Bountiful is an interesting story. I’ve always found the double-standards to be quite silly, but considering that their leaders are facing jail-time, I can’t say they’re being treated that well either.

I don’t think faith-based arbitration is a can of worms we’re ready to open, even if they did become allowed. Precisely because we’re not organized enough amongst ourselves to pick leaders that we can agree on, and as you said, we have too many differences amongst ourselves to make it work. I don’t see it working, and I think we’d make ourselves look foolish and silly if we tried.

There is certainly more than one double standard in operation here. Am I the only one who ses it? What about polyandry? Canada is essentially a Western society, and women in western societies have achieved a high degree of equality. In fact most Western societies consider women the equals of men in law, even if in practice, the law and society still often fall short of that ideal.

Still, if polugyny were to be legalized in Canada, polyandry would soon have to receive the same recognition. Most polygamy is part of religious practice, of course, and since almost all modern religions are based on patriarchy and male dominance, you might find that the idea of a woman having more than one husband would be – at least – the equal in controversy to gay marriage.

But here is another problem that isn’t always taken into consideration – especially when men contemplate the delights of ‘owning’ more than one woman: the resultant shortage of males. It’s a huge problem among the FLDS, who have been leaving their escess boys on deserted highways for years, so that the more powerful, older men who collect dozens of wives won’t have to compete with the more interesting young males. The ratio of male births to female births is about equal. So if some men have more than one wife – even only 4 wives – some men will have none. (Leaving out concubinage, that is, which seems to be OK within Islam as well).

Of course some of the ‘leftover’ men might be gay, and some completely uniinterested in sex with anyone at all. But the majority probably don’t fall into either of those categories, so in a democratic society, I should think that a certain amount of discontent with the injustice of plural marriage would result.

And in FLDS towns, of course, nothing remotely like democracy or equality is extant at all. So the young girls who are assigned to various men – often much older men, have no say in their lives, and generally submit. But unless Canadian society undergoes a reversal of women’s equality, most women raised in a free society won’t submit – and no law can make them.

However, go ahead and open that can of worms. All of these ancient notions need radical reconsideration.

I was commenting on the ‘double standards’ that someone mentioned. One hundred years ago, even in Canada or the US, the idea that women might claim equal rights in such a matter as polygamy, would have been silly, to say the least. And probably most men who approve of polygamy aren’t thinking of that aspect even now. But I assure you it would arise.

“Most polygamy is part of religious practice”

Wouldn’t you describe men/ women with multiple sexual partners at one time to be a type of polygamy? When a man gets a mistress, or a woman seeks pleasure with someone other than her husband (or their long-term partners), doesn’t that count as polygamy of sorts?
When I see what’s common today, I see God’s wisdom in allowing polygyny as it exists within the Shariah: something permitted, but with MANY rules and restrictions.

For example, limiting it to 4 wives, and with the financial obligations that come with them (each woman must be given housing and provision of equal value, or at least that which she’s pleased with within reasonable limits), would mean that men would more likely *not* marry more than one (or two)… and since Muslim women have the CHOICE to enter such a marriage or not (they aren’t “collected” the way FLDS does it), then again I’m sure the amount of polygamous marriages will remain pretty low.

And as Amad pointed out, nobody here is actually advocating legalization of polygyny; just exploring the hypothetical situation.

Thank you for comment, Mollyfurie, I enjoyed reading it! :)

Hi Mollyfurie,

Are you atheist? Because the other day, I was thinking about a question I would like to ask an atheist, and I live in a small, conservative town where I’m still relatively new…so the internet seems to be my next best option.

If not, it’s cool. Atheist websites and explanations just use too many big words…lol.

Uhm, a *lot* of ignorance here. First, the Mormon church no longer recognizes polygamy and excommunicates anyone who practices it.

Second, “and since Muslim women have the CHOICE to enter such a marriage or not” Mouse, don’t pee on my head and tell me it’s raining, ‘K? Moslem women are treated no better than chattel.
(Insult to Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) removed – MuslimMatters staff)

Hello Nazia

I’ve tried to answer your question twice, but it isn’t showing up on the site. I’m not an atheist. I don’t think any human can know god and believe religion is a method of controlling others, especially women, gaining power and getting money. Many of my best friends are atheistsm tho’ and I might be able to answer your question. IF my comments are permitted to be published on this board.

