MAHR Dowry In the first era of Islam marriage was a simple affair, without pomp or ceremony.

Any expenditure incurred in its performance was quite minimal, and not a burden on either family. Indeed, the Prophet stated: 'the most blessed marriage is one in which the marriage partners place the least burden on each other.' (al-Haythami, Kitab ab-Nikah, 4:255). Nowadays, much difficulty and hardship can be caused by the setting and giving of dowries, bride-prices and mahr - not to mention enormous wedding feasts and celebrations in some cultures which bring a most unreasonable financial burden on the families concerned. Financially crippling celebrations are totally in opposition to the spirit of Islam, and are not necessary. They are purely a matter of the culture of certain regions. No Muslim should feel obliged to continue these unIslamic traditions, or be embarrassed about breaking with their old cultural traditions. It is very important that Muslims themselves realize that there is an enormous difference between dowry, bride-price and mahr. Many books and articles on the subject confusingly use the word dowry to mean mahr, but in fact the correct word for dowry is jahaz, and its function is totally different. What is a dowry? The custom of giving dowry (jahaz) is not part of Islam, although it actually seems to be on the increase among several Muslim cultures, notably those of Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin, even when they have settled in the UK. In fact, it is a practice which has never been sanctioned by Islam and is not prevalent amongst Muslims of other cultures. It seems to be in imitation of ancient Hindu culture in which daughters were not given any share in the family property, but were given payments, part of which might be in the form of household goods, as a measure of compensation. Islam granted daughters a rightful share in their family property and inheritance. A 'bride-price' is either: an amount of money, goods or possessions given to the bride by the bride's family at the time of her marriage, in order to attract a good husband for her. It would in effect become the property of the husband or his family upon his marrying her. This is a totally unIslamic practice. In Islam, women are not 'owned' by their families and should not be 'traded with' in this manner. It is an insulting practice. Or an amount of money demanded from the bridegroom or his family by the bride or her family, usually the bride's father, without which the daughter will not be given in marriage. In the jahiliyyah society before Islam, this money was regarded as the property of the girl's guardian.

The matters of fathers giving the bride gifts of money or property, or paying for an enormous wedding feast, or providing a home, or setting her up in her home with furniture and household effects are left to the discretion of the people involved in Islam. The Prophet himself saw to the marriages of his four daughters. He gave his daughter Fatimah various gifts when she married Ali b. Abu Talib, but there is no record of his having given anything to his other daughters on the occasion of their marriages. Had such gifts been a recommended sunnah, he would surely have given the others gifts as well. Moreover, the gifts given to Fatimah were extremely modest household articles - a sheet, a leather water-bag, and a pillow stuffed with grass and fiber. Nothing could be more unIslamic than ostentation. It is ridiculous to attempt to justify flamboyant displays of wealth in lavish gifts or feastings by citing the Prophet's extremely modest gifts to Fatimah.

Mahr is the amount of money, or its equivalent, paid by the husband to his future wife. Contrary to the popular notion that mahr is dowry, it is not. A dowry is what the wife contributes to her marriage while mahr is an obligation on the husband to pay his future wife. Others call the mahr a gift given by the husband; it is not a gift either, because it is an obligation mandated by the Quran. The Quran calls it sadaq; it reads: Wa aatoo ann-nissaa saduqaatihinna nihlatan (and give the women their mahr with a good heart.) Quran 4: 4 The mahr is an obligation required by Islamic law from the husband to be paid to his future wife. Thus, it must be stipulated in the Islamic marriage contract. If no stipulation is recorded in the contract, the qadi (or religious judge) will assign the amount of mahr. The amount of mahr becomes a property of the wife alone. Muslim schools of jurisprudence in the Sunni traditions, differ on the definition of the mahr. The Hanafi School defines mahr as the added money given by the husband to his [future] wife for izaa ihtibassiha, keep her in his house (see al-Sarkassi, the Mabssut, vol. 5, pp 62-63, Arabic Version). Another author of the Hanafi Schools defines the mahr as the money, which is obligatory on the husband in ikd al-nikah (the marriage contract) for manafi al-bid (sexual pleasure). (See ibn al-Hamam, Sharih Fath al-Qadeer, vol. 3, p. 304, Arabic version). The Hanbali School of jurisprudence defines mahr as the money paid by the husband for the purpose of nikah (marriage). (See ibn Kadamah, Al-Mughni, vol. 6, p. 679, Arabic version). The Malike and Shafii Schools defines the mahr as the money due to the future wife in return for [the husbands] haqq al-isstimta (sexual pleasure) in the marriage contract. (See al-Hattab Muhammad bin Abdel Rahman al-Mughrabi, Mawahib al-Jalil li-Sharh Mukhtassar Khalil, vol. 5, p. 172-Maliki Jurisprudence). For Shafii School see al-Nawawi, Kitab al-Majmu,

