Misconceptions About a Pakistani Divorce

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Friday, May 16, 2008; Page A18

The May 8 Metro article "Islamic Divorce Ruled Not Valid in Maryland" contained several misconceptions that I feel compelled to correct, not only because of my own case but, more important, because they cast aspersions on Islamic marriages and Pakistani law.

First, the Pakistani marriage contract under which my wife and I were married explicitly set forth the division of property in the event of divorce, much as a prenuptial agreement does in the United States. Under that agreement, each party was entitled to retain property in his or her own name as well as half of any property held jointly. My property rights and my wife's property rights were the same in that respect.

Second, the divorce proceeding that the talaq procedure initiated was not unilateral. There is an administrative and court process in Pakistan, in which my wife chose not to participate, that would have safeguarded any rights she wished to assert. The Maryland courts, however, refused to hear any evidence about Pakistani law and procedure on these or any other points -- a fundamental violation of due process rights.

Third, I never took the position that she was entitled to only $2,500 while I would retain $2 million. As a result of the Pakistani order of divorce, my ex-wife received property with a total value of approximately $500,000.

Fourth, the only issue in the Maryland proceeding was the division of my pension. Although the Maryland court found it contrary to public policy not to give half that pension to my ex-wife, I would note that the laws of a number of states also provide that retirement benefits are not shared property in a divorce settlement.

Thus, bizarrely, Maryland has refused to apply a foreign law that is consistent with the laws of its sister states and the federal government, which Maryland courts do recognize and apply. I would also note that Maryland law would enforce a U.S. prenuptial agreement to the same effect.

Only foreign Muslims, it appears, do not get the benefit of such comity.

IRFAN ALEEM

Karachi, Pakistan


© 2008 The Washington Post Company