I contend that patriarchy is the norm among all the world’s religions

Except Christianity. Yannow the whole “Mary mother of God” thing?

And Shinto, where many of the Gods are Goddesses

And Hinduism

Almost all religions incorporate the feminine into the narrative. Except [Islam] (latter part of sentence removed by MM staff)

Hi Mollyfurie,

Thanks for trying to respond quickly. I think you should be able to answer my question…if there is an answer. How does an atheist feel about the injustice in the world? Like, a person who constantly oppresses others without any consequences and dies in a state of luxury without any question. What is your opinion or belief about this subject?

Thanks in advance.

Yep, we now have our token LGF zombie trolling the comments section!

“I’ve read the Koran and other Moslem works”
Riiiiiiiight. So what do you say about the Qur’anic verses I listed above?

“but you are in *my* country”
I’m a Canadian through and through… it’s the only home I know. I cheer for my hockey team, proudly pour maple syrup onto almost everything (including carrot soup!), and have visited a Parliament building without blowing it up.
How is it any more YOUR country than it is mine?

O Bigotry, how I hate it when you rear your ugly head.

On somewhat of a tangent: I’ve recently been wondering about these kind of communities and how they are left to function unchecked. I mean, are there any kind of state institutions (police, local gov’t, etc.) to oversee or tend to them?

They must pay taxes and what not…are polling sections set up at election time?

Sorry if this is somewhat off topic, but if anyone knows, fill me in :)

In answer to Nazia’s question. Injustice is always wrong, whether or not there is a god or a heaven or a hell. The existence of injustice certainly doesn’t prove that there is a god. Some people use exactly the opposite argument – the terrible things that happen in the world prove that there IS no god. But as Marcus Aurelius – a Stoic pagan emperor – noted, whether there are gods or not, we owe each other a duty of kindness and cooperation.

It is true that there is some recognition of ‘the feminine’ in many , if not all, religions. They may be left over from an earlier time, when, some say, god was considered to be a woman. A mother goddess. But that doesn’ mean human women are treated well in those religions where there are goddesses. In some versions of the Ramayana, the heroine is killed because she was raped!

Catholicism wasn’t able to stamp out the presence of goddesses in Europe, so it incorporated them. In some ways, that gives women a higher status among Catholic Christians than among protestants. Women, of course, can’t be popes or priests, or cardinals or bishops. Of course they can be nuns, but more impressively, they can be saints – and many popes were no saints, believe me! And women in their convents were educated, so they could be theologians, composers, artists, philosphers, scientists – all of the pursuits that were effectively forbidden them in secular life.

Many of the statues of Mary were originally statues of Ceres or some other goddess – so you will see statues of her holding a sheaf of wheat, or with stars around her head, like Isis.

In the Catholic church, brides were not supposed to veil their faces or be ‘given away’ by their fathers because of the implication that the woman was not acting of her own free will. Since marriage is a sacrament in the RC church, it requires consent in order to be valid. (I would not be surprised if lots of marriages were forced on them anyway.)

In the Old Testament women WERE chattel – bought, sold, traded, stolen, and even executed on a bet with the deity – see Jephthah’s daughter.

For its time and place, Islam probably was an improvement. But I have spoken to Muslims about this, and they admit that a woman’s testimony is only worth half as much as a man’s in such countries as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. And to balance out Sati, there are honor killings throughout the Middle East – in fact, one happened right here in California during the 80s. (Of course there are also informal ‘honor killings’ of women by jealous husbands, etc. everywhere.)

In general, women are not liberated by religion, but by their own efforts.

“I’ve recently been wondering about these kind of communities and how they are left to function unchecked. I mean, are there any kind of state institutions (police, local gov’t, etc.) to oversee or tend to them?”

If you read the Vancouver Sun’s reports, you’ll find that, interestingly, what was going on in Bountiful was well known – the problem is that no one really wanted to do anything about it because of the “sensitivity” of the issue.

