Hijra: An Event that changed the course of human history

by Dr, Aslam Abdullah

Madinah was still a city with non-Muslims in the majority. The total number of Muslims in Medina some 1437 years ago was not more than 75. Yet, at the command of God, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and his companion Abdu Bakr (RTA) traveled to this city to implement the divine guidance for a better society.

Why did Allah choose Madinah to be the city to establish a society based on divine ideals? Why was this not done in Makkah, the city where the House of Allah was built by the patriarch of monotheism Ibrahim )PBUH). 

A simple answer that is often given by many is that the Prophet was persecuted in Makkah and the political climate there was not ripe to live Islam, hence the prophet moved to the city that was more open to his ideals.

Well, the messengers and prophets never turn their back upon people they are sent to and run away from persecution. They endure and stay their ground. So it was not the persecution that led the Prophet to Medinah. It was primarily to prove that divine guidance is not limited to a particular place or a particular town. It can be lived anywhere in the world regardless of the number of people who adhere to the message.

In fact, the migration demolished several practices and myths that the world had entertained for ages and has been entertaining even today. It demolished the false division between the house of peace (Darul Amn) and the house of war (Dar ul Harb). It demolished the division between the Land of Islam and the land of Kufr. It proved the idea that everything that exists was created by God and He is in control of everything. He is the owner of everything that is out there in our universe. It also proved the point that regardless of the number, the divine guidance needs to be shared with everyone.

Medinah promoted the idea of a plural society with respect to all.

What happened in Medina after the arrival of the Prophet was something unique and unheard of in the society that was divided into tribal lines. 

The prophet upon his arrival in Medina invited the major tribes to come together and sign a covenant to ensure the interests of all. The covenant also known as the constitution of Medina promoted the idea of common citizenship for the people living in Medinah, regardless of their ethnic or religious backgrounds. All were referred to as one umma or nation.

The prophet made the security of the people of Medinah a top priority and the signatories were asked to participate in the defense of the city as one people. Moreover, they were assured that if one of them is killed while defending the city, the entire population would take care of the family of the fallen slider. This is what one calls insurance in modern terminology.

The covenant also ensured that each religious community is given autonomy in dealing with its affairs according to its religious ideals and traditions. Each was guaranteed its religious family and personal law provided it does not infringe upon the rights of others.

The prophet also ensured that the rights of women and weaker sections of the society are secured. Additionally, he accepted the right to dissent with the covenant when four tribes of Awas refused to sign the treaty.

The process of formulating the covenant was lengthy, The tribes would discuss it among them and then all tribes would have discourse on its salient feature. It was democracy in action at the grassroots level.

So what are the lessons of hijra?

1. The distinction between Darul Islam and Darul Kufr is false. Every land belongs to the creator.

2. The divine guidance can be lived anywhere.

3, Muslims must not isolate them from the society they live in.

4, Muslims should get involved in societies they live in.

5. Muslims must ensure the safety and security of all citizens and should join the system to protect all.

7. Muslims should respect the personal and family laws of others.

8. Muslims must follow a system that secures the participation of each member of the society in the decision making process.

9. Muslims must not be entrapped by the false divisions people create on the basis of ethnicity and religion.

10. The monotheism means that humanity should be treated as one.

It was this society that was created by the Prophet and for this, he was asked to leave his birthplace that was also the center of monotheism and the place where the first house of God was built.

War is Ugly and would Destroy both India and Pakistan

by Dr. Aslam Abdullah

India and Pakistan are engaged in a war of words that in the view of many may turn into an actual war causing millions to suffer. If the countries go to war, they would destroy billions to hurt each other without achieving any purpose other than glorifying their pride. War never solves any problem, it exacerbates it. War is not in the interest of the warring nations. It only helps those who know how to turn human corpses into money. The taxpayers’ money is usually spent in importing arms and ammunition from weapon manufacturers, who do not care about human lives.

