In Saudi Arabia and other places where a muslim marriage has taken place, it is expected for the groom to provide his new bride with a dowry. The dowry can be a compilation of gold, gifts and money. The dowry at times has also been referred to as the “bride price.” The dowry is meant for the new bride and not only a token of love (worth?) but gives her a sense of security in having items of value. In some cases with the arranged marriage, it has been the father (or mother) who arranged the marriage and negotiated the dowry. Instead of the dowry going to the bride it has gone to the family member. In other instances a young girl may agree to a marriage offer that comes with an attractive dowry because her family may be facing hardships and she sees this as an opportunity to help her family. Yes, you’ve noticed by now that thus far the word “love” has not entered the equation.
But what rights or options does the new bride have if either the marriage does not work out or if the husband does not honor the promises he made prior to officiating the marriage? Sadly there is little a young bride can do. In the majority of cases in Saudi Arabia if a woman wishes to have a divorce from her husband, she is obligated to return the dowry she received. So yes, for the woman the “honor” of accepting an arranged marriage does come with invisible strings attached. And this is in spite of whether she has been married (sold?) to a man near her age or one who is many many years her senior as illustrated in the Saudi Gazette article.
This raises many questions and issues. For now though, I’d like your views… if in the event an arranged marriage is truly not working and either the wife or the husband wishes for a divorce, should the dowry be repaid?
Filed under: Charity, culture, Economy, Freedoms, gender, islam, relationships, religion, Saudi Arabia, Saudi blogs, Saudi culture, Saudi customs, Saudi education, Saudi Living, travel, Uncategorized, Women Issues Tagged: | culture, culture shock, customs, gender, gender issues, heritage, islam, KSA, Love, marriage, Relationship, Saudi, Saudi Arabia, Saudi culture, Saudi customs, women
Marriages here are by contract, and if a young woman is not helped by her father or brother to keep things in her own interest, then it is their fault. But, because the women are the ones who suffer, they should be well aware of the laws and not be shy to stipulate that the dowry does not have to be paid back.
As far as I know, according to Islam, the Mehr (dowry as this post calls it) has to be paid back if the marriage hasn’t been consummated. On the other hand, if the marriage has been consummated, the wife is not obliged to pay back the Mehr – it is not a token of love, but a “price” (I’m sorry for using this term; if there is a better term, please correct me) for having sex with the woman – who is supposed to be a virgin before marriage in many cases, though that’s not necessary. The Mehr varies according to the status of the woman’s family, the financial capacity of the groom, woman’s status as a virgin, her inheritance and education etc. In Central Asia, this is called Kalima, but the concept is the same.
This custom itself has origins in pre-Islamic and non-Islamic custom of bride-price in many tribal societies, where the groom’s family paid a price for the woman who used to contribute towards the labour needed in and outside the household (such as in cooking, cleaning, washing, childcare etc. and in agricultural fields, in gathering food, fodder and fuel from the forest etc.).
Islam has changed the connotation of and the purpose behind the bride-price.
Precisely because of the connotation involved in Islam regarding Mehr, many Muslim families – especially the well-off ones – in my country don’t like to accept any Mehr for their daughter. They either “condone” the mehr or make the groom sign the contract that at the time of a possible divorce, the husband will pay this Mehr to his wife, which he should have paid before marriage. The implication is that most probably the divorce won’t happen and hence, the family won’t be accepting any “price” for their daughter. On the other hand, if divorce happens, the woman will get this money which will support her for some time.
Of course, this is related to the fact that Islam is surrounded by other religions here where no price is paid for the woman, rather, a dowry may be paid to the groom before an arranged marriage. Hence, many Muslim families have modified their practice of Mehr here. But of course, there are variations and many families, especially the poor ones, do accept the Mehr before the woman’s marriage.
Looking at the Islamic stand regarding Mehr, the Saudi law regarding returning of the amount at the time of divorce seems to be wrong if the marriage has been consummated. Perhaps Saudi Arabia should adopt the South Asian practice of paying the Mehr to the woman at the time of divorce, so that the divorced woman does get some money after all. Unfortunately, it seems the divorced Muslim woman is not entitled to get any significant maintenance as far as Islam is concerned. This clause can be inserted in the law only if the orthodox section of the society is willing to accept it even if it’s not part of Islam. But even in a multi-cultural democracy like ours, the government hasn’t been able to convince the orthodox Muslims that this clause should be inserted in the Muslim law. Doing this in Saudi Arabia is a monumental task.
A lot of problems could be solved with the capping of the amount of dowry that needs to be paid. Men would not find themselves ‘priced out of the market’ and women would have the financial freedom to divorce.
In the case of the woman who cannot afford to divorce her octogenerian husband, I find it appalling that the men in her family agreed to their daughter/sister/niece marrying to pull them out of their financial mess. I’m not a Muslim but my understanding is that men are charged with protecting the women within their care. Jeez, even by my corrupted, decadent Western mind they treated her terribly! It is a disgrace that they have failed this woman so badly and morally, they need to pony up the money to get her a divorce.
In Saudi everything is twisted. Mahr is the price for sexual access. Only when the marriage is not ”consumated” the mahr has to be returned. Otherwise the mahr is soleley the property of the wife. And if she wants a divorce but her huband is very poor while she is rich is she advised it might be a nice thing to do if she gives the mahr back.
In the never ending quest to subjugate women in Saudi this is one of the Islamic rules they don’t like and so they turn it around and put up one more obstacle in the path of women by requiring them to pay back the Mahr.
And let’s not forget the small detail of having to bribe a judge. Although women have the right to file for divorce the judges will not grant it without being paid a substantial bribe, running in tens of thousands of dollars.
No, the dowry should not be repaid.
It’s a business transaction.
The man has had access to the sex he paid for, and the woman has provided the sexual access she was paid for, so the money is hers.
And if there are any children the man gets to keep the children the wife did all the hard labour and suffering for.
Actually I think that as the man gets to keep the children as his property, no matter if he cares for them or not, a mother should be paid an extra sum of money for every child she has to leave behind. And as mothers usually love their children very much it should be a huge sum to compensate for the extreme suffering. Something liket ten times the dowry for every child.
And I think that in case the man has been lying like the small detail of having another wife, or if he’s adulterous, or if he has infected his wife with an std after coming back from another sex-holiday, he should pay another huge sum of money for compensation. + medical expenses.
And if he stopped his wife from finishing her education by keeping her at home he should be paying for her to finish that education. And if the judge demands a bribe for granting the divorce it should be payed by the husband.
Its a bit hard to keep a dowry if you werent ever given it in the first place (it was “deferred” for whatever reason). And besides in this example no he shouldnt have the dowry (mahr) repaid if he wants to divorce her – tough luck pal!
The mahr is not akin to an alimony so it not to be treated as such, its a tangible factor of accepting a contract and its conditions – see it as a “deposit” which is non-refundable unless she wants out of it.
Money for sustaining her (not what the mahr is for) would be paid separately for up to 3 months should they divorce and there are more technicalities involved in all of this should they have children.
the dowry issue is set to proof the seriousness of the husband toward marriage islam encourages less dowry “the lesser the dowry the more blessed the marriage is” the dowry can be paid in the beginning of the marriage or in case of death or divorce after the marriage or paying some amount at the beginning and keeping the rest for a divorce or death if it’s delayed it’s considered as a debt to be paid to the wife.
as for taking back the dowry if the marriage is not consummated it’ll be paid back or if the wife asks for divorce without a just reason ( the husband is ill mannered a liar a drinker of alcohol or not observing islamic teaching in his day to day life…etc)
please note : that is to my limited knowledge after reading the post.
islam is set to us by Allah, those who apply it are humans so if there is an unjust practice it’s not the faith to be judged but those who take what suits them NOT what is right.
thanks.