“For its time and place, Islam probably was an improvement. But I have spoken to Muslims about this, and they admit that a woman’s testimony is only worth half as much as a man’s in such countries as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. And to balance out Sati, there are honor killings throughout the Middle East – in fact, one happened right here in California during the 80s. (Of course there are also informal ‘honor killings’ of women by jealous husbands, etc. everywhere.)”

mollufurie: I just wanted say about this part of your comment that Sati is a ‘religious’ act, which can be found in the holy book of Hinduism. However, honor-killing is more of a ‘cultural’ thing and has obviously nothing to do with Islam.

And you are right about women being killed/abused everywhere, as you can see here:

“On average, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in this country every day. In 2000, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner.”
http://www.endabuse.org/resources/facts/

But whatever happens elsewhere is never associated with the religion of that particular country, however and unfortunately whatever happens in Middle-easter countries or Pakistan always puts Islam to trial although it may have nothing to do with Islam!

Well Nazia I will try again briefly. Atheists are mostly humanists, in my experience, and not at all in favor of injustice. How they fight it or express their disapproval is probably as individual as the ways in which religious people do.

You’ll have to explain Akismet and his/her/its temper to me.

a spam catcher? How disappointing! I thought it had something to do with ‘kismet.’ Fate, I mean – only THIS fate is capricious.

Well it is very difficult.
You have to make sure you are a positive change agent. You have to promote the the ideas of freedom, civil right, freedom of speech, and press. You have to understand the way the political and media world work.
Check out my website and listen to my radio show on Islam. I am working on the concepts right now.
Use audio video, viral content, liberal arts.
It is difficult!
You have to prove yourself with education or experience, so that you are not branded as a turncoat and find yourself in an orange jumpsuit in Cuba!
http://www.HotConflict.com

Islam is the middle ground

Moiez @ 1:45 – I think this comment was meant for another thread (Canada: A Nation of Bigots? or the Holy Land Foundation post?)… should we move it there?

And I definitely agree w/ you about the middle ground being “lost” – it seems that most people get carried away by the emotional connotations of a thing (e.g. polygamy) rather than thinking about the practical aspect of it (legalizing it would help protect the second/ third/ fourth wives and their children).

Oh okay…
Nah, it’s all right – that’s what makes blogs so special! Randomness is welcome here at MuslimMatters, especially at my posts :D

@ Mollyfurie:
The examples you give are all of Muslims doing things in the name of Islam, which are not neccessarily Islamic (or not done in an Islamically correct manner).

Just as the justice system of a secular goverment can be twisted and manipulated, so too are the justice systems of theocracies.

Sadly, a lot of times practices are carried out which are given the name of Islam but which are the results of CULTURE (e.g. honour killings).

Oh and the cousin marriage thing. It is legal for first cousins to marry in many states in the US. However, what has been going on in the FLDS is unique. EVERYONE is descended from TWO guys there. And few, if any, people have ever converted and joined the FLDS. It’s tyrannical, for one reason. So first cousins have been marrying first cousins for generations. The kids there look like clones. And now it turns out that a birth defect so rare in the rest of the world that there were only 5 or 10 known victims is quite common in this very small community.

Unlike Islam, which requires a man to support his wives,, the FLDS has them all living on welfare and food stamps and medical aid to the poor. The government is unwilling to let them starve, so it looks the other way while these welfare queens (I mean the men) rob them blind. And their reckless, dangerous breeding practices are being subsidized by taxpayers who would NEVER approve of such a lifestyle, and would sooner have all the men in jail. And meanwhile, the men drive around in big new cars, while the women and children are living in dire poverty.

Perhaps it is safe to marry a first cousin in one generation – and then, maybe several generations later. But even an animal breeder knows that some fresh genetic stock is important.

But Saleem, these are Western nations. They may agree to leave polygamists alone – to look the other way, but most Western women would prefer to support themselves and live alone than share a husband! The sexual experimentation that is now the norm for young adults of both sexes in the West, is a form of advanced dating – whether anyone approves of it or not. And it has exploded quite a number of myths. For one, the myth of superior male sexuality. But marriage is still another matter and most young people expect fidelity from their spouses when they do marry.

Big Love is a situation comedy, albeit with a highly unusual situation, and most fundamentalist LDS people are shocked by the sexual part of Big Love. They are quite straightlaced and believe sex is for procreation – which they tend to do in vast numbers.

