Comment (28)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
Technorati
diggLegalising polygamy for Muslims
Polygamy is a consensual arrangement among adults, says an Australian Muslim leader, so what can the West have against it?
An Australian Islamic leader has announced that polygamous marriages should be recognised by the Australian government. Keysar Trad from the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia said that polygamous relationships in the Muslim community should be legalised, because this would make things safer for Muslim women.
"If this woman has wilfully chosen to enter into this relationship and make a lifelong commitment to this person to be married, it [polygamy] shouldn't matter,” said Mr Trad. “If it was a business and the business had four partners we'd recognise that, but why don't we recognise it when it comes to consensual relationships amongst adults?" His thoughts were echoed by Sheikh Khalil Chami of the Islamic Welfare Centre in Sydney who also said polygamous marriages should be recognised in Australia.
This raises what many consider to be the two major assaults on the Judeo-Christian West today: from without, the push for sharia law; from within, the push to redefine the institution of marriage. Both are major areas of concern, and both must be firmly resisted.
All true Muslims want to see the rule of Allah spread throughout the earth, and want all infidels to submit to his laws. And bit by bit we see the encroachment of sharia law in Western nations. We even have Christian leaders such as the Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams saying that at least partial recognition of sharia in countries like the UK is inevitable.
Increasingly, Western societies are ceding freedoms in order to placate Muslim minorities. And given the fact that Muslims tend to have larger families than non-Muslims, many are predicting that Muslim majorities will rule in many Western nations before the century is out. Indeed, one recent headline put it this way: "Britain to be an Islamic State by 2038".
It is quite reasonable, then, to see the move to legalise Muslim polygamy as part of the greater spread of Islam throughout the Western world. At the moment it does not look as though there is much to stop it gaining momentum.
Turning to the West’s internal culture war, for years we have been battling various attacks on the institution of marriage. When there was debate over allowing de facto relationships to have similar status to married couples, pro-family forces warned this would be the thin end of the wedge, and that the next thing would be demands for same-sex relationship recognition. Of course they were laughed out of court.
And when same-sex unions were recognised, pro-family forces said the next logical step will be to legalise polygamy. We too were ridiculed and mocked for suggesting such things. But one simply has to google the word “polyamory” to see that this is no laughing matter.
There are voices all over the world – including those of academics, lawyers and other elites – calling for the recognition of group love and/or group marriage. Indeed, if we accept the logic of same-sex marriage, then the logic of polygamy is identical.
Both involve adults freely entering into a sexual relationship. These are consensual unions, the apologists will argue, and hurting no one else. So why not? The case for polygamy is based on the very same premises as the case for same-sex marriage. And if Muslims are now arguing for it, it seems that it is just a matter of time before the entire institution of heterosexual marriage is cast onto the scrap-heap of history.
Muslim men today in Australia have up to four wives, as they are allowed in the Koran. Many of these extra wives are already getting government (that is, taxpayer funded) benefits, especially in the Sydney area. Muslim men think this is all fine. One newspaper account says this: "Mr Trad's mother was a third wife in a polygamous relationship overseas and he said the women had admiration and respect for each other and supported each other." Most women in polygamous affairs would beg to differ.
Most Muslim women despise such arrangements, and usually there is one woman that is singled out for special treatment by the husband, while the other three languish. It is this inequality of love and affection which makes polygamy so miserable for the majority of women involved in it. Jealousy, tensions and strife are common in such scenarios.
On the radio I heard a Muslim defending polygamy. He said he wanted to enter into a relationship with a woman (although he was already married) and he thought the right thing would be to marry this other woman. But what about doing the right thing by his wife? How does she feel that his love is "shared" among many? Why not look after her rights and interests?
Polygamy is all about the lusts of the males, not the wellbeing of the females. Right now polygamy is illegal in Australia. To legalise it will not only set in cement the misery many Muslim women already experience, but it will be a further nail in the coffin of heterosexual marriage, and the near universal principle of one man, one woman for life.
It remains to be seen how well received this recommendation will be. Many politicians are already overly sensitive to, and worried about, Muslim feelings. Thus many might be tempted to go along with this idea. And the fact of political correctness, along with the homosexual war on marriage, will simply add more pressure for legalised polygamy to gain further currency amongst our ruling elites.
The war against marriage has just got more intense. What is needed more than ever are leaders with common sense, guts and principle to make a stand before it is too late. Whether such leaders still exist is the question of the hour.
Bill Muehlenberg is the Secretary of the Family Council of Victoria, Australia, and a lecturer in ethics at several Melbourne theological colleges.
TB and Darren, your both avoiding my question so I will say it differently. Do you believe that male dominance should be, by law, a part of marriage.
David, You seem to be using some sort of convoluted logic to water down my point. That the stronger male whose female(wife)is carrying thier child should protect and care for her makes sense biologically and societally, oh, and Bibically.
This has absolutely nothing to do with(justifying I presume you mean) stronger men being able to dominate weaker ones.
You seem to want to deem everyone who disagrees with you as having some type of Atilla the Hun mentality.
I don`t believe the stronger have a right to dominate any more than the rich or well connected.
Dave: Do you believe that marriage should be structured so that the man is the final arbiter?
