15,000-16,000 cases of polygamy in Italy. And Souad Sbai, president of the Association of Moroccan Women in Italy, says: "We call upon all people of good will...to start bringing out the names of these people" -- that is, the polygamists -- "who often pretend to be moderate and claim in public what in fact is not true." What's that? Some Muslims claim to be moderate but really aren't? War is deceit? What are you, Sbai, some kind of Islamophobe?
In any case, I hereby issue the same invitation to American Muslim advocacy groups. After all, CAIR's inimitable Ibrahim Hooper said some time ago, according to AP, that "a minority of Muslims take second wives, and that Islamic scholars would differ on whether one could do so while living in the United States." But he didn't offer to report such cases when they came to his attention. So I'm asking you to do so now, Ibrahim. After all, polygamy is against American law, and you being a law-abiding citizen and all, I'm sure you would want to impress upon Muslims in America the necessity of abiding by the law -- wouldn't you? Not to mention that polygamy reduces women to the status of commodities, and I'm sure you'd be the first to tell us all that Islam respects women and men as equals, as per, say, Qur'an 49:13 -- wouldn't you? So let's have it. Out the polygamists. You'll feel better, we'll feel better, everyone will benefit.
"Islam: Moderate Muslims To Report Polygamy In Italy, Sbai," from ANSAmed (thanks to Insubria):
(ANSAmed) - ROME, FEBRUARY 4 - "We call on all representatives of the moderate Islam in Italy to help us in the battle against polygamy reporting all persons who practice it in our country," Souad Sbai, president of the Association of Moroccan Women in Italy (Acmid-Donna) appealed after an interview with Mario Scialoja published today on the 'Corriere della Sera'. In the interview Scialoja says he knows "some Italian Muslims who are in fact polygamous: the first marriage is legal for Italy, while the second one is celebrated only in front of an imam". "We call upon all people of good will like him to start bringing out the names of these people, who often pretend to be moderate and claim in public what in fact is not true," Sbai said. "Unfortunately the numerous Italian associations that deal with human rights hardly realise in what kind of hell a woman in polygamous marriage lives in Italy due to the complete solitude she is in." "Polygamy in Italy is a phenomenon that is growing due to the imams who have no respect for the dictates of the Italian constitution and the principle of equality between man and woman. They celebrate this type of marriage inside mosques and garages, almost always in secret". Recalling that Acmid assists women victims of violence, caused by polygamy too, Sbai calls upon the institutions and the moderate Islam to play their role. She is supported by the New Italian Immigrants' Party, which speaks of 15,000-16,000 cases of polygamy in Italy. (ANSAmed).
Let me continue, if I may, the wrenching lament I raise just a thread below, a lament for the constituents of C A I R -- O! Woe! Woe! Woe!!
Wail and lament, all ye stars! Pity them all ye heavens! Receive their tears, all ye oceans! Wail! Wail! Wail! Waaah!!
The law is the law.
Unless it's Sharia Law. But then CAIR would not be supporting one law for kufirs and one law for Muslims. Or would they?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Anyone know where one would report cases of suspected polygamy in the US or elsewhere?
Good luck with that. It seems to me that the Koranic "right" of Muslim males to unlimited sexual access to multiple females -- extending even to the rape of prisoners -- is one of the most specific, and jealously guarded, aspects of Islam.
It's going to be pretty difficult for moderate Muslims to rat out their coreligionists, what with the perfect, immutable Koran staring them in the face and their own imams performing the sham marriages. We've already got an example, reported by a Canadian journalist, of how one Muslim "community" responded to the honor-killing of a Canadian girl who didn't want to wear hijab: messages allegedly began circulating on the Internet that Aqsa Parvez was promiscuous, that she had a black boyfriend (whatever happened to the purported race blindness of Islam, anyway?), that she was a drug pusher.
That's not to say that all Muslim communities would respond in such a fashion. But reports like this, involving the murder of a young girl, are hardly encouraging to the idea that Muslims will willingly police themselves on a matter of fundamental Islamic "family values."
In that vein, I wonder how long it will take for the brave Ms. Sbai to get a death fatwa for insulting Islam?
