Polyandry and Polygamy

[sania]

sania, some species of bird do this, Polygynandry is just nature...i think I said this before... polygamy is also just nature... but maybe humans should actually be making some kind of example, and proving that God made us in his own image, rather than like... cats or snails or polygamous birds.
Just because you can do something doesnt mean you should, and just because the law permits it, or the Quran says its acceptable, doesnt mean it endorses it. So maybe all those who have taken multiple wives, like BB was saying, for pretend genuine reasons, who are the fooling but themselves? Maybe it is truly impossible to love two women equally, or perhaps saying justly is diffrent from equally... but that could just be in the English translation... anyway, maybe what was written was impossible for anyone to do, and a man can say that he treats them equally till he is blue in the face, does it mean he does? Even if he believes that he is treating them equally in his heart, maybe he is just being truly ignorant? God will know, and He will judge.

Sorry this was a bit heavy, but polygamy hacks me off.

Yes, animals and birds do it.

But modern man has evolved so much that he can no more be considered as an animal.
Men and women have evolved into a new kind of beings socially and intellectually,
though biologically they are animals.

They have formulated social rules which are best for their happiness and
protection under the prevailing conditions.

The process of evolution is applicable not only to physical and biological features,
but also for the social and cultural habits, mores, rules and practices.

[Felicity]

So the answer is that you too, SK, do not believe polygamy is right or acceptable? So I am confused why you are constantly trying to defend the indefensible. Or is it right just to leave the polygamous to it, and leave God to judge.

"Sacrifice, true (that's the nature of polygamy: discouraged but permissible) but for gains also (that might outweigh that sacrifice) depending on each and every situation. Remember that the woman doesn't have to spend a penny from what she earns or that belongs to her, not for food, not for bills...nothing!"-SK

If that is all a woman is frightened of having to sacrifice, if that is all a woman cared about, then perhaps she would wholly deserve having to share her husband. But sorry to generalise, I would feel in most cases, this is not what she is scared of or cares about. Also, the first wife will have doubtlessly already shared all her belongings with her husband, she may not have to, but if you love someone, you share everything with them. And then would your arguement just be that Islam says the women doesnt have to, so its her own fault? So does it mean that no woman should ever fully give heself and everything she has to her husband for fear he eventually may get a second wife? If in times of hardship, should she keep her money to herself?

I'm afraid I'm not to into reading any other Islamic texts other than the Quran, but I doubt most Mulisms bother to study the Bible, so I don't feel too bad that I'm only sticking to the one book. If Muhammad was the last prophet, and the Quran is from God, then why look at books which were written by ordinary men? Meaning, at least the bible was written by many prophets and kings etc, people chosen by God, not to offend anyone, but surely advice from books after the Quran are only as useful as any modern theologian? Feel free to put me in my place at this point.

[Shotokan_Karate]

Salam Felicity,

So the answer is that you too, SK, do not believe polygamy is right or acceptable?

If that was your conclusion then no. I agreed with your previous post in which you expressed dislike at most.

My position:

• I am not interested in polygamy because it is not for me like it is not for many people, but...
• It could be a solution for other people, and so it is permissible but only under certain circumstances and rigorous conditions.

If that is all a woman is frightened of having to sacrifice, if that is all a woman cared about, then perhaps she would wholly deserve having to share her husband. But sorry to generalise, I would feel in most cases, this is not what she is scared of or cares about. Also, the first wife will have doubtlessly already shared all her belongings with her husband, she may not have to, but if you love someone, you share everything with them. And then would your arguement just be that Islam says the women doesnt have to, so its her own fault? So does it mean that no woman should ever fully give heself and everything she has to her husband for fear he eventually may get a second wife? If in times of hardship, should she keep her money to herself?

Good question. I don't know so I have to look into that. However, my understanding is that sharing does not always mean giving. In a loving relationship of course she would share. But in the case of a fallout/divorce he would owe her that share, unless she forsakes it. It depends on the level of love and trust she has for him. It's her life, she has to make these judgments. Yes it's tough but no-one knows the future.

but I doubt most Mulisms bother to study the Bible.

I do. The question is: do most Christians bother to study the Bible?

