Daisy Khan on polygamy: "I also explain to [brides] that as a woman, you have certain rights, and as a man, he may one day exercise his right to have a second wife"

"I also explain to them that as a woman, you have certain rights,

Did she say what those 'rights' were? I don't remember any Islamic bill of rights for women...

"And I say, 'Well, in case you ever get tempted, how about we put that in the contract?'"

Sure you do, sweetie.

From the NPR story:

'"When ladies divorce," she says, "the people look down on her — looking to her like [she's] second class."

Then 14 years ago, a man approached her to be his second wife. She resisted at first but then grew to admire him and agreed to become his wife. She says her problems evaporated.

"When I married the second husband, everybody's OK," she says, smiling. "If I go anywhere, I'm free, nobody talks, because I have a husband."

He provides for both of his families, and he divides time between the two homes. Mona says the first wife was initially angry, but she got used to it.

"What is the problem? If he is not happy with the first marriage, why he stay all the life like this? You know, my religion is good because it gives man and woman another chance to be happy."

NPR is not revealing Mona's last name, and her husband would not be interviewed for this story. Her husband could be charged with bigamy.'

Yeah, who cares about following the law, Miss Daisy. Who cares about United States law when your supremacist mentality (and governing officials in New York City) allow you to ignore them. And why would anybody be concerned about the lies you may be telling about the mega mosque when you are so truthful and forthcoming on the subject of polygamy, and illegal activity in the United States?

I wonder if the right of a Muslim husband to beat his wife is brought up?

Abed Awad, a family law attorney in New Jersey, says for many Muslim men, multiple wives means many children — which is considered a blessing in Islam. And since Islam allows for sexual relations only in marriage, polygamy legitimizes the relationship in God's eyes.

If sex is only supposed to be happening in marriage, where and why did the "uncovered meat" comment come from? There would be no need to come up with such a comment if it were true that sex was only happening in Islamic marriages, right?

I hope what Daisy is including in the contract the condition that the man will not take any more wives...

I don't know why muslims talk about rights of women. As long as the rights of men and women are not equal it means nothing. If they want to boast of equal rights then a woman must also be able to take multiple husbands.

Abed Awad is an idiot. Having more children than they can take care of is a problem in many muslim families.
How about a married couple remaining true to each other and paying attention to their children so that they can grow into productive individuals instead of uneducated madrassa trained allah slaves wannabes...

And does Daisy Khan tell these women, and have them inform their husbands, that polygamy is against the law in this country? For that, and not what Shari'a says, is what counts, and there should be no need to go any further than that. Polygamy, in the United States, is illegal, and any wife who thinks her husband is about to take another wife, or has done so, should report him -- and that includes Muslim views.

Did Daisy Khan say any of that? Doesn't she have a duty to make sure that those she counsels undertsand the laws of this country, and that they are the only laws that matter?

"...he may one day exercise his right to have a second wife"

Adultery, islamic style ...

The 7th commandment must really cramp a muslims sinful and lustful lifestyle.

'No, no, no. I'm never going to do that.'
ah the muslim mind in action. It's infantile engagement in the world around it, jabbing hand gestures and headstrong displays of god's psychotic wrath.

What are these wonderful rights that women in Islam are supposed to have?

Could Daisy Khan give us a list of these?

They'd have to be wonderfully generous rights in order to make up for the deficiencies in intelligence that Muhammad said women have, his assertion that they are destined for hell, the fact that Islam encourages the beating of women, the restrictions that Muslimas live with every day, and the degradation inherent in polygamy sanctioned by Islam.

What are these wonderful rights, Ms Khan?

Daisy Khan:

"...as a man, he may one day exercise his right to have a second wife."

What "right" is that? Polygamy is against the law, Daisy! So she's crowing to the world that her islamic law is the ONLY law without even the least acknowledgment of the law where she lives. And she passes it off easily, as if it's just a fact-of-life, just another day at the office for that pillar-of-the-community, Da'wa Daisy in the good ol'
USA.

The very notion that this muslima, with her arrogance and contempt for my country, could be holding-forth from Ground Zero is loathsome beyond words...so I'll just say:

Go to hell, Daisy!

"NPR is not revealing Mona's last name, and her husband would not be interviewed for this story. Her husband could be charged with bigamy." -- from the NPR story

Ordinarily I don't pay attention to other people's sexual activity. It is, in my opinion, a private matter between adults of the same species. When sexual activity becomes a public matter, by definition it becomes everybody's business. This report, I believe, is everybody's business.

