Here is a letter by Irfan Husain. He raises the issue of what provides the authority to Fathers and Brothers to deny the women the choice of selecting their own life partners? He says:
**Although there is no specific Islamic injunction giving them this authority, they nevertheless cite religion as the basis for this arbitrary power. **
Are there any specific Islamic injunctions or not? How can a woman possibly choose her own husband if there are severe restrictions on her movements?
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_26-8-2002_pg3_6
Letter from London: Sugar and spice
Irfan Husain
The whole question of parents forcing girls to marry men against their choice invariably causes revulsion when it is reported in the media
Last year, an opinion poll in Britain showed that the overwhelming proportion of people polled indicated that they would prefer to have daughters to sons. Most said they thought boys were more difficult to raise, got into more trouble, were more selfish and were less likely to spend time with their parents. Girls, on the other hand, were perceived to be better students, kinder, and more likely to look after their parents, specially in their old age.
This is a far cry from attitudes in Pakistan (and most Third World countries, for that matter). Here, one reason for our high population birth rate is that parents who have a girl are apt to continue trying for a boy, often ending up with lots of girls who are then neglected while the boy (if one finally arrives) is spoilt silly. Indeed, boys get more attention as well as a better education and health care than their sisters. Thus, the literacy rate for girls is much lower than it is for boys. This preference for male children promotes the macho attitudes that are responsible for many of our problems. However, in the absence of social security, parents tend to perceive boys as an insurance against old age, specially in a society where girls, once married, are seen as somebody else’s property. Indeed, it is the perception of girls being initially their fathers’ responsibility and then their husbands’ that has caused them to be seen as a burden. The dowry system, inherited from Hindu society, has done much to promote the idea that girls are a burden on their parents. Mercifully, most other Muslim societies have not been tainted by this cruel arrangement.
In developed societies like Britain, both men and women move out of their parents’ homes once they start working, irrespective of whether they are married or not. And while parents give presents and host a reception at a wedding, they do not discriminate between boys and girls. There is no economic advantage or disadvantage to having a boy or a girl, hence the preference reported in the opinion poll reflected a rational choice, uninfluenced by economic considerations. In Pakistan, parents with several girls are generally the objects of pity.
These attitudes, when transposed to the West by immigrants, are considered archaic. The whole question of parents forcing girls to marry men against their choice invariably causes revulsion when it is reported in the media. There have been cases of Muslim fathers and brothers murdering girls and their lovers or husbands when they have decided to leave home rather than give in to the decision of their parents. The whole concept of women being second-rate citizens appals and disgusts Westerners. By refusing their daughters the freedom to select their own life partners, Muslims have further alienated themselves from mainstream society in the West. **Although there is no specific Islamic injunction giving them this authority, they nevertheless cite religion as the basis for this arbitrary power. **And this in turn erodes the respect outsiders have for Islam. Foreigners often ask how a religion that is supposed to promote equality can relegate half its followers to an inferior status… How indeed?