Marriage & family in Islam

The concept of marriage, divorce and family life in Islam is different from the one prevalent in other religions. Since the parents’ mutual relationship plays an important part in the development of a child’s personality, the Quran considers a congruent and happy relationship between husband and wife as a pivot of family life. This relationship can be stable only if their attitude and temperament are compatible. Such men and women create a balanced and healthy environment in which their children grow up. In the Quran’s diction this is called ‘Nikah’ which literally means to absorb each other in the same way as raindrops are absorbed by earth. A couple executing this kind of contract is called Zauj’.

Allah directs that no momin (believer) should marry a mushrik woman and neither should a momin woman marry a mushrik man; because such marriages are bound to be incompatible and would drag you to hell in this world, as well as in the hereafter. In contrast, God invites you to heaven with a harmonious marriage (2:221). A valid question relates to the provision of Hoors for men in heaven but no such provision for women. While describing heaven the Quran says,’ Verily the God-Conscious will find themselves in a state secure amid gardens and springs wearing garments of silk and brocade facing one other (in love). Thus shall it be and We shall pair them with companions pure, most beautiful of eye’ (44:51-54).

According to Muhammad Asad, Hoor is a plural of both Ahwar (male) and Hawra (Female). Tabari, Razi and Ibn-e-Kaseer have referred to ‘Hoor’ as ‘pure companions’. The term is not gender specific and is used for both the genders. Therefore heavenly couples would be exemplary specimen of the ideal mixture of thought and deed. It must also be remembered that Zauj (Plural Azwaj) does not mean just wife. It means ‘complement’ that is, one has to be there to complete the other one. The husband complements the wife and the wife complements the husband.

A healthy, peaceful relationship with shared ideas and concepts is possible between two consenting parties only by mutual agreement. That is why the Quran calls Nikah a contract. Your wives have taken a firm covenant from you (4:21). By virtue of this contract a man and a woman pledge to accept the rights and obligations laid down by the Quran. The woman is absolutely free to marry anyone she likes. Man cannot marry a woman against her will (4:19). The Quran discusses this relationship in Surah Nisa 4:24. If the married life does not limit itself to the basic restrictions on which the ‘Nikah’ was established, then it is no longer ‘Nikah’; it degenerates to Safha or a relationship with no result.

The Quran describes mental and physical maturity as the first pre-requisite for marriage, whether male or female. (4:6). Contrary to the prevailing impression, how can minors enter into a solemn pledge and covenant? It is unIslamic to expect minors to give consent for such an important contract. Since Nikah cannot be solemnized in childhood, the question of appointing a guardian does not arise.

The Quran has not laid down any specific ceremony for marriage. There is no mention of any special person who should solemnize Nikah. As a contract, Nikah has to be ratified according to existing laws. It is equally important to proclaim the solemnization of Nikah. A marriage kept secret is not tenderized by the Quran (5:5).

Although there is no greater calumny, prejudice, ignorance and travesty of historical truth than to accuse Islam and its revolutionary Prophet (SAW) of lowering the position of woman. It must be admitted candidly that the present position of Muslim women in Muslim lands, particularly in Pakistan and India, is not her original position under pristine Islam. Her position today in all matters, including marriage, has been largely determined by the feudal heritage of Muslim land-owning upper class, and by the expedient and obscurantist opinions and verdicts of mediaeval Muslim jurisconsults who gave their interpretation of the Quran and the Sunnah under the commands and desires of Muslim despotic kings. It was also the result of the male-dominated milieu, and finally by non-Islamic customs and traditions.

It is noteworthy that the exalted Messenger (SAW) and some of his companions married more than once in times of social and military turbulence. In addition to slain men, there were examples where a woman would embrace Islam and her husband would not. The Quran does not allow a Muslim woman to marry or remain in marital contract with a non-Muslim. That had resulted in a large number of divorced women. So it was a matter of providing shelter and decent life. We must remember that when millions of men were killed in the second World War in Europe, innumerable European scholars and politicians strongly suggested that men of sound financial and emotional health be allowed to keep more than one wife to save society from chaos. The Quran has prescribed one wife at a time as a matter of rule. In case of constancy becoming extremely difficult, a second wife is allowed in her place. (4:20) It does not mean that a man is free to divorce his wife anytime he likes and bring another in her place. The Islamic government may allow a man to marry more than one woman only in exceptional circumstances. There are two essential conditions under which it can be allowed. Firstly, the man doing so can do justice to his wives; secondly, he is capable of supporting a large family. If any of these two conditions cannot be fulfilled, the second marriage is not allowed.

