Ahmed at Saudi Jeans was quick to link to a piece from the Saudi liberal movement website Muntidiatna reporting that the court ordered divorce of Fatima and her husband has been overturned. The major Saudi papers have caught up in today’s editions.
Ahmed aptly notes that this new decision strikes a serious blow to the concept of tribalism and the unwarranted powers it sometimes exercises in the Saudi system. I realize that nationalism is a concept over which many raise objections. Here, though, by insisting that all Saudis are equal under the law, it is a vast improvement over tribalism, where only members of a particular tribe might be equal.
Judiciary Council overturns forced-divorce decision
Walaa Hawari | Arab NewsJEDDAH: Over four years after a judge in Jouf annulled the marriage of Fatima and Mansour at the behest of Fatima’s half brothers, the Supreme Judiciary Council in Riyadh on Saturday overruled the decision and ordered that the couple be reunited in matrimony.
“The divorce ruling is void, therefore the return of the couple together is inevitable now and does not require (another) marriage ceremony,” Ahmad Al-Sudairi, who has been providing the couple pro bono representation, told Arab News.
Fatima was pregnant with the couple’s second child when on June 20, 2005 a judge ruled in favor of Fatima’s half brothers and divorced her from Mansour Al-Timani in absentia.
It took the couple seven months to discover that they had been divorced against their will and without their knowledge. The half brothers claimed that Mansour deceived Fatima’s father in 2002 regarding his tribal affiliation, and that Mansour’s real tribal background made the marriage incompatible.
…
Saudi Gazette/Okaz have the more comprehensive reporting on the case. It seems Fatima’s brothers aren’t happy with the latest decision and will seek to have it overturned on appeal. With the Supreme Judiciary Council having made this decision keeping the couple together, that leaves only the King as possible arbiter. I think it exceptionally unlikely that he will disagree with the Council, however.
‘Forced divorce’ couple can stay married: Court
By Adnan Al-Shabrawi and Muhammad Al-IniziJEDDAH/DAMMAM – In a dramatic decision that could have far-reaching consequences for cases of ‘forced divorces’ in the Kingdom, the High Court in Riyadh has overturned a previous court decision that had divorced a young Saudi couple against their wishes.
The High Court overturned a verdict passed by the Al-Jouf Court four years ago that had ordered the separation of the Saudi couple Mansour Al-Taimani and Fatima Al-Azzaz on the grounds that the husband was of an ‘inferior’ social status. The case has been widely reported in the local and international media.
The couple had been married in 2003, with the consent of Al-Azzaz’s father, as required under Saudi law. However, when her father died, her half brothers approached the court in Al-Jouf to dissolve the marriage, arguing that her husband, Al-Taimani, was of a so-called inferior class.
Al-Azzaz refused to divorce her husband because she claimed that her brothers were using this argument as a pretext to get control of her property.
…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
January:31:2010 - 13:26
Ok I definately am a 100% believer of telepathic communications. No further comment.
At any rate (my new slogan), I am happy to see more equality.
January:31:2010 - 16:34
I am so happy to hear the news. In fact, I was thinking about that case in another context and was wondering what ever happened to the couple.
I hope the brothers can be brought to see sense by their fellow tribe members.
January:31:2010 - 17:24
John,
The link to Muntidiatna is broken.
I think what’s most important here is the fact that the couple want to stay married and the family is interfering with that decision and wants to break the marriage for whatever. More than the question of the equality of all tribes, this is an encroachment upon the individual right to decide to marry a person. Along with the concept of the equality of tribes, the judgement should also recognise the right of two individuals to marry. Otherwise, in another case where the couple do come from equal tribes, the family can still interfere with the marriage if the couple’s right to stay married is not recognised.
January:31:2010 - 18:32
Daisy, the link is working for me.
I can conceive of some situations in which it might be proper for a family to interfere–one spouse abusing the other, for example–but not because they just don’t like the spouse’s background. Again, that just leaves the door open for arbitrary actions taken by arbitrary judges.
January:31:2010 - 21:30
John,
The link is not working.
January:31:2010 - 22:20
Don’t understand the problem, but certainly believe it!
Try: http://montdiatna.com:9696/forum/showthread.php?t=136897
January:31:2010 - 23:37
The link works for me too. Perhaps it works in a geographically selective manner.
The second one does too.
John, I agree about times when family involvement is more welcome. I think the main issue here is that whatever objections the brothers may have had to Fatima’s marriage, they were dealt with appropriately (ultimately) and in a way that fosters the role of the broader collective, rather than the family, the tribe or the ethnicity.
January:31:2010 - 23:55
Frankly, once Fatima’s father gave his approval–and he did–then the brothers should have been told to put a sock in it. They had no right to supersede the father’s–and of course the bride’s–wishes. They were being bullies and nothing more.
February:01:2010 - 02:48
I have to say it made me laugh when one of the brothers replied that his sister was in the shelter because she was running away from her husband (not them). Sore losers.
There’s also plenty of tribal outrage in forums and comment spaces of news sources, calling the reunited couple with racial slurs and denouncing the decision as “un-Islamic”, though I’m happy to say they seem to be in a minority.
February:01:2010 - 05:41
John–agreed. I thought it was after the father died, which is a time for catching up on old grievances often.
M–Interesting, thanks.
February:01:2010 - 08:50
Should we understand that the couple have been keep apart during 4 long years ? If that’s the case I can hardly imagine the psychological impact for the children. What a shame.
February:01:2010 - 10:33
Not very good for the kids, but the parents seem to have done their best to keep things together. And yes, the parents were separated by law for four years. In the West, there’d be a terrific civil suit against the brothers and the court, but it’s unlikely in the KSA.
February:01:2010 - 11:18
John, in a democracy this kind of legal decision won’t be delivered in the first place.
February:01:2010 - 11:26
John,
About the second link – the cache version of the Arabic page opens in Google, but the current page or the English translation don’t open – it says the page does not exist! Looks like a technical problem.
But may be you can do a post on the Saudi Liberal Movement.
February:01:2010 - 12:27
John–Just for information on technicalities, from Canada both the links you gave work perfectly.
February:02:2010 - 14:01
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Sunnie and Courtney Brand, Family Mediation. Family Mediation said: No Divorce for Fatima | Crossroads Arabia: Ahmed at Saudi Jeans was quick to link to a piece from the Saudi libera… http://bit.ly/drGhb7 [...]