tactic of religious groups to seize upon a partial flaw in the secular system and use it to reject the entire framework, while conveniently turning a blind eye to the rigid and exploitative aspects of their own system. Our argument is not that the modern system has no shortcomings. Rather, our argument is that on the scale of human rights and dignity, this system is far more just and humane than the old religious order.
Let us now turn to the main topic.
First Point: Divorce is Linked Not to Atheism, But to Economic Independence
The truth is that divorce rates are not connected to any particular belief system, but rather to women's economic independence. The "strong" family system that religious groups take pride in is, in reality, sustained by women's helplessness, lack of education, and economic exploitation. If women in Islamic countries also become educated and are given the opportunity to stand on their own feet, they too will choose separation rather than enduring oppression from their husbands' families and social exploitation.
Contrary to the religious narrative, divorce rates in Arab countries have today surpassed 50 percent, which is higher than many Western nations. The question arises: these countries have Islamic Sharia in force, religious teachings are dominant, and there is no trace of atheism, so why is the family system breaking down there?
The simple reason is the economic prosperity of these countries. Women there are far more financially stable and independent compared to their Pakistani or Indian counterparts. It is this economic strength that empowers them to choose dignified separation rather than accepting any form of oppression from their husband or in-laws.
Evidence:
-
The divorce rate in Kuwait has reached 60 percent (link).
-
The divorce rate in Saudi Arabia has reached 35 percent (link). There are 5 divorces every hour in Saudi Arabia (link).
-
The divorce rate in the UAE is over 50 percent (link).
According to the UAE Statistics Centre:
-
In 2016, there were 5,982 marriages and 1,922 divorces.
-
In 2017, there were 6,037 marriages and 1,813 divorces.
-
50% of marriages did not last more than 3 years.
-
28% of marriages ended in divorce within the very first year.
These are countries where Islamic Sharia is enforced, where religious education is compulsory, and where atheism has no influence whatsoever. So why are divorce rates so high here?
These statistics prove that divorce has nothing to do with "religion" or "atheism." It is purely a social and economic phenomenon. As long as a woman remains suppressed under a man's financial dominance, she silently endures every injustice, which the world then labels a "strong family system." But the moment she finds an alternative economic support to live her life, she breaks the chains of an unhappy and exploitative relationship.
Second Point: The Survival of the Family System is Linked Not to Religion, But to Poverty
The religious narrative holds that religion is the "glue" that holds the family together, and that without it society falls apart. But if we look at the global map, this claim crumbles like a wall of sand. The strength of the family system is connected more to economic structure than to any divine code.
If religion were the sole guarantor of family survival, then the family system in an "irreligious" society like China should have collapsed centuries ago. China has been a non-religious civilisation for thousands of years, and after the Communist revolution, the role of religion was further curtailed. Yet China's family system is considered one of the strongest in the world.
What is the reason? It was not religion there, but poverty and economic dependence. As long as the state or insurance companies do not take responsibility for the individual, the family remains the only social security. People stay together because living alone is economically impossible.
What is the reason?
-
Are the people there very religious? No.
-
Is the "fear of God" saving families there? No.
The real reason is that women there have not yet become economically independent enough to bear the burden of separation, nor is there any state welfare system that could support them after a divorce. So the family there is sustained not on the basis of "love" but on the basis of "survival."
In the wealthy Western nations where divorce rates are higher, the reason is not atheism but state protection. When the government takes responsibility for the care of elderly parents, provides child support, and gives unemployment benefits, the "economic pressure" of family is lifted from the individual. In such circumstances, a man and a woman stay together only when they are happy with each other. If the relationship becomes unpleasant, they are not afraid of being left out in the cold, so they choose to separate.
The strength of the family system is, more often than not, just another name for economic helplessness. In poor countries, whether people are religious or not, they cling to the family system because they simply cannot afford the "luxury" of separation. What the religious class calls the triumph of "spiritual values" is in reality an economic compulsion where a person is forced to endure a bitter relationship until the grave.
Third Point: A Family System Built on Exploitation is Nothing More Than a Beautiful Prison
The religious class presents the "durability" and "longevity" of the family system as its greatest achievement. But here a fundamental moral question arises: is the mere continuation of a relationship proof of its success, or do the foundation of that relationship and the dignity of the people within it also matter?
In any society, a relationship is built on one of two foundations:
-
Consent and respect, where both parties are together willingly and honour each other's individuality.
-
Compulsion and helplessness, where one party is so weak that they have no way out.
