About a week or so ago, I was invited to participate in a town hall focusing on religious freedom in America and the contagion of so-called "anti-Sharia" legislation around the country when the topic of Muslim sister wives arose.
By way of background, approximately 50 "anti-Sharia" bills have been introduced in more than 20 states and three have passed, including those in Oklahoma, Louisiana and Tennessee. The "Save Our State Amendment" -- the constitutional state amendment of which about 70 percent of Oklahoma voters approved last November -- forbade courts from even "considering" Sharia and it was subsequently enjoined by a federal district Judge prior to certification by the state Board of Elections.
The Judge did so on the grounds that it is most likely unconstitutional as it would infringe upon the peaceful practice of religion by American Muslims guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
I was specifically asked to address the civil rights implications of such legislation for the American Muslim community. It is worth noting that observance of Sharia is typically a private and personal matter for observant Muslims. For instance, volunteering at a soup kitchen or donating money to the local food bank is observance of Sharia. Showing kindness to animals is observance of Sharia. Refraining from lying, back-stabbing, cheating or stealing is observance of Sharia. Compassion, mercy and forgiveness towards others is observance of Sharia.
What about polygamy?
As with most town halls, a robust Q and A ensued and I was asked about the Islamic practice of polygamy within the American Muslim community. The topic -- shrouded in misunderstanding -- necessitates brief discussion and clarification.
The Muslim world is frequently regarded as misogynistic and the misplaced belief that Muslim men may unconditionally marry up to four wives may contribute to the stereotype. (It always amuses me that men who may know little else about the Islamic faith seem to know about the ostensible right to four wives).
To be sure, there are liberal and conservative interpretations of the Quranic verses pertaining to polygamy within Islamic Law.
According to liberal interpretations, polygamy is a pre-Islamic practice and Islamic Law attempted to limit it by restricting the number of wives permitted. Polygamy was not only practiced without restriction by the pagan Arabs who inhabited the Arabian peninsula at the time, but also by adherents in other faith communities as well. In fact, polygamy continues to be practiced in other faith communities today and has inspired shows like "Big Love" on HBO.
Some liberal Islamic scholars go so far as to say that the Quran implicitly prohibits polygamy. Proponents of this liberal view point argue: while polygamy is permitted, the very Quranic verse sanctioning the practice also prescribes a condition to its exercise, a condition which God Himself admits is exceedingly difficult to fulfill which is treating co-wives with perfect equality.
These scholars point to the verse in the Quran which states, "You are never able to be fair and just as between women, even if it is your ardent desire." [Chapter 4, verse 29] They claim that the conditions attached to polygamy are so rigorous as to make it a practical impossibility.
The conservative viewpoint on the subject is that polygamy is permitted but frowned upon.
These more conservative scholars argue that the Quranic verse regarding polygamy was revealed in the immediate aftermath of a battle some 1500 years ago against pagan Arabs where a large number of Muslim men were killed and a lot of women and children were left unprotected in what was largely a tribal society.
In contrast, polygamy is habitually misunderstood by some proponents in the context of satiating men's sexual appetite. Yet, this is largely attributable to cultural bias without sound basis in Islamic doctrine.
What about the American Muslim community?
Islamic Law requires adherents to abide by the laws of the land in which they reside. Regardless of whether an American Muslim subscribes to a liberal or conservative viewpoint of polygamy, as noted above, they are religiously prohibited from engaging in polygamous relationships because it is illegal in the United States to do so.
End of inquiry.
Polygamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An Introduction to Polygamy in Islam - The Religion of Islam
Polygamy in Islam - Polygamy 411
Muslim believers are free, of course, to believer whatever they wish. But I would read the Quran as accepting whatever marriage customs a nation might have - but demanding that individual Muslims have no sexual intercourse outside of marriage. I am unsure what that would mean were a nation to abolish marriage as an official relationship - something the United States seems to be on the verge of doing. It might even be possible today to argue that, legally, the word "marriage" no longer translates the Arabic word. The situation is changing rapidly and we can only wait and see
[2:221] Do not marry idolatresses unless they believe; a believing woman is better than an idolatress, even if you like her. Nor shall you give your daughters in marriage to idolatrous men, unless they believe.
[4:22] Do not marry the women who were previously married to your fathers - existing marriages are exempted and shall not be broken - for it is a gross offense, and an abominable act.
