The word "UJOOR" for women in the Quran:

Is it an up-front one off payment (Dowry), or an

on-going payment throughtout marriage (Wages)?

.

Researched by A. Muhammad

.

Up until a short time ago, the universally agreed upon meaning of the word, UJOOR, as used in the Quran with reference to women in marriage, was Dowry, paid as a lump sum to the woman as a condition for marriage {This payment is sometimes deferred in certain cultures, a practice which has no Quranic basis}.  However, recently, a new understanding for the word UJOOR has surfaced.   The gist of this new understanding, is that this Quranic commandment does not refer to a single lump-sum dowry payment, but rather an on-going wage, paid by the husband to his wife throughout the marriage.

Both understandings recognize that the UJOOR for women is an obligation (FARIDA) laid by God, on every man who takes a wife.  This article attempts to present both sides of the issue, with the aim of providing the reader with enough material to form an educated judgement on the matter.  God's commands must not be taken lightly.  As such, it is incumbent on all who regard the Quran as God's message to humanity, to investigate the commands contained within it thoroughly, so that they may enjoy the fruits of leading their lives within the bounds laid out by God. 

This issue carries a direct impact on many of our lives.  After all, most people, at one point in their lives or another, enter into a marriage.  It is important to comprehend, and then carry out this, and all of God’s commandments in the best, and most righteous of manners. 

DICTIONARY MEANING:

The word UJOOR, as looked up in the dictionary, means WAGES, and not dowry.  This is it's common usage in the Arabic language.

Although, the word UJOOR in most dictionaries indeed means a monetary wage, the same word is used in the Quran with a different meaning.  As is the case when studying any Quranic issue, to rely on the dictionary alone is not always a wise and accurate means of understanding the Quran.  We all know that the dictionary will tell us that the word UMMY means ‘illiterate’, however the same word in the Quran means ‘gentile’.  Other examples include the words 'Khimar', 'Shaheed' and 'Taharah', which all are used to mean different things colloquially, versus its' Quranic usage.   It is, therefore, important to examine other occurences of the word UJOOR, and the contexts they employ.

USAGE OF THE WORD 'UJOOR' IN THE QURAN:

To demonstrate the Quranic use of the word UJOOR, let us read some of the verses, in which it occurs.

"As for those who believe and lead a righteous life, He (God) will fully give them UJOORAHUMMA.  God does not love the unjust." 3:57 (also 4:152, 4:173, 35:30, 2:277

It is clear here that God is not going to pay monetary wages to the righteous in heaven (!), but rather that God will grant them their reward.  So, the next obvious question in our discussion would be: Is that reward a one-off reward, or an on-going one?  The proponents of the on-going wage state that the use of the word UJOOR in the plural indicates that the subject is on-going payments and not a one off payment.

However, it can be easily demonstrated that the plural and singular use of the words UJOOR/AJR are not necessarily connected to whether the reward is a one off reward or an on going payment. Let us consider other verse which speak about the reward in heaven (with is a continuous reward) but with the use of the singular word 'AJR':

"Additionally, the AJR (reward) in the Hereafter is even better for those who believe and lead a righteous life."  12:57

"Indeed, he who submits himself absolutely to God alone, while leading a righteous life, will receive his AJRAHU (his reward) from his Lord; he has nothing to fear, nor will he grieve."  2:112

"Those who readily fight in the cause of God are those who forsake this world in favor of the Hereafter. Whoever fights in the cause of God, then gets killed, or attains victory, we will surely grant him AJRAN AZEEMAN (a great recompense)."  4:74

"This Quran guides to the best path, and brings good news to the believers who lead a righteous life, that they have deserved a AJRAN AZEEMAN (a great recompense)." 17:9 (also 33:31, 48:10, 16:97, 39:35 and 57:19).

All the above verses speak of the reward in heaven, which is an on-going reward, yet the singular word AJR is used. This indicates that the use of the singular or the plural does not bear any implication on the issue of whether the reward is a one off or an on-going one.

