At the center of the polygamy issue is this question: Will Muslims in Australia and other non-Islamic countries obey the laws of the lands they live in, or Sharia law? And if they choose the latter, will authorities have the spine to enforce laws that go against Sharia?
"Muslim leaders split on polygamy," by Natalie O'Brien for The Australian, July 1:
Polygamy has split the Australian Islamic community, pitting senior Muslim leaders against each other over the religious teachings on the issue.
A statement from the National Imams Council saying polygamy was banned in Australia and that calls for its legalisation were unwarranted was criticised by other senior community leaders as well as its own members.
Outspoken Muslim cleric and Sydney imam Taj Din al-Hilali attacked the imams council for putting out a statement that "contradicts the wisdom and teachings of God".
Yes, him again.
Sheik Hilali "reminded those imams" that compromise through watering down religious teaching was wrong.
The chairman of the Jemiat Ulama of Australia (Muslim Council of Theologians), Adbul Quddoos, said the imams council was not telling people the correct thing.
Islamic Friendship Association president Keysar Trad, who sparked the debate on polygamy last week, wrote to the council saying it had "no right to conceal the solutions that our faith offers to social problems".
"If they followed the comments correctly, they would see we are not asking for anything, all we are doing is offering solutions to social problems," Mr Trad said yesterday.
In The Australian last Thursday, Mr Trad admitted that he had once considered the idea of marrying another woman, backing calls by another senior member of the Islamic community, Khalil Chami, for polygamous relationships to be recognised.
Sheikh Chami of the Islamic Welfare Centre said last week there was nothing wrong with having a number of marriages: 'You allow the lesbians, you allow the gays - why not these people? What's wrong with it?"
Even those relationships are limited to two people, so Chami's citing them in order to argue for polygynous plural marriages falls short, unless he's prepared to endorse same-sex plural marriage and, while we're at it, polyandry. But no, this is strictly about advancing Sharia.
Sheikh Chami has said polygamous marriages, although illegal, existed in Australia and he had been asked almost weekly to conduct polygamous religious ceremonies. But while he has refused, other imams did not.
Yesterday, Sheik Chami refused to comment further on the issue.
In response to the media furore, the imams council last Thursday released a statement, saying that as "Australian Muslims we recognise that the Marriage Act 1961 prohibits polygamy and we are not proposing any changes to this law".
In the first public statement since its inception more than a year ago, the imams council said calling for legalising polygamy in Australia was unwarranted in the current Australian context.
"In our experience, relationships outside the legally recognised marriages among the Muslim community in Australia are neither a significant nor a widespread practice," it said.
"The priority of the imams of Australia is to focus on strengthening existing marriages and encouraging harmony within the family unit. It is also our sincere wish to focus on issues that unify rather than those that create division and dispute within the Australian community."
Backpedaling:
Sheik Hilali said yesterday that the norm in marriage was one man and one woman and Islam did not call for polygamy. He said it was provided only as a solution for certain situations and must follow stringent rules.
But is one of those rules not engaging in polygamy where non-Islamic legislation has made it illegal?
"In the first public statement since its inception more than a year ago, the imams council said calling for legalising polygamy in Australia was unwarranted in the current Australian context."
The *current* Australian context.
Translated: The kaffir can't hold out forever, my brothers, and then all that uncovered meat is ours.
This is similar to the split in opinions over rape. The hardliners think it's the woman's fault whereas the moderates thinks raping women might not, on balance, be such a good thing.
Perhaps they could have a public debate over these issues (polygamy, raping women, murdering gays, killing apostates etc)and watch the traditionalists wipe the floor with any moderate.
Great to see all the Muslim women in this debate--not! I remember listening to NPR doing a story on polygamy, and the sociologist who had studied it for 20 years said something to the effect,
--Whereever there is polygamy, there is an incredible amount of family dysfunction and social problems--
The story went on to describe the abuse, depression, welfare assistance, stunted educations, boys ejected as teens out of the community so they don't compete for women, and a host of other problems.
http://www.bravenewsworld.blogspot.com
"Muslim leaders split on allowing polygamy."
Headline of the article.
Although it's good to see internal dissension among the Muslim brass, in the end who cares what they think? Polygamy is illegal, so not only should polygamists be prosecuted, so should anyone aiding and abetting them, including Muslim "leaders."
There is 'no split of opinions'- neither over rape nor over polygamy. The Koran is written in stone, immutable, for all time, for all mankind.
Ain't that right, Robert?
