Why is polygamy/bigamy a crime in the west?

"If the whole issue here is a comparison of homosexuality to polygamy, then it is a closed issue. It is patently ridiculous that homosexuality and gay marriage should be legal in a country which criminalizes Islamic polygamy. And STD's is only one reason."

This is the whole issue and you have summed it up pretty well...

"The modern Muslim can take any institution (polygamy, what have you) which would have been a great thing in the hands of Sahaba and others when Muslims were still civilized, and turn it into something completely irrational and self-destructive."

Yep... that is true too... but that applies to almost any community and any institution.... AKA... 'too much of a good thing'

We can discuss the issue reasonably without accusing each other of anti-Islamic tirades.

I've been Muslim 12 years, and still I have issues with the way many Muslims do things these days.

The modern Muslim can take any institution (polygamy, what have you) which would have been a great thing in the hands of Sahaba and others when Muslims were still civilized, and turn it into something completely irrational and self-destructive.

that STD's are for the most part spread through promiscuity. Polygamy will not spread STDs unless combined with promiscuity.

If the whole issue here is a comparison of homosexuality to polygamy, then it is a closed issue. It is patently ridiculous that homosexuality and gay marriage should be legal in a country which criminalizes Islamic polygamy. And STD's is only one reason.

Also, if anything thinks that laws against polygamy are not enforced against Muslims in the U.S., they are very mistaken. If they know you have more than one wife, and if you have children, they are likely to take them from you and put them into foster care.

Even several women who have converted to Islam in the U.S. have had their children taken and put into foster care for simply that reason, especially in redneck states like Texas, etc.

It is serious business.

don't put words in my mouth

I never said that the best way to stay safe from STDs is to be monogamous, thats what YOU said... Now that you've realized that its a failing argument, you are trying to impose it on me...

I believe the best way to stay safe from STDs is by having non-promiscuous sex partners who have sex only within the marriage right thru each of their active sex lives...

Actually 7 sex partners was wrong

According to this survey conducted by ABC, American men have 20 sex partners on average...

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/PollVault/story?id=156921&page=1

thanks for pointing that out...

And PMS is worried about Muslim men having four wives...

Why is polygamy/bigamy is considered a crime in the west?

-Coz much of the west is grounded in Judeo-Christian civilization wherein is it taught that man should only have one spouse. laws are guided by this guiding principles set by the bible.

Prostitution, same-sex marriage, adultery, and the likes are sins which are now eating away the morality of the west bcoz they have turned away from the God of the bible.

You make valid points about promiscuity; but you seem not to understand that the best way to stay safe from STDs is to be monogamous or very, very scrupoulous about health care, treatment and sexual practices. I doubt you have ever been married to a woman who was polygamous so perhaps you should accept that women MIGHT have different experiences and views than you do.

I refuse to drink the kool-aid! -- PM

quote:

An average male in the US has seven sexual partners... a Muslim is allowed to have four wives out of which a majority choose to have only one... so this whole situation is just a hypothetical situation

unquote.

how can you say that? i mean, any statistics to support?

reliagious would naturally find nationality supercedes faith.

As for how God judges people (based on proclaimed faith, actions or belief), I never put myself in the position to speak for Him. I try to stay focued on my own faith and representing Islam in a positive light.

I refuse to drink the kool-aid! -- PM

Just one week old and already two threads that have been docked by the mod

Singaporean origin and strong affinity towards Muslim threads...

You are nothing but a figment of PMS' imagination

this thread has pitched polygamy and homosexual marriages and their acceptance alongside each other...

It is a known and documented fact that the most likely way to contract STDs is through intravenous drug use and homosexual/bisexual men

People are much more likely to contract STD through having a homosexual partner than they are to contract STD through a polygamous marriage...

Homosexual men accounted for 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and adolescents in 2005 in the US

What percentage do polygamous individuals constitute among people who have contracted AIDS? It is statistically insignificant compared to homosexuals...

If there is any institution that needs to be docked for the spread of STDs... the first on the list is homosexual marriages

This being the case, criticizing polygamy for the spread of STD while not docking homosexuality is eceedingly poor and biased logic

PMS bringing up the STD card against polygamy instead of homosexuality is biased and anti-Islamic...

Besides, polygamy in itself is an Islamic institution and attacking it is anti-Islamic

An average male in the US has seven sexual partners... a Muslim is allowed to have four wives out of which a majority choose to have only one... so this whole situation is just a hypothetical situation

Taking all of this in to consideration and in the absence of any statistical data to confirm that polygamy does indeed increase the incidence of STDs, PMS should... SHUT UP

That is a bit harsh an accusation.

Correct that the man is only likely to contract the disease through promiscuity. It is not beyond possibility that one of this wives or a former wife might have unknowingly had it from a former marriage. Would it have to be ultimately traceable to some haram act? I am not sure. But, it is definitely a lot less likely if everything has been halal.

Still, a promiscuous man with more wives would infect more women then a promiscuous man with one. So, even if promiscuity was the original problem, polygamy would be a force multiplier.

I don't think it is necessarily anti-Islamic to think that polygamy is a less than ideal arrangement in today's world.

Hey Koolaid...

Try to get this in to that thick head of yours...

You've been going on and on about this on three separate threads

If a man with a sexual disease has unprotected sex with his wife regardless of whether she is his only wife, second wife or seventy second wife... they are ALL likely to end up with the disease...

Regardless of whether he is in a polygamous or monogamous relationship

The real issue is promiscuity... the man contracted the disease because he is promiscuous... not because he is either monogamous or polygamous

If your friend contracted the disease... the fact that she got it from a polygamous husband is only incidental... she got it because her husband was promiscuous...

see u after summer leave (if we live till then)

bye

_______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

Strange. We have argued so intensely, I have actually grown to like you. So at least something good has come from my hijacking the polygamy thread.

The last thing, you said: "The very same logic(?) that you use to prove the exstence of God can also be used to prove the existence of multiple Gods."

I didn't present the logic, so I don't see how you could know what I was going to say, so that you could know that it could also be used to prove th existence of multiple gods. But that is a bigger topic for another thread, which I am sure would be deleted if I were to start it.

Anyway, India is cool. Like I said, the best food. And I did not mention Buddhism, which in my opinion is the greatest philosophical achievement of India. If I were not a Muslim, then I would have been a Buddhist. But it didn't turn out that way because of the 'logic' so to speak. Its either 1 or 0. Turned out to be 1.

OK, enough of this. Maybe we will have more discussions in the future on a thread more relevant to the subject matter.

because really loving another person is like a bridge to learn how to really love Allah.

And whoever has no love for the creation cannot love the Creator.

For the Prophet, the Sahaba, and other extraordinary people, true love is possible for more than one wife.

But for normal Joes like us, I think monogamy is the idea arrangement to meet that goal, and even then we often find it hard.

But if they met one of the Sahaba in person, I am sure most women would rather be the fourth wife of one of them rather than the only wife of most of us.

This goes for men as well as women; so it cuts both ways.

Some women think of the man more as a meal ticket than as a beloved. They are not to be judged for that. But, in those cases, being a second wife wouldn't really be a big problem, so long as he was providing.

Many Chinese women take it as a given that their husband will have a mistress, and don't mind so long as too much money that could go to her is not being drained in that direction.

But, in what men usually want from women, in cases where they are not simply in love - mating and bearing children - there will usually be an issue against sharing simply in that even if he is not jealous he will want to know that the kids are his.

Also, while I would not find cause to judge a woman who finds reason to accept being a second wife, it is hard not to think of a man who accepts sharing his wife as a very lowly sort of disgusting creature. At least those are my feelings.

either man or woman who is having more illegal relationships with more than one is like the sewage drain where all dirts is collected, in other words it will be like a garbage.

A woman who accept to be common share for more than one man is like slave who is working for more than one man.

A woman should know her value and she should know her importance.

If you like something very much you will not allow others to share it.

Just to "shed a little light" on the subject of polygamy in the West: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

As it says, polygamy is generally not prosecuted anymore UNLESS linked to a child abuse case.

Frankly I think if it wasn't still heavily linked to these child abuse cases you'd see it legalized.

And if Mormons moved to the Middle East you'd see it outlawed to some degree here.

Prince: You getting lazy dude!! Had the link somewher, need to dig it up.

Well, Europe is not teh world, right?

"... when that particular factor becomes the major ingredient"

Did I say that? quote my words saying that.

_______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

"just do some reading"

A link please. Don't add research to reading

".. Doesnt work well, in this era of population explosion and scarcity of resources, does it?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_(UN).svg

Seems Europe needs it more than it think

_______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

I accept your argument for incest. Well, Prince, we do have arrangements to find out the father, dont we? Forget DNA, there are other ways to prevent incest. just do some reading on the marriage patterns of some ancient clans in the sub saharan areas.

Again, it was all about how fast you can build ur clan in the medieval world than ancestry. More women to each man meant higher 'procreation rate'. The stronger your clan, the better your chances of fighting and winning against other clans. Doesnt work well, in this era of population explosion and scarcity of resources, does it?

Your bell is fine, try belling the cat with it. hope you get what I mean. (Not to be taken literally, it might claw ur eyes out) :-p

Regarding your answer, you have actually survived than answered with that twist. The problem is when that particular factor becomes the major ingredient (read 99.99% ingredient). Lt cheating ->1, then rationale for marriage ->0 and chances for secondmarriage->1. So you have a marriage with more intentions to prevent cheating than luv. (Jus going back a bit to my calculus days ;))

"You think women cant be cheaters or what?"

they can, but

Polyandry can lead to incest (due to the fact the the father is unknown)

While Polygyny can't (due to the fact the the mother is always known)

I thought that was common sense, that why I didn't mention before.

Speaking of numbers: 1 or 4 or more:

Think of it statistically (the bell shape):

A bell shape, devided into three regions:

1- Those who can't marry

2- Those who can marry only one woman (middle)

3- Those who can marry more than one women

by "can" I mean: physically, emotionally, financially, mentally, and psychologically

For the last region, the bigger the number, the less the possibility.

regarding your question (that I never answer):

MY ANSWER is: that the physical level is an ingredient of the whole formula; it exists, but not alone. That's what I meant by the "nice twist" to falling in love ... mentioning another ingredient.

pleaaaase tell me that I've answered :D

"horrendous sin of playing chess and liking it". Gotcha :D LOL

I guess that makes I'm a sinner as well :D

______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

Habib: Abt that plastic gods and lingas, have been doing some research to see whether I can make sense of the whole thing. (Not yet succeeded)But the root texts surprisingly do not advocate idol worship (even though some of them do talk abt deity worship as an acceptable practice). Infact the core concepts (the six great sayings) say that the ultimate truth of Vedic knowledge is not that some great savior is God or the Lord or that such and such a God or name and form of God is the supreme. It is not the worship of a person, book, image or idea. It is not even the worship of God. The (Upanishads)say that whatever we worship as truth apart from the presence of the absolute within our heart and all the universe destroys us. . "

So the question is where all this 'milk and plastic' gods came from. Some commentators on the belief system from the Indus valley civilisations onwards say that it came as a result of not having a barrier between folklore& regional pagan cults and the root texts. the characteristic laxity that we display while deciding what goes and what doesnt as far as faith goes must have also come into play.

Infact the indigenous belief systems of the subcontinent has less charactersitics of an organised religion and more of a 'loosely bound set of traditions, customs, beliefs and practises that varies from place to place' that is collectively called as Hinduism. (yet to see the word 'Hindu' in any of those root texts.)there are some common threads if you look at the overall picture, but not enough to make them into a cohesive religous unit.

deleted

Habib: Where have I said that India or Indian values are the best? What I have said is that choosing a national identity over religion ( and not humanity) would be fare more profitable, especially in the secular backdrop like ours. ***Hope you can differentiate between comparative and superlative)

As for Gods, I know about all those skydaddies that we make. Never believed in any of them but whoever wants to is most welcome.End of the day, it is still abt ur actions and not how or how much you prayed, if you take the root texts. Its about how you dealt with ur brother than how you prayed to your creator. Karma- in one word.

Abt your single creator theory, sorry i am not buying it. Any creator that stands mute witness to all teh human agony, suffering, genocides, unfairness etc is useless to me.

It comes to use when your mind is incapable of handling the fact that there are thousands of things that we donno yet and that we dont need an easy master key to pacify our minds.

The very same logic(?) that you use to prove the exstence of God can also be used to prove the existence of multiple Gods. How do you deal with that? Its about what you WANT TO believe. A personal preference? How can it be more important than something that (in your own words)facilitate for people values which are universal, like law and order, education?

What is the Legal Status of Polygamy in Islam?

The Verse that allows polygamy "was revealed after the battle of Uhud in which many Muslims were killed, leaving widows and orphans for whom due care was incumbent upon the Muslim survivors."

The translation of the verse is as follows: "If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then (marry) only one…" (Qur’an 4:3)

From this verse a number of facts are evident:

1 That polygamy is neither mandatory, nor encouraged, but merely permitted.

2 That the permission to practice polygamy is not associated with mere satisfaction of. Rather, it is associated with compassion towards widows and orphans, a matter that is confirmed by the atmosphere in which the verse was revealed.

3 That even in such a situation, the permission is far more restricted than the normal practice which existed among the Arabs and other peoples at that time when many married as many as ten or more wives.

4 That dealing justly with one’s wives is an obligation. This applies to housing, food, clothing, kind treatment…etc., for which the husband is fully responsible. If one is not sure of being able to deal justly with them, the Qur’an says: "then (marry) only one." (Qur’an 4:3)

This verse, when combined with another verse in the same chapter, shows some discouragement of such plural marriages. The other verse plainly states: "You are never able to be fair and just between women even if it is your ardent desire…" (Qur’an 4:129)

The requirement of justice rules out the fantasy that man can "own as many as he pleases." It also rules out the concept of a "secondary wife", for all wives have exactly the same status and are entitled to identical rights and claims over their husband. It also implies, according to the Islamic Law, that should the husband fail to provide enough support for any of his wives, she can go to court and ask for a divorce.

