How young can girls be married, NU issues fatwa allowing for marriage below the age of consent.
[post removed]
What the NU is doing with this fatwa is giving lip-service to their paymasters.
_________
Oh, I didn’t see it as this far, to tell you the truth. I saw it purely as a proof of impenetrable wall between the purely conservative (or old-fashioned, outdated) seniors and the dynamic & risk-taking generations (that maybe got frustated right now if your prediction is right).
Religious morals which doesn’t transcend through time has no place in modern society.
_____________
I’ll borrow the word “Religious morals”.
See, this is another problem source, when people cannot distinguish between religious morals and local/cultural necessities.
Using Burqa is not religious moral, it is cultural. Covering body, head and dress appropriately are the moral. Ladies that use long sleeve t-shirt combined with korean loose cloth, long pant and colorful head cover are not less islamic compared to ladies that use burqa. The Walisongo that used javanese style ‘beskap’ and brought keris were not less moslem than their fellows in arab that used loose fitting. That’s why it is ridiculous when some people trying to push their concept about being a good moslem by imitating blindly what people in arab wear. Because the prophet wore it? of course, he lived there for god sake!
The same analogue here with the case of early/underage marriage. It was in cultural context and his political strategy to unite people. Justifying underage marriage just because the prophet did it long time ago in arab land is not a good logic. And justifying this just because it is a common practice among people here is also ridiculous, and can be counterproductive or even destructive. Just imagine what will happened if the india government, for example, chose to legalize ‘sati’ because it is a common practice there and a part of hindu religious morals. Of course, it is too extreme example. But I just want to emphasize the point.
Well, let’s move the party into nikah gantung, then.
From the nineteenth century edition of the “Encyclopaedie van Nederlandsch-Indie “ Vol.II p.65 (my translation AB):
“Abduction ( originally of a girl outside the tribe) , one of the most primitive forms of marriage, still occurs today in the Indian Archipelago. It happens either in fact, when the marriage is concluded against the will of the girl, or her parents, or both, or symbolically. Abduction of the woman against her will is only customary among the Balinese. In other places it is done in agreement with the girl, to let the marriage take place against the will of the parents. This is the case among the Buginese and the Makassarese, the Beadjus of Borneo, the people of the Moluccan islands (where it is customary even if the parents are not against the marriage), the Alfurese of Buru, and some Papuan tribes …
Symbolical abductions are with some tribes part of the marriage ceremony, for instance with the Sumbanese, the people of the Lampong Districts, and the Redjang, even though agreement with the parents has already been reached beforehand.
…
The so-called child marriages, that frequently occur in the Archipelago, could perhaps have originated in the endeavour of the parents to prevent (factual) abduction … often the actual consummation of the marriage is then postponed until a maturer age, but not always. For instance in Aceh girls of 8-10 years old, yes even of age 7, will be surrendered to their husbands …”
Having sexual intercourse outside marriage with a girl below fifteen years of age, or who was obviously immature, and abduction were according to respectively articles 287 and 332 of the Netherlands Indies criminal code so-called ‘complaint offences’, that is prosecution would only take place on the basis of a complaint by those directly involved.
As far as Indonesian law is concerned Joko Mirwan Muslimin states in his 2005 Hamburg Ph.D. thesis: the “Marriage Law of 1974
states; “a marriage shall be founded upon an agreement
between both the aspirant bride and the aspirant bridegroom”,
(article 6 point 1). In the following article it is stated: “Marriage
shall be permitted only if the male aspirant has reached the age
of 19 (nineteen) years and the female aspirant has reached the
age of 16 (sixteen) years”. And “in order to enter into
matrimony a person who has not attained the age of 21 (twenty
one) years shall obtain the consent of both parents” (articles 7
and 6, point 1).
The KHI (Kompilasi Hukum Islam) also restricted the minimum age and the agreement of parents for the couple (articles 15 and 16). Moreover, in article
17, KHI emphasizes that before beginning marriage ceremony
the duty of marriage registrar is to ask formally and directly the
willingness of (sic) marriage from the couple themselves. If one of
the couple denies his or her willingness, it is the right of the
marriage registrar to annull (sic) the marriage.”
Joko doesn’t state what the minimum age is in the KHI. Was this an intentional omission?
Re your second point (concerning ‘ngrorod’): it is not clear from the way you state it whether even today this is always with the prospective wife’s consent. And what about that prohibition in the past – to what extent did actual practice deviate from it?
Why then do you declare the nineteenth century edition of the “Encyclopaedia van Nederlandsch Indie”, which obviously refers to the nineteenth century situation, to be wrong?
Belo’s well known 1936 study says inter alia: “In fact, the old men of Sayan (village) say that in their generation(before the Dutch occupation), girls were often stolen from one village by the young men of an enemy village …”
“Customary” said the encyclopaedia. “Often stolen” said the old codgers who provided Belo with her information. I don’t see much difference.
I asked you about past practices as different from the past “ideal pattern”. You said you had no data on that.
Now do you or don’t you?
Mentioning the credentials of the people who wrote the article you consulted is not much help here.
How’s that not a contradiction to your next sentence which points out that justifying underage marriage due to reasons of common practice is ridiculous? Culture is a by-product of common practice!!
_________________
This is ridiculous of course, if people keep doing it after they know a lot about the risks of underage marriage. Also ridiculous if the lucky folks (rich men, educated men, the decision makers) just blatantly allowing underage marriage without seeking another alternatives to them. Moslem has lots of resources, if they want to be serious to manage it. Zakat, donation, infaq…. if they’re serious and not using it to show of their own wealth and status, I can guarantee there’s no more poor people here.
I wasn’t asking for details of Belo’s love life but making the simple point that, if you have no real information on actual past practices in Bali (as different from what people said ought to be done), you could not so positively declare that that Encyclopaedia article was wrong on this point.
If you call that ‘obstinate and hard to please’ so be it.
As I said before, underage marriage is not the only way to cut the poverty cycle, if we make poverty as the basic reason on why those poor parents choose to give their daughters to rich old men. And even it is a common practice here, it is time for them to change perspective. Start from those lucky folks, because they who have the most control and resources.
Copyright Indonesia Matters 2006-2025
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact
I was actually being modest, I meant some of my blog posts suck too but they are rescued as a whole by the discussion that follows. This one, hard to know what to say to your post except “Yes, I agree it’s bad”, unless you had introduced something a bit more interesting into it, like a stab at why the NU guy said that thing, etc. Because I doubt that he himself is a ‘pedophile’. Religion, ethnicity, cultural norms, economic/social issues, how standards on these things have obviously changed from time to time and place to place and why they haven’t changed yet for some people in Indonesia, which people, why, etc, etc. You could have made an analogy with suttee, or whatever. You could still haven’t gotten in your outrage somewhere but preferably left it at one stab at it.