There are 2 kinds of muslims: those who don't want to wake up sleeping kuffars, and the impatient ones, those who want it all here and now.
Read carefull what catmeat Hilali has to say, and let him proudly tell you that he has 4 wifes and 'many children'-, don't be fooled!
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/stories/s1058934.htm
"Sheikh Chami of the Islamic Welfare Centre said last week there was nothing wrong with having a number of marriages: 'You allow the lesbians, you allow the gays - why not these people? What's wrong with it?"
Yep. Here we go. We knew this logic was coming, didn't we? And given the context, he's right. If a man is allowed to "marry" another man, why can't a man marry 2 women? If we have created an "anything goes" society with no norms, then the Muslims certainly do have a valid argument and someone is going to have a very hard time arguing against them.
The fact that gay relationships are limited to one partner was not the Imam's point. His point was that governments have allowed marital unions that are grossly outside the norms. The imam is saying, efectively, "So, why not us?"
Polygamy is sanctioned by Allah in the Qur'an. Who is any Muslim to dare challenge Allah?
"....they would see we are not asking for anything, all we are doing is offering solutions to social problems," Mr Trad said yesterday.
ISLAM is the social problem.
As an aside, why the gay bashing? Beleive it or not, gays can be strong allies in the fight against sharia. As for gay marriage being akin to polygamy, my daughter is gay and her father and I would be proud to walk her down the aisle if she chooses to marry.
Islamic, sharia-sanctioned polygamy is an entirely dfferent thing, based as it is not on love, but on possession, control, domination.
In a free society each person is of equal worth before the law. In Islam a woman is half the worth of a man. Islamic 'scholars' then manufacture their (Sharia) laws to suit their needs as total body and mind control socialism (with religious veneer overcoat) to control their women.
Not a religion.
Sheik yer'mami,
I didn't get any deeper into the article than the statement that the topic was to be about "manhood". As if Hilali knew jack about manhood!
(Sneer quotes indicative of what I think about Muslim manhood, not manhood as it applies to the Rest of Humanity.)
Sheik Hilali said yesterday that the norm in marriage was one man and one woman and Islam did not call for polygamy.
He is right, Islam does not 'call' for polygamy, it just allows it. 'You 'may' have up to four wives, is not, 'you 'must' have four wives'. If it was mandatory a poor and ugly muslim who was unable to attract even one woman, would be insulting Allah and Islam by, not his unwillingness, but his inability.
It's an elective for those muslims who can pull it off financially and attract, or buy, four wives.
It is not 'called for' in Islam, but it is encouraged...
I would agree that polygamy is strongly encouraged--Muslims look to the example of 'the perfect man.'
Why perform honest work when you can extract jizya or rob caravans (like the perfect man)?
Why attract a woman with honor and sincerity when you can club her over the head and drag her back to your cave? Or steal her from you step-son? Or rob a cradle (as the perfect man did)?
The foundation of Islam is deceit and terror for the purpose of control, all cardinal traits of its founder Mohammed.
Islamic Friendship Association president Keysar Trad, who sparked the debate on polygamy last week, wrote to the council saying it had "no right to conceal the solutions that our faith offers to social problems".
.............................
Uh, polygamy offers te solution to exactly which social problems again?
Marwan's Daughter wrote:
"In the first public statement since its inception more than a year ago, the imams council said calling for legalising polygamy in Australia was unwarranted in the current Australian context."
The *current* Australian context.
Translated: The kaffir can't hold out forever, my brothers, and then all that uncovered meat is ours.
........................
Exactly. I noticed the use of "current" myself.
Keep your demand modest until you become strong enough to call for full Shari'ah.
I decided to check and see what percentage of Australia's population is Muslim, and ran across a *very* interesting statement. From a review of the book "Muslim Communities in Australia":
". . . The introductory chapter makes clear that the Australian Muslim population is noteworthy for its diversity in terms of ethnicity, national origins, language, and class. This diversity is all the more remarkable because, at around 300,000, Muslims make up about 1.5 percent of the Australian population, a share quite disproportionate to the place they assume in mainstream apprehensions.
........................
"Apprehensions", of course, can mean both "awareness" and "concern"--or even "alarm".
Assuming that this statistic is correct, this is how demanding the Muslim population is in Australia--at a mere 1.5%. Imagine how their demands will grow if their numbers do, also.
To give you an idea, Denmark's population is about 2% Muslim, the U.K.'s about 2.7% Muslim, and France as much as 8% Muslim. Violence rises along with demands. And, of course, Numbers need not neccessarily reflect national population--Sweden has between 2%-4% Muslims nationally, but they make up 25% of the population of Malmo. Malmo's crime rates, especially rape, have skyrocketed. The city is full of no-go areas for ordinary Swedes--even for the police.