@atwfa,
There is a cap on dowry prices in Saudi and other Gulf countries, like many laws in the religion, it is regularly ignored.
I think she should get to keep it in case of a divorce.
1. It’s meant to be a gift of love, — obviously given in love you don’t go back returning your gifts do you.
2. if it’s meant to be the price for access — well you did get access so i guess she gets to keep the money.
no one returns wedding gifts in case of divorce, — after 10 yrs you don’t go around finding who gave you waht and try and return them do you. so this is in the same context, he gave it to you as a gift or price or whatever and you keep it. it’s yours.
This no divorce till you return the money is bad laws. so a guy can marry promise a hefty amount, have fun and after a few yrs , torment her so she’ll be forced to leave and keep the money to give to promise to the next wife . hmmm might convienient isn’t it..
yes the wife could abuse this too, take money, divorce, take money marry adn divorce again.
that’s where the judiciary comes in, but knowing the judicial system in KSA , especially in cases of marriage/divorce.. all i can do is say a quick prayer for the poor women..
and Aafke – when you start governing a country with these laws , please let me know , i’d like to move there if not at the least i’d like to send my daughter
Hi there,
I am actually new to writing a post but have been reading the replied here and I am not entirely clear on how this dowry is to be paid for “access”. This in turn makes the wife a prostitute of sort.
If Dowry must be paid, it should be paid out of love, or not paid at all as the husband and wife will be sharing everything anyways and considering divorce before even marrying is probably another good reason why our divorce rate is so high. Divorce should not be considered as an option unless absolutley necessary.
While it makes sense and is easy to say the girl should stand up to her parents, the reality is that in majority of cases a girl does not want to disappoint her parents or cause any loss of face. And in other cases, a girl is simply too young to fully comprehend the consequences of what her father has agreed to.
Radha,
Well folks, I hate to break it to you but injustice is an every day issue in Saudi Arabia!!
When I asked for my divorce, which by the way was because he IS a heroin addict, abusive, uncaring, and heartless (you fill in the blank!!!!) individual, I had to pay back the “Mahr” (dowry) and I also had to give up my child, if you can believe that!?
My story as some of you here may already know is pretty crappy and it didn’t happen to just me. Unfortunately, it happens to many Saudi women up to this day! I honestly got lucky because I had a father who had the money to repay him and give a bribe to the judge to get me the divorce ASAP. So, praise the lord, it worked for me to get rid of him quickly and easily!
Some women never get that opportunity because they don’t have the money and so they get stuck until either the husband decides to finally divorce or end up, at times, going back to the same situation because her family pushes her to go back.
Also, there’s this mentality there that it is best to stay in a horrific marriage for the sake of the children (what the heck are they thinking, I don’t know?) And so the cycle continues……… If you ask me, these people have no ability to critically think and see the bigger picture at all!
Anyway, point is, Islamically, a husband should NOT take back his wife’s “mahr”, dowry no matter what the circumstances maybe! If you can believe that! In a matter of fact, it is considered a HUGE sin and not righteous by any means! Unless the person is completely overcome by their circumstances, then perhaps it might, and I stress might, be permissible then!
I guess the judge who finalized my divorce felt that my ex’s drug addiction circumstances were so dire that he needed the money to drug himself more! I dunno?
You know folks? In case you are wondering, he took the money and fled t to Morocco for like a month or so!! LOL
Yep, yep, yep and MY son was left behind from one house to the next at the age of one years old!
How’s that for Saudi Law for you??? Cuz certainly, it is NOT God’s law!
@Daisy…
Where do you live? I ask because my husband is an Indian Hindu and i am an American Christian. In his country the woman’s family pays the groom’s family a dowry. My In Laws didn’t believe in dowry and so only a “token” of a few rupees was offered for the sake of tradition (which was still kind of weird for my parents who felt odd, not being used to the custom). I was just wondering if there are any other south Asian countries that do it the reverse of the Islamic way.
@Oby,
I know my MIL’s former housekeeper was a Muslim Tamil from Sri Lanka. It took us a VERY long time to talk her out of the idea that the woman should pay the man.
Sometimes in these countries the local culture completely trumps Islam and they do things the exact opposite way.
Salaams Carol:
If the woman wants out of the marriage for “no good reason” she repays the dowry. Many scholars are now starting to give women divorces without repaying the dowry if the husband is at fault.
wow, I don’t know anyone who repaid their dowry upon divorce. I thought it was the woman’s property. Do you know of such cases, Carol?
Oby,
Of course, if you read my responses on his blog, you can easily guess that I am in India!
Yes, I was talking about the Hindu practice of the woman’s family paying dowry to the groom’s family and though this has been made illegal constitutionally, it is still widely practised, though later the woman often goes to court and charges the husban’d family of taking dowry – there are many kinds of dimensions of this which are out of context here because it is a degenerated Hindu practice – not sanctioned by Hinduism or the Indian law.
But what is of importance here is that it has influenced the Muslim communities here – both Shia and Sunni – and hence, many Muslim families don’t like to take Mehr at the time of marriage, but require the payment of Mehr by the husband to the wife if and when the divorce happens. In this case, the husband pays the Mehr in order to get the divorce – otherwise he can be dragged to court for not having paid his Mehr.
Another way in which Hindu dowry has influenced other communities here is that it exists even in Muslim and Christian families, eventhough it’s illegal by law. The parents of the woman give it in a clandestine manner so that they can not be caught – in all communities. So the Muslims don’t take the Mehr, but they give dowry for their daughter’s marriage. The daughter gets her Mehr only if she gets a divorce, but not many marriages break up here. This is because the Islamic connotation of Mehr is embarrassing to them, so they follow the practice of taking Mehr only if divorce happens.
In fact, you shouldn’t have paid a single rupee – it’s not really required and the groom’s family basically blackmails the woman’s family into paying because otherwise their daughter can’t get married – majority of marriages are still arranged marriages here. Since your husband was willing to marry you anyway, you should have refused to pay even a few rupees. In fact, in many Hindu families, if the daughter finds a man for herself by her own choice (what is called a “love match”), the family doesn’t pay any dowry to the groom, because he is willing to get married to the girl anyway.
But I believe dowry exists even in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and as Abu Sinan says above, Muslim Sri Lankans also follow this practice and perhaps other Sri Lankans as well. Because much of South Asia was one nation till recently (with the remaining parts having a cultural contact with the mainland), many practices are similar in these countries. And I won’t be surprised to know that it exists in South East Asia as well, as South Asia has had long contacts with that region.
@Mariam,
Did you read Manal’s post above? She was divorced in Jeddah and not only did she have to pay the mahr back, as ordered by the Shari’a court, her father had to pay a $10,000 bribe to the judge and officials to even be allowed to get a divorce.
This is common practice in Saudi, I am suprised you havent heard of it until now.
In addition to Manal’s case I am aware of a few others (in the minority) of where the dowry has been repaid. In most cases I know of there has been a clause that the dowry is to be repaid if the wife wants a divorce.
Carol,
Why does the woman’s father/brother or guardian consent to such a clause in the contract about returning the Mehr in case of a divorce? This is obviously against the interest of the woman and her family, so a lot of trouble can be avoided if they don’t agree for this clause to be inserted in the contract.
Sumera,
Deferring the payment of Mehr till divorce works in my country, where the wife’s family can drag her husband to court because he so hasn’t paid his Mehr – and they will win the case if they go to court because the law is in their favour.
They usually write in the marriage contract that the groom will pay the Mehr at a future date and the bride’s guardian has agreed to this
- this “future date” is the time of divorce if it happens at all.
So it acts as a pressure on the husband to not create such a situation so that the wife will ask for a divorce and therefore, he’ll have to pay the Mehr – the Mehr amount is deliberately kept quite high so obviously the husband wouldn’t want to lose such a large amount of money.
