A R C H I V E S
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board
| Muslimah Officiates Wedding |
|---|
| Kathy |
| 03/03/05 at 08:59:46 |
| [slm] An interesting aarticle...what do youthink? Can't find the link at the moment. First published at the Harvard Divinity Bulletin I heard about it from an acquaintance in Chicago, who was contacted by someone from Tampa to find out if what I had done was "legal." It hit me the moment I hung up the phone: I had nothing to wear. In retrospect, it seems an awfully girly thing to have focused on, given the substance of the conversation. I had just agreed to become the first woman, to my knowledge, to officiate at a Muslim marriage, giving the wedding sermon and administering the vows to the bride and groom in front of 350 assembled guests. Most would be Pakistani and all, undoubtedly, would be dressed to the nines. And I had nothing to wear. Tayyibah Taylor, editor of Azizah magazine, had called me the previous week with an intriguing request. A friend of a friend was seeking a woman to preside at her nikah ceremony, to be held in six weeks' time in Tampa, Florida. She had been looking for months and wasn't having any luck. A few of the academics and activists she had contacted were unavailable on the appointed day. But most were simply uncomfortable with the idea. None had ever seen or heard of a woman performing a wedding, and while, in theory, there was nothing to prohibit it, no one wanted to be the one to actually break the unspoken barrier. Although she didn't say so in so many words, the bride-to-be was getting frustrated: it was time for Muslim feminists to put up or shut up. Would I do it? I knew, from my academic specialization in Islamic marriage law, that there was no legal obstacle to my officiating at the marriage. The role of imam at a wedding is ceremonial rather than sacerdotal; as in Judaism, it is the words of bride and groom (or their representatives) that make the marriage. The presence of an officiant, while recommended and customary, is not religiously necessary for the marriage to be valid. And, as there is no formal ordination of clergy in Sunni Islam, any learned person can deliver the wedding sermon and oversee the vows. In the United States, more often than not, it is the imam of a local mosque who officiates. But many of my male Muslim colleagues are regularly called upon to perform marriages; having a professor rather than a shaykh lead the ceremony would not be unusual. Still, a number of these colleagues have, in addition to academic credentials, some semblance of traditional Islamic learning. Having never had the benefit of such study, I have always been very careful to give analytical, rather than normative, opinions when asked about controversial issues pertaining to women, marriage, and the family. But here I was, being asked to step into the role of imam precisely in order to reshape the paradigm of Islamic religious authority, for this was the bride-to-be's expressed intention in seeking a woman to officiate. Quite honestly, the idea was terrifying. So I agreed to consider it. I was not alone in considering new things; the summer of 2004 was a crucial moment for shifting religio-cultural norms about gender boundaries and female authority in Muslim communal life in the United States. Hadia Mubarak was elected the first female president of the national Muslim Students' Association, after years in which numerous campus chapters have had female leaders. Sharida Hussein, a Muslim woman and army officer, was seeking appointment as a military chaplain, raising issues of who is qualified to wield religious authority as well as who is authorized to bestow it. Sex-segregation within mosques was being debated everywhere (with the vast majority of critics of the status quo accepting the separation of men and women for prayer, but objecting to the inferiority and inadequacy of the spaces allocated to women). And, only a few days after my phone conversation, a group of Muslim women calling themselves Daughters of Hajar held a woman-led, mixed-gender prayer before joining the communal Friday service at the local mosque in Morgantown, West Virginia. In each of these instances, something important was being negotiated. How much can or should historical practice shift to reflect contemporary realities? What is essential and what can be modified to suit new sensibilities? And, always, who has the legitimacy to determine the answers to these questions? In considering whether or not to officiate, I tried to set aside this larger context and confront the question of whether I was willing to step, no matter how temporarily, into the role of religious authority. My growing inclination to accept the invitation was less about effecting a transformation in gender norms than about providing the couple with a wedding ceremony that would not make them cringe when remembering it. Unlike, for example, the wedding where the well-meaning Saudi-trained Trinidadian imam told the guests, including the bride's entire extended, non-Muslim family, that it was the wife's Islamic right not to be hit in the face by her husband. Or the one