5 The verse says "marry," not kidnap, buy or seduce. What is "marriage" as understood in Islam? Marriage in Islam is a civil contract which is not valid unless both contracting parties consent to it. Thus, no wife can be forced or "given" to a husband who is already married.

It is thus a free choice of both parties. As to the first wife:

A She may be barren or ill and see in polygamy a better solution than divorce.

B She may divorce him (unilaterally) if he is married to a second wife provided that the nuptial contract gives her the right of unilateral divorce (ismah)

C She can go to court and ask for a divorce if there is evidence ofmistreatment or injustice inflicted upon her.

But if polygamy is discouraged and loaded with such constraints, could it have been better if the Qur’an simply forbade it? To answer this question, we may have to raise another one: Can Polygamy be a Better Solution in Some Cases?

Scholars in the past and at present, Muslims and Non-Muslims have consistently pointed out such cases. The following are a few examples, which are tied in with the general approach of Islam to individual and social problems.

for more information

http://www.islamfortoday.com/polygamy5.htm

As I said,Homosexuals fought for their rights to marriage, no polygamouists are. If there were people fighting for their right to more then one marriage I'm sure you'd see it legalized, problem is, if there is anyone fighting, then there are either so few of them as to not matter, or they aren't fighting for the right for 2, 3 or even 4 wives but 40. Which I think everyone can agree is ridiculous.

people are still hell bent on criticizing polygamy

in my opinion, that is pointless... that is a subject for another thread but that is not the real topic of discussion on this thread

Now I am going to generalize a bit... but in my opinion, people object to homosexual marriages more than they object to polygamous marriages

considering the above, why is it that the West legalizes homosexual marriages and it bans polygamy?

my way or any way.

I am just talking about my own assessment of what is meaningful in the final analysis.

I stopped thinking a certain way because I was born into it a long time ago. It is called independent analysis and choosing who you are.

For me, I was born in one country and lived in several others. To each one in which I live, I owe gratitude and cooperation with the system that makes it liveable, and I have to do my part. That is not nationalism, but simple civic responsibility. But, there is no rational reason I can think of to pick one as the best, make membership in that nation the meaning of my life, and then expect others to see it as the best, too.

I am not against nations as a pragmatic institutions. But they are useful because they facilitate for people values which are universal, like law and order, education, etc.

But just "French values" or "American values" or "Indian values" and so on. Can't be universal. When the U.S. under Bush was insisting that the Middle East adopt American values, I didn't get it. Was everyone supposed to become American, or just wish they were? What does that mean?

I like Indian food (the best in the world!), Indian conversationalism, classical sitar music, and a lot of other great Indian cultural accomplishments. But, I don't get the idea of being Indian as the end all be all meaning of life and everything.

Whatever do you mean by "skydaddy." India is the most prolific 'skydaddy' designer in the world, which are manufactured from plastic in China. I saw plenty of Indians in S.E. Asia pouring milk down the mouth of a plastic skydaddy, and into hidden bucket behind it. Or rubbing butter all over a big skydaddy "linga". To each his own.

My belief is simply that this universe has a unitary order of value and meaning, because it has a single Creator. This Creator created everything and every human, regardless of nation or any other group identity, with a specific purpose. This is something subject to independent rational verification by looking and thinking, if you think carefully and deeply enough.

Because there is a universal order, it is possible for humans to have shared values. Otherwise, not.

For example, you say that Indian nationalism is a real value. Would you say that Pakistani nationalism is also a real value? I doubt it. Every nationalist hates the nationalism of his enemy. And there can be no nationalism without an enemy.

prince: Hope this is the question you are talkin abt.

"And do you really think that falling in love happens that often (5 times)? or that getting married is such an easy thing to do (properly)?"

Well, for someone with a roving eye, 4 marriages is not gonna cure it. If you dont have it one marriage is more than enuf. Well, exactly my point, Prince, since getting properly married a second or a third time is not easy, it would only add incentive to cheating, no? :-p

and Btw, you have not yet answered my question abt proposing second marriage an alternative to cheating and hence reducing the status of the second one to a merely physical level!

"No, I cannot advocate something I don't believe in. That wouldn't be honest, would it? :D"

Appreciate your honesty, pal. But dont you see what I was getting at? If polygamy was supposed to prevent cheating it shud work bothways. You think women cant be cheaters or what?

and yeah you got me there with the chess thing. I confess to the horrendous sin of playing chess and liking it. ;)

GM

I'm sure you are a chess player ... with style

For the hijack, np, be my guest (at least you said sorry)

Speaking of evading questions:

waiting for your answers on reply2 :D

(page 2)

_______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

Yup. In a heartbeat.

PM:"We belong to a nation because of circumstances beyond our control; that is, the circumstance of birth and an event in history when that nation was formed."

For a majority of people, its the same when it comes to religion. The follow a faith coz they were born to it and bred on it. If you are talking abt converts, the same applies to nations too (immigrants). So religion, IMHO, does not supercede nationality there.

"But even then, will that matter at all when you die? Will your God (or Gods) care that you are Indian?"

tell me, PM, would your God care whether you belonged to a particular religion? Is he so petty minded as to say,

" I dont care how many good things you did in life, but you are going to hell coz you din pray to me, according to the way prescribed by me in Section A:B of the holy book I had sent to you through the hands of Mr.X, the holy soul, Y000 years back"?

Oh dear. I was only joking about another set of rights for women.........

Nor do they want it. Most guys cheat because they don't want their first wife, why would they marry again?

If people in the West truley wanted polygamy then it would come as an issue, like gay marriage. It hasn't, therefore the issue isn't..an issue.

here is some rights

The right and duty to obtain education.

The right to have their own independent property.

The right to work to earn money if they need it or want it.

Equality of reward for equal deeds.

The right to participate fully in public life and have their voices heard by those in power.

The right to provisions from the husband for all her needs and more.

The right to negotiate marriage terms of her choice.

The right to obtain divorce from her husband, even on the grounds that she simply can't stand him.

The right to keep all her own money (she is not responsible to maintain any relations).

The right to get sexual satisfaction from her husband.

- personal respect,

- respectable married status,

- legitimacy and maintenance for their children,

- the right to negotiate marriage terms of their choice,

- to refuse any marriage that does not please them,

- the right to obtain divorce from their husbands, even on the grounds that they can't stand them (Mawdudi),

- custody of their children after divorce,

- independent property of their own,

- the right and duty to obtain education,

- the right to work if they need or want it,

- equality of reward for equal deeds,

- the right to participate fully in public life and have their voices heard by those in power,

For more you can go to this web site MissX:

http://islamic.org.uk/womright2.html

This site will tell you alot on

Ideals and role models for women in Qur'an, Hadith and Sirah

Khalid I think the case you are talking about is the minority of cases not the majority. The Majority is an unsatisfied man looking for a cheap thrill at the expense of both (or all) women.

Hmmm UkEng. Well I sincerely hope you enjoy living without your rod and tackle after Mrs. Uk finishes with you.

If those are the supposed rights that religion gives, then you need to take a long hard look at your religion, because it has specifities in it that contradict those rights.

For example:

Freedom of expression

Equality before law

The security of personal freedom

Freedom of association

Ohhh I get it. Those rights are only for the men. Women get a whole other set right? :P

For example in Islam you have these basic rights and there are more

1. the right to seek knowledge

2. the marriage and flourishing the earth

3. the life peace

4. The right to defend your land

and more are there and I found the web more also

source:

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/M_hri/index.htm

Here is a summary

1. The Security of Life and Property

2. The Protection of Honour

3. The Sanctity and Security of Private Life

4. The Security of Personal Freedom

5. The Right to Protest Against Tyranny

6. Freedom of Expression

7. Freedom of Association

8. Freedom of Conscience and Conviction

9. Protection of Religious Sentiments

10. Protection from Arbitrary Imprisonment

11. The Right to Basic Necessities of Life

12. Equality Before Law

13. Rulers Not Above the Law

14. The Right to Avoid Sin

15. The Right to Participate in the Affairs of State

source:

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/M_hri/index.htm

Gypsy, I have been thinking now on taking more than one wife. Lets look at from a practical point of view. Like they say that where polygamy is allowed it comes with responsibilities. Which means that the man has to cater for the need of all of his wives? If he is true to his responsibilities I guess then he will not have any time for cheating?

But again once a cheater he will always be a cheater. I think these polygamist should signs a letter of contract with their wives with a major clause. "Thou Shall not Cheat"..:)

-----------------

HE WHO DARES WINS

Gypsy, I have been thinking now on taking more than one wife. Lets look at from a practical point of view. Like they say that where polygamy is allowed it comes with responsibilities. Which means that the man has to cater for the need of all of his wives. If he is true to his responsibilities I guess then he will not have any time for cheating?

But again this once a cheater he will always be a cheater. I think these polygimist should signs a letter of contract with their wives with a major clause. "Thou Shall not Cheat"..:)

-----------------

HE WHO DARES WINS

Btw, tell me something, habib. What do YOU think is an ideal situation?

The Muslims in India identifying themselves only with people of their own religion no matter whether they are extremists, or groups working aginst the country or not, and without any obligations to THEIR country who gives so much to them as citizens? (I wonder what has ANY religion given ANYBODY in the world?)

We have this minor problem of having non-muslims of abt 85%of our population. What would you like them to do? Hand over the whole country to 15% of the population or even better, mass convert to Islam and make it The Islamic republic of India and to hell with secularism?

You have raised issues (none of them new). Now tell me, what solutions would you suggest? Any idiot can criticise, you stand out by suggesting VIABLE solutions. Ready to stick your neck out?

silly people will think that taking a second wife will stop the man from cheating.

Cheating is a bad habbit which should be stopped.

In some cases some women can not give birth and the man would like to have children shall he divorce her directly? No he can speak with her and if she is not selfish she will allow him to marry second, but what if he can not let her pragnent for some reason, then it is up to them and if she wants divorce then this man should divorce her and not be selfish.

At the end it is up to them if they want to stay together, the man and the woman are the ones who decide.

Marrying more than is set for reasons as well as the divorce.

Habib: Oops so much seemed to have happened when I was away...lemme take things one by one.

1. Abt communal and national identity being irrational- Looking from where I stand, religious and communal identity seems stupid, not national. Your imagined skydaddy and a book thousands of years old seems more irrational than a present system of constituition that you abide by and the society you belong to so that you make progress, keep together and work together for common goals. Thats what a common national identity stands for. Also you missed the point about Hindus 'investigating, publicising and condemning the riots. Blame it on ur blinkers.

2. Divide religion along national lines- You mean your religion hasnt been divided in God knows(pun intended) how many lines before? There are no sects that fightlike cats n dogs? You think, for eg, racism doesnt exist between people of same religions from different part of the world? What are you smoking?

3. Country being 50 years old- Yes,The Republic of India is 62 year old. But the concept of such a nation goes back thousands of years. Even when we were small states fighting each other. That is what makes us stick together inspite of such diversity.

4.I mean, what does being Indian matter in comparison to God?And if you don't believe in God, then the question is the same: what the hell does being Indian matter at the end of the day, or any other nationality?

Practicalities my friend. Its about the system where you have to work for the common good. If you are asking for the details I would refer you to read Ptolemy and Kautilya. Those dudes can tell you much better why nation matters. Do you mean to tell me that all those people who established countries with their sweat and blood are stupid?

Its emotional too. What does being in a family matter at the end of the day. Its an emotional bond that you share with people whom you live with, people whom you share the same culture, same land and so on..The same bond you feel with the men you pray with and fail to feel with the men who DONT pray with you. For me, it doesnt matter who prays with me or not. Not a hoot!

Tell me, What would you have, habib? A one world theory (which was a huge thing in ancient indian mythology-naive!) without nations and people living together with their respective religious compatriots? Is that what you want? Nations serve more practical,tangible purposes and if I need to explain them to you, you are much slower than I give you credit for.

5.If you were to go back in time to meet them, I am sure you would rather live in modern Pakistan than Ancient India.

Dont make laugh, dude. You want people to stop calling you stupid and you say such patently stupid stuff! Read any newspaper recently? and ofcourse, nobody would want to live in any ancient land in this world unless they were some archeo-geek types. they din have secular ideals coz they din have any other religions around at that time, duh!!! Even if they wanted to live in Modern(?) Pakistan they wouldnt survive there for sure.

6.This is a delusional national mythology, like every other- Not as much a delusional as Bowing down in front of an imagined skydaddy and believing that your way of bowing is better than someone else's.

7. "We" embrace Islam- Sigh...lemme explain this slooowly. What I meant is about our culture of welcoming people of various faiths. We have a history of keeping our doors open wide to whoever wants to preach whichever religous philosophy . Read your history and you'll know. The long list of persecuted who have found home in India.Sometimes I do feel that it would have been much better if we were like those countries who follow a single existing faith (or no faith) and kick out whoever came with the intention of spreading any religion. There are quite a few like that youknow. (Infact you might be quite familiar with them)

8. Abt lower castes etc...yes, they converted because of caste oppresion. But even after converting, did you know that there existed such barriers within the religion? Also Mughals were invaders and you can read their own accounts of how many they converted with blades on their throats and how many they killed because they wouldnt convert. Surprise, surprise..Oppression wasnt a non-muslim prerogative. Its more g(h)ory than glorious my friend.

9.But in that case why you want to give your life and take someone else's for some B.S. illusion like your national identity-

Oh! my!! Jus have a look around the world,habib? More people kill themselves on the name of their skydaddies than in the name of any nation. Infact, nations are dragged in coz of religous philosophies. The delusion of religious identities hav been more disastrous than the illusion of national identity. ( samuel Huntington definitely had something to say abt this).

