Re: A man’s advice to potential brides:The Nikahnama
Agree with your points, however, I do have to add something. Regarding points 3 and 4, in the society that we live in, the woman pretty much only sees her nikkahnama when she has to sign it. All the other decisions are made for her (this includes the amount of haq mehr). She genuinely doesn’t have a say in any of the clauses. The molvi sahab takes the liberty to cross through pretty much the entire page 2 of the nikahnama where all these conditions are stipulated. Therefore you can’t just blatanly blame the women for not taking their lives in control. When she is allowed to tick mark the relevant boxes herself, then you can say please do what the women in the old times did.
No offence, but that is not a clause that we are adding to the nikahnama. It is already added in the nikahnama. And in very convulated language, that only an MA Urdu pass can translate, I might add. Case in point (someone posted his nikahnama on flickr, in case there are some debates over this isn’t the true copy)
ABID HUSSAIN WITH MAQSOODA NIKAH NAMA SECOND PAGE A 013 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
As you can see, questions 18-22 are questions that the OP is talking about, or has to do with the guy’s previous marriage. Those are questions technically the bride should be answering, or the the first wife should be answering. But it doesn’t happen. The molvi took his pen and crossed it out, as if that isn’t relevant. Now my Urdu isn’t perfect, but from my understanding question 18 and 19 are specifically about rights of divorce. And question 20 is probably about any other added guidelines/requests. (I would like question 20 to be translated to normal English please though. Just so I can stand corrected).
Nikahnama is a marriage contract. That has to be remembered. It isn’t just a paper that you sign, symbolizing you are married. It is something that has to be understood to be filled out. And just like any other contract, you can amend it any way you want. Unfortunately that does not happen, and so a lot of the rights are simply thrown out the window.
you are right that the language is difficult for common men to understand, but it doesn’t mention in clause 22 that a bride got right to restrict his would-be husband from second marriage. Its seems that clause 22 is about whether the permission groom got permission / consent from first wife for second marriage. You can understand that both these things are different