4:23] Prohibited for you (in marriage) are your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, the sisters of your fathers, the sisters of your mothers, the daughters of your brother, the daughters of your sister, your nursing mothers, the girls who nursed from the same woman as you, the mothers of your wives, the daughters of your wives with whom you .have consummated the marriage - Also prohibited for you are the women who were married to your genetic sons. Also, you shall not be married to two sisters at the same time -
[30:21] Among His proofs is that He created for you spouses from among yourselves, in order to have tranquility and contentment with each other, and He placed in your hearts love and care towards your spouses.
[4:4] You shall give the women their due dowries, equitably. If they willingly forfeit anything, then you may accept it; it is rightfully yours.
If through training we can accustom people to honoring the person who fulfills his duty rather than the one who demands his rights, we might succeed in making duty the source of ethical and social relations and thereby initiate a new order for a better world.
For the training which focuses on duty as the goal of the refined human being leads to a form of respect for the rights of others which is more protective and beneficial than the employment of force in establishing and safeguarding those rights.
Such training is more in conformity with the history of human reform inasmuch as it has always been the method of prophets and reformers.
It would not be difficult to return to this method or to create a new attitude that dwells on praising those who fulfill their duty toward the rest of mankind.
Prophets have forbidden killing, stealing, betraying, and deceiving, and have expounded upon the importance of one's duties to others, not one's rights.
Should we become accustomed to denying ourselves that which is harmful to others and make our example universal, we would be taking a positive and decisive step in the direction of establishing a new order, although on the surface this might appear to constitute a negative message.
http://www.fmreview.org/FMRpdfs/Human-Rights/islam-human-rights.pdf
Forced Migration Review
The UDHR and subsequent instruments of international human rights law and international humanitarian law now play a vital role in providing protection for refugees and IDPs. Yet the
claim to universality has been disputed and not all states have acceded to these legal instruments. It seems that a particular point of controversy or dispute in the Islamic world is their compatibility with sharia.
There has recently been some debate
about the UDHR4 in the Islamic world,
mainly on the issue of whether it is
compatible with sharia. Some human
rights advocates, both Muslim and
non-Muslim, fear that Islam, or at
least sharia as practised, might be
incompatible with human rights, or
with the UDHR, and therefore with
IHRL. Some Muslims, on the other hand,
argue that the UDHR is in direct conflict
with some principles of sharia law and
thus unsuitable for the Islamic world.
The group framing the world Human Rights Declaration , sent the program to two of the great thinkers of the East, Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, seeking their advice. Their responses were very different.
Gandhi answered by first making a question:
what were the practical results of declaring such rights, and who would watch over them and safeguard them? He suggested that the group had begun at the wrong end of the problem, that what the world needed rather was a conviction concerning human duties.
This reply provoked H.G.Well's anger, and the latter unleashed a shameful attack on the great leader for having refused to cooperate because of his passive faith, accusing him of retrogression and lack of appreciation of the necessities of the age.
As long as men of power are not motivated by ethical conduct, laws, and conscience-by the perception of their duties-the rights of man will remain in their present state: impossible of realization.
It is proper that we try a new system of ethical conduct and a new approach, with a new order based on duty; instead of attempting to equate people on the basis of rights, we should make duty the basis of equality-perhaps that would be more effective in repelling aggression and more conducive to respect for the rights of others.
What you say is mostly true about advanced industrial nations, but the same nations have done the opposite in very many third world nations supporting dictators, juntas, autocrats and other oppressive regimes and have not raised their little fingers in trying to prevent human right violations. Palestine is one good example.
Masha Allah, this sister exactly explained polygamy in Islam! There is not much to add, other than as she pointed out, those Muslims who do take more than one wife in America are violating sharia because they violate US law. In countries like Africa where polygamy is allowed, perfect equality doesn't mean two women in a grass hut. BOTH women must have nice homes and need for nothing. So even where it's allowed it is really only for rich Muslims who can afford to totally take care of two women. It violates basic Islam when some of my not so well off brothers dupe women and add to their poverty and claim, "I am following the Sunnah."
Take for instance the following example. Can’t we allow a man taking a second wife, say under the following circumstances?
A husband is allowed by the religious law under extraordinary circumstances ( examples: Issue less, medically proven that the wife is barren or his wife is mentally retarded, the husband loves her so much and does not want to divorce her though he is unable to have sex relation with her, should he let her go he is scared she might be abused)
But the husband does not want to divorce his wife on these grounds though some of the readers may say that the man should divorce his first wife if he wants to marry another woman.