where, in an effort to convey the contractual nature of Muslim marriage, the South Asian officiant explained that the husband pays his wife a dower as if he were "buying a cow from the market." Although these examples are extreme in their offensiveness, and do not reflect the majority of Muslim weddings, lesser slights are commonplace. At one family wedding I attended, the shaykh recited, in Arabic, the lovely verse that begins Chapter 4 of the Qur'an, which commands people to "revere your Sustainer who created you from a single soul, and from it created its mate." The spell woven by his melodious recitation of these uplifting words was abruptly shattered when he declared: "And the English translation of this is: God created Adam, and out of Adam created Eve." I was certain that, despite my lack of formal training, I could do better. Therefore, I agreed to discuss matters with the bride-to-be. When we spoke, she informed me that the couple would not be producing a written Islamic contract, relying instead on prenuptial agreements and a civil marriage. Thus, the public religious ceremony was really about the sermon and the exchange of vows in front of the guests. The couple and their families wanted, as is customary, a brief Arabic sermon, containing the usual blessings and Qur'anic verses; a longer English speech on marriage; and an exchange of vows between the bride and groom. As is permissible in the Hanafi school of law followed by the families, neither party would use a guardian. The bride intended, and I agreed, not to make a big deal out of the fact that a woman was officiating, but to let my presence speak for itself. One issue did present a bit more of a problem: witnesses. Most schools of law require two male witnesses to a wedding, but Hanafi doctrine allows two women and one man. I know that some have attempted to set male and female witnesses on an equal footing by appointing two men and two women, an option that I suggested but the bride rejected, rightly noting that it attempts to create the illusion of parity where it does not exist; the female witnesses are, in such a case, redundant. The bride suggested instead appointing one woman and one man. This would, indeed, have made a dramatic statement, but one I was not comfortable with. It would require not only challenging the consensus of the legal schools, but also going against a famous tradition from an early authority that a marriage witnessed by only one man and one woman was tantamount to adultery. We left the question for further reflection; after consulting colleagues, I decided to simply invite the entire audience to witness the vows. With most matters settled, I agreed to officiate. We made plans to speak again, to discuss the elements of the ceremony further, as well as the logistics of my travel to Tampa. I ended the conversation with the sense of having taken on a weighty task, a bit concerned about potentially scandalized community reaction and somewhat apprehensive about living up to the trust placed in me. These concerns, however, were promptly replaced by a more urgent worry: what on earth was I going to wear? Any wedding is part performance. This was going to be one hell of a show, not a small, intimate backyard ceremony or a contract signing in the mosque after Friday prayers, but a hotel ballroom filled to capacity with immigrant professionals in wedding finery. I needed to look the part. A beard and turban, the usual symbols of Islamic religious authority, were out of the question for obvious reasons. My usual professional clothes, while appropriately modest, were not nearly fancy enough; no-wrinkle synthetic fabrics in black and charcoal wouldn't cut it. Whatever I wore had to not only convey authority but also be culturally appropriate; a business suit also would not do. The clear choice was to wear what most of the female guests would be wearing: shalwar kameez, a long tunic top over baggy trousers with a long matching shawl or scarf that can be draped over the head as necessary. Since I married someone of Indian ancestry 10 years ago, this has become my preferred dress for ceremonial and religious occasions. Nonetheless, as imams do not, as a rule, wear purple adorned with gold sequins and beading, and since every outfit I owned was similarly colorful and ornate, I would have to find a more suitable ensemble. A shopping expedition in Jackson Heights, Queens, made clear the unprecedented nature of my task. In each store I visited, I attempted to explain my unusual requirements to the Indian women assisting me. It was easy enough to convey why the tunic needed to have long sleeves. All I had to say was "for a Muslim wedding," and there was no attempt to talk me into anything else, which immediately narrowed my range of possible choices by quite a bit. My need for a neutral color, matte fabric, and restrained ornamentation, however, was not easily accepted, as it seemed to conflict with my statement that the outfit was for a wedding. At one shop, I attempted to explain to the Muslim proprietress that I was going to be performing the ceremony, not attending as a guest. I was met with only incomprehending