I'd rather he had had an affair

A year ago, I wrote a post entitled "Emancipation and the Qur'an".

http://literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org/ftopic726.php

I included some excerpts from a message board for "co-wives".

The rhetoric of one letter, stressing "long suffering" was lifted (by cultural osmosis no doubt) straight from the Epistles of Paul in the New Testament.

I have had Hindu women speak to me of "the heavenly Father", influenced by that same sort of cross-cultural osmosis.

http://www.zawaj.com/siddiqua/5-1-2001.html

This is the life of a Muslimah, whether she is married, single, a co-wife or a widow. We are all women in Allah's service, His very vice-regents on earth. The day WILL come when we stand before Him (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) hoping with a hope so deep it is cold in our souls and dreading with a dread so intense it will bow our shoulders. Have we earned the
Pleasure of our Lord? The day WILL come when our books will be shut and we will be shut, too ... shut of this world and its foolish charms, shut of our chance to repent, love and shower mercy on every other human being that Allah (Tabaarak wa Ta'ala) in His Infinite Care created and placed here to cross our paths, shut of any chance to stand tall, proud and dignified when we say to ourselves and secretly thank our Beneficent One that we chose to love Him more than our own desires, more than the beating of our own hearts. The Day WILL come and those who have earned their just reward will be dealt it ... swiftly, surely, permanently.

It is not worth it to me to fuss with my soul over why my husband doesn't hold my hand anymore when Nahid is around. It is a waste of my time to regret the changes in my life that Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) put there Himself. It is a shame that I do not want to bear or burden my soul with that I would focus more on what I have lost than what I am gaining. Why
would we want a simple, easy life when the believers REJOICE and are STEADFAST with the Decree of their Lord? Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) knows our pains. Allah (Tabaarak wa Ta'ala) knows our sufferings. Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) knows our fears. Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) knows our doubts and the very day that our suffering will end and our trials of this world, those blessings in disguise, will melt from us as gently as a drop of dew slips sparkling off an early morning rose petal, leaving it refreshed, cooled, soothed.

Dear sister, tell your husband you will struggle. Tell your husband you will fight the good fight. Tell your husband you want to earn the privilege of sharing eternity with him. Tell your husband that obedience to him is
obedience to Allah (Tabaarak wa Ta'ala). Tell your husband that you love what Allah loves and you hate what Allah hates. Tell your husband that you have considered your life and the blessings that have been bestowed upon you and that you are ready to face the next set. Tell your husband that you rejoice at being a believer who finds comfort in the words of
Allah "With every hardship, there is ease. With every hardship, there is ease". Ask your husband to pray for you ... and then you pray for yourself, dear sister. You pray for your husband. You pray for this new wife. And Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) Will ... Allah (Tabaarak wa Ta'ala) Will ... He WILL answer your prayers.

I am a male, and I am ashamed of the predatory lust which I have harbored in my heart since earliest childhood.

I have struggled to overcome my instincts, and be a decent civilized person. In that struggle, I have passed up oppotunities to indulge myself, and then, for years, I look back wistfully upon those "windows of opportunity", and fantasize what it would have been like to indulge. Once such passed opportunity happened long before that movie came out (I forget the name), where the married husband has an affair (oh yes FATAL ATTRACTION), and the scorned woman becomes a homicidal stalker. But, the moment that I had that opportunity, to cheat with a woman who was obviously desparate, and obviously depressed, perhaps deeply disturbed, .... when she said "You dont have to be afraid of ME.." I knew in that instant that I could do anything I pleased, but like a flash, I saw the plot of "fatal attraction" in my mind, and I also saw her deep depression. I said to her, "do you ever get depressed?" Her face changed . She looked down and said "Yeah, sometimes I get REAL DEPRESSED." In that instant, I knew I must not indulge my desires.

I feel genuine sympathy for women in their quest for equality, empowerment. I hope in some small way that my writings/postings over the past 10 years have helped the cause of women.

I think that Condoleeza Rice is an amazing person, who has achieved so much as a black woman. I do not have a deep knowledge of her career or politics, and I am sure there are those who can find things about her to be critical of. But I see no reason in the world why a black woman could not be an excellent world leader. I also admire Hilary Clinton, although I don't know enough about politics to argue in her behalf. But if the day ever comes that a Hilary Clinton or a Condoleeza Rice becomes President or Vice President, then I shall feel quite proud and gratified that the world has dredged itself sufficiently out of its medieval patriarchal mire to endorse such a nomination.

Wow MH! You are one of my blogging hero(ines)! I didn't start blogging about my involvement in polygyny until I read your moving and courageous writings on the subject.

As for the subject at hand, I have received a fair bit of criticism from the PPP (Pious Polygyny Policewomen), but a great deal more support coming out of the closet and into my emailbox since writing this post.