The war threats force the nations to spend more on war preparations. Every bullet that is fired to prepare the troops costs 22 cents and the arms industry produce 12 billion rounds of bullets every year, most of which is spent in preparing for wars.

It is in the interests of weapon manufacturers to ensure that wars continue perpetually, otherwise, their factories would be closed down and their source of livelihood would dry out. All they need to do is to buy a few politicians and generals, journalists, academicians and researchers in nations in conflict with each other to convince the power elites that war is in the best interest of their national security who would use every possible means to prepare public opinion for war. They would use religion, scriptures, God, nationalism and what not to promote the war.

Pakistan spends some 23 percent of its national spending on defense compared with 1.3 percent on health and 7.8 percent on education. India is no different in that. Imagine, if the two countries, instead of spending $60 billion on defense spend half of that amount on education and health, their dependence on IMF and world-leading banks would diminish.

It is proven that when nations spend more on health care and education, they achieve higher standards of living and development. When they spend more on defense, they live in perpetual fear and anxiety. Ironically, some of the countries that invest heavily on defense are classified as Muslim majority countries.

The two countries are not unique in spending their vital national resources on defense. Military spending is important to most nations, with each country spending to its own need and ability. But the need and ability are often determined by political circumstances. Canada spends 6.3 percent of its total yearly budget on military spending. The United States spends 19.3 percent of its budget on military expenses. Mexico uses 3.3 percent of its budget for military spending.  Nicaragua spends 3.2 percent of its yearly budget on military expenses. In Columbia, military spending is 11.9 percent of its annual budget. Argentina military spending is 5.9 percent of its yearly budget.

In Scandinavia and Europe, military spending is relatively low. Norway spends 4.8 percent of its budget on military spending, while its neighbor Sweden spends 4.3 percent of its budget on the military. In the U.K., military spending is 6.3 percent of the yearly expenditure. In Germany, military spending is 3.3 percent. In France, military spending is 5.4 percent of France’s yearly budget. Italy uses 4.5 percent of its annual budget for military spending. The annual military spending of Spain is 4.2 percent.

In the Middle East, the level of military spending is generally higher than in Europe. In the United Arab Emirates, military spending makes up 45.7 percent of the country’s annual budget. In Iran, military spending is 21.7 percent of its allocated budget. The military expenditure of Pakistan is 23.1 percent of all its yearly expenditures.  Morocco spends 13.6 percent of its annual budget on military expenditures. The military of South Africa is 4.8 percent of its budget. In India, military spending is 18.6 percent of its total spending. Thailand spends 7 percent of its money on its military. Indonesia sends 6.5 percent of its budget in the military. Australia spends 7.1 percent of its budget on its military. New Zealand military spending is 3.1 percent of the New Zealand yearly budget. In China, 18.2 percent of the annual budget is spent on military expenses. South Korea spends 12 percent of its total yearly expenditures on the military. In Japan, the military spending percentage is 6.4 percent of the country’s annual budget. Russia spends 18.7 percent of its annual budget on the military.

When it comes to health care Canada spends 17.9 percent of its total yearly budget on health care. The United States spends 19.3 percent of its budget on health care expenses. Mexico uses 11.8 percent of its budget for health care. Nicaragua spends 17 percent of its yearly budget on health care. In Columbia, health care spending is 17 percent of its annual budget. Argentina health care spending is 14.2 percent of its yearly budget. Norway spends 17.9 percent of its budget on health care spending, while its neighbor Sweden spends 13.8 percent of its budget on health care. In the U.K., health care spending is 16.3 percent of the yearly expenditure. In Germany, health care spending is 17.9 percent. In France, health care spending is 16.7 percent of France’s yearly budget. Italy uses 14.2 percent of its annual budget for health care spending. The annual health care spending of Spain is 15.5 percent. In the United Arab Emirates, health care spending makes up 8.7 percent of the country’s annual budget. In Iran, health care spending is 11.5 percent of its allocated budget. The health care expenditure of Pakistan is 1.3 percent of all its yearly expenditures. Morocco spends 4.8 percent of its annual budget on health care expenditures. The health care of South Africa is 9.1 percent of its budget. In India, health care spending is 3.4 percent of its total spending. Thailand spends 11.3 percent of its money on its health care. Indonesia sends 6.2 percent of its budget in the health care. Australia spends 17 percent of its budget on its health care New Zealand health care spending is 18.4 percent of the New Zealand yearly budget. In China, 9.9 percent of the annual budget is spent on health care expenses. South Korea spends 11.7 percent of its total yearly expenditures on health care. In Japan, health care spending percentage is 17.9 percent of the country’s annual budget. Russia spends 10.8 percent of its annual budget on health care.

