A Case for Banning Polygamy

What I find interesting is that all the apologists for polygamy - polygyny, rather - are male. And most of the reasons they provide are patriarchal stereotypes.

Polyandry, desi style:


Last Updated: Friday, 5 December, 2003, 13:31 GMT
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
Reunion heals partition wounds
By Zulfiqar Ali
BBC correspondent in Muzaffarabad

Harbans Kore and Zeenat Bibi
Harbans Kore hugs daughter Zeenat Bibi at the reunion
A 77-year-old Indian woman who has had two homelands, two husbands and two religions has finally brought her family together after decades of separation.

``My wish was to see my children again once in my lifetime and my wish has come true,`` said Harbans Kore at the family reunion in Pakistan.

Ms Kore, a Sikh, had travelled from the Indian city of Ahmedabad to meet the Muslim son and daughter she had not seen for more than 40 years.

Ms Kore`s story began at the time of the partition of India and the creation of Pakistan in 1947.

She and her husband were Kashmiri Sikhs living in the village of Pataika, 16 kilometres (11 miles) north-east of Muzaffarabad in what is now Pakistan-controlled Kashmir.

Tensions between Muslims and those Hindus and Sikhs still living in the area were such that after a few years Ms Kore`s husband fled to India.

I wish she could stay with us but she cannot because she has to go back. She has a family there also
Zeenat Bibi, daughter

She was left behind.

Assuming the husband had gone forever, Ms Kore converted to Islam, marrying a Muslim man named Hadayatullah.

Together they had a son, Manzoor Hussein Awan, and a daughter, Zeenat Bibi.

But in the mid-1950s, Ms Kore was forced to leave for India under an agreement between Islamabad and Delhi to reunite women with their original families. That was when her separation from daughter Zeenat and son Manzoor began.

In India, Ms Kore re-converted to Sikhism and had another two daughters and a son with her first husband.

Telephone contact

For many years, the members of the divided family did not know of each other`s whereabouts or even if they were alive.

Then seven years ago Zeenat, now 53, and her brother, 48, found out through a relative that their mother was still alive.

Dalveer Singh and Manzoor Hussein Awan
Brothers in arms Dalveer Singh and Manzoor Hussein Awan

``It was just two years ago that we were able to locate her telephone number and then we spoke by telephone, wrote letters and exchanged pictures,`` said Zeenat.

The family wanted to meet immediately but heightened tension between the now nuclear rivals India and Pakistan prevented it.

It was not until the recent thaw and the resumption of a bus service between the Pakistani city of Lahore and India`s capital, Delhi, in July that their dreams were realised.

Ms Kore finally crossed back into Pakistan last week, accompanied by her Sikh son, Dalveer Singh, and her daughter-in-law.

They were greeted by Zeenat and Manzoor, along with grandchildren and other family members, at the Wagah border crossing.

One of Ms Kore`s Sikh daughters joined the reunion this week, along with the daughter`s husband and own daughter.

Ancestral village

Ms Kore said: ``It is lovely to see my children after all these years. I am lucky to see my son and daughter and my grandchildren again after such a long time and I feel so happy.``

Family reunion
Until seven years ago the divided family had had no contact

Ms Kore and other family members are staying with her family in Muzaffarabad until the middle of December.

But one person Ms Kore could not be reunited with was her Muslim husband - he died two years after she left for India.

Ms Kore wants to show her ancestral village to her Indian children but is not sure if the authorities in Muzaffarabad will allow her to go there.

Zeenat said: ``We know how we suffered all these years and how badly we missed our mother. I wish she could stay with us but she cannot because she has to go back. She has a family there also.``

Her only other regret was that her mother could not attend the wedding of her son last October.

She invited the family but they could not get the visas or bus tickets in time.

Manzoor said of the reunion: ``We have been deprived of our mother`s love and affection for more than four decades and now we are so happy to meet our mother and family.

``It is the first time in my life I have found this happiness. Everybody is happy - my wife, my children, my sister and every member of our family that we are together again.``

ZahraJ:
``The eastern culture has much more focus on pro-creation than solely relying on companionship``
...I am not so sure about this. It is true that begetting a son -not merely a child- is considered crucial for a wife, but this does not mean that procreation is the only purpose of marriage in the eastern cultures. For one, in a society where there were very few avenues for pre-marital sex, many men light-heartedly caled marriage a legal contract for sexual gratification, with man providing livelihood for sexual favours, woman`s sexuality was not a relevant factor until recently and that too in a small section of the society.
More importantly, the terms used for marriage in the Indian culture -ardhangini or better half and janam-janam ka saathi, especially during wedding ceremonies, denote unbreakable companionship.

kaurasach, #69:
Your premise is questionable, when considering Man. The `purpose` of sex is procreation only in the strictly evolutionary biological sense. For moderns, sex (or ownership of sex partners) serves many other purposes, including-- and this is gemane to the issue being discussed here-- assertion of power.

intellectual calisthenics to DENY calling a GARBAGE -- a GARBAAAAGE

reminds me of the court duels -- in sign language -- between the woodcutter Kalidasa and the Kings super genius daughter -- the Court Brahmins explaing the sign language of illiterate Kalidas -- who gave a finger and then another finger to the king`s daughter -- being explained to the dumb king by the Brahmins -- as Kalidasa pointer towards the duality of God in relation to Man.......:-)

zahraj #73 i think the concept of marriage is simple enough: no tickee, no laundree.

