A Case for Banning Polygamy

trojan,

May be you should read something more than what romair and tahmed posts on chowk. It is a common practice in pakiostan for the women of jihadists killed to become the nth wives of others. In all militaristic societies, polygamy is practiced and islam is no exception. Jihad and polygamy are linked simply because the ultimate religious good of heaven is assure for only the shaheed, which can only be men who died in jihad.
May be you should read something about islamic history and the sociology of polygamy.

Mr Jay

You are quite seriously deluded. There is a famous couplet by an indian poet which says, ``Andhey kho andhere mein baree door kee soojhee``. Meaning , The blind concocted quite a preposterous preposition in the darkness of his mind. Do you have any data about how many people in pakistan are polygamous ? .... How in the world did you conclude that Polygamy is central to Pakistani culture and from where did you bring in the concept of Jihad into the whole affair ? ..... Go get a life man !

Religious zeal and fanaticism has its roots in cultural and economic backwardness. When the illiterates and the un-educated are confronted by a world which is becoming increasing complex even to the literate and the learned, it is very likely for them to DEFINE it in the BLACK and WHITE terms of GOOD and BAD, the GODLY and the unGODLY . With the panacea-like solution of reversion to the good old times when everything was supposedly pure and simple. This in nutshell is the synopsis of FUNDAMENTALISM. The Madrassah students of Pakistan, the Yellow-clad fanatics of BJP and the Chistian-right of the midland America are all menifestations of the same disease, and I find you no exception to the ilk.

Expand your horizon. Pakistan is much more than what your contorted eyes are trying to see.

regards

Autopsy of female bodies



This is with reference to the Supreme Court ruling (243 & 244/1993) that post-mortem examination of female dead bodies be performed by female doctors only (Dawn, December 27). From dawn of today

Reading the book of the dead, by the learned judges of pakistan. I understand that many in the pak legal p[rofession are UK educated, but still the jihadic educations comes through at every opportunity.

Bigamy should also be legalized in Pakistan. It is stupid to find solution to today’s issues in something that only reflects wisdom of the time it was written in. Read scriptures for laugh, but don’t bloody live by them.

trojan 232,

What will Pakistan gain if it bans Polygamy ?

Polygamy is the arch stone of jihad. As young men get killed as they try to dessimate the kafirs, the women left behind have to be kept busy in producing more of jihadis. No islamic country that follows the book can ban polygamy, because it is central to the progress of islamic societies as the wealth has to be secured by jihad.
Pakistan is a good example, with gaznavi as the hero, with 3 million jihadis, pakistanis almost took ever afghanistan, they have the capability to take over kasmir. It is only 9/11 that has slowed the process. It is estimated that in 10 years there could be 10 million jihadis from 200,000 madrassas of pakistan and it would be a formidable force especially india has no chemical weapons.

In conclusion, polygamy is central to islamic societies because iof jihad.

Aisha has quoted Quran while advocating banning of polygamy but she should know that the Quran exhorts the believers to marry two, two, three, three or four, four and only one if not considered equitable, the justification for which is to be decided by the person cocerned himself. In fact human relations especially that of a woman and man are determined not by Quran but by a particular culture. Marriage is not a religious affair but a purely social contract between two human beings. Theae relationships existed even before Quran was revealed and the Quran did not change any cultural institution whatsoever. It exalted Arabs, especially the Quresh and their social culture. Polygamy and slavery was the social norm of the Arab culture which institutions continued even after advent of Islam. Monogamy is an `Ajmi` practice and it continued to be so with minor exception. So why worry. Culture cannot be changed by edicts. The Prophet (PUBH) married the divorced wife of his adopted son but tha Arab culture did not accept it despite its condonation by Quran.

The first Ummah was rather a political solution to the problem of co-existance of differnt tribes in Medina. The first Ummah not only contained Christans, jews but the pagans as well. Its really sad to see the present Mullahs exhibiting such degree of intolerence while claiming to follow the example of Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him).

I have some questions :-

What will Pakistan gain if it bans Polygamy ?

If we ban polygamy then a man who is not satisfied with one wife, and who wants to have a second one, can anything stop him from having consentual sex with her ? ...... Are we capable of banning consentual sex also ? If not, then what is wrong with the fact that the man is willing to take responsibility for the children of his biological union ?

