Lost in Translation

As a reciprocal contract, Islamic marriage (nikāḥ) furnishes rights and obligations for both spouses. Usually split into two portions, the deferred part of the bridal dower (mahr muʾakhkhar)—a one-time financial liability that both spouses agree on during the wedding proceedings—is customarily received by the Muslim wife where her husband seeks to divorce her unilaterally (ṭalāq). However, US courts faced with construing mahr-agreements have been reluctant to enforce the financial promises stipulated in such agreements. Based on evidence gathered from case law, this article argues that a combination of several factors, most importantly, the judicial anxiety to get involved in religious doctrinal interpretation, as well as the misinformed analogizing of bridal dowers to prenuptial agreements, adversely affects Muslim women as courts increasingly adhere to the presumption that mahr-agreements are non-enforceable, squarely placing the burden of proof to the contrary on women. Moreover, women's financial hardship is often the immediate result of the court's refusal to uphold a husband's commitment to pay dower. As a critical feature of Islamic marriage, the agreed-on dower payment assures financial stability after divorce, predictability, and women's bargaining power throughout a marital relationship. Since 2013, state legislators' partially successful endeavors to bar state courts from applying Islamic law under comity function as a compounding factor that has created dire prospects for the future of mahr-agreements in the US, posing a substantial risk not only to the institution of Islamic marriage, but also the parties’ freedom of contract.