AJR is also used in the Quran to denote a reward in this life, by other than God.  An example of this in 7:113:

“The magicians came to Pharaoh and said, "Do we get AJR (reward) if we are the winners?"   7:113

In total, the words 'AJR/UJOOR' have been used in the Quran a total of 105 times.  Six of these are related to marriage.  The other 99 verses use the word AJR/UJOOR to mean 'reward', in various forms.  The words are used, for the most part, to denote the reward(s) which is received by the worthy in the Hereafter.  

One of the cases for the commandment to be an on-going wage made up of multiple payments through the course of the marriage is that all the verses that refer to marriage, use the word in its' plural form.   A single payment is referred to as an AJR, as demonstrated in 7:113, above.

However, as demonstrated above, the singular and plural use do not bear an implication on whether the issue is an on-going one or a one off. In addition to that, it has to be noted that in the verses where UJOOR for women are mentioned, God is always speaking about WOMEN (plural) and not one WOMAN (singular).  Thus, the use of UJOOR (plural) could also be understood to be applying to the many AJR ‘s of all women, and not the payments of a single woman.

DUTIES OF THE WIFE:

If this commandment is to be understood to be a wage, rather than a wedding gift, then what would this wage be paid for?

Proponents of the wage stance hold that, when the wife enters a marriage, she bears the brunt of the new shared responsibilities.  Primary among these, is the bearing, and then suckling/raising of the children.

Consider the example of divorced mothers who are nursing infants. In 2:233 and 65:6, God commands that payments for this service must be made to them.  It is an activity that warrants a wage. However, this wage can be attributed to the fact that the divorced wife has no financial ties or obligations to her ex-husband any more and thus would expect to be paid for any service she provides him.

In many households, it is common for the wife to assume the domestic household duties, like cooking, cleaning, etc., as well.  She is therefore entitled to be compensated and paid a regular wage from her husband.

Opponents of the stance maintain that there is no Quranic grounds for assuming that all wives must stay at home and play the role of the housewife.  The incorrect use of 33:33 to force women to stay at home is indeed a grave error since it is clear that 33:33 speaks specifically to the wives of the prophet and NOT to all women. As the Quran legislates for all times and not just the time of fourteen centuries ago, God knows that there will come a time (like today) where both partners are working, both earn a salary and both of them share the household duties EQUALLY.  There is nothing in the Quran that either prohibits this arrangement, nor in any way suggests that it is unrighteous.  We also know that God is the Most Fair Judge, consequently God would not command the man to pay his wife a wage for household duties when: 

1- the man is sharing half these duties

2-  the woman is employed and has a salary of her own.

Moreover, the Quranic commandment of Ujoor may not be a conditional one:   we cannot say that in the case when the wife is working and has a salary, then the husband is relieved of the duty of paying her a wage.  This is because the concept of Ujoor in the Quran is a commandment, and therefore compulsory on all men.

But this is not all, even if we assume that many wives stay at home and are total house wives, we also know that many men are the sole bread earners and that they work hard outside the house to sustain their wives and children. Should we in that case say that they too deserve to be compensated by their wive's savings or possesions for the hard work they do outside the house?

The question here is : why should only one partner be paid a monetary wage by the other partenr for the work they do, when at the end of the day they both work hard, whether it is inside the house or outside?

THE CASE OF 33:33:

"You (addressing the wives of the prophet) shall settle down in your homes, and do not mingle with the people excessively, like you used to do in the old days of ignorance. You shall observe the Contact Prayers (Salat), and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), and obey God and His messenger. God wishes to remove all unholiness from you, O you who live around the Sacred Shrine, and to purify you completely."   33:33

Among other things, the wives of the prophet are, in this verse, commanded to pay their Zakat (obligatory charity).  A non working housewife would not be able to observe her religious duty of Zakat unless her husband pays her a regular wage.

