Islam's great injustices against women when it comes to divorce

Muslims assert that the modern non-religious Western world has allegedly burdened and caused misery for women by granting them "Equal Rights" akin to men.

They further claim that Islam does not grant "Equal Rights" to women but instead provides them rights based on the principle of "Justice."

Nevertheless, these Islamic apologists are totally wrong. Islam neither gave equal rights to women nor provided them rights on the principles of justice.

Did you know that:

Liaan is considered a 'RIGHT' for men to accuse their wives of adultery without the need for four witnesses.
Even if they personally haven't witnessed any wrongdoing by their wives, they are still allowed to accuse them of engaging in illicit relationships based solely on their suspicions.
Through Li'aan, unscrupulous men gain the power and freedom to tarnish the reputation of their innocent wives. It becomes a tool in the hands of distrustful, jealous husbands to make their wives' lives miserable and even use it as a means of blackmailing them.

But the opposite is not allowed in Islamic Sharia, i.e.:

Islam does not give the right of Li'aan to women.
This means that even if wives personally witness their husbands engaging in ZINA (fornication) with other women, or even if they witness their husbands committing rape, they are not allowed to accuse their husbands in any Islamic court.
Even if wives have seen their husband raping their own minor daughters (or even grown-up daughters), still they cannot accuse their husbands of rape.
Or even if they have seen their husbands raping any male child (which happens very often in the Quran Schools in Pakistan), or just having a sexual relationship with any other male, still neither can they go against their husbands in Islamic courts, nor separate themselves from such evil husbands through a divorce.
If the wives still dare to accuse their husbands of fornication/rape in an Islamic court, they must produce four eyewitnesses for their claim.
However, the wives themselves cannot be among those four eyewitnesses; only male witnesses are considered valid. The testimony of women is not accepted in cases of fornication in Islamic Sharia. It is not considered 'half' testimony; rather, it is entirely disregarded. You can find more information on this issue in our detailed article: The Testimony of a Woman Is Not Accepted (Not Even as Half) in Serious Hudud Cases such as Rape, Robbery, Murder, etc.
If the wife cannot bring four male witnesses to the court, she will face 80 lashes for Qadhf, which means wrongfully accusing her husband, even if she is telling the truth (link).
Wives are placed in a vulnerable position in Islam. They cannot take their husbands to court over accusations of adultery/rape, nor can they obtain freedom from such husbands through divorce (please refer to our article about Khul’ خلع). Even Khul' is not a right granted to women in Islam; it remains at the discretion of the husband, and he may deny it to his wife. In Islam, there are no viable options available for women to separate themselves from such husbands who engage in evil actions.

One of the prominent Islamic Fatwa websites, Islamweb.net writes (link):

Li‘aan Is Not Applicable from a wife against her Husband:
Li‘aan is only applicable when a man accuses his wife of committing Zina and she denies it, but when a woman slanders her husband, this does not, on its own, warrant Li‘aan (as Li’aan is only reserved for the men) … "If a woman accuses her husband of committing Zina, she would be liable for the Hadd of slander (i.e. 80 lashes)."

Another one of the prominent Saudi Salafi Fatwa websites is “Islam Question Answers”. It writes (link):

As for the wife, if she accuses her husband of zina (i.e. adultery), but she cannot produce four witnesses, then she should be given the hadd punishment for slander … If a woman slanders her husband, she should be given the Hadd punishment (of 80 lashes), .. If a woman knows that her husband has committed zina but she has no proof, namely four witnesses, then she should (only) advise him and remind him, and tell him to fear Allaah.

Thus, this Saudi Mufti is telling women they should not go to courts, but LIMIT themselves ONLY to advise their husbands.

The Origin of the Drama of Li'aan

There is no Allah present in heaven, and it was Muhammad himself who was making the revelations in the name of Allah. This has led to the presence of "human mistakes" in these revelations, unlike true divine revelations, which should be perfect from the outset. The notion of Li'aan also reflects this human error and the "trial and error method."

Initially, the writer of the Quran (i.e. Muhammad) stated that in the case of an accusation of adultery, four eyewitnesses were required who had personally seen the act of penetration. Failure to produce these four witnesses would result in all the witnesses being lashed with 80 stripes for making false accusations, even if they were telling the truth.

Common sense dictates that punishing witnesses with 80 stripes for telling the truth is contrary to justice. This ruling was seemingly made by Muhammad during the incident of IFK, where he wanted to punish the men who testified against his wife, 'Aisha. There he first made this new rule if the number of witnesses is less than 4, then they should be lashed 80 times (even if they are telling the Truth). Please refer to our detailed article: The incident of Ifk and the Ruling of 4 Witnesses.

However, the problem arose when the Sahaba (i.e. male companions of Muhammad) found their wives engaging in sexual activities with other men. They accused their wives of adultery without presenting four male eyewitnesses.

