How Much Does a Woman Pay for Divorce?

This time I pose the above question because I was so surprised to see that many people can't form a realistic image about the critical condition of divorced women in Egypt. I'd like to say that women who haven't undergone the painful experience have a big share in contributing to this unrealistic view. Our media, with all its messed up representations of almost all social groups, also played a very big role in shaping this image. This false image more or less originated after the law of khul' (a law which gives the wife the right to divorce her husband through court if she hates to continue living with him on the condition of returning back the amount of money paid by her husband as dowry at the time of marriage, and which also states the inability of husbands to appeal against their wives divorcing them) was approved by the Constitutional Court. It is as if a single law can wipe away long years of negative stereotyping and social discrimination practiced against divorced women.

It is true that this long-anticipated law (along with the introduction of family-court) came at a very critical time, and was actually the only hope for thousands of women who have been waiting for years for a verdict that would put an end to their miserable marriages. Going through many legal battles, years of waiting, going from court to court to follow the lawsuit, paying a big sum of money to lawyers, were never enough to ensure winning the case. Women faced many obstacles during hearings, and it is so difficult for most of them to prove that serious harm was inflicted on them by their husbands. That was because of the general trend among married men here, who refuse to divorce their wives no matter how bad their marriages have turned to be. The majority of men think that women have no right to decide when to terminate a marriage. It is taken for granted that such a decision is 100% masculine. A man can suddenly and unconditionally decide to divorce his wife, and the law even gives him the right to divorce her without her knowledge. He can then be kind enough to ask the police to notify his ex-wife, by sending her the divorce papers, or he can just disappear without ever caring to let this woman know whether she is still married or not.

Another reason why men refuse to divorce their wives has to do with money. According to the Islamic shariaa, a man who divorces his wife has to pay a fine (mo2a7'ar) which is already stated in the marriage contract, a monthly amount of money for children fees (nafaqah), and monthly payments for the ex-wife (nafaqet 3eddah+mot3ah) as long as she doesn't remarry. All this in addition to the wife's right to keep the appartment where she lived with her husband in case she has custody of their children who are under 12. Of course these financial rights will be lost if the husband refuses to divorce his wife officially. Men have the choice of verbally declaring divorce, which is considered a full divorce from a religious point of view, without going through the official procedures to authenticate this divorce on paper. In such cases, the Egyptian legal system is totally paralyzed. Women who are verbally-divorced have absolutely no authority to claim their financial rights. They have to file for divorce first, and if the court divorces them, then they can claim those rights. But the problem is that the judical system doesn't approve of verbal-divorce, except when the ex-husband confesses that he did actually tell his wife that she was divorced, which is useless of course!.. or if the wife can get witnesses who are ready to testify that they heard her husband while verbally declaring divorce, which is equally useless. In 99% of the cases, husbands who divorce their wives by saying "you are divorced" won't say it in front of witnesses. Besides, a husband can always object to the testimonies of the witnesses, and members of the wife's family are already considered as having weak testimonies.

The other option would be for the woman to pretend that she was still married. She will then try to convince the court that her husband has been harming her. Again she will have to face the dilemma of the witnesses, objections by the husband's lawyer, and the own estimation of the judge of what is considered to be real harm. Therefore, most wives had no other choice but to say that "this harm" was due to lack of sexual intercourse. Can any Oriental woman stand in front of judges and lawyers to say such a thing? Even if that was the only way to have a divorce, it is considered too shameful and scandelous.

Now, what happened with the khul'? Not a big difference in fact. A wife has to convince the court that she has experienced a "change of heart" towards her husband, which prevent her from giving him his shariaa rights (which is the polite term for sexual rights). In this case, she will be viewed by everyone as being an unfaithful wife, who probably has an affair with another man. This would be the only reason behind her mysterious "change of heart," what else can it be? So, as you see, a woman who resorts to this solution is risking her riputation. What good will divorce do her after that?