When it comes to spending on education, Canada spends 12.7 percent of its total yearly budget on education. The United States spends 17.1 percent of its budget on education expenses. Mexico uses 24.3 percent of its budget on education spending. Nicaragua spends 15 percent of its yearly budget on education. In Columbia, education spending is 15.6 percent of its annual budget. Argentina education spending is 13.8 percent of its yearly budget. Norway spends 16.2 percent of its budget on education spending, while Sweden spends 12.8 percent of its budget on education. In the U.K., education spending is 11.5 percent of the yearly expenditure. In Germany, education spending is 9.5 percent. In France, education spending is 11.4 percent of France’s yearly budget. Italy uses 10.3 percent of its annual budget for education spending. The annual education spending of Spain is 11.3 percent of its budget. In Tthe United Arab Emirates, education spending makes up 22.5 percent of the country’s annual budget. In Iran, education spending is 17.7 percent of its allocated budget. The education expenditure of Pakistan is 7.8 percent of all its yearly expenditures.  Morocco spends 26.4 percent of its annual budget on education expenditures. The education of South Africa is 18.5 percent of its budget. In India, education spending is 12.7 percent of its total spending. Thailand spends on education. Australia spends 13.3 percent of its budget on education. New Zealand education spending is 15.1 percent of the New Zealand yearly budget. In China, 12.1 percent of the annual budget is spent on education expenses. South Korea spends 15.5 percent of its total yearly expenditures on education. In Japan, the education spending percentage is 10.5 percent of the country’s annual budget. Russia spends 11.5 percent of its annual budget on the education.
Obviously, the money that is being spent on defense from taxpayers pockets who have been convinced that their safety lies only in a strong military. India and Pakistan have created a situation where the power elites fume hatred against each other and ensure that from time to time the slogans of war are raised to frighten their people and earn more of their tax money to buy more weapons.

Look at the following data to understand the amount of money the two countries have spent on strengthening their defense. Imagine if they live in peace without fearing any intervention from each other, how much growth and development they can achieve in a short period of time. War can be initiated any time, but peace requires patience and sustained efforts of visionary leaders who can swallow their pride and ego and work for the welfare and well being of common people.

India’s military budget is $53 Billion. Pakistan’s military budget is $7 Billion  

India has 4.7 million troops. This includes active troops, reserved troops, and paramilitary forces. India’s total troops’ strength is 4th in the world and more than China and the USA

Pakistan has 1.4 million troops. This includes active troops, reserved troops, and paramilitary forces. They are 10th in the list of most number of military troops in the world.

India possesses a total of 2086 Aircraft which is 4th in the world. This includes Fighter Aircraft, Bomber Aircraft Attack Aircraft and many other types.

Pakistan possesses 923 aircraft and is 11th in the world. This includes Fighter Aircraft, Bomber Aircraft, Attack Aircraft and many other types.

India has total 6464 battle tank which is 4th in the world.

Pakistan has a total 2924 battle tank which is 10th in the world

India owns 5 Military Satellites in space Aircraft carriers and is one of the only 18 countries with at least 1 Military Satellite.

