In Turkey, women must wait 300 days before they remarry
The 300-day waiting period dates back to the Ottoman-era Islamic sharia legislation, which was imposed to avoid paternal filiation disputes.
Men were not effected by that rule, of course not these degenerated religious fanatics never limit themselves but try to cut into the life of others
This is one of my complaints about Islam. Countries which practise Islamic law always relegate women to second class citizenship. For example, the testimony of a man is worth three women. In other words, any man can rape a woman and unless she has a man to testify, she’d need three women to testify on her behalf - assuming they witnessed the event.
You're right in what you say. What is strange here is that although Turkey is not an Islamic country, there is such a rule. Turkey is a secular country.
You are backing your claim with a factually incorrect example.
For an actual reference, here is the verse you are misquoting:
O believers! When you contract a loan for a fixed period of time, commit it to writing. Let the scribe maintain justice between the parties. The scribe should not refuse to write as Allah has taught them to write. They will write what the debtor dictates, bearing Allah in mind and not defrauding the debt. If the debtor is incompetent, weak, or unable to dictate, let their guardian dictate for them with justice. Call upon two of your men to witness. If two men cannot be found, then one man and two women of your choice will witness—so if one of the women forgets the other may remind her [1]. The witnesses must not refuse when they are summoned. You must not be against writing ˹contracts˺ for a fixed period—whether the sum is small or great. This is more just ˹for you˺ in the sight of Allah, and more convenient to establish evidence and remove doubts. However, if you conduct an immediate transaction among yourselves, then there is no need for you to record it, but call upon witnesses when a deal is finalized. Let no harm come to the scribe or witnesses. If you do, then you have gravely exceeded ˹your limits˺. Be mindful of Allah, for Allah ˹is the One Who˺ teaches you. And Allah has ˹perfect˺ knowledge of all things.
Footnote [1]: Generally speaking, there is a difference between witnessing and giving testimony before a judge. Verse 2:282 talks about witnessing a debt contract, not giving testimony. To fully understand the context of this verse, we need to keep in mind that 1500 years ago women did not normally participate in business transactions or travel with trading caravans and, therefore, not every woman had the expertise to witness a debt contract. Even if two women were available at the time of signing the contract, perhaps the primary witness might not be able to recall the details of the contract or appear before a judge because of compelling circumstances such as pregnancy or delivery. In any of these cases, the second woman will be a back-up. Some scholars maintain that one woman can be sufficient as a witness so long as she is reliable. As for giving testimony, a ruling can be made based on available testimony, regardless of the number or gender of the witnesses. For example, the beginning of Ramaḍân is usually confirmed by the sighting of the new moon, regardless of the gender of the person who sights the moon. Also the highest form of witness in Islam is for someone to testify they heard a narration (or ḥadîth) from the Prophet (ﷺ). An authentic ḥadîth is accepted by all Muslims regardless of the gender of the narrator. Moreover, if a husband accuses his wife of adultery and he has no witnesses, each spouse must testify five times that they are telling the truth and the other side is lying. Both testimonies are equal (see 24:6-10). In some cases, only women’s testimony is accepted while men’s testimony is rejected, such as testifying regarding a woman’s pregnancy or virginity.
Three to one is such an absurd parody of justice.
It is so that if the woman becomes pregnant, the recently ex-husband have to pay extra alimony for the child AND the child gets to inherit from the biological father. Regardless, the woman will get alimony until she remarries.
Which is no longer necessary in a time in which paternity tests exist. You are the father of the child your re-married ex-wife just gave birth to, so you have to pay child-support and the child inherits from you. Simple.
Did people even bother reading the article? A medical exam is literally one of the ways listed to skip the period if a woman does not want to wait:
The period can be dismissed if the woman agrees to undergo a medical examination to prove she is not pregnant or if she remarries her ex-husband. The period also ends if a woman gives birth.
in a twisted way this was a progressive law at some point. in some other extremely religious countries women aren't allowed to divorce at all and here it was like a compromise off getting a timeout.
Þe olde baby check...
Old, archaic and misogynistic rule, but at the very least it serves a purpose. Luckily those practices aren't needed anymore and this rule isn't necessary with the advent of technologies like ultrasound.
That's because it's about control. Another barrier to consider before divorcing in a patriarchal society.
In Italy we have the same law, it's just another safeguard to prevent excessive succession disputes, I don't see what's the problem.
The problem is if such a law only applies to the women
Men cannot get pregnant, what would be the point of having it apply to men too?
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I think this should apply to everyone. It is good practice to give your new relationship some time before jumping in the marriage boat.
It should be a choice you personally make, not a forced decision by the state
Marring is a government from you fill. You can decide whatever
In a world in which marriage didn’t confer any special rights or obligations, I would agree. But marriage is a state-sponsored activity which affords the married all kids of benefits and obligations. Inasmuch, the state does have a say in how it is conducted. Personally, I’m fine with getting the government out of marriages. Everything should be done via legal agreement. No more de facto marriages and alimony. Adults can make informed decisions about their future. They should have the right to make their own choices about what’s fair and reasonable.
I only superficially agree with this take because of the many cultural implications of marriage. E.G. Kids, housing, money. Decisions that
may carry serious implications and cannot easily be undone should not be rushed into.
With that said, marriage is not a prerequisite to any of these potentially problematic aspects of relationships, which makes the entire idea of the restriction-by-association a bit silly. Especially because it is not placed on 'new' relationships, merely on the the transferring of relationship statuses in a very particular manner.
I think marriage itself is a bit of an antiquated institution that needs a modern re-work to better fit it to societal needs.
I fully support the current marginal waiting periods for marriage licenses because I feel like this minor barrier does not meaningfully inconvenience the vast majority but may prevent cases of abuse or caprice.
TL:DR - Liberalism and guardrails.