Even in the U.S., which has a very small Muslim population overall, demands have grown in Muslim-heavy enclaves in Virginia, south Florida, and the Minneapolis area.
So, for now, "Muslim leaders split on polygamy"--some think they should demand it's recognition right now, and some think it might be prudent to wait a few years, when they have worn the kuffar down a bit more. Now, that's diversity!
Imnodhimmi: The argument for gay marriage is that it is a contract between legally consenting adults. This trumps any other argument, especially the idea that mainstream society has any say over what is good for society as a whole.
I challenge you to converse with the people you know who are in favor of gay marriage. Many of them will also be in favor of polygamy. Those against the idea won't be able to come up with a convincing argument (at least not a different argument than the one they use for legalizing gay marriage).
I'm not against gays nor do I favor prohibiting gay sexual relationships. But I don't approve of gay marriage. I think it's unhealthy for society as whole and for women in particular. We can disagree about my opinion, but that's not the point. My biggest fear about the legalization of gay marriage was that it would inevitably lead to the legalization of polygamy. If mainstream society forfeits its right to limit marriage only between one man and one woman, then it also forfeits its right to limit the number of partners involved.
I would ask you to set your daughter's situation aside and look at the bigger picture. Perhaps you could rethink whether you agree with legalizing gay marriage in order to maintain society's control over marriage in general? It would keep your position consistent. Just a suggestion. Please don't take it wrong.
How about incest? Moslems are prone to that, too; altho I believe it's usually between first cousins. But what the hey? Let's go for it all, and allow marriages between siblings, and between children and parents. And the only age limit would be that she has to be old enough to say "I do" at the wedding ceremony.
And how about the family goat? Mo offered words of advice on sex with the family goat.
Marisol and other posters here have brought up the very simple, very powerful argument that allows a committed, socially respected, protected relationship between two adults and not three, four, or five.
Polygamy is emotionally and financially bad for children, and through its cascading effects it is bad for society. Period. I wish I could find my copy of "Among the Believers" by V.S. Naipaul, where he touches on this subject in a short but effective statement about the crushing fear and disappointment of children with polygynous fathers.
Similarly, in "Infidel," Ayaan Hirsi Ali discusses what it was like for her mother, and for herself and her siblings, when her adored father tomcatted off to start another family.
It's not limited to Islam, so there's no "bigotry" here. Dozens of testimonials by Mormon fundamentalist women confirm that polygyny contributes to emotional instability -- jealousy, envy, and intrafamilial competition -- as well as financial strains upon both the polygynous "family" unit and the society that hosts it. In short, evidence shows that polygynous men, on the whole, cannot adequately feed, shelter, educate, and emotionally cherish their dependents in a way that a successful society requires.
Certainly monogamy (and divorce) is no panacea. But polygamy brings with it an even more staggering cost in human misery. This cost can be avoided without an irrational discrimination against gay people who wish to form a committed, protected relationship of two mature, informed adults.
The bottom line? It comes down to cash, which is what speaks to most people -- especially Westerners, who are familiar with speaking in terms of economics. Polygamy is too damn expensive.
"the very simple, very powerful argument that allows a committed, socially respected, protected relationship between two adults and not three, four, or five."
And yet this is beside the point. You all are missing the Muslims' point. What they are arguing for is the right to have their "alternative" (effectively that's how they want the law to view it, just like the gays do) lifestyle protected by law and granted equal rights under the law...just like the homosexuals. This is their point. They are not referring to the number of people in a union, they are questioning why the West can't be embracing of their lifestyle choices as has been granted to the homosexuals.
And they are right. Logically speaking.
Just another grave the West has dug itself into with the attack on traditional Judeo-Christian family values. And now the Muslims wants theirs, too. We should have seen this coming.
no right to conceal the solutions that our faith offers to social problems".
WHAT SOCIAL PROBLEMS could it be the problem
of muslim men being sex maniacs and not learning
to control them selves hence there wanting 4 wives and as many female slaves as there right hand possesses (even though slavery has mostly been outlawed ecept in a few muslim country's)
Madame Vegnier,
How correct you are. Deviating from the Biblical standard ('God made them male and female,' not male and male, female and female, or male and females) has presented the West with many such deviations. It will be difficult to prohibit others once the standard is broken.