For me, personally, national identity is a far better, far humane and far progressive illusion than religious, communal or racial identity. i understand you might disagree and I am fine with it coz my culture tells me that the option of 'agreeing to diagreeing' is far better than insisting on subserviance to the beliefs and ways prescribed by one single faith.

I don't see why people think that taking a second wife would stop them from cheating? The type of man who would take a second wife, or cheat, is the type of man who can never be satisfied with one women, or two women or 12 women and is constantly looking for the next conquest. So no matter how many wives he has, he'll still be on the look out for another affair.

Thejam.. Good point.

-----------------

HE WHO DARES WINS

Sorry PM but i am not very religious.. so dont follow all that after life thing.. There is no overall scheme in my life.. Life is here and now for me... And here I am an Indian... And If i had no choice in being born an Indian, I dint have a say in being born a Hindu as well... Anyway Mayb sum1 religious can understand ur point, I Cant

It is not just amatter opf a piece of paper, polygamy gives rights of ownership and inheritance to all thwe wives, where as being just lovers does not. Children in polygamous marraiges according to islamic law are legitimate.The son of so and so. even the children ahve shares in the inheritance. Islam's polygamy is to do with responsibilty and the betterment of the society not just a bit of sex on the side like what would happen in countries that condemn polygamy there is a very good book called"Rather wives than mistersses" In one chapter it deals with all these world leaders who although they weer against polygamy had mistresses on the side.President miterrand of france is one example cited, where there were two women at the funeral in black, his wife and another, and everyone else questioned who was the other it was his mistress for years.he was cheating on his wife yet she was unaware for years until he died.

If you read the posts, most people DO NOT claim that the ban is biblical..

MissX: Don't forget the toilet seat ..

The are those who are deviating.

It is amazing how everyone says that the bible condemns it and so on that is why the prohibits it. well the bible condemns Adultery too, and homosexuality. According to the bible one should be stoned for such a thing.i don't see anyone getting imprisoned for either homosexuality or adultery, so why are the western laws bigotted, theye chooose what to enforce and what not.

By thre way,the west is not christian,The church does not have a say in the running of the countries.They do not follow the laws of the Bible.So why everyone claims this ban is biblical I don't understand. Also Jesus never banned polygamy in the bible,his forefathers were polygamous

HIV could happen from the first illegal relation ship, so simply do not go for Haram relation ship.

If child had a touch of blood from another child most probably it would be on the skin, and the child will not be affected, the effect will only occure when this blood enter the body system.

Our skin is the first layer of protection.

I just thought I would point out that there are other ways of spreading & contracting HIV. Unprotected sex is the most common, but all it requires is for an amount of infected blood to enter someone's system. Someone with HIV may give birth to a child who therefore will have it. An accident in the playground can cause the child to bleed and another child to come in contact with that blood. That's 2 innocent children infected who have not had haram relationships. Accidents can also happen at hospitals where instruments used to treat someone with HIV are accidently reused or not sterilised adequately. Or alternatively a doctor treating a patient with HIV can accidently come into contact with their blood. It's naive to think transmission is all because of illegal relationships.

is making is that nations are only temporary and don't really matter in the overall scheme of things if you are a Muslim -- or even a Buddhist, Hindu, or Christian for that matter. At least that is what I think and why I am not a nationalist. We belong to a ntion because of circumstances beyond our control; that is, the circumstance of birth and an event in history when that nation was formed.

I am American but that is only because my parents gave birth to me there and in 1776 the US became a country. Big deal.

The subcontinent has a rich long history, even though the nation of India is relatively young. But even then, will that matter at all when you die? Will your God (or Gods) care that you are Indian?

I don't think so.

I refuse to drink the kool-aid! -- PM

the name of our country is Bharat in hindi.. search for the origin and history of that word...... Do some, not too much but some research be4 posting anything...ancient indians dint play cricket so i m not like them!!!!!!!! ROFL... u keep surpassing urself in stupidity... I m sorry i dont wanna comment on anyone's intelligence or lack of as in your case but it just comes out after reading ur comments... Which nationality r u anyway, i m curious where can i find people like u....

the name of our country is Bharat in hindi.. search for the origin and history of that word... India is an english name, my country is Bharat... Do some, not too much but some research be4 posting anything...ancient indians dint play cricket so i m not like them!!!!!!!! ROFL... u keep surpassing urself in stupidity... Which nationality r u anyway, i m curious where can i find people like u....

the name of our country is Bharat in hindi.. search for the origin and history of that word... India is an english name, my country is Bharat... Do some, not too much but some research be4 posting anything...ancient indians dint play cricket so i m not like them!!!!!!!! ROFL... u keep surpassing urself in stupidity... Which nationality r u anyway, i m curious where can i find people like u....

The desease issue is a major concern for the saudi authorities who are trying to implement a mandatory testing procedure for couples. this is aimed mainly at identifying desease carrying individuals before they can infect an innocent individual

did have some of the oldest civilizations in history. I don't believe that any of them was called "India." And I don't believe that if you were to go back in time and meet them, you would have anything at all in common. I don't think they played cricket.

If you said "India" to them, they would not know what you were talking about. I don't think secularism and communal harmony were their national values. If you were to go back in time to meet them, I am sure you would rather live in modern Pakistan than Ancient India.

The fact is that the modern state of India was established as a political entity in 1947. OK, so it is about 62 years old or so.

Before that, several different nations came and went in that area, and India is just another one of them. It is not as there is one nation of "India" going back to the beginning of time.

This is a delusional national mythology, like every other.

And please do not call me ignorant and stupid.

in a haram relationship. But later if they repent (tauba) and marry someone else, they can still spread that disease (even though they are now in a halal relationship with their wife).

Correct me if I am wrong: Just because you may have had a haram relationship in the past, you can still repent and then enter into a halal relationship. That marriage (after they made tauba) is halal; but they still could spread disease that is undiagnosed or dormant in their body.

I refuse to drink the kool-aid! -- PM

The aids will come when some one is having illegal relation ship with any woman.

A man who has HIV should respect his community and not marry other woman.

The man with HIV if he wants to marry then he should announce his disease or marry a woman with the same disease.

What starts wrong will end wrongly in most cases if not corrected at the right time.

If there is something Halal why should people go to Haram (forbidden)?

Crazy people are those who know the wrong thing and go for it.

Unfortunately people gets to know the crisis after they do the big mistake.

A Halal relation ship will never never bring disease.

Also remember that god is the most merceful.

Also God punishment is the most.

Promised i wont reply 2 u again but cant help Habib... firstly i m sure no country has ever embraced u thats why u dont value nationalism... secondly India is one of the oldest civilization in the world, jst a 50 yr old british colony?????? u r amazing.. truly amazing...

U have any clue how Islam spread in India, any.. even a little teeny weeny clue... Lot of Indian kings married their daughters to Muslim kings to improve their relations... and if kings were opressed then god save the common man...

It is not our audacity to take credit for things done before us.. Its our pride in belonging to our motherland... u mentioned the importance of a mother in one of ur posts, go figure why ur country is called ur motherland

And as for kashmir.. again i ask the same question, do u have any idea what is going on there, even a little one.. If what is going on in kashmir is peaceful, i wonder why 50,000 people have died since 1989... why the violence started in late 80s... jst exercise ur mind once in a blue moon rather than opening ur mouth and spewing all the nonsense out...

Lastly i gotta say that I have seen more than my share of ignorant and stupid people but u take the cake man.. ur ignorance and stupidity certainly knows no bounds at all....

nation, tribe, family, whatever

is DUST IN THE WIND, man.

Beyond that, there is either God or there is nothing, depending on which you choose to believe.

So maybe you choose to believe there nothing. That is not my business.

But in that case why you want to give your life and take someone else's for some B.S. illusion like your national identity.

Then it is my business because that is when you start point missles and shit at people, screaming about your 'security' and your 'enemies'.

Damn, man. What do you get out of that?

"oh and btw, jus do a bit of research and you'll find that we were one of the peoples who had embraced Islam, built mosques, long before it gained popularity in a lot of so-called Islamic nations."

Dude, India is a 50 year old former British colony. You are really reaching if you are talking this "we were one of the peoples who had embraces Islam."

Did YOU embrace Islam? Who is this "we"? See the audacity of nationalism? It makes people take credit for doing things they never did long before they were ever born by using the word "we." Where do you get this "we"?

The people who embraced Islam were mostly lower caste Hindus who became Muslims and escaped from the oppression and exploitation of caste. Then they built an Islamic societies in that area - the Moghul Empire and so on. There is no "we" between you and them, so that you can take credit for that.

Modern India has no connection with the Moghul Empire. It was built on the ruins of it that the British left behind them. Before that, there is only the caste system and Islam. There is no "India".

Nationalism is such a scam...

in case you had a little absolut this afternoon.

I have Indian Muslim friend in the UK, U.S., Singapore, Malaysia, and here in Qatar.

When I visit them we are brothers. We pray together in a close line and it matters nothing at all what it says on our passports.

They could have been born anywhere, and so could I have. We had no choice in that.

We chose to pray together and live and die for Allah together.

Sure there are plenty of dudes with Muslim names, who chose to trade the Absolute for absolut, but they are not who I am talking about.

I mean, what does being Indian matter in comparison to God?

And if you don't believe in God, then the question is the same: what the hell does being Indian matter at the end of the day, or any other nationality?

I just don't get it. Probably I never will.

"Secondly, no Muslim woman who knows her rights in Sharia need be a second wife if she is against it, because she is free to negotiate her marriage contract as she sees fit, and can insist on including a provision by which her husband must agree not to take a second wife."

i know this.. i watched it on a documentary shows on muslim religion. this is true.

"a step towards the right path is two steps away from evil"

A Muslim who believes in his religion would 'investigate, publicize, and condemn' crimes against others, Muslim or not.

If he put his communal identity above his religion, then he would not care about people of other religions.

If he put his national identity above his religion, then he would not care about people of other nations.

The thing about communal and national idenity. They are both equally irrational and subjective.

But communal identity certainly resembles religion a lot more. It is like what is left when you take the "Asolute" out of it and replace it with 'absolut' so to speak. (I am being figurative here - not talking about alchohol per se).

Am I fanatic, then? I just think God is a bigger deal than what passport I am holding.

Plus, I am not trying to divide your country along religious lines.

You are trying to divide my religion along your national lines.

You are not the first, and won't be the last.

My religion has been here 14 centuries while your nation has been around 50 years.

I think our chances are better than yours, my friend.

and is probably one of the hardest things for a Western convert to deal with. At least it is to me :-)

BTW, I am impressed you tried to suckle your child! rofl I like a man who is in tough with his feminine side -- lol

I refuse to drink the kool-aid! -- PM

Oh, btw, the beauty of our system is that it doesnt require a Muslim to put his faith above or below his nationality. Its entirely his choice.

and hez free to announce from the tops of minarets of mosques from kashmir to Kanyakumari, from Ahmedabad to Arunachal that 'there is no God but Allah" five times a day. Our so called 'anglicised-Indian-elite's' secular system protects his rights to do that. Doesnt that tell you something when you consider that Muslims come only about 15% of our population? Still got grudges against that Indian secular class, my dear?

oh and btw, jus do a bit of research and you'll find that we were one of the peoples who had embraced Islam, built mosques, long before it gained popularity in a lot of so-called Islamic nations. Come on, Blame it on a (then) unanglicised-elite-Indian secularist culture...

" you want all to think that what makes a Indian Muslim and an Indian Hindu different is less significant than what makes them similar as being Indians."-exactly habib!! i would want religion to be less significant than our nationality. only then our country can make some progress instead of harping on vote-bank politics.

There shouldnt be any divide between our citizens in the form of religion, is what me n my types want.

"But, a Muslim who believes in his religion will never put that beneath his nationality. It is the same with a Hindu."

No habib, it is not the same for a majority of Hindus (and muslims)that i personally know. Otherwise, the journalists, the legislature and the activists who investigated,publicised and condemned the Godhra riots would not have had Hindu names.

Abt the "current Hindu extremist" challenge, jus check out the recent election results. If the 80%+ of Hindus had thought that way, the election results would have definitely been in a totally different direction. and there wouldnt have been the same party, that had promised more minority rights, in power.

Habib: if you are trying to alienate/divide bonafide citizens of my country in the name of religion, lemme tell you, you are not the first. and I'm sure you wont be the last. The bane of our existence, I say...

oh and btw, the Hindu extremists are also quite fanatic when it comes to abstinence from alcohol, so they dont belong to the "No absolute but absolut" club. Funny how fanatics everywhere thrive on abstinence!!

It doesn't matter if what Khalid said is true or not.

If what you are saying is in support of Islam, you don't have to check your facts before you say it.

That is the first thing I learned about Islam from my fellow modern Muslims.

Just a little joke...sort of ;)

I know of a woman who married a Muslim with HIV (unbeknown to her). He married 2 other women. He had acquired HIV before marrying all 3 women but spread it to them through their halal relationships (i.e., marriage). How can that be if as you say a "halal relationship will not have disease"? Look at all the Egyptians with HCV? They may spread it through their halal marriages (monogamy or polygamy).

Think carefully before you make statements that can so be easily refuted.

I refuse to drink the kool-aid! -- PM

I didn't say that being an Indian and a Muslim are mutually exclusive.

And I didn't say that an Indian passport makes one less a Muslim than anyone else.

And I am aware of the large population of Muslims in India, and it is quite fine for them to be proud to be Indians, just as it is fine for Kashmiris to be proud to be Kashmiri, Pakistanis to be proud to be Pakistani, Qataris to be proud to be Qatari, etc.

Everbody can be proud of where they are from. There is no reason for it, and it is pure subjectivity and emotion. But, hey, we are only human.

Religion comes in because in the name of Indian national unity, you want all to think that what makes a Indian Muslim and an Indian Hindu different is less significant than what makes them similar as being Indians.

The belief that there is "No Absolute but asolut" is certainly convenient for such a purpose. But, a Muslim who believes in his religion will never put that beneath his nationality. It is the same with a Hindu.

