Over the past few weeks I have read with wide-eyed amazement the heated discourse in the local press dedicated to the concept of marriages of convenience. There has been great uproar in society against the recent legalization of these contracts. So what’s all the fuss about, you may ask. Supposedly, these new fangled forms of wedlock deny Saudi women the basic rights afforded to them through the umbrella of regular matrimony. They allow men to marry without taking any form of responsibility for their wives and also make it very easy for them to divorce without suffering the usual consequences. After all, boys will be boys.

But what stunned me the most was not the fact that the laws of God continue to be violated by men to suit their own lascivious ends but rather the borderline delusion that preponderates when idealizing the current laws that pertain to “normal” marriages. Everyone seems to have been focusing on how such “friendship” or “temporary” or “misyar” marriages seek to deprive a woman of her matrimonial privileges and yet no one has even bothered to realistically analyze the rights of a woman who has been married in a traditional manner. Is our system truly so merciful toward women if they have entered into this kind of “normal” arrangement? I don’t think so.

Take the case of a woman who was “happily” married to her husband for 25 years, had spent the best years of her life raising her family of four children and had been delighted at the birth of her first grandchild. One fine day she received an official paper informing her that her husband had divorced her. To me, what’s absolutely shocking is that because she happens to be a woman, it was assumed that she really didn’t even deserve any justification or explanation. Did anyone in a position of authority try to confirm whether her husband had given any prior intimation of this decision to her? No. Did the court even ask her side of the story? No.

Had she expressed her opinion on the matter would it have mattered? No. Was there any recourse once the decision had been made? No. They were probably too busy figuring out the legalities of the next marriage contract that her husband was about to enter into with a woman half his age.

And what then were the consequences for his wife? Where were all the elusive celebrated rights that we have waxed lyrical about in the newspapers? Those same rights that have been so cruelly denied to all of those poor women who have chosen to enter into a marriage of convenience? Well, you know what? They don’t exist. They are in fact a figment of our national imagination.

When this lady went to the courts in a feeble attempt to secure the most basic of civil liberties she was informed that her husband would retain custody of her younger daughters and that she wasn’t entitled to anything. Not a penny. After all, her husband was a good man, he prayed in the mosque, was not an alcoholic and never physically abused her so why on earth should he be inconvenienced for acting upon his whims and fancies? Naturally, being a man, he must instead be rewarded.

Take the case of an American woman married to a Saudi who brought to the Kingdom all her savings from the States in order to contribute toward purchasing a family home. Being a foreigner, the house of course was automatically put in her husband’s name. She then spent the rest of her married life working and contributing to the family expenses. When her husband informed her of his wish to marry again, she vehemently protested. Rather boorishly and selfishly, she decided that she didn’t want another woman living in the house that she had built and decided to take him to court. She attempted to file for divorce in the spurious hope that the court would squeeze out of him some of the money she had spent during their marriage. The court asked her to bring receipts accompanied by proof that she had paid for what she had claimed. Who keeps financial records in a marriage? In harmony wit