"They are not referring to the number of people in a union. . . "
Of course they are. That's the entire point of Islamic polygyny. One man with unrestricted sexual and reproductive access to multiple women.
"What they are arguing for is the right to have their "alternative" (effectively that's how they want the law to view it, just like the gays do) lifestyle protected by law and granted equal rights under the law...just like the homosexuals."
Some "alternative" lifestyles cost more than others. Society can quite rationally be willing to bear the cost of some, but not all. My personal offense at someone else's "lifestyle" is a trivial cost, so long as that "lifestyle" does not interfere with the expression of my own private or public rights or burden me or the rest of my society with significant financial expenditures. In other words, how do committed, responsible, monogamous gay relationships burden me? They don't, except insofar as others' happiness offends a personal prejudice or religious prohibition -- both things that other people of good faith in my society do not necessarily share.
Polygynous relationships, especially those mandated by Islam and certain Mormon cults, do burden the entire society through their proven immediate effects of financial and emotional hardship. Polygyny also demands externalities, such as changing entire legal and governmental structures to take into account myriad tax dependents, beneficiaries, survivors, inheritors, and the like. Gay marriages, built on the monogamous paradigm, do not.
The Muslim "alternative lifestyle choice" costs more than a comparison alternative in terms of human happiness. It can be refused, while gay marriage is permitted, simply on this ground.
The advantage of this analysis is that it takes religion right out of the picture, removing an entire (and essentially nonproductive) field of dispute.
What seems simple, isn't as simple. Simply put, if we change the idea of marriage to encompass gays, it lays the foundation for other alternative lifestyles. It's really not a hard concept to see.
@ Diaphanous
EXACTLY!
Marwan's daughter, although I appreciate your arguments against polygamy, I do not agree with your assessment on legalized gay marriages. They COULD have a negative affect on society. For one thing it makes homosexuality a more visible and accepted lifestyle, and, in the long run, will make homosexuality activity more widespread.
I, for one, don't want to live in a society where every social venue of our lives has a sexual potential to it: the "boys" going on a fishing trip or girlfriends out shopping suddenly takes on a different meaning. If you don't think it could happen, look at Greek and the later Roman cultures. And in both, WOMEN were the losers, with the cult of the male body trumping home and family.
I also think that children raised in a homosexual environment are more likely to be sexually conflicted. My personal anecdote demonstrating this? A 10-year old boy I used to know (raised by his flaming gay father who sometimes brought him to our workplace) would come over and hump me while I typed at the computer.
Jihadwatch isn't the place to debate this, I realize, but the point is the decision to allow polygamy is SO much easier when gay marriage is allowed. You say gay marriage won't hurt society; I say it will. Polygamists think both of us are prejudiced against a lifestyle THEY choose, and we are discriminating against their lifestyle choices. I don't agree with polygamy, but if the law allows gay marriage, I don't see where logically it can prohibit marriage between multiple partners.
In the interests of accuracy I need to say that when Keysar Trad appeared on Sunrise (an Australian network 7 breakfast program) the other morning, he did agree with a suggestion by one of the hosts that polyandry should therefore also be allowed. I'm sure he didn't intend to say that when he went on the program but after getting a fairly welcoming reaction rather than the negative one he probably expected I think he found himself agreeing with the host before he'd even realised what he'd said. Of course they didn't specifically ask him whether he'd agree with any muslim women entering polyandrous marraiges (I'm sure he'd have said no to that).
Personally I'm not too concerned by the social contracts people want to form between themselves - whatever their sexual orientation or the number of people involved. I definitely prefer the 'standard' (2 people, 1M + 1 F) model when it comes to bringing up children but don't think that should be legislated.
I actually think the far more critical issues are age and consent - and I don't think the governments throughout the west are doing enough to ensure all marraiges/unions are truly consensual. There are too many young girls in western countries being married off against their will. If we don't take action now the problem only becomes worse because you've then got homegrown residents who've been brought up in households where that's the norm.
I think the government should be ensuring women from all backgrounds (including islamic) are given access to a proper quality education (which includes teaching them how to question things) and that they have the force of law behind them when they challenge their families - it should be a crime with 10 years gaol for even attemting to arrange a marraige without a woman's consent, and similar punishments for being involved in any attempt to stop women going out dressed as they want or marrying whoever they want or that want to leave their religion. Get tough and support those that want to break free from the restrictions.
Better version:
There was an old prophet called Mo (PBUH)
Whose libido had started to go
So he gave it a whirl with a nine year old girl
And she floated his bo-di-oh-doh.