insistence that I needed something fancier than the plain outfits I had selected to try on. (My intransigence, I suppose, was merely chalked up to the fact that I am American and, therefore, ignorant about important matters such as weddings.) As she proposed one satiny confection after another, I gazed longingly at the simple, tasteful cream-colored men's tunic-and-pants outfits lining the walls. Luckily, however, I found an appropriate garment in the next shop. Made of gray crepe, it was rich enough to be suitably fancy. With a pattern of gold and silver wire embroidery diamonds down the front of the tunic, it was restrained enough to look official. Best of all, the two parallel lines of gold embroidery down the front of the tunic made it look more like a jacket than a dress. It was the closest I could possibly come to masculine clothing without going in drag. With the issue of clothing resolved, I was left to concentrate on the ceremony itself. Muslim marriage vows are traditionally simple, and in this case, we simplified them to almost the bare minimum to suit the spouses. The sermon took more work. In most American Muslim weddings, the sermon is divided into two parts: a brief Arabic introduction, praising God, invoking God's blessings, and reciting a few appropriate Qur'anic verses, and a longer sermon in English that discusses marriage, especially the rights and duties of the spouses. While I could handle the second part with some effort, I was not equipped to tackle the first alone. I emailed my doctoral adviser, himself a madrasa graduate, explaining my situation and asking for guidance. Really, what I wanted to know from him was: have I gotten myself in way over my head? His support and encouragement were vastly reassuring. Since he knew a standard wedding sermon by heart, he didn't have a "cheat sheet" to provide for me, instead referring me to a colleague at another university who had worked as an imam in their native South Africa. This man responded to my emailed plea, sending me photocopies of a long khutbah from which I cut and pasted the Arabic text to suit my needs: the introductory formulae and three verses from the Qur'an. I chose to stick closely to the text, well within the range of minor variations in wedding sermons. Over the next few weeks leading up to the ceremony, I practiced repeatedly, knowing that the tone for the entire event would be set by how authoritatively I could deliver a two-minute speech in Arabic. While most of the attendees would not understand the content, and therefore the English sermon would be more important in conveying ideas, the perceived religious legitimacy of the ceremony would be contingent upon my conveying linguistic competence. The English sermon required a different type of attention, and a delicate touch. I didn't want to play false to the scripture and proclaim the exact equality and sameness of male and female in every detail of marriage, nor did I want to engage in a detailed critique of Muslim conventional wisdom on gender roles in marriage. Instead, I chose to stress certain crucial principles, drawing on the verses used in the Arabic sermon, which, in addition to the one about the creation of the first human being and its mate from a single soul, focus on the human obligation to revere God. I attempted to convey how individual moral responsibility and accountability are not extinguished by marriage but rather expanded to encompass duties to a spouse as well. I noted that marriage is a contract in which it is important to outline expectations at the outset, but that it is not merely a business arrangement consisting of dower payment and cohabitation. I pointed out that there is an emotional and spiritual dimension to marriage, an intimacy distinct from its social function in organizing human life. Above all, I stressed that God must remain paramount for the spouses, individually and collectively. The event itself went without a hitch. Few guests knew in advance that there would be a woman officiating, but no one stood up and attempted to stop the ceremony, which had been a niggling fear of mine. Only one person approached me afterward with a very diplomatically worded query about the validity of a ceremony performed by a woman; he seemed satisfied by my answer. Apparently, though, there was significant controversy in the local community in the wake of the wedding—I heard about it from an acquaintance in Chicago, who was contacted by someone from Tampa to find out if what I had done was "legal." Most of the reaction I got at the reception, from men as well as women, was positive. The most frequent sentiment seemed to be that, quite simply, times have changed and it is a good thing for Muslims to change with them, so long as the fundamentals of Islam are upheld. I have no grand conclusions to draw from this event, merely a few small lessons. It reaffirmed for me that stretching oneself, professionally and personally, is rewarding. It suggested to me that sometimes the way to best make change is not to debate endlessly whether or not such change is permissible but, after giving the matter due consideration, simply to act. It taught me that scriptural learning and a solid command of Arabic are essential to the exercise of religious authority—and that having a smashing outfit can never hurt. First published at the Harvard Divinity Bulletin |