On the other hand, if the divorce happens, the husband has to pay the Mehr to the wife and this gives her the money for support.
Three-months’ maintenance alimony stipulated by Islam is not really enough if the woman isn’t well educated, is not from a well-off family and is not working, so I do feel this is a very good practice of the Muslims in my country and Saudi Arabia will do well to adopt it.
It seems like there is some confusion between the terms “khula” and “talaq”. Khula is where the woman asks for the divorce and in return she pays back the mahar. Talaq is a divorce initiated by the husband but the woman is not compelled to return the mahar, in fact as Manal mentioned it would be sinful to force her to do so. Also, I know you guys may think me naive but just because there are unjust things that occur here in Saudi it does not mean it is directly from the deen Islam. I truly believe in Islam and the goodness it can bring to anyone. I also truly believe that cultural ignorance is what often times screws it up and because of this many people suffer not just women.
By the way, women can stipulate a divorce settlement in the marriage contract just like she can for her mahar. And if the guardian of the woman to marry had her best interests in mind he would request the mahar be paid up front unless it isn’t money. I have heard of many stories where women do not request money for their mahar but instead request things like a house, Hajj, honeymoon, etc. I also once heard of a Muslim sister who only asked her husband to ensure she was able to memorize the Qu’ran for her mahar by providing her with the necessary tools to do so. And while I do realize that scenarios like these are seldom heard among Saudis it is not entirely implausible as not every Saudi woman is as helpless in this situation as people seem to think. Let’s not forget that Saudi women are dynamic and strong. I do have hope for them but it will take time to change how this society thinks about women and it’s not going to happen easily or as quickly as we want it.
Ummtiflain,
You are right about the difference between Khula and Talaq and am aware of it. But please consider this point – in a lot of cases, the woman is mistreated by the husband and she has to ask for Khula – in that case, she has to return the Mehr – after getting mistreatment from her husband, which doesn’t seem right. At least in such cases there should be a law prohibiting the man from claiming back his Mahr – he may claim it if she is leaving him (say for another marriage) despite his good treatment of her.
As for the divorce settlement, I don’t see what kind of conditions the woman can set in her marriage contract regarding her maintenance alimony, since Islam does not allow maintenance alimony to a divorced woman beyond 3 months. There was this infamous case of Shah Bano in India – she was divorced by her husband in her old age, she was from a poor family and already beyond the age to work. She asked for maintenance alimony under the Indian Civil Code, which allows alimony to women and is quite reasonable in its terms. She had wide support from the court, the media, the non-Muslim population, the educated Muslim intelligentsia and the Prime Minister himself was monitoring her case. But no one could help her cause, because the orthodox Muslim clerics ruled that Islam doesn’t allow alimony to a divorced woman beyond three months and it was unislamic to grant her maintenance alimony beyond that period – In her old age she had to go without alimony (Muslims are ruled by a separate Muslim civil code in India and the orthodox Muslim section wants to keep things this way). I am quite sure that Saudi Arabian women are facing a much more difficult situation than this.
Shah Bano had made the mistake of claiming her Mehr at the time of marriage – if only she had deferred it till divorce, at least she would have got this money. Only after her case people realised how good is the Indian Muslims’ custom of deferring the Mehr till divorce. And Saudi Arabia will benefit from it if only it follows this custom – in case of Khula, the woman won’t have to return the Mehr and in case of Talaq, she can claim her Mehr from her husband. Besides, the very fact that the Mehr is of a high amount and the husband hasn’t paid it, places a pressure on the husband to be reasonable in marriage – since the wife can claim her Mehr anytime she wants and the husband will not want to lose so much of money.
@ummtiflain,
Sure, some Saudi women are strong and dynamic. That is of little help when the legal establishment is set against you.
In my wife’s case in Saudi a divorce instigated by her because of mistreatment, abuse, neglect and substance abuse would have been very hard to get and would have taken a very long time.
That is where the standard bribe came in, $10,000 US in this case. As it was she still had to pay the mahr back and had to sit and watch the “Shari’a” judge give custody of her 1 year old son to a man who showed up visably high on heroin to court. She pointed this out to the judge but the son was still taken from her, crying, to a man wearing dark glasses and nodding out, so high he could barely stay awake.
One might argue things like this are the exception, but from what I have heard from other Saudis, it seems to be all too common.
@daisy,
Educative, i thought they were moving towards a common civil code for all. That should put an end to the confusion and pain.In our case we did have an islamic doc written up by his uncle and my grand father ( one a ulema and one a judge so it’s airtight) and just to be sure my paranoid dad had a legal doc drawn up. it sounds so unromantic, but it was funny his uncle was adamant about mahr and my dad insisted on stiching his suit for the reception ( dowry @ work) …
But you are right, i was telling someone about the mahr the way it works there and how it safeguards the women in case of divorce. but not many takers outside india for that type of logic.
@Ummtiflain,
This has nothing to do with how capable saudi women are, they are dynamic and smart, this is the legal system at work .. against all human logic i must say
I know a case where the judge was bribed to get out of the marriage forget about the mahr, just wanted to get out of an abusive situation.
I am surprised people are so hung up on the dowry issue, and completely overlook an important protection that is utterly unavailable to divorcing women in Shariah-ruled countries.
Division of property, people.
As far as I understand traditional Shariah, there is no such thing as marital property. What belongs to the husband, remains with the husband. What belongs to the wife, remains with the wife. Husband owes wife maintenance, but no more than that. This is why I always chuckle at semantic acrobatics in some Muslim feminist writing that claims Islam gives women superior protection because they mistakenly claim “my money is my money, and my husband’s money is my money, too.” No, dear. Your husband is responsible for your maintenance, and no more. Whether that maintenance constitutes 5% or 50% of his total income is entirely none of your business. You can’t “legally” claim any part of his income beyond “maintenance”. And if you disagree, just watch what happens when a second wife comes in with her own financial needs. Is your husband’s money still your money?
Conversely, most non-Muslim countries embrace a rule of community property. That means that everything accumulated from the time of marriage belongs to spouses more or less jointly, regardless of who contributes how much.
Say a couple divorces here in the U.S. after twenty years of marriage where the husband was a primary earner and the wife never worked. Say the husband’s money bought them a nice house in McLean, a summer condo on the beach, two cars and half a million in retirement funds. Guess what? The wife will get approximately half of this, regardless of the fact that she never contributed a penny to the marriage financially, except her labor as homemaker and mother. Adjusted for various details, of course, but the general principle stands. Note here: not maintenance. HALF of whatever they have, however much that can be.
The reason Shah Bano’s case is outrageous is not because she was not entitled to alimony. It’s because she was utterly unable to claim any share of whatever they, as a couple, accumulated together, which in any Western country would have allowed her to live comfortably in her old age. Effectively, a rich husband can divorce his wife of thirty years on a whim, and she gets nothing, nothing at all of his wealth, THEIR wealth, after that measly three months. Considering that in traditional marriages of that time the wife didn’t work, this arrangement truly hurts women. You tell me this is superior protection?
Chuckle. I’ll take my community property laws, please.
Exhibit 1
Pakistani wife files for divorce from Pakistani husband of twenty years. Both live in Maryland. Husband is World Bank economist. Wife never worked.
Wife claims half of World Bank pension ($1 million) and half of house in Potomac (almost as much.) Husband goes to Pakistani embassy, documents talaq and tries to get out of divorce proceedings by paying her the delayed mahr spelled out in the marriage contract, which is $2,500.00, and saying that’s all he owes her.
What did the court say?
Meaning, how loud did the judge laugh?
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2008-05-07/news/0805060427_1_aleem-divorce-wife
NN,
No, In Islam the divorced wife is NOT entitled to maintenance beyond the period of three months – you are misinformed about it.
And NO again, under Indian Civil Code, the divorced wife IS entitled to half of all the wealth plus maintenance for her lifetime plus the maintenance, education and other expenses of her children – and this money is calculated very carefully and amounts to such an exorbitant sum that it really deters many men to even think of divorce – you are misinformed again.
The reason Shah Bano couldn’t claim maintenance was because Muslims in India are governed by not the Indian Civil Code, but by a separate Muslim Civil Code which is guided by, though not completely monitored by the Sharia – and hence, the orthodox Muslim clerics control it like in any Islamic country and they do not want the Muslim population to be governed by the Indian Civil Code because that will reduce their power. And as I said above, according to the Islamic law, a divorced wife is not entitled to maintenance beyond 3 months.
If Shah Bano had married through a civil marriage or a non-Muslim marriage system, she could get the maintenance through the Indian Civil Code, but the Orthodox Muslim clergy didn’t allow her to get a decision through the Indian Civil Code and ruled against her getting maintenance through the Islamic civil code that they have devised for the Muslim population here. Islam doesn’t recognise the concept of alimony, the Indian Civil Code recognises the community property laws in alimony but the Islamic clerics don’t want the Muslim population to have access to the Indian Civil Code. Hence, the Muslim women get a different ruling than other non-Muslim women in this matter. I hope I have made myself clear – there are TWO different sets of laws – the Indian Civil Code which recognises alimony and common property and the Islamic Civil Code imposed by the Muslim clerics for the Muslims, which doesn’t recognise alimony and common property. You are grossly ignorant about this issue.
Precisely because the Muslim population is forced by the clerics to be governed by the Muslim law rather than the Indian Civil Code, the Muslim families defer the claim of Mehr till divorce, because they know their daughter will need this money at that time and the Islamic clerics won’t allow the Indian Civil Code to prevail in case of a Muslim woman.
Since this case, there have been efforts by the government to convince the Islamic clerics that there should be a common civil code for everyone in the country and the Muslim population should come under the Indian Civil Code, but despite heated debates about it, the Islamic cerics refuse to relent because they have their own selfish interests to serve.
It’s really not a question of West vs East, but is a much more complicated issue than you think. Please know about a case thoroughly before you begin to point fingers at anyone.
And I never said it’s superior protection – I just argued that in the circumstances that make the woman helpless at the time of divorce, rather than taking the Mehr at the time of marriage and having to pay it later, it’s better to take it at the time of divorce – ths is because there is no concept of alimony in Islam. You can’t reason with the orthodox Islamic clerics to accept the concepts of alimony and division of property, so at least this kind of modification can be made in the issue of Mehr.
Radha,
Of course you have a great husband and great in-laws but your father did the right thing by going for the civil marriage papers as well, so that you could be covered by the Indian Civil Code. You’re right, marriage matters can appear very unromantic!
Daisy,
let’s all calm down. You and I are saying the same thing. Let’s take this point by point and see if any areas of disagreement exist. There’s no need for name-calling.
When I said “the husband owes you maintenance”, I meant within the bounds of marriage, that is, while you are still married, not after divorce. Sorry if that confused you. This was meant to support my argument that a Muslim wife has no legal claim to her husband’s income – just to her maintenance, paid out of that income, while still married. Yes?
I know about the three months rule. See my write-up of Shah Bano, “beyond three measly months.” No conflict there. Yes?
I don’t think I pointed any fingers or even mentioned Indian civil code; quite on the contrary, my finger was squarely pointed at Shariah law, or Muslim law, however, you want to call it. I think you essentially said the same thing, Shah bano got a raw deal because she was Muslim, and subject to a different set of rules. She could have got both alimony and share of property, but Muslim law denied her all that. Yes? Seems our respective fingers point in the same direction.
Lastly, my comment about some Muslim feminist writing had zero to do with you, in fact, I was thinking of some blogs I read but was too lazy to look up. So you don’t have to argue with me about something that was never directed at you.
Emotions aside, you and I are saying the same thing. Non-Muslim? Welcome to alimony and division of property. Muslim? Welcome to 90 days of maintenance.
Still mad?
I do believe that a lump sum payable to the wife in the case of divorce can be agreed upon in a contract. I forget the word for it in Arabic.
Problem with that is I have heard many men fighting to stay in a bad marriage because they dont want to pay for it.
well, as they say down South…put some butter on me and call me a biscuit…(gotta love the US south). I am stunned. And, Abu Sinan, no I hadn’t read Manal’s post, which clearly I should have. OMG!!! I cannot believe women must return their dowry. Obviously it must not happen in the social class I am from. I find it to be disgusting and totally un-Islamic.
Kudos to Carol for teaching a native about her own country!!
NN,
No, thanks for explaining.
Abu Sinan,
If you can get at that term for payment at divorce, please let me know about it. It will be a great help to my Muslim friends.
Daisy,
you motivated me to look this up. Here is a link to the blog I meant http://goatmilk.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/the-contemporary-muslim-woman-series-my-husbands-money-is-my-money-by-zerqa-abid/. Nothing much to add except a conspicuous misspelling mistake by a supposed NBC-employed, high-achieving journalist (loose? lose?)
I am aware of more marriages, especially bicultural with a Saudi, it is not uncommon for their to be documents which identify what wealth and/or assets the couple had prior to their marriage and further state that those remain the property of the husband or wife respectively, even in event of divorce. I also am aware of some cases of divorce that the husband has agreed to greater than 90 days (3 months) maintenance realizing that the (Saudi) wife who may not have worked or supported herself needs that to get resettled and reestablished.
@Miriam – my pleasure! (smile)
Carol,
I think there is a presumption in most legal systems that assets accumulated by the parties prior to contracting marriage remain sole property of their respective owners. It is certainly the case in Northern Va.
@NN – yes; in most US States but in Saudi Arabia this all needs to be spelled out moreso to protect the interests of the woman.
NN,
Thanks for the article. Yes, I am aware of these issues about unequal division of property in Islam. The real issue is however, how much the Islamic societies want to modify their laws according to the changing needs of time – every religion has negative and positive points but the real strength of a religion lies in its ability to change and evolve.
Daisy,
I think you hit the nail on the head. The problem is, how do you convince the establishment that the founding principles people believe to be handed down by the divine power need to be revised? How do you get people to say, our needs are no longer met by existing guidance, let’s come up with something new?
One (rare!) approach I saw was to go by the broader message of Islam and not by precedents that may have occurred during the Prophet’s life. For instance, let’s say the Quran commands fairness to women as a general principle. Someone gutsy enough would have to say, “I know we have some examples of what fairness means in ahadith and whatnot, but the understanding of fairness has changed. To provide for fair treatment of women consistent with 21st century, we have to do it differently.” The problem is that very few people possess that type of intellectual audacity. But check out http://www.forpeoplewhothink.org. Very rare example.
When I divorced my husband after 20 years (trying for around 18) due to various reasons but the main reason being sexually molesting our children…not only did was he not ordered to pay me any sort of maintenance…he ONLY had to pay Bd150 for 5 kids…thats like $400…all together…for 5 kids. What a joke. Not to mention he had that reduced to Bd60 at some point by having his cousin, a Sharia Judge, sign a new document. Bd60 is about $150…for 5 kids. And I never got anything from him….after 20 years of abuse.
Gotta love these Sharia courts…they are so fair for women.
@NN
i am familiar with the website that you mention. It is excellent and although might be a bit “out of the box” for some Muslims, I think it is a very respectful website trying to ultimately make things more equal and fair for women. Also there is a website I highly recommend:
http://www.irshadmanji.com
She is a Muslim woman activist and journalist who is trying to reform Islam for the 21st century and is passionate about Muslim women getting a fair shake. I think she is very clearheaded in her approach and says things as they need to be said and in the end her suggestions, if taken to heart and practiced, would make Islam a fairer religious experience for all adherents.
In the end, I think it will have to be women to advocate the changes they would like to see. Why would men change anything? It works so well to their advantage. It is the power of the women collectively that will start the move forward. Scary thought I am sure…but it reminds me of Suffrage here in the USA(and other places I am sure). I did a small study on it and I was AMAZED at what those women did for their beliefs…some were jailed, beaten, ostracized, and worse, but it became this movement that gathered power and strength and eventually they were able to get the right to vote! All because a few women decided they were fed up and wanted more!
Carol,
You are right about some men giving maintenance to their ex-wife for longer than 3 months. I too am aware of cases of a fair settlement by the ex-husband for his divorced wife. But this is completely his own wish – it’s not an obligation on him to go for such fair decisions. In majority of the cases they don’t give a fair deal to their ex-wife and then we have to think what is the next best option, if Islam itself doesn’t recognise alimony.
(I’m the same person as above; just using a different icon)
NN,
Thanks for directing me to this excellent website. I’ll go through it carefully, though I have skimmed through some of the writings there and have found the interpretations quite enlightened. If only all Islamic clerics could think like this! But you are right, the people have to take the courage and speak out against orthodoxy. Only poblem is, Islam has something called Fatwa, so you can’t take it too far. Remember Salman Rushdie.
I think it is also worth mentioning that some Saudi women launched a campaign today to end the mahrem system and that those who are in favor are to wear a black ribbon until the mahrem system has been abolished.
@oby,
Using Irshad Manji isnt going to get you far amoungst 99.99% of practicing Muslims. She wants to “reform” Islam right out of existance. There is a reason why her core audience are neo-cons and Zionists.
She has no real education about Islam and has made major mistakes about things that anyone speaking about Islam should know about.
No Muslim I have ever met takes her serious. Her target audience is NOT Muslims and hence she will never have any impact on the Muslim community.
Carol,
I don’t know how long they’ll have to wait, but I do wish them all success.
This “Irshad Manji” has very little good to say about Islam; what are people thinking? On what grounds does she call herself a “Muslim” when she is openly a Lesbian and this is something completely against Islam or any other religion for that matter??? Or is it because she was born into a Muslim family?
She is a complete hypocrite. I am sorry but I am NOT going to listen nor respect someone who openly goes against God’s laws and “pretends” to have a liking for the religion when it is clear she could give a crap!!
It is no wonder that her main goal is to help “women”. Of course, she wants to help all women be able to practice “lesbianism” freely! LOLO It is MORE than obvious why the vast majority of her supporters are NON-Muslim!
My advice to her “get a life and take care of yourself before preaching to others what is right and what is wrong”!!! What a crock!
Being a lesbian doesnt mean you dont have an opinion worth hearing. One has nothing to do with the other…and helping women is helping women….who the hell cares who you sleep with at night if your spending your days trying to help people? She does more than a hell of a lot of other “Muslims” do…and they are just as “pretend” Muslim as she is….while they are spouting their nonsense about what they believe Islam is and what it isnt…and making Muslim women suffer because of it.
I would take the helping hand of a lesbian atheist over the hypocritical “helping” hand of a straight “Muslim” if what she offered was actual help compared to his mysogyny that only perpetuated the womens oppressive mentality that is Islamic practice today.
ya Manal, all things were created by Allah and are therefore great and wonderful. This would include gays. I am sure you would love your children even if one of them announced to you that they were gay.
What I like about Irshad Manji is her take on historical Islam. There were so many schools of thought, and all were accepted to some degree. Also, her take on jurisprudence as being “invented” by the Muslim empire to encompass the need for justice after taking over so much land. Now it is all sadly codified in Sharia, a 9th century code biased toward men.
People on both the websites cited above – Irashad Manji and those writing on the other site, are following a fairly rare and recent view that the “classical laws” of Islam should be revised and modernised to make them relevant for our own times.
These laws were conceptualised in 7th century Arabia and later, when they were relevant for the society of that time, but because they are being applied to our own times, when the needs, ways of lifestyle and the environment have changed much, these people feel that Islamic rules should be brought in accordance to these needs. It has happened in other religions in history. Since Islam is a younger religion, it seems this process has begun now in Islam and will of course go through a lot of oppositions as it happened with other religions. This is the normal course of evolution taking place.
As I said above, it’s really the strength of a religion to be able to change and evolve. There should be space for different people holding different views, rather than everyone trying to impose one’s views on others.
@Coolred,
Personally I dont care what someone does in their personal time, however, if someone is claiming to want to remake and redefine people’s view on a religion they ought to be within the confines of the religion.
Personally, if the choice is between listening to a homosexual or atheist with limited knowledge on Islam and listening to a Muslim extremist, I’ll pass on both and wait!
Manji, as a homosexual, is someone is who outside the bounds of Islam, besides not being a practicing Muslim either. Her NOT being a practicing Muslim AND being a lesbian means she will not be taken serious by 99.99% of Muslims.
The question then begs, if the vast majority of Muslims completely ingore what she is talking about, who is listening? The fact is that her audience are neo con Westerners, supporters of Israel, Zionists and Christian extremists. She knows this, these people are the targets of her books and the people who pay her to speak.
She claims to want to reform Islam, but when her target audience are not Muslims, one cannot take the claim seriously. She is an opportunist taking the current oportunity to make money. Begining and end, she is about money and self promotion.
@Mariam,
You might think homosexuality is okay, but The Qur’an and Hadith are clear that it is wrong. Not only that, Islam, in line with Jewish and Christian teaching, finds homosexuality to be against God’s laws.
Your own personal views are just fine, but dont try to pass it off as Islam because it isnt.
As to Manji’s take on Islamic history, my new puppy has about as much knowledge as she does. She has been shown to be wrong on so many different levels, it is another reason why no Muslim will take her seriously.
@Abu Sinan…
No reason to get ugly…I am on a journey to learn and that means I LISTEN to other people’s opinions. So far I have only questioned and read things written by Muslims because it seems the logical place to start. Why would I go to a non Muslim resource? She is not the only one I have read. I do hope you were not referring to me when you said neo-cons and Zionists, because that would not only be an unfair statement, but I would find that rather insulting.
It’s funny that you say she is trying to wipe Islam off the map because when I read her book I found her very earnest in her wanting to change it for the better to make things fairer for women while doing all she could to keep Islam intact. She has her ideas on what needs to change but I didn’t get any impression that she hates Islam and wanted to get rid of it. In fact, I got the opposite impression. that she cares about it deeply. Have you actually read her book?
Whether she is a lesbian or not is between her and God. As she says in her book if she is to burn in hell for it it is between her and God. That does not mean in my mind that she doesn’t have a voice worth listening to. Whether homosexuality is accepted by Islam is not the point for me. Her sexual orientation or more specifically her willingness to be open about it IMO makes no difference. How many Muslims and Christians for that matter are closeted gays? People listen to them regularly…yet if they knew they were not straight all of a sudden their words would hold no value.
I respect your right to have no use for her opinion. You are entitled. But as long as I am still trying to learn I feel it is only right to LISTEN with as open a mind as possible to many Muslim voices and form an opinion.
BTW, as I mentioned to NN above I had heard about
http://www.forpeoplewhothink.org. from HER website.
If you were going to advise someone on books to read to educate themselves about an Islam for the 21st century what ones would you advise? What did you read before deciding to embrace Islam?
@Daisy…
I could not have said it better.
@ abu sinan…
What she says about change is not easy to hear for anyone much less Muslims. It is from her I learned about Ijtihad and how it had once been so great and how it then got stifled. I wrote about that on a blog in response to Abu Abdullah and you agreed with me totally. So obviously not everything she says is wrong.
Since you are passionate about it and I generally agree with your point of view who would you recommend who is not gay and is a practicing Muslim since those two things seem to be of such importance… that is interested in adapting Islam to the 21st century and advancing women’s rights?
Like all the other religions that came before Islam that had to adapt to the times, I don’t see why Islam cannot as well and still be the world faith it is. How would that make it any less a Great faith? As a Christian there is no doubt in my mind that Christianity has changed since it’s inception and yet maintains it’s basic tenants intact. I think it is the right wing Christian fanatics who are the scary ones who refuse to accept that the Christain faith can evolve and it is these fanatics that still maintain it’s very strict, verbatim, old world attitudes .
Islam does not need to be changed or “updated.” Islam is for all time.
What does need to be changed and updated is certain things in the culture of countries that claim to be “Muslim countries.”
There are numerous practices in these Muslim populated countries that are not from Islam. But they are deeply entrenched and difficult to change.
Why should Islam and Muslims “update” to accept things which Allah (swt) and the Prophet (saw) have clearly told us are sinful and to avoid for ourselves?
@Oby,
What she says about change is outside the bounds of Islam on any level of understanding. So it isnt hard to hear, as a matter of fact it is rather easy to hear and easier to rejet out of hand. I read her book and have listened to her speak on many occasions. I was less than impressed with her.
I do agree with “ijtihad” as long as it is used to advanced our understanding of what God wants based on His words in The Qur’an and hadith. I am NOT interested in what some pass as Ijtihad, but isnt really, it is a smoke screen to completely change Islam into something no one would recognise.
Trying to legiitimise homosexuality under the guise of “Ijithad” is false pretenses. Ijitad is not about changing Islam, it’s basic cores and understandings. Those woo think so do not understand the concept.
Islam can and will adapt as will our understanding of it, but we cannot allow Islam to be twisted into something it isnt. Do we want to see Islam perverted to the point where anything goes, anything is okay just to accomodate to the lifestyles of the day?
Ultra liberals, in my opinion, are the very same as the ultra conservatives. They are radicals and actually feed off each other. To a certain extent the Osama bin Ladens of the world NEED the Irshad Manjis of the world and the other way around. They both fear moderates more than anything because a moderate cuts off their extremism, their raison d’être.
As a former Christian there is no doubt in my mind that modern Christianity has changed, it does not maintain it’s original tenants and that is one of the reasons why I left Christianity.
Religions can and do evolve, but their core ideas and beliefs should not. I dont want to see Islam dominated by those who would change it into something we wont recognise, at the same time I dont want to see it dominated by those who want us to live in the 7th century.
It is possible, even desireable, to be in the middle.
We can sit here and debate Manji until the cows come home, but the FACT is that she has NO following the Muslim community. Whether you agree with her ideas or not its moot as no one is listening. Well………..except for the neo-cons, Zionists and Christian conservatives. They will continue to pay her the big bucks for her “Muslim reform” project, and that’s okay………because that is why she is doing it. Ibn Wariq, Asra Nomani, all “Muslim reformists” that dont speak to Muslims…….but speak to the green backs offered by those who actually HATE Islam.
@ Safiyyah,
Yes I agree with your point. It is my understanding so far from what I have read that the Quran advocates equality and fairness for women. In fact, in some ways it reveres them. Yet in so many Muslim countries this seems not to be the case. So perhaps it is the cultural practices that have gotten so entwined with faith that need to be changed rather than the heart or basics of the religion to make things fairer to women.
@ Abu Sinan…
First of all Safiyyah I think said it very well. AND that is the understanding I had from her book. I have never had the opportunity to see her speak so I cannot speak to that.
I am assuming because I am not a Muslim and I am still reading and learning etc. I cannot have the same take on it as you. It NEVER once crossed my mind to link her Ijtihad to her lesbianism…it occurred to me it was more appropriate to link it with the loss of the Golden Age which she mentioned and that is the way I read it. I found the concept of Ijtihad fascinating.
“Religions can and do evolve, but their core ideas and beliefs should not. I dont want to see Islam dominated by those who would change it into something we won’t recognise, at the same time I dont want to see it dominated by those who want us to live in the 7th century.”
I have no personal stake in the statement you made above as I am not Muslim, but I agree with you. It SHOULDN’T be changed into something you wouldn’t recognize nor should people have to live it like it is the 7th century. I couldn’t agree more. And that is the take I had on her message…nothing more and nothing less. Perhaps because I don’t have the depth of understanding a Muslim would have I didn’t read into it what you see. She talks about how Islam has been afflicted with cultural norms that have changed it to be different than what the Quran says. These blogs are full of people saying that…many who are Muslim. So that made sense to me.
It doesn’t matter to me if Muslims are listening to her or not…for me it is about reading all sources of info(and if one is not familiar with the writers out there one has to keep an open mind to gather info and opinions and then try to make a decision.) How did you do it before converting? Of course, it helped to have your wife who could guide you and help you learn, but without that how would one do it? I would imagine read, read and read some more, ask questions, contemplate and try to figure out what the religion actually says…no easy task when you are trying to learn on your own especially as there is conflicting passages in the Quran. Which is right? And how do you know that without doing a disservice to it?
I would think that you can tell from my tone that I am not a Christian conservative(radical for lack of a better term) and it breaks my heart what is going on with the Palestinans. But as a woman it also hurts my heart what I hear about women in Muslim countries and that is one of the things that motivated me to seek and understand why it was happening and what if anything could be or was being done to help them. My premise was that a Great Faith could not advocate some of the things that are happening and that is what I tried to figure out.
When I asked you if you had any reading suggestions that you could pass on, it wasn’t a rhetorical question nor was it a challenge…I was sincere. As I said when you answer a blog generally I agree with you. I find it to be a moderate response. As such I thought in order for you to arrive at your conclusions about Islam you might have done some reading/studying and since your answers seem quite moderate how did you learn? (If that makes sense?) So if you do have anything that you think would be good and helpful I would appreciate the suggestion.
@ Abu sinan
Just to clarify…when I asked for a suggestion I meant a book to read/study, dvds, blogs, websites…things I can do on my own. I don’t want to go to a Mosque as I am not sure that being a Non Muslim that would be OK…also I don’t want to give a false impression as I am not looking to convert to Islam but I am looking to learn and understand more. However, at some point I may actually do that as I learn more, as there is a big, beautiful (from the outside) mosque about 10 minutes from my house.
I am finding the recent topic of comments to be an interesting discussion and dialogue. However I respectfully request that since it is now far from the topic about the dowry that the discussion be continued via the debate page.
Appreciate your support.
Mother Hen Bedu!
OK, back to the topic –
If we understand the Islamic connotations of Mehr, we also understand why it has to be returmed to the husband in KSA when a woman asks for divorce (called Khula). Mehr is the “price” for the sexual service in marriage the woman is going to provide. As long as she is willing to povide sex, she can keep the money. When she asks for Khula, as far as Islam is concerned, she is denying sex to her husband, so she has to return the money. Never mind that she asked for Khula because he mistreated her.
In case of the husband giving divorce (Talaq), the husband has no right to ask the Mehr back, as she is not denying sex to him and it will be a sin on his part to claim this money back as Manal said.
Never worry about her maintenance, since in Islam a woman is supposed to be maintained by her legal guardian and after Talaq her ex-husband is no longer her legal guardian, so he is not obliged to give her maintenance beyond 3 months, let alone share in property.
I’m sorry I have used this kind of language, but this is the Islamic notion of Mehr as far as I know.
It’s obvious that Islam doesn’t give a fair deal to a divorced woman.
These practices may have worked for the 7th century Arabia, but they are no longer workable now. The notions of what “equality” means also change with time. The way Islam defines a woman in terms of Mehr may have been valid in 7th century tribal Arabia, but in today’s context it doesn’t define a woman in terms of equality. So why shouldn’t the practice of Mehr change and why shouldn’t this money be claimed at the time of divorce (Khula or Talaq) by the woman?
First let’s get this dogma out of our minds that Islam is an infallible religion for all times and societies. No religion of the world is infallible – we have to mould our religion to make it workable for ourselves.
Thanks Daisy for coming back to the topic and with a very interesting comment. It’s funny because when you hear talk about mehr inside of Saudi Arabia it is not referred to as a ‘bride price’ or the prize a woman receives for agreeing to intimacy with the husband. Most will describe the mehr as the gift bestowed upon a woman at her marriage and that it is also to be hers alone and give her a sense of security. I am not saying I disagree with you but simply wanting to illustrate how different semantics are used.
It is a shame a woman would have to request khula whereas the husband requests talaq. The husband’s right to a divorce seems not to ever be challenged where the woman is required to provide cause.
While perhaps in ‘olden times’ it was understood a woman who has been divorced would return back to her prior guardian (family) that does not always work well in today’s world in my view. I think once a woman has had a taste of being in charge of her own home it is difficult to go back and again be a daughter in the house.
Carol,
Thanks for your response about Mehr being a “gift of marriage” in saudi Arabia. Remember, Radha too said the same thing above on this page – it’s a marriage gift? Of course this is the way it is described to the young woman so that she can feel comfortable about it – you don’t want to tell a young woman she is getting this money for this particular reason – it’s not in “good taste” in today’s world. While talking to outsiders, this could well be a euphemism as well.
But believe me, this is really the Islamic connotation of Mehr – drawing on the tribal customs of 7th century, which are no longer valid, especially when Islam has reached every part of the world.
Regarding the differential rights of the couple regarding Khula and Talaq, yes you are right – that needs to be changed too and not only in Saudi Arabia.
You’ve got it right, the woman was supposed to return to her parental family and that’s why no maintenance alimony from her ex-husband, who was no longer her legal guardian. In today’s context it is indeed difficult for every woman to become a “daughter” again. And more than that, not every family may have the means to support an extra family member. Every woman may not even have a living family member who can take care of her. This does need to change too.
So it seems we are gradually moving towards a secular democracy – if only you could get a magic wand from somewhere!
@Daisy,
I think you are wrong about the mahr issue. I have never heard it described as anything but a gift that is supposed to help the bride support herself, if needed. This goes for the Middle East and all other areas of the Muslim world.
If it was just money for sex it would have been seen for what it was, prostitution, whether it is today’s world or 7th century Arabia.
This is just YOUR understanding unless you can provide references that the mahr has nothing to do with the security of the woman.
That is what is grat about Islam, you can have YOUR understand and belief and I can have MINE. What I dont like is people who try to pass off personal beliefs as Islamic fact, like the previous poster who said homosexuality was created by God……..so it must be okay. I guess Jeffrey Dahmer was created by God, so serial killing and canibalism is okay too?
As to maintaince money, certainly you are aware that a woman can stipulate a sum on money to be paid in the case of divorce right? I have known instances where $100,000 was paid by the man when he divorced his wife.
As to the 3 month maintaince issue, I guess it all depends on the class of the people involved. I have known several divorced women, upper class, where it was well known the man would support his ex wife until the time she married again.
In one case it has been several decades since the divorce and the money and the house is still hers.
BTW,
If the mahr money for the bride is for sex……..what is the mahr money in Hindu India for? Are the women there paying the men to have sex with them?
@abu sinan,
thsi is my dad’s explanation of dowry in hindu marriages – especially int he lower earning strata of society . he is by no means and expert source, but this is his take on dowry
“A marriage meant an additional member who was to be supported and hence was a burden on the groom’s family as the bride did not go out to earn and contribute to the family income. Thus a dowry was collected to provide the additional burden resulting from a bride’s entry into the groom’s family. “
@radha,
I understand that. Passage of money between a couple being married, no matter which way, is never about the sex. It is about other issues in the society.
To try and pass off mahr as nothing more than prostitution is way off base.
Abu Sinan,
I understand it feels bad to hear a negative explanation about one’s religion or culture, but we all should have the openness of mind to accept that there are flaws in our system so that they can be reformed. About dowry – apart from what Radha says, which is true, in pre-modern times Hindu women didn’t have a share in their perental property – dowry was a kind of a substitute for that – the Sanskrit word for it translates as “a woman’s wealth.” This also means that the dowry was meant to be given to the woman by her parents and it was supposed to be her property, but later it got degenerated in the form it exists today. Now Indian Civil Code has stipulated equal division of property between sons and daughters, so there is no logic for dowry and hence, it has been made illegal because people have been misusing it. And I am honest enough to admit that people are still using dowry for various reasons despite it being illegal.
It’s not my personal opinion that I have given about Mehr – I’m the last person to denounce any religion just for the sake of it – I’m quite sure this is the Islamic meaning and have got it from believing Muslims themselves, who won’t criticise Islam for anything.
As for the equation between marriage and “prostitution,” norms change in every society and times. What seems base today from our perspective, may not be so in some society or at some point in history.
I can only give you two examples from practices in some Himalayan tribes. Traditionally, in some tribes, when they received a traveller as a visitor in their home, they offered him every kind of hospitality – including their daughter for “comfort.” There are some tribes in the Himalayas that practise polyandry – that is a single woman is expected to marry several brothers – please note that I use the term “expected” to underscore that this should not be confused as some form of radical feminism. In Kerala, some communities were matrilinieal, where the women of a community established relationships with several men of another community without actually getting married to any of them. Now with the modernisation, these practices are waning away.
Just because I am citing these examples it doesn’t mean I have a hatred for these communitites or their religion and culture – it’s just we should have the understanding that many people have practices that appear base from our perspectives but it’s not so in their culture and we must have this understanding while trying to know about other cultures or religions. It requires an expansion of heart to accommodate such practices as “normal” for others.
Precisely, for this reason, did you ever come across a single comment from ME that used the term prostitution when I talked about Mehr?
It was the others-including you now- who used this word, never I.
My own understanding is that in 7th century tribal society of Arabia, bride-price was introduced to take into account the fact that the woman should not grant sexual favours even to her husband without being compensated for this. Because our perspective has changed now, it is no longer necessary to follow this, rather some provision of post-divorce maintenance should be made legal, not left to the mercy of the husband.
The references you’ve given about the husband giving a fair deal to his divorced wife are all true – I too know about such cases, but there is no legal obligation on a husband to make a fair settlement for his ex-wife – it’s just that some men are fair enough to do this on their own – they don’t need a law to be sensitive.
@Daisy;
It is those men, in my opinion, that are a dime in a dozen. And it is those very same men who are FAIR AND JUST to their ex-wives, who also happen to fear God and follow God’s laws to the letter!
It’s about being sensitive to God and knowing that HE is watching all of us in our every step of life!
You are absolutely right Manal, if only everyone thought like that, the world would be a different place and no country would need any laws.
[...] posted earlier this month about a bride’s dowry and if the marriage did not succeed, should the dowry be returned. The resulting discussion on [...]
Well…if the dowry is for sexual access, this makes of us Muslim women prostitutes… and if an American prostitute takes about 200 dollars per hour, then this means my husband has to pay me…
I guess it makes sense…so i shall go and recalculate…maybe I should sue my husband for not giving me the dowry that I deserve for all the pleasant nights he had spent with me 
oh my God! I should have been a millionaire by now!
BTW ..how many hours are there in 17 years of marriage?