In the religious system, the so-called stability of the family is most often based on the second scenario: compulsion. When a woman is deprived of inheritance, made economically dependent on a man, divorce is turned into a social slur, and the fear of losing her children hangs over her head, that relationship persists not out of "love" but out of "fear and helplessness."
If the Family System is to be Sustained on the Basis of Exploiting the Weak, Then Enslaved Women Will Never Seek Divorce
If saving the family system at all costs is the ultimate goal, and reducing the divorce rate to zero is the definition of success, then religious groups should simply reduce their wives to the status of slave women. Because:
-
In Islam, a free woman still has certain rights, but a slave woman has no legal or social right to separation whatsoever.
-
A slave woman is entirely at the mercy of her master. She can never rebel, nor can she escape this "family structure."
If your measure of success is simply "the absence of divorce," then slavery should be the world's greatest family system, because the divorce rate there is zero. But would any rational person call such an exploitative system "successful"? Absolutely not.
What Should Actually Be a Source of Shame?
The dissolution of a family where a woman is being humiliated and forced to endure a degrading relationship is a human necessity. Therefore, if religious circles must feel shame, let it be over the fact that their system rests upon the exploitation of women and their economic helplessness, not over the fact that in a free society a woman has freed herself from an unpleasant relationship for the sake of her self-respect.
The lesson is this: peace built on the foundation of oppression is not peace, it is the silence of a graveyard. A broken home (divorce) is far better than a home where a human soul is crushed every single day so that the "family system" can be kept intact.
Fourth Point: Divorce is Merely the End of a Relationship, Not the End of the Family System
In religious circles, divorce is presented as the "death of the family system," as though once a divorce occurs, society will collapse entirely. This is an extremely shallow and emotional fallacy. The reality is that when a woman in a society is given the right to leave a cruel or unhappy relationship, it is a re-structuring of the institution of the family, not its destruction.
A high divorce rate in Western or free societies does not at all mean that people want to live alone or that they do not need family. It simply means that people are no longer forced to remain in an unhappy relationship. They have the courage to end a wrong choice rather than carrying it as a burden for life.
Statistics show that a very large number of divorced individuals in the West remarry and build a new home. This is referred to in sociology as Serial Monogamy.
-
This means that human beings naturally want to remain part of a family, but they want a "quality" and "happy" family.
-
If a mother divorces her first husband and begins a peaceful life with another person, that is an example of a successful family system, not a failure. Children raised in such a family develop far better when they see their parents happy.
In religious societies, the "intact" family that is boasted about often has an atmosphere inside the home no less than a battlefield. Where a mother is humiliated morning and evening, where a father's presence is a symbol of fear rather than affection, is the mere outward appearance of such a home being "intact" truly a success?
In contrast, a home that has peace after divorce, where a mother and father, even while separated, respect each other for the happiness of their children, is morally and humanly a thousand times better.
Therefore, a woman obtaining a divorce from a man does not mean she has bid farewell to the family system. It simply means she has ended a failed experience and taken a step toward a better future. The purpose of family is to provide a human being with peace, not to force them to wither away in a relationship that devours their personality and dignity.
Thus, a rising divorce rate is in fact proof that society is now moving out of the garb of "hypocrisy" and "coercion" and building relationships on the foundations of "truth" and "mutual consent."
Fifth Point: Children's Psychology: A Broken Home or a Shattered Childhood?
The most powerful and emotional weapon of the religious class is the claim that "divorce ruins children's lives." This is a half-truth presented as the whole truth, so that a woman can be emotionally blackmailed in the name of motherhood and kept imprisoned in an exploitative relationship.
Modern psychology research proves that damage to children's mental health comes not from "divorce" but from the persistent conflict, violence, and tension present within the home.
-
A home where parents live together but the daily atmosphere is one of abuse, violence, or cold silence: children raised there suffer from serious psychological disorders, fear, and insecurity.
-
In contrast, children living in two separate but peaceful homes after an amicable divorce develop into more balanced and self-confident individuals.
Research by psychologists shows that children are affected not by a broken home but by the conflict and violence present within the home. A child in a happy home after an amicable divorce is in a far better psychological state than a child in a violent and unhappy home.
The second point is that in Western societies, divorce does not mean a child becomes an orphan. There, a legal and social system of Shared Parenting exists:
-
The child spends one week with the mother and one week with the father, or spends weekends with the father.
-
In this way, the child continues to receive the attention and love of both parents, without the toxic atmosphere that existed in the home before the divorce.
The third point is that according to psychologists, a "single parent" (whether only a mother or only a father) is fully capable of giving a child a standard upbringing. In fact, if the mother remarries and is living happily with a better partner, children adapt to this new family structure very quickly and easily. A happy mother can raise a child far better than a forced and unhappy one.