vol. 18 p. 605). All these references are cited by Sheikh Mahmud Muhammad al-Sheikh, AlMahr fi Al-Islam bayna al-madi wal-hadir, published by al-Maktaba al-Assriyya liltibaaa wal nashr, Beirut, Lebanon, 2003, Arabic version. The Maliki and Shafii Schools of jurisprudence regard the mahr as the money paid for the future wife in return for sexual pleasure is an integral part of the Islamic marriage contracr and its source is prescribed in the Quran. Sura al-Nissaa reads the following: Fa ma isstamtatum bihi minhunn fa aatoohunna ujoorahunna (So for that pleasure which you have enjoyed from them, give them their prescribed compensation). Quran 4: 25 Numerous Hadith (sayings attributed to the Prophet of Islam) provisions refer to the obligatory nature of the mahr in Islamic marriage contracts. (See for example Ans bin Malik bin Damdam; Al-Bukhari, Saad bin al-Rabi bin Khazraj. They are all cited by Al-Sheikh Mahmud Muhammad al-Sheik, Al-mahr.) Traditionally, Islamic marriage contracts lists two types of mahr; one is called muqaddam (upfront, or immediate at the signing of the contract), or muakhar (deferred to be paid in the event of divorce or death of the husband.) The Amount of Mahr Neither the Quran, nor the Hadith stipulates the maximum amount of mahr to be paid by the husband. As to the lower amount of mahr, Islamic scholars differed on this. The Hanafi School regarded the lower amount to be not less than ten Dirahms (around ten US Dollars). The Maliki School considers the lower mahr to be not less than three Dirhams (or three US Dollars.) The Hanbali and Shafii Schools do not put a limit to the lower amount of mahr; both schools agree that the lower amount could be a ring made out of iron or pair of shoes, or a few ounces of wheat, or dates, or teaching the future wife verses from the Quran. In all of these, the future wife has to express her acceptance to whatever the amount is. Modern Islamic marriage contracts are pre-printed forms, filled by the imam/qadi (religious leader or religious judge). The form has empty space to fill the name and address of the husband and the name and address of the bride. The contract must include the names and addresses of two adult male witnesses. And the place and address where the marriage contract is signed Both parties to the marriage contract must express their consent to the marriage, verbally and in writing. This is done through a formal proposal of ijab (an offer to marry) and qubul (an acceptance to marry), in the presence of a wali, a male guardian who looks out for the best interest of the bride. It must include the amount of muqaddam/muajjal mahr, and the amount of the muakhar (deferred). After the contract is signed, the couple is recognized as legally married and enjoy the rights and obligations stipulated by the Islamic Sharia (law). The marriage contract may be

solemnized in a mosque and usually signed in triplicate: one copy should be given to the bride, one to the bridegroom, and the third must remain deposited with the Registrar, imam/qadi (religious leader or religious judge). The Absence of Mahr Provision in the Marriage Contract If the marriage does not include a provision for the mahr, the contract is considered to be legal. The three Schools of jurisprudence: Hanafi, Shafii and Hanbali recognize the fact that the mahr provision is not a main factor, nor a condition for the marriage. These three Schools believe that the mahr is an obligation on the husband regardless of whether it is written in the marriage contract or not (see Mahmud Muhammad al-Sheikh, al-Mahr, published by al-Maktabah al-Assriyya, Beirut, 2003, Arabic version). Accordingly, if the marriage contract is signed by the parties without a provision of the mahr, or if they assign a mahr, which is considered to be illegal under Islamic Sharia, or if the parties agree not to include a mahr provision, in all these cases the conditions are null, the contract is legal and the husband has to pay a mahr equivalent to a mahr given to another women of the same status as that of his wife. The Maliki School rejected this interpretation and considered the mahr provision in the contract, necessary. However, this School regards such a marriage to be legal if it was consummated. If the marriage was not consummated, then the marriage is mafsookh (a reason for separation); if he divorces his wife without any agreement on the mahr issue, then he has to pay her mutah (money paid to her in return for the sexual pleasure he had with her). But if he dies before any agreement reached between the couple, then the wife is entitled to inherit her share from his estate. Finally, the mahr must be legal. Thus, alcoholic beverages and the meat of the swine or pig cannot be given to the future wife as mahr because, under Islamic law, it is unlawful to transact these items. If such illegal items were listed in the marriage contract, the imam/qadi may substitute those by legal items. In Islam the mahr (dowry) is one of the rights of the wife, which is hers to take in total and is lawful for her, in contrast to the widespread practice in some countries, where the wife is given no dowry. Evidence that the wife must be given her dowry is found in many places, for example the aayah (interpretation of the meaning): And give to the women (whom you marry) their mahr (obligatory bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage) with a good heart [al-Nisaa 4:4] Ibn Abbaas said: This refers to the mahr (dowry).