Polygamy is everybody's business because it strikes at the heart of the society that we have. Our traditional society is founded on the template of two-parent households: a mother who loves, nurtures, teaches and guides and a father who provides, protects, loves, guides and serves as a model of masculinity. In order for the father to fulfill his role, he's got to be present.

Men who breed beyond their capability to "be there" are weighing society down, creating a generation of young men who won't have the faintest clue of how to be a caring father because of the lack of example in their upbringing. Society will also be weighed down by young girls growing up to think of themselves as simple breeding machines. Read Ayaan Hirsi Ali's biography to get a sense of what effect an absent father had upon his children, in the milieu of Islamic culture. But in the West, there is the burden upon those who don't simply reproduce in this way. It's the burder put upon social services. The burden put upon the state to make sure that the children receive minimal health care, food, clothing, etc. And how many times are we treated to stories of welfare fraud perpetrated by such polygamous families. The men who are responsible for such fraud need tohave their right to breed permanently and visibly revoked. Then they need to be deported.

There are some things that are particularly galling in the quote taken from the NPR story. The first is that the reporter is protecting their source. While I understand the necessity of this at times, there is a crime being committed here, one that corrodes at our society. And then what makes it worse is that this protection is offered under interpretation of the First Amendment viz. freedom of the press. This is the very freedom that these practioners of bigamy would like to see annihilated. Lastly, the story states that "Her husband could be charged with bigamy. I'd be much happier if the sentence ran as "Her husband would be charged with bigamy."

We have sound reasons for laws against bigamy. We need to enforce them. Now.

Barbara Bradley Hagerty, the author of this piece, writes:

"Although polygamy is illegal in the U.S. and most mosques try to discourage plural marriages,"

They do? How on earth would Hagerty know this? Did she read a study on U.S. mosques that showed that most of them in fact discourage such plural marriages? I doubt it.

Not much later in the same article, Hagerty adds

"The Koran states that men may marry up to four women. The Prophet Mohammad had multiple wives."

At least this much is acknowledged in the article, but does this fact not raise the question in Hagerty's mind as to how "mosques" could discourage polygyny while simultaneously preaching, from the Quran, the legitimacy of polygyny? Do they have two sets of books? How does this work?

More:
"Abed Awad, a family law attorney in New Jersey, says for many Muslim men, multiple wives means many children — which is considered a blessing in Islam."

Yes, in the Hadith, Muhammad expresses that general sentiment/policy about the importance of Muslims having many children.

Continuing...
"And since Islam allows for sexual relations only in marriage, polygamy legitimizes the relationship in God's eyes."

Re "only in marriage," that's not true. The Quran and Hadith allow the Muslim man two kinds of sexual relationships--those with his wives, and those with his "right hand possessions" (captives, slaves, concubines, maids, etc.)

Hmmm....

I wonder if Daisy Khan's true name isn't really Daisy "Chain" (as in the "Chain of Islam"?)

Daisy, Do you believe that Sharia law preempts civil law, and that Muslims must be allowed to observe all of the dictates of Sharia, including female genital mutilation, the stoning of women for adultery, the onerous obstacles against women proving that they have been raped, and so many other degrading practices?

Daisy, you should have gotten "Pre-Muslim Conversion" counseling, including a long session with Robert and Hugh. But it is not too late for "Pre-Muslim Apostate" counseling; after all, Ayan Hirsi Ali had the fortitude to ditch her "Muslim chains". But she is one courageous woman...not many have her fortitude...

And if they did put it in a contract, would that contract be adjudicated in a Sharia court, where the word of a woman is only worth half of the word of a man?

This goes with my thinking that Poontang Mo-Mo(Pussy Be Up-in Here) was the origional gangsta. His practice of banditry cemented Money over Bitches' place in this mindset. Bros before Ho's, and other like-minded modern day expressions of Koranic dictate is undeniable.

Formalizing, within a social framework, this approach allows the adherents to insure that they continue to recieve certain guarrantees over the control of their charges. As long as I get mine...

The suggestion that a contract be forged to limit one's options to appease a potential mate is a sound strategy. Mo-Mo sauctioned lying to one's spouse to defuse discord in a household. Breaking an oath if something better comes along is another useful weapon in a man's arsenal of deceit.

