The Qur’anic institution of marriage

23rd January 2020

The institution of marriage in the light of the Qur’an (as per my personal reading), is a highly recommended, but not compulsory, union of two adults as spouses, that have mutually consented to form an unit in which they will share intimate interpersonal relationships in a haven of peace and love, and potentially create a foundation to inculcate healthy nurturing of the next generation of the human race. The union is solemnised under a solemn oath, and bound by a mutually arranged contract, and the bequeathal of a dower if the societal situation demands it, both of which will be recognised by law, to safeguard their individual rights, should the union fall into a setback. Furthermore, society is burdened with the responsibility of witnessing the union and seeking individual consent to establish that the union is entered by both parties free from any coercion, blackmail, false attestation or false incentives.

Moreover, the Qur’an clearly stipulates that the institution of marriage should not be entered into for purposes of lust; but rather for sincere and honest wedlock, which becomes a solid base through which a healthy community flourishes, and where the sanctity of it is fully recognised and protected, and in which the young are nurtured through love and care. Therefore, the argument for Misyar and Mutah by Hadith-centric clerics, presented as a necessary and elaborate solution to a complicated human need, is in reality undermining the basic constitution of marriage and watering down the sanctity of wedlock to only the focus of lust, as they are purely a sexual purpose at best and at worst it is used as a cover for a form of ‘halal prostitution’. In a nutshell it is an artificial legal contrivance to avoid the burden of marriage, as Misyar is more akin to ‘why-buy-the-cow-when-the-milk-is-free’, and Mutah is akin to contractual prostitution; both are basically legalised promiscuity. Also, the social problems which can result from Misyar and Mutah marriage is largely overlooked, particularly in the event that children are born from this union; it is obvious that contrary to a normal marriage union the children raised by their mother in a home from which the father is always absent without reason may suffer difficulties. Also it is obvious that the practice is a patriarchal initiation, thus it stinks of misogyny and so the women in these arrangements suffer too.

Should a marital relationship fall into crisis, the couples must do everything in their capability to consolidate it through serious communication with each other at first which is to be progressed to sexual abstention if need be, but if none of this leads to harmony, then they should isolate from each other, to give some introspective space to evaluate the situation clearly. Unfortunately, if these procedures do not bring any positive resolution, then the Qur’an permits, on an equal standing for both partners, to initiate the annulment of their marriage contract. The correct procedure for divorce once initiated by the petition of one partner, can only be fully and finally dissolved by the state. The state will then look into the grounds of divorce petition and the contract terms determined by both parties at the time of marriage, and arbitrate between the couple. This can be straightforward and quick if there is no complicated situation to contend with.
The so called verbal divorce, only initiated by the whims of the husband is an oppressive farce; how can a marriage bond that requires solemn oaths, witnesses, monetary commitment and binding contracts etc, relinquish on a simple verbal declaration?! This traditional verbal only form of divorce infused from Judaic traditions validated by hadiths, is not only left to the whims of the husband, but also deducts the marriage bond into a lighthearted affair. Therefore, this ongoing practice that is ruining the lives of countless people around the globe, is not a teaching that the Qur’an stipulates.

On a side note, there is a common practice amongst Muslims living in the UK, where a marriage contract is blessed as a valid marriage without any involvement and/or any knowledge of the state. This is, in my humble view, an incomplete and invalid contract. Also, others practice a duplicity, where they isolate the marriage and the register, and have two separate ceremonies. Though the latter practice is inadvertently still valid between the two practices, in the UK a couple could and should simply solemnise their marriage at a marriage register; the duplicity is unnecessary.
Finally, I would like to add to the contention by some people that the state should never become a component in the institution of marriage, as they see it as a simple union of two people before God, and it is their personal matter; that this is a dream world fantasy that doesn’t work in the real world.

As we know, the whole world correctly practices even for a simple personal financial security to go to the length of having an official agreement, signed between business partners, with a solicitor and witnesses present, because we recognise the adverse effects it can have when things can potentially go wrong. So, how can we enter the constitution of marriage without any such securities, when we know that if a marriage falls into crisis it will have a more devastating effect, not just for the two lives in the nuclear union, but potentially the lives of any offspring, and could even have a ripple effect beyond one generation!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.