'....how one Muslim "community" responded to the honor-killing of a Canadian girl who didn't want to wear hijab: messages allegedly began circulating on the Internet that Aqsa Parvez was promiscuous, that she had a black boyfriend (whatever happened to the purported race blindness of Islam, anyway?), that she was a drug pusher....
Oh...so that's ok then, she deserved to die.
Greetings:
It's kind of interesting to me that contemporaneous with former Governor Mitt Romney presidential campaign and the reaction to his Mormanism (which included polygamy in the past), no one in the media seems interested in extrapolating the problem of religious beliefs that conflict with American law and/or culture to the wonder that is Islam.
Though should polygamy or polyandry be against the law?
I for one do not think the government should be able to regulate private contracts between consenting adults.
Most "moderate" Muslims I encounter state that they simply are taught to obey the laws of the land in which they live, unless they are in opposition to Allah's laws.
I for one do not think the government should be able to regulate private contracts between consenting adults.
Posted by: tokyobk
In America you must get a license to marry from some local gov office (depending on the state one lives in), so government is involved from the beginning, and if you desire divorce, you must go to the same gov who will dictate the terms of your divorce and can place your children. This same government declares monogamy and enforces laws about it.
You can shack-up, or live with anyone you choose, but at this point in time, you can only have one mate. In the US, muslims can only have one legal wife, but may have up to three legal shack-ups, or illegal(secular law) marriages according to Islam. I bet Ibrahim knows these shack-ups exist but probably not how many...
Another thing, since three of the US muslims wives are illegal, and only one is qualified for any survivor benefits, what is the fate of the other three wives if the husband dies? Especially if they had been isolated, and undereducated?
If consenting agreements between adults violate constitutional laws of gender equality, then they are unconstitutional and against the law. There are no equal provisions for polyandry, so there are no laws recognizing polygamy. To do so would require a constitutional change, which is unlikely. We cannot have a state where two separate parallel rules apply to members of community that renders its members unequal. Therefore, polygamy and polyandry are against the law.
Aside, I wonder how many Muslim polygamous males in Italy will be turned in by their multiple Muslima spouses? Why would they, if they are entitled to welfare checks? Would the 'fractional' spouse even know how many wives her charming man has, or how many children by other wives? If he tells her he's divorced from former wives, is this a matter of public record? Is the 'fractional' wife registered with state records, or is it okay by Koranic law to lie to her? ... Only the Imam knows for sure... and of course, their allah.
Another thing, since three of the US muslims wives are illegal, and only one is qualified for any survivor benefits, what is the fate of the other three wives if the husband dies? Especially if they had been isolated, and undereducated?
Posted by: duh_swami at February 6, 2008 2:09 PM
Why the American taxpayers would come to her rescue, of course! The three illegal "wives", as well as their superfluous spawn, would continue collecting food stamps and welfare as if hubby were still alive. His role in life was not to support his multiple families, just to sire as many offspring as possible. And the thousands of islamic charity organizations would be worthless in such a case since their funds are set aside for more worthy causes, like terrorist training camps, weapons, and explosives for jihad. But you can bet the local imam would take any male children under his wing and see to it that they were properly indoctrinated in the mosque.
Why should the umma support the widows and children when the taxpayers of the Great Satan would?
If consenting agreements between adults violate constitutional laws of gender equality, then they are unconstitutional and against the law.
That's completely, totally, incorrect and betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of constitutional law (at least as it applies in the USA).
The purpose of the Constitution is to clearly enumerate the legal powers of Government. Any action by the Government that is is not expressly permitted by the Constitution is prohibited (or at least would be, given a vigilant citizenry and effective legal system, but that's another matter).
So, the Constitution can prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex - meaning that all citizens are equal under the law regardless of their sex.
But, that has no bearing whatsoever on the actions of individuals. The Constitution may prohibit the Government from passing laws or enacting policies that discriminate on the basis of sex; however I'm still free to (say) choose to sleep only with women.
Take another example: the Constitution prohibits the Government from enacting any law that infringes upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That means the Government may not pass laws that prevent people from owning guns, but it is entirely legal for a landlord to insert a clause into a tenancy agreement that prohibits tenants from keeping guns on the property.
