The Function of Marriage Compared in Judaism, Islam, and Christianity
The function of marriage is fundamentally different when comparing Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. While all three systems share similar roots and overlap in meaningful ways, they diverge in challenging ways that in most cases is insurmountable in intermarriage unless one faith is renounced in lieu of another, usually for the benefit of the man. The goal for all religions are the same, but the methods for achieving the objective is dissimilar at the best of times.
On one hand, with Christianity, there was a constant remodelling of rules and standards to accommodate changing environments and social structure. Judaism, by contrast, was far less flexible in this regard, though there were differences depending on the geography such as in the case of the role of women in the Western Empire versus Byzantium as well as a stark contrast of rules from the birth of Judaism to the middle ages. Islam seems to be a middle ground between the two, not so rigid that it does not adhere to change by necessity, but not so fluctuating that stability and order is gone and open to interpretation.
They all fulfill the same aims: stability for future lineage with clear evidence of patronage, thus ensuring stability. It ensured legitimacy of heirs and concise transitions of wealth and kept order, at least for the most part. Marriage is primarily concerned with providing security for new generations in ways that allow for biological, financial, social, and political expansion.
Judaism, based on the Old Testament, had two main reasons for marriage: chastity and the survival of humans. In the origins of Judaism within the Hebrew bible, polygamy was acceptable. However, by the Byzantine Empire, absolute monogamy was the ideal, a show of mutual love and dedication without any further partnership to anyone else, regardless of the length of the marriage.
Over time, as the globe became populated, emphasis was placed more on chastity. However, there are significant differences in Judaism concerning how marriage and sexuality were approached, depending on if the location was in the European West or the Byzantine East. On the whole, the geography plays a major role in determining the standard for marriage and the role of women within the society, though the timing is also an obviously integral piece.
The Byzantine East was more restrictive for Jewish women and gave less autonomy to them. Women did not take care of the household in the absence of the husband in Byzantium, but Jewish women did have this responsibility in the Roman West. Women were granted a conditional divorce if they were without their husbands for a stipulated amount of time as men travelled frequently and at length.
Preference for suitable marriage to a daughter was often given to first cousins; often times, wives were significantly younger than their husband, and nieces and uncles were often wed together. It was considered ideal for women to be partnered with someone familiar and close to home. The alternative was being wed to a foreigner, and this was risky for the daughters being wed. If their husband were to suddenly want to move or were to die, and she was left alone in a foreign place, she could become destitute and cut off from her resources from home.
In most cases, the happiness of the daughter in a marriage arrangement was not a primary concern, and the marriage contract was devised by her parents in accordance with the prospective husband. Any conditions could be placed there for the husband to agree with or decline. A woman also had to agree, but the consent was often dubious at best as young women were usually not at an age of maturity to truly comprehend the gravity of the situation they were agreeing to, particularly if it involved leaving home to foreign lands. In the event of foreign marriages, it was typically still within Byzantium where the partners still spoke the same language (Arabic).
In Christian Europe, however, upper class women had a little bit more agency and responsibility. Women married young, usually around twelve to fourteen years old, but their partners were usually not much older than they were, a difference to their Byzantine counterparts where they could be more than twice their age.
In addition, when their husbands left home, women had the right to act in her husband’s name and deal with family affairs personally. Women were also allowed to speak up for themselves; women could not legally be divorced without mutual agreement, nor could she be moved around if she did not wish to be. If she had any reasonable grounds to deny moving, she had to the right to stay put, even if the reason is as simple as the move being inconvenient to her.
Marriage in Christianity is a complicated matter as the religion evolved over time and had to respond to changing social atmospheres and to geographical location. What was true of marriage in the 2nd century A.D. is not necessarily true of 10th-13th century A.D. nor is it the same from one empire to another.
