I’ve been thoroughly baffled by recent news coverage of the Arab ambassador who cancelled his Muslim marriage to his veiled bride upon lifting it and discovering she had a beard and a squint.
The groom had never seen his wife-to-be’s face because she wore a niqab throughout their courtship.
It throws up so many interesting questions, don’t you think?
The Arab couple signed their marriage contract in Dubai, but when the groom lifted the veil to kiss his new bride, and saw her face, by all accounts he “freaked out”, pulled the plug on the reception and stormed off to the nearest Sharia Court.
He demanded a marriage annulment, a refund on the $137,000 he’d spent on wedding gifts and expenses , and the bride be examined for “hormonal deficiencies”, according to the NY Daily News.
If this sounds harsh, it certainly begs the question of how an Arab Ambassador finds himself in this particular bind. According to the man himself, his would-be mother-in-law had shown him pictures of his intended bride’s sister to trick him.
You would have thought he might have actually checked first. Beauty is, after all in the eye of the beholder.
I can’t help but feel sorry for the jilted bride in this. The only other details revealed about her are that she was an Arab lady, a doctor from a good family who, according to a Daily Mail Source had a nice personality but good reason to hide behind a veil. (That comment sets my teeth on edge, to be honest.)
As the groom made swiftly for the courtroom, his jilted bride was left in floods of tears. The court granted the annulment but did not agree to the compensation claim for the gifts. A doctor who examined the jilted bride did not find any medical reason for her facial hair.
What an awful position she must be in. Clearly, she had hoped her fiancé would fall for her inner beauty and went to great lengths to cover up. “Every time the couple met, the bride would do her best not to reveal her entire face,” a source informed the Gulf News.
Two Sides to Every Story
I have to take a philosophical approach on this one. I feel that the Ambassador’s reaction was insensitive, given that he really should have looked at his wife-to-be before he signed the contract. However, the actions of the bride to be and her mother also seem conspiratorial and fraudulent, even if they were acting with the best of intentions.
What do you make of it?