Thank you for adding your response to each of the points I brought up. There are so many stories to be told.

Salaam Alaikum,

PM

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

That's MS. Mutawwa to you, Sir.

Ginan Rauf

Dear Muslim Hedonist I am so sorry that you are caught in such a
painful situation.

As a teenager one of the reasons I left the faith is polygamy. It always struck me as a form of emotional/religious blackmail to
use the otherwise he will commit adultery argument. Yeah right
as if anybody is naive enough to believe that polygamy is a deterrent to adultery. the sermon put forth by Sitram speaks volumes about
the insidious pressure put on women. But I must confess one is so
disappointed in the number of women who buy this garbage and
accept these arguments.

If my husband ever tried to pull that one on me I would go after him
and notify the authorities. Let him get arrested. If he tried to steal my
resources, my children's inheritence, the history of building a life
together then I'd certainly hold him accountable. My own feeling is
that any self-respecting sisterhood would ostracize those second
wives who voluntarily rob women of their life work/ inheritence. that
is if we are really serious about our sisterhood and choose not to build our lives on the misery of our sisters. One is disappointed at
these lame women who rationalize, find excuses and all that nonesense for men who sacrifice so much cauz they cannot control
their impulses. I have few illusions about how religion has been used
to justify this obscene injustice for centuries. the apologetics are
mind boggling. Sitram's post speaks volumes. Unfortunately I've heard many women express similar sentiments. That is how religious
belief often trickles down in terms of social practice. The reality is
many women believe obedience to god is obedience to a husband.

No man could blackmail me with these cynical pieties. that is why
I am so glad to be free of religion. In any case, the notion of marriage as a sacrament appeals so much more to me. there is something far more honorable in for better or for worse than in
the contractual disposability/interchangeability of the female spouse.

Ginan

The comments that I make here, I often repost on myspace.com

Here is what Valentino replied to my post on polygyny:

Dear Sitaram:

Please do allow me to respectfully disagree in regards to a man having equal love for his wives. To be honest with you.... this might be a fantasy for most men... to be able to have more than one lover or "wife" if you will. But..I don't think that there really is no real love here. Its purely an ego trip for the man and pure self satisfaction. Those who say other wise are liars.

There are many polygamists here in the States, usually the use the same excuse that its part of there religion.The women that go along with this usually have low self esteem and see this as a support group for them or a "family" that maybe the have never had.

I think real true love is all about two people dedicated to fullfilling one another, and that nothing or no one else exists for them to grant that love or satisfaction... any other kind of definition for love is just bull shit if you can forgive my bad language.

- Valentino

 How do you define natural, kukuman? I don't know any woman who isn't jealous and deeply hurt when she knows her husband having sex with another woman. THAT'S NATURAL.

Granted some women for one reason or another are determined to accept polygyny and I have no problem with them making that choice freely. The problem is when men try to coerce women into accepting polygyny through many different means. And when they use religion to do it, it is even more sickening.

Salaam Alaikum,

PM

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

That's MS. Mutawwa to you, Sir.

Well, polygamy may indeed be natural- for both sexes, that is. Both men and women commonly stray from the marriage bed, and among primates, males and females have multiple partners as often as they are monogamous. However, a number of "natural" behaviors have been deemed unhealthy for society, e.g. infanticide, theft, etc. I'd say that polygamy might be one of those behaviors, that however natural it may be, it's just not healthy for human societies.

I find it very interesting to contrast these discussions with the situation described in the Mahabharat, a Hindu religious text, in which, through an unusual sequence of events, the five Pandava brothers must share one wife, Draupadi, in common.

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

Although Polyandry is described in this one instance, we never see it practiced in India, among Hindus, to my knowledge.

One must realized that asceticism and celibacy and fasting are emphasized among many Jain, Hindu and Buddhist sects, as a means to salvation or moksha.

Celibacy is seen to some extent in Jewish scriptures, with the oath of the Nazirite, and the wonder-working Prophet Elizha. We see celibacy and asceticism among the Essenes, a Jewish sect. Celibacy is also a key practice for John the Baptist and Jesus, as well as for Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic monastics and bishops.

By contrast, the Zoroastrians and major Jewish sects forbid celibacy and command marriage and the begetting of children.

It was permitted for Hindus to take a second wife if the first wife consented. Rabindranath Tagore wrote a short story about one such unhappy family, entitled "The Girl Between".

"True, Islam as it has been understood to date gives greater weight to the experiences and needs of heterosexual men. That was a product of the interpreters, not of the source text."

I wish that I could wholeheartedly agree with this claim, but I cannot. From its directives on marriage ("Marry [imp.masc.pl.] such women as seem good to you [masc. pl.]...) to its allowance for polygamy and concubinage, to its depictions of paradise, it is clear enough to me that to the source text, women's experiences and needs (whether sexual or otherwise) don't usually count for a heck of a lot.

