The Israeli-focused Middle Eastern Media Research Institute (MEMRI) takes a look at how Egypt and Saudi Arabia are trying to contend with child marriages. In Egypt, they are forbidden by law but go on nevertheless; in Saudi Arabia, reformers have a hard time countering religionists who point to the Prophet’s marriage to the child Aisha as an example of proper behavior. The media in both countries, however, are fighting to protect children. Of particular note, I think, is the realization on the part of some Saudis that this should be a matter of law, not fatwa.
MEMRI also provides a selection of Saudi editorial cartoons on the subject, this among them:
Credit: Hajed for Al-Jazeera
In Egypt and Saudi Arabia, Conflict Escalates
over Child Bride Marriages
Y. Admon and L. Azuri*Saudi Arabia has recently seen a rising tide of criticism over child bride marriages, especially following the marriage of a 12-year-old girl to her father’s 80-year-old cousin who already had three wives.[1] The phenomenon of underage marriage, extensively covered in the Saudi press during the last two years, has come under intense fire from social bodies and activists, and more recently from Saudi princesses, who demanded that it be stopped.
This wave of criticism prompted the Saudi press to publish articles detailing the attempts made by official, legal, and social elements to curb the practice by urging the banning of marriage under the age of 18. So far, however, these attempts have failed to gain momentum, due to the religious custom, well established in Saudi Arabia, permitting the marriage of underage girls based on the tradition that the Prophet Muhammad married his wife ‘Aisha when she was only six. [2]
The struggle against child marriages has also intensified in Egypt, which does ban marriage under the age of 18, but which has nevertheless in the past year seen a nationwide increase of child bride marriages. Egyptian Mufti ‘Ali Gum’a condemned the phenomenon, calling it a sin deserving of punishment.
The following report reviews the escalating conflict over child bride marriages and current attempts in Egypt and Saudi Arabia to reduce it.
…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
March:16:2010 - 08:31
YUCK that pic is powerful!
March:16:2010 - 11:58
John,
I thought you said earlier that Saudi government is making a law to set the minimum marriage age at 16, though with a clause for special cases.
March:16:2010 - 13:53
The correct verb form was a participle: continuous, not yet resolving into finality. The law is under discussion, meaning that the various interest groups are being consulted.
I’m confident that a new law fixing a minimum age will be presented. Just when that will be is open to debate. I suspect within a year or so.
March:16:2010 - 17:44
Aw, poor little girls having to be stuck with some old geezer.
March:16:2010 - 19:24
A while ago I researched the legal age of consent/marriage and found this site http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm
Unless u knew about it… prepare to be surprised.
March:16:2010 - 19:51
I often consult similar sites (for research purposes only!
).
My favourite on this one is the distinct ages for Americans travelling abroad. Whereas in some states of the USA sex with a 16 year old would be statutory rape, overseas it would not be. And the <4 year age difference allowing sex with 12 year olds is not universal in the US itself. Hmmmm, I wonder if that applies to American high schools overseas? Of course statutory rape and forced sex are distinct.
As I have said before, Saudi should and could alter its moudwana to include minimum ages for marriage, in line with other Islamic countries which have done so (usually 15 for the girl and 18 for the boy, but heading towards 18 for both). In the 2004 revision to the Moroccan moudwana the age for girls was raised from 15 to 18 to help women stay in school longer, ie finish high school at least, rather than marry, get pregnant and drop out. This was one of the goals of feminists that was achieved in consultation with Islamic scholars of the country (admittedly Maliki, not Hanbali fiqh), along with greater protection for women around divorce, but not the abolition of repudiation…yet.
March:16:2010 - 21:38
That’s a good compilation–much better than trying to find all the data from different sources! It’s important, though, to read the footnotes. Often, a low age of consent is contingent upon the partner’s being of similar age.
Of course, this chart is for age of consent, not minimum age of marriage. Those differ quite a bit in some countries.
March:16:2010 - 21:42
Most American high schools abroad are bound by local, not US law. The exceptions are the few schools built on property covered by diplomatic immunity, that is they are considered to be actually in the US. New Delhi and Dhahran would be examples of that, though I’m not entirely positive that the New Delhi American School’s property is actually expatriated land. It is, however, directly across the street from such property and might loosely be considered part of it.
March:16:2010 - 22:18
Reading that article gave me my head-desk moment of the day:
“The mother’s attorney . . . said he would sue for the girl’s divorce on the grounds that the status of the wife’s family was considered superior to that of the groom’s family.
On one hand I am appalled at the fate of the poor girl and applaud the lawyer for trying to help her when her own parents are too busy with their own agenda. On the other than, didn’t we just go through this with Fatima and Mansour about how destructive it is to have a third party intervene in a marriage based on differences in tribal status? Is this law the only way an outsider can intervene to save the child? Other than the duress argument of course, which to me is a no-brainer because to me a 12-year old is unfit to enter into any contract, let alone one that is so fundamental in nature.
March:17:2010 - 02:27
John–the ages of consent for sex are lower than the ages of consent for marriage, except in Muslim countries where there is no legal consent for sex outside of marriage. True about the footnotes. Still some countries, often traditional ones of any religion have low ages of consent for marriage,particularly for women (especially as men are expected to be able to provide for a family before marrying, and women are only expected to be of child-bearing age).
If the high schools are on local property and following local laws then at least they wouldn’t be subject to problems from American law most likely given these low ages of consent, unless that particular law is meant to apply to Americans only when on American soil overseas, ie as an alternative to the applicable state law in which the incident occurred.
March:17:2010 - 08:15
Americans abroad are expected to follow local laws–and face local legal penalties for failure to do so. This comes as a surprise to many, unfortunately, when they suddenly find themselves behind bars. All the rights they have under the Constitution stop at the US border, also a sometimes unpleasant surprise. Americans are told this, but many just don’t seem to believe it until it’s too late. Even Congressmen are surprised that when a constituent asks for help from abroad that there’s not a lot that can be done.
Of course, it’s not only Americans who find these unpleasant surprises, as the British couple about to be jailed for kissing on the beach in the UAE have discovered.
There are negotiated exceptions–largely dealing with the military–to the general rule. These tend to be outlined (or sometimes very specifically detailed) in Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA). Too, the Vienna Conventions specify exemptions afforded diplomats.
March:17:2010 - 08:52
Yes, certain experiences in the news, bring home the dangers of thinking one is exempt from local laws, and that there is much that one’s home government can do except provide consular oversight and communication. This applies to certain Canadians in Saudi as well.
I was thinking that where the local laws are more lax, but there is an intra-Americans complaint that Americans overseas law might apply in lieu of a specific state’s law. Eg all Italians born overseas of immigrants, and requesting Italian citizenship by birth, with no family residence in Italy, aka me, are handled through Rome, and are required to cite Rome in the appropriate places on official papers or on official business. The same for their voting conscription. I thought it might be similar for Americans overseas with no home state, as regards this law of consents.
In any case I am aware of some of the problems in high schools generally because of my psychiatry activities/friends, which do not spare private American run high schools overseas, so the issue was of interest.
Thanks for the clarifications for other types of exemptions from the norm for Americans abroad. The next footnote in the site Qusay provided deals with the military. Ah, but they shouldn’t be “fraternizing” at all, and should stick to business. LOL
March:17:2010 - 09:07
To the best of my knowledge, all Americans are required to declare a state of residence, no matter how tenuous the link. It might be a parent’s or sibling’s actual residence, but some place must be identified. The states like this because many of them collect income tax on incomes, even of one not physically residing or working in that state. So, in a sense, an American citizen can never be stateless or state-less!
March:17:2010 - 09:37
Ah yes, Americans pay the IRS on world wide income…
March:17:2010 - 10:02
Those in the private sector get a pretty nice tax break–the first $70K or so are not taxed. Not so for public sector employees, alas and as my tax bills proved.
March:17:2010 - 12:45
Canadians don’t pay on income earned outside Canada if they are legally non-residents of Canada at the time,and can prove it. The benefit for me on this when I was in Hong Kong (oh, blessed land of the maximum 15% tax rate for any bracket) was offset by suddenly having my whopping clinic taxes come due pronto, of course between clinic earnings in each place. That is why one marries an MBA (at least a serious feminist does LOL
).
We have higher taxation rates and get to them quicker on our graduated scale. I guess if Obama is serious, moving to the Caymans will be pleasant but no tax advantage. LOL
March:17:2010 - 18:10
What you say “All the rights they have under the Constitution stop at the US border, also a sometimes unpleasant surprise. Americans are told this, but many just don’t seem to believe it until it’s too late. ” is understandable.
One has but to note that the US does assert its ability to prosecute and imprison those who are located abroad and who both never visited the USA, nor did their alleged crime significantly occur in the USA.
Thus, while the USA Constitution may stop at USA borders, USA laws may not.
It is paradoxic.
March:17:2010 - 19:02
I think it’s also improper. There are some laws that become internationally enforceable due to international treaty: war crimes, child sexual abuse, slavery, etc. Extending US law across its borders in other regards, though, I consider serious error with unconsidered consequences.
March:18:2010 - 01:15
Extending US law across its borders in other regards, though, I consider serious error with unconsidered consequences.
I think as a general principle extending the applicability domestic laws of any country outside its territorial borders is a problem. And a little scary too. I can see the logic, but like you said, too subject to the law of unintended consequences.