Question

Mr Ghamidi writes in his tafsir under 4:24
یہ مہر کیا ہے؟ مردوعورت نکاح کے ذریعے سے مستقل رفاقت کا جو عہد باندھتے ہیں، اُس میں نان و نفقہ کی ذمہ داریاں ہمیشہ سے مرد اٹھاتا رہا ہے، یہ اُس کی علامت (token) ہے۔

But the classical Islamic literature has a very strange concept of Mehr, giving an impression that it is given for fulfilling one’s sexual desires (like in prostitution)
For example,
قَالَ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ مَالِي‏.‏ قَالَ ‏”‏ لاَ مَالَ لَكَ، إِنْ كُنْتَ صَدَقْتَ عَلَيْهَا، فَهْوَ بِمَا اسْتَحْلَلْتَ مِنْ فَرْجِهَا
You are not entitled to take back any money. If you have told the truth, the Mahr that you paid, was for having sexual relations with her lawfully
(Sahih Bukhari)

أَيُّمَا امْرَأَةٍ نُكِحَتْ بِغَيْرِ إِذْنِ وَلِيِّهَا فَنِكَاحُهَا بَاطِلٌ فَنِكَاحُهَا بَاطِلٌ فَنِكَاحُهَا بَاطِلٌ فَإِنْ دَخَلَ بِهَا فَلَهَا الْمَهْرُ بِمَا اسْتَحَلَّ مِنْ فَرْجِهَا
Whichever woman married without the permission of her Wali her marriage is invalid, her marriage is invalid, her marriage is invalid. If he entered into her, then the Mahr is for her in lieu of what he enjoyed from her private part.
(Tirmidhi, hasan)

Also the name Mehr itself is disgusting because the same word Mehr is used for the money given to a prostitute woman.
نَهَى عَنْ ثَمَنِ الْكَلْبِ وَمَهْرِ الْبَغِيِّ وَحُلْوَانِ الْكَاهِنِ ‏.‏ يَعْنِي بِمَهْرِ الْبَغِيِّ مَا تُعْطَاهُ الْمَرْأَةُ عَلَى الزِّنَا
forbade the sale price of a dog, the earnings of a prostitute and the earnings of a fortune teller.

By the earnings of a prostitute he meant what a woman was given for fornication. (Muwatta)

Also the verse 4:24

فَمَا ٱسْتَمْتَعْتُم بِهِۦ مِنْهُنَّ فَـَٔاتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ فَرِيضَةًۭ

Here again the Mehr is linked with fulfilling one’s sexual desires, that when you have fulfilled your desire then pay money!

Verse 2:237 also makes Mehr half when no desire is fulfilled.

This concept of Mehr in my view is so impure and so similar to prostitution that it destroys the sacredness of Nikah itself.

As far as I have studied, Islamic literature has no mention of Mehr defined as “a token of bearing responsibility”. Please share if there’s any. It is only defined as اجر الاستمتاع . Giving money for fulfilling one’s desires, ( like in prostitution).

I would be really grateful if Mr Ghamidi responds to this criticism, especially how he sees and interprets the quotations above…

Answer

Salaam

The criticism that Mahr resembles prostitution arises largely from conflating the Qur’anic concept of dower, the technical language of classical fiqh, and modern connotations of sexual commodification. When these layers are separated, the resemblance disappears. To begin with, the Qur’ān never uses the word Mahr at all. Instead, it speaks of ṣadaqāt, ujūr, and niḥlah; terms that signify generosity, financial entitlement, and a willing, gracious gift. These words point to a woman’s right within marriage, not to a commercial price for sexual access. The Qur’ān frames marriage as a long-term covenant of companionship, responsibility, and family life, which is structurally the opposite of prostitution. Prostitution involves no enduring relationship, no shared responsibilities, no lineage, no inheritance, and no moral or legal obligations beyond the moment of exchange. The Qur’ānic framework, by contrast, places responsibility at its center: the husband assumes financial care (nafaqah), the couple inherits from each other, and separation is regulated by strict ethical guidelines, including the explicit prohibition of reclaiming gifts once given.

The verses that mention “benefit” (istimtāʿ) do not reduce marriage to a sexual transaction. Sexual companionship is a dominant and natural part of marital life, and the Qur’ān acknowledges this openly; noting a dominant feature of a relationship does not define its moral essence. Just as the word ajr (wage) is used for a teacher without implying that teaching is a commercial trade of knowledge, the use of ujūr in marital contexts does not imply prostitution. Classical juristic manuals sometimes described consummation as “istihlāl al-farj” (lawful access) because they were identifying the legal threshold that triggers certain financial and procedural consequences. This terminology is legal-causal rather than moral. It does not describe what marriage is; it describes what legal consequences follow from certain events. The fact that jurists use consummation as a threshold to determine the full or half right of Mahr does not mean that Mahr is purchased sex. Rather, consummation transforms the legal relationship: it affects waiting periods, lineage, inheritance, and divorce procedures. These changes explain why the Qur’ān halves the dower in 2:237 when the marriage is dissolved before consummation; the rationale is juridical, not erotic.

It is also important to note that if Mahr were truly a payment for sexual access, it would logically be paid after each instance of intercourse, vary with frequency, or be canceled if intimacy became impossible. Yet Islamic law requires none of this. Mahr is owed even if no intercourse ever occurs, it is not refunded after divorce, and the wife may demand it at any time. All of these features show that Mahr functions as a woman’s financial entitlement and as the symbolic crystallization of the husband’s assumption of responsibility, not as a transactional price for intimacy. The linguistic objection that Mahr al-baghī is also used for the earnings of a prostitute, only highlights the polysemy of language. The Prophet explicitly condemns the use of that term for prostitution, precisely because prostitution is the opposite of marriage. The same word can be used legally in both contexts without making the two relationships morally or structurally similar.

Finally, the Qur’ān’s insistence on generosity, on treating wives with respect, on not reclaiming gifts, and on conducting separation with kindness underscores that marriage is a covenant grounded in dignity, not in transactional exchange. Both spouses benefit from one another, emotionally, physically, socially, and the financial obligations placed upon the husband are part of a reciprocal system of responsibility, not a price for bodily access. If one asks where prostitution fits in a framework that includes companionship, shared life, legal rights, lineage, inheritance, and ethical dissolution, the answer is simply that it does not. The Qur’anic conception of Mahr aims to protect the woman’s agency and financial rights within a sacred covenant, not to commodify her body.

I hope this helps.

Regards,

Answered by: Mushfiq Sultan

Originally Published: 2019-02-14