ABSTRACT
In earlier chapters, I analyzed mahr as “adjudication” and “reception” by the Western court, without inquiring into its subjective significance for the Muslim woman involved. This chapter brings back into focus what has been hidden by the adjudicative discourse of mahr as “recognition” (LLPA), as “equality” (LFEA), and as “fairness” (LSEA)—the complex and shifting function of mahr as if it were being used by the parties in the “shadow of the law.” In a fictional style that borrows from Chapter 1, I revisit the story of Samir and Leila with additional scripts to delineate the power dynamics at play. I thus follow the way mahr operates in the distribution of power and desire between the Muslim husband and the Muslim wife, as well as in the constitution of their respective identities through law. I argue that mahr is disciplinary in that it incorporates norms and rules regarding the family, both in relation to the Islamic law regime presented in Chapter 1, as well as in relation to the Western legal systems outlined in Chapter 2. Those function as the “rules of the game” (Kennedy 1997) in the conflict between the Muslim husband and the Muslim wife-before, during and after the concrete adjudication of mahr. In developing this framework, my aim is to study the specific ways in which background legal rules and background social norms (employment, age, immigration, and social security, among others) might affect and have affected the shape of mahr disputes, and multiply their distributional stakes. To carry out this analysis, I borrow from Christine Jolls’ and Robert Hale’s methodologies to create diverging scripts of mahr as empowerment and as disempowerment, the enforcement or non-enforcement of which can act variously as a bonus or a penalty for either party.