‘If ever such circumstances occur that in society men are lost and widows and orphans increase, especially women without husbands (4:127) and an equitable and just solution cannot be found.; under such circumstances it is allowed for the sake of protection of these widows and orphans, that you can marry out of these women, whom you like (those who are willing to marry you (4:19). For this purpose exception is given in the principle of ‘one wife’ at a time. In such an event, as the circumstances require and society demands, two or three or four wives at a time, can be taken in marriage. But if you feel that in doing so, you shall not be able to keep the scales of justice balanced amongst the different family members, then one man and one wife shall remain the law’ (4:3).

Trying to justify polygamy under the cover of this verse in ordinary circumstances and without specific conditions is nothing but open defiance of Quranic injunctions. If you ask somebody, he would say that he took a second wife because he was childless, as if God had enjoined upon him to increase the tribe of Adam and then come to Him failing which he would be sent to hell. On the contrary God Himself has said that children are born according to the laws of nature; some get boys and some girls, and some remain childless (42:50). Some give the excuse that because their wives were perpetually ill, they married again. According to their companionship, married life means that as long as your partner is healthy you keep her and the moment she becomes sick throw her out.

There is another misconception about marriage. The Quran addresses the Islamic society by saying: ‘Make proper arrangements for the marriage of those men and women who have not got adequate facilities for marriage’. To get married is not an injunction. Those who have to lead an unmarried life for whom the means to get married are not available, should control their passions. ‘Those who prefer a celibate life or have not the resources for marriage should exercise self control’ (24:33). The rules, regulations and traditions of marriage and family life, as they are practised today, are definitely not Islamic and it becomes very difficult to explain these practices to non-Muslims especially in the 21st Century when Islam is being targeted as enemy number one by the West.

Flip side of the ‘success story’

PAKISTAN’s economic indicators have not looked this good in over two decades. Following the GDP growth rate of 6.4 per cent two years ago, which was then the highest in a decade, the last fiscal year 2004-05, ended up with a growth rate of a phenomenal 8.4 per cent, the highest since 1985.

This year again, General Musharraf’s government has been claiming that the economy will grow by over 6.5 per cent, a very likely probability.

Consumer credit has expanded, exports may cross $18 billion, and the stock market creates new records every week. With such impressive economic indicators, no wonder the general and his team are beaming with confidence, especially when the western media has finally picked up on headline news — such as Newsweek’s recent story — which is not simply related to terrorism. Clearly, Pakistan’s economy is being talked about.

While accepting that the numbers are looking good, we must ask a set of questions to be able to assess whether we should start celebrating and claiming that the economy is on a sustainable high growth rate path for some years to come, or whether this is a mere flash in the pan, a moment of merry making for a select few, with the real problems being brushed under the carpet.

One needs to ask whether there are structural reasons for high growth, or whether fortuitous circumstances led to this festive season. This will help answer the question, whether growth will continue. Then, we need to examine the consequences of this high growth: who is it reaching and is it doing some damage to the economy as well? Finally, we need to identify some serious problems in the economy which cannot be wished away.

There is little disagreement over the fact that the economy has benefited immensely — as has General Musharraf’s political fortunes — as a consequence of 9/11. The single most important attribute of Pakistan’s economy right through the 1990s, was its severe debt burden. With having to repay large amounts of interest each year, little was left for domestic development. Soon after 9/11, a huge part of the country’s debt was written off and rescheduled, creating immense fiscal space which was a windfall which the government could not have anticipated in its wildest dreams.

Apart from this, aid flew back into Pakistan, a pattern that we have seen when the two previous military dictators ruled Pakistan, in the 1960s and 1980s. As Shahid Javed Burki has shown in these pages, external support to Pakistan grows when the military is in power. It has been this windfall gain after 9/11 which has driven this boom, and once this external support dries up, the economy is likely to slow down once again.