Pakistan does not have any Military Satellite.

The total number of Navy Ship India possess is 295. They are 7th in the world in terms of Navy Ship strength.

Total Number of Navy Ship Pakistan possess is 197. Pakistan is 11th in the world in terms of Navy Ship strength.

India owns 13 Sub Marine which is 8th highest in the world.

Whereas Pakistan owns 5 Sub Marines,16th highest in the world.

 India owns a total of 11 Destroyers and is 6th in the list.

Pakistan owns 1 Destroyer and is 19th in the list.

India has 2 nuclear submarines and is one of the only 6 countries who owns a nuclear submarine.

Pakistan does not have any nuclear submarine.

India and Pakistan both have 90-110 Nuclear weapons and are 6th in the world.
Obliviously, it is in the best interests of the weapon industry to ensure that the two countries keep on piling arms and ammunition on a regular basis. This would not be possible without raising the slogans of war. This is precisely what the power elites of India and Pakistan are doing. They have enlisted the services of religious leaders to their cause who are invoking the name of God to prepare masses to get ready for the blood bath of their enemies.

Does Allah really want Muslims to kill his creation on His behalf?

Killing is a universal phenomenon. In every age and society, people have killed each other for multiple reasons.  Anger, hatred, jealousy, rancor, animosity,  malice greed, voracity, avidity, and uncontrollable egos are some of the reasons for actions resulting in the killing of humans. But killing in the name of God is something that does not make any sense, even though His name has always been invoked in killing His creation. It is the most profane idea that has always existed in human history.
According to a conservative estimate, some 295, 349, 000 human beings have been killed by people involving all religions. The following are estimates of some of the documented killings in our history

• The Crusades: 6,000,000, Thirty Years War: 11,500,000, French Wars of Religion: 4,000,000, Second Sudanese Civil War: 2,000,000, Lebanese Civil War: 250,000, Muslim Conquests of India: 80,000,000, C0ongolese Genocide (King Leopold II): 13,000,000, Armenian Genocide: 1,500,000, Rwandan Genocide: 800,000, Eighty Years' War: 1,000,000, Nigerian Civil War: 1,000,000, Great Peasants' Revolt: 250,000, First Sudanese Civil War: 1,000,000, Jewish Diaspora (Not Including the Holocaust): 1,000,000m, The Holocaust (Jewish and Homosexual Deaths): 6,500,000, Terrorism Since 2000: 150,000, Iraq War: 1500,000, US Western Expansion (Justified by "Manifest Destiny"):20,000,000, Atlantic Slave Trade (Justified by Christianity): 14,000,000, Aztec Human Sacrifice: 80,000, AIDS deaths in Africa largely due to opposition to condoms: 30,000,000, Spanish Inquisition: 50,000. In these estimates, not included are the killings that occurred in India in caste wars or invasions or the killing orchestrated by communist regimes in China and Russia or the colonial powers. 

In these killings, the zealots of religious communities invoke the name of God and convince themselves that they are acting on His behalf of and killing humans to please Him. They shout his name while slaughtering people. They seek his blessings before starting the killing and they thank Him after shedding the blood. It does not matter to them whether those killed were innocents or guilty. All they say that God has given them the approval to take the lives of as many deviant people as they can. Some make this judgment on the basis of the reading of their scriptures, some on the basis of dreams in which they see God, or some on the basis of voices they heard from sources claiming to be a god.

If God is keen on getting His own creation killed, why does he wait a religious group to act on His behalf? Why does he allow all religious groups to indulge in killing each other in His name? The crusaders were killing in the name of God and Muslims fighting against them were also invoking the name of God.

The purpose of religion was not to prepare human beings as bloodthirsty soldiers. It was not to kill others due to hatred, anger, greed, or jealousy. The purpose was to overcome such tendencies in one's behavior and kill the instinct to take revenge and kill others. 