Ibn Katheer, may Allaah have mercy on him, said, summarizing the comments of the mufassireen on this aayah: The man must definitely pay the dowry to the woman, and he should not resent it. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): But if you intend to replace a wife by another and you have given one of them a cantar (of gold, i.e., a great amount) as mahr, take not the least bit of it back; would you take it wrongfully without a right and (with) a manifest sin? And how could you take it (back) when you have gone in unto each other, and they have taken from you a firm and strong covenant? [al-Nisaa 4:20-21] Ibn Katheer, may Allaah have mercy on him, said: This means: if any one of you wants to divorce his wife and replace her with another, you should not take anything from what you have already given the first wife, even if it was a huge amount of wealth. The mahr is given in exchange for the right to enjoy marital relations. For this reason Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): And how could you take it (back) when you have gone in unto each other? The firm and strong covenant is the marriage contract. Anas ibn Maalik, may Allaah be pleased with him, reported that Abd al-Rahmaan ibn Awf came to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and there were traces of yellow (perfume) on him. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) asked him about it, and he told him that he had just married a woman of the Ansaar. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) asked him, How much did you give her? He said: Gold equal to the weight of one date stone. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: Give a waleemah (wedding feast) even if only with one sheep. (Reported by al-Bukhaari, 4756). The mahr is the right of the wife, and it is not permitted for her father or anyone else to take it except with her approval. Abu Saalih said: When a man married off his daughter, he would take her mahr away from her, but Allaah forbade them to do that, and gave women the right to the mahr they received. (Tafseer Ibn Katheer). Similarly, if the wife foregoes any part of the mahr, the husband is permitted to take it, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): but if they, of their own good pleasure, remit any part of it, take it, and enjoy it without fear of any harm (as Allaah has made it lawful). [al-Nisaa 4:4]

Who owns the mahr? Can it be refused? It is owned solely by the wife. The husband is not allowed to refuse to pay his wife a proper mahr or faridah. The settling of the payment is obligatory. 'Women are lawful to you.provided that you take them in marriage and not fornication. As to those through whom you profit (through marriage), give them their faridah as appointed.' (2:24). The same applied when marrying Jewish or Christian women (5:5). If a Muslim man married someone 'whom his right hand possessed' (ie a slave or prisoner of war), the mahr was to grant her freedom and other payment was not required. Caliph Umar ruled that if a woman had excused her husband his mahr, but later demanded it, the husband should be compelled to pay it on the grounds that the fact that she demanded it was a clear proof that she had not remit it of her own free will. The case of a woman whose husband died before fixing the amount of the dowry or consummating the marriage was brought to Abdullah b. Mas'ud. He ruled that she should be paid according to the mahr of women of like status to herself. The Shafi 'I school rules that a wife may refuse to consummate the marriage if the husband agreed to pay the mahr immediately, but did not do so. She may have the marriage annulled. How much should the Mahr amount be? It is unIslamic for a Muslim woman to set a huge demand for herself, with the intention of deterring suitors of humble means. Islam does not require husbands and wives to come from the same social strata or income brackets - although this may often seem to be advisable. Islamic compatibility is based on religious faith and mutual respect, not on money, caste (another Hindu custom), class, background, nationality, etc. It is just as unIslamic to demand a huge mahr, generally beyond the husband's means, based on the intention of checking the husband from ill-treating his wife, or wrongfully or causelessly divorcing the wife, or preventing him from remarrying another later - the

