Just read this article in Daily News on the internet, and, was left wondering what should have more value - emotions bound with relationships or religion?
Like in all almost all other countries, laws in Egypt allow for the child to live with the mother till the age of 18, in the event of dissolution of a marriage. I am sure that if lawmakers all over the world recognise and acknowledge the need for the child to be with the mother who typically is an emotional anchor, there must be a justifiable reason for it.
However, came across a rather interesting article in Daily News today. The article (http://www.dailystaregypt.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=17388) talks about Egyptian men who converted to Islam from Christianity, and, happen to be separated from their wives, and, how they are fighting the custody battle on the grounds of incompatible religions! How can the child of a Muslim father be brought up by a Christian mother, is the argument being used by them.
To me that's such an unfair argument. The child needs its mother for the emotional sustenance that he/she draws from the mother. While a lot of fathers of today's generation are active participants in their children's lives, the reality of the majority, especially in Oriental and Asian cultures, is that the mother plays a larger social, emotional and physical role in the child's life. So how can religion be a consideration, let alone the deciding factor, in determining custody?
As it is, a child, of a marriage that has not worked out, lacks the combined presence of both his natural parents in his life. Unless the mother is physically torturing the children, they tend to turn to their mothers especially the young ones. This is about emotions, feelings, relationships, so where does religion come in?
Or does religion take precedence over the emotional comfort of a child?