Friday, May 13, 2005

Muta'a a tradition that should not have resurfaced...

I'm not trying to say life under Saddam would be preferable, however it would be dishonest to not point out that during Saddam's rule this was illegal. What it demonstrates is how many desperate women there are that have been left with no spouse and that there are quite a few men willing to take advantage of them. If Iraq were truly going to be a democracy this wouldn't be making a comeback. However given the mix of islam and democracy I really wonder how the women of Iraq will fare. To me the only way to describe this especially the extremely short term duration Muta'a is legalized prostitution with the approval of Islam.

This main text is from an older article. In today's USA Today, there is another article on this same topic.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The man spotted Nisreen Ahmed at a relative's home and asked around about the pretty widow and her five young children. She was known as a gentle and pious woman who had been married to a textile merchant in Baghdad's most exclusive neighborhood. But the war, friends told the man, had left her widowed and destitute. Two months ago, the man approached Ahmed with a proposal: her body in exchange for $15 a month, plus groceries and clothes for the children.

"Don't worry," he told her. "It's not a sin."

Ahmed's hands shook and her face reddened with shame as she signed a one-year contract for a muta'a, a temporary marriage recognized only by Shiite Muslims. Like many Shiite practices, muta'a was banned under the Sunni Muslim regime of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Now, hundreds of Shiite women who lost their husbands and livelihoods in the war that toppled Saddam are resurrecting the practice.

"What I did was not wrong, but I regret this marriage with all my heart," Ahmed said. "It's ruined my relationship with my children. My son calls me a bad woman, a prostitute. They have no idea I did this for their sake, so I can have money to spend on them."

Clerics who support muta'a say the practice offers sexual and financial freedom to widows. Iraqi women's advocates, however, speak out against what they call the economic enslavement of women prevented by custom from working outside the home. The practice occurs in such secrecy and with such a social stigma that no one can give a firm figure on the number of muta'a contracts that have been signed since the war ended last spring, though estimates stretch into the low thousands.

Muta'a emerged at the time of Prophet Muhammad, who sanctioned it as a way to ensure the financial security of widows and divorcees during times of war. Later generations of Islamic rulers disagreed on continuing the practice. Sunnis condemned it as outdated and easy to abuse, while most Shiites maintained that banning anything the prophet allowed was heresy, Islamic scholars said.

Through the centuries, the practice fell out of popularity. Though there are stories of Muslim college students in America using muta'a now to skirt their faith's prohibition on premarital sex, Iraq is one of the few areas where muta'a has resurfaced in great numbers.

"After the war, this type of marriage increased because of the number of widows, especially those with children," said Hazem al Araji, a religious authority and keeper of one of the Shiite holy shrines in Baghdad. "How else can they support their families?"

"He is not obliged to pay her anything more, and he can't have sex with her until the money is paid up front," al Shadidi said. "Sometimes the payment is only symbolic; other times it's a kilo of gold. Only widows are desperate enough to accept this arrangement. It's done in secret, but it's not forbidden."

Around the corner from al Shadidi's marketplace office, 26-year-old Ahmed Risouli scanned the crowd outside his gold shop for women in mourning clothes who dared to meet his gaze. Risouli said he "can't remember how many times" he's entered into a muta'a and boasted of a surefire way to lure cash-strapped widows.

"From first sight, I can tell whether a woman will accept muta'a or not," Risouli said. "I'll give her roses and invite her to expensive restaurants. When she's weak, I kiss her and we talk about the terms of a muta'a. The only problem I have with this marriage is that the woman always falls in love with me. I tell her, 'For God's sake! It was a deal for two days!' "


Given the other article in USA Today about the recent survey completed in Iraq that shows how poor living conditions are for Iraqis, especially the widows of Iraq, action needs to be taken, and quickly. If we truly went there for the reason of freeing Iraqis? There's a lot of women out threre still waiting........

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wow.

You know, I could go into some ill-advised liberal rant about respecting the cultures and traditions of others, but, that's, well, horrible.

Anonymous said...

I read this same article and I was also somewhat shocked. I too think this is nothing more than legal prostitution. Looks like the men in the arab or muslim world are just as horny as men in any other society. American women would not put up with this but the Arab (muslim) women have been kept down in their society for so long they seem to not be able to do anything about this type of behavior. However now that we see democracy spreading in the middle east perhaps the women will someday soon have a strong enough voice in government to stop their own oppression.

Anonymous said...

I am betting this was practiced while Saddam was in power too. Just not talked about or reported in the press. Being that there was no free press in Iraq under Saddam.

Of course under Saddam brutal rapes by government officials was allowed. I wonder if that is being reprised under the new democracy. Probably not.

Unknown said...

Interesting point og, however if you were caught in a muta'a under Saddam you were punished. I don't think you can justify the diminishing of one crime against women as this one being not as bad. The main jist of this isn't oh bring back Saddam because he was a wonderful guy, but that women shouldn't loose more rights than what they did have under Saddam. If a monster gives you more rights than the democracy does...somethings wrong.

That's my take on it rather than Saddam is better because he wasn't.