This situation became a significant problem for Muhammad, as his male Sahaba became extremely angry about the condition of four male eyewitnesses and they refused to accept it, reaching the brink of rebellion. Muhammad needed their support for his wars and didn't want to anger them.

As a result, Muhammad had to introduce a new revelation, abrogating the earlier requirement of four male witnesses for husbands and allowing his male companions to accuse their wives of adultery openly by simply swearing in the name of Allah. However, Muhammad did not grant women the right of Li'aan in his newly revealed verse, while the poor women were unable to rebel against him and Islam.

Sahih Muslim, 1498c:

Sa'd b. Ubada said: Messenger of Allah, if I were to find with my wife a man, should I not touch him before bringing four witnesses? Allah's Messenger said: Yes. He said: By no means. By Him Who has sent you with the Truth, I would hasten with my sword to him before that.

Therefore, when Muhammad saw that the male companions were on the verge of rebellion, then he once again played the drama of new revelation, where he gave this “exception” only to the male husbands, to make an accusation of adultery against their wives even without the 4 witnesses, and they will not be lashed 80 times for Qadhf (i.e. the false accusation).

Quran 24:6-7:
Those who accuse their wives and do not have any witnesses except themselves, should swear four times in the name of God, the testimony of each such person being that he is speaking the truth, And (swear) a fifth time that if he tells a lie the curse of God be on him.

Human intellect clearly guides us, if Allah is really All-Wise, then he would have never put the ridiculous condition of 4 male eyewitnesses (who saw the penis penetrating the vagina clearly) in the first place.

And the 2nd condition of Qadhf is even more ridiculous than the condition of 4 male eyewitnesses, i.e. even if the wife is telling the truth, but she does not have 4 eyewitnesses, still Islam blames her for telling a lie. This means not only her testimony will be rejected, but she will also be punished brutally for telling the truth.

And the miseries of such women go beyond that. Other rulings of Islaic Sharia make it impossible for such women to get rid of their evil husbands through divorce, or through Khul', or through any Islamic court. In Islam:

Women don't have the right to divorce their husbands.
And it is a big misunderstanding today that Khul' is a woman's right. No, it is not, but Khul' is also a right of a husband in Islamic Sharia. If the husband does not agree with Khul', then no Islamic court can grant freedom to a woman from her husband. Please read our detailed article on this issue: Khul’ خلع (i.e. getting freedom from a husband) is not the “right” of a woman, but it is still the “right” of a husband to either grant it or to deny it. Yes, many modern Islamic States of TODAY do give the right of taking a divorce to women in the name of Khul'. It is a good step, nevertheless, it is not Islamic Sharai, but only a Bid'ah (innovation) in Islamic Sharia.
If the husband is not willing, then no Islamic court has the right to compel him to give divorce to his wife.

Muhammad introduced these 2 ridiculous conditions of 4 eyewitnesses and Qadhf in the incident of IFK, in which slander was made against ‘Aisha. Muhammad was extremely angry with those people and wanted to punish them at every cost who accused 'Aisha. Therefore, he also invented the punishment of Qadhf in this same incident, where all the witnesses were lashed 80 times. Please read our IFK incident for the details.

Excuse from Islamic apologists:

The only excuse that is given by Islamic apologists for this Islamic injustice against women is this:

Islam grants men the right of "Liaan" (accusation of adultery) as a way to disown any illegitimate child born to their wives. In contrast, men cannot become pregnant, and the question of the lineage of a child does not occur in case of men. That is why, Islam does not give the right of Liaan to the wife.

However, this argument lacks merit, and it does not absolve Islam of its evident double standards. The issue goes beyond merely determining the lineage of a child. If it were solely about that, then a man should also be required to present four witnesses against a woman, who is NOT Pregnant, as no issue of the child's lineage occurs in this case. Thus, failure to provide 4 witnesses in the case of a non-pregnant woman should result in similar punishment for him, namely, 80 lashes.

Nevertheless, Islam allows a husband to accuse his wife of adultery, even if she is not pregnant, putting her in a situation where she could be wrongfully accused despite her innocence. On the other hand, if the husband himself is involved in adultery or rape, the wife is not granted the right to accuse him through Liaan or to separate herself from such a wicked spouse. These double standards persist and cannot be ignored.

In the case of Liaan, women face several hardships that men do not have to endure

The first question is, what protection did Allah provide to the woman and her child if a man wrongfully accuses her?

The answer is ZERO.

Allah provided ZERO protection to the innocent woman and her child in this case. This false accusation can be a result of any misunderstanding, or even if he is a mistrusting person, or simply if he is an evil person and only wants to harm her.

Furthermore, during this period, Islam forbids her from seeking the love and support of any other man through marriage until she delivers the child. This restriction is known as 'Iddah, which prolongs her emotional and social hardships.