They both have an idea about the ultimate meaning of things (the Hindu's is admittedly, a bit blurry) which can never be supplanted by any 50 or so year old temporary accident of history. This also explains the current Hindu extremist challenge to Indian 'secularism' which is really just the rule of Anglicized Indian elites.

The "No Absolute but absolut" crowd.

a 2nd wife or insist that he obtain her permission. All she can do is divorce after the fact. That is the only point I wanted to be clear about since many people argue the wife has some kind of control over her husband's actions with regard to polygamy. She doesn't. She only has control over her response to it.

I refuse to drink the kool-aid! -- PM

Habib: News coverage by guardian says...

"Massive protests and clashes erupted in Indian Kashmir yesterday after the bodies of an 18-year-old woman and her 23-year-old aunt were found amid claims that they had been raped and murdered by Indian soldiers. Indian authorities said the women appeared to have drowned in a local stream.

Anger over the deaths brought thousands to Shopian, where protesters hurled rocks at security forces and ransacked government offices. Police fired tear gas and used batons to break up the protests, said a local police officer, adding that at least 25 people were injured."

What are the police supposed to do when you hav a crowd hurling rocks and ransacking public property? Join them or stop them?

Again, the claims that were made were by 'separatist' leaders? what else do you expect separatists to say? that the army are angels?

wife kindly by breaking her heart -- which almost always happens in all the cases of polygamy that I personally know about (as well as the overwhelming majority of what you read about).

I also never understood how anyone can say these women don't feel jealousy and accept it unemotionally as just another fact of life. I have never met a single Muslim woman who would not feel deeply hurt and jealous if her husband took another wife. She may live with it, but she surely feels deep pain and resentment.

So many men are so clueless.

I refuse to drink the kool-aid! -- PM

why would you even open this thread?

I refuse to drink the kool-aid! -- PM

Habib: you broke ur promise!! ;)

Well, if it was a 'peaceful' expression of dissent it wouldnot have needed suppression, would it?

i'm not saying kashmiri's got the best deal. What I am saying is that considering their alternatives, india is their best bet. But what happens is people fail to think logically when the fanatics among them stoke up non-existent fires and cause riots.

About eternity and absolute, sorry dude, not the things that I believe in. Btw, what makes you feel being an Indian and being a muslim are mutually exclusive? We have more muslims than most of the Islamic countries in the world. and they are as proud of their country as any other average indian. Do you mean to say that they are lesser muslims coz of that? That the 'absolute' that you are talking abt is gonna see them as second grade muslims coz they hav an Indian passport? i would rather prefer my bottle of absolut(vodka) to such a petty Absolute!

get a reality check, dude...no one has ever had to choose between his Absolute and India. and Kashmir issue is not over religion, its over ethnicity if what most of my Kashmiri friends telling me is true. The separatism is not religious grounds but on ethnic grounds.

Prince: my question was in response to ur 'cheating on wife' argument. Which you countered by 'falling in luv' argument. Nice twist! ;)

The fine balance is always between national unity and human rights.

Indonesians might have made the same argument about East Timor, the Chinese about Tibet, the Serbs about Kosova, Sudan about Darfur, Russia about Goergia, etc.

Sometimes the human rights violations are used to justify the separatist cause, and other times the separatism is used to justify human rights violations.

I am not so concerned about separatism as about human rights violations. There is no excuse for India to suppress peaceful expression of dissent by Kashmiris. You can defend yourself against attacks by terrorists. You cannot force people to feel they are a part of you if they do not. These are two different things.

Think of it from a Muslim's point of view. Being Indian is just a passport and loses relevance when you die. Being Muslim is pivotal for eternity in the hereafter. How can you force people that feel that way to put nationality over the Absolute?

Habib: LOL, no one has ever denied that caste system exists in india. But i would defenitely say that it has been made into a 'free lunch' by people who depend on quotas and handouts instead of accepting challenges and bettering themselves. It is a vicious cycle. The quotas allow them to get to the same position with less amount of work, which attitude causes them to lag behind and be dependent on free lunches.

About the recent issue in kashmir: Violent mobs have been shot at before in almost every state of india. not a very humane way of dealing with mobs, but then when a protest becomes violent, sometimes the police doesnt have an alternative.

(lemme add a correction here: Girls who were 'supposedly' raped by Indian soldiers. i am not saying Indian soldiers are angels but at this point we still do not have enough to say whether it was the soldiers or someone else who did the rape-murders. Mass protests have been mobilised by lesser rumors)

About self rule for Kashmir: there are quite a few states in india which has groups that would advocate self rule. So does a lot of federation states where a country is made of different states with varying cultures.

india has always re-iterated that kashmir is an integral part of the country. Going out and asking questions to people on the streets whether they want to go with india, pakistan or be an independent country in themselves will only fuel tensions in an already delicate situation. Not to mention that it goes against our established stance. you dont ask parts of your body whether it wants to be with you.

I hope you are aware of the incidents in 1948 that culminated in J&K becoming an Indian state?? The 600 plus princely states where given a mandate by the Brits in 1947 that they could choose where they wanted to be after independence. Kashmir chose to join the secular Republic of India at a time they were facing a conquest of 'tribals'(?) from across the border. The army was sent and the 'tribals' were pushed back.

so what do you expect India to do? we are supposed to issue a choice to every state to stay or go every 5 yrs, just in case they have changed their minds? Where does that leave us as a nation?

Now, let us say, for the sake of argument that there is indeed a mandate. 70% of people vote. say, one third wants India, one third wants Pakistan, and the rest wants to be an independent state. what do you do after the mandate? Start one more bloody migration? or One more bloody partition? Hasnt there been enuf? you think Kashmir would survive as an independent entity in this region? the only reason why it hasnt faced the fate of Swat valley or Kabul is because of the presence of Indian forces there.

and as I pointed out before, losing control over Kashmir will leave us wide open to our enemies. the very same ones who, in the name of fanaticism, wants to "hit India again and again, till they come down to thier knees" (why dont you check where that quote comes from?) By trying to appease a coupla million who wants to go away, we would be putting a whole billion in undue risk.

Prince: Sorry for the hijack... :-P

Its horses for courses. Circumstances can also dictate the types of roles partners play.

with the current economic climate in the West especially, both partners have to work to survive. This in turn means that both have to share the responsibilities of the home and children.

Change the diapers, clean the house, give baths, break up fights, read bed-time stories, cook meals, the list goes on.

Still, I could never do all that my wife did as mother. If she were to have worked and I were to have taken over all those jobs completely, rather than simply sharing them they would definitely have been deprived.

Because my wife could do all of it better than me. She is more consistent, conscientious, and has an intuition for what is needed that I could never have. So, I am a believe in a mother-power that only women have.

It is not that I think men are above those things, but that women are naturally better (in most cases - not all) and that, while every self-respecting father and husband should help in all those, he will always be giving his wife the managerial role in most of those tasks. He should if he is wise.

There are a few things which dads are usually better at, but just a few of the less vital things.

the other jobs that a marriage has.

And I didnt say "Muslim" men, I said "some men"....There are guys from the 'west' that are just as lazy and dont help around the house.

---------------------------------------------------------

I think you have me confused with someone who gives a sh1t.

and he sucked on my nipple for an hour, but no milk came out.

And that was just to give my wife a break from him (yes, we Muslim men sometimes do kind things like that for our wives).

The kid was fooled for while, but not well nourished. I think my wife could have done better at that one.

And both me and my (ex)wife would share all the jobs, like nappy changing, feeding time, cleaning the house, etc. And we both worked full time jobs as well.

Its not impossible yer know.If yer can be bothered and have the right mindset.

The trouble is, some men think women should clean the house, cook meals raise the kids, while they loaf about with their friends.

---------------------------------------------------------

I think you have me confused with someone who gives a sh1t.

Because if you say this:

"Except childbirth, there is nothing a woman can do ,that a man cant do either."

Then I strongly suspect that you are not.

That is ridiculous. It is not as if polygamy was installed by the Prophet Muhammad as an religious institution with a specific purpose. It existed before him not only in Arabia but all over. The only thing the Prophet did was to limit the number to four.

So, it would be more fruitful and accurate to ask why Islam limits the number to four. There is no Islamic "reason" for polygamy. There is a natural "reason" that polygamy existed in the world, and it probably has to do with the gene pool and such. The biologically 'successful' members of the species reproduce themselves more. Every living thing has the urge to do this. This is how Allah has created natural life. The more wives you have, the more you can pass on your genes, and the bigger group you have under you to back you up when you grow older. It makes sense.

So, if we want to talk about reasons for Islamic institutions, we need to talk about its limit of polygamy, not polygamy itself.

All these so called Islamic 'reasons' are just crap that Muslims came up with to respond to continual criticism from European colonizers.

Europeans went to monogamy because Apostle Paul taught them that sex is intrinsically sinful, so one must limit the sin to one mate, since man is originally sinful and helplessly weak against his lust. You can read that for yourself.

That is why later, Nietzsche claimed that Christianity was an anti-life religion, since it starts with the premise that earthly life is an irredeemable evil. Therefore, anything that reproduces life must also be evil. So, the monks go celibate.

Nietzsche was right about that.

"A woman, in a similar position, having several husbands, will not find it possible to perform her duties as a wife. "

Erm , just what duties would these be ?

Except childbirth, there is nothing a woman can do ,that a man cant do either.

---------------------------------------------------------

I think you have me confused with someone who gives a sh1t.

Reply2:

"What if he falls in love a fifth time?" this goes endlessly, unless their is a limit.

Each system puts some limits:

1 in the west

4 in the east

And do you really think that falling in love happens that often (5 times)? or that getting married is such an easy thing to do (properly)?

"Would you advocate a second marriage for her too so that she wont cheat?"

No, I cannot advocate something I don't believe in. That wouldn't be honest, would it? :D

I have other reasons, but would prefer to research before publish

_______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

You missed out one other very major ingrediant relating to this area and some parts of Africa - CULTURE..

In many cultures, it has become an accepted part of the society.

to discuss these issues about India.

But, I think we are not allowed to critically discuss Indian society or policy on this forum, because my topic was removed by the moderator.

So, I guess that means no talking about India. Better just go back to talking about Islam and Muslims, right?

Err...what's next? Uh...what's the deal with the four wives thing anyway? I mean really...clearly so demeaning to women...

Better now?

Kashmir -

Of course Indians have to fight real terrorists. I am talking about the Kashmiris who are fired on for holding peaceful demonstrations over a Kashmiri girl who is raped by Indian soldiers, which happened recently, and things like that.

This idea of trying to construe every Kashmiri who rejects Indian rule as a terrorist is bogus. You say they get to elect their own rulers democratically. Then why not allow them a referendum on self-rule? If I were Kashmiri I would take any chance to cast my vote. That does not mean I would still not prefer self rule.

I don't know why every time the issue of Kashmir is brought up to an Indian they can usually only go on about Pakistan and terrorists and so forth.

Terrorism is not the real issue. The rights of Kashmiris is the issue, and terrorism is only a way for India to avoid discussing that issue. It is the same way the Israelis use terrorism to avoid discussing Palestinian rights.

"Getting somewhere" -

Yes, you have to get off your ass and work to get somewhere, and cannot ask for a free lunch. But once you get somewhere you have a responsibility to help those less fortunate to get somewhere, also. And a responsible society does things to ensure that opportunities to "get off their asses" as you say are not blocked off from people.

Secondly, caste is nothing but a free lunch. Are you going to try to tell me there is no caste system in India?

reply 1: :D

evading the question? hmmm wasn't really

The only question mark was in

"Are you talking on those lines?"

And if you read my reply carefully (which I know you did), then the direct answer is that I gave the example of "falling in love" ... not sex I assume

Did I reply, or I didn't get the question?

_______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

The only time a woman would accept her husband taking another wife, is if she has no strong emotional attachment to her husband, or if she has such low self esteem about her worth as an individual, in comparison to the man.

and habib, getting somewhere is not about caste or next life. its about setting goals and using whatever your country can offer to reach those goals and then being an asset to the nation.

Free lunches is when you expect your government to pamper you. You get somewhere when you stop whining, get off ur ass and actually do something productive. as usual, it applies to all categories of ppl, regardless of their faith.

"would allow my first wife to retain her dignity by setting her free"

Why not give her more freedom by giving her the choice, not forcing divorce

Specially when they already have kids

_______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

Habib: my intention is not to say that india is a perfect country. there are more negatives that can be pointed out. But do remember that running a country with 1.3 billion people, 30 states, 21 main languages, 1652 dialects, six religions and thousands of indigenous groups based on caste and geography is not an easy game. There will be mistakes, there will be unfairness, there will be oppression. none of us are claiming an Utopia.

But what matters is, in principle, we all have agreed on a system of governance and a constituition that will grant certain common minimum rights and opportunities to everyone irrespective of their origins. I know its not a perfect ending but we have to begin somewhere. its easy to criticise. But implementation of any principle in such a diverse nation is a huge order. but i do believe that we are making headway.

Well, habib-nuh, abt kashmiris's why dont you check out their poll attendance in the last elections. The poll turn out is as much or evn better than a lot of other states. Would they be attending the Indian democratic process which enables kashmiris to select who rules them if they did not want the liberties that a secular democaracy provides?

and do you think kashmiris and in general Indians would live in peace if they give away kashmir to whoever is fighting? Kashmir is the terorist's strategic foot in the door. Protection offered by the indomitable Himalays to the north is not something India can take for granted.

I would request you to extend your research to kasmiri pundit's too just to get a balanced view.

and as for real data, that was exactly my point habib! Where is your data? and where did i talk abt intolerance and hatred?and btw, please note that you havent actually answered any questions that I have raised against prince's argument, but jus gone on a sarcastic tangent. Simple fact is I tend to disagree when people genaralise something as completely western or eastern.

