Apparently, the glorious religion of allows for s to be conducted via telephone. That’s right, folks — a guy in can get married to a girl in in a five minute long-distance call, and after the exchange of a dowry (it’s easier than ever to send money over the Internet!) the marriage is legal — at least according to Islamic law.

Long-distance marriages can be dialled up under law and then used to sponsor loved ones into , Muslim leaders say.

Two Muslim leaders have told the are permissible under Islamic law and require two witnesses and imams here and abroad to conduct the vows, which may have the bride in Pakistan and the groom in Toronto.

Once completed, a marriage certificate is obtained abroad legitimately in Muslim countries and can be used by the groom for sponsoring his new wife to Canada, one imam said.

, of the , said he conducted a telephone marriage between a student in Toronto and his about-to-be wife in .

“He was a university student and couldn’t leave,” Ali said. “It is a civil contract and the vows were conducted over the phone.”

A marriage certificate was obtained and the student was able to sponsor his wife to Canada, he said.

The vow takes less than five minutes and a is exchanged to seal the ceremony, Ali said.

‘NOT WIDESPREAD’

“These telephone marriages are taking place but are not widespread,” said the former lawyer for the attorney-general’s office. “The parties must know each other and have developed a relationship. Most of the times the couple have been introduced by family members,” Ali said. “In many cases one person may not be able to leave the country.”

Imam , of Ja’ffari Islamic Centre, in Toronto, said: “These marriages are perfectly acceptable under sharia law … the marriage certificate is taken to the Canadian embassy where it is recognized.”

Well, that’s nice, Mr. Rizvi. But sharia is not the law in Canada, and there is no reason why these “telephone marriages” should be viewed as legal in Canada, even if they are perfectly legal in other countries or barbaric legal systems that hail from the 7th century.

Perhaps I’m just being old-fashioned, but I’m of the opinion that if you can’t either be man enough to get married whilst in the same room as your wife-to-be, you shouldn’t get married. If, for whatever reason, you can’t afford to fly out to where your wife-to-be is situated so as to be wed to her, then you shouldn’t go ahead with it. I mean, if you don’t even have the money to fly to…India or Pakistan or wherever…then how the heck can you afford to support your wife and family in the first place?

Oh, right…claim additional welfare benefits, I forgot. This is blatant parasitism — nothing more. And Canada shouldn’t allow it. Oh, that’s not to say that Canada has any ability to dictate what sharia law does and does not stipulate (pity — we could at least overhaul the inability of Muslim law to differentiate between hair and breasts*), but Canada does have every right to dictate whether or not it accepts as valid the stipulations of sharia law. I think the proper response to these telephone marriages is a simple one as well: “you can live with your new wife, sir, in the country which the marriage certificate was issued in. Or you can live in Canada and spare us the farce.”

Still, there’s one advantage men who get married this way have: they can get divorced by text message if they get bored with the phone wife. I wonder…does sharia permit a Muslim man to marry his limit of four wives all by phone? Or does he only get one?

(In Soviet Russia, hat tips you: FreeMarkSteyn)

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

* I bet that gets really confusing when it comes time to feed babies…

Here’s one more example:

In , there’s another way cell phones can give you a big headache: by .

Here’s the story of a woman whose husband divorced her by…text message!

She and her husband, an Egyptian army officer away on duty, had just hung up after quarreling on the phone. She ignored his return call, not wanting to continue the argument, the woman recounted in an interview this week.

The electronic chirrup of an incoming message signaled his response. “I divorce you,” her husband had written. “That will teach you not to answer my calls.”

Reconciliation followed, only to be broken by another quarrel, this one over the woman asking her family to mediate the couple’s problems. “I divorce you,” her husband wrote in another message. “Don’t ask other people to interfere in our business.”

Another reconciliation. Another argument. And another declaration of divorce from her husband, this time face to face, late last year.

ic law can make the act of divorce stunningly simple for men, even if the ensuing financial settlements often are not. A husband has only to declare to his wife, “Inti ” — “You are divorced” — three times, and mean it, to end their marriage.

The couple wants to reconcile, but it’s unclear whether they’re actually divorced:

Her husband wants her back, the woman said, but the religious scholars she consulted tell her she is divorced in the eyes of and would be returning to him out of wedlock.

But if she refuses to return, and the courts rule the text-message declarations invalid and her marriage intact, she risks losing her claim to her young son.

With the text messages, she said, “the doors of hell have opened on my life.”

law is, quite simply, just disgusting. The hell this poor woman must be living through is two-fold — not only was it ludicrously easy for her husband to divorce her (and then because she had the temerity to stand up for herself!), but depending on whether the divorce is ruled valid or not, she may either lose her children or (worse, perhaps) wind up branded as an adulteress.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!