Finally, the h**l with alpha males! Look around. Who starts the wars? Who lives like kings while others starve? This leftover from ape society should just go out for sports – preferably sports that give them a chance to knock each other off – and PLEASE not run the world!

You got the wrong guy Molly
I might sound religious and be a person who gives sermons in the community but I was raised in a very “healthy” muslim home

My dad is from India and he married a British Christian woman. My mom converted.
My father wanted me to study and I was the one who wanted desperately to get married.

Islam encourages early marriage because we dont date or have the extramarital situations that are so common in the west.

Growing up here is more difficult because we are eXposed to a lot!

My father did support me in everything I have done
Allah blessed me with amazing parent.

“Live Alone” who wants that Molly?

I got the wife first and never regretted it.
I just finished law school a year ago, my wife is in her third year of dental school and I have 5 kids…I think…
there are a lot of them, I lose count!
anyway…the sunnah is there for a reason.
It is important for Muslim to talk about these issues in the same way the Christian Right talk about the importance of family values.
Louise Farakhan just talked to the Nation about the importance of two parent homes.
Strong Family values is the key in Islam

I was just curious. Worse than that, Saleem, I assumed you were a woman! I don’t want to live alone – in fact, I never have. I followed a fairly old-fashioned model in my youth – an early marriage, two kids, a house in the suburbs. In my case it was a misery and I left the marriage after 16 years. I never caught up on the education I missed however. I love family though. I have 6 grandchildren.

“In my case it was a misery”

Personally, I think that since every individual is different, we can’t really follow the exact same model when it comes to such things as marriage, education, etc.

There are Muslims for whom marriage is something eagerly anticipated and looked forward to, some who would prefer to live a while on their own before marriage, some who love marriage but don’t want kids (got a couple of these people in my family, lol), some who actually not want to get married at all (a lot fewer of these, though! ;) ).

In the end, as Muslims we have certain obligations that we *must* fulfill, and other things that are optional (while extremely beneficial and highly recommended). Marriage is something which can be either an obligation (when staying away from it means getting drawn into fornication), or optional (when there is no real danger)… and polygyny is one of those things which is most certainly optional, and can only be practiced when certain rules and regulations are followed.

Before you can have two wives, you’ll have to persuade two women to share your affections. This will get more and more difficult as time goes by – especially when women are living in the west.

As for many children – I was raised next door to my cousins – 8 kids – and was very much part of that family as well as of my own. But I am a socially conscious person, and early on decided that I would not contribute to global overpopulation. Five million kids starve to death every year. No, they don’t live here in California or Canada, but there is no doubt in my mind that the pressure on food and water supplies by affluent cultures contributes to the problem. While there are always exceptions (especially when a couple can afford many kids) in general, the birth rate goes down where women receive an education. Lots of racists like to point out that the Mexican families coming over the border always seem to have a lot of kids. But this I know: their daughters will assume the American norm – 2-point-something kids. So as much as I love a big family, I wouldn’t ever advise anyone to have one. Soon enough, the human race will be fighting for its life – and our dear, monstrous US military establishment predicts wars over water and arable land. Unfortunately, they are preparing to win those wars, rather than working on plans to help the rest of the world live better, and teaching Americans how wo live more simply.

“In Canada, any law that legalizes plural marriage will make it possible for women to have more than one husband. And I wonder how you will deal with that?”

Probably the same way we’ve dealt with/ felt about gay marriage: Islamically, we strongly disagree with it, but since Canada isn’t an Islamic state, we can’t really do anything about it.

Yes, I’ve heard about FGM in a few Arab countries – but it’s almost always done amongst the lower classes, the Bedouin, those who cling to their culture.
As Amad said, there is NOTHING in Islam that condones FGM… in fact, it’s forbidden in Islam.
The practice of female circumcision (to be differentiated from genital mutilation) is something that the Prophet (saw) permitted so long as it did not harm the woman in any major way.

Moiez, please be careful when you talk about female circumcision… there’s a difference between the sunnah-style female circumcision, and what’s referred to as FGM – female genital mutilation, which is totally haraam.

