Talaaq 3 Times She Said

good article. thought provoking. i was astonished to read replies of some of the people who doubted its truth and validity. as a mental health professional in u.s., i am aware of many other statements made by husbands. this is pretty much same in eastern cultures as well, if not worse. differens remains in accepting a divorced female. in west she is relatively protected by society but in east ``divorce`` sometimes is compared with bieng handicap. people sympethise with you, either will be angry at you or treat you especially but not on a similar ground as an unmarried woman.

another important aspect of the article is that marriage is always and always a culturally flavored institution. before societies emerged there was no marriage. and even in sixties many people lived in communes, shared love, shared companionship, shared responsibilities and even shared children. single child would have multiple fathers and would live in a sex free social setting. i dont think that aa is advocating that, but i do think that she believes in the ill fate of a woman married to a wrong man and due to the societal barriers can not set her self free. if she leaves early, she is told that she did not give it a full chance. if she stays for, waiting for him to change, she is labelled as someone wanting to be maltreated for long and then blamed for that. more than often she is told to stay in marriage for the kids, as aa wrote the product of such disrupted unit will only be more diturbed and then the cycle begins.

i know guys staying in marriage for all the above mentioned reasons as well. i dont think that the idea of the article was to convey the sexist approach towards marriage, but to get across dysfunctional marriages. and the role society, (which is generally comprise of humans) play to make it more hard to break free. at the same time it is important to question our feelings and responses towards divorced individual. can we, the educated males, look at those females in a more acceptable way. what if my sister or my daughter wants to leave her husband??

once again a thought provoking article for the males of `90s.

Salaam... enjoyed reading your article! However, I think the reverse is quite possible also. We tend to forget that a South Asian woman can also make life hell for a South Asian man. Come to think of it, who is the victim/survivor in this story? The one who is tortured or the one who is being tortured?

shukriya,

mariam

A culture that teaches its women to allow themselves to be despised this way is not a culture that is helping humanity evolve. Why does this culture ENCOURAGE women to tolerate with silent submission maltreatment and emotional neglect in marriage? The man never has to raise himself to a higher level, (be it spiritually, economocally, emotionally or in responsibility); it is his woman who is required to preserve his ``manhood`` by lowering herself, so that he always looks like he`s that ``degree above her`` that is his right by the Almighty Creator. Why, she`s guilty of violating natural Law if she shows signs of growing and evolving faster than her spouse.

Which one here it the dysfunctional spouse? The easy answer is the cruel husband, but the true answer is the wife. Why does she allow herself to be despised and treated so badly? The situation is unbearable 10 years into their marriage, and yet she stays in it for another 15 years! What is the use of Talaaq at that stage, all harm and damage a divorce would save her from has already been done. Why did she stay? for everybody but herself. The more I read, the less sympathy I had for her. By the time she got up the self-respect to get herself out, it was too late. If she had gotten the courage 15 years earlier, she might have chose to get out then---OR, maybe she could have used that courage to shape her marriage into more of what she envisioned, what she needed; not what she passively sat and let it become.

Saad,

I feel you`re taking my statements out of context.

You say: ``Marriage is indeed a cultural product, but saying that it `upholds capitalist divisions of labor` is, I would respectfully suggest, a bit exremist.``

It may be a bit extremeist in your opinion. But if you agree that marriage is indeed a ``cultural product``, then the rest is an extension of that. Marriage serves certain socio-economic functions. One of these may be an efficient division of labor where one parent does primary child rearing and the other primary wage earning. A myriad of combinations exist for parents to divide responsibilities, ofcourse. However, traditionally biological differences have come to signify who does what. And these have established gender roles, so a lot more women give up work, take up part time positions and thereby forgo careers to care for children. Which is why we have significant protections of meher and alimony and such for the one who economically marignalizes herself in a union.

By no means do I mean disrespect by elaborating my point to such an extent. But that is why I was analogizing it to ``divisions of labor`` where the worker is economically marginalized vis-a-vis the owner of capital. And this, by no means, is my original argument.

You say: ``There are horrible marriages, and there are great ones. Why blame marriage the institution ? Blame those who abuse it.``

I am not blaming marriage as an institution. I am merely talking about its cultural and socio-economic functions. I am not suggesting marriage as an institution is responsible for horrible unions. I may be saying sexist pressures in society are reflected through dynamics of this institution as well. If society is still patriarchal, then its baby institution is bound to reflect that. Of course there are great marriages. Not for one second do I doubt that two people together in a non-marital relationship, a marriage or a brief encounter can make something great.

In short, yes of-course I think two people can function outside of the systemic shortcomings of an institution and actually create complete intellectual, spiritual and economic equality in their union. ?

AA writes: ``Marriage is just one vehicle. It serves culture. It upholds capitalist divisions of labor. Hence the protection for the more exploited and less propertied of the two workers in this regime.``

Marriage is indeed a cultural product, but saying that it `upholds capitalist divisions of labor` is, I would respectfully suggest, a bit exremist. There are horrible marriages, and there are great ones. Why blame marriage the institution ? Blame those who abuse it.

Saad

As someone who is very (touch wood) happily married myself, I can, nevertheless totally understand what I think AA was trying to express. The very machinistic nature of arranged (or even other types) marriages always made me shudder. I don`t know anyone who has not observed at least one couple as the one described above.