| Re: Muslimah Officiates Wedding |
|---|
| jannah |
| 03/03/05 at 13:47:52 |
| [slm] I think this was posted in the UCC? Anyhow, giving a speech at a wedding which is pretty much what she did is not really a matter for controversy so I don't know why it's such an issue. |
| Re: Muslimah Officiates Wedding |
|---|
| Abu_Hamza |
| 03/03/05 at 18:45:13 |
| [slm] [quote author=jannah link=board=sis;num=1109858387;start=0#1 date=03/03/05 at 13:47:52]giving a speech at a wedding which is pretty much what she did [/quote] An apple is *not* an orange! It's just not. |
| Re: Muslimah Officiates Wedding |
|---|
| jannah |
| 03/03/05 at 19:25:40 |
| wlm, Abu Hamza she says in the beginning that the two getting married were not having an Islamic contract, the wedding was not an Islamic cerermony. They wanted her to give a speech using some quran and sunnah etc... |
| 03/03/05 at 19:26:20 |
| jannah |
| Re: Muslimah Officiates Wedding |
|---|
| Abu_Hamza |
| 03/04/05 at 00:36:11 |
| [slm] Jannah, as you know, conducting a marriage ceremony in Islam does not require a written contract between the two parties. What's essential is the *verbal* exchange. And it's [i]mustahabb[/i] to do a sermon. The written contract is just a formality, although it is good to have it. So the lady did not just give a speech at the wedding, she *performed* the wedding. If it was just a speech, this article would be completely meaningless :) |
| Re: Muslimah Officiates Wedding |
|---|
| jannah |
| 03/05/05 at 03:17:58 |
| [wlm] This is the part that is contentious: "When we spoke, she informed me that the couple would not be producing a written Islamic contract, relying instead on prenuptial agreements and a civil marriage. Thus, the public religious ceremony was really about the sermon and the exchange of vows in front of the guests. " Are prenuptial agreements and a civil marriage an Islamic marriage? Obviously no...so it doesn't seem like the couple are into doing an "islamic legal marriage" in the first place. Secondly whether these vows are the islamic asking and answer is questionable since she didn't even seem too keen in keeping the amount of witnesses required. So what I'm saying is...if a person's reference is not islamic legalities then there's just no point in arguing with them. The real argument here is whether or not the author thought she was really conducting a legal islamic ceremony and if the elements there actually fulfilled the requirements needed to make it legal. So... according to Adab an-Nikah from the Ihya (Shafii here)... one is required to have 1. consent of wali or sultan... 2. agreement of the woman... 3. presence of 2 witnesses... 4. an offer and immediate acceptance (ijab wa qabul), expressed in terms of 'marriage' or 'wedding' (or words of the same import, whether in Arabic or any other tongue), by two persons of full legal competence, neither of them being a woman. (These persons may be the husband and the marriage guardian, or their authorized representatives) He also mentions customary though not essential: i. a proposal of marriage (khitba) ii. religious address (khutba) before the marriage iii. the bride should hear all about the bridegroom iv. invite virtuous ppl and two witnesses v. bridegroom should marry with intention of upholding prophetic example vi. marriage be contracted in the mosque and in the month of shawwal so if a woman gave the khutbah at the marriage ceremony or even asked the wali and the husband to repeat after her the ijab and qabul... i don't see how it's such a huge issue?? |
| Re: Muslimah Officiates Wedding |
|---|
| Abu_Hamza |
| 03/05/05 at 18:08:03 |
| [slm] What amuses me about this whole incident is that the lady feels such an accomplishment over doing something that is really quite meaningless. From a Shar'ee perspective, there is no need for an officiant for a marriage to take place. The required elements of a marriage contract are no more than the two contracting parties, the walee, the witnesses and the actual verbal exchange. A third person who actually conducts the marriage ceremony and gives the khutbah (traditionally the imam) is only ceremonial! Nowhere in our fiqh books do we find any mention of such a marriage official, nor do we find any qualifications for a person who wishes to conduct a ceremony. In the olden days, people would get married without anyone conducting the ceremony. Abdul Rahman ibn Awf came in front of the Prophet [saw] wearing a new, fancy dress on day in Madina (shortly after Hijrah). The Prophet [saw] asked him why he was all dressed up and he replied that he had gotten married. The Prophet [saw] didn't conduct his marriage. No one did! So if the lady wants to feel such an accomplishment for holding a position which doesn't even exist in our Sharee'ah, and for performing something which isn't even talked about in our Fiqh books, what a waste of time! |
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board |