The argument against this is outlined as follows:  The payment of Zakat in the Quran is conditioned to the existence of an income, consequently those who do not have an income are exempt from paying a zakat:

" .... and give the due alms (Zakat) on the day of harvest ..... " 6:141

If there is no harvest/income, there are no due alms (Zakat).  God has linked the payment of Zakat to the existence of an income/harvest, just like He linked the duty of Hajj to those who have the financial means.

In this verse, however, the wives of the prophet are specifically instructed 'not to mingle excessively', implying that they spent most of their time in a domestic environment, and therefore not working.

Moreover, the payment of Zakat is due on any acquisition of wealth.  Income is not the only source of wealth.  Zakat is payable on gifts, donations, inheritance, etc.  The husband is encouraged in the Quran to give gifts to his wife (4:4), and for everything of value she receives (gifts, income, donation, inheritance etc) she must pay a zakat. Thus 33:33 should not only be interpreted to be speaking about the zakat on income, it also speaks of all other zakat (gifts, inheritance ... etc).

The husband pays zakat on his earnings.  If he were to give some of his earnings to his wife (as wages), then she pays zakat out of it, then this same family would have paid zakat twice on the SAME income!  Of course this position assumes that:

1 – the husband does not deduct his obligatory payments before apportioning the zakat, and

2 – that the husband and wife are a single entity.

THE CASE OF 2:237:

"If you divorce them before touching them, but after you had set the FARIDA for them, the compensation shall be half the dowry, unless they voluntarily forfeit their rights, or the party responsible for causing the divorce chooses to forfeit the dowry. To forfeit is closer to righteousness. You shall maintain the amicable relations among you. God is Seer of everything you do."   2:237

In 2:237, we read that the farida (translated:  obligation, and used as Ujoor in other verses) must be halved and paid to the divorced wife if the divorce takes place before the marriage is consummated.  Now let us suppose that the husband (according to the wage interpretation) agrees to pay his wife a monthly wage of $400. If he divorces her before consummating the marriage, he would only need to pay her $200 !  This does not seem fair, and hardly a deterrent for those inclined towards such unrighteous practices.  However if we take the FARIDA to be a dowry, and if the agreed amount was $10,000, for example, and if divorce takes place before the marriage is consummated, then the man is obliged to pay the woman $5000.

Also consider the concept of Zawag Al-Muta'a, literally translated as a marriage of pleasure.  According to this arrangement some Muslim sects allow marriage to be contracted for a specific period of time.  In reality, it is nothing more than men hiring a woman for sexual services for an appointed time, and fooling themselves by claiming it is God's law.  These claims are justified by saying that the word Mata'a  has been used in the Quran in connection with marriage (see 2:236 and 2:240).  Unfortunately, this has been taken completely out of context, and is a gross violation of God’s laws.

Under the WAGE concept of UJOOR, and since the Quran does not fix a minimum period for any marriage, men would be able to use this interpretation to marry a woman for fancy for 3 or 6 months, pay her some wages and divorce her when they have had enough of each other.

However, under a sizeable forward lump sum, many men would think twice before going into such farcial arrangements.  If we add to that the compensation due to the divorced woman in the case of divorce, plus the fact that God decreed that the divorced woman cannot be evicted from her marriage home (unless she has committed a gross sin which led to the divorce) then we can see that God has the woman’s security and welfare well legislated for.

The flip-side to this, is that, in the case of a genuine incompatibility, the husband may be forced to pay an unreasonable amount.  Whereas an agreement for marriage must not be taken lightly, there are always situations where divorce is the only appropriate recourse.  Yes, a hefty fine would deter a casual approach to marriage, but at the same time it would unfairly penalise genuinely unfortunate cases.