A bad form of polygamy is sometimes witnessed in rural areas, where young girls are sometimes made to marry older married men for financial or social reasons ? However, the issue in such cases is not polygamy , rather it is the practice of ``forced marriages``. And I think that ``forced marriages`` should not be allowed even if the description of the bride does not have the word ``already-married`` with it or not . A girl forced into a marriage is going to be anyway unhappy whether the husband`s house has another woman or not.

Other related issues with Polygamy are Prostitution and Adultery. These are the two resorts for spouses dis-satisfied with their partners. While the first one is available only to men, the later can also be the province of women. Polygamy, to a certain extent, is a pressure valve against these two evils ( from a man`s point of refernce, however ). Will banning Polygamy not increase the likelihood of both these two practices ?

Why do we want to believe that the First wife of a man who wants to indulge in polygamy does not have the right to divorce ? ... As far as my knowledge is concerned , she HAS the right of divorce through ``Khulaa`` .... Hence , if she CHOOSES to still live with the man, why should we present such a couple with a situation, where either they HAVE to divorce for the man to get another marriage, OR to indulge in Adultery ?


How many people on average in Pakistan have two wives ? ... I am afriad the percentage is very very low ........ In my huge family circle, though I belong to the tribal northern regions, I can think of only two people with two wives each ..... and they are living miserable lives , which is a great service to the rest of the family . Since others who can have same designs can take heed from them.


To the writer of this article , I would like to say ..... that stop looking at the world from the rosy sunglasses of perfection ...... Sometimes, there are some very difficult marital situations ....... and we will not gain anything by closing the `` Social Pressure Valve`` of polygamy .

#188, Anew:

Sahih Al Bukhari:


Vol 1, #626: If they do not go to mosque, burn them first and then their house.

You wrote:

“
This was just Prophet`s displeasure and annoyance for his companions who were lazy to attend his congregation prayers.
”

Shall I make sense of your explanation this way, that when a person gets upset he says thing, he won’t mean, if in cool? Sure, I would agree to that. As a person Prophet can have expression too in situations.

But did it happen on regarding “prayer”. Even for the sack of argument say it did happen, but look at the seriousness of its implication and where it may lead. Chaos of interpretation. Therefore best is to ‘nullified’ the statement. But can you fathom the process of ‘statement and nullification’. This is a process that balances human emotion and error. May I avoid burdening my human processor on arguing-counter arguing of issues of such? Why take this sort or any hadiths that helps no way rather invites engaging in never ending un-necessary scrutiny of issues that has no implication of our living life (As I am doing now).

A person who doesn’t do it right way are at fault, and Allah will judge him/her on the days of Akhira. I serve no purpose of burning anyone alive or his or her houses; rather will remain at guilt forever if I ever miss a prayer.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Some Pakistani and Bangladeshi are constantly suggesting that Government should do something with Quadiany.

I agreed to a declaration such as:

“Every body is free to choose his religion without force, and does his practice as long person doesn’t interfere harmfully to other`s believes and practices- As a guaranteed right given via Quran- and I as a Muslim should practice such humility, this is the teaching I get from Islam.``

Believing that quadiany, or Hindus or any one can harm Islam, just because they practice their religion, itself is a sign of lacking Iman. Me cursing, beating quadiany neither will make him `my versioned muslim` or helps any cause of dawaat of Islam. In fact such act of harming to any one should be dealt harshly and that may give me some bonus point in day of Akhira. Human life and heart is precious, need to be careful in meddling it in the name of God.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Having practicing rational socialization, let me declare (without shame and compulsion) that I must make 100% effort in practicing and preaching (in my ability) about the necessity of Iman, prayers, siam, zakaat & Hajj to assure myself that I am doing the obligatory task that is ordained to me from Allah, and I believe that not practicing these obligatory task will have serious negative impact on the day of Akhira on me. I do not claim to be expert in Quran & Islam. If any wrong happens due to my saying, writing, act, is fully due to my imperfection.

plats #229 you write ``Islam permeates south asian life in such an organic manner that we don`t need a Bernard Lewis or a Karen Armstrong to tell us about it. ``

i never said that south asians need anyone to tell them about anything. you had said that in the US politicians were ignorant of islam, and that is the point to which i had responded. you above point is therefore doesnt make any sense.