If women's experiences and needs happen to coincide with those of men, cool. If they don't, the text really doesn't care, unless of course the women start rebelling or wanting to do things their way. See surah 66 (S. al-Tahrim) for a particularly clear example of this dynamic. There are a few contrary instances, though.... Oh heck, I'll put up a post about this, maybe tomorrow; this is getting too long.

For what it's worth, I think of "true" Islam as both quite elusive and ubiquitous- that is, if one is looking for one thing to be "true" Islam alone, one will never find it, but if one is looking for authentic, honest acts of submission, they are everywhere you look. My prayers are just as valid as another's, for they are equally honest. I would say that any and all interpretations that are sought with humility and honesty are equally valid for the interpreter; the degree with which the interpretation is authoritative and valid for others would depend upon the ability of the interpreter to transcend particularities, which is the point of education- to see beyond oneself, the present, the current situation.
MH: I wonder if the fact that the Qur'an often assumes a male audience isn't a response to cultural norms, rather than the Qur'an deeming women's experiences and needs to be inferior. There are textual references that would seem to support that women's experiences and needs do matter, which is why I lean toward the former conclusion.

"Well in that case what about honest acts of engagment with the texts and traditions of interpretation that lead no so much to submission as to skepticism and rebellion. do we judge the merit of these honest acts by their intention or by the desired outcome of submission, is that the only acceptable outcome?" Who said submission was the only acceptable outcome?" The Qur'an states that the path it outlines is not for all. And in terms of honesty, in the absence of glaring evidence to the contrary (e.g. a photo of someone getting a check from Daniel Pipes), we have to give folk the benefit of the doubt. "cannot the affirmation of one's peculair faith also be read on some level as an inability to transcend the faith one happened to be born into or have chosen?" Perhaps, but not necessarily. My favorite color is purple. I can wear other colors, but I'm most at home wearing purple; it flatters me, and I enjoy looking at it. Does that mean that I don't enjoy other colors, or that other colors don't flatter me? Not at all. I can appreciate the beauty, and relate to the faith of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, etc. but Islam is my favorite religion. (so, if you get me a Qur'an with a purple cover, you'll be my new bff. jk.) I'll have to beg to differ with you about the Qur'an, but I respect your honest, hard-won views- and the courage it takes to stand by them.

"Sartre very carefully points out that bad faith is not a state of consciousness that is imposed from without, but a willing act of accepting a situation as fact on what the person knows is objectively faulty evidence."
I'm not sure if your assertion of Islam as "bad faith" holds up too well. For Islam to be "bad faith" one would have to accept Islam knowing it to be objectively faulty. As there is no good way to determine if Islam is objectively faulty, especially when compared to other belief systems, one really can't consider Islam to be "bad faith", any more or less so than other belief systems. Your conclusion depends upon assuming that Islam is objectively faulty, and you've presented no proof that this is so.
Also, you assume that good faith depends upon never encountering opposing ideas, or engaging doubt. The Qur'an and Ahdith collections refute this notion, and it is a minority of poorly educated, fearful Muslims that would assert the need to somehow "protect" the mind and soul by avoiding opposing ideas or engaging doubt.
You've judged Islam by the least capable of its practitioners, and assumed Islam to be inherently faulty. I'd say that your biases don't make you someone that can make balanced, reasoned conclusions about the faith.

Keep in mind that Sartre deals in thoughts and ideas, the small "t" truth. Sartre will not help one when one seeks something beyond thoughts and ideas, beyond the human capacity for reason. When one seeks the Truth, that is when, according to Sartre, one succumbs to "bad faith"- the world of belief, myth, story, and faith. I would not abandon one form of truth for another; we need them both.

You guys are crazy with this stupid multicuturism jinggo!

Now you wanna integreted Hindu teaching into your faith? You favour the color purple??? What a fahion indeed? Well religion is just a fashion to you? Is the quran just a fashionable tool with the ultimate truth is your liberal (or properly called comunnist) idelogy?

Here is a perfect illustration of the perennial human quest for the subjective and ecstatic (which in ancient Greek means to stand beside oneself). But this link describes and event or way of life in a Tibetan/Buddhist/Hindu setting.

Click here 

to visit a long enjoyable read at myspace.com by a young woman living in

Sikkim.

