Hamas and the Marriage of the Widows
In today's New York Times, there was an interesting piece about how Hamas was encouraging war widows to marry some of thei Hamas fighters. I was more interested in a part of this that the article didn't emphasize, which was that they were arranging marriages with widows against a fairly strong Arab stigma against widows (as opposed to widowers) remarrying. Why select widows then, if clearly the troubles have resulted in a significant gender imbalance in favor of women?
The answer, I surmise, is quite interesting. First, it is important to note the lack of a shari'a prohibition against a widow remarrying. While I am not one to pass off every single problem in the Muslim world to "culture" and not "religion" and in many cases find the distinction almost irrelevant (after all, it is the "culture" that defines what the "religion" is through the process of interpretation), here is probably a prime case where the Arab taboo against a woman remarrying has virtually no shari'a support as far as I can tell. As early as the Prophet's first wife, early Islamic history is replete with stories of widowed women remarrying, and I've never heard of or seen a scholar suggest there is any problem with this.
Yet it is very hard for a widow, or even worse a divorcee, in our lands. They're usually stuck with an unemployed older guy who is divorced and has three kids or something. If they're lucky. It's a tough hurdle, not impossible, but really hard. And people will talk certainly if and when they do remarry (didn't she love her husband to whom she was married for 7 months? it will be asked. Why did she marry another three years later if she did? And so forth.) So it's not apostasy, you don't get killed for it, but it's tough.
So why then is Hamas arranging this stuff with widows given the cultural taboos and the presumably larger number of Palestinian women? This is where Muslim doctrine comes in. The way Muslim marriage works is, you want a bride under shari'a rules, you have to pay for it in the form of dowry. It is supposed to go to the woman to keep, particularly if the guy decides to initiate a unilateral divorce, and it does, but it's not uncommon for her father to ask for a little something something on the side too, for him, for a brother (sometimes the offering of the groom's sister to the bride's brother) or whatever. The latter part isn't really shari'a, but it develops around the doctrinal practice, which involves the payment of a sum to the bride, immediately in part and deferred in part, in exchange for vows.
And so while it's nice to say this is all to protect women because they can't divorce and men can and so this is the Muslim alimony, reality is quite often in its structure in this cultural milieu it starts to look a bit like a purchase. Not always, I bought my wife a diamond ring and a few bits of jewelry and we called that the dowry (and we had to do that or there would have been major social ramifications) but definitely at times, in fact the prevalent practice, it's pretty hard core negotiating between the father of the bride and the father of the groom, and hard feelings and broken deals are not uncommon, all over the right price. And it is a point of pride to a bride's father that he's managed to exact a high price--helps show the woman's worth. This guy paid three Mercedes and seventeen pounds of gold for her, can you believe it? Wow, she must be hot. I've heard things like that. THis is a perfect place where the futility of separating culture from religion appears. They aren't breaking Muslim law by doing this, they are interpreting it. And American Muslims interpret it too, to practice Islam much differently, and treat the dowry almost as a sign of affection and caring.
Now dowry may apply to widows and virgins alike, both doctrinally get a dowry, but the reality is, virgins are going to command a much higher price given the above stigma on the widow. And most importantly, it's Hamas arranging for and paying for all of this stuff. So if you're trying to keep your people happy during a ceasefire with Israel, and there is much unemployment and you're going to throw them a bunch of weddings, there are costs to consider. You can't afford virgins, so you get widows. You use the cultural stigma, and the lack of any sort of explicit Muslim prohibition against the marrying of widows to advance economic self interest. A cultural stigma coupled with religous silence on the same issue (widow remarrying) played off a religious requirement (dowry) to advance economic gain.
And it is from all of this, not the texts read in isolation, that actual legal practice (ie marriages under law) ensues.
HAH
The answer, I surmise, is quite interesting. First, it is important to note the lack of a shari'a prohibition against a widow remarrying. While I am not one to pass off every single problem in the Muslim world to "culture" and not "religion" and in many cases find the distinction almost irrelevant (after all, it is the "culture" that defines what the "religion" is through the process of interpretation), here is probably a prime case where the Arab taboo against a woman remarrying has virtually no shari'a support as far as I can tell. As early as the Prophet's first wife, early Islamic history is replete with stories of widowed women remarrying, and I've never heard of or seen a scholar suggest there is any problem with this.
Yet it is very hard for a widow, or even worse a divorcee, in our lands. They're usually stuck with an unemployed older guy who is divorced and has three kids or something. If they're lucky. It's a tough hurdle, not impossible, but really hard. And people will talk certainly if and when they do remarry (didn't she love her husband to whom she was married for 7 months? it will be asked. Why did she marry another three years later if she did? And so forth.) So it's not apostasy, you don't get killed for it, but it's tough.
So why then is Hamas arranging this stuff with widows given the cultural taboos and the presumably larger number of Palestinian women? This is where Muslim doctrine comes in. The way Muslim marriage works is, you want a bride under shari'a rules, you have to pay for it in the form of dowry. It is supposed to go to the woman to keep, particularly if the guy decides to initiate a unilateral divorce, and it does, but it's not uncommon for her father to ask for a little something something on the side too, for him, for a brother (sometimes the offering of the groom's sister to the bride's brother) or whatever. The latter part isn't really shari'a, but it develops around the doctrinal practice, which involves the payment of a sum to the bride, immediately in part and deferred in part, in exchange for vows.
And so while it's nice to say this is all to protect women because they can't divorce and men can and so this is the Muslim alimony, reality is quite often in its structure in this cultural milieu it starts to look a bit like a purchase. Not always, I bought my wife a diamond ring and a few bits of jewelry and we called that the dowry (and we had to do that or there would have been major social ramifications) but definitely at times, in fact the prevalent practice, it's pretty hard core negotiating between the father of the bride and the father of the groom, and hard feelings and broken deals are not uncommon, all over the right price. And it is a point of pride to a bride's father that he's managed to exact a high price--helps show the woman's worth. This guy paid three Mercedes and seventeen pounds of gold for her, can you believe it? Wow, she must be hot. I've heard things like that. THis is a perfect place where the futility of separating culture from religion appears. They aren't breaking Muslim law by doing this, they are interpreting it. And American Muslims interpret it too, to practice Islam much differently, and treat the dowry almost as a sign of affection and caring.
Now dowry may apply to widows and virgins alike, both doctrinally get a dowry, but the reality is, virgins are going to command a much higher price given the above stigma on the widow. And most importantly, it's Hamas arranging for and paying for all of this stuff. So if you're trying to keep your people happy during a ceasefire with Israel, and there is much unemployment and you're going to throw them a bunch of weddings, there are costs to consider. You can't afford virgins, so you get widows. You use the cultural stigma, and the lack of any sort of explicit Muslim prohibition against the marrying of widows to advance economic self interest. A cultural stigma coupled with religous silence on the same issue (widow remarrying) played off a religious requirement (dowry) to advance economic gain.
And it is from all of this, not the texts read in isolation, that actual legal practice (ie marriages under law) ensues.
HAH
I am very surprised to learn about a "Muslim prohibition against the marrying of widows". In the Hol Quran, a provision was made in the form of polygamy so that the widow should find a home and protector and the orphans should have paternal care and affection. four.http://www.muhammadspeaks.com/Polygamy2.html
Reply to this
There is no such prohibition, that's the point of the post, or one of them. Look at what you are quoting from my post again, a fuller quote is "THE LACK OF ANY" Muslim prohibition. You left out the first four words, which are pretty important.
HAH
Reply to this