Though should polygamy or polyandry be against the law?
Certainly not. In fact, the Government has no right whatsoever to involve itself in marriage at all, except to the extent of enforcing contracts (such as pre- or post-nuptual) through the courts, if either party wishes.
Duncan, the original post was:
"Though should polygamy or polyandry be against the law? I for one do not think the government should be able to regulate private contracts between consenting adults."
- Posted by: tokyobk
To which I responded:
The operative here is that "gender equality" which does not allow for laws to favor one sex over another. Since under Sharia men are allowed four wives, while women only one husband, it would be sexist and unconstitutional to pass laws that favor men over women, as it regards their rights, which includes their marital rights. Government by ‘social contract’ such as our constitutional government has the right to involve itself in marriage law, which like cohabitation or same sex marriage is inherently a private matter, if these private agreements violate the principle of equality of gender. In the Islamic world such equality does not exist, but it is fundamental to our legal system that no human being is treated differently under the law from any other, male or female (since slavery was abolished) and Islamic laws may not dominate over our constitutional laws.That was the point, that though people have a right to private agreements, they do not have the right to form agreements that are unconstitutional, sexist and discriminatory, or criminal and against the law (since slavery was abolished). So yes, if such personal agreements are against the law, our constitution cannot uphold them, and if they are discriminatory it is unconstitutional. Gender biased personal agreements such as polyandry and polygamy are therefore against the law, and unconstitutional.
Sexual relationships should occur between CONSENTING adults. Read the Qur'an and discover that Allah permits a man to take up to 4 wives and any captive women that he possesses.
Captive (slave) women are not consenting.
In many cases, female Muslim children are married to adult males much older than they are. A child cannot give consent.
The Qur'an constantly gives suras that establish women as nothing more than some Muslim male's property. Property cannot give consent.
I know that I am starting to argue that NO Islamic "marriage" is between consenting adults. However, the Qur'an says what the Qur'an says.
In both the case of the "Mormons" of Colorado City and Muslim immigrants to this country, we have seen the abuse of women under the guise of polygamy.
The operative here is that "gender equality" which does not allow for laws to favor one sex over another. Since under Sharia men are allowed four wives, while women only one husband, it would be sexist and unconstitutional to pass laws that favor men over women, as it regards their rights, which includes their marital rights.
That's correct; any law regarding marriage must treat men and women equally. If men are by law allowed to marry multiple women, then women must be by law allowed to marry multiple men.
Government by ‘social contract’ such as our constitutional government has the right to involve itself in marriage law, which like cohabitation or same sex marriage is inherently a private matter, if these private agreements violate the principle of equality of gender.
No, it does not. As I've said, the purpose of the Constitution is to clearly enumerate the powers of Government - any attempt to usurp powers not listed in the Constitution is illegal.
If I want to marry a woman who wants to marry me, that is our own private matter. Likewise if I want to marry a man who wants to marry me. How is this any different to wanting to marry two consenting women? Simply put - it's none of your damn business, or anyone else's business either.
The Constitution does not apply to individuals, only to the Government.
In the Islamic world such equality does not exist, but it is fundamental to our legal system that no human being is treated differently under the law from any other, male or female (since slavery was abolished) and Islamic laws may not dominate over our constitutional laws.
Agreed. But the Constitution does not grant the Federal Government the power to regulate marriage. Therefore it can't legally pass a law that says something like "marriage may only be between one man, and one woman."
That was the point, that though people have a right to private agreements, they do not have the right to form agreements that are unconstitutional, sexist and discriminatory, or criminal and against the law (since slavery was abolished).
So yes, if such personal agreements are against the law, our constitution cannot uphold them, and if they are discriminatory it is unconstitutional. Gender biased personal agreements such as polyandry and polygamy are therefore against the law, and unconstitutional.
You are simply wrong on this point, due to your misunderstanding of the purpose of the Constitution.
Yes, it would be unconstitutional and illegal for the Government to pass a law that discriminated on the basis of sex - for example prohibiting polyandry but not polygamy. But if a bunch of consenting adult women and a consenting adult man want to practice polygamy, that's their decision. Likewise polyandry.