Salam alaikum, I read MH's post with great interest, but speaking frankly, I am quite confused: she describes a social reality in which polygamy is considered a normal male behavior. This is certainly not the Muslim reality I grew up in. In any case, while I am familiar with the sort of "lobotomies" that are performed in the Muslim communities to apologize for outrageous and self-serving conduct, I am surprised at the extent to which people seem to ignore how Islamic law regulated the practice of polygamy in order to protect the interests of first wives. The most important contractual device was called the "tamlik" whereby a wife was given the power to divorce either herself or the subsequent wife. Another common contractual protection was to give her the right to manumit female-slaves belonging to her husband. The Malikis also criminalized secret marriages, which were defined as any marriage in which the witnesses and the spouses agreed to conceal the marriage from even one person. In addition, several conditions that are commonly associated with second marriages, e.g. that the husband not spend the night with the second wife, were taken as not only void, but resulting in the invalidity of the marriage. Obviously, the purpose of these rules was to increase the social costs of polygamy to the husband. Yet, this only makes sense if society frowns upon the practice. I have never read in a fiqh work that women are supposed to feel good or happy that their husband has taken a second wife. In fact, the name for the second wife is "darra", a word derived from the term for harm. Finally, several of the facts MH described, e.g. her husband disappearing for a month, are themselves legal grounds for termination of her marriage to him under Maliki fiqh. Perhaps the greatest irony of the current celebration of polygamy is that it appears to have emanated from the Arabian peninsula from people who claim to follow Ahmad b. Hanbal. The Hanbali madhhab, to my knowledge, was the sole Sunni madhhab to declare polygamy disfavored (makruh). In any case, medieval Muslim law regulated polygamy law and recognized numerous devices to protect women against it. Given this history, it is hard to argue that "Islam" requires women to accept polygamy as part of their lives. In other words, Islamic law has historically recognized that women had a legitimate interest in protecting the exclusivity of their relationships with their husbands. That said, however, there is the theological problem: why would God not make such conduct sinful? If one accepts the notion of progress, however, I think one can get comfortable with the notion that certain types of social ordering that were more common in the past are defensible in the light of their circumstances, but recognition that polygamy in the 7th century Hijaz may very well have been consistent with morality is not the same thing as saying polygamy is socially workable in 21st century post-industrial societies. This latter question, however, in my opinion, should be viewed solely as a legal question, and not a theological one. In other words, I am comfortable with concluding that the regulation of polygamy -- including its criminalization -- is consistent with Islam. I do not believe, however, that declaring polygamy to be inherently evil is consistent with Islam, because we know from the Quran that it is morally permitted -- even in the most liberal readings -- in certain circumstances. I take "permissibility" to mean nothing more than God does not punish a man simply for marrying a second wife (nor does He punish the second wife for that matter), not a command that polygamy must be practiced. (Most scholars of usul al-fiqh take the view that the category of permission is not a command.) Accordingly, I take the norms disclosed by revelation to set a floor, not a ceiling, on human behavior. The latter is determined by ihsan and certainly could not include conduct that is harmful and insulting to one's spouse. Therefore, I said in the previous message that merely marrying a second wife is not sinful, but doing so when one's wife is hurt and humiliated and deprives one's children of resources -- all these are clearly instances of sinful behavior, even if they might be outside the reach of legal intervention. I do want to make one final point, however: I don't think a discussion of polygamy among North American Muslims can be complete without discussing the problematic nature of the discourse on polygamy in Christianity. Polygamy -- more specifically, its prohibition -- has been a profound identity market for Christendom. For many, the open practice of polygamy is simply another sign of the apocolypse that is the result of post-modern "relativism" and this most often associated with religious heresies, such as Mormonism and Islam. The criminalization of polygamy appears more and more irrational in regimes which explicitly state that all types of consensual sexual activity between adults is beyond the regulation of the state. If polygamy were not criminalized, I believe it would be a lot easier for us to criticize the practice of polygamy within Muslim communities because it would not appear as some type of "identity marker" any more. As such, we can simply argue the question on its merits, not what the Quran means. Was-salam, Mohammad Fadel

Salam alaikum,

 A couple of points. My reference to how pre-modern Islamic law regulated polygamy was to make only this narrow point: that the argument that women should practice sabr in the face of her husband's decision to take a second wife is the proper Islamic solution flies in the face of Islamic law which recognized this is an injury to the first wife and tried to give her means to protect herself.  So, there is absolutely no reason why a Muslim woman (or any other woman) should feel guilty in resisting or refusing her husband's desire for a second wife.  There is no sound theological basis for telling her that she is sinful or deficient for resenting being in a polygomous marriage.  Having read several posts by MH on this issue, it seems that -- based on MH's posts -- Muslim women involved in polygomous relationships are told that they should feel guilty about resenting being in a polygomous marriage.  This is complete nonsense from an Islamic point of view, and that is the main point I wish to make.

The second point you raise -- whether economic realities make divorce a realistic option for Mulsim women -- is a serious problem, but not one that is unique to Muslim women.  Many women are not in a position to take advantage of legal remedies because they do not have the social or economic skills to do so.  That is what we should be working for. 

One of the ideas I have is a cooperative financed by dowries whose profits are dedicated to supporting Muslim women.  The idea would be that there be