Moreover, while growth figures and those of the stock market look good for publicity reasons, they need not have an impact on the real economy, as events in India have shown a couple of years ago. The previous BJP government felt that with unprecedented growth rates India had begun to shine, but the voters on whom no light fell, felt otherwise. Growth is necessary, but certainly not sufficient to make an impact on the real economy. This is when distributive issues become even more important.

While the government claims that poverty and unemployment have fallen — although it has still to reveal how it came up with these numbers — it acknowledges that inequality has grown in Pakistan. This is evident even visually and anecdotally across Pakistan’s urban landmarks. There certainly has been a consumer boom, as there had been one in India, but again, just like India, there has been increasing inequality which has added to the frustration of those who have not been able to shine along with the few who have. Unfulfilled aspirations at a time when small sections of the population are making merry, is a dangerous political and social cocktail. In democracies such as India, people vote out governments; elsewhere, as in Indonesia, Eastern Europe, Iran and South Africa, they have used different tactics.

Along with high growth there has also been high inflation: 9.3 per cent (if the government is to be believed) last year, the highest since 1997. Few consumers would accept that inflation is as low as this, and most people believe that the quality of their life has deteriorated despite the ‘boom’. Inflation affects every single person in the country and while the stock and real estate markets may boom as much as they like, most people are finding it difficult to come to terms with the rising prices of petrol, gas and sugar.

An area which is being completely ignored by policymakers hoping that it will go away, a factor that is a consequence of the high growth, is that of the excessive trade deficit. Although exports have broken new records this year, so has the import bill which is likely to outpace the export receipts by between $5-7 billion. No one is asking the question: who will (and how will they) pay for this deficit? The government will have to either borrow from international financial institutions or the market, or will have to impose a curb on imports, or it might have to devalue the rupee. On all three counts, government action is highly constrained and will make matters worse.

It has sworn time and again that it will never go back to the IFIs, so if it does, there will be political backlash. Secondly, in these times of the WTO, it cannot impose import restrictions either. And devaluation will only make the import bill soar further. If the government has a strategy of dealing with this growing deficit — other than selling Pakistani public assets to foreigners, a strategy known in this country as ‘privatization’ — it hasn’t made it public.

Moreover, the stage where there will be no profitable public sector concerns left to sell, is fast approaching. What the government does then, is anyone’s guess. A factor which has also been overlooked, is that despite the rise in remittances, foreign receipts for privatization and aid, the foreign exchange reserves have actually fallen over the last two years. Clearly, a sign that something is amiss.

All is not well in the kingdom of High Growth Pakistan. Growing inequality, rising prices and growth which is not broad based, will have serious political consequences. The sad part of this story is, that the unprecedented fiscal space created by circumstances has been squandered away. Public expenditure on health and education put together is still, as it always has been, merely half of military expenditure. Pakistan’s ruling elite, in this case the military, has let yet another momentous opportunity pass the country by. The tragedy here, is that once the economy begins to lose steam and the military’s festive season draws to its close, it will be the politicians and civilians who are left with the cleaning up, and the bill that goes with it.

Close the loophole

THE House is taking up a legislation that would close the biggest remaining loophole in America’s campaign finance system. It would require the political groups known as 527s to play by the same rules as other committees that aim to influence federal elections.

The House ought to pass the measure and shut down the kind of 527 “soft money” operation that flourished during the 2004 campaign, like Democrats’ America Coming Together and Republicans’ Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

These committees, named after the section of the tax code under which they’re established, are by definition “organized and operated primarily” to influence elections. When those elections are for federal office, it makes no sense to let such groups collect six-, seven- and even eight-figure cheques to elect or defeat candidates, while candidates, political parties and political action committees are limited to receiving contributions a small fraction of that size. Similarly, corporations and labour unions — barred by law from contributing directly to federal candidates or parties — shouldn’t be allowed to write checks to 527s, which exist for the same purpose.

The usual politics of campaign finance reform — Democrats for (at least publicly), Republicans against — are upside down this time around. The reason is that Republicans do better than Democrats at raising the (relatively) small donations known as “hard money,” while Democrats took the lead in the past election cycle in raising soft money for 527 groups. Connoisseurs of hypocrisy should enjoy this spectacle, but the partisan calculations are probably overstated.

—The Washington Post