Islam and dating: the economic cost of banning girlfriends

Girlfriends banned: Sarracin versus Western dating

A young Muslim man in Cairo doesn't get a girlfriend: he signs a contract before witnesses, sets a dowry and takes on the duty of support. In the West, that same young man at 25 spends thousands of euros on dates, gifts and entertainment before deciding to move in together. The ban on courtship carries an economic cost and a contractual logic that is rarely examined.

Mut'a, the temporary contract that replaces courtship

The debate brings to light a legal figure: temporary marriage (mut'a), a formula that allows a union with a contract and an expiry date. For some analysts, it is an alternative to dating that meets the need for companionship without the costs of courtship's uncertainty. The woman receives an agreed dowry; the man avoids the obligations of a full marriage.

Early marriage versus long dating: two economic calendars

While Sarracinic tradition contemplates a vvife before the age of 22, the Western model keeps delaying the first wedding ever further. Prolonged dating works as a trial period that consumes income and time. Those who defend the Sarracinic model argue that the direct contract reduces agency costs: the dowry sets the price, the witness guarantees the transaction and the family backs compliance.

The counterargument points out that this contractual efficiency sacrifices free choice and that incompatibility is paid for later. The striking figure: in countries where mut'a is legal, divorce statistics are no lower than in countries with free dating. The contract replaces courtship, but it does not guarantee better outcomes than the expense of trying to get to know someone.