@ Dawud – sorry, your comment got buried pretty fast and I didn’t notice it!
Which issue of Maclean’s was the article in? I’ll try to look it up, insha’Allah…

Actually, contrary to popular belief promoted by CSI and other such TV shows, DNA testing is still not precise at all times. (Aside: many of the testing such as gun-powder residue testing, fire scene re-tracing, etc. are flawed scientifically and have been proven to abduct the wrong people as criminals. I watched this documentary on Discovery once where they documented such these cases).

It’s very, very high probability that the DNA results are correct (like 96% or something), but its not spot-on. So the issue of the “who’s-the-dad” is still unresolved. We can’t really toss a coin to decide the dad, can we?

Also, what happens if a woman has multiple husbands and she is having her period and whatnot? Are the men to sit around and twiddle their thumbs while she gets done, or do we now propose (for the first time in human history) a harmonious many-to-many relationship? I love many-to-many relationships, but only when I’m designing software. This is real life, not software design!!

As for high maintenance woman, they can write a clause in their marriage contract that they want the man to not marry another woman (as far as I know, this is Islamically acceptable), and if he does, the marriage is over.

Moreover, the scarcely-mentioned pre-requisite for the multiple wife option is that the man has to treat all of his wives fairly (of course, he’d be naturally inclined to one over other, but fair treatment is still required in terms of time, money, etc. etc.). If the guy knows that the woman is high maintenance, surely he will be able to gauge this and realize that one is enough for me, no?

Lastly (and perhaps most importantly), one needs to realize that the multiple wife option is just that: an option. In the past, it was a very common and many men exercised this option. In our times, its not. No big deal, it’s not like you have to marry 4 women to be a good Muslim! It’s a great option to have since it solves so many societal problems, but by no means is this a requirement!

Men and women are different physically and physiologically (but not spiritually). Try equating two dissimilar types, and you get a type mismatch error. Can someone please inform our friends at the feminist movement of this? This is the root cause of all this “Why-not-women?” syndrome.

Now..now people.
You know it hate it when we start talking about what a man might desire and what a woman might desire.
That is never really the basis for how we as Muslims think of things.
This is especially to Molly. When we say we are Muslim we accept that we have submitted to the will of Allah. And that means we leave it up to the wisdom of Allah to proscribe the law. In Islam we believe that the religion is completed and perfected. That means that all of these issues must have already been settled. As well as the reasons given. In the case of sexual desire we see a lot of people confusing the debate with polygamy adulterty and even homosexuality.
Sometimes Muslims in the west get caught in the natural desire argument and that even compromises their position on the homosexual nature nurture argument.
The desire of a person whether male or female is not the issue. The point is what has Allah proscribed as the best way to have a healthy society at large. Islam is a religion for all time and all places. Not a history/ future or East /West argument. The best answer for the world is the middle ground as we discussed earlier.
That middle ground is called islam.
The healthiest relationship is where a woman is with one man. That is the best situation for her as the way she was created. For her to be with one man. From a social point of view. As well as the nature of the woman to be cared for and protected. To have someone wit her, a companion. That is her nature. It has nothing to do with her intelligence or ability to function in society, or even her sexual desires.
A man may lust after many women or even other men and islam does not alloy him to follow his desires. Nor are the desires of a woman to be used for a determination.
When it comes to men, that need to have one single solitary partner is not there. It is not an emotional need, for security with men. We have a hard time here in the west just adjusting to gender roles. There is a big backlash as we have changed the nature of our society. Women only started going to work because of the last war and the amount of sacrifice by the men while fighting. That affected our culture in the US.
Now women are finding more and more ways to stay home, with different forms of leave to raise their kids…
anyway I am rambling…
my point is that we dont follow the islamic system because it is compatible with our animalistic sexual desires, but because this is the way Allah has told us, as the most healthy for society.
Long explanation with little substance…apologies. It is late.
Peace. Salam

sorry guys I was using FGC and FGM interchangeably my mistake if you guys can edit that in my comment that would be great just change FGM to FGC.

“Also, what happens if a woman has multiple husbands and she is having her period and whatnot?”

Positively antidiluvian! She probably never wants it more – sorry to be crude.

female circumcision, however liimited, accomplishes nothing for health or any other purpose except curbing female sexuality.