On second thoughts, before any research or thesis is conducted on polygamy or polyandry, a succinct synopsis should be developed by ``super natural beings`` on the concept of ``marriage.`` Once the term ``marriage`` is clearly articulated and well understood only then the concept of polygamy should be dissected and revisited. In each culture, marriage has completely different end goal. The eastern culture has much more focus on pro-creation than solely relying on companionship. Also, in the eastern culture, the depth and strength of a relationship is mostly related to the fertility of a woman vs. treating the woman as a companion. The eastern man is still going through a process of evolution and growth. May God grant him a speedy growth. (Amen)

As long as a man doesnot mind his wife having another husband as well, bigamy should not be a problem.

For the couple/quartret to then opt for a higher number of spouses each then becomes more of a complex logistics problem than a complex moral one.

zahraJ,

you ask, ``I have not come across any argument on why did not he ever remarry in Hazrat Khadija`s life ?``............. yes, why?.......... think about it - the answer is rather obvious .........

I have yet to hear a compelling argument against polygamy. Of course, in a society where either gender is in a position of power over the other, it raises some serious issues. But on what is the `case` against it in a free society based? Children`s welfare might be a starting point, but it is hardly an open an shut case, since one could argue that children of divorced/single parents suffer just as much, and yet prohibiting divorce, or indeed marriage, is not even an option to be considered.
But no-one seems to be going down that road (children`s welfare) as yet.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re Jawahra (#30):

I am helplessly shaking my head and grinning in resignation … as I get pulled into a gender debate. No side ever wins these … it’s only a matter of who gets more dirt kicked on. Ok … I’ll try to explain … although my unscholarly, fuzzy reasoning may not make sense.

Islam allows polygamy (actually, polygyny) under unusual circumstances … and that also with caution. The case for polyandry (a woman having multiple husbands) would be as valid as that for polygyny if men and women functioned similarly. Symmetry in nature is pretty cool … but its absence between genders is evident … to me, at least.

I’ll catch lot of flack for saying this … but there is something about men … that I cannot put my finger on … that allows them satisfactory involvement with multiple women. Evolution? Perhaps. Women function differently, and I don’t think they respond the same way to having multiple partners. It seems that given a choice, men are more likely to visit hooters … while women are prone to shop for shower curtains. Women sing praises for tom cruise and amitabh and the husbands don’t mind … but god forbid, if a man accidentally expresses admiration for rita hayworth or zeenat aman in front of his wife … he will spend the next fiscal quarter regretting it. Such propensities hint at deep-rooted differences between men and women … which need to be factored-in into the social equation on gender roles. Issues of providing a livelihood for the family, establishing paternity of kids further complicate the issue. Demanding identical roles between genders while such vast differences exist, is fruitless, in my view. Polygamy comes with a host of issues and responsibilities … it assumes a smaller headache … in order to avoid a bigger one, if done properly, I think.

This whole issue will not make any sense if gender relations are viewed with mutual distrust, cynicism, and number of notches on one’s bedpost. No doubt, polygamy has been exploited by men … but same is true for almost every institution I can think of … including the holy matrimony itself. So what should one make of all this?

Polygamy in Saudi Arabia has not prevented wealthy men from visiting hookers, right you are. This is probably true for men in general … why blame it on arab polygamists alone? Issue here involves man’s basic nature. Giving charity does not necessarily eradicate poverty either. Polygamy does not guarantee an end to men sleeping with prostitutes … nothing short of mass-castration can provide such a guarantee.

You mentioned your beef with lack of control in polygamy. Heck … marriage itself results in complete loss of control. Add a few kids to it, and life becomes one perpetual, unmanageable mess. There are doctor visits, vaccinations, never ending grocery lists, pre-schooling, library visits, valentine’s day dinner with wife … all this on a weekday when the newly released precision analog amplifier chip doesn’t work … and the customer is screaming for functional parts. At times my wife wakes me up at 2 am … the baby is crying … and we’re out of milk! The dose of nyquil had only just kicked in … and I need to be up again in less than 4 hours. Huh, I fumble with words, get dressed, and drive to the nearest 7-11 to get a gallon of homogenized vitamin d milk. Can you believe all this? With a spouse, 1.5 kids, and a mortgage, my life is out of control as it is … all this without any prospects of polygamy. Who should I blame for my lack of control? The pregnant wife, or the two-year old toddler?