This Islamic 'Iddah of a pregnant woman is based upon a scientific mistake of the writer of the Quran (i.e. Muhammad), where he thought that the sperm of another man can water the fetus. In order to understand this scientific mistake of the writer of the Quran, please read our article: ‘Iddah (i.e. waiting period) is illogical & unnecessary & oppressive & injustice against the women

Furthermore, if a woman remarries, she is compelled to leave her children in the care of her relatives, such as her parents or sister. This is due to the belief held in Islam, as mentioned in two Fatwas (Fatwa 1 and Fatwa 2), that the child might suffer from the potential animosity of the new husband or the mother's preoccupation with her new marriage, leading to neglect of her children and potential harm to them. As a result, she loses the right of custody over her children.

Please read the following two Fatwas (Fatwa 1 and Fatwa 2):

It is true that if the mother remarries, she loses the right of the custody of her children, and some scholars reported a consensus among the scholars on this issue ...
“This is because the child is harmed by the hatred of the 2nd husband who may get fed up with him and because the mother, by necessity, may neglect her child out of her desire to please her husband and her being preoccupied by him, and all this harms the child. This is why she loses the right of fostering.”
Moreover, An-Nawawi from the Shaafi’e School of jurisprudence, said in “Al-Majmoo’”: “Because if she remarries, her husband has the right to enjoy her (at all times) except at the time of worship (i.e. when she is performing an act of worship), so she cannot foster her children (form a previous marriage).”

These justifications are flawed for several reasons:

Islam's claim that stepfathers will invariably harbor hatred towards their stepchildren is unfounded. This issue emerged when Muhammad declared that adopted children could not be treated as biological children. This ruling was then extended to stepchildren, which goes against the natural inclination of parents to form meaningful bonds with their adopted or stepchildren.
Islam's assumption that a mother will neglect her children in order to please her new husband is a negative portrayal of mothers and contradicts the natural instinct of maternal care and love.
The idea that a woman's primary duty in her second marriage is to provide sexual services to her husband and that children hinder this purpose is an oppressive and unfair view of women and their roles within a family.

It is unfortunate that many people, including a majority of Muslims, are unaware of these oppressive rulings within Islamic Sharia.

Due to the cruelty and oppression inherent in this Islamic ruling of separating a mother from her children upon remarriage, Islamic countries themselves have rejected this aspect of Sharia law. These laws were removed from the legal systems of Islamic countries due to their incompatibility with human rights and basic compassion.

Similar changes have occurred in the case of Khul' (خلع), where Islamic Sharia was once again abandoned by Muslims themselves. Courts were granted the right to grant freedom through Khul' without the requirement of paying ransom money, despite opposition from some Islamic scholars who believed it was solely the husband's right.

These examples illustrate how certain aspects of Islamic Sharia have been amended or discarded in various Islamic countries as they clashed with fundamental principles of fairness and justice.

Study 1

Study 2

Abstract:
Pakistan is an Islamic country. The laws made by the Parliament and Judiciary are administered according to the injunction of Islam. There are many laws made for the protections of women. Among these rights granted, right of women to khul " is also awarded by Islamic Law. Khul " is the proposal given to the husband by the wife for divorce. Judicial Khul " is exercised in Pakistani courts, according to Article 2(ix) of dissolution of Muslims Marriages Act 1939. A large number of Ulama (Islamic Jurists) even today, refuse to recognize khul " granted by courts without the consent of the husband as a valid divorce. Confusion is caused by two parallel and conflicting interpretations of the Islamic Law. On one hand, there is the statutory law and interpretation by the Superior Courts of Pakistan and on the other hand, is the interpretation of Jurists of Islamic Law with strong arguments from Quran and Sunnah.

Why does Islam call the innocent child a BASTARD in the case of Liaan?

Islam's treatment of the innocent child in the case of Liaan raises troubling questions. Not only does Islam permit the husband to accuse his wife and disown the child, but it goes even further:

Islam labels the child as a BASTARD (referred to as "Walad al-Haram" in Islamic terminology) despite the child's complete innocence. Even if the mother is proven innocent and wrongfully accused, the child bears this stigmatizing label.

The burden of the child's upbringing falls solely on the mother, with the father being exempt from any financial responsibilities towards the innocent child.

Even if the mother did make a mistake and engaged in a sexual act with another man, Islam still denies the biological father the right to acknowledge, love, and provide for the child. This raises the question: Why is Islam punishing the innocent child by depriving them of their biological father's love, care, and name?

Islam compels the so-called "Bastard" child to carry only the name of their mother, making them easily identifiable in society and subjecting them to humiliation.

These Sharia Rulings in Islam regarding innocent children seem to defy logic and reason, which raises doubts about their divine origin. Such flaws in the Sharia Rulings suggest that these decisions were the result of Muhammad's personal judgments rather than divine revelations from an all-knowing deity.

Please read our detailed article: Illegitimate Child: What is the WISDOM of Allah in calling them BASTARDS (Walad al-Haram), depriving them of the Name, Love, Upbringing and Inheritance of their fathers