Thanks Mo, you got it all covered!

Daisy is a duck...Donald's girl friend...Opps sorry, from here it's hard to tell the difference...But I don't want to infer that Daisy and Donald might have been Mahoundians, far from it...They were Duckarians, and except for webbed feet, they have nothing in common...

Daisy Khan..."And usually the man says, 'No, no, no. I'm never going to do that.' And I say, 'Well, in case you ever get tempted, how about we put that in the contract?'"

Will this 'contract' over-rule the Quran, or Sharia?

If it won't, it's meaningless...

Daisy isn't the only one....

Check out the brainwashing ow Muslim women...
The women themselves do it !!!

"POLYGAMY IN ISLAM : MUSLIMAH PERSPECTIVE"
(by Muslimah2Muslima)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDgUXGadmvE

(The comments by "BlackJewels37" are a study in the Muslim male's supremacist ideas.)

Sharia should be illegal
People coming to the US, must renounce Sharia.
A country can't have two laws.
By definition of LAW there can't be 2 states of law, otherwise they would be 2 different countries.
You can't have a country inside a country.
Thats called apartheid. Thats illegal.

I think that Daisy is not neccessarily addressing the polygamy question with regards to bigomy in the United States. Shari'ah Law takes presidence over it regardless.

She is in effect trying to root out secular terrorism, the poisoning of a woman's mind with Western ideas. She is guaging for the man, through this line of "counseling", the suitability of a potential mate and to wait degree they are an apostate.

It is not unheard of that families will move to countries were this practice is lawful. Canada makes allowance for polygamy with their Muslim immigrant population as long as the marriages occured prior to entering the country. This is a clever defense that has merit.

Respecting US laws concerning it by Muslims will have to be addressed in a case by case basis. No different than adultery statues in states that do not have no-fault divorce on the books.

Though off-topic I had to post this.DAVID WOOD is known to Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller,they even once called in a "Jesus or Muhammed" show,Wood often posts material by Spencer on his blog.That is why I think he won't mind this:

MUST SEE TV!

Beginning TUESDAY 22 JUN everyday till MONDAY 28 JUN there will be a "Jesus or Muhammad" show.

Every NIGHT at:

8:30-10:30 PM (Eastern time)

11 pm-1 am (Eastern time)

HOW TO WATCH?

Go to:

http://www.abnsat.com/abnnew/

Then on the UPPER RIGHT CORNER click on ABN LIVE to watch at 8:30 pm,11 pm.

TOP CHRISTIAN SPEAKERS(all can be found in youtube also):

1.David Wood (ex-atheist)
2.Nabeel Qureshi(ex-Muslim)
Their website is:
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/

3.Walid Shoebat(ex-Muslims,ex PLO terrorist)

4.Kameel Saleem(ex-Muslim,ex-terrorist).He wrote a touching autobiography "The Blood of Lambs:A Former Terrorist's Memoir of Death and Redemption":

http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Lambs-Former-Terrorists-Redemption/dp/1416577807/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276374322&sr=8-1

5.James White(lots of debates in youtube)

6.Sam Shamoun,His website is:
http://answering-islam.org/

7.Mary Jo Sharp(2 debates with Muslims in youtube).Her website is:
http://confidentchristianity.com/

8.Tony Costa(smooth-taking defender of Jesus,several debates on youtube)

PLUS
Check out the bilingual English-French Christian blog(with some articles by me in English and French,under the name Esperanto),where Martin Antoine(French) has translated much material by Robert Spencer:

http://www.avraidire.eu/

just one more reason they CANNOT live in the USA... but this is why Obama's administration wants to allow gay marriage... then ALL sorts of marriage will be allowed.. shariah law compliant USA