I realize that the entire Muslim world can’t be held responsible for the actions of some – but you must face this: the offenders are not a small minority. Governments that permit stoning, that hold girls to be adults as young as 13, that say a woman’s testimony is worth only half of a man’s – try Pakistan, for instance – they are not just a few. Of course it is probable that most Muslims are in the West for the purpose of getting away from such things, but some of those ‘things’ have followed them abroad.

There are also problems in Europe and Australia. In Australia a Muslim leader said than men aren’t responsible for rape, that if ‘meat’ is left uncovered and the cat gets it, it isn’t the cat’s fault! And Europe is having to pass laws against forced marriages, fgm, and other barbarities that they haven’t had to deal with for decades or centuries. And they’ve had to take seriously the complaints of girls who have said that their families were going to kill them – because it happens now. And again, the religious leaders in those countries say that it is the women’s fault, and warn European women against dressing in a way to incite rape.

Do I need to mention that these developments are frightening to Westerners? Perhaps Muslims should be distancing themselves from the impression of female oppression, rather than trying to introduce polgyny into Western nations in which women have long been accustomed to equality.

“…….to function as a couple………” Wouldn’t that be as a triple or quantuple, etc.?

In Canada, isn’t everyone entitled to health benefits quite apart from marital status?

How would you handle inheritance? In California, a spouse is entitled to one-third of the estate (at least). But four thirds seems out of the question, and leaves nothing for the apparent ideal multitude of children. I must say that leaving one’s children nothing does seem to fit into the Western scheme of things these days. Also, in the west, there is a tradition of community property – that means that half of all of a couple’s assets belong to each spouse, regardless of their origin (except those that predated the marriage) – so would these be divided four ways? But if you followed the Utah model, only ONE wife (the first) would be wed in the law – so the others would be legal outsiders, possibly with no claim on the inheritance. Complicated…………………

And here’s a question. What do you tell a man who is unable to find a wife because all the wealthy men (since Islamic rules do say the man must be able to support all his wives) have monopolized the available stock? Of course that is VERY hypothetical. I am sure there are lots of men dreaming of polygyny – perhaps hundreds to every woman who would consent to it.

Amir point is the legally correct way in the west.
You can have civil unions in certain states. This can be done with any form of partner you chose. The freedom to contract is always there. The issue only comes up when dealing with people who have the states make their decision. If you have legal help and plan for all contingencies , then you can define everyones role and legal standing in contract. There can be no way to prevent it. Anyone can contract with anyone regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

There are not a lot of Muslim Lawyers, nor are they thinking on this line so the documents are still being developed. The same can be said after divorce or prenuptial agreements. You can create the contract to be Islamic in the very start. Yet, it would still be legal and binding in courts of law here in the US.
This is America. You dont need to explain yourself to anyone, or provide reasons for why you and another consenting adult are intimate!

Hypothetically, if polygamy is privatized what would be the case if problems were to occur, everything that is privatized eventually has the government step in, which is not a problem but it will get to the point where it becomes more public than private. If that sounds confusing to you as it does to me, and I was the one that typed it, let me know so I can explain a little better, or if someone wants to give it a shot go for it.:)

Moiez, not necessarily. Contracts often have dispute resolution mechanisms in them and, even so, the state could interfere in as much it was enforcing adherence to that contract.

However, I wonder how you would manage it in terms of for example, healthcare for spouses, and the myriad of other private and public benefits that come with “official marriage”? The recognition to function as a couple has to have some sort of official sanction, no?

The ‘benefits’ that married couples get from private organisations are typically not the result of legislation but for other reasons. For example, marketing reasons or because married couples may be less risky. I have no doubt that if people were allowed to contract all forms of civil unions, that these companies would likewise offer benefits to people in these sorts of contracts because it would make good business sense to do so.

Already, some companies and organisations offer discounts or deal favourably with defacto or common-law relationships so this would not be too different.

Of course, privatised marriage contracts that allow polygany and the settling of divorces according to Islamic law has a side-effect that some might not like: that if a man can marry two, three or four women, a woman can also marry two men; or, for that matter, a man can marry another man or two men or two men and a woman; etc

Incest will not be legalized and in fact, may be more strongly legislated AGAINST, due to the astronomical rate of birth defects now being seen in Utah among the FLDS. The care of fumarase deficiency children is too expensive for most people to deal with – so – and especially among the FLDS, where all the women are on welfare (FLDS men don’t have to prove they can support a multitude of wives in order to have them) the State will have to put up the money – and taxpayers are quite likely to revolt at subsidizing reckless breeding.

