Married gals how much is your Mehr?

[TooMacaan]

Regarding your first point you're forgetting that men usually are the sole provider of income in the household or the women participates in the income of the house while you will rarely see in the Islamic world a woman that is the only provider of income in the house and you will see more women that are housewifes therefore a woman needs money of meher and inheritance while a man doesn't need that money I'm talking in general.
Also let us say go with your secnario and say the parents refused the man because of low meher the women can simply tell her parents that she won't except another man even if he has a high meher so the family will be forced to let her marry the man she wants since it's up to the woman to decide if she wants to marry a man or not.

Nowadays, it's not economically feasible for sole providers to exist in relationships (unless the guy comes from a wealthy background)...due to the way Capitalism has evolved, most middle-class households are supported by a dual income. Thus, women have to work anyway. Not only that, even if women didn't have to work...most of us want to work (its much safer also, in terms of financial security and certain freedoms, for a woman not to completely depend on her partner to support her). I do agree though that it is very unlikely for women to be sole providers BUT times are changing and if it is what is best for the couple (and they both agree), women should have the ability to be sole providers while men do the domestic duties and child rearing.

The only way I will consider the practice of Mehr as valid, then, is if the couple agrees prior to marriage that: the woman will be the sole provider while the man is househusband...would YOU also agree that the man should not pay Mehr in this situation and instead, the woman has to pay him?? Will you agree to this?

Scenario: It is almost impossible to refuse your parents (especially if you live in non-western countries or you are following non-western values). The family will not be "forced" to do anything she wants...if we are going to look at the majority of the Islamic world (not liberal), people follow cultures not the Qu'ran and the laws of men as well as authority of parents often "interpret"(manipulate) scriptures to ensure their choices take precedence over the girl's wishes, (whose opinions no one really cares for).

 

[Cinnamon Spice]

Nowadays, it's not economically feasible for sole providers to exist in relationships (unless the guy comes from a wealthy background)...due to the way Capitalism has evolved, most middle-class households are supported by a dual income. Thus, women have to work anyway. Not only that, even if women didn't have to work...most of us want to work (its much safer also, in terms of financial security and certain freedoms, for a woman not to completely depend on her partner to support her). I do agree though that it is very unlikely for women to be sole providers BUT times are changing and if it is what is best for the couple (and they both agree), women should have the ability to be sole providers while men do the domestic duties and child rearing.

The only way I will consider the practice of Mehr as valid, then, is if the couple agrees prior to marriage that: the woman will be the sole provider while the man is househusband...would YOU also agree that the man should not pay Mehr in this situation and instead, the woman has to pay him?? Will you agree to this?

Scenario: It is almost impossible to refuse your parents (especially if you live in non-western countries or you are following non-western values). The family will not be "forced" to do anything she wants...if we are going to look at the majority of the Islamic world (not liberal), people follow cultures not the Qu'ran and the laws of men as well as authority of parents often "interpret"(manipulate) scriptures to ensure their choices take precedence over the girl's wishes, (whose opinions no one really cares for).

It's not about who is earning more and whatnot, because even if the woman is wealthier than him she is entitled to her mahr. It's a bridal gift, made obligatory on the man by Allah (swt). That's really all there is to it. As for what it symbolises or what it's for, I don't think it's been explicitly stated so I don't understand how people have assumed it's for insurance in the case of a divorce.

You seem to have a liberal take on gender roles abaayo. The man is the designated breadwinner Islamically, even if the wife works or is wealthy.

 

[madamelioness]

It's not about who is earning more and whatnot, because even if the woman is wealthier than him she is entitled to her mahr. It's a bridal gift, made obligatory on the man by Allah (swt). That's really all there is to it. As for what it symbolises or what it's for, I don't think it's been explicitly stated so I don't understand how people have assumed it's for insurance in the case of a divorce.

You seem to have a liberal take on gender roles abaayo. The man is the designated breadwinner Islamically, even if the wife works or is wealthy.

I don't think she is a Muslim abaayo.

 

[Coulombs law]

It's not about who is earning more and whatnot, because even if the woman is wealthier than him she is entitled to her mahr. It's a bridal gift, made obligatory on the man by Allah (swt). That's really all there is to it. As for what it symbolises or what it's for, I don't think it's been explicitly stated so I don't understand how people have assumed it's for insurance in the case of a divorce.

You seem to have a liberal take on gender roles abaayo. The man is the designated breadwinner Islamically, even if the wife works or is wealthy.

Thank you for explaining it beautifully to these "Progressive" liberals....

 

[Bonjour]

2 oranges and a couple of apples i think