I don´t know why there´s all this noise. The Quran says it has to be so, end of story. And the Quran has every right to say so because the Quran says so. We should know this by now.
It is a religion that has all the rights that unbelievers have not, because the Quran says so. Islam is superior in every respect, and any objection cannot be taken seriously. So why all this noise? Religion is good, remember? The moment something spiritual is put into the equation there´s no need of the secular, the rules are different. A lot of unbelievers think it better to accept and not risk being called "racist", or "a facist hater".
Why is the West defenseless against religious facism, having stood up to communism and national fascism? Partly because of our own dubious history, partly "The Tyranny of Guilt", partly misplaced toleration of intolerance? It is obvious we are being lied to, but those in power seem unable to stand up to it.
A muslim girl came to my notice a while ago in a newspaper article. 18 years old or so, full protective garb and everything. Her purpose in life seemed to be telling Danes and Danish companies how to address the presence of muslims, how to deal with it, how to adapt to it, how to change. I do not think it entered her head it would be more appropriate if instead she spent her time teaching immigrants how to fit in with their chosen new country.
Danish TV, on the soccer world cup and security: "terrorists" mentioned many times, a vague reference to Afghanistan. Otherwise no explanation who these terrorists might be.
Muslim women without a headscarf or worse were far from unusual 15 years ago. Now they have been harassed into conformity, and I cannot blame them. But we are told it is "freedom".

Kinana of Khaybar is the only one who mentiones that the Quran and Hadith allow the Muslim man two kinds of sexual relationships--those with his wives, and those with his "right hand possessions" (captives, slaves, concubines, maids, etc.)
And
...what about Nikāḥ al-Mut‘ah or 'temporary marriage'?

To paraphrase Daisy Khan,
"There are thousands of polygamists in New York; one more is no big deal. After all, your grandchildren will all be Muslims anyway."

I find it interesting that NPR has closed the comments feature for this story.

does ms. khan not counsel that polygamy is against the law in the US? i realize that runs counter to the quran, but really assimilation is the key for this country. if polygamy is going to happen then we need to tighten our immigration laws

There are only two kinds or marriage in history, and both are based in natural law. One is polygamy. It is practiced in hunter-gatherer societies, or any society with a high death rate among males. (It was practiced among the warrior classes of Europe (the Franks e.g.-even Charlemagne had eight wives-though only one was official).

Monogamy came with agricultural civilization when the relative numbers of males and females became about equal. Monogamy is the "norm" once the numbers of males and females are biologically in balance. Marriage is based in biology. It's about assigning responsibility for off-spring.

Once the relative numbers of males and females become equal in a society, polygamy is marginalized-even in societies that officially permit it (Mormon and Muslim e.g.).

Polygamy may be practiced in a society in which the relative numbers of males and females are biologically equal. But it will be practiced by either a few rich pigs hogging-up the women or by parasites (as with Muslims on welfare).

Male polygamists: which are you? Are you a pig or a parasite when the relative numbers of men and women are biologically in balance in society?

Some polygamists are pigs and some are parasites in a biologically equal society where the number of males females are equal..

Polygamy has some advantages easily overlooked in Western societies dominated by the concept of sexual equality and equal rights.

Polygamy ensures that those (men) who are most fit get more descendants, thereby increasing the average IQ of a society.
(In order to take care of several wifes you need to be succesful, powerful or rich and to achieve that you need to have an above normal IQ).

In Islamic societies this improvement of the IQ seems to be counterbalanced by Islam itself and the strong tradition of endogamous marriages which carry a considerably high risk for developing neurologic diseases and low IQ.

In Judaism multiple marriage was considered a realistic alternative in the case of famine, widowhood, or female infertility like in the practice of levirate marriage, wherein a man was required to marry and support his deceased brother's widow, as mandated by Deuteronomy 25:5–10. Despite its prevalence in the Hebrew bible, scholars do not believe that polygyny was commonly practiced in the biblical era because it required a significant amount of wealth.

In the modern day, Rabbinic Judaism has essentially outlawed polygamy. Ashkenazi Jews have followed Rabbenu Gershom's ban since the 11th century. Some Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews (particularly those from Yemen and Iran) discontinued polygamy much more recently, as they emigrated to countries where it was forbidden.

Israel has made polygamy illegal, but in practice the law is not enforced, primarily so as not to interfere with Bedouin culture, where polygamy is common. Provisions were instituted to allow for existing polygamous families immigrating from countries where the practice was legal. Furthermore, former chief rabbi Ovadia Yosef and Israeli columnist Greer Fay Cashman have come out in favor of legalizing polygamy and the practice of pilegesh (concubine) by the Israeli government.

Saint Augustine saw a conflict with Old Testament polygamy. He refrained from judging the patriarchs, but did not deduce from their practice the ongoing acceptability of polygamy. On the contrary, he showed that polygamy of the Fathers, tolerated by the Creator because of fertility, was a diversion from His original plan for the human marriage. Augustine wrote:That the good purpose of marriage, however, is better promoted by one husband with one wife, than by a husband with several wives, is shown plainly enough by the very first union of a married pair, which was made by the Divine Being Himself.