I'm afraid I'm not to into reading any other Islamic texts other than the Quran, but I doubt most Mulisms bother to study the Bible, so I don't feel too bad that I'm only sticking to the one book. If Muhammad was the last prophet, and the Quran is from God, then why look at books which were written by ordinary men? Meaning, at least the bible was written by many prophets and kings etc, people chosen by God, not to offend anyone, but surely advice from books after the Quran are only as useful as any modern theologian? Feel free to put me in my place at this point.

You are right. Hopefully you won't need any other text. I only suggested Tafseer in case the language was not clear for you or for extra info maybe.

W'Allahu A3lam

[Al-khiyal]

أنا وأزواجى الأربعة

ائذنوا لى أن أزف إلى أربعة.. بل إلى خمسة. أو تسعة إن أمكن.

فلتأذنوا لى بمحاكاتكم.

ائذنوا لى أن أختارهم كما يطيب لجموح خيالى الاختيار.

أختارهم مختلفى الأشكال والأحجام. أحدهم ذو لون أشقر وآخر ذو سمرة. بقامة طويلة أو ربما قصيرة. أختارهم متعددى الملل والديانات والأعراق والأوطان. وأعاهدكم أن يسود الوئام.

لن تشتعل حرب أهلية ذكورية، فالموحد امرأة.

اخلقوا لى قانوناً وضعياً أو فسروا آخر سماوياً واصنعوا بنداً جديداً ضمن بنود الفتاوى والنزوات. تلك التى تجمعون عليها فجأة ودون مقدمات.

فكما اقتادونى دون مبررات لمتعة وعرفى وفريندز ومصياف ومسيار وأنواع مشوشة من الزيجات، فلتأذنوا لى أن أقتاد بدورى أربعة.

هكذا رحت أطالب مرة بحقى فى تعدد الأزواج أسوة بحقه فى تعدد الزوجات. استنكروها، النساء قبل الرجال. والنساء اللواتى تزوج عليهن أزواجهن أكثر من المعلقات بأحادى الزوجة. والنساء المتزوجات أكثر من العازبات. كتب رجال الدين الشىء الكبير من المقالات والسؤالات حول عمق تعريفى للزواج وعمق تدينى وكتب القراء كثير من الرسائل أطرفها من يريد الاصطفاف فى طابور أزواجى المأمولين.

أصل الموضوع كان تعنتى وإصرارى على أحادية العلاقات. أصله رغبة جامحة باستفزاز الرجل عبر طلب محاكاته بالشعور بذاك الإحساس الذى ينتابه (وأحسده عليه) وسط أربعة أحضان.. ألم يمتدحه الرجال؟ ألا يتمنونه بالسر وبالعلن؟ لطالما طرحت السؤال حول علة الاحتكار الذكورى لهذا الحق. لكن أحداً لم يتمكن من إقناعى لم: أنا محرومة من تعدد الأزواج؟

كرروا على مسامعى ذات أسطوانة الأسئلة وقدموا ذات الحجج التى يعتقدونها حججاً.

قالوا إنك لن تتمكنى كامرأة من الجمع جسدياً بين عدة رجال، قلت لهم الزوجة التى تخون وبائعة الهوى تفعلان أكثر، بلى أستطيع. قالوا المرأة لا تملك نفساً تؤهلها لأن تعدد. قلت: المرأة تملك شيئاً كبيراً من العاطفة، حرام أن يهدر، تملك قلباً، حرام اقتصاره على واحد. إن كان الرجل لا يكتفى جنسياً بواحدة فالمرأة لا تكتفى عاطفياً برجل.. أما عن النسب فتحليل الحمض النووى DNA سيحل المسألة. بعد فترة لم يعد تفكيرى منحصراً فى تقليد الرجل أو منعه من التعدد، صار تفكيراً حقيقياً فى التعددية، التى نخجل نحن النساء من التصريح عن رأينا الداخلى بها.

التعددية التى انتشرت بدايات البشرية وزمن المجتمع الأموى والمرأة الزعيمة. التعددية التى اختفت مع تنظيم الأسرة وظهور المجتمع الأبوى وبدايات نظام الاقتصاد والرغبة فى حصر الإرث وحمايته.. لأجل تلك الأسباب كان اختراع البشرية للزواج. وجاءت الأديان لتدعم أنه مؤسسة مودة ورحمة وأداة تناسل وحماية من فوضى الغرائز.