As for Islam being behind times … I think the bulk of humanity is behind times. The core of a human being has not changed in the past ten thousand years … let alone past 1400 years. Every anti-social impulse that once throbbed in the hearts of men … remains fully alive today. Times have not changed … nothing has changed. A few bearded men coming up with divine instructions or academic psychoanalysis cannot tame the animal within for all of us. Despite all the progress, man remains only a heartbeat away from turning into a complete animal … here`s my psychoanalysis ...

But finally … after all is said and done … the idea is not to force polygamy on one who wants none of it. An amenable compromise should be reached between spouses … and that’s fine and dandy. If a person finds Islam behind times, he should pursue what makes sense to him … that’s the only sensible approach I can think of. It all rests between each individual and his god/conscience. Like the saying goes … whatever floats your boat...

This case is not very appealing!

I have just skimmed through a few posts and will agree with those who have shared their words of wisdom on how ``difficult`` and ``cumbersome`` it is to manage ``one`` wife vs day dreaming of having another one. Come to think of it: In educated and developed world, why does a man marry? He can also live with someone without marriage. What is in a marriage?

In my opinion, civilized and enlightened beings marry to have a companion in life. Well, do you have to have only one companion in life ? Not necessarily. But all the more reason, human beings ought to make their decision wisely using their head and heart before taking a step. While some light has been shed on the life of the Prophet(PBUH)`s marital life, I have not come across any argument on why did not he ever remarry in Hazrat Khadija`s life ? She was a powerful woman who was monetarily securer than the Prophet. Despite that, she provided significant monetary support to the Prophet in her life-time. The said lady (a widow) was not only wordly-wise but spiritually a strong woman. I have not heard of her looks and glamor anywhere. In general, I have always admired and respected Hazrat Khadeeja for many of her virtues aside from being the true companion to the Prophet (PBUH). In my personal opinion, women of her caliber do not need to get into the fiasco of polygamy and stuff. Any man will find himself fortunate to have a companion of that caliber. On taking this marriage a step further, I think it was a marriage of virtues and principles vs. lust or infatuation.

In current day and age: the concept of polygamy is promoted by only those who have some deep rooted insecurities. And, to overcome them they like to have an upper hand on their slaves(my apologies, I implied their wife).

While a woman won`t have two husbands at a time, she can also say goodbye to hubby1 and opt for hubby2. Again, I find such dramatics and acrobats equally despicable. With the concept of marriage there should be some sanctity and respect. Otherwise, this is just a game being conducted by irresponsible lunatics(both men and women) to legalize their relationship. Now, I am talking about the current day and age scenario.

There are many other aspects in Islam worth contemplating on and in fact hammering on than discussing the nuances of polygamy. It`s indeed the author`s prerogative to discuss what interests her from the islamic and women`s rights point of view, but I am sick of such archaic concepts and view points.

Why is not human goodness given more importance than the concept of hijab and polygamy and all the other stuff talked right and left on Chowk? Interestingly, the aforementioned concept has been well discussed in each and every religion in all forms. It`s the basic stuff that is more important than these complicated notions. If your basics are well put together then the chances of you being messed are quite slim - in an ideal scenario. But since we do not live in an ideal world, each experience and episode has its own significance.

To me polygamy may appear to be a concept from the old books whereas to a lawyer that may be an issue pertaining to family law cases. Still, there are far more pressing issues in the life of a muslim woman than polygamy. First and foremost, all muslim countries ought to provide free school and college education to a female child in order to encourage the parents to educate their daughters. Secondly, each female child ought to be taught the concept of being responsible and exercising her freedom of choice. Thirdly, each woman ought to make a conscious decision on how many babies does she want to produce or her body can accept. A woman ought to realize that her body ain`t created to be a reproduction machine. Human life ought to be cherished and celebrated without any remorse, burden and chaos. Many of us, the very civilized beings may not even run into these issues in our life-time, but we have sympathy with those who are victims of any of the above. Why not focus on creating the basic awareness in our respective societies/surroundings vs. harping on polygamy and hijab? By harping on the above, we aren`t doing any good to any culture and society. The only good that is happening in the background is giving more importance to some men from culture xyz than they deserve.

My 5 pence.

This is a great article. Good Work.

[b]Polygamy is one issue that when I think of as a Muslim I cringe at the prospect as to -- how primitive we Muslims REALLY are -- for we still accept it -- still come up with convoluted arguments to justify this unjustifiable demeaning, woman insulting concept with soggyy sophistry... and by brandishing the Kindly Koran --the Mother of all WMDs -- for any meaningful argument.

It would seem that for us Muslims the `Ahad-e Jahilya` never really ended...[/b]

#60 by ballukhan

[``I have known a lot of maulavis who were/are real gays- prefer young boys because they are easily accessible- they are real haramis because they mouth something but practise(!!!) something else. ``]

Ballu Khan Sahib, so sorry to hear this, please accept our sympathies. Childhood traumas can last a lifetime. No wonder a child severely traumatized by clergy grows up to hate his own religion, like the abused choir boys in Boston and San Francisco.