As for your the ``condescension``, i think you are instinctively reacting in a negative way to anything I write. Nothing much i can do about that.

Cheers.

Tahmed32 #227,

``It is time we got such basic straight if one is to have discussion that
goes beyond the level of morons.``

Thanks for the condescension. I assume you just couldn`t help it.

Glad to hear that in your opinion, American politicians have an elaborate
and instinctive understanding of Islam because they once took a course
in college. They probably also took a course in Physics at some point - I
wouldn`t take their pronouncements on physics being useful or useless
very seriously.

``there are probably a ten books written in islam in the US for every one
book written in all of south asia``

Islam permeates south asian life in such an organic manner that we don`t
need a Bernard Lewis or a Karen Armstrong to tell us about it.

plats #226 The only ``seal of approval`` on anyone or anything I need is my own, and that I base on evidence not on heresay. Thus, as i noted in my post to hamidm, 1 billion muslims dont wake up every morning planning to attack civilization. Just as 1 billion hindus dont wake up every morning planning to burn muslim families. Murderers exist in every society, and one does not tar an entire community for the actions of the few. And if one does, than one is clearly of the same mindset than these very murderers.

I referred to mainstream politicians vs. christian fundamentalists simply to set straight the factually incorrect assertion by hamidm that my views on muslims being a peaceful people (like other people) were a cult view, when in fact the opposite is true.

Your statements about american mainstream politicians being ignorant of islam is obviously your subjective view: you are not privy to their level of education. islam is not exactly an alien religion to the west - muslim and christian societies in the west have in many ways had more interaction through past centuries than have muslim and hindu societies in the east (including muslim rule over spain for hundreds of years, muslims bodyguards and scholars were to be found in the heart of Germany in the 11th century in the court of king frederick (? Charlemagne`s grandson), azaans were heard once in sicily and southern italy, and then there were all sorts of commercial links as well. Even today, the Quran is taught as part of academic courses in the leading universities in the US (as are other religions, including hinduism, buddhism and so on) and there are probably a ten books written in islam in the US for every one book written in all of south asia. So, the mainstream US politician (who has often studied other cultures, and many of whom were born and raised in foreign countries including muslims countries) is not the ignorant fellow that the desi crowd believes him to be.

Also, you are factually wrong on Berlusconi: he did not get away with it, and as I recall had to apologize for his remarks. And even if he had not apologized - so what? words dont kill, religious books dot kill - only murderers kill. It is time we got such basic straight if one is to have discussion that goes beyond the level of morons.

dost mittar #225 That was quite an enlightening article you posted, and should be required reading (with a test afterwards) for people like anew. I find the description of the roots of the word ``kafir`` to be quite illuminating - i.e. it means someone who covers the truth. This after all is exactly what anew was trying to do on this board - hiding uncomfortable truths with miles of mullah propoganda that he cut and paste from the internet. I wonder what anew has to say to that!! :-)

Another society where the word kafir was used was by white settlers in south africa (at least during apartheid days) who referred to the blacks as kafirs. I am not sure how they came to adopt this word - i suspect it travelled south from places like zanzibar the eastern coast of africa (which had strong arab influence for centuries).

Tahmed32,

``but the american mainstream too: I have heard virtually every single
mainstream politician refer to islam as a peaceful relgiion``

And that is a ``seal of approval`` in your judgment ? American mainstream
politicians wouldn`t recognize Islam if it stared them in the face; they`re
just completely ignorant of it. What understanding of Islam do they have
to state whether it is peaceful or violent ? It is not a part of their life in any
way.

The only reason Islam has occupied centerstage in this country is 9/11, and to
some extent through happenings in the Middle East. American politicians
say these things to generate politically correct soundbytes and to maintain a civil atmosphere - I refuse to see any content in these vacuous utterings. Italians
care less for such niceties in their public life, and Berlusconi(?) can get away
with what he said.

tahmed32:
You will like this article by Sultan Shahin in Asia Times. Url: http://sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=322787

Excerpt:
The doctrine of kafir and rejection of co-existence with the so-called kafir being spread by some obscurantist elements is thus patently un-Islamic. Ignorant Muslims are being indoctrinated into the theory that it is a Muslim`s religious duty to fight and kill a kafir wherever he finds one. This leads to a general misunderstanding that in Islam a kafir is ``unworthy of Allah`s mercy and compassion``. In point of fact, even if someone can be described as kafir in Islamic terminology, he or she would be as worthy of God`s compassion as any one else. Islam has not authorized anyone to judge who is a kafir or a munafiq (hypocrite), deserving God`s wrath or punishment. In fact, a wrong accusation of kafir reverts to the accuser himself, thus making him kafir.

