Talk:Dowry

Quote difference

In the section about the dowry refund when the bride is discovered to not be a virgin, there appears to me to be a subtle difference between the Shoghi Effendi's codification and the UHJ's statement. Shoghi Effendi's codification seems to treat the refund of the dowry and the annulment as being two separate issues, whereas the UHJ's statement does not. Trident765 (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, and thanks for your contributions! Good to have them coming... First off I might mention that technically, that message was not from the House but from the Research Department. Still, as the House has made available their replies, we refer to them.

But as to your question, can you clarify what impact you see there being with the refund of the dowry and the annulment as being two separate issues? If you mean that the Research Department might (alone) be allowing for the spouse to demand that the dowry be refunded but not have the marriage annulled (or vice versa), I'm not sure it is necessarily indicating this; the Research Department might have omitted mention of the dowry because that law is not yet applicable in the West (assuming it is ever made applicable given that pilgrim's notes at least suggest some laws might never be applied in the West). On the other hand, I wouldn't think the codification would rule out only one or the other being applied, since it could be stating what *may* be done in the strongest form--allowing, e.g., through legislation from the House, for a more lenient enforcement (e.g., if a husband insisted on a dowry refund, but didn't insist on an annulment). It doesn't indicate that both together are the only possibility. HTH, WikiSysop (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

For some reason I thought that the letter from the research department mentioned dowry but now I see that it does not - my bad. The quote from the Research Department seems to be consistent with Shoghi Effendi's codification. Trident765 (talk) 04:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)