Couple kept sham marriage to stop violent reprisals
SMH
July 31, 2010
Centrelink unwittingly revealed a clash between Islamic laws and Western life, writes Bellinda Kontominas.
TO THE people in their ethnic community, the man and his wife showed all the hallmarks of a happy and loving marriage.
But it was all a lie. The sad reality of being caught between Eastern culture and Western values, they told a court.
The man, a professional in his home country, had converted to Islam in order for the couple's marriage to be legally recognised. But when they separated after moving to Australia, they maintained the outward appearance of a married couple to avoid physical harm, or even death, at the hands of Islamic extremists back home, they claimed.
The pair told of their clandestine double life at a District Court trial in which the husband was charged with lying to Centrelink by claiming he was single in order to obtain a Newstart allowance.
The two cannot be named after the District Court Judge Stephen Norrish made a non-publication order preventing their identification to avoid harm to them and their family overseas.
''It is feared that if there be publicity in relation to this matter and it gets back to [their home country], then people will die,'' he said.
For this reason, the Herald has omitted details about the couple to maintain their anonymity.
The Crown alleged the couple had never separated and were still mostly living together during the more than five years the husband had fraudulently obtained benefits. But the jury saw differently, acquitting the man of seven charges against him.
The jury was not told he had pleaded guilty to another charge of dishonestly obtaining about $12,000 in unemployment benefits while he was working.
During the trial a former colleague told the court he believed the man was single as there were no shoes kept at the front door.
Another former colleague said he had been untidy and unkempt, which gave the outward appearance he was unmarried. She had felt sorry for him and felt he needed a woman's touch, so she attempted to set him up with a friend during a dinner at her home. A blind date was organised but did not eventuate.
Under Islamic law, marriage between a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim man is not legally recognised and would be considered an adulterous relationship.
Such a union is usually considered proper and legal if a religious conversion takes place.
An Islamic law expert who gave evidence in the trial told the Herald that separation or divorce, particularly by those who have married in controversial circumstances would result in questions about the legitimacy of the initial conversation. The academic, whom the Herald has chosen not to name, said this could bring shame to the couple's family and result in violence towards them by members of the community.
Often when couples marry under controversial circumstances, such as a religious conversion or without family blessing, the end of that relationship can reignite bad feelings about the match, leading to violence, the academic said.
''[The separation] could have been perceived as proof that these sort of relationships don't work or it could be perceived as additional harm to the family name, reopening old wounds.''
Dr Shakira Hussein, who also gave evidence in the trial, told the Herald there could be ramifications for the couple and their family if he was seen to have abandoned the religion.
An expert in Islamic studies at the University of Melbourne, Dr Hussein said religious minorities in Islamic countries were particularly vulnerable to accusations of blasphemy by neighbours or family members holding grudges.
For this reason, many mixed-marriage couples maintain a happy front. ''In Australia, too, it is considered not good conduct to be too open about marriage break-ups,'' Dr Hussein said.
New Yorkers are taking positive action to protect Muslims from Islam