The New Testament does not specifically address the morality of polygamy. 1 Timothy, however, states that certain Church leaders should have but one wife: "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach" (chapter 3, verse 2; see also verse 12 regarding deacons having only one wife).

Similar counsel is repeated in the first chapter of the Epistle of Titus; however, the author of 1 Corinthians (chapter 7, verse 2) writes, "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

In modern times a minority of Roman Catholic theologians have argued that polygamy, though not ideal, can be a legitimate form of Christian marriage in certain regions, in particular Africa. The Roman Catholic Church teaches in its Catechism that:

"polygamy is not in accord with the moral law. [Conjugal] communion is radically contradicted by polygamy; this, in fact, directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive."

Periodically, Christian reform movements that have aimed at rebuilding Christian doctrine based on the Bible alone (sola scriptura) have at least temporarily accepted polygamy as a Biblical practice. For example, during the Protestant Reformation, in a document referred to simply as "Der Beichtrat" (or "The Confessional Advice" ), Martin Luther granted the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, who, for many years, had been living "constantly in a state of adultery and fornication," a dispensation to take a second wife. The double marriage was to be done in secret however, to avoid public scandal. Some fifteen years earlier, in a letter to the Saxon Chancellor Gregor Brück, Luther stated that he could not "forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture." ("Ego sane fateor, me non posse prohibere, si quis plures velit uxores ducere, nec repugnat sacris literis.").

"On February 14, 1650, the parliament at Nürnberg decreed that, because so many men were killed during the Thirty Years’ War, the churches for the following ten years could not admit any man under the age of 60 into a monastery. Priests and ministers not bound by any monastery were allowed to marry. Lastly, the decree stated that every man was allowed to marry up to ten women. The men were admonished to behave honorably, provide for their wives properly, and prevent animosity among them."

It is worth noting that 75% of the wifes of the Prophet Muhammad were widows. When waging a continous holy war (Jihad) polygamy and especially the practise of marrying widows of slain warries is a good strategy to keep up prodyction of new warriers.

The trend towards frequent divorce and remarriage is sometimes referred to as 'serial polygamy'. In contrast, others may refer to this as 'serial monogamy', since it is a series of monogamous relationships. The first term highlights the multiplicity of marriages throughout the life-cycle, the second the non-simultaneous nature of these marriages.

I see no moral problem in polygamy, polyandry or group marriage as long as such unions are based upon free choise of the participants and laws regulating the responsibility for children in case of divorse. In the West most people but probably more women than men will prefer a traditional monogame marriage.

According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry. At the same time, even within societies which allow polygyny, the actual practice of polygyny occurs relatively rarely. There are exceptions: in Senegal, for example, nearly 47 percent of marriages are multiple.

The purpose of Muslim polygamy is to overwhelm the non Muslim world with Muslims.....

Both forms of marriage (polygamy and monogamy)are based in biology. The practice of either depends on what is the biological balance of males and females in human society t any given time. If the death rate (for whatever reason) is high among males very high, polygamy will be practiced in the society.

If the relative numbers of males and females in a society become about equal, polygamy will likely be practiced only among the wealthy who can afford it (and they may not be the smartest and strongest), or among parasites who pass on the costs of their off-spring to the workers-wealth-produces (who are usually the smartest) in society. Polygamy is unsound (especially if the parasites are allowed to practice it) in a society where the relative numbers of men and women are about equal.

Polygamy is practiced, as a biological necessity, whenever the death rate among males is high. Even the Bible recognizes biology and natural law in the matter. (Religion "blesses" natural law in the matter of marriage.)

There is no basis in natural law for polygamy in a society in which the relative numbers of men and women are equal in a society. In a society where there is a relative equality of males and females (in numbers) the practice is biologically unsound.

"In the West most people but probably more women than men will prefer a traditional monogame marriage. "

I doubt that men would like true polygamy either - that their wives would have other partners and that they may not know (without modern genetic tests) which of her children are really his....

Polygamy cannot exist as long as it is allowed only for one sex.

The idea is for human societies is to evolve towards the higher and better model. So far a monogamous marriage appears to be the one that yields the best results.

Does the bitch explain to the bride-to-be that in this country she also has the right to divorce the bum if he decides to turn bigamist? Does she explain to the shmuck that, contrary to what the Krayon teaches, he has no right whatsoever to beat her?

