Send message to Author

Abstract:

According to Hanafi law, a woman should not be coerced into an unwanted marriage. Almost all jurists agreed that the absence of consent from a woman in her legal majority, even if married off by her natural guardian, invalidated a marriage contract. Hanafis also agreed that that a woman can enter into a marital contract by herself without the permission from her guardian. Muslim women in the Volga-Urals tried to push and protect their interests regarding marital consent by referring to Islamic law, especially when they married against the will of their parents or abducted themselves. Women who were forced into marriage utilized sharia law to justify unfair and wrong coercion into unwanted marriage, or they utilized the above-mentioned sharia norm by claiming that sharia allows them to marry without their guardian. Their fathers, on the other hand, claimed that their daughter did not have the right to marry without their consent and accused imams who performed marriage to their daughters, without obtaining the father’s approval. Russian imperial law, article 6 of the Russian Civil Code, provided good basis for such claim. It stated that marriage without the consent of parents, guardians (opekun) and trustees (popechitel’) was prohibited. This paper investigates the question of marital consent in the Volga-Ural region of the Russian empire and looks at the way Muslims utilized such legal pluralism and law-shopping.