THE CASE OF 33:50:

" ... We have made lawful for you your wives whom YOU HAVE PAID their Ujoor ...."  33:50

The words in 33:50 read "Allati Ataita Ujoorahunna".  The second word here , which is "Ataita" (you have paid), is in the past tense and not the present.

The use of the past tense here (have paid) indicates a payment that has ALREADY been paid, rather than a continuous payment.  Once again the significance of this observation indicates that the man may marry the woman only after he has ALREADY paid her dowry, which once again indicates a lump sum to be paid up front. 

Those that expound the ‘wage’ stance, argue that the Ujoor used here is in its’ plural form.  More than one payment has been made, indicating continuous payments. However, it is more rational to consider that the plural (ujoor) is used here rather than the singular "ajr" simply because the verse speaks of "wives" in plural and not (wife) in singular.

THE CASE OF 60:10:

"O you who believe, when believing women (abandon the enemy and) ask for asylum with you, you shall test them. God is fully aware of their belief. Once you establish that they are believers, you shall not return them to the disbelievers. They are not lawful to remain married to them, nor shall the disbelievers be allowed to marry them. Give back "MA ANFAQU" that the disbelievers have paid.  You commit no error by marrying them, so long as you pay them their due Ujoor. Do not keep disbelieving wives (if they wish to join the enemy).  You may ask them for "MA ANFAQTUM", and they may ask for "MA ANFAQU". This is God's rule; He rules among you. God is Omniscient, Most Wise."  (Quran, 60:10)

The key words here are:

"MA ANFAQU" .... which literally means (what they spent/paid)

"MA ANFAQTUM" ..... (what you have spent/paid)

The money spent by the disbelieving husband must be returned to him, if the wife flees and joins the believers (and vice-versa).

The question here is, what is to be returned to the first husband?  Is it what he spent as dowry ? Or is it what he spent as wages on his wife?

To demonstrate the scenario, let us first assume that the words (what they have spent/paid) is talking about the WAGES that were paid by the man to his wife throughout the marriage.  That would mean all the amounts paid over time to the wife must be calculated – a seemingly unwieldy proposition. 

This sum would also be payment for ‘duties’ performed for another man.  But if we consider the words (what they paid) to mean the dowry, then it is natural that the new husband should pay it since he would have paid a dowry anyway to marry ANY woman.

Therefore, he would not be paying for the work (WAGES) done by his wife for someone else, he is simply paying his due dowry for acquiring a wife.

However, the words chosen by God in 60:10, is not Ujoor, or even Farida, to be repaid to the previous husband.  The verse commands that whatever has been spent by the previous husband be re-funded.  This is a special commandment to ‘do the right thing’ in unique circumstances.

In either understanding, though, the payment has to be a ‘largish’ one, more in the spirit of lump-sum payment, then the alternative of smaller periodic instalments. 

DIVORCES:

"The divorcees also shall be provided for, equitably. This is a duty upon the righteous."  2:241

We read in 2:241 that God has accounted for and legislated for, an equitable compensation to the divorced wife if her husband divorces her, through no fault of hers.   This verse specifically provides for the security of the divorced woman.

Although each side has forwarded their views on how this payment ties in with the Ujoor of marriage, in reality this is a separate commandment to be fulfilled.   The mode of Ujoor payment has no bearing on payments due to a divorcee.

AN EXAMPLE FROM THE STORY OF MOSES:

"He said (to Moses), "I wish to offer one of my two daughters for you to marry, in return (as UJOOR) for working for me for eight pilgrimages; if you make them ten, it will be voluntary on your part. I do not wish to make this matter too difficult for you. You will find me, GOD willing, righteous."  28:27

Moses paid a fixed amount to his wife’s father as payment for marrying her.  That fixed amount was labor eight, or ten pilgrimages.  It was not a continuous amount, paid for the duration of the marriage.  At the end of eight, or ten, years, the obligation was deemed paid in full.

Biblical laws appear to differ from Quranic laws on this issue.