If you disagree, perhaps you could point me to the clause in the Constitution that grants the Federal Government the power to regulate marriage in any way?
In both the case of the "Mormons" of Colorado City and Muslim immigrants to this country, we have seen the abuse of women under the guise of polygamy.
Sure. But there's plenty of abuse of women in 'traditional' monogamous marriages too. Would you ban those as well?
I think you are trying to impose your own religious rule - that polygamy is immoral - on consenting adults whose behaviour is none of your business. That's reprehensible behaviour when it's carried out by Muslims, & equally reprehensible when carried out by Christians, too.
Wiki on Constitutional law ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_law ) says: “When a constitution establishes a federal state, it will identify the several levels of government coexisting with exclusive or shared areas of jurisdiction over lawmaking, application and enforcement.”
What does “lawmaking” mean to you? One set of private laws for some and another set for others? What does “application and enforcement” mean to you? Enforce the laws, or ignore the laws if ‘private agreements’ are against the law? Private matters not against the law are private, but once they break the law they become per force public, and then a matter of constitutional law. Err… you want to take this issue to the Supreme Court? Then what is the basis of the Chief Justices ruling on it, if not Constitutional Law? Do you get my drift? What happens if private agreements are in violation of our human rights (like slave conditions for domestic workers, for example) and the agrieved party brings suit. What laws apply then? There can only be one law of the land, and whether or not you agree with it is irrelevant. You may marry as many men and women as you wish, but if you are breaking the law of monogomy you will be sued by somebody, if not the state, and lose. There are no ‘religious rules’ being applied here, not in a secular state, and your moralizing the issue of law into your personal belief system does not validate your moral values, whatever they are, before a court of law. If you break the law, you are wrong, and you will lose.
Polygamy and polyandry are against the law. I hope those courageous Italian women fry their dingdong polygamous husbands for breaking the law.
To clarify, my arguments are:
1. Polygamy and polyandry are against the law.
2. They shouldn't be, as the Government has no business (either legally for it's unconstitutional, or morally for it's none of their business) to regulate marriage.
3. Attempts to ban polygamy or polyandry are an effort to enfore a set of religious beliefs (that consenting polygamy or polyandry is sinful) upon the rest of society.
4. Legalising either polygamy or polyandry while banning the other would be unconstitutional sexual discrimination. Legalising both equally would not.
Private matters not against the law are private, but once they break the law they become per force public, and then a matter of constitutional law.
You have that exactly the wrong way around. The Constitution specifies what powers the Government may wield; in other words, if the Constitution doesn't specify that the Government can regulate marriage, it can't.
So it is unconstitutional for the Government to pass laws regarding marriage. Laws relating to polygamy or polyandry are themselves unconstitutional.
Because the regulation of marriage isn't specifically enumerated in the Constitution, it isn't something that the Government is allowed to do. Why do you think Bush wanted an amenment to the Constitution? It was to allow the Federal Government to pass laws prohibiting gay marriage. Without that amendment, the Federal Government may not involve itself in any way with marriage.
An individuals actions are legal if not in breach of the law, or illegal if they are. Laws themselves can be constitutional, or unconstitutional. Individual actions however cannot be said to be either constitutional or unconstitutional.
As far as slavery goes, it's illegal precisely because it's non-consentual on the part of one party, just as forced marriages are illegal. If all parties involved are consenting & informed, whose business is it but theirs?
John Thorne explained this very well in a letter to the LP News:
So where do our rights come from? If you asked where we get our right to "keep and bear arms," most people would say the Second Amendment. That is wrong. The Second Amendment only says that the government shall not infringe on this right.
...
The question is not whether the Constitution confers "a fundamental right of individuals to privately contract with their physicians," the question should be where in the Constitution is the government delegated the power to interfere with the private contract between me and my physician? The answer is nowhere. As James Madison pointed out in Federalist No. 45, the legitimate powers of the federal government are "few and defined." Nowhere in the Constitution is the government delegated the power to interfere with private contracts.
