How prevalent was it for Muslim women to convert to get out of their marriages in colonial India before 1939?

  • 3
    Apostasy is punishable by death within islam. It's a way to divorce someone for sure. – Jos Feb 29 '20 at 0:26
  • 1
    I don't have any knowledge of the Indian context, but I wanted just to clarify, for those who don't know it already, Islam does not ban divorce as is in some Christian branches. In the other hand, apostasy is a great sin punishable by death. – ahmed Mar 2 '20 at 0:55
  • muslim man can divorce easily (triple talaq), but for muslim woman it is not that easy. But if she apostatizes and runs (hopefully very far) away she could ask for civil divorce. As a new christian, she could also claim the Pauline Privilege. – Luiz Mar 28 '20 at 17:06

Conversion to Christianity was not the only option women had. The purpose of the 1939 Act was to “consolidate and clarify” provisions already available to Muslim women. Contemporary writer Sheikh Abdul Haq pointed out the use of conversion to obtain a divorce had two issues. First, that it was a misinterpretation of Muslim law by non-Muslim courts. Second, that it was the result of women having almost no other options.

From the book Inscribing South Asian Muslim Women: An Annotated Bibliography & Research Guide by Tahera Aftab:

enter image description here

He goes on to argue that the traditional Islamic law should be restored, which would grant women more leverage.

enter image description here

‘Tafwiz’ refers to “talaq-i-tafwiz” which is the right of a Muslim woman to dissolve her marriage on her husband's behalf. This option for divorce was delegated to a wife if her husband chose to do so.

From Talaq-i-Tafwid: The Muslim Woman’s Contractual Access to Divorce: An Information Kit

This publication primarily focuses upon a procedure recognized by Islam – talaq-i-tafwid or the contractual delegation to the wife of the right to pronounce talaq on behalf of her husband in regard to her own marriage.

From the same publication there are two excerpts from pre-1939:

“Delegated divorce, talaq-i-tafwiz. This is a curious survival of the old property rights of the husband over his wife. He may appoint an attorney to divorce her on his behalf just as he might appoint an attorney to deal with his property.”

Seymour Vesey-Fitzgerald, Muhammadan Law: An Abridgment According to its Various Schools(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1931), p. 77.

Delegation of divorce is the assignment of a power . . ; it is not agency, and therefore the husband can not retract from it; so much so that if he gives her . . . [such authority], and then swears that he will not repudiate her, but she divorces herself, according to the most approved opinion, the husband shall not be treated as guilty of breaking his oath

Muhammad Ala-ud-Din Haskafi, Durr-ul-Mukhtar (trans. by B.M. Dayal; 1913 edn. reprinted Law Publishing Co. Lahore, n.d.), p. 172

In addition I have found the term khula, mentioned in this thesis:

enter image description here

I didn't find many useful references to this term, but in concept it seems similar to Tafwid. 'Mehr' is a kind of dower, paid by the groom to the bride. Women who initiated divorce often lost the right to their own dowry as well. In many of the references to Tafwid, I found that it was primarily upper class or intellectuals who were allowed to use (or knew of) this method for divorce.

If using conversions was due to courts misinterpreting Islamic law, the chances of an uneducated woman knowing her options were slim. For those who had no means of navigating a divorce, conversion may have been the least strenuous option. The question also asks how common this was, which is difficult to estimate given that India is a huge and diverse country, and laws can be interpreted differently from place to place.

  • Well done. I like this answer. – Mark C. Wallace Jun 29 '20 at 18:20
  • What would have been the chance that the courts didn't care about how Islamic law should have been practised, and that village elders/such people would have been more knowledgeable? Just a hunch that the British might not have cared all that much about "native" laws... – gktscrk Jun 29 '20 at 18:30

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy