Nuclear Energy and Afghan Weddings
First, I can't help but post this, even though it doesn't relate directly to shari'a, but I think it is absolutely hilarious that Hussein Shahristani, Iraq's Minister of Oil, is discussing on Sawa, the US owned and operated Arabic language radio station, the need of Iraq to develop peaceful nuclear energy. He did make clear that they would do this through purchase of the uranium rather than refinement of it, but still, wasn't a central neocon argument against Iran the idea that it would make no sense for an oil rich country to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and so it had to be a weapon? Iraq and Iran have about the same amount of oil, and Iraq's population is only about one third of Iran's. So Iraq needs nuclear energy three times less than Iran, and it still needs it, according to the Oil Minister. Bill Kristol, help me out, how does one make sense of this in the neocon world? On to the topic of the day.
Today's New York Times had an interesting article on Afghan weddings and how their costs have spiralled wildly out of control. Though I know nothing of Afghanistan, the piece itself seemed wildly inconsistent and implausible, in a manner that I think might shed light on Islamic law and disparate Muslim cultures. The thrust of the piece was that Afghan men were being bankrupted by the costs of weddings, which they bear rather than the bride, and the cost of the "reverse dowry" they are required to pay to their brides. That part I have no reason to question.
There is, in fact, something Islamic to this. Pre-Islamic Arab cultures required men to pay the fathers of their brides for the right to marry their daughters what is commonly referred to as a "bride price". This was converted by Muhammad to a dowry, or mahar, which went to the bride rather than her father. Muslims are justifiably proud of this reform, and suggest that it shows Islam's desire to liberate women through providing them independent means of survival rather than being the object of purchase.
A wonderful story, an entirely plausible one to us Muslim liberals, but regrettably not always taken, in contemporary times, in the manner that the polemicists would have it. While it is true that dowry is given to the bride, a bride's parents still must consent to any match, and a not insignificant number of marriages begin in a form of bargaining that seems to resemble a camel auction (I witnessed one in Pushkar India, they really are similar) than a love union. There is constant haggling over the appropriate dowry, this much gold or that much, and ultimately a price is agreed, or the proposed union called off by one family or the other, often to the regret of the bride, the groom, or both of them. A father asking for a bit more for himself, or his family, is not unusual either. I do mean this as a criticism, though I should be clear it does seem no worse than the haggling that often seems to accompany US pre-nuptial agreements.
In any event, the fact that this happens in Afghanistan, and that men pay for the many wedding parties and whatnot that run up bills is thus no surprise. (This party element is not as "Islamic" in that the shari'a requires no formal ceremony, but perhaps informed by the Islamic rules on dowry, men tend to pay for the wedding parties in Afghanistan apparently and Iraq certainly.) That they bankrupt themselves doing it seems plausible enough.
What seems ridiculous is one of the reasons given in the article, that the bride's family all but compels it; leaving a groom with no choice. In order for that to be true, there would have to be some major discrepancy in the supply of women to marry and demand of men to be married (sorry to be so crass, but when it comes to dowry questions, the economics is central). That seems highly implausible in a society devastated by war. While the Taliban clearly neglected women's health care to devastating effect, still one would think two decades of war would lead to the opposite problem. You would think that while the haggling would always occur, the haggling couldn't work to bankrupt the groom at the bride's expense against his family's better judgment and desire. They'd just go find another bride, there should be plenty, if enough grooms' families felt this way.
I think that in Afghanistan, as in Iraq, it is quite likely that the exorbitant sums, while demanded by the brides of course, are ultimately paid by grooms for the same reason that people bankrupt themselves in the U.S. to buy late model Mercedes they can't afford--it's all about status. Now a groom might allude to that (they do in the article, and the article mentions this as another reason), but it's a little crass to say that one is spending his fortune for a wedding party because he really wants to look good. So to seem a bit less ostentatious, other reasons are needed. Here the women provide a convenient excuse-they demand it, they insist on it, if it wasn't for them we'd be humble and modest, but these women and their families, they're out of control and so we have no choice.
Thus we come to a rule that's about as universal as any--when a society has a problem, it must be the women's fault. Ironic that the New York Times of all outlets is giving voice to it.
HAH
Today's New York Times had an interesting article on Afghan weddings and how their costs have spiralled wildly out of control. Though I know nothing of Afghanistan, the piece itself seemed wildly inconsistent and implausible, in a manner that I think might shed light on Islamic law and disparate Muslim cultures. The thrust of the piece was that Afghan men were being bankrupted by the costs of weddings, which they bear rather than the bride, and the cost of the "reverse dowry" they are required to pay to their brides. That part I have no reason to question.
There is, in fact, something Islamic to this. Pre-Islamic Arab cultures required men to pay the fathers of their brides for the right to marry their daughters what is commonly referred to as a "bride price". This was converted by Muhammad to a dowry, or mahar, which went to the bride rather than her father. Muslims are justifiably proud of this reform, and suggest that it shows Islam's desire to liberate women through providing them independent means of survival rather than being the object of purchase.
A wonderful story, an entirely plausible one to us Muslim liberals, but regrettably not always taken, in contemporary times, in the manner that the polemicists would have it. While it is true that dowry is given to the bride, a bride's parents still must consent to any match, and a not insignificant number of marriages begin in a form of bargaining that seems to resemble a camel auction (I witnessed one in Pushkar India, they really are similar) than a love union. There is constant haggling over the appropriate dowry, this much gold or that much, and ultimately a price is agreed, or the proposed union called off by one family or the other, often to the regret of the bride, the groom, or both of them. A father asking for a bit more for himself, or his family, is not unusual either. I do mean this as a criticism, though I should be clear it does seem no worse than the haggling that often seems to accompany US pre-nuptial agreements.
In any event, the fact that this happens in Afghanistan, and that men pay for the many wedding parties and whatnot that run up bills is thus no surprise. (This party element is not as "Islamic" in that the shari'a requires no formal ceremony, but perhaps informed by the Islamic rules on dowry, men tend to pay for the wedding parties in Afghanistan apparently and Iraq certainly.) That they bankrupt themselves doing it seems plausible enough.
What seems ridiculous is one of the reasons given in the article, that the bride's family all but compels it; leaving a groom with no choice. In order for that to be true, there would have to be some major discrepancy in the supply of women to marry and demand of men to be married (sorry to be so crass, but when it comes to dowry questions, the economics is central). That seems highly implausible in a society devastated by war. While the Taliban clearly neglected women's health care to devastating effect, still one would think two decades of war would lead to the opposite problem. You would think that while the haggling would always occur, the haggling couldn't work to bankrupt the groom at the bride's expense against his family's better judgment and desire. They'd just go find another bride, there should be plenty, if enough grooms' families felt this way.
I think that in Afghanistan, as in Iraq, it is quite likely that the exorbitant sums, while demanded by the brides of course, are ultimately paid by grooms for the same reason that people bankrupt themselves in the U.S. to buy late model Mercedes they can't afford--it's all about status. Now a groom might allude to that (they do in the article, and the article mentions this as another reason), but it's a little crass to say that one is spending his fortune for a wedding party because he really wants to look good. So to seem a bit less ostentatious, other reasons are needed. Here the women provide a convenient excuse-they demand it, they insist on it, if it wasn't for them we'd be humble and modest, but these women and their families, they're out of control and so we have no choice.
Thus we come to a rule that's about as universal as any--when a society has a problem, it must be the women's fault. Ironic that the New York Times of all outlets is giving voice to it.
HAH
Comments