No but I don’t see what this has to do with polygamy vis a vis monogamy or cohabitation. It seems that the in all these relationships, the person who wants to end the relationship is the final arbiter.
Dave: Of course inequality is an unavoidable part of life but the question is, Do you think male dominant inequality should be institutionalized in marriage? I hope that’s clear.
Marriage actually reduces the inequality between a man and a woman in a reproductive relationship. Marriage enables a mother and child to make more demands on a man than in reproductive relationships outside a marriage. Women have always been at a disadvantage in a sexual relationship with a man. Marriage compensates some. Here is how I would rank the power of a woman in conjugal relationships:
Monogamous marriage> polygamous marriage> unmarried cohabitation> unmarried polygyny > adulterous mistress > polyandry
Compared to the currently legal alternatives I don’t see polygamy as any worse.
Darren said: “It`s hard labor(pun intended) does this make them losers David? Does this make them unequal?”
If your argument held, then physically stronger men would should be able to dominate weaker ones. Is that your belief?
Polygamy is the next step in “gay rights” movement. After all “bi-sexuality” is supposed to be an “orientation” just like “homosexuality”. If a “bi” male wants to “marry” another “bi” male and a woman, and they were all happy with the setup, how can we legally say no? There you are, de-facto polygamy!
Marriage is a legal matter, therefore a public,not private matter, therefore everyone`s business.
Men are quite simply the stronger sex. Women bear and give birth to children and are equipped to feed them for some time.
It`s hard labor(pun intended) does this make them losers David? Does this make them unequal?
The state of Utah was not allowed to be a member of the United States until the Mormon dominated state disallowed polygamy.The stand that must be taken today by Western society will be so much harder. As was pointed put in the article we have demands for cultural “equality” and a dismissal of the importance of the reproductive sysytem in favor sexual satisfaction.
Go ahead, keep bickering about equality between same-sex partners, etc, yada, yada, yada. If we let these muslim infidels succeed in colonizing our land then none of these issues would matter in the end. They will surely succeed in pulling the carpet under our feet as they are doing in europe.
TB, do you believe that marriage should be structured so that the man is the final arbiter? Of course inequality is an unavoidable part of life but the question is, do you think male dominant inequality should be institutionalized in marriage? I hope that’s clear.
Dave’s question: Do you accept that a marriage should be between equals?
Equal how? Class? Age? Wealth? Intelligence? Attractiveness? Passion? Love? Power? Vulnerability? Etc…
Your question reminds me of the old movies where the rich men would propose to the maid. Meanwhile, the man’s mother is horrified and warns him of impending disaster because the maid is “not his equal.”
Given that many marriages (and most other relationships) contain many areas of inequality, I don’t see inequality as a deal breaker.
Sorry for the long winded answer. However, with-out further clarification, I would say, no.
TB said: “How? Are women no longer adults or lose their human agency if the consent to an arrangement that you disagree with?”
People can consent to anything they like. In the polygamous marriages in this world, women are the underdogs.
TB said: “So now gay marriage is the ideal marriage because of perfect metaphysical equality.”
No, TB, I said that marriage on an equal footing is the ideal. Do you accept that a marriage should be between equals?
“If gay marriage is a threat to ‘traditional’ marriage it is only because it posits marriage as a union or two equal people. Equality in marriage is something that many Christians are still unwilling to accept”
So now gay marriage is the ideal marriage because of perfect metaphysical equality.
Orwellian.
“In a polygamous marriage ‘consent’ loses it’s meaning.”
How? Are women no longer adults or lose their human agency if the consent to an arrangement that you disagree with?
Bill Muehlenberg wrote: “There are voices all over the world – including those of academics, lawyers and other elites – calling for the recognition of group love and/or group marriage. Indeed, if we accept the logic of same-sex marriage, then the logic of polygamy is identical.”
In a polygamous marriage ‘consent’ loses it’s meaning. One needs only to look at examples of polygamy around the world to see how it usually works out. Women are the losers. Even in the few examples where one woman is shared by more than one man, as was once the case in traditional Eskimo groups, women were just property. First born girls, for instance, were routinely put on the ice to freeze. As in present day China, women were not valued except in their absence. To equate gay marriage with polygamy is a stretch. sometimes, I think, a gratuitous stretch. Mutual, equal consent is the cornerstone of gay marriage and, in a better world, would be the cornerstone of heterosexual marriage as well. Fundamentalist Christian groups in America make it clear that they believe women should be subservient to men. The structure of the Catholic Church illustrates the same belief.In most of the Muslim world, the treatment of women (and homosexuals) is nothing short of appalling. It reminds one of the well established link between Misogyny and Homophobia. Gay rights are a subset of women’s rights in that they threaten the dominant role of masculinity. If gay marriage is a threat to ‘traditional’ marriage it is only because it posits marriage as a union or two equal people. Equality in marriage is something that many Christians are still unwilling to accept.
Talking about marriage Mr Trad, the Muslim leader, says “why don’t we recognise it when it comes to consensual relationships amongst adults?” Good one Mr. Trad but would you recommend this for all sorts of combinations or only this one because it suits you? Would you welcome in your community two men and one woman who consent to live together? I believe that no matter how people live together marriage should only be between one man and one woman. I agree with Rudd’s Labor Party’s policy which states exactly that.
Page 2 of 2 : < 1 2