I got home from work and the first things I was hit with were the testimony of that Egyptian official that Obummah said he's a Muslim and the PC freaks at PayPal calling Pam a criminal and cancelling Atlas's account. So, if I've got this straight, the president of the country I live in is an agent of a hostile foreign power (the ummah) and the account I use for my eBay transactions just called me, by extension, because I read Atlas, a violent criminal racist.

So forgive me when I say that if I still lived in New York and could find Miss Daisy Khan I would horsewhip her sorry Muslim ass from the Battery clear up to the Bronx.

Oh, and I have news for "Mona". I've been divorced since 1981. If anyone "looks down" on me they should be living in some Muslim backwater shithole of a country, not in this one. Oh, and your "husband" could be arrested for bigamy because A BIGAMIST IS WHAT HE IS UNDER OUR LAW AND YOUR SHARIA "LAW" DOES NOT APPLY.

Oooops, would that sound too "violent" to PayPal?

Monogamy when combined with free mate-choice for both males and females, and a socio-cultural emphasis on out-breeding - that is, first-cousin marriage rather than being promoted is generally avoided - tends over time to promote the greatest genetic diversity...because it allows most males who are half-way presentable, to find a mate. That way, over time - and I mean a looong time- you perpetuate the maximum number of male as well as female gene-lines.

And so far as I can see, the more genetically diverse a population is, the more resilient and adaptable it will be.

Any polygynous society, if its saner monogamous neighbours can contain it and prevent it from 'stealing' genetic diversity by raiding and stealing their women, or for that matter, their young boys, will become, over time, steadily less and less genetically diverse, even if it *doesn't* obsessively practise cousin marriage as most Islamic societies seem to do; for in each successive generation the majority of males will be unable to reproduce and will thus fail to perpetuate their gene-lines.

And if ipsofacto thinks that polygyny, concubine-keeping, etc., is just as likely to promote human happiness and wellbeing, as monogamy (whether lifelong or 'serial') he should think again. Just because women in polygynous societies put up with it, and some seem to promote it, doesn't mean it's objectively. psychologically good for them, or their children, or even for the men involved. I recall reading a news story, not so long ago, about a woman in Kuwait, who **set fire to the wedding tent** in which her husband was celebrating his marriage to his second wife. I'd like to know just how many second/ third/ fourth wives - and slave-concubines, and maids, etc. - get murdered, or falsely accused of 'adultery' by wife # 1, in order to get rid of them; and vice versa. Betcha it's more than we ever hear about.

Islam: Polygamy today....

.... Slavery tomorrow.

(Don't forget that slavery is also a fundamental tenet of Islam. Don't be surprised to see slavery being revived in the next few years.)

If Polygamy marriage wasnot nauture there wouild needed to be any law against. There where men who polygamy marriage in america before Islam grew into it number today, they where christian men who have touble haveing monogame marriage decide to marry wifes in different state. After the Thirthly year wear in the Holy Roman Empire polygamy was still against the law the Emporous told the law enforcement guy not to enforce the law. I than flavor of ending the law against polygamy marraige as long as than religion approval of just marriage is met.

Somebody's been hittin' the sauce again.

OT in the world of Submission and Domination it's usually the victim who wants to go further.
Nasty old islam knows the terrain and all the short cuts.

Of course, he can still get married for
"an hour" when the urge strikes.
Can women? Hahahaha.

Mary, nikah mut'ah as you describe is only considered "lawful" to the Shi'a. Absolutely no Sunni madhab accepts this as being lawful.

I discussed plural marriage with my wife before our nikah. It was something that seemed very alien to me, a westerner, and we decided against it in favor of monogamy. It should be noted that the Qur'an and numerous hadith suggest that monogamy is best for those who can not appropriately care for each wife.

Still, while Islam allows for this kind of marriage contract, the law in the United States clearly does not. Daisy Khan and other leaders of our community should not be encouraging the Muslims to engage in plural marriage when monogamy is clearly mentioned as lawful and good. If they wish to make a case for plural marriage in the fashion that some non-LDS Mormon sects have in the past, I think that is acceptable. Afterall, we are a nation that is fast closing in on allowing gay marriage so I do not believe that plural marriage will be considered a "long shot" for much longer.

DefenderofIslam sez..

"I than flavor of ending the law against polygamy marraige as long as than religion approval of just marriage is met."