Disease such as aids will come mainly from illegal relation ship and in Islam having four wives is allowed (Halal), and a Halal relation ship will not bring disease, both man and woman can transfer the disease with no exceptance. So let us stay away from illegal relation ships.

Let our life be happily organized.

u r incredible.... Again plz dont show ur ignorance by commenting on things u know nothing about... Its better to stay quiet and let every1 think u r stupid rather than opening ur mouth and removing all doubt... I can discuss with u whats going on in India separately.. How u keep on returning to India on a thread about

different stands on polygamy in west and middle east in bewildering for me.... Anyway i have realised the way ur mind works so wont bother responding to ur illogical remarks again.

Well, habib-nuh, sarcasm apart, do note that polygamy is allowed for some sections in India. so polygamous societies and Indians are not mutually exclusive.

yes, there is poverty and malnourishment and that is exactly what I meant when I said Bollywood is not a true indicator. (Glad you got that one right).

Theres a fine line between sharing with others and actually being left out. believe me, teh education and governance scheme is actually headed there. What I mean is promotions/admisions should be based on merit/achievements and not religion/caste.

The picture I was trying to portray is that there is rich and poor, oppressed and oppressor within every religion/caste in india. Sorry to break ur ppicture of a feudal india as painted by the nehruvian vote-bank politicos but thats the scene. Now tell me one country where Muslims make up more than 80% of the population and has

1. a non-muslim head of state.

2. A quota for non-muslims for posts in governance and academic instituitions based on percentage of non-muslims

3. grants/scholarships exclusively for non-muslims

4. allowed full freedom for public display of religious symbols of non-muslims and their customs without any restriction what so ever

5. Permission to go on loudspeakers proclaiming that which ever god the non-muslims follow is the only true god

6. allowed conversion of muslims in tehir legal framework

Achieving a balanced pluralistic society is a much tougher game than running a society based on a single philosophy. Understanding that, needs a capacity for multi-dimensional vision and not a horse-on-blinkers sight.

is that if is known that something bad happens in the West, then it must be assumed that that bad thing happens just as much in the Muslim world as it does in the West. No real data need be referred to here because, a priori, the Muslims are never to be admitted to have done anything better.

On the other hand, if something bad is known to happen in the Muslim world, you are not permitted to suggest that this happens as much in the West, without firm proof. And even with proof, you are supposed to think of some irrelevant difference like "well they do such and such in the name of Islam, but we do not do it in the name of our religion" or some such B.S.

Have you not understood the rules yet, brother? Can you see the underlying motivation?

Similarly, if a Muslim points out something wrong with Western culture, then it is a sign of our general intolerance and hatred. But, if we object to a Westerner insulting us, then we are violating his freedom of speech.

Fall in line, boy!

You said:

"Getting somewhere is not about things being offered on a platter. Its abt raising yourself above free lunches and fighting for what you think you are worth. Be it Muslims or non- muslims."

Aren't Kashmiris fighting for what they think they are worth? Or are they India's "free lunch"?

Anyhow, I thought "getting somewhere" was about accepting your caste and hoping that in your next life you will be born into a better one.

LOL...Prince, you have nicely evaded the real question. The article was abt second marraige as an alternative to some one who is considering cheating and not about points a muslim should/would consider before second marriage in itself. There is quite a difference. So my question still remains.

Abt ur question, if I still love my wife, I will overcome my new interest. There is no 'western' or 'eastern' mindset answer to this question, Prince. its abt individuals. I'm sure there are enough individuals in the east who are cheating on their wives as in west. Cheating is not exclusively western. only thing is, as a society, they dont try as hard to hide whats happening. :-p

General psychology of men who cheat says that they do it more for the thrill of tasting the 'forbidden fruit' then for an interest actual person of their attraction. polygamy isnt gonna address that.

( Its like giving legal quotas for stealing, believing that people would stick to their quotas and hence overall stealing will come down. Quota or not its still stealing.)

now tell me, what according to you, would a man with an non-western mindset(i mean someone from a society where polygamy is allowed) do in the same scenario that you described? He will marry the second woman, right? What if he falls in love a fifth time?

how do you address the same issue if it was a woman who falls in love with another man at the same time loving her husband? Would you advocate a second marriage for her too so that she wont cheat?

Of course India is not like they portray it to be in Bollywood movies. It is just that Indians want everyone to think that it is. They don't show the estimated 273 million malnourished in those movies.

Yes, you are right. Not only Muslims are slaughtered in India, but Sikhs, Christians and others are as well, as you said. Oh, yeah, and the upper caste Hindus, as you mentioned, are forced to share with the others - a gross injustice! And there seem to be insurgencies of various sorts in several areas of the country.

Indeed, India is the world's largest democracy in the world. A veritable wonder of communal harmony. If only the rest of the world - and especially those rascally polygamous Muslims - could learn to be more like them...

"A woman who has more than one husband will have several sexual partners at the same time and has a high chance of acquiring venereal or sexually transmitted diseases which can also be transmitted back to her husband even if all of them have no extra-marital sex. This is not the case in a man having more than one wife, and none of them having extra-marital sex."

hahahaha. Please tell me this isn't meant to convince us that women are the transimitters of sexually transmitted diseases, and the men only reciprocants?

For the uneducated who may believe this drivel, diseases are transmitted equally by both male and females through an exchange of bodily fluids.

I will try to swallow the second love as much as I can, others may have different answers.

"Now tell me: if you fall in love with another woman, and sill love your wife, what do you normally do? (Not YOU, but someone with the western mindset"

Love, and being in love are two different levels of emotion. I personally would allow my first wife to retain her dignity by setting her free from a marriage that is not up to the standards that she deserves. That way, she is given the opportunity to find love in someone who is willing to give himself to her 100%, and at the same time giving my new wife my 100% attention and devotion that she deserves.

with a stipulation giving her the right to divorce if her husband takes a second wife, then it is essentially requiring him to get her permission before taking another wife, on pain of dissolving the contract and granting her a divorce. If she has not stipulated this in the contract, then she has waived the requirement of her permission.

The problem is whether she is fully informed about her rights. Nowadays, she most likely is not, since the Muslim world is in a basic state of intellectual collapse. Wise qadis in the past should and probably would have taken her lack of information into consideration when judging her request for a divorce in such a case. But these days, we don't think. All we do now is "copy and paste".

Why can't women have more than one husband?

A: polyandry (more than one husband) is prohibited in Islam.

The physiologically and psychologically reasons are:

If a man has more than one wife, the parents of the children born of such marriages can easily be identified. The father as well as the mother can easily be identified. In case of a woman marrying more than one husband, only the mother of the children born of such marriages will be identified and not the father. Islam gives tremendous importance to the identification of both parents, mother and father. Psychologists tell us that children who do not know their parents, especially their father undergo severe mental trauma and disturbances. Often they have an unhappy childhood. It is for this reason that the children of prostitutes do not have a healthy childhood. If a child born of such wedlock is admitted in school, and when the mother is asked the name of the father, she would have to give two or more names or she will tell your father died or made a crime and now he is in prison, so the child will start his life with a big lie! I am aware that recent advances in science have made it possible for both the mother and father to be identified with the help of genetic testing. Thus this point which was applicable for the past may not be applicable for the present (Marrying to more than one man is a real life corruption and will destroy all values).

Man is more polygamous by nature as compared to a woman.

Biologically, it is easier for a man to perform his duties as a husband despite having several wives. A woman, in a similar position, having several husbands, will not find it possible to perform her duties as a wife. A woman undergoes several psychological and behavioral changes due to different phases of the menstrual cycle.

A woman who has more than one husband will have several sexual partners at the same time and has a high chance of acquiring venereal or sexually transmitted diseases which can also be transmitted back to her husband even if all of them have no extra-marital sex. This is not the case in a man having more than one wife, and none of them having extra-marital sex.

Honestly I tookk this from one web site and modified little things.

"cheating, generally, isnt a planned thing"

That's why it's more dangerous (from a health point of view)

"Cant think of a weaker reason for starting a supposedly 'lifelong' relationship"

Here how it works:

If a Muslim wants to have another wife, he will have to CHOOSE WELL, just like he did when he first got married ... same procedure.

Now tell me: if you fall in love with another woman, and still love your wife, what do you normally do? (Not YOU, but someone with the western mindset)

I've put both in the same context because I think that most cheaters do repeat it over and over again.

Failing to plan is planning to fail :)

_______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

Wow cant argue with u then.. u hav done gr8 research on India.. ugot the most reliable source BOLLYWOOD!!!!! gimme a break... I cant believe sum1 said that he knows about india by watching bollywood movies...dont want a religious argument with u man.. Thousands of Sikhs died in 84 riots, they never say they are disenfranchised... and FYI huge number of hindus died in Gujarat too...we r trying to make communal harmony work despite all that..anyway dont want an argument over religion... FYI I dont follow any religion....

Habib-nuh: There are leaders who allowed the slaughter of christians,Sikhs and Hindus too and gone ahead to enjoy power. The ruling party in fact is an example.yes, It bothers me that 2000 INDIANS were massacred.

Oppression is not limited to Muslims. including the so-called upper class Hindus who find thmselves pariahs in the eyes of our own home grown version of 'affirmative action' when they try for govt jobs or admission to educational instituitions. the christians who were traumatised against in Orissa or the Sikhs who were massacred in Delhi.

If you are talking on the basis of Sachar commission report, I suggest you try to find out the ratio of the number of muslims selected (for govt positions/academic admissions) to the number of Muslims who actually applied and not the total number of Muslims. i guarantee you a surprise.

Getting somewhere is not about things being offered on a platter. Its abt raising yourself above free lunches and fighting for what you think you are worth. Be it Muslims or non- muslims.

Last but not the least, you will get as much exposure abt the real India from bollywood movies as you would get about the Gulf by watching Aladdin.

"What she can do is establish the right to divorce without repaying mahr and arrange for a high mu'akkhar to paid upon that divorce."

Is essentially the same. It allows her to dissolve the marriage upon the husbands' decision to take a second wife. It prohibits the husband from polygamy while being married to her, and established essentially a fine on him for her decision to divorce him in that circumstance.

Btw, wish someone could tell me this...

In what context does Quran allow polygamy? I mean does it say that "Polygamy is permissible for men of all eras irrespective of the socio-politic events of the era?" Couldnt it be possible that it was 'allowed' or even tolerated as an interim measure (during an era where men were dying like flies because of all the wars and the women needed protecting at that time) and this was archived in Quran as a precedence that used to be followed and not recommended as a best guideline??

Like someone said, "every religion reflects the conditions of the times when its holybooks were written".

that does not mean that African Americans are not the most disenfranchised people in the U.S. They are, and you don't have to have been to the U.S. to know that.

In Gujarat they slaughtered about 2000 Muslims, and the leaders of that massacre are still enjoying positions in the government.

No I must have not been to your part of India, at least. I only saw it in Bollywood movies. A few rich people and a bunch of poor happy to be dancing behind them.

Well, Prince, cheating, generally, isnt a planned thing. Second marriage is. Both have to be seen in separate contexts.

Btw, equating cheating and second marriage in the same context, would give an impression that (the second) marriage is solely as a replacement to the option of cheating and hence with the sole intention being sex. Cant think of a weaker reason for starting a supposedly 'lifelong' relationship... Are you talking on those lines? Ther's more to relationships than sex, y'know..

"I know many who are considering a second wife instead of cheating on wife. In the west, it is just the opposite."

The difference is that in the West, they disapprove both the second wife, and the cheating on the wife. If a relationship is not working, is not making the 2 partners happy, and can not be made to work, then it is kinder for both parties involved to separate, than to see your deficiencies rubbed in your face by your partner as s/he finds a suitable substitute.

Very valid point MissX especially in the second last paragraph. When there is a marriage of convenience then the chances of involving more partners becomes just another convenience.

One thing has to be understood and accepted that not every man in the Islamic country is a polygimist and not every man in the west is an Adulterer. In both societies there are and always will be temptations to go beyond the norm and commit a sin or immoral act. Yet having an adulteress affair is not illegal in western societies yet bigamy is.

Where as in the Islamic societies they have allowed for such deviations and hence protected the man and catered for this convenience, however the punishment for Adultery is much harsher in the Islamic society that bigamy is in the western societies.

Coming back to MissX point, where there is true Love in a Marriage no matter which society you live in you will never look for a bit on the side.

-----------------

HE WHO DARES WINS

Lets take an example.....In the 'west', if a woman of 20 years old marries a 45 year old guy, most people will tut and think its morally wrong.But its technically NOT illegal.Both are over 18 and thus,adults.

However,there are women in their 20's married to older guys here, and it is accepted as ok.

It doesnt make either right or wrong.

---------------------------------------------------------

I think you have me confused with someone who gives a sh1t.

"I mean, are you telling me that, Muslim men do not have extra marital affairs and that is because their religion allows polygamy?"

No one said that, or will.

Reducing the figure? Yes. I know many who are considering a second wife instead of cheating on wife. In the west, it is just the opposite.

Different society norms I guess.

_______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

That article is correct, but manages to avoid including any emotionality within it. Comparing laws of various other sub groups of people, is all well and good, but it is only showing 1 aspect of the decision to make polygamy illegal.

I will make a few points regarding that article. It speaks of encouraging dishonesty by allowing adultery yet disallowing multiple marriages. The first point, is that it does not encourage adultery. No, it does not make adultery illegal, however the the 3rd party has no legal entitlements to anything the adulterer has, therefore it is not necessary to outlaw it in terms of financial obligations.

On that same point, a marriage with an adulterer is not a shining example of a marriage that people endorse. In other words, that marriage is having issues, and should probably not continue anyway. People seek to avoid those types of relationships, so to say that people cheat on each other as an argument for multiple marriages is not an accurate description of what people actually want.