Things like good looks, education, salaries, etc. are gone over with fine toothed combs, while essentials like emotional health, viewpoints, outlooks, etc. which define relationships are sidelined. Some people get lucky, regardless, but too many men and women are condemned to stay in lackluster marriages with people they could care less about. I applaud the protagonist in this story, since she took active measures to become her own person.

Good work, AA.

and i disagree with AA`s views on marriage. Marriage is about rights and security, and creating a stable ground work for kids if the couple chooses to have any.

Good portrayal of a one sided view. I personally do not know of any such marriages amongst any of my friends or family, i suppose thats because, the people i know have a healthy outlook on relationships.

In response to Saad Shafqat and Futema:

I asked rhetorically, ``what is [marriage] it really for?``

You wrote, (saad) ``Additional reasons for getting married include love, companionship, and the pursuit of happiness.``

Of course one doesn`t have to be married to achieve love, companionship, and happiness. You can achieve the same with your loved one outside of the institution of marriage. The nikahnama doesn`t magically bestow one with 100% allowance to pursue happiness freely. For some that may be true, while for others it could be stifling.

Some practical reasons, though. And these practicalities interestingly become even more apparent when there is divorce or risk of separation. After all marriage presumes the husband`s paternity in terms of custody battles for children. Marriage holds dear the concept of ``joint marital property``. And in the interest of protecting the one who gave up career opportunities for the domestic unit, there is alimony. In Islam too, there are ``gendered`` economic and social protections in the institution of marriage.

So in terms of determining fatherhood, protecting the economically marginalized, marriage is supposedly a ``do good`` institution. Which is why some places have common law marriage. So even if you haven`t married, the fact that you hold your self out like married people do protects you later financially.

That we have learnt to converge romance, love, companionship, and happiness with marriage was only inevitable. How else could a social construct - make sense in our lives? How else would we head to the ``I dos`` if we couldn`t base these in near eternal love for another person. I don`t question eternal love for another person. I question that consummation or the expression of eternal love is dissonant with marriage. And it is. Marriage is just one vehicle. It serves culture. It upholds capitalist divisions of labor. Hence the protection for the more exploited and less propertied of the two workers in this regime.

Is this essay about normal people? I think not! To me, the situation described in the essay is more of an exception than norm. Anomalies exist, and exist they do for each age and time and in all societies. The institution of marriage requires, like all other, work. If both husband and wife are understanding of each other, even only to a certain degree, than marriage works. If not, then it`s hell. Better to get out.

Marriage is not only about children--although I believe, once born, they become an important part of being married--it is also about stability and about growing old together, it is about fond memories, about the best of times and the worst of times.

The unfortunate part of making a decision about getting married is the biological clock. Once one has passed certain threshold, the decision of not getting married cannot be reversed. It`s a tough call.

I don`t agree with the bleaker-than-bleak portrait of marriage this essay has painted. And, hey, how about a husband who is married to a complete jahil and obnoxious woman, and the only reason he is with her is their children or the society?

Are all men aggressors and all women victims? This is what the essay and some of the inter-actors seem to be saying. Please.

I can understand the anti-marriage fear expressed in some of the replies. However, I think anyone getting married has to understand the underlying reason behind the marriage institution before doing so. I agree with Saad (shafqat, Reply #3) in that marriage is basically about companionship and the pursuit of happiness. All the other needs it fulfills support these two goals.

I myself am divorced and find no shame in the fact. I entered my marriage in a whirlwind, but once there I quickly realized that despite social stigmas I only had one choice. For me, a chance at a life of happiness and unity with someone was more important than what ``so-and-so`` said. I chose to get a divorce because I couldn`t imagine living, raising children and growing old with this person. And since Islam gave me the option, I saw nothing wrong in my choice.

Bottom line, I would say to those who are unmarried that marriage can be beautiful...with the right person. Be careful, logical, and practical in your choice up front, even if it means the wrath of your family. After all, your happiness is at stake.

Scary but very true!

fauzia

Almost scary in parts but probably not too off the mark in some marriages (thankfully a small number of them).
Strange world. There is much joy, innocence
and love along with the darker side of life.
Sometimes if we are lucky there are choices. And
one has to choose freedom from such relationships.
Very well written.

Ras

RE: F Zaidi ....

Well written article and adresses a serious issue of a dysfunctional spouse.Nonethless we see a lot more articles about the tragedy that is marriage rather than a celebration of life. Since Horror stories abound, this reall scares the impressionable minds of girls everywhere.

Just the other day _ I overhead two teenagers talking at a party - that would never marry a desi - they are so controlling of their wives....

IN Desi amreeka where the divorce exceeds that goras - these are alarming statistics... - and it is time that we have a few articles that reflect the lives of so many amongst us who really care for others and lead happy normal lives.....

an interesting piece of prose. it could be refined but that would take away too much from it. in its crude form, it conveys more.

brilliant

Just one question: the article hinted that she was brought to the land of the free and the home of the brave from a small village. I take this was a case of an arranged marriage. In that case, I will only add that I, for one, support and I am for the institution of arranged marriages.

It is like buying a car. Just make a list of all the extras you want and then task someone else to find the ``right make, color, model etc``. No more headaches wondering about compatibility or love or any of that other non-sense. If things do not work out, you can always trade her in for a newer model!

My only problem and what I consider to be a drawback to this whole arranged marriage idea is that you can not, before the actual marriage signing of owership papers, take her out for a test drive: kick the tires a few times, and see how she handles and how responsive she is to your instructions while driving her.

If we can iron out this little wrinkle, then this is could be a perfect package.