The only people whom the Koran does describe as kafir, ie, the pre-Islamic Meccans, were beneficiaries of the highest act of God`s compassion and mercy. He sent to them His last messenger who perfected the message that He had been sending to people living in all parts of the world at various times through a galaxy of 124,000 prophets since the advent of the first Prophet, Hazrat Adam.

The reason pre-Islamic Meccans were described as kafir seems to be that they were the only people on earth who had not been sent a Prophet before. But now that all peoples of the world have received prophets, and all the prophets brought revelations (according to the Koran), all the people following those prophets - no matter how imperfectly - are to be treated by Muslims as Ahl-e-Kitab. Some polytheistic practices of Hindus cannot be used as an excuse for calling them kafir as similar practices of Christians do not make them kafir. This, in a nutshell, is the correct Islamic position.

The only people who can be called kafir today with a clear Islamic conscience are the ones who have the temerity to call others kafir. For, according to the Prophet, a wrong accusation of kafir makes the accuser himself a kafir. In fact, this places nearly all ulema belonging to different Islamic sects who routinely keep calling each other kafir on the list of kafirs themselves. Also, these are the people who are concealing the truth about Islam, that is, committing Kufr (denial of truth). If Islam is at all in danger today, the danger comes from these very people. This, too, makes them kafir in one of the original senses of the word.

The meaning of Kufr
Kufr is defined by most commentators of the Holy Koran as ``denial of the truth``. Basically, the word means to cover, to conceal. In Arabic language the word Kufr is used in a variety of ways. One meaning, for instance, is concealment or withholding of the means of subsistence, which God has created for the good of all mankind and which He wants to be freely available to all. According to this definition, hoarders of goods for the sake of business or hoarders of wealth would be considered kafir.

In Egypt, the word kafir is used to describe the farmers as they conceal seeds in the ground and cover it up. In Urdu poetry the word kafir is used to describe the beloved, usually a beloved who spurns the poet`s advances. The beloved can be haqiqi or mjazi, meaning spiritual or earthly, the object of love being either God or an earthling. Urdu`s greatest mystic poet Mirza Ghalib says:
``Mohabbat mein nahin hai farq jeene aur marne ka;
Usi ko dekh kar Jeete hain jis kafir pe dam nikle.
Khuda ke waste parda na Kaabe se utha Zaalim;
Kahin aisa na ho yan bhi wohi kafir sanam nikle.

dost mittar #221 You make a good point when you say that in this article my late father does not argue solely on the basis of the Quran. Although I never specifically discussed this point with him, knowing his viewpoints, I think I can explain what is going on here: he wrote this article to challenge blasphemy laws and as such he had to do it within the Constitution of Pakistan. That constitution refers to both the Quran and the Sunnah, and so he had to deal with that: and this he does in the article by pointing out that (a) there can be no inconsistency between the Quran and the Sunnah, and (b) if there is a hadith that contradicts the Quran, then that hadith cannot logically be considered valid since the Quran is the Word of God per muslim belief whereas the Prophet was an ordinary man and not a divine being (another tenet of islam that is not contested by the maulvi).

On the other hand, on chowk we are basically expressing our views based (if they are to carry any weight with the reader) on facts and common sense. We are not obliged to also work within the constitution of pakistan.

On this subject, I myself happen to think that the prophet set a lot of good examples in his lifetime, e.g. the treaty of hudayibiya, hsi various acts of kindness, the famous quote attributed to him about the pen being mightier than the sword, and so on. But I dont delve on that in chowk for good reasons: the prophet has already been elevated to the level of a god (in practice, even though they will never admit it since then they would be admitting to their shirk). (b) the basic VALUES are all there in the Quran (mercy, justice, etc.) - mixing it up with hadith simply detracts from the simple messag of the Quran and opens up room for all sorts of hadith and counter-hadith. As i wrote earlier to anew, hadith is the tool of the mullah to arrogate for himself an authority that is explicitly denied to the prophet himself in the Quran.