The argument for multiple marriages is that people in a perfectly happy marriage are allowed to have other permanent partners. But herein lies the paradox. If the marriage is going so well, and the participants are happy, then why are more partners necessary? It adds an element of replaceability into the relationship, and discounts one of the "sacred" aspects of a marriage. And that is that the husband and wife are in love. Those who have experienced being both happy and in love, fully acknowledge their dedication to that 1 person. To watch someone choose to have another partner, with supposedly the same level of closeness is saddening to the outsiders, simply because of the reality that it is unlikely that the person has equal feelings for both partners.

However, that brings me to another point. Marriages of convenience. Western marriages are generally based on passionate love, and is why the thought of polygamy can be quite sad in those cases. But marriages of convenience are a whole different matter. If 2 people decide to marry based on mutual convenience, and are therefore not as emotionally attached to each other, then I don't see why they can't have multiple permanent partners. You will see multiple marriage relationships in cultures that typically have arranged or semi-arranged marriages. In that the partners have not been chosen out of love, but of convenience, and that is when having multiple wives or husbands can operate successfully.

I have a question for people to ask themselves. Have you ever been in love with more than 1 person at a time? And I ask this, assuming you are able to differentiate between love and being in love.

Abt teh article copy-pasted by UK Eng:

A fine piece of spin/propoganda if I hav ever seen one. It has taken out practises which the west has openly acknowledged (due to their transparency and free media) to happen within its boundaries and twisted them to look like it is legal or even the standard practice in those countries.

I mean, are you telling me that, Muslim men do not have extra marital affairs and that is because their religion allows polygamy? You gotta be kidding me! The west is open about their statistics on extramarital and premarital affairs. Do you ever think that kind of a study has even been attempted in this part of the world, forget publishing it? It wont happen here, coz introspection and transparency are not really the norm here. and rightly so coz it might freak out those righteous religious freaks to see the amount of closet affairs happening within their 'holy' cultures.

Whoever wrote this article, I would suggest he do some serious introspection on his own culture before he points fingers at someone else feeling all righteous!

I am not saying that there's no moral degeneration or stuff like that in the west. What i am saying is that its not restricted to the west alone. and sorry to break this to you, polygamy does NOT do anything to stem the rot. It only gives a sense of entitlement to the men in those societies that practise it and in turn makes em into bigger hypocrats.

I was talking about some concepts, not gold diggers.

Let me repeat, highlighting title:

There are two concepts:

The right, and the misuse of that right.

Example1:

Bigamy in Islam:

The right:

A man can have more that one wife, on condition of treating them both equally and kindly

The misuse of right:

By unequal treatment, bad treatment, etc.

Example2:

Divorce in the west:

The right:

A woman is entitled to get half of the man's fortune.

The misuse of the right:

“Ah, yes, divorce, from the Latin word meaning to rip out a man’s genitals through his wallet.” –Robin Williams

Hopefully clearer now

_______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

Very informative.

I respect our honesty, knowing that you probably don't agree with it.

Thank you.

_______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

Pls reread me post.

I said that it IS her right.

Just referring to cases of women marrying a rich man, then get divorce and rip out ... you know.

_______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

That aint ever gonna change

---------------------------------------------------------

I think you have me confused with someone who gives a sh1t.

An Interesting read picked up from the net..Don't shoot the poster, amazing how both sides can justify who is right and who's wrong.

The Western attitude towards polygamy is ethnocentric and hypocritical. The point that is often misunderstood in the West is that women in other cultures - especially African and Islamic - do not necessarily look at polygamy as a sign of women’s degradation. Consequently, to equate polygamy with degrading women is an ethnocentric judgment of other societies. The ethnocentric revulsion for polygamy is best reflected in US Supreme Court’s 1878 opinion in Reynolds vs. United States. The court refused to recognize polygamy as a legitimate religious practice, dismissing it as “almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and African people.” In later decisions, the court declared polygamy to be “a blot on our civilization” and compared it to human sacrifice and “a return to barbarism.” Most tellingly, the court found that the practice is “contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western World.”

In the West today, it is common for married men to have extramarital relations with mistresses, girlfriends, and prostitutes. Consequently, the Western claim to monogamy is a misnomer. How common are they? Estimates range between 23-50% men and 13-50% women in the US had an extramarital affair during their lifetimes. More than 15% of all husbands say they have had a series of affairs, and nearly 70% of married men younger than 40 expect to have an extramarital relationship.

The fact that Western concept of monogamy is based on double-standards can be illustrated with an example. Cohabiting women is legal, socially acceptable, and even mass-marketable for airing as a reality TV show, but a polygamous marriage involving moral and financial responsibility towards a woman and her children is considered socially immoral and illegal! There are even some who support “open marriages”, in which each spouse is free to have “extramarital” partners. Playboy magazine’s November 2005 edition displays its 80 year old founder-owner, Hugh Hefner’s three live-in women. This is in co-ordination with a reality TV show on E! called, “Girls Next Door.” Cameras follow his three “official” girlfriends as they live with him essentially as “wives;” they just lack a government marriage license.

Monogamy does not protect women, but the men who exploit her. Polygamy protects the interests of women and children in society. Man is opposed to polygamy, not because monogamy is moral, but because he wants to satisfy his desire for variety by indulging in unlimited adultery. Sin, not fidelity, has taken the place of polygamy. That is why man is opposed to plurality of wives which commits him to many duties and responsibilities, financial and otherwise. Monogamy allows him to enjoy extra-marital affairs without obligatory economic consequences. He can “play around” without taking responsibility for his sexual conduct. Legalized polygamy would require him to spend on his additional wives and their offspring.

Birth control and the ease of abortion have opened sex for fun to Western women. But she is still the one who suffers the trauma of abortion and the side effects of birth control methods. If a man wishes to have a second wife he takes care of, whose children carry his name, he is considered a criminal who may be sentenced to years in jail. However, if he has numerous mistresses and illegitimate children his relation is left unpunishable in many countries.

In the past, even for a licentious man, opportunities for sin were limited. That is why he had to take recourse to polygamy and, in spite of some evading their many duties, he still had to shoulder certain responsibilities in respect to his wives and children. Today, a man who has ample opportunities of enjoyment does not see any necessity of making the least commitment; hence, his aversion to polygamy.

The hypocrisy of the West towards polygamy can also be seen in the fact that taking a second wife, even with the free consent of the first wife, is a violation of Western law. On the other hand, cheating on the wife, without her knowledge or consent, is legitimate in the eyes of the law. What is the legal wisdom behind such a contradiction? Is the law designed to reward deception and punish honesty? It is an unfathomable paradox of the modern ‘civilized’ world. Furthermore, homosexuality is legal, but polygamy is illegal and, in some cases, criminal.

Moreover, on top of leaving a substantial number of women ‘on the shelf’ by denying their attachment to a man as a second wife, western nations further deprive surplus woman of the male sex by legalizing homosexuality. It is inhuman to have a woman as a second wife, according to these biased standards, but if the second “wife” happens to be a male “mistress,” then it is not a crime. Homosexuality, we are told, is an acceptable lifestyle in conformity with the requirements of the modern man! The Western attitude is the logical outcome of rejecting God’s revelation that brings harmony between human beings and their innate nature.

-----------------

HE WHO DARES WINS

Usually they will both chip in parts of their salary to help pay the mortgage,bills etc.

Thats why the woman is entitled to half of the fortune, cos she ,in most cases, has helped pay into the fortune.

Is she just supposed to walk away with nothing ?

Unless they both sign a pre-nup of course, then things are different.

---------------------------------------------------------

I think you have me confused with someone who gives a sh1t.

There are two concepts:

The right, and the misuse of that right.

Example1:

Bigamy in Islam:

The right:

A man can have more that one wife, on condition of treating them both equally and kindly

The misuse of right:

By unequal treatment, bad treatment, etc.

Example2:

Divorce in the west:

The right:

A woman is entitled to get half of the man's fortune.

The misuse of the right:

“Ah, yes, divorce, from the Latin word meaning to rip out a man’s genitals through his wallet.” –Robin Williams

______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

I don't specifically mean sexual desire. I mean desire as in something you want, not what you need.

For example if a woman is unable or does not want to have children, and the husband desires them, then he is able to take another wife to have them etc.

Once again we end up on a discussion of Islam. I browsed through the QL postings and this issue of "plural marriages" has been done to death on QL.

I agree with MissX regarding the last paragraph, however from what I understood, there can be numerous reasons for going into another marriage. not just "desire"..

Well it wasn't so much the rule that saddened me (although it did too), it was the last line where they acknowledge that it is painful for a wife to have to become equal second with another woman (The 1st, being the man himself who puts his own desires first).

I can forgive hurtful behaviour if the person is too stupid to realise the impact and consequences, but to do it knowingly is so saddening.

of Islamic jurisprudence, that may be the interpretation (that the wife's approval is not required). However, it does seem to go against all that is in the Quran and Sunnah regarding the fair treatment of a wife, the respect with which she should be handled and the consideration for her feelings.

It's a dilemma, for sure.

I refuse to drink the kool-aid! -- PM

"The wife’s approval is not a condition for plural marriage, and it is not obligatory for the husband to have the approval of his first wife if he wants to marry a second wife. But it is good manners and kind treatment to approach the issue in such a way as to reduce the pain which women naturally feel in such cases"

That paragraph makes me so sad, that I feel disgusted. That right there is the epitome of oppression of women, and the disregard for their value is sickening.

http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/9479

Is there a hadith that relates to a husband needing the permission of present wife to marry 2nd wife?

Praise be to Allaah.

There is no hadeeth which states that, and it is not conditional for the husband to have his wife’s permission to take another wife. But it is in everyone’s interests for him to try to get her consent, because this will help to reduce problems in the marriage.

Shaykh Sa’d al-Humayd

ALSO:

http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/12544

The wife’s approval is not a condition for plural marriage, and it is not obligatory for the husband to have the approval of his first wife if he wants to marry a second wife. But it is good manners and kind treatment to approach the issue in such a way as to reduce the pain which women naturally feel in such cases, by smiling at her, greeting her warmly, speaking nicely to her and spending money on her according to his means, in order to gain her approval. Fataawa Islamiyyah, 3/204.

Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

I refuse to drink the kool-aid! -- PM

http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/5983

Ibn Qudaamah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in his book Al-Mughni:

“If he married her on the condition that he should not make her move from her house or her city, then this condition is valid, because it was reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ‘The most deserving of conditions to be fulfilled are those by means of which sexual intercourse becomes permissible for you.’ If he married her on the condition that he will not marry another wife, then she has the right to leave him if he does take another wife.” In conclusion, then, the conditions of the marriage contract are divided into three types, one of which must be adhered to, which is of benefit to the wife, such as her being able to stipulate that he cannot make her move from her house or city, or travel with him, or take another wife or a concubine. He has to adhere to these conditions, and if he does not, then she has the right to annul the marriage.” (Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudaamah, part 7, Kitaab al-Nikaah).

I refuse to drink the kool-aid! -- PM

that a woman cannot have a clause prohibiting her husband from polygamy as it is allowable in Islam. Thus it is not enforceable under shariah. What she can do is establish the right to divorce without repaying mahr and arrange for a high mu'akkhar to paid upon that divorce.

I refuse to drink the kool-aid! -- PM

habib i huess u have never been to india thats why u r saying muslims r in that state... our last president was muslim FYI... i wud really suggest u to visit india once, u may change ur point of view...

If I was an untouchable, I would see a very strong financial incentive to convert from Hinduism to some other religion.

But probably no financial incentive to convert to Islam, since in India they are even more disenfranchised than the untouchables.

273 million malnourished in India...damn good incentive to convert to some religion other than global capitalism, if you ask me.

That is prohibited by Islam, regardless of how many wives you have. The man has to provide for all of his wives needs, and cannot take or use any of her own money or property to do it. So, obviously, marrying more than one is not normative in Islam, and could not be for the economic reasons noted above.

Secondly, no Muslim woman who knows her rights in Sharia need be a second wife if she is against it, because she is free to negotiate her marriage contract as she sees fit, and can insist on including a provision by which her husband must agree not to take a second wife.

That is Islamic law. If most of the Muslims do not follow it, and deny their daughters their rights, then that is another thing.

In marriage and gender relations, the actual practice of the Malaysian Muslims is closest to the ideal of Sharia.

I would love to have 10 Wives too Stone... But please puncture my hearing-drums... Plus, I'd make 5 work fulltime, so I can retire immediately :-P

Just like the illusion of the gift of 70 Virgins, that is CAPITAL punishment to me!!!

Polygamy is like having different dinner menu every other night. The moral is, economically, how do you expect the masses to marry 4 wives without having the ability to feed. Thats the root of all social failure. I would love to have 10 wives but someone could help me to massage my back ache.

Dont even comment about things u dont know anything about.. i dont want to explain about forcible and financially motivated conversions here.. jst food for thought for u- most conversions take place in poor states of india.. never saw 1 conversion in Punjab in the 20 odd years i lived there...

this is their calculation that there is more woman in population than man.. So, when a man is married he (more likely so )could have 4 other woman on his side.

or the other four can be old maid.. =)

"a step towards the right path is two steps away from evil"

I'm highly suspicious about this figure

_______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

the census survey says..

the ratio of a man vs. woman is

1 is to 5 or (1:5)

does it make sense?

"a step towards the right path is two steps away from evil"

"... the places where money or force was used ..."?

says who? Bajrang Dal? sure! we take his word for it :D

_______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

Should I understand that you're following up the history of Quran interpretations?

_______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

Even so called fanatics like Bajrang Dal dont attack free willed conversions in india.. they attacked the places where money or force was used to lure people in poor parts of India to convert...

I still dont get the rationale behind the part where death penalty is prescribed for apostasy. Guess it could be attributed to the tribal warfare times when a defector could endanger the whole community. The question is, what validity does it hold today?

Only people who are working against conversion might be self-styled fanatics like Bajrang Dal. As far as my limited knowledge goes,Hinduism, as a religious philosophy, doesnt attack conversion. Maybe coz there were no other religions around during the time when its books were written. Even within the religion, it stresses very little on piety, more importance being given to his karma(actions).