Work-related health insurance plans wouldn’t cotton to polygamy, because of the doubled risks per insured male worker, but a national health plan would cover anyone regardless of marital status, etc.

some interesting views of divorce as it pertains to Islam:

“Egyptian Women See Divorce as Religious Right

CAIRO (WOMENSENEWS)–As Egyptian women push to eliminate gender bias in divorce laws here, they find themselves entering a struggle over competing visions of Islam.

“We always use Islam now,” says Iman Bibars, director of the Cairo-based Association for the Development and Enhancement of Women, which has long struggled to amend Egypt’s divorce laws.

To make their case, many advocates are advancing a vision of Islam in which men and women enjoy equal rights in all matters, including divorce.

“Men control the subject in a backwards way,” contends Dr. Zeinab Abdel Meguid Radwan, a member of the National Council for Women and a scholar of Islamic philosophy. “This is why there is a big difference between true Islamic Sharia, and what happens in reality.” Sharia is the Islam-derived legal code whose meaning and interpretation vary according to different theological schools. Egypt’s constitution states that Islamic Sharia is the principle source for legislation.

Radwan says the Islamic Sharia reflected in divorce law resulted from men picking those aspects of Sharia that fit their world view.

Under Egyptian law, men have an absolute and unilateral right to divorce. Women, by contrast, must turn to the courts, where they must provide exacting proof of abuse. The decision is left to Egypt’s male-dominated judiciary and decisions can be appealed by husbands wishing to prolong the process.

With approximately 8,000 judges and 14 million pending cases in Egypt, a divorce settlement can take years. While the case slogs through the legal system the woman is left in legal limbo, her husband oftentimes no longer supporting her, and unable to remarry until the case is decided.”

http://www.religiousconsultation.org/News_Tracker/Egyptian_women_see_divorce_as_religious_right.htm

And here is a very odd case – from GERMANY!

” Thursday, March 22, 2007
German Judge Says Woman Can’t Get Divorce, Men Have Right To Beat Their Women

The case seems simply too strange to be true. A 26-year-old mother of two wanted to free herself from what had become a miserable and abusive marriage. The police had even been called to their apartment to separate the two—both of Moroccan origin—after her husband got violent in May 2006. The husband was forced to move out, but the terror continued: Even after they separated, the spurned husband threatened to kill his wife.

A quick divorce seemed to be the only solution—the 26-year-old was unwilling to wait the year between separation and divorce mandated by German law. She hoped that as soon as they were no longer married, her husband would leave her alone. Her lawyer, Barbara Becker-Rojczyk agreed and she filed for immediate divorce with a Frankfurt court last October. They both felt that the domestic violence and death threats easily fulfilled the “hardship” criteria necessary for such an accelerated split.

In January, though, a letter arrived from the judge adjudicating the case. The judge rejected the application for a speedy divorce by referring to a passage in the Koran that some have controversially interpreted to mean that a husband can beat his wife. It’s a supposed right which is the subject of intense debate among Muslim scholars and clerics alike.”The exercise of the right to castigate does not fulfill the hardship criteria as defined by Paragraph 1565 (of German federal law),” the daily Frankfurter Rundschau quoted the judge’s letter as saying. It must be taken into account, the judge argued, that both man and wife have Moroccan backgrounds.”

Yeah, that judge is a nutter. But how many countries that, like Egypt, consider themselves Islamic nations adhering to Shariah law, grant women equal rights in the matter of divorce? Technically, women are equal in Buddhism, too, but it doesn’t work out that way in practice. Or in Christianity much of the time also.

Actually I have read some sizable ‘chunks’ of the Quran (not particularly impressed, by the way), but fairly early in my life, I read the Old Testament, and the New Testament, and I came to the conclusion that neither of them represented anything like the TRUTH – the Truth worthy of the creator of the universe.. I also read some Hindu texts (much more impressive in terms of time and space, btw), and was entranced by Buddhism for a few years. The fact is that none of us know god, and I don’t believe godis knowable by the human race in its present form One of the ways that this is made obvious, is by the actions of Christian nations, Muslim nations, and the Jewish nation. Also the Hindo nation and the Buddhist nations. Secular nations come closes to creating a decent society – and by their fruits ye shall know them, right?