God is not a bloodthirsty being that rejoices the killings of His own creation at the hands of the same creation without directly revealing himself to either killers or the killed why they have gone through the ordeal.  

If those who claimed to be messengers of God and the recipient of the divine guidance, were involved in wars, they were forced to do so to save innocent lives as they and their communities were attacked and were on the verge of annihilation by the enemies. Even in such situations, they are asked not to exceed the limits or commit excesses.

Thus the idea of a bloodthirsty God is not part of the divine guidance. God is compassionate and merciful. His mercy is prevalent everywhere. To use His name to promote violence and terror is against his guidance. He is the life-giver. He is not a psychopath who rejoices the killing of people at slightest deviations. He forgives people for their wrongs and mistakes. He enables them to overcome their weaknesses by turning to Him. His doors are open always and He reminds people that no one should ever feel hopeless.

Those who kill in his name, in fact, reject His mercy and forgiveness. They do not understand the meaning of dedicating to God. They do not comprehend the concept of compassion.  In fact, they act like God by dictating who lives and who dies.

Every religious community has experienced this behavior on the part of some of its adherents who are often instigated by a religious leadership that want to control masses for its own benefit.

In the Muslim community, many religious clerics have reached to the level of insanity in declaring them as the deputy of God on earth to determine the life and death of people. They are the ones who whisper like Satan in the minds of innocent people that God would be pleased if they kill people who are perceived as His enemies.  The irony is that none of these clerics would ever dare indulge in personal violence because they know the consequences for themselves and their families. They prefer others to die for God.

They have made a mockery of religion and God and they must be stopped. Only when religious leadership rededicate itself to the sanctity of human life even for those who revolt against God, we can counter terrorism and violence in a meaningful manner. It is not just the duty of Muslims but of every human being to reject violence in the name of God.

Muslim American Voters

Financially, the Muslim Americans are perhaps in the top three religious communities, in education, the second most educated, socially, they may be the most diverse community, but politically, they may be the weakest group in America. Estimates of their population vary from 3 million to 12 million, depending on whom you are talking to. The number of registered Muslim voters also varies from half a million to 6 million. The number of those who regularly vote in elections also varies depending on the survey and the sponsors of the survey. Some suggest that 30 percent registered Muslims to vote and the others say that 70 plus percent vote.
In the forthcoming elections in certain states, the Muslim voters may play a significant role if mobilized properly.
Nevada, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Colorado are, some of the states where they may be effective in presidential elections.
In elections for the senate, in Nevada, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania, their votes may decide the outcome.
In house elections, there are 38 congressional districts in New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Minnesota, Virginia, Colorado, Pennsylvania, California, and Texas, where their votes may count significantly.
But how can one make this analysis when the number of Muslim voters in these states is not accurately known.
There are two main reasons for this.
1. The victory margin in these states would be narrow and a few thousand extra votes might make a big difference.
2. The number of mosques and Islamic centers is significant in these states and congressional districts. One can assume that some 40 percent of all those who attend the worship services are registered, voters. If 60 percent of the registered Muslim voters vote, it can definitely impact the election outcome.
So what should be the Muslim electoral strategy?
1. To register as many Muslim citizens as voters as one can. It's important that in every public function that Muslims hold, voter registration should be given a priority.
2. To make use of the early voting facility in states where it is available. People can either send their ballots through the mail or submit them to designated agencies.
3. To ensure that every eligible voter comes out on the election day to vote.
4. To volunteer in the local electoral office the candidate they are supporting.
5. To precinct walk with others to campaign for the candidate.
An increased involvement would enable them to be part of the electoral process and may minimize their vulnerability to Islamophobes who might use election results to intimidate or harass them.
Doubtlessly, there is a significant section of the Muslim community, that does not believe in the electoral process and that regard election a useless activity. There is no need to engage them in any discussion on the issue on either religious or intellectual grounds. They have made up their minds and they would not change unless circumstances force them to review their point of view. It would be a waste of time and efforts  It is better to work with those who understand the significance of participation in elections.
Of course, there would be individuals and groups who would compare Islam and democracy and would argue that Islam is anti-democratic because sovereignty belongs to God only. The people who can make a distinction between an apple and a pear cannot be qualified to give their verdict on this issue. It is better to leave them to their own intellectual stagnation.
The November election is crucial for the country and the future direction of America would be set by the one who is elected. There are two distinct personalities and streams of thoughts. For someone who believes in the US constitution, the choice among the two candidates is not difficult to make. However, what is important is how the choice is reflected in ballots. What remains to be seen is who would take the time off to visit the polling booth to cast his or her votes, because, in electoral politics, this is what it means.