This need not be the case all the times. And both spouses, in my example strongly feel that the man should take a second wife to maintain inheritance.
But in very many Muslim countries as you say very many men abuse this law and even those who are poor and who can not treat both wives equitably go for a second marriage.
We can NOT delete the Shari’a law on polygamy but Muslim Shari’a courts can give fresh interpretations to the law and ensure, control, regulate and bring in bye-laws restricting such abuse of Shari’a laws, this comes under interpretation but not deleting any of the Quranic laws as people like Mr Jan Daniel insist.
However, they also force teen girls into marriage against their will and that part tends to get glossed over when people champion this.
In terms of religion, there are historical references to polyandry in Hinduism.
If the equality of rights for men and women is firmly established and maintained, then men and women should be able to make their own arrangements with members of any sex without interference from anyone else.
If they choose to join a religion, they agree to follow that religion's restrictions on choosing a mate or mates.
Because that should be an adult choice, parents should not choose a religion for their children. First, teach them ethics and then let them choose for themselves--after they reach the age of accountability and can understand the long term consequences of the decision they are making. That's what happens in the end, anyway.
Almost as if attention were being deflected to avoid discussion of the issue.
Why?
But the big problem is deciding what constitutes good ethics, what are the criteria to judge?
In a secular society, the question is answered by drawing from tradition and common sense.
A more orthodox society would show a tendency to stick to the traditions of the forefathers tenaciously.
Philosophers tend to challenge the very basis of the traditional ethical positions. The media adopted for the purpose of effectuating change.
Once the support for a particular point of view gains currency and seems to influence the majority, the political support follows which ultimately results in the legal enactment of the new point of view.
It is quite clear that ethical solutions lack permanence. No moral position can hold its ground for long. What was ethically bad yesterday can be made to appear perfectly acceptable today( same sex marriages)
In a religious society, although common sense and tradition do have a place in influencing attitudes towards ethical questions, these are subservient to the all important source of prophethood which dominates the ethical world.
All traditions and suggestions of common sense are -- or ought to be -- in line with the teachings of the prophets.
Although interpretation of the prophet’s teachings on the subject vary, the basic principle that prophethood enjoys ultimate authority over other sources of knowledge remains unchallenged. In fact, to a religious society the teachings of prophets are the teachings of God Almighty and therefore unquestionably superior to all others.
If terrorism was due to religion we'd see a whole lot more of it.
http://cpost.uchicago.edu/
In many ways, the question of whether the rights are universal or not is more important - otherwise in short order, people will be stripped of those rights - that kind of rights isn't worth having.
==========
The ancient Greeks--before scripture--did not recognize human rights?
I believe you have it backwards. All religions codified the ethics of the society in which the religion was founded.
In today's world, it would be the heads of Muslim countries who would sign or not sign on these treaties and agreements, which may or may not be under the UN.
So the answer to your query is YES.
Now, the Shariahphobes will descend here and tell us how evil and dangerous Shari'ah (aka Islam) is.
Muslims here better hide and protect themselves from the line of fire!
The questionable and offensive ideologies of all others must be shielded from critiquing minds.
If I have not studied medicine, while I can certainly ask Shaykh Google for basic stuff and grasp it, it doesn't make me a qualified physician to critique medicine in an educated manner.
If I have not spent years formally studying American Law, it doesn't make me a lawyer or a judge and certainly not a qualigied critic of American Law.
So the same is true with Islam and Islamic Law, which is an accumulation of over 1400 years of scholarship, under different circumstances and historical situations, with multiple methodologies, and there are steps a person takes to specialize in this or that aspect of them.
What I see on web forums consistently is the criticism of Islam and its Laws by those people who are clearly not knowledgeable in these areas.
Additionally, there is a huge difference between providing a critical analysis, which is based on knowledge, and demonization of something.
I also see a lot of demonization of Islam disguised as "criticism".
a) Islam is most likely the most criticized and demonized religion in the world.
b) Many of us do not consider Islam to be an ideology. It's a religion, which has a doctrine about discerning between the Real and illusion, methods to integrate with the Real, and Love (see Rumi's Mathnawi, which is an esoteric commentary on the Qur`an).