Or maybe we should be paid less than the american prostitutes since we are less experienced
I think if the dowry is for sexual access, then all of us Saudi women are underpaid because our men just love to have sex all the time…. we’re really oppressed
Sorry, Carol…being a happy wife in a healthy environment just doesn’t make this post make any sense for me… plus…having so much wrong and misleading information in addition to so many generalizations makes it very difficult for any one who has knowledge to correct all these subjective replies that are based on wrong information and on personal judgments and experiences …
so sad to see such ignorance about my religion and my country…
I will probably create a blog titled (Anti American Bedu) to refute all what you are posting ..to refute it based on solid scientific and Islamic knowledge …
Thanks
@Maha,
I am glad that you are in a happy and healthy relationship. I do think you have taken the post somewhat out of the context it was meant. It is a fact that there are various circumstances and interpretations of the dowry in spite of that it should be based on islamic knowledge and guidelines.
I am the persom who wrote that about Mehr (in my country the term dowry is used for a different custom and Mehr is regarded as different from dowry). Since I wrote it, I have gathered more in formation about it and will write about it tonight – especially why money for marital sex should NOT be seen as prostitution.
I was going to write about it last night, but was too affected to know about Carol’s relapse of cancer – my father died of cancer a few years ago, so I get affected.
About the connotation of Mahr as price for sexual relationship, a proposition I made and some people objected to it –
First, I can understand these objections and would like to urge you all to look at this practice not from our modernistic perspective but from an understanding viewpoint of the 7th century Arabia. Moreover, it was not I who used the term “prostitution” for this practice, eventhough I made this proposition – it was the others. My own stand has been that the definition of prostitution and also the bride-price itself has changed overtime – please read my comment above to Abu Sinan in this regard.
In fact, there is a strong reason why money paid for marital sex should NOT be seen as prostitution money. In order to understand this, we have to understand the social conditions of Arabia of 6th-7th century.
In the period just before the beginning of Islam, many kinds of relationship patterns were in vogue. In fact, the current Islamic form of marriage based on payment of Mahr was already in vogue before Islam. The difference was that this money was paid to the guardian of the bride. The girl herself was paid only a small amount or a gift on her betrothal, which was called Sadaq. Apart from this, a woman established relationships with multiple number of men and if she conceived, she named one of these men as the father and the man was obliged to maintain her and the child. In another form, many men visited a prostitute and if she conceived, the Qaifs – who were adept at this – identified the father of the child on the basis of the facial features and this man was obliged to maintain the mother and child.
Please note that in Quran as well as in Hadith, a prostitute is described as a woman who had relationships with a lot of men – the question of payment of money wasn’t important here, but the fact that she didn’t belong to a single man.
In fact in pre-Islamic period, marriage of a woman without paying money to her guardian was considered to be dishonorable – only slave girls and conquered women were married without Mahr. Free women from respected families were always married with payment of Mahr and wouldn’t get married if Mahr wasn’t paid.
This shows that our notion of prostitution didn’t really exist in 6th-7th century Arabia and hence, payment of money for marital sex should be seen from their perspective, not our own.
What did Prophet Muhammad do? – 1) He banned all relatioship forms that involved the women engaging with multiple men and 2) getting married without payment of Mahr. Now, only the marriage with payment of Mahr was valid. Moreover, he stipulated that Mahr should be paid to the bride, not to her guardian and she should control it. Thus, the bride got her betrothal money as well as the agreed bride-price.
Contd from the above comment –
Now, what was the significance of Mahr in Quran and Hadith?
First, it is important to know that the Arabic word for marriage ie, “Nikah” itself means sexual relationship in the literary sense – hence, it is used in the sense of marriage. The marriage contract in Islam thus, is the contract that establishes the terms for marital sex between two partners.
It is also important to know that the term Mahr doesn’t exist anywhere in Quran. This is a word of Persian origin. The Quran refers to this money in many different ways – sometimes only by way of implications.
This means that at the time of the rise of Islam, there was no set term for this money, as compared to the pre-Islamic Sadaq, which was the betrothal gift. Quran in fact uses the term Sadaq in some places to mean what is called Mahr now. This was because people were already familiar with Sadaq and Quran was using this familiar term in a new sense of payment. After Persia accepted Islam and began to use Mahr, this Persian word became common. Also, because Sadaq was originally a betrothal gift now being used for marriage payment in lieu of a term, English translations of Quran have translated Sadaq as marriage gift, creating a confusion about what this money was.
So how does Quran refer to this marriage payment? –
IV/4 – “And give freely to the women their Sadaq (on marriage)…
IV/19 – “…nor should you treat the women harshly by taking away part of what you have given them…”
Note – The phrase for “what you’ve given tehm – Atitmu hunna
IV/20 – “…even if you have given them a whole treasure as payment…”
Note – term for payment – Qintaran
IV/21 – “And how could you take it back after you both have established a sexual relationship and they have taken from you a covenant?
Note – phrase for established a sexual relationship – afza baazukum ila baz…
This particular verse is especially important because it establishes that the payment was meant as the part of the contract for establishing marital sex and hence it could not be returned after marriage was consummated.
IV/24 – “…provided you seek them in marriage with payment for their wage duty from your property, desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that you derive benefit from thes women…”
Note – women’s wage duty to be paid – Istamtaatum. deriving benefit from them – ojoorahunna.
The sense of paying for the sexual relationship, alongwith other services the woman will render in marriage is clear here.
Relatd to this theme is also a verse from Sahi-al Bukhari, a much used Sunna work –
Ch53/v 81 – Narrated ‘Uqba – “The Prophet said – The stipulations (ie a marriage contract) most entitled to be abided by are those with which you are given the right to enjoy your wife’s private parts (ie, marital sex).”
The concept of the marriage contract and the Mahr as the payment for marital sex is clear here.
I have already mentioned in my previous comment that we should not look upon this from view of prostitution – in their society, having sex outside marriage without payment of money, especially when many men were involved was shameful and equivalent to prostitution. Marital sex on payment of money was honourable.
Since the connotation of prostitution has changed in our times and the concept of bride-price itself doesn’t hold any significance, it is only fair to the woman if this money is paid at the time of divorce, not marriage.
OMGosh, Maha, sweetheart, you have completely taken this post out of context. I never, not even once, thought for a second that American Bedu exemplified the dowry to show how awful it is within Islam.
In fact, she is doing the opposite by showing how PEOPLE are using it way out of line and against Islam by showing the different and various ways it is used within the Islamic world.
For honesty’s sake, I have been reading AB’s blog for quite some time now and I continue to do so because her blog is very enlightening. Also, never did I read from any of her posts that she is putting Islam down in any way, shape or form.
Now, she does put out ALL sides since there are always many sides to every story and some people may not like the truth…………..but when it comes to the the “religion” or even the “country”, she only has good things to say about both.
Especially in light of my explanation of Mahr above, Maha’s equation of marriage with prostitution appears rather offensive. It shows a rigid mentality not wiilingness to understand the proper context of a practice.
One should understand the proper context in which a term has evolved and how it is used in a text, why it was valid in its time of origin and whether it is equally valid in the same form now, rather than making misinformed and closed-minded comments like this.
@Maha,
I wish you had posted your spiel about “solid scientific knowledge and Islam” at the begining of your post so I would have known to ignore the rest of it.
Science has nothing to do with religion as religion doesnt rest on empirical evidence, rather on faith. Anyone who confuses the two needs to go back and hit the books again.
As for American Bedu, as a rather vocal critical of the Saudi regime, I personally think she errs on being a bit light when it comes to looking at Saudi critically, so I find it a bit odd when you think she is too critical.
I think she has a happy medium in her outlook. Some people, such as yourself, cannot stand any sort of critical light being shown at themselves or their country.
Surat al Baqara (2.229-232) clearly states a woman should not be asked to return any part of her Mahr unless she wants to. Also (4.19) states her husband has no right to her money or property from before or during the marriage. If we are looking as Shari a, that is that. However, Saudi law is not necessarily based strictly on the Quran and hadith. Much of it is culture and classic male chauvanism.