Firstly, the Quran dictates that the payment be made to the wife.  The Bible points to the father being the recipient of the dowry.  Secondly, The Quranic concept of Ujoor, is that it is to be paid in money, whereas the Bible permits the amount to be paid in cash, or kind.

We find that the concept of a dowry is well defined in the Torah, this being a nuptial present; some gift, as a sum of money, which the bridegroom offers to the father of his bride as a satisfaction before he can receive her.  (An interesting side-note to this, is that in many Muslim countries, paying the father is still in common practice).

"And Shechem said unto her father and unto her brethren, Let me find grace in your eyes, and what ye shall say unto me I will give. Ask me never so much dowry and gift, and I will give according as ye shall say unto me: but give me the damsel to wife."  (Genesis, 34:11-12)

"If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins."  (Exodus, 22:16-17)

"But it came to pass at the time when Merab Saul's daughter should have been given to David, that she was given unto Adriel the Meholathite to wife. And Michal Saul's daughter loved David: and they told Saul, and the thing pleased him. And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the one of the twain. And Saul commanded his servants, saying, Commune with David secretly, and say, Behold, the king hath delight in thee, and all his servants love thee: now therefore be the king's son in law. And Saul's servants spake those words in the ears of David. And David said, Seemeth it to you a light thing to be a king's son in law, seeing that I am a poor man, and lightly esteemed? And the servants of Saul told him, saying, On this manner spake David. And Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king's enemies. But Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines."   (1 Samuel 18:19-25)

"Now Laban had two daughters; the name of the older was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel.  Leah was dull-eyed, but Rachel was graceful and beautiful. Jacob was in love with Rachel and said, "I'll work for you seven years in return for your younger daughter Rachel." Laban said, "It's better that I give her to you than to some other man.  Stay here with me." So Jacob served seven years to get Rachel, but they seemed like only a few days to him because of his love for her. Then Jacob said to Laban, "Give me my wife. My time is completed, and I want to lie with her." So Laban brought together all the people of the place and gave a feast. But when evening came, he took his daughter Leah and gave her to Jacob, and Jacob lay with her."  (Genesis, 29:16-23)

We also note that we are told in the Torah that Jacob had no dowry to give for his wife, so he gave his services for an appointed fixed time (as is with the case of Moses in the Quran).

It is noteworthy to add here, that the Torah, and Quran are identical in the fact that each makes it absolutely clear that a man may not have his wife UNTIL HE HAS PAID THE DOWRY :

" ...... We have made lawful for you your wives whom YOU HAVE PAID their Ujoor   ...."  33:50

It has been stated by the proponents of the ‘dowry’ position in the Quran, that since God does not inform us of a change in this particular law, then we must take the incident of Moses to be part of God’s unchanging law (33:62):

"He decreed for you the same religion decreed for Noah, and what we inspired to you, and what we decreed for Abraham, Moses, and Jesus …."  42:13

This view does not take into consideration the other differences in the practice as noted above.

CONCLUSIONS:

Why does God command the man to pay an Ujoor for taking a wife in the first place?  Obviously no one can speak on behalf of God and why He does things, His wisdom eclipses all others, so any reply given here is a personal opinion, and God knows best.

By making this payment, men demonstrate that women are valuable companions and marriage is a sacred and lasting bond.  They are commanded to ‘put their money where their mouth is’.

It is incumbent upon us to carry out this practice honestly, and correctly.

This article attempts to present both sides of this issue, to equip the reader to form his or her own judgements.  While the sincere believer would not like to follow handed-down practices blindly if they are in violation of God’s laws, he or she must also be uncompromisingly meticulous in evaluating, and not accepting changes before absolute certainty is attained.

Some may feel it is righteous to make one lump sum, others may deem periodic payments more appropriate.  Still others may see a combination of both in these verses, and take that route.  We pray each one returns to God with clear hearts.

All praise belongs to God

.

Back to ARTICLES page

.