...wink...wink...but only for Muslim men ....Right?....

last I heard...Islam does not allow women to have multiple husbands....

being fair is Un-Islamic....

"They became extinct because they were unable or unwilling to defend themselves against more succesful and aggressive non-polyandrous non-matriarchical societies period. "

Being unable to defend themselves and unwilling to be an aggressor themselves are two different things. And for your information, there are quite a few tribal populations even today that follow the true polygamy pattern (men with multiple wives as well as women with multiple husbands). There are quite a few villages in Northern India that follow polyandry that are quite "successful" and peaceful. (And the number 4 is incorrect . Most of the early tribal cultures were matriarchical. They did not become extinct but simply evolved and adopted a monogamous pattern )

"Isn`t that exactly what the West has done for the past 60+ years, if not in name then in reality by the feminisation and matriarchicalisation of our societies? "

Well, in the last 100 years West has advanced in various fields. We are the ones that have put a man on the moon, not islamic societies.We are still the most powerful. Think about that before you moan about the "feminization" of Western societies.

"It is exactly because Islam produces male dominated aggressive polygamious societies and the West now produces feminist, matriarchical or pseodo polyandrous peaceful democratic societies that we are at risk loosing out to Islam for the first time in more than 500 years. "

Don't blame matriarchy or feminization of society for a PC culture. Where have we lost to islamic societies ? We have not lost and will never lose. Islam is going through its final bloody stage before extinction.

"I don´t think violent societies are better (morally) than pacifist or peaceful societies. On the contrary. But because people are as they are peaceful and open societies are only possible if they have the will and ability to defend themselves – internally and externally. Pacifism in combination with feminisation, matriarchicalisation and pseudo polyandry undermines the ability and will of such societies to take the necessary precausions in defending its peaceful way of life. "

That is your opinion really. You have to judge based on the results. Violent societies are not naturally inclined to advance in fields such as art, music, science etc. So I would say they are a failure and are thus inferior to peaceful and pacifist societies. (By peaceful societies I am saying that they are not natural aggressors. But do not undermine their ability to defend themselves. ).

"We get weaker and Islam get stronger – that´s the end result of the present confrontation."

Stronger where? Where is islam getting stronger exactly? All that is happening is islam is showing how ridiculous it is everyday.

"On the other hand Islam must be doing something right and we something wrong because we have placed ourselves in a no win situation and the Muslims are in a win/win situation and progressing its power and influence on the global scene."

How are they in a win-win situation? What is happening now is that more and more muslims are questioning the lack of human rights in islamic societies and demanding the right to apostate. A little country like Israel is still able to hold the entire muslim nation at bay. Muslims who ruled India for so many years are today among the poorest, least educated.

"I am intriged and fascinated - "admire" is misplaced here - by the success of the Islamic lifeform in the same way as the author of the article"

I don't know what "success" you are talking about. The ability of daisy khan to spout nonsense is not an example of "success". Where have they succeeded and what have they succeeded in - music? Physics? Medical research? Art? Architecture? Archaelogy? What???

"Islam is both brilliant and terrifying at the same time. "

Maybe for you. For me it is a very stupid religion and no more terrifying than any other mind controlling cult. The only reason why it is necessary to fight islam is that islam sets back the progress of every society by a few centuries. For example Persia, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan etc.

"I also explain to them that as a woman, you have certain rights, and as a man, he may one day exercise his right to have a second wife," Khan says.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As a woman you have certain rights,
Like the right to sit home days and nights;
While your husband is screwing
More dames and pursuing
More wives, as tradition recites.

"The second part of it that is being closely related to my own ethics." -- ipso

Hmm, his "own ethics" allows for polygamy. What an ethical fellow, eh? Not.

What a maroon, lol ...

"And, he (Ipso Facto) rudely said to you (dumbledoresarmy):

"So maybe you should think again?"

I think dda is perfectly capable of fighting her own battles without an empty headed backing group. At least she will be able to appreciate that my "rudeness" was a reply to her own:

"And if ipsofacto thinks that polygyny, concubine-keeping, etc., is just as likely to promote human happiness and wellbeing, as monogamy (whether lifelong or 'serial') he should think again."

I replied to this irrational feminist feel-good nonsence by rational arguments and then the "mad-onna" left the stage.

Could someone from the dda backing group please bring her back and let her fight her own battles?