He's right. If the Constitution doesn't explictly state that the Government may regulate marriage (or firearms, or medicine) then it may not. The fact that it does is a result of generations of Americans not fearing totalitarianism enough to vigilantly enforce the Constitution through the courts.
Duncan also said above: "Take another example: the Constitution prohibits the Government from enacting any law that infringes upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
That's a 'red herring' and has no basis in how government has the right to pass laws on the right to self-defense, to bear arms, and how individuals make legal agreements. The two are separate issues.
He also said above: "So, the Constitution can prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex - meaning that all citizens are equal under the law regardless of their sex.
But, that has no bearing whatsoever on the actions of individuals."
But this is self-contradictory, if "the Constitution can prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex" but then "that this has no bearing whatsoever on the actions of individuals." Why bother having laws? Why bother with a Constitution if it has "no bearing whatsoever on the actions of individuals"? It's a non sequitur to claim that the Constitution can regulate discrimination but it cannot regulate the actions of individuals.
I do not see where you get your ideas from Duncan, that YOUR idea that polygamous marriage is okay, but society's constitutional Social Agreements cannot regulate individual actions. How do you figure that, and still have legal versus illegal actions? Your reasoning is muddled at best, or in fact you are pushing your own agenda on polygamous marriages. Either way, polygamy and polyandry are against the natural laws of gender and human equality, where one party is less than the other, or multiple wives makes them defacto 'fractional' wives if they are married to one man. This is YOUR moralism speaking, not justice under rule of laws of equality.
For the Rule of Law to work it needs two things fundamentally:
1. Innocent until proben guilty. (this goes back to Roman law)
2. The law applies to all members of society equally. (this is a modern idea, why slavery is abolished)
If these two elements are missing, you do not have rule of law, and instead of equality you have supremacism of some over others. It does not work in free society. And the 'freedom' of multiple marriages you advocate (in your agenda) are necessarily unequal if one party is not equal to another.
If you advocate "The fact that it does is a result of generations of Americans not fearing totalitarianism enough to vigilantly enforce the Constitution through the courts," then you are presenting your own biased view of what the American social contract had become, not what infringes upon our freedoms. You have the equal right to form agreements with others, as you and they agree as consenting adults, but you do not have the right to impose your personal ideology of what this freedom may be for others, if it is against the social contract of the land as defined by its Constitutional laws. If you persist with your line or argument, you are undermining the very basis for constitutional law to protect our freedoms, and going against John Locke's view that "the fundamental constitutional principle is that the individual can do anything but that which is forbidden by law, while the state may do nothing but that which is authorised by law." If it is "forbidden by law" then you are breaking the law and infringing upon the rights of others, which by default means you are negating the very freedoms you seek to protect. That is illogical.
It's a non sequitur to claim that the Constitution can regulate discrimination but it cannot regulate the actions of individuals.
BY GOVERNMENT! The Constitution enumerates the powers of the Federal Government. It says - amongst other things, that the Federal Government cannot pass laws that infringe upon the right to keep & bear arms, and that the Federal Government cannot pass laws that discriminate on the grounds of race or sex. (In fact it does all of the above & no-one seems to care).
I do not see where you get your ideas from Duncan, that YOUR idea that polygamous marriage is okay, but society's constitutional Social Agreements cannot regulate individual actions.
You are putting words into my mouth; please stop that.
Firstly, I don't think polygamy or polyandry are okay. I just don't think that the Government has the right to regulate it, for two reasons: it involves only consenting adults, and there is no Consitutional mandate for it to do so.
What I said is that the Constitution of the USA applies to the Federal Government, and not to individuals. Of course the Government may pass laws to regulate individual actions - but only if it is allowed to by the Constitution, and only if the action being regulated initiates force or fraud against others.
You keep claiming that laws prohibiting polygamy are constitutionally valid.
Can you provide me with an excerpt from the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to regulate marriage? If not, any laws relating to marriage are unconstituitional and should be repealed.
You quoted Locke: "while the state may do nothing but that which is authorised by law"
What I'm asking you is to show me the clause or amendment to the Constitution that authorises the Government to regulate marriage.