Interestingly, even within Islam itself, the concept of "single parenting" after divorce exists.
-
If a man lives abroad for years for work and comes home only a few days a year, it is not considered the "destruction of the family system," even though in practice the mother is raising the children alone.
-
If Islam grants the mother custody rights after divorce, it means that religion itself acknowledges that a single parent can successfully raise a child.
The rights of children demand that they be given a peaceful environment, not a "broken home" forcibly held together. Compared to a violent "Muslim family," a peaceful "single parent" or "step-family" home is a thousand times better and safer for the upbringing and education of children.
Sixth Point: The Family System Can Be Strengthened Without Religion
The claim of the religious class that "the family system can only survive through religion" is a grave intellectual fallacy. The reality is that in the modern age, we no longer need divine fear or coercion to strengthen human relationships. We now have scientific and psychological foundations available to us.
Today, psychologists around the world have formulated principles for strengthening relationships that are based entirely on human experience and research. These principles teach:
-
How to resolve differences through communication.
-
How to respect each other's individual freedom.
-
What "mutual compromise" means for maintaining love and harmony, as opposed to "one-sided sacrifice."
These teachings are based not on the fear of hellfire but on mutual respect, and research proves that relationships built on conscious understanding are far more durable and fulfilling than those being dragged along merely out of religious fear or social pressure.
Humanity has learned over time that the real strength of the family lies not in "male dominance" but in "equality." Even without religion, there are hundreds of millions of families around the world living morally better lives than any religious family, because their bond is not owed to any "religious decree" but is the result of their own free will and happiness.
Seventh Point: The Funeral of the Family System for Slaves in Islam
When the religious class praises the Islamic family system, they ignore one critical question: for whom was this family system intended? For free Muslims? Perhaps. But for slaves and slave women? Absolutely not.
What happened to slaves throughout Islamic history completely exposes the hollowness of the claims made about the Islamic family system.
Let us examine these horrifying and inhumane truths that religious groups conceal from the public.
-
In Islam, it was not at all obligatory for a master to concern himself with any "family" system for his male or female slaves. It was not compulsory for a master to get his slave married; it was merely a recommendation.
-
If a slave contracted a marriage without the master's permission, it was declared "fornication" and he was subjected to the harshest punishment.
The fundamental role of a female slave was to fulfil her master's sexual desires. When the master tired of her, he would sell her to another master, where her fresh sexual exploitation would begin. In this way, these slave women were subjected to continuous rape as they passed from one master to another.
Islam then went a step further and openly permitted masters to practice "coitus interruptus" (withdrawal) while raping slave women, so that they could ejaculate outside and prevent the slave women from becoming pregnant, ensuring they could never dream of forming a family. Yes, even if a slave woman desired children, Islam did not grant her that right.
Sahih Muslim, Book of Marriage, Chapter on the ruling of coitus interruptus (link), and Sahih Bukhari, Book of Qadar (link) and Sahih Bukhari, Book of Tawhid (link):
The companion Abu Sa'id al-Khudri narrates that after a battle, several beautiful Arab women came into their possession and the companions desired them, as they were away from their wives. At the same time, the companions also wished to sell these slave women for ransom and obtain a good price for them. So the companions practised coitus interruptus [that is, during intercourse they withdrew and ejaculated outside so that the women would not become pregnant and a better price could be obtained when selling them]. They then asked the Messenger of Allah about it, and the Messenger of Allah said (yes, coitus interruptus is permitted).
In contrast, the Bible, thousands of years before Islam, required that captive women be formally married, after which they could not be sold on (reference: Bible, Deuteronomy, Chapter 21).
Snatching a Married Slave Woman Away From Her Husband
Even if a male slave managed to marry a female slave and a small family began to take shape, the master still had the right to snatch that woman away for himself.
Sahih Bukhari, Book of Marriage:
[(25) Chapter: "Forbidden to you are: your mothers, your daughters..."]:
Anas ibn Malik said: The verse {and the muhsanat (chaste married women) among women} refers to free women who have husbands; they are forbidden, except those whom your right hands possess. He saw no harm in a man (i.e. the master) taking back his (married) slave woman from his male slave (for himself).
Grade: Authentic (Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut)
This same horrifying concept is repeated in Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani's commentary on Sahih Bukhari (Fath al-Bari), where he confirms this narration and its authenticity (link):
In the narration of al-Kushmayhani: a slave girl (from the slave's marriage). This was connected by Isma'il al-Qadi in his book "Ahkam al-Quran" with an authentic chain of transmission through the route of Sulayman al-Taymi from Abu Mijlaz from Anas ibn Malik, who said regarding the verse "al-muhsanat": they are free women who have husbands, except those whom your right hands possess. He clarified that there is no harm in a master taking the slave woman who is in his slave's marriage and having intercourse with her.
