Mr. Sanyang,
Both the Levirate and the Sororate are ancient forms of marriage which were,
presumably, established to preserve social relationships between families as
corporate entities, as well as other things. The Levirate has both social as
well as religious mandates. The Sororate is a practice which has social
mandates, but I am not aware of any mandates which derive from the Talmud, Bible
or the Qur'an.
In Sororate marriage, upon the death of a wife, the deceased's sister and the
widower are obliged to marry, in order to preserve the family relationship
established by the marriage. Clearly in the past (and the not-too-distant past,
at that), marriages were seen more in terms of their political and social utility
than they are commonly seen today. Thus alliances, and common social bonds could
be acquired and maintained through marriages. In such a way, arranged marriages
were very normal, as were sororate marriages
Similarly in Levirate marriage, upon the death of a husband, the man's brother is
obliged to marry the widow in order to preserve the family relationship
established by marriage, to provide economic support for the widow and children,
which issued from the marriage, and to provide the deceased with an heir.
Unfortunately, neither inter familial relationships, economic support are
currently seen as being of much importance as they once were in the past, as
relationships between families (in a number of cases) has been minimized (while
the ideal of "rugged individualism" has been lionized); arguably women are much
more economically independent than they were in the past (although far from being
on an equal economic footing with men), and heirs are considered to be of limited
importance, although the consideration is usually reserved for a direct
biological descendant of an individual.
Among Christians and Jews the Levirate was a practice which was well recognized,
as being an aspect of Mosaic Law. One of the purposes of the Levirate was to
provide an heir for the deceased individual, if no MALE child had issued from the
union. The first instance of this is seen in the Bible as early as the first
book of the Bible called Genesis. In Genesis 38, there is discussion of the
practice, which apparently, was already part of custom at that point. The
discussion revolves around the sons of Judah and Shua, named Er, Onan, and
Shelah. Er was married, in an apparently arranged marriage, to a woman named
Tamar. However, because of his wickedness, God slew Er. Judah then commanded
the second son to "Go in t your brother's wife, and perform the duty of a
brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother."
Onan, however, had other ideas. Knowing that the offspring from his union with
Er's wife would not be considered his own, but rather the child of Er, Onan
during his period of intimacy with Tamar "spilled his semen on the ground" so
that the wife would not become pregnant. Of course, God having seen Onan
shamelessly break the Law of Moses, slew Onan as well. This passage illustrates
the idea of its currency during this distant time period, as well as the idea
that people did not monolithically accept the practice. Certainly, Onan did
not. However, he paid the price for such wanton disregard for the Law as
received by Moses.
Sanction for the Levirate can be found in the Bible's book of Deuteronomy
25:5-10, which follows below. Note that within the passage from Deuteronomy,
there was an option for the man to refuse to marry his deceased brother's
widow. This refusal however, entailed a ritual which would sever relationships
between the two families, disgrace the reluctant brother, and allow the woman to
remarry outside of her deceased husband's family.
5 "If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the
widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her
husband's brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty
of a husband's brother to her.
6 "And it shall be that the firstborn son which she bears will succeed to
the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel.
7 "But if the man does not want to take his brother's wife, then let his
brother's wife go up to the gate to the elders, and say, 'My husband's brother
refuses to raise up a name to his brother in Israel; he will not perform the duty
of my husband's brother.'
8 "Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him; and if he
stands firm and says, 'I do not want to take her,'
9 "then his brother's wife shall come to him in the presence of the elders,
remove his sandal from his foot, spit in his face, and answer and say, 'So shall
it be done to the man who will not build up his brother's house.'
10 "And his name shall be called in Israel, 'The house of him who had his
sandal removed.'
Thus, the same distaste which Mr. Sanyang expresses in his post against the
practice of the Levirate, was displayed against those who refused to uphold it.
From the above, we are shown that even the Almighty, disapproved of Onan's
disapproval of the practice (or more pointedly, his refusal to uphold his
familial obligation as cited in Law. Admittedly, none of this could reveal the
entire social and historical context of the Levirate, but it affords us an window
into the practice, as revealed in the Bible.
It should be noted that contemporary forms of Judaism have invalidated Levirate
marriage, although I have not been able to find anyone who could give me a
Talmudic reference for the cessation of this practice. I shall continue to
inquire into this, as this is a concern, which briefly summed up can be looked at
in this way "Can we ethically change that which we perceive to be the Law of God,
if our present social conditions, and mores deem specific practices socially
obsolete?" This is asked, as we are all well aware that everything which
happens, does so in very specific historical and social contexts. When the
historical and social contexts change, is there another [divine] law in
operation? If the answer to the primary question above is "yes" then what
constitutes significant social change, to warrant a change in the divinely
received law?
I must confess, however, that my initial impression concerning the Levirate with
regards to Islam was in error. I thought I had read in the Qur'an that the
Levirate was endorsed. However, if I did read it, I cannot find it now. The
closest I could get to this was the Sura Al Nisa (The Women), which mentions the
restrictions on who one could marry. In this lengthy listing of relationships
which were forbidden, the marriage between wife of one's deceased brother was not
among those mentioned.
22. Do not marry the women who were previously married to your fathers--existing
marriages are exempted and shall not be broken--for it is a gross offense, and an
abominable act.
23. Prohibited for you (in marriage) are your mothers, your daughters, your
sisters, the sisters of your fathers, the sisters of your mothers, the daughters
of your brother, the daughters of your sister, your nursing mothers, the girls
who nursed from the same woman as you, the mothers of your wives, the daughters
of your wives with whom you have consummated the marriage--if the marriage has
not been consummated, you may marry the daughter. Also prohibited for you are the
women who were married to your genetic sons. Also, you shall not be married to
two sisters at the same time--but do not break up existing marriages.
24. Also prohibited are the women who are already married, unless they flee their
disbelieving husbands who are at war with you. These are GOD's commandments to
you. All other categories are permitted for you in marriage, so long as you pay
them their due dowries. You shall maintain your morality, by not committing
adultery. Thus, whoever you like among them, you shall pay them the dowry
decreed for them. You commit no error by mutually agreeing to any
adjustments to the dowry.
Could one infer that the Levirate is sanctioned, as I believe it would
certainly have been a well known practice in the region at the time of the
revelation of the Qur'an? From my reading of the above Sura, it appears so, as
Al-Nisa notes that "All other categories are permitted for you in marriage, so
long as you pay them their due dowries." However, I am not competent in this
area, and would await the response of others, who are qualified. I am sure that
the scholars on the list will fill the void here.
M W P
peter sanyang wrote:
> Hi Lers
> Can somebody help me out with this strange realization about people marrying
> their late brothers spouses in the event of their dead. I particularly find
> this practice very distasteful and unwarranted. Is it that, this practice is
> in conformity of Islam/christianity or is it a practice that some ethnic
> groups within the Senegambia found appropriate and conducive in keeping the
> family together and pure?
>
> In keeping the family under one uniform umbrella, i don't particularly think
> that warrants the acquisition of ur brother's wife and nor does it guarantee
> the stability of the family. Well, these are just my thoughts and i will
> welcome any learned response to these disturbing practice in my view.
>
> Kittos
> Peter
>
--
Your life is God's gift to you; what you do with your life is your gift to God.
............
You teach a little bit by what you say, and a lot by what you do, when you think
others are not watching you.
----------------------------------------------------
If you have ICQ my ICQ# is 561816
You can download ICQ at http://www.icq.com/
----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
