In good times, in bed times?

If you're a single or divorced woman who has a successful career or business and is financially independent or even rich, and do not need a man to support you, would you consider getting yourself into nikah misyar with a man who can't afford to support you financially?

Well, if you have been reading the local papers lately you'd know what it means. But if you haven't, let me enlighten you a lil bit on the subject matter.


Nikah Misyar is marriage concept where a man, usually with much lesser financial means or a lower social status, enters into the marriage with a woman who is financially better off or of a higher social status. There are no financial commitments just nocturnal obligations.

Unlike a normal marriage, there would be no pre-nuptial contract that demands the man to provide financial support for the woman, but he has to provide for the woman's physical and emotional needs, as well as be the father to her children and protect her and the family.

Nikah Misyar, however, doesn't have a contractual time frame like Nikah Mutaah. So it's like a normal marriage - till death do us part - with sex and all but minus financial responsibility for the husband.

The concept was proposed in view of the many unmarried who are financially well off, and many unmarried men who are too broke to afford a wife.




I don't know why there's so much debate going on over the possibility of making it an acceptable practice here in Malaysia, because I think whether we realise it or not, in more than half of marriages here are now already practicing such a concept. Perhaps, with the exception that it is not agreed upon before the marriage vow was taken. The fact is, a lot of wives, wealthy or not, are currently supporting their husbands and children. I say this I've talked to many of them - too many in fact.

Hmmm we are making it too easy for men here, aren't we?

I think, while the concept is unfair to women, it is fine under some circumstances. However, spelling out the part about financial non-commitment sounds like we are supressing our women's rights in some ways.

Do we have to spell it out on paper? Isn't marriage a life partnership where we share - not just a give and take where one party is always giving and the other always taking.

Consider this, what happens after they get married and the man's rezeki increased tremendously and he becomes wealthy? The woman would be on the losing end because he is not obligated to provide for her nafkah or livelihood. If he leaves her for another woman, she loses all her rights as a wife.



I think it is alright if the wife agrees that the husband doesn't have to contribute financially if he really can't afford it and the wife is really well off and able to support the family. But the husband has to be financially able to at least support himself and also contribute in other ways and share non-financial repsonsibilities with his wife - like taking care of children, sharing household chores for example.

When the husband finally has the financial means to support his wife and family, then he should start doing that and not let the wife continue to support him and the family. That would be taking advantage. I may be old fashioned, but a man has to be financially independent in order for me to respect him. A man cannot be riding on his partner financially.

But all that aside, why in the first place we have to spell it out that the man will not provide financial support - it makes a marriage lose its romance and novelty. When you marry someone, you should be willing to go through good times and bad times together - not just BED time. For better or for worse husbands and wives should stick together. That's what I think...

Tell me, what is your take on Nikah Misyar?