p. 249: "Surely she could not have lied about the pregnancy? Perhaps she wants to hurt him—plant pain in someone—for the injustice she has suffered in recent months."
Could this theory be true? If so, why would Suraya choose Shamas to take her emotions out on? Does Suraya like Shamas or is she bitter towards him?
p. 258-259: " 'She told us in passing that she was devastated when Mah-Jabin left her husband, despite the fact that like every other decent mother she had told her daughter that the house you are going to—the house of your husband and in-laws—is Heaven but you are not to desert it even if it becomes Hell, that as far as the parents are concerned a daughter dies on the day of her wedding.'
The second of the new arrivals says, 'Your wife did not want you to know about the fact that she had visited us obviously because you don't have a mother's heart in your breast and wouldn't have understood. A mother misses her children when they run away so she wants them back.' "
These two lines provide extremely conflicting views that Kaukab allegedly had: she demands that her daughter vanish from her world and live with her in-laws and becomes upset when she doesn't, and yet she tries to go to such drastic measures to bring her children back to her. Which one of these two views is Kaukab's priority? How does this conflict relate to the overarching inner conflict she has between her faith and her family? Is this scenario a case where she puts her family first, something we rarely see her do?
p. 267: "She'll make some rice pudding for Shamas this afternoon because he has asked for something sweet, and goes to check that there are pistachios in the cupboard. And maybe she should taste Shamas's food—despite the fact that it is Ramadan and she's fasting—to make sure that the things like spices and salts are in proportion. Allah—ever kind, ever compassionate—says that if you are a slave, a servant or a wife, and your master, employer, or husband is a strict man, you are allowed to taste the food you are cooking for him during your Ramadan fast to see that the salt and spices are according to his preference, to prevent a beating or unpleasantness. Shamas doesn't mind, but—since he is not well—perhaps her violating the fast would fall into the category of wifely devotion and love, and be excused."
Another case of Kaukab choosing between family and faith, but in this instance, she argues that her faith excuses the needs of her family. What is she prioritizing here? This passage also arises questions about the relationship between Shamas and Kaukab. Is this really what Kaukab's perception of "wifely devotion and love" is? How has Aslam portrayed Kaukab as "a slave" or "a servant" and Shamas as "a master" or "an employer"? Is "preventing a beating" just continuing the slave analogy or referencing the times that Shamas beat Kaukab and triggering a small fear or recollection in Kaukab's mind, or both?
p. 272-273: "A pious woman cannot bear the thought of letting a man other than her husband touch her—so in Paradise, where there is nothing but ease and satisfaction, why would she be put through the torment of being groped and fondled by strange men? In Paradise everyone will have at least one companion, for there is no celibacy in Paradise, and so the pious woman would be happy just to be given an eternal place by her earth-husband's side after Judgement Day."
In her thoughts, Kaukab specifically notes that it is okay for her husband to touch her, just not other men, and yet she refuses to let Shamas touch her. If her faith is not the reason why she essentially is abstinent, then what is the reason? Also, Shamas and Kaukab are constantly fighting with each other, angry at each other, and Shamas even beat Kaukab throughout the story. Would Kaukab really want an eternal place by her earth-husband's side, or is this desire something her faith is telling her she wants?
Why is the section titled "Autumn" so short? Why does "Winter" repeat itself twice? How does the winter imagery connect to the events of the story?
I was very intrigued by your third question. I think it's important to note that while we may view Kaukab's internal struggle as "choosing between family and faith," I think from her perspective they are not so different, and I think we get a glimpse of that here. By tasting the food she prepares for Shamas, she has found a way to honor both her family's needs and their faith. I think often when we see her restricting her family members because of her faith, she honestly believes they will pay if they don't follower her advice, either in this life or the next - so she is still looking out for them. I think the idea of the "master" and "slave" relationship that you bring up is an important one. It seems that Kaukab definitely believes that Shamas is in a position of power, but it doesn't necessarily reflect reality. It is possible that Shamas has control in the relationship, and that Kaukab would be subservient to him if he asserted his authority, but I don't think he has a dominant personality, and he usually just follows Kaukab's will.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the response. To your first part, I would be curious to hear how this idea of family and faith being correlated could form a response or discussion to my second question. Her family's best interest is for Mah-Jabin to leave her husband and come back while her faith's best interest is for Mah-Jabin to stay married. Kaukab seems to be going with the interest against her faith here. Or is she? How can we conceptualize that?
DeleteYou and Madeleine both give great responses to the slave/master analogy. I agree with parts of what both of you said. I will respond in detail under Madeleine's post.
I think Suraya likes Shamas, but she also feels some bitterness about their affair. I do not think she lied about the pregnancy, because her situation is complicated enough without adding another layer of deception. But I doubt that she would be concerned about protecting him from any consequences that came of their relationship, including a pregnancy, because he was not innocent, either.
ReplyDeleteAccording to traditions, Kaukab is supposed to let her daughter be “dead to her” after marriage, and I think in some ways, she really does take on this attitude. Despite Mah-Jabin’s misery when she lived with her husband in Pakistan, Kaukab still wishes she had stayed there. I think the men who tracked down people’s children might have really been referring to a mother’s relationship with her sons. Kaukab almost idolizes her sons. It is as though, in her mind, any bad things they have done are just small mistakes made by exceptionally blessed boys.
Aslam does not portray Shamas as the “master” or “employer.” He occasionally does portray Kaukab as the “slave” and “servant,” but only because she tries to fulfill these roles. In Kaukab’s eyes, it is not demeaning to be considered the servant of your husband; in fact, it would be much more demeaning to be considered his equal, or proud in any way. I do not think “preventing a beating” is meant to refer to the time Shamas was physically violent with Kaukab; rather, I think it is meant to emphasize the contrast between Kaukab and Shamas’s marriage and the violently male-dominated marriages that her religion condones.
I agree with your response to the first question. For the second question, I agree that the sons were a major portion of the situation, but I really wonder about Kaukab's feelings towards Mah-Jabin. Earlier in the book when Mah-Jabin was introduced, Kaukab argued with her so passionately about how she should live her life. Would she care so much if Mah-Jabin was "dead to her"?
ReplyDeleteThe passage on page 267 is a hard one to close read, and with Aslam's language, I do think there is some sort of analogy with master/employer to husband and slave/servant to wife. The question then becomes what the significance of that analogy is. I think this analogy reflects the male-dominated marriage system that you bring up, but I also agree with Lior's point about how Shamas does not have a dominant personality and tends to follow Kaukab's lead. Bringing up this analogy goes to show how atypical Shamas and Kaukab's marriage is, taking an important element of many marriages and showing that it does not apply to Shamas and Kaukab.