Responde to Prashant : "Technically speaking Mahr is either unfair or bad"

Submitted by nur (Singapore), Dec 14, 2015 at 05:01

I am a Muslim woman. I'm writing in response to Prashant's comment about Mahr. Mahr is a wedding gift that cannot be returned to the groom except under very specific conditions (not within the scope of this comment thread). There may be different cultural reasons for mahr that people themselves have rationalised, but whatever it is, giving a mahr certainly does not exempt a Muslim husband from providing for his wife. Mahr is compulsory for the marriage contract to be valid.

It is compulsory for the Muslim man to provide financially as well as physically and emotionally for his wife. He needs to provide enough for her to eat, drink, and run the household with as well as other expenses she may have. Before marriage, the responsibility of providing for her falls to her father or in his absence, other close male relatives (such as brothers). After marriage, it is the responsibility of her husband. Whether or not she works, or is rolling around in cash, the wife is absolutely not required to provide a single cent of her property to provide for her husband. But of course in real life, women do actually contribute to the household but theoretically that will be out of her own free will or with her agreement and out of the goodness of her own heart.

This is the rationale behind inheritance laws giving 2 units of inheritance to male relatives for every 1 unit given to the females. Because what is her property is hers alone while that of a male is to take care of the entire family. These responsibilities are well-known. Before you marry a Muslim man, you need to know your rights as a wife (and also his rights as a husband). Without a man carrying out his responsibility, it is grounds for a divorce. Nevertheless of course divorce is never easy and is definitely disliked and there is a due process to follow but this is not within the scope of this comment thread.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".