Village Journals
Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.
Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.
An Epifany on Islamic Law and Gender Equality
So all my life I've wondered about how certain rules according to Islamic law seem to significantly favor the male species. One issue in particular that dragged on my sense of fairness was Allah's instruction that the portion of a daughter's inheritance is to be 1/2 of that of a son's portion. For example, if a person had one son and one daughter, the son would receive 2/3 of the estate and the daughter 1/2.
The logic behind this rule was that the equation balances out if one considers that a woman will partake in the extra inheritance her husband receives. However, what if one's husband comes from a family of less wealth? What if her husband has suffered from a crippling disease and is unable to work? ...etc. etc.
Apparently, there is a BIG loophole to this rule that we don't hear of very often. This inheritance law only applies to the distribution of wealth AFTER the death of the parents. However, during their life, parents are free to give whatever amount they wish to their daughters. So this got me thinking, "why/how would parents give money to their daughters during their life?"
It is only recently that I realized that this provision in the law was probably there because traditionally it is a girl's parents that pay for wedding expenses and dowries. Therefore, it was only fair that they get a lesser share from their parents' estate. This all makes perfect sense to me now.
I just thought I'd share my epiphany. It's a good argument in favor of how Islamic laws were meant to be equitable towards both genders.
The logic behind this rule was that the equation balances out if one considers that a woman will partake in the extra inheritance her husband receives. However, what if one's husband comes from a family of less wealth? What if her husband has suffered from a crippling disease and is unable to work? ...etc. etc.
Apparently, there is a BIG loophole to this rule that we don't hear of very often. This inheritance law only applies to the distribution of wealth AFTER the death of the parents. However, during their life, parents are free to give whatever amount they wish to their daughters. So this got me thinking, "why/how would parents give money to their daughters during their life?"
It is only recently that I realized that this provision in the law was probably there because traditionally it is a girl's parents that pay for wedding expenses and dowries. Therefore, it was only fair that they get a lesser share from their parents' estate. This all makes perfect sense to me now.
I just thought I'd share my epiphany. It's a good argument in favor of how Islamic laws were meant to be equitable towards both genders.
Comments on this journal
Oh well.. the system of objecting during the ceremony or even formally asking if anybody has objection is totally BS. If two people are ready to marry, there is nothing that can stop them from marrying.
Furthermore in islamic system, if there is a girl who has been approached by another dude, then nobody else can propose that girl untill she refuses the first candidate..
I guess, I'll have to figure out myself from whose side I get more gifts.. Ceremony coming up in couple months P: for me too. Anyways last couple of days of bachelorhood I can enjoy ;)
Plato, they didn't cut into the wrong knee, but misread my MRI. So they went in thinking I had a torn cartilidge only to find that I had a torn ligament. They couldn't perform a procedure different than the intended one without my consent so opted to close it and go back and fix it at another time....and double bill by insurance company. Bastards. Can we say "lawsuit in the making?"
Baba, I have yet to see one, but I've definitely heard of it. An "auntie" in my community had someone object to her wedding some 30 yrs ago b/c they had an interest in marrying her. Unfortunately, she still chose to marry the old geezer she's with today.
...
...
...
...
... it's good thing I have another 5,689 spare ;)
True Manas, apparently people of all cultures also say significantly more often that a new baby looks more like the father than the mother. It is to do with re-inforcing the fact that it is actually the husbands child and to allay suspicion that the mother may have been playing away from home. Regardless of how prevalent or not that sort of thing is. About 10% (UK figs I think) of children have different biological fathers to those named on the birth certificate so one can understand the reason for it!
why'd the frist one go wrong? did they cut into the wrong leg? i hate it when that happens but they look soooo much alike you know, and it's hard to tell sometimes.
Shazia, I agree that dowries and shnitz are outdated and are rarely applicable in today's world. But, did you know that regardless of how modern a family, it's ALWAYS the bride's family that incurs the most wedding expenses. Even in today's world where women are earning an education in equal proportions as men, many a groom's parents seem to think they have some sort of trump card that they need to cash.
For example mendhi expenses are usually incurred by the bride's family. It's the brides family that makes arrangments for accomodations for the groom's family if he's from out of town. On the other hand, if the out of town groom has his valima in his hometown, his family traditionally does NOT pay for the brides' family's accomodations. etc. etc. When you add numbers, the bride's family incurs at least 70% of all expenses. In the Western world, these expenses are not modest and could well exceed the amount spent on the child's education, even if the wedding itself is a modest affair. It's absolutely ridiculous in my opinion, but it's just the nature of the game.
As for the increase in value of the old sofa...
...
...
...
... and her furniture...
P:
The Shariah is not in accordance with the spirit of the Quran.
If you don't believe me, then all you have to do is buy an English translation of all the Shariah laws for your employer next Christmas.
Now for some Arabs the guy has to have a furnished condo and if something wrong happened, then he would keep the condo and she the furniture.
I don't think that is much better.
Fancy that, an non-Islamic place being a better place to be a Muslim than in an Islamic place. I was shocked. Were you shocked? I was very shocked.
Anyway, why should it matter these days, we live in the west which has its own (enforceable) laws pertaining to finance.
Yo Shaz, happy new year m'darLINK!
Anyway, sweet-chatting aside, I remember (and correct me if I am wrong, which is highly probable), is that the financial onus in a family is put upon the shoulders of a man. Women are financially independent, not having to contribute any of their earnings to the family (if they so choose), keeping what they earn in the pockets of their shawls. Now don't blame the economics of the religion if certain parts of the world (countries, tribes etc.) have little or now respect for the independence or women and don't let them work. Hence, I suppose men get more than women (inheritance), so that the male kids can grow up and spend it on their family.
In terms of gender bias, I would say that that was the way things were then - and Islam did give women many more rights then they had at the time. I know that Islam gives women many many rights still, but the bias could perhaps be because we've always had male scholars who have seen fit to stop at half an interpretation and not carry on with regards to the men. And there are still some aspects of women in Islam that make me uncomfortable - issues of testimony, divorce, a married woman cannot deny her husband s*x etc