Opposing Counsel says MAHR is a Sharia religious requirement and should not be enforced in the California court. Is this true?
MAHR: Arabic Not Islamic
When family lawyers hear “MAHR,” many think of a religious requirement under Sharia law. This is incorrect. MAHR is an Arabic word but not Islamic. Opposing counsel sometimes argue that it should not be enforced in a civil divorce because it is “religious.” That view misses both history and law.
Ancient Roots of Mahr
The idea of a marital gift from husband to wife is older than Islam.
- Hammurabi’s Code (c. 1750 BCE) provided that a husband must give a marriage gift and that it became the wife’s property (see Code of Hammurabi §§ 159–164).
- Pre-Islamic Arabia required the groom’s family to pay ṣadāq to the bride’s clan. Islam redirected that obligation to the woman herself, turning it into her personal right at marriage.
- Jewish Law developed the ketubah, a written promise of money payable to the wife.
- Hindu Law recognizes strīdhan, property gifted to the wife at marriage, which she controls.
- Christian Europe had the dower, guaranteeing a widow’s lifetime provision.
- African traditions (e.g., lobola) and East Asian betrothal gifts further show this practice is universal, not sectarian.
U.S. Courts on Mahr
American courts do not enforce religion—they enforce contracts under “neutral principles of law.” If mahr is definite, voluntary, and not against public policy, it is enforceable like any prenuptial gift.
- In re Marriage of Noghrey, 169 Cal. App. 3d 326 (1985) – not a mahr, but a ketubah clause promising $500,000 only upon divorce. Court struck it down as “promotive of divorce.” Opposing counsel often misquote this case against mahr, but it is distinguishable.
- In re Marriage of Dajani, 204 Cal. App. 3d 1387 (1988) – involved a Jordanian mahr with a deferred dowry payable only upon dissolution. The Court of Appeal solely as ‘promotive of divorce’.
- Odatalla v. Odatalla, 810 A.2d 93 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 2002) – enforced a mahr as a simple contract for $10,000, using neutral contract principles.
- Ahmed v. Ahmed, 223 A.3d 308 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2021) – upheld mahr as a valid antenuptial agreement.
- Avitzur v. Avitzur, 446 N.E.2d 136 (N.Y. 1983) – enforced a ketubah clause under neutral contract analysis.
The Bottom Line
MAHR is Arabic word but not a “Sharia requirement.” It is part of the long human tradition of marital gifts that stretches from Hammurabi to today. Islam did not invent it; Islam re-shaped it into a woman’s right. American courts need not—and do not—interpret theology to decide these cases. They simply ask: Is this a valid contract? If yes, mahr stands as enforceable, just like a prenuptial settlement in any other tradition.
References:
- Code of Hammurabi §§ 159–164 (c. 1750 BCE).
- In re Marriage of Noghrey, 169 Cal. App. 3d 326 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985).
- In re Marriage of Dajani, 204 Cal. App. 3d 1387 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988).
- Odatalla v. Odatalla, 810 A.2d 93 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 2002).
- Ahmed v. Ahmed, 223 A.3d 308 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2021).
- Avitzur v. Avitzur, 446 N.E.2d 136 (N.Y. 1983).
The opinions expressed in the Expert Desk series are for educational purposes and do not constitute legal advice. Each case depends on its own facts. Readers are encouraged to seek independent counsel for personal or professional matters.