What if she doesn't want to mention this change of heart? Same dilemma. She has to prove that her husband is abusive or violent or that she was seriously harmed by him. Now, with khul' (also called no-fault law) it is different. She doesn't have to go through the same complicated process of proving physical harm. After all she is will pay for divorce, so it may be enough that she gets weak testimonies. Yet, the fact that the law does not strictly define the degree of harm sufficient to grant a woman's right to divorce leaves a big room for the estimation of the judge. You can now guess what that means. Women of low social status won't be taken seriously if they filed for divorce because of being hit by their husbands. It is generally accepted among low classes that men can be phyically voilent with their wives. And this doesn't seem to alarm anyone who belongs to this social class at all. The judge then believes that rejecting the case is in favor of this family. To him, this woman is just angry and will soon calm down. So what if her husband hits her? Did he hit the queen of England?

Another example on the absurdity of the word "harm" is the fact that polygamy isn't considered by some judges to be harmful enough to the wife who discovers that her husband had secretly married another woman. The fact that polygamy is authorized for men in Islam, makes many judges reluctant to certify that it is psychologically harmful to the first wife. Judges are men after all, and with male calculations, a verdict that permits a wife to have divorce when her husband marries another can cause a revolution among women. If all women had easy access to divorce, the majority of men won't be able to marry more than one. Even a judge is not brave enough to announce a final judgement concerning polygamy. But is it really that hard to tell whether polygamy harms the first wife or not?

I hope that by now it is clear for you to see that women don't really have much say in deciding whether to go on with their marriages or not. Those who are lucky enough to get off the hook are only a small percentage. Women care for their children much more than they care for themselves and are willing to endure anything for the sake of protecting those children. Therefore most women whose husbands refuse to divorce them won't have the guts to file a lawsuit against their kids' father. How can a mother subject her children to this ordeal? How will she appear in the eyes of those children when they see her standing against their own father in court? This is the absolutely unendurable thing for mothers. Can you see it now? While men have unconditional access to divorce, not having to even enter a courtroom to end their marriages, women undergo a long process of painful suffering and have to beg for their divorce! They are forced to stay with husbands they hate. They are denied justice in the legal system. And those who succeed to end their marriage carry a social stigma and face a wide social rejection that reduces them to the level of bacteria!

-"Did you meet the new employee?"

-"No. Is she here already?"

-"Yeah.. hmhm.. Take care, she's a divorcee."

-"In what way shall I take care?"

-"She will share the same office with you. You may think she can be a close friend."

-"And what's the problem with that?"

-"Oh, you innocently naive girl! Sure you don't want anyone to think you hang out with her."

-"Sorry, I really don't get it. Why won't I want that?"

-"Hey.. You're single girl. You don't want to harm your reputation in any way. What if a colleague wants to propose and then finds out that your friend is a divorcee?"

-"What will happen?"

-"Are you seriously that naive? He may change his mind."

-"That will be good. But why?"

-"You don't mean that for sure. Why?? He will have doubts about your behavior. What makes a single girl like you have a divorcee as a friend?"

-"Wow.. And will it be any different if I was married? Can you be her friend for instance while I can't?"

-"NO WAY! Will only be friendly around the office, but I must keep my distance."

-"Why? Doesn't your husband trust you?"

-"Of course he does. It's I who don't trust him. Not him as a person, you can't trust men in general."

-"What's the relation between not trusting and the new employee?"

-"If I ain't careful enough in keeping my distance, she may wish us to be friends outside the office."

-"What's wrong with that? Can't you have coffee with her in a public place or what?"

-"That's not the problem. She may call me at home. My husband may pick up the phone. She then might visit me at home, and my husband can meet her."

-"Oh, I see.. So, you don't allow any women to call you or visit you at home."

-"Not any women. She is a divorcee, don't you understand?"

-"No. I can never understand, and I refuse to accept such a thing. What is there to understand? What if I was the one who was divorced and she was the single girl? Would you be telling me this precious advice now? Please go to attend to your work and never mention such things again."

-"You are young and inexperienced. I was just trying to open your eyes. Do as you like, you will only blame yourself for not taking my advice."

-"Thanks ya madam. But I don't think I will ever blame myself for being human and fair. I don't care to please a suitor who will doubt my conduct if one of my friends is a divorcee. And I certainly won't marry someone that I don't trust. Even if he leaves me for her, I won't regret. Because then I will be sure that this man did not deserve me and therefore is not worth keeping. That's me and that's how I think. There's no place for your wisdom here I'm afraid."

Do I need to say more?.. Not only does a woman pay a very high price for divorce, but she also has to pay for it more than once.