كل الفوائد المجتمعية مكفولة به. وكثير من المصالح الدينية مضبوطة به. عدا شىء واحد. لم يحك عنه المنظمون. وهو دوام التمتع بالجنس.. ودوام الانجذاب داخل زواج خلق لتنظيم الجنس..

جاءت حماية الأمور المادية للمجتمع من اقتصاد وأخلاق على حساب الشغف الطبيعى بين الأنثى والذكر. ونسى المنظمون أن الزواج يستحيل عليه تنظيم المشاعر التى ترافق الجنس. لأن لا قانون لها ولا نظام. الجنس داخل مؤسسة الزواج واجب روتينى.. أحد طقوس الزواج اليومية. وسيلة إنجاب، إثبات رجولة، كل شىء عدا أنه متعة جسدية ونفسية.

يقول الرجال: يصيبنا الملل، تغدو كأختى، لا أميل لها جنسياً مثل بداية زواجنا صار بيتى كالمؤسسة، اختفى الحب.

ـ الملل.. أهو قدر طبيعى لمعظم الزيجات؟

فتبدأ ما نسميها (خيانة)، ويبدأ التعدد لا لأن الرجل لا أخلاقيات له لكن لأن الملل أصابه حتى المرض، والتقاليد وأهل الدين يشرعون له الشفاء.

أما المرأة فتحجم عن الخيانة، لا لأن الملل لم يقربها، بل على العكس فى الغالب هى لم تشعر بأى لذة منذ الليلة الأولى فى هذا الزواج التقليدى المنظم. لكن لأن التقاليد وأهل الدين يأمرونها بأن تلزم بيتها و(تخرس). هل كل المتزوجات فى مجتمعاتنا الشرقية مكتفيات جنسياً؟ بالطبع لا.

تخجل المرأة من التصريح بأنها لا تنتشى (أو لم تعد تنتشى)، وأن ملمس زوجها لم يعد يحرك بها شيئاً.. وتستمر بممارسة أمر تعده واجباً دينياً قد يسهم بدخولها الجنة خوفاً من أن تبوح برفضها فيلعنها زوجها وتلعنها الملائكة. سيمون دى بوفوار بقيت على علاقة حب بسارتر حتى مماتها لم يتزوجا ورغم مغامراتهما المنفردة بقيا على ذات الشعور الجارف بالحب تجاه بعضهما.

هل الأحادية فى أصلها الإنسانى خطأ؟ هل الحياة داخل منزل واحد والالتصاق الشديد هو سبب الملل؟ اختفاء عنصر التشويق.

هل صحيح أن الأجساد كلما ابتعدت يرسخ الانجذاب، وكلما اقتربت الأجساد حد التوحد اليومى ابتعدت الأرواح؟ هل من الغلط انتقالهما للحياة فى منزل مشترك؟ لماذا يدوم كثير من العلاقات خارج إطار الزواج لسنوات طويلة وحين يتم الزواج ينتهى كل ما جمعهما؟ حتى يقال (انتهت علاقتهما بالزواج) وكأنها فنيت.

هل هناك خطأ فى الزواج نفسه؟ هل يكون عقد النكاح المكتوب هو السبب.. تحويل المشاعر لأوراق تصادق عليها المحكمة والشهود لإبرام تحالف المفترض أن يكون روحياً؟ أهو اختلاط الحب والانجذاب بالالتزام القانونى والرسميات.. أم أن تدخل الأهل واشتراط موافقة جمع هائل من المجتمع والنظام ومختلف المعابد قد يفرغ المشاعر من روحها..