The variance at times is substantial, and there is also the matter of how the church wanted marriage to be treated, and how it was treated in actuality. As the centuries passed, the church became more lenient with what it would and would not bless, including second and third marriages, as well as mixed marriages between faiths. Marriage was seen as a sacred union blessed by God in his divinity and was originally seen as a bond that transcended even death. This is a similarity with Judaism in the ideal of absolute monogamy.
However, Byzantium rejected the idea of celibacy; they disagreed celibacy was better than marriage and the premise that sexual urges were a result of original sin. As a result, particularly in the beginning, divorce was barely tolerated, and remarriage, even in the case of widowhood was never encouraged. The first marriage was seen as legal, the second allowed in certain circumstances, and the third illegal. There are further differences depending, again, on location.
In the European West, divorce was not allowed, and remarriage was only allowed in the event of the death of a spouse; sexual activity was only allowed for the purpose of producing children in second marriages.
In Byzantium, by contrast, divorce was allowed in the case of adultery, disappearance of a spouse, insanity, or violence. However, even in these cases, there were still stipulations to remarrying.
Marriage in Islam is not all that different from marriage in Christianity and Judaism. It too believed in monogamy, although it must be said the rules were far more strict for women than men particularly with sexual fidelity. Harems were domestic spaces for women of the household as well as concubines—enslaved women. Much of the marriage was for the benefit of the males in the transaction, and women were little more than sold parts for gain.
Love had little to do with marriage in all religions; it was certainly a plus if mutual affection was there, but decisions were based on other factors such as political and social gains. Women were required to provide sexual fulfillment, and, by extension, an heir. The reverse was not the case.
Women were closely guarded in Islam, even to the extent that leaving the house was an ordeal. A huge aspect of women within Islam is keeping women separate from men not of direct family relation such as a father, brother, or husband.
Separate paths are set out for women, and women are not allowed to be unaccompanied in the markets, as seen in the document “The Markets of Seville”. This is not nearly as evident within the context of Christianity or Judaism where the women were not only allowed to be seen in public, but in some circumstances, could lead the same role as her husband in his absence.
In conclusion, marriage is a complex concept and many changes occurred as people interacted with other cultures in a time of great expansion. A major concern for Jewish marriages was frequent and lengthy absences of the husband, and while marriage was held in high regard, it was difficult with the transient nature of commerce in an developing world to build fruitful unions when partners are often at a great distance.
In the case of Christianity, the issues were of a more practical nature with ever-changing rules for adapting to the tumultuous geographical and political landscape. The needs of marriage went through more evolution in function than either Judaism and Islam and continued to do so.
Islam seems to have had little issue with logistical function of the marriage and though it was not necessarily seen as a problem, it was certainly the most restrictive of marriage set-ups, particularly for women.
Although there were significant differences in the roles, regulations, and day-to-day needs, the end goal was more or less the same: to provide a more stable future for new generations and all, in their own ways, achieved that goal.
[WORKS CITED]
Baskin, Judith R. "Mobility and Marriage in Two Medieval Jewish Societies." Jewish History 22, no. 1-2 (2008): 223–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10835-007-9054-3.
Megalommati, Niki. "Women and Family Law in Byzantium." Historical Reflections/Réflexions Historiques 43, no. 1 (2017): 19–32. https://doi.org/10.3167/hrrh.2017.430103.
Meyendorff, John. "Christian Marriage in Byzantium: The Canonical and Liturgical Tradition." Dumbarton Oaks Papers 44 (1990): 99–107. https://doi.org/10.2307/1291620.
Rodriguez, Jarbel. Muslim and Christian Contact in the Middle Ages: a Reader. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press, 2015.
Wikipedia contributors, "Islamic views on concubinage," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, (accessed April 13, 2021).
[FURTHER READING]
Wikipedia contributors, "Islamic views on concubinage," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_views_on_concubinage&oldid=1010878030
Rodriguez, Jarbel. Muslim and Christian Contact in the Middle Ages: a Reader. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press, 2015. pg. 208.