Yes the interpretation of the bible, not the text specifically, and the attitude of the churches, have changed quite a bit in the last 30 to 50 years.

Can't say that of Islam.

so, was the bible changed? (in contrast to Quran)

If you say Islam, it makes more sense, don't you think?

_______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

"the old image of islam"

Correct me if I am wrong,

Opposed to the christian church that, with pain in its heart, adapts to modern day society the Quran (thus Islam) can not, and is not allowed to, change.

many of the extreme conservatives in the Arab world and on QL say. I do realize that Indians may practice things differently based upon cultural differences. You can do a search on QL on apostasy and see how many Muslims reiterate the idea that the punishment is death. So I am asking out of true curiosity.

I refuse to drink the kool-aid! -- PM

I tend to go with MissX analysis, makes more sense to me.

"Now, tell me something, would you advocate that women have more than one husband?"

NO

_______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

PM: There are quite a few examples of ppl converting to Islam and living successful lives. In fact in most of the inter-religion marriages i know, the Hindu guy/girl gets converted to islam( most of them I would say are conversions of convenience than belief). There have been prominent personalities who are converts. The latest example being A.R Rehman, who won the Oscar award for music recently. No one really cares a damn about his religious beliefs and rightly so.

PM: A point very well made. Your argument does make a lot of sense. but, at the risk of going on a rhetoric, i would say that the constituition was based on a very fundamental principle, i.e, Unity in Diversity, the basic tenet of which was that individual groups of people would be allowed to follow their culture as long as they fit within a broad constituitional framework.

Funny things is that has made quite a few people, including some famous ones, convert to Islam just so that they could marry again. IMHO, a 'Conversion of Convenience' is one of the worse insults that one can perpetrate on any religion.

Prince: About west being anti-poligamy, I would justify it citing social reasons. If you consider a strong family as being the basic unit of a healthy society, not having multiple partners should make sense. As a child, or as an adult I would never be happy to share my mom or dad with another family. and I wouldnt advovcate it as a positive initiative while raising the future generation.

Btw, what is the common thread between polygamy and same sex marriage to prostituition that you are tying them in the same knot? Theres more to relationships than the physical part, y'know... :-p

Now, tell me something, would you advocate that women have more than one husband?

But can you tell me if Muslims change their religion in India without fear of persecution and threat to their life?

I refuse to drink the kool-aid! -- PM

The_prince, I think criminalizing it was really the only option open at the time (think late 18th century America). I do know the issue is still under debate in places like Utah (which has the highest population of Mormons) and what the result of this debate will be, I don't know. Otherwise, it's not really an issue in other States or Canada. From what I've seen polygamists aren't arrested anymore, unless, as I said, you've got a lot of underage wives or are making an arse of yourself (Thinking of a guy in Vancouver who had 12 wives and a bunch of half naked kids living in a trailer park and social services stepped in).

If you're a average, everyday Muslim guy with 2 wives living in Toronto or New York, my guess is no one would care and the police defintely wouldn't say anything.

Well in my book it is OK to have three wives..

One at home to cook and clean.. etc etc

One in the office to make money etc etc

One to go out clubbing and partying etc etc

There is only one rule make sure three of them never meet each other..:)

-----------------

HE WHO DARES WINS

Your reply was informative, and to the point. Thank you.

As for the last part:

Then why not legalize bigamy to overcome the problem other than criminalizing it. Actually, people like Mormons in western counties will continue it practice it, causing injustice to "unofficial wives" in heritage or any other benefits an official wife is entitled to get.

Anyway, to save your effort, pls look in page 1 for these key words to find more informative replies like yours:

1- One reality 9(by the_dude))

2- while encompassing the betterment (by MissX)

_______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

I haven't seen the movie "enough" so I can't comment. But if you look at the history of polygamy in the US & Canada, it's got nothing to do with men "wanting their women in secret" but rather abuse of marriage, i.e. having over 40 wives, which is what the Mormon Church used to promote.

What if someone says they want the rights another citizen has? What if a Hindu, Sikh or Christian says he wants to have more than one wife? How can the government say you don't have the same rights Mr. Mohammad has? Or what if a Muslim women wants to be protected from having her husband take a second wife? She will look at the Hindu, Sikh and Christian women who have their rights to be in a monogamous marriage as having different rights than her.

That's my point. I don't see how secular democracy fits with having different rights for different people. That's all I am saying.

I refuse to drink the kool-aid! -- PM

In a secular democracy people have equal rights. If you start saying only Hindus can do this or only Muslims can do that -- how is that equal rights?

I refuse to drink the kool-aid! -- PM

You'll see it in the discussion between Khalid and me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Europe

If you want to read about it in the SU:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_United_States

I refuse to drink the kool-aid! -- PM

Source ???

Where is the U.S ?

I belive that Southampton in England has introduced a legal red light district..

Prostitution in is illegal:

Albania

Andorra

Azerbaijan

Belarus

Bosnia & Herzogovina

Croatia

Georgia

Iceland

Lithuania

Liechtenstein

Malta

Moldova

Macedonia

Norway

Romania

Russia

Serbia

Slovenia

Sweden

Ukraine

Prostitution is not illegal per se but operating a brothel or pimping is illegal:

Armenia

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Ireland

Italy

Kazakhstan

Luxembourg

Poland

Portugal

Slovakia

Spain

UK

Legal (and regulated):

Greece

Hungary

Latvia

Netherlands

Switzerland

Turkey

Out of 46 countries prostitution is only fully legal in 6 countries. Of the other 40, half have outlawed it completely and the other half have laws in place to make it illegal to pimp, run a brothel, and is some cases solicit for prostitution ion public.

I actually enjoyed going through this because I was surprised to see that 6 countries do have legalized prostitution; I am really shocked that 20 tolerate it even in the slightest by only outlawing those who make money off of women who work as prostitutes or solicit in public.

I am EXTREMELY glad that the US outlaws prostitution. :-)

I refuse to drink the kool-aid! -- PM

Couldn't be bothered to read all this so I'll just give my two cents.

First off polygamy is illegal in the West for a couple of reasons, mostly surrounding taxes, inheritance and the Mormons.

First off in the case of several wives and the husband dies there's issues about who will receive the life insurance, inheritance etc. And, unlike in Islam, there's no set laws to govern this, and frankly it doesn't happen often enough to justify making the laws.

There's also the tax issue, how much, how little, etc.

However I do believe the biggest reason polygamy was banned in North America was because of the Mormons. They had a tendency to take dozens of wives and not really care for them or their children. Many of these wives were also underage. So basically the laws came in cause it had to be controlled.

Generally however I think there are probably quite a few polygamous relationships in North America, especially among the Native & Muslim communities, and they are probably turned a blind eye too, since they don't cause problems.

My guess is the only reason it hasn't been overturned is because of the Mormons.

As for prostitution, you're confusing legalizing it because we approve of it with legalizing it because that gives us a better chance of fighting it.

Whether illegal or legal there's always going to be prostitution, but by making it illegal you force it underground where more women are hurt. By legalizing it, you force it into the open where these women can get access to health care and programs to stop being prostitutes.

Legalizing it doesn't make it anymore socially acceptable.

There u r spot on Azam.. Men are generally more selfish than women.. totally agree on that

Habib i agreed already tht i missed Azam's point.. wat u want now, me to be hanged for missing his point... thats just another excuse for sexual discrimination is another issue...and I never said india is perfect.. there are problems there too, when u r trying to make the world's largest democracy work there will always b problems...but i thot we were discussing polygamy here...

You don't read carefully. You totally missed Azam's point. He just explained to you the answer to your question...Do you like knowing who your father is?

"And Azam dont confuse adultery with polygamy... their cant b a law against adultery.. its just immoral..."

???! If being immoral is not enough to make a law against it, then how can there be a law against polygamy?

Another question. If polygamy is legal for Muslims in India, then for which group in India is untouchability and the caste system legal?

And 4 further clarifying the point about polygamy laws in India, search google for recent case of deputy CM haryana- Chander mohan who had 2 convert to islam 2 marry anuradha bali.. he left her after marriage so anuradha has filed a police case against him for changing religion just to marry her and having no real religious beliefs in Islam.... so changing religion only to get a second wife can have serious implications too there if one of the wives is pissed at you...

Well my mind has its limitations i guess...

Well for all those who questioned.. Polygamy is illegal for Hindus, sikhs and christians in India and allowed for Muslims.. Its as per their religions.... And Azam dont confuse adultery with polygamy... their cant b a law against adultery.. its just immoral...

MissX:

Well said. Just the type of replies I hope to see more in QL: more to the point, and less personal

Thank you

Britexpat:

In Islam it is NOT mandatory. It is only "permitted", and with some limitations and conditions applied.

______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

That was more like a "Ten Cents" worth, but well said :).

As an aside , it is interesting to note that even in this region, where Polygamy is legal, many men are now making the "choice" of a monogamous relationship.

Ok I'm going to throw my own 2 cents worth in, and try and bring the thread slightly back on topic.

As Britexpat mentioned. Western laws were guided by the principles from the religion that was in practice at the time the society was established. Most, if not all, Western Societies were Christianity based, so therefore the rules and laws reflect that. Modern days laws, while still being based on the respective religion, are adapted to suit a more modern environment while encompassing the betterment and protection of it's citizens.

There are three reasons why polygamy has not been legalized. The first and foremost, is that it works. Western Countries have a relatively complex taxation and law system which must encompass spouses, children of spouses and sometimes relatives and carers, and all the confusing relationships within those. As it stands, there are standing rules on who is entitled to what, based on the level of relationship you have with someone. When you add more people into the mix, it automatically makes the mix more complicated. Therefore reason 1 is because it is economically complicated to allow for multiple permanent partners and their prospective children.

The second reason, is a moral reason. Throughout history polygamy has been the domain of men and has often been at the detriment of women. Western governments recognise the current plight of women and their constant struggle for equality and fight against oppression. Disallowing a practice that, in the past, has been a noticeable exploitation of women, is a helpful step to changing attitudes about a woman's position in society.

And the third reason, is simply because the people do not want it. While many people are no longer religious, there are still practices that have been hammered in to our daily belief system. One of those practices is of monogamy. Whether it is right or wrong, is irrelevant. Not enough people want it for the governments to consider an ammendment to the law. When the citizens want it, the government will be pressured to change, much like is going on in Western countries about homosexual rights right now.

you said:"It is just that -- illegal -- in the majority of Western countries"

However, In the link you provided, it says:

"the act of prostitution (exchanging sex for money): legal in most countries from Western Europe, tends to be illegal in Eastern Europe. In Sweden, Norway and Iceland [1] it is illegal to pay for sex (the client commits a crime, but not the prostitute)."

Not exactly supporting what you've said

_______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

I'm not pointing fingers, and expect you to do the same.

As for the second part starting from FREEDOM, now this is the kind of reply I was looking for ... an objective approach.

_______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

I've always found it amusing that your name spelt backwards is e-dud...

So who is backwards?

this is how it works...

read it a few times real slow...

and you'll get it... okay

Muslims... allowed...

Nonmuslims... NOT allowed...

so polygamy is legal for Muslims in India but illegal for Hindus. I'm not really sure how that works in a secular democracy though....

I refuse to drink the kool-aid! -- PM

As in the bible one had no last name but was linked to the town from where he originated so Jesus was Jesus of Nazareth...in the case of Mary Magdalene, Magdalene was infamous for its brothels hence her being tagged till this day as a prostitute despite not being one.

Did you know that Dharmendra is a polygamist?

His second wife is none other than Hema Malini...

Raj Babbar married Smita Patil despite being already married to Zaheera

Union Minister Ram Vilas Paswan

M.Karunanidhi, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu

Okay... now you have to wait for the next one...

Salman Khan!! okay, just kidding.. but his dad Salim Khan is married to two women...

Salma Khan and wait for it, wait for it... Helen !!

and they seem to be conflated. There is also a theory that she was being accused of doing something she didn't do. It wouldn't be the first time men wanted to punish a woman without real evidence.

I refuse to drink the kool-aid! -- PM

It is a theory that has been around for some time. And she definitely was not a prostitute.

I refuse to drink the kool-aid! -- PM

I was told many years ago before the Da Vinci Code that she was supposed to be his wife; (open to debate of course) because of how they were with each other.

They acted like man and wife with regards to how she treated him and vice versa.

May be a load of bollocks I know but I doubt by anybody standards she was regarded as a prostitute.

_________________________________________________

Man makes plans...............God smiles ;-)

Is polygamy legal in India?

I refuse to drink the kool-aid! -- PM

And there are some people who support that idea; but I am not sure the evidence holds any water.

I refuse to drink the kool-aid! -- PM

you think polygamy is illegal in India?

uhmmmm... think again!

brilliant question... that is very thought provoking! Why indeed...

Mary Magdelin was regarded as Jesus's wife and not a prostitute. Which is of course getting away from the thread.

__________________________________________________

Man makes plans...............God smiles ;-)

Mary Magdelin was regarded as Jesus's wife and not a prostitute. Which is of course getting away from the thread.

__________________________________________________

Man makes plans...............God smiles ;-)

women should be able to have multiple husbands?

I refuse to drink the kool-aid! -- PM

I dont really care what laws they want to implement in US, In my religion and my country's legal system, polygamy is not allowed and i m happy with tht....

just that it is evidence against the idea that polygamy increases violence. Because if it did increase violence, then you would think Qatar would be more violent than the U.S. And it is not. The U.S. has more violent crime than any Muslim country. Check the statistics. And polygamy is illegal there. So much for the polygamy causes violence theory.

I would not choose polygamy myself because I prefer the deep relationship which I do not think is usually possible with more than one woman. But, not every person is in the same circumstances as I am with the same needs. Different men and women want different things out of life. Some women do not mind being second wife of a rich guy. Leave them to their own decisions.

probably, in the U.S. they should allow it for men or women, so long as everybody is consenting.