Is this the Islamic family system for slaves that religious groups take such pride in?
Separating a Newborn Child From Its Slave Mother and Selling It
One of the gravest injustices of Islamic law was that a master could snatch children away from their slave mothers and sell them in the marketplace at will, or keep the child and sell both the slave father and mother. In both cases, separation between children and parents occurred, and the family was torn apart.
Imam Abdullah ibn Abi Zayd writes in his Maliki jurisprudence treatise (link):
A master may not separate a slave mother from her child in a sale until the child's first set of teeth has come in (approximately 6 months of age).
Every mother would weep tears of blood if her six-month-old child were separated from her and sold in the slave markets.
This same point about separating mothers from their children and selling them is also found in the following hadith:
Sunan Ibn Majah (link):
Jabir ibn Abdullah says: We used to sell our slave women and mothers of children during the lifetime of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and we saw no problem in doing so.
This narration has also been declared "authentic" by the Saudi mufti al-Albani (link).
This narration also involves separation between enslaved parents and their children. The only difference is that instead of selling the child, the mother and father are being sold.
This is not a minor one-line ruling. This is 1,400 years of Muslim history, a history in which not hundreds of thousands but tens of millions of slave mothers and slave fathers were separated from their children over 1,400 years. The slave mother was at least allowed to remain with her child until two teeth had grown, but the slave father was not even granted that right; he could be sold before the child's birth or immediately after, whenever it pleased the master. Enslaved mothers and fathers had no family, no children nearby to support them in old age.
And yet Muslims declare the Prophet Muhammad greater than the Buddha, even though the teachings of the Buddha led his follower Ashoka to ban the slave trade and shut down all slave markets eight hundred years before Islam.
And a Christian man from the era of the companions (640 CE) described the situation of Muslims' killing, snatching of children from their mothers, and other crimes against humanity as follows (link):
"They snatch the child from the mother's arms and thrust it into slavery. The child weeps on the ground and the mother hears but what can she do? She watches her loved ones torn from her embrace. Two children go to two masters and she herself goes to yet another third. Her children weep with tears. She looks at them and milk flows from her breast: go, my darlings, God be with you."
Now a question for the religious class: where was your Islamic family system when the families of hundreds of thousands of slaves were being destroyed in this manner?
Compare all of this with the fact that as a result of the Buddha's teachings, his follower Ashoka the Great banned the slave trade and closed all slave markets eight hundred years before Islam. Islam, by contrast, not only continued slavery but also provided religious justification for tearing apart the families of enslaved people.
Would the Great Islamic Empire Have Collapsed Had It Simply Granted Slaves the Right That Their Children Would Not Be Taken From Them?
The excuse of religious groups is that Islam is against slavery, but was compelled to continue it due to the conditions of the time. But our question is this:
Even if we accept that in the past, the complete abolition of slavery was not possible due to warfare, it was entirely possible for Islam to have gone much further in granting slaves "basic human rights."
Yes, if Islam had not subjected slave women to rape by multiple masters through temporary arrangements similar to Shia mut'ah, and had instead, like the Jews and Christians, given such a captive or slave woman the permanent status of a wife who could not be sold onward, this would not have brought the great Islamic empire and its economy to ruin.
Likewise, if Islam had granted the enslaved father and slave mother the right that their six-month-old children would not be snatched from them and sold in markets, would that have caused the great Islamic empire to collapse and its economy to sink?
Conclusion: A Fair Analysis
If this entire debate is weighed on the scales of statistics, history, and logic, the truth emerges clearly: atheism or secularism did not destroy the family system. Rather, it provided the family with a new, transparent, and humane foundation.
-
The truth is that the real secret of a strong family system was hidden not in religion but in economic conditions and the helplessness of women. The moment women gained economic freedom, they refused to accept "exploitation" in the name of "family system."
-
If the religious class wishes to take pride in its system, let it be pride in the fact that relationships in their society are built on happiness and equality, not in the fact that women there have no way out.
-
A home where two people live by their own will and with dignity is a thousand times better than a home where one party is shackled by nothing but chains of compulsion.
Therefore, if religious figures must feel shame, let it be over the injustices done to women and their economic exploitation, not over the breaking of an exploitative system whose very foundation was unjust. For modern humanity, "the right to freedom" and "self-respect" take precedence over any social structure built upon oppression.
Please also read this related article:
Hassan Radwan