التعدد فى اعتقاد كثيرين هو حل لمشكلة الملل والسأم وتلبية لمشاعر الرجل، لكن فى احتكار الرجال للتعدد دون النساء تمييز وخرق لكل معاهدات سيداو. إذ كيف تلبى مشاعر المرأة؟

إما التعدد لنا أجمعين أو محاولة البدء برسم خارطة جديدة للزواج.. تحل أزمة الملل وحجة الرجل الأبدية. وحتى ذلك الوقت يبقى سؤالى مطروحاً: ما الحل إن أصابنى الملل من جسده أو شعرت أنه أخى؟

[Al-khiyal]

أنا وأزواجى الأربعة

Polygamy for all

January 2, 2010 -- They say that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. But it does: the roaring rage of injured male pride. This was amply demonstrated in Egypt when a female Saudi journalist had the audacity to apply logic and consistency to challenge an area of traditional male privilege. In an article provocatively entitled "My Four Husbands and I", Nadine al-Bedair quite sensibly posed the logical question: if Muslim men are entitled to marry up to four wives, why can't women, in the spirit of equality between believers, have four husbands? "I have long questioned why it is men have a monopoly on this right. No one has been able to explain to me convincingly why it is I'm deprived of the right to polyandry," she complains.

The outspoken Saudi then goes on to deconstruct and question the traditional justifications for polygamy, including that, in a traditional patriarchal society, it is a shelter for widows, divorcees and women who can't find a spouse; that men have greater sexual appetites than women and get easily bored; that women can't handle more than one man; and that, if women could have multiple husbands, determining paternity would not be possible (an excuse made obsolete by modern science). "They tell me that I, as a woman, can't handle more than one man physically. I say that women who cheat on their husbands and the 'sellers of love' [ie prostitutes] do much more," she counters.

Unsurprisingly, the article's honest tone and irreverence has triggered a furious response from the traditional male establishment. Some Islamic clerics have denounced the article and promised the "blaspheming" author divine retribution, while an Egyptian MP has decided not to wait that long and has already brought a lawsuit against her. While few have openly voiced support for al-Bedair's call for this kind of equality in the Islamic marriage stakes, some Islamic authorities have defended her by saying that her true purpose was to highlight how badly some women are treated by their husbands, especially those who take on second or third wives, despite Islam's demand that a man treats all his wives equally.

For her part, al-Bedair ends her article with a call that society either allows polyandry for women or comes up with a new "map of marriage". One Cairo imam, Sheikh Amr Zaki, believes the way to go is to confine polygamy to the scrapheap of history. "In our world today, polygamy should be unacceptable. There is no need for it and, besides, no man can truly love more than one woman and vice versa," he opined. And his view corresponds with that of the Egyptian mainstream. Although Islam permits polygamy, most Egyptians are jealously monogamous, with men who take on more than one wife often mocked or marginalised by the community and the first wife often so full of shame that she requests a divorce. Nevertheless, the question remains: which is fairer and more equitable – monogamy or polygamy for all?

Even in monogamous societies, informal polygamy (and polyandry) are a reality. In Europe, for instance, though most people, myself included, are serial monogamists, many men and women have multiple partners or lovers simultaneously, and there is a growing tendency to be open about this. However, the law has not kept up. "A man can live with two women in Britain perfectly legally, but if he marries them both it's a crime punishable by up to seven years in jail," Brian Whitaker observed on Comment is free earlier this year. "If a man wants to have more than one wife, or a woman to have more than one husband, and everyone enters into the arrangement openly and voluntarily, what exactly is wrong with that?" he asks.

Of course, traditional models of polygamy (and polyandry, in a minority of societies) tend to reflect social inequalities, both between genders, generations and classes. And assuming a 50:50 gender divide, polygamy not only means that women in polygamous relationships not only receive a small fraction of a man, but that some unfortunate men lower down the pecking order will get no woman at all. But there are perhaps more equitable modern models of polygamy and polyandry emerging in which men and women who are largely social equals enter into complex relationships that go beyond the nuclear family through which they hope better to fulfil their emotional and physical needs.

Of course, as my wife points out, marriage is becoming, in many ways, obsolete, as fewer and fewer people choose to take that path, and European largely have the freedom to choose the living arrangement that best suits them. But to my mind, it's a question of principle. For example, gay people don't need to marry to share a life together, but that should not mean they have no right to. In my view, if the institution of marriage is to survive, it should not be so limiting and be made flexible enough to enable people to customise it to their unique needs.

[Aayesha]

The real reason why women are not polygamist is, they dont need four husbands to prove their womenhood.