Here is a god big enough to create an infinite universe, with uncounted numbers of galaxies, filled each with billions of stars and star systems, who yet chooses some pitiful tribes on an unimpressive planet circling a lesser, outer star in an unimpressive galaxy to be his/her ‘chosen’ people and to give them a ‘truth’ they can actually comprehend! This is mythology – no not even that, because mythology is beautiful and contains at least some psychological truth. It is superstition. Those who began these religions were not the brave or the wise – who rule directly or influence directly – but the crafty, who found a way of controlling others through fear of a god and a hell they cannot even see or prove. And while they were at it, they crafted a system by which women were owned and controlled by men – and bought, sold and traded.

I haven’t the slightest fear that any of these things are true.

“I believe that such murderous acts should not be done in the name of a person who mostly preached for peace.”

….so whats the difference between this and people doing heinous acts which are not part of our religion in the name of Islam? or the Prophet? sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam.

No offense, but if I find a lot of what you’re saying to be really rude and arrogant.
“not impressed by it [the Qur'an]“, sorry but reading it english doesn’t even come close to arabic. It was reaveled in arabic, and its miraculous nature is arabic. Anything other than arabic is only a mere attempt–an attempt- to capture it’s beauty, so until you learn arabic your critcism really has no basis.

“Really, the old guy in the sky doesn’t interst me in the least.” Learn about tawheed.

You’re going to find bad people in all religions and it’s really not fair for you to use evidence from isolated cases, which in fact have nothing to do with Islam but their culture against the muslims. Seems kinda backwards, don’t you think?

Good luck mollyfurie.

wAllahu yahdee mayn yashaa’u ilaa siratil mustaqeem, subhanAllah.

Regarding the earlier question, which I dont think was answered, was if a woman already in a marriage didnt want a second wife, what would be the response of the man, A man cannot have a second wife without the consent of the first. If the first wife does not wish to share a marriage than the man cannot marry the second woman. This I believe comes from Abraham(AS) and his talk with his wife who could not have any children and she ALLOWED him to marry the other women, had she said no Abraham(AS) could not marry the other woman.

Mollyfurie, I have to say that your reasons for rejecting religion are the same as that of many atheists, and one which I view as fundamentally flawed:

You say that religion is the cause of so much evil, that the Holy Books have been and are used to manipulate and control people… yet the fact is that religion is not THE ONLY cause of evil, that the Holy Books are not THE ONLY things used to control and manipulate people.

Just because something has been twisted to evil ends, does not make IT, in and of itself, evil.
The truth will remain the truth, eternal and everlasting, regardless of who tries to twist it or reject it. The most courageous are those who will not fear it because of it’s potential for evil, but because of the universal truth within it.

You could say the same for science (see iMuslim’s latest post). Technological discoveries have been made by those who had good intentions, yet they can be used for evil purposes.
Will you say, then, that because of that you’ll have nothing to do with science? That you’ll despise it simply because of what it has (sometimes) been used for?

You say you believe in God’s existence. Awesome. That’s one step forward.
Now, may I ask why you don’t believe in God as we (meaning, Muslims) believe in Him?
Is it that 1) you don’t know how we believe in Him, or 2) that you don’t think God bothered letting us, His creation, know about Him so that we can worship Him properly?

Mouse: Can you give me a reference to that because Im not sure I agree with the no need of consent, I only said that because I heard it from a scholar and it makes sense to me and of course I could have misunderstood. Jazaks!

hmmm, I see Im going to revisit the place I heard this from and find out what was really said from the scholar. Jazakallah Khair Mouse!

mr.Mullefurie should read the sorah albaqra which says that Quran is a guidence for the pious and pure and it will not help the ones who r away from piety and purity.He should learn how to become pious- not by seeing common muslims or maligned by propaganda but rather should dive in the sea of piety and experience himself.Old prejudices never work in education and inquisition of knowledge.

Hah! That really made me laugh – thanks!