reasoning being that in cases of divorce the woman can demand the full payment of the mahr. The fixing of a substantial mahr for the above purposes rests on the supposition that the mahr has to be fixed at the time of marriage, but not handed over until divorce - which gives it a supposed 'deterrent' value. This is unlawful in Islam, for in this case the wife has no use or ownership of the mahr during the time of the marriage. If the prospective husband is not a wealthy man, a generous wife may choose to accept very small mahr, but this has to be her own free choice. She should not be coerced or have pressure put on her in any way. Some of the Prophet's female companions accepted their husbands' conversions to Islam, or memorising of ayat of the Qur'an, or giving education to others as their mahr. The mahr has to be fixed taking into account the bridegroom's position in life. That is, it should not normally be more than he is easily able to afford, whether it be a lump sum or some article of value. Jurists have different views on what the minimum amount should be, but all agree that it should be substantial enough for something to be bought against it. In other words, any amount which is sufficient for a purchase is acceptable as mahr. The husband may be loaned money by his father or family, but it must be repaid. In the case of Nabi Musa (the Prophet Moses), when he left Egypt for Madyan he married Safura the daughter of the Prophet Shu'ayb. His mahr mu'ajjal was settled and paid off by binding himself to grazing his father-in-law's cattle for ten years without wages. Presumably Shu'ayb had paid Safura on Musa's behalf. A good woman might agree on a low mahr if she wishes, or none at all, according to the circumstances of her husband. Once fixed it is fixed, and legally binding - so it is good practice to have it written down and witnessed on a document. The wife should take advice on her decision, and not be blinded by emotion, or coercion, or fear, or family pressure. If any person pressurises a woman into a decision she might not have otherwise made, that person will be held to account in the Life to Come, even if he 'got away with it' on this earth. One recorded hadith suggests that 'the best woman is the one whose mahr is the easiest to pay.' (al-Haythami, Kitab an-Nikah 4:281). However, it is sensible for a wife to accept a reasonable mahr, as this becomes her own property as stated, and is hers to keep should the marriage fail and end in divorce. Under what conditions is it payable? There are two main ways of properly presenting mahr to the bride.

The first way is to hand it over in full at the time of marriage, in which case it is known as mahr mu'ajjal, or 'promptly given mahr'. (Notice the ' . The word is derived from 'ajilah, meaning 'without delay'. This was the accepted practice during the time of the Prophet, and the amount fixed was generally quite minimal. In the case of Fatimah and Ali, Ali informed the Prophet that he had nothing to give her. The Prophet reminded him of a coat of chain-mail he had been given. It was still in his possession, although in a dilapidated condition and worth less than four dirhams. The Prophet suggested he gave that to Fatimah, and this was done. The second way of presenting mahr is to defer it, to hand it over to the bride after a certain period of time, the duration of which must be specified, fixed by the man and agreed by the wife. This has to be settled, with witnesses, at the time of the marriage. This form of mahr is known as mahr muwajjal. (the word implies 'in a period of time'). The five major schools of Islamic jurisprudence all agree that delay in handing over the mahr, whether in full or in part, is lawful provided that the fixed period for payment is not indefinite. This method should never be used as an excuse to willfully postpone the payment. A definite date should always be fixed, witnessed, and adhered to. It should certainly not be left 'hanging' in case the marriage breaks down and the couple come to consider a divorce because of the inevitable emotions, bitterness, arguments, hostilities and financial problems involved at that time. If the husband died, or they got divorced, the mahr debt must be paid up immediately to the widow before his inheritance or other financial settlements are considered. It is her property, and not his. Repayment of Mahr in cases of khul divorce. A khul divorce is one in which a wife sues for divorce even though the husband has not driven her to it by his unreasonable behavior. If there is no good reason for a wife wishing to divorce her husband, but it is a case in which she simply wishes to finish the marriage with no particular legal grounds against the husband, the husband may agree to grant her the divorce if she returns all or part of the mahr. This has to be agreed between them. If the wife does have genuine grounds for divorce - such as cruelty, mental cruelty, breaking of the marriage contract, adultery, desertion, incurable insanity, long-term imprisonment, abandonment of Islam - then the divorce is not khul but a normal talaq, in which the wife has

as much right to instigate proceedings as the husband. In these cases, she most certainly does not have to hand over any of the mahr. If the wife has genuine grounds for divorce but the husband refuses the divorce, she may then approach lawyers for khul, and appoint an Imam to act for her. It is sensible to do this as well as having a UK lawyer. She is not required to pay back any of her mahr. Indeed, the lawyers may demand some further compensation for her if the husband is guilty. (She may have to prove his guilt, and should gather as much evidence beforehand as she can - such as signed and witnessed statements of witnesses, photographs of injuries sustained, etc).