That would be most consistent with liberalism, and would also be in line with classical liberal concept of respect - that is, giving people the space to live their lives as they see fit.

Do you think that allowing women to have two husbands would be disrespecting to men?

u highlighted USA as a country full of violence.. what was the point of that... and as for annoying u... dont flatter urself dude.. i got better things to do in life than that.... and as for what i gotta say... polygamy and prostitution shud both b declared illegal.. and its got nothing 2 do with violence in my opinion... its about respecting women... Thats why asked earlier in the thread why r women not allowed 2 b polygamous if men are... dint get any answer for that...

are supposed to mean the government does not interfere with your personal life, so long as you do not interfere in the lives of others.

Polygamy between consenting adults is not an interference in anyone else's life. Yet, it is banned in the west.

Furthermore, I had many liberal friends in America who believe that polygamy should be banned, unless it is between homosexuals (in which case it should be allowed because of personal freedom).

So there are some contradictions here. At least, if you are going to impose your morals on others in western societies, you need not continue lecturing others against imposing theirs in their own societies.

If you read my post, my point was that polygamy does not increase violent crime.

Now your only response was to try to put words in my mouth that polygamy will "get rid of all the violence in the world."

Is that the way your stinking mind works? You have nothing to say so you simply try to misrepresent what I said?

oops my mistake.. i thought since the thread is about polygamy u were talking about tht... dint realise u were just rambling... sory...

and if I did, it would be utter nonsense. But unfortunately, for you, I did not.

so habib wats ur point, by allowing polygamy u can get rid of all the violence in the world???? what utter nonsense

Because I guarantee you that murder and rape and other violent crimes which you claim polygamy increases are much higher in the U.S. than in almost any Muslim country. Have you ever been to East St. Louis, for example?

Also, with regard to Hamas and Hezbollah, I doubt that polygamy is all that common in Palestine and Lebanon, so that analysis is pretty much garbage.

However, the link between sexual practices and violence is probably strong. The reason for the higher levels of violence by young men in the U.S. is probably strongly connected to the mutual jealousy and lack of trust between genders that comes with the exercise of sexual 'freedom.'

Prince - to clarify for you - Not many countries have legalized prostitution. And of those that have done, a lot did it because it provides the women with more safety - better a regulated sex trade than an underground one run by pimps.

for a long time, so it's not surprising that Hollywood picked it up :-)

I refuse to drink the kool-aid! -- PM

Biblical scholars and historians find no evidence to support that notion. Even the Catholic Church has renounced that one.

I refuse to drink the kool-aid! -- PM

for prostitution than to make it ILLEGAL??? It is just that -- illegal -- in the majority of Western countries. How is that any different from the MUSLIM COUNTRIES. If you want a breakdown on the legal status of prostitution in Europe check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Europe

I refuse to drink the kool-aid! -- PM

polygamy and not prostitution.

Perhaps we need to discuss why polygamy is still allowed in certain religions/cultures and how distasteful it is some.

I find it very difficult to understand why certain men are allowed to 'marry' numerous times, have children with them and yet these same people (IMHO) frown upon people that take a lover. What's the difference? Does a piece of paper saying you are married lessen the hurt the first wife and children may feel?

There is no need for polygamy anymore. It was a tradition a long time ago, for me it is a legalised form of adultury.

__________________________________________________

Man makes plans...............God smiles ;-)

The post was about the West ... So please elaborate ...

Prince, attackers?

You ask we reply, you defend.. are short of breath, and now all of a sudden we are attackers?

Egypt developing? Okay, I'll give you that. Although seeing your history I wonder whether the country is still depreciating or re-developing. Martial Law is not going to help progress though.

As for the clarification:

FREEDOM.

One reality of our societies, just like yours, is the demand for prostitutes. Whether you agree with this or not, anybody is free to voice his/her opinion. This is largely accomplished through supporting political parties that share your view, however the issue 'prostitution' itself does not weigh very heavy and mostly does not become a pillar of a parties program, nor is it a pillar or key-topic in the eyes of the voters.

Currently in The Netherlands the government is reversing a lot of the liberal aspects of the Netherlands, this includes prostitution and soft drugs. Personally I do not agree with their policies as I think that legalizing such 'services' will benefit society more. Making the services illegal will only create more opportunities from criminals, now that the borders are open the criminal world has a much more simplified channel to conduct their business. So in order to VOICE my opinion I vote for a party that supports my ideas, however these points do not weigh heavy enough for me to be 'key' in my decision to cast my vote to a party as I have no affiliation with prostitution or drugs, so I may as well end up voting for a party that differs from my stance on this point.

I, for one, am not an attacker, but I will try to clarify your confusion, nonetheless.

The majority in the west (USA) show their "position" against prostitution quite clearly, by incarcerating those women that are caught prostituting themselves. That is the law of the land (with the few exceptions already stated).

I'll try to elaborate more:

1- Paradise is NOT on earth ANYWHERE

2- I'm fully aware of the problems we have in the middle east, Muslim countries, and Egypt, more that you're likely to tell me. We DON'T deny it

However, we are still ranked as "developing" countries.

3- I know that the majority in the west are against prostitution. I'm just surprised how this majority are not able to show their position in "developed" countries

That's why I ask for clarification.

_______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

First time I come across such a statement. You see, most have mentioned MONEY as their moto to move

_______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

Sandeep,

Because of the value/status of the female within these societies.

The Prince,

Whatever goes on in Western societies also goes on in YOUR society, the difference we know about it, accept it, and choose to participate or ignore it, opposed to your society where you simply deny the presence of the unacceptable. Meaning that, in effect, your society is more prone to criminal, disorganized, inhumane and 'secretive' events.

What I just described can simply be stated in one word

FREEDOM

To add to my point prince, I would like to know which of the following freedom you enjoy:

- freedom of speech

- freedom of press

- freedom of political views

- freedom of religion

And when you answer I would like to remind you, upfront, that Egypt is under Martial Law until June 2010, and most likely until 'hell freezes over'.

:-)

Which in effect means that your answer should be that you have no freedom whatsoever.

Why dont islamic societies allow women to have multiple husbands if polygamy for men is allowed???? coz as far as i know women r not allowed to hav more than 1 husband... every society has their own sets of rules and thats the way it is....

of your nation and region.... Unfortunately you seem not to be so well schooled in really understanding Western culture from the source. Read what Westerners say. Consider the views you see expressed repeatedly. How many Westerners do you know that have EVER said prostitution is respectable and not humiliating for a woman?

I suspect you are just having a go at the Westerners on QL because writing the things you have written here is as insulting to Westerners as someone saying "How come Muslims think it's okay to be terrorists?" You really wouldn't like that, now would you?

I refuse to drink the kool-aid! -- PM

tallg:

So, in democratic societies where "the majority" guide the laws, they are legalizing humiliation (prostitution) which they're against?

Pls clarify

______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

Western men aren't masochists

Quite ok with me. Type away and contribute all you like. ;)

Correct Alexa.

A developed society puts into place rules, regulations and laws for the betterment / protection of its citizens. It is possible that these laws are guided by religious principles, but at the end of the day, they are supported by the majority.

That's Why!

Ah okay...

:-)

Go easy on Alexa, she is tender.

Alexa- she's the one who felt like she had to clarify my post ;)

Cynob, whom did you address that last post to?

That was stated already. And yes, prostitution is illegal in the states. (except for one--PM cleared that up)

Regardless about where one stands on the belief of Mary Magdalene, many Christians believe that prostitution is a sin.

Prostitution is considered a sin by many and is unlawful; therefore, prostitutes are arrested and jailed.

It is also a very dangerous profession since many prostitutes work for pimps. Pimps are generally seen as men/women that use/abuse their "girls" for their gain.

I can't imagine many parents in the west saying, "Ok sweetheart, you can be anything you want to be...how about a prostitute!"

Alfa Q... Simple logic,

it smells a bit, hence I investigated.

your post is a nice copy past...

readers, copy paste this sentence into google...

"So polygyny increases competitive pressure on men, especially young men of low status"

and look at the source, Alfa Q has changed this part

"By allowing some men to monopolize all women and altogether excluding"

LOL Alfa-Q

:-)

Exposed!

In essence, Prince, prostitution is forbidden and a crime, if we take a look through the religious peephole.

However, societies are no longer solely dedicated to God. We became secular, a form of government where the church does not rule the country but the people do. Political parties may be affiliated with religious groups, but the principles of democracy prevent one group from having absolute power. Herein lies the loss of religious values and the more humanistic approach to what should be allowed and what should be forbidden. It also leaves 'individuals' within a society with great responsibilities as they enjoy more freedom on all levels.

the_prince - plenty of people in the West (the majority?) DO think that prostitution is humiliating. I think you've been reading somewhat biased material!

Equally, I'm sure plenty of people in the Middle East DON'T think that prostitution is humiliating to women.

the_dude:

but from what I read I get the impression that culture in the west regards prostitution is not humiliating to a woman, while multiple wives is ... or at least ... less humiliating

is that true?

_______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

According to the Oxford University sociologist Diego Gambetta, editor of Making Sense of Suicide Missions,

it may have a lot to do with sex, or, in this case, the absence of sex.

By allowing some men to monopolize all women and altogether excluding many men from reproductive opportunities, polygamy creates shortages of available women. If 50 percent of men have two wives each, then the other 50 percent don't get any wives at all.

So polygyny increases competitive pressure on men, especially young men of low status. It therefore increases the likelihood that young men resort to violent means to gain access to mates. By doing so, they have little to lose and much to gain compared with men who already have wives. Across all societies, polygyny makes men violent, increasing crimes such as murder and rape, even after controlling for such obvious factors as economic development, economic inequality, population density, the level of democracy, and political factors in the region.

The other key ingredient is the promise of 72 virgins waiting in heaven for any martyr. The prospect of exclusive access to virgins may not be so appealing to anyone who has even one mate on earth, which strict monogamy virtually guarantees. However, the prospect is quite appealing to anyone who faces the bleak reality on earth of being a complete reproductive loser.

It is the combination of polygyny and the promise of a large harem of virgins in heaven that motivates many young Muslim men to commit suicide bombings. Consistent with this explanation, all studies of suicide bombers indicate that they are significantly younger than not only the Muslim population in general but other (nonsuicidal) members of their own extreme political organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. And nearly all suicide bombers are single.

baldrick2dogs: mirror effect! I like it, but

Alcohol is life threatening, causes addiction. Countries concerned for the health of their citizens. expats are allowed to that "freedom"

Alcohol is NOT limited in western countries. All that I want is to know how you think about it ... trying to understand the other.

Xena:

most of men in the middle east as well. I'm asking about why criminalizing it.

skanky and arecel:

but most of western societies are secular.

tallg:

I call it mirror effect, because we are all simply ... humans ... no real differences

_______________________________________________

"The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the

longer stretch the shores of my ignorance."

Polygamy is not a crime, you just can not be married to multiple individuals which has become a standard that derived from Judaism/Christian values.

As time progressed and the consequences form multiple partners slowly revealed itself, std's HIV and such, we can conclude that this has been the right approach.

Unfortunately the popularity of 'couples' clubs, where couples seek another couple for sexual purposes is becoming more and more popular.

Prostitution in some countries is legal, some not. As goes for me governments should legalize prostitution and register all that practice, create labor unions and tax them over their income. Why? This cuts the throat of crime, represses human trafficking and serves a purpose in society. The same goes for soft-drugs.

it's not only in the west but also on some countries in the east that polygamy/ bigamy is outlawed. the reason is simple, it is illegal in the new testament (bible). i'm not sure what's the reason for buddhist countries like thailand & singapore to adopt monogamy though. for muslim countries like malaysia and indonesia, it is common for muslims there to marry only one. cultural convention, maybe..

in my country, adultery/ concubinage is a serious crime. but it is a crime that is so hard to find evidence of:-)

usapa na...

Good question the_prince - interesting to see a common question addressed to people in this region turned on it's head and asked the other way round.

Can't say I have an answer though. Will be interested to read other's responses though.

Follows some rules from the bible and we are allow under Christian-Catholic churchs to marry only one woman-man.

pretty same as the Islamic rules I think.

The Venezuelan Sensation!!!

afford 1 wife, let alone two....;-)

"if you don't like the heat... get out of the kitchen... but stop trying to fan the flames before you leave... it will burn you on the a** as you go through the doorway...." ME

visit www.qaws.org

Well I kinda felt really wierd watching it but as with all series the curiosity of what will happen next kept me hooked to it for a while. Then I discovered wikipedia:)

"Ali Baba and 40 thieves" are now "Ali Baba and 30 thieves" ; 10 were laid off.

Why is drinking alcohol considered a crime in the middle east?

Crime in what sense? what if the drinker agrees?

And is cheating on your beer/having a permanent vodka besides her considered an equally serious crime? and why?

Why is alcohol prohibited, while smoking and underage marriage are being legalized?

It is said that even in some christian countries, alcohol is limited, so why is the middle east so scared about it?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Don't question our laws and we won't question yours.

It's so funny how it works on some levels but is disastrous on others :-)

I refuse to drink the kool-aid! -- PM

Have any of you seen the series Big Love? Its about US polygamists in Utah.

"Ali Baba and 40 thieves" are now "Ali Baba and 30 thieves" ; 10 were laid off.

economic issues (taxes and benefits), but don't know for sure. I think if everyone agrees and they can support themselves, they shouldn't be penalized. But I do think that children are made the unwitting partners in these situations and it can be very, very hard on them. They don't actually get to consent and the choice is made for them.

I don't think the West is scared at all about polygamy. They simply don't approve of it in their societies. It's their right, isn't it?

Please note: Prostitution is not legalized in the US (except in one strange county in Nevada that I have never understood) nor is same sex marriage, except in a very few cases.

I refuse to drink the kool-aid! -- PM