Wave of Attacks on Police
Iraq the Model: Guerrillas shot or blew up Iraqi policemen and soldiers all over the country on Sunday. At least 17 were killed or wounded if we include police officers' body guards, in cities and towns from Baquba to Tuz Khurmato.
Iraq the Model: The implementation of the new Iraqi constitution will likely lead to an even more thorough impact of Islamic law. James Palmer of the Religion News Service interviews Iraqi women who fear or welcome this development.
Iraq the Model: A new Zogby telephone poll shows that Bush's approval rating has dipped back down to 39 percent. Only 34 percent think he is doing a good job on Iraq.
Iraq the Model: The US military released two Reuters correspondents whom it held for months without charge. It is still holding other journalists. The military said it had to ascertain whether the men were really journalists. Couldn't they have, like, just asked Reuters? The intimidation of journalists is one of many propaganda tools the Pentagon has deployed to keep the full story of how bad things are in Iraq from getting out.
Iraq the Model: I am afraid that a lot of fruitless "search and seizure" such as is described by Nick Wadham of AP, is going on in Iraq, and that it is alienating more people than it is worth. The worst thing of all is that in the absence of a Status of Forces agreement, and in light of the Iraqi constitution, for US troops to invade Iraqi homes and make arrests without without warrants from judges is illegal.
Iraq the Model: William Fisher argues that Bush turned Iraq over to the State Department because even he finally realized that Rumsfeld's administration of the country was corrupt and error-prone.
Iraq The Model: The traditional Shiite practice of "temporary marriage" or mut'ah, is increasing in popularity in Iraq, according to UPI. Marriage in Islam is in part a contract, and Shiite law allows the contract to specify how long the marriage will last. It can be a short period, such as two weeks. Critics of the practice decry it as a form of legalized prostitution, since the groom is responsible for taking care of his temporary bride economically for the period of time they are married. But US couples do one-night stands and move in together for short and longer periods, and living together is often considered a form of common law marriage. So it mystifies me why Americans get so self-righteous about a formalized, religiously sanctioned equivalent of American style shacking up.
posted by Juan Cole @ 1/16/2006 12:17:00 AM
|
Facebook
6 Comments:
On Shia temporary marriages, you wrote >So it mystifies me why Americans get so self-righteous about a formalized, religiously sanctioned equivalent of American style shacking up.<
First, has the girl any choice?
Second, willingly or unwillingly, she is often married to a much older man. I know this often happens anyway, but at least it should be permanent.
Third, what happens to her after the 'divorce'? She is no longer a virgin. Will she be able to contract a decent marriage?
Fourth, what possible benefit does she get from it?
My understanding is:
1. No
2. She's often from a very poor family, so must take what she gets.
3. Prostitution?
4. I await your answer....
Occupation as Mut'ah?
New Paradigms Department:
Maybe we need to think of the US occupation of Iraq and the rest of the Middle East as a kind of mut'ah--an indefinitely long "marriage" of convenience, substituting, of course, violence and power for sex.
Seen in this light, the US role is "natural and organic," and we can all relax while nature takes its course, until such time as the US gets bored or the oil runs out, whichever comes first, and ends the relationship.
Surely you aren't really mystified about why Americans get "so self-righteous about a formalized, religiously sanctioned equivalent of American style shacking up." We have our own formalized equivalent of one-night shackups. It's called prostitution and we lock people up for it. For a religion infamous for prudery and patriarchy to sanction males to hire female prostitutes therefore appears to be a perfect storm of hypocrisy and exploitation.
We should clarify a few points about mut'ah. Professor Cole mentioned that the man is responsible for the financial needs of the woman during the marriage. The dowry, required for all Islamic marriage contracts, may be something as simple as a flower, or it could be a thousand dollars. The man is not responsible for any of her other financial needs. The dowry element of mut'ah may certainly be abused making it a form of prostitution, but that does not nullify the institution in the same way that the 'Russian Bride' phenomenon in the United States does not nullify the institution of Christian marriage.
I once knew a Canadian English teacher living in Sharjah who took broad advantage of the rampant prostitution in the Emirates, and boasted of his exploits as well. When he learned of mut'ah, he condemned it as 'immoral'. I think part of the issue, Professor Cole, is that coming from a Christian or post-Christian background, many Westerners are very uneasy about the relationship between sexuality and religion. To many Westerners, one of the very functions of religion, perhaps _the_ function par excellence, is to limit sexuality. Islam is one of the few religions that gives such wide legitimacy to sexuality and enshrines that legitimacy in institutions like mut'ah.
To reply to zenobia's comment, although I'm not a Shia, and Sunnis don't support Mut'aa, I'll tell you what they keep telling me.
On the Shia temporary marriages, the girl has to sign the contract, and Islamically, you're not supposed to force her. Also, I believe you have to get the consent of her parents, although if they aren't Shia, some may disagree.
Secondly, Mut'aa can be extended, like a renewed contract. The marriage contract also typically has some sort of provision in case of pregnancy or childbirth, making the father responsible for child support after the marriage may end. (Sunnis for that reason have some sort of delay before a divorce can occur, to forestall such a problem.)
What benefits do people get from it? If a man or woman is living temporarily abroad, it may be useful to be married and taken care of for a few months, without the risk of a long-term commitment. I don't support the practice, but I can see why some Shia defend it.
Zenobia asks "First, has the girl any choice?
Second, willingly or unwillingly, she is often married to a much older man. I know this often happens anyway, but at least it should be permanent.
Third, what happens to her after the 'divorce'? She is no longer a virgin. Will she be able to contract a decent marriage?
Fourth, what possible benefit does she get from it?"
Sure, Islamically and culturally she usually does, for reasons I will explain in answering your other questions. These types of marriages are usually entered into by women who are already not virgins, ie, divorced. It is almost unthinkable that a virgin/unmarried woman would enter into such an arrangement or have the family agree to it. The culture in the areas talked about dictates that the women who do this, mostly divorced, would have a hard time getting married again anyways as divorce, for women, carries a large stigma. Benefit? Often money, and sexual companionship with a very thin vaneer of legitimacy.
This is being described as a purely Shi'a thing, it is not. In Saudi and other places they have a thing called "mesyer" (Transliteration?) marriage which is basically the same thing.
Abu Sinan
abusinan.blogspot.com
Post a Comment
<< Home