Abdallah v. Sarsour The Court ruled that a marriage contract with no specific time of payment for the dowery was not void for vagueness or for lack of consideration. Wife sought enforcement of the marriage contract in a divorce proceeding. Husband argued that the marriage contract was void because: 1. the contract was too vague, and 2. there was lack of consideration. The court disagreed with the Husband on both counts. The court stated that where there is an agreement for the payment of a sum of money and there is no specified time of payment, the payment shall be due upon demand. Therefore, the marriage contract was not vague. Also, the court disagreed that failure to stay marriage constituted a failure of consideration. The court interpreted the marriage contract as an offer to marry and to pay the proposed amount of dowry and an acceptance of the marriage and the amount dowry. Because there were no additional terms in the contract, the marriage contract was not void for lack of consideration. Afghani v. Ghafoorian, The Court, in favor of the Wife, enforced the terms of a marriage contract, ordering the Husband to pay the Wife 514 gold coins. Husband and Wife were married in Iran. The Deed of Marriage signed in Iran had a provision in which the Husband agreed to pay the Wife 514 gold coins. The court deemed the 514 coins to be worth approximately Rs.14,10,000 at current exchange rates. The Wife sought to have the deed enforced. The circuit court agreed with the Wife and ordered the Husband to pay the Wife 514 gold coins. The Husband appealed the circuit courts decision.On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the lower courts decision in favor of the Wife. The Husband argued that the circuit court erred for a number of reasons including lack of expert testimony as to the terms of the

marriage contract, unconscionable nature of the contract, lack of qualifications of the Wife to testify as an expert on Islamic and Iranian law, and failure of the circuit court to follow the procedures for equitable distribution of marital assets. The court dismissed all of the Husbands arguments. Namely, the court stated that the Wife was not required to be qualified as an expert on Islamic or Iranian law, because she was testifying as a wife who was stating her expectations as to what she was owed from a contract. Also, the court stated that the circuit court was not required to follow the procedure for equitable distribution of marital assets because the 514 gold coins were not marital property but a part of a binding premarital contract entered by the parties. The Husbands other arguments were dismissed because he failed to present the appellate court with a sufficient record of the basis for the circuit courts ruling on those issues.

Ahmed v. Ahmed, The court, in favor of the Husband, ruled that a mahr agreement signed after the civil ceremony but before the Islamic ceremony was not a valid premarital agreement. Husband and Wife were married in a civil ceremony in November 1999. They did not live together until after the Islamic marriage ceremony six months later in May 2000. During the Islamic marriage ceremony, both parties signed the nikah nama (marriage certificate) which included a mahr (dowry) provision of Rs.50,000 in postponed payment. During divorce proceedings in 2005, the trial court ruled that the mahr was a valid marital contract and awarded Rs.50,000 to the Wife. Husband appealed the trial courts decision. On appeal, the appellate court agreed with the Husband that the mahr cannot be enforced as a premarital agreement because the parties were already married at the time the mahr was signed. The court stated that Texas does not distinguish between civil and religious marriage ceremonies as long as the legal requirements are satisfied. Because the civil ceremony in November 1999 was valid, the parties were married at the time the mahr was signed. It is the parties marital status, rather than a specific type of ceremony, that is significant. The Wife argued that in the alternative, the mahr agreement can be enforced as a postmarital agreement. The Husband argued that the terms of the mahr agreement were too vague and uncertain to be enforced as either a premarital or postmarital agreement. The court held that the agreement did not meet the requirement under law of expressing intent

to convert community property into separate property. While the appellate court reversed the Rs.50,000 award to the Wife, it gave the Wife another chance by remanding the case for the trial court to determine if the Mahr agreement is enforceable on other grounds.

Chaudhary v. Ali, The court, in favor of the Wife, held that a nikah nama with no provision for the wife, disclosure of the husbands assets, nor independent counsel was not an enforceable prenuptial agreement. Husband and Wife were married in Pakistan. At time of marriage, Husband and Wife signed a nikah nama (marriage contract) which barred the wife from receiving anything from the Husband in the event of a divorce. The trial court ruled that the nikah nama was not an enforceable premarital agreement and awarded the Wife spousal support in the amount of $1,500/month. Husband appealed the trial courts decision. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial courts decision on both the nikah nama and the spousal support. The court stated that for the nikah nama to be a valid prenuptial agreement, four requirements must be met at the time of the signing:

1. There must be a fair and reasonable provision for the wife. Or in the absence of such provision, full and frank disclosure to her of the husbands worth: 2. 3. 4. Wife must sign freely and voluntarily; Wife must have competent independent advice; Wife must have full knowledge of her rights

In this case, there was no disclosure of the husbands assets and the wife did not receive independent advice before signing the nikah nama. Therefore, under Virginia law, this nikah nama was not an enforceable prenuptial agreement. Regarding spousal support, the court looked at the value of the couples residence and real estate, as well as a previous mortgage loan application listing the Husbands income as $13,256/month. The wife had never worked outside the home. Considering the relative needs and abilities of the parties, the court affirmed the trial courts award of $1,500/month to the Wife.