,

Marriage and Divorce: A Quranic perspective

Coming together of a man and a woman to form a family is considered the most essential religious rite in all religions of the world. A family is the foundation of a society and a center of nurturing the future generation in a safe and healthy environment. It is the nucleus of human civilization.

The Quran uses the word nikah for this union of a man and a woman. It literally means getting absorbed in each other the way rainwater absorbs in the earth. Hence the Quran describes husband and wife each other’s Zauj (equal partner). It means that both are essential to each other in the family unit as each complements the other in a manner that, without the one, the other cannot consider himself or herself complete. It is obvious that in the absence of compatibility, family life will not be balanced and healthy.

The Quran describes nikah a solid contract between two adults. Thus a marriage solemnized before adulthood is not considered a nikah in the Quranic explanation. In fact, the Quran declares the age of marriage as a mark of adulthood. “And test the orphans [under your supervision] until they reach marriageable age.” (4:6)

The Quran gives an absolutely free choice for both men and women to select their life partner. On one hand, it tells men “then marry from among women such as are lawful or desirous to you” (4:3), while on the other it tells women that men cannot hold them against their will, “O you who have attained to faith! It is not lawful for you to [try to] become heirs to your wives [by holding onto them] against their will” (4:19)

Thus the Quran promotes the idea of a balanced, compatible, and contractual marriage to ensure equality, dignity, and responsibility. The objective of such a union is clearly defined when in chapter four and verse 24, it says that the marriage is a union of like-minded people to promote dignified relations.

The Quran also promotes the idea of monogamy. It does not give free license to men to marry more than one wife. In fact, the Quran talks of marrying a second time only when the first wife is no longer there. “But if you desire to give up a wife and to take another in her stead,” (4:20) In other words, marrying the second time can take place only when the first wife is not there.

How can we reconcile this Quranic a directive with another verse that occurs in the same chapter and talks of marrying more than one wife?

“And if you have reason to fear that you might not act equitably towards orphans, then marry from among [other] women such as are lawful to you - [even] two, or three, or four: but if you have reason to fear that you might not be able to treat them with equal fairness, then [only] one - or [from among] those whom you rightfully possess. This will make it more likely that you will not deviate from the right course. (4:3) 

Prior to that, the Quran says:

“Hence, render the orphans their possessions, and do not substitute bad things [of your own] for the good things [that belong to them], and do not consume their possessions together with your own: this, verily, is a great crime.” (4:2)

In other words, marrying two, three or four women is conditional. It is not a general permit. Nor it is a right or privilege. This provision or special clause was necessitated by the then prevailing situation. It was allowed only to ensure the protection of orphans and widows provided absolute justice is maintained in a relationship as the Quran made it clear “but if you have reason to fear that you might not be able to treat them with equal fairness, then [only] one.” (4:3) In another word, monogamy is the general rule.

Sometimes, some people make the argument that if the wife is barren or in terminal illness, second wife in the presence of the first wife is allowed. This is not the intention of the Quran as it says “He gives both male and female [to whomever He wills], and causes to be barren whomever He wills: for, verily, He is all-knowing, infinite in His power.” - 42:50

In other words, to be barren is not a requirement for marrying the second time.

Thus, the Quran is absolutely clear on a monogamous marriage.

Divorce

Marriage (nikah) is a contract for a peaceful, balanced and dignified relationship. The Quran recognizes the possibility of separation between a husband and a wife if the relationship becomes imbalanced and undignified and differences can be irreconcilable. For this, the Quran uses the term Talaq (divorce).

Thus, the Quran gives minute details of the process of separation or divorce and does not leave it to the arbitrary decision of one partner. Neither a man nor a woman can walk away from the marital relations by simply saying that you no longer are my life partner. 
The Quran first advises a husband a wife to reconcile their differences amicably if there are any of their own and if the two fail to do so then describes an elaborate process to seek a mutually agreed solution. 
It says: “And if you have reason to fear that a breach might occur between a [married] the couple, appoint an arbiter from among his people and an arbiter from among her people; if they both want to set things right, God may bring about their reconciliation. Behold, God is indeed all-knowing, aware. (4:35)

In other words an arbiter from both sides would be appointed to resolve the differences and if the arbitration council fails to help the husband and wife reconcile their differences, then they can recommend the divorce or if they have been given the authority to make a decision, they can pronounce and execute the divorce.

The decision to divorce is not an individual decision, not certainly a prerogative of men to pronounce the word talaq three times to end the relationship.

What would happen afterward? Both husband and wife are free to marry again. However, there is a condition in this provision for the wife. She would wait for three months and if she is pregnant, she would wait until the delivery.  During this time, the husband is responsible for all her expenses. A man can marry without waiting, but if he wants to reconcile with his wife, then he can renew the marriage contract once again during this period. Thus the Quran says: “ And during this period their husbands are fully entitled to take them back, if they desire reconciliation; but, in accordance with justice, the rights of the wives [with regard to their husbands] are equal to the [husbands'] rights with regard to them, although men have precedence over them [in this respect] And God is almighty, wise. - 2:228 

The expression that “men have precedence over them [in this respect]” is an additional opportunity given to them to honor the contract. In fact, it is an additional responsibility.

After the reconciliation of the first talaq, if the relationship becomes sour and irreconcilable then the second talaq can be executed provided the process used during the first talaq is followed. However, if the talaq is sought and decreed the third time, then it would be irrevocable. A woman is entitled to marry after this third talaq and only if her second husband dies or divorces her three times, her previous husband can remarry her again.

These are the simple rules of marriage and divorce. The Quran does not allow its followers to decide things arbitrarily. Pronouncing the word talaq three times by husband is not a Quranic decree or right. In fact, it is against the spirit of the contractual relationship and basic norms to maintain a healthy family.

But this is not what happens in our Muslim society in general. What happens is totally in contradiction of what the Quran says. But there are so many other contradictions in Muslim behavior when we compare it with the Quranic message.

We must realize that the Quranic rules governing the marriage and divorce were interpolated with values and custom that were and are still strong in patriarchal societies, arbitrarily decided on the basis of the opinions of human beings. These rules have nothing to do with the divine guidelines. It is, thus, imperative to develop an honest and accurate understanding of the Quran and discard interpolation that has occurred over the centuries.
Giving men the absolute right to verbally terminate the family by simply saying, "I divorce you three times in one sitting or in three separate sittings" is nothing but a reassertion of the old patriarchal system that allowed men to dictate their terms upon their women. It violates the spirit and the letter of the contractual relationship. It allows women in a state of total dependence on her husband and above all it makes her feel that her survival as a wife depends on the will of her husband. This is not a contractual relationship. It is nothing but glorified slavery. It is illogical, unjust and contrary to the divine wisdom. This custom is responsible for ruining the lives of millions of women who have suffered silently at the altar of what is called the religion. This custom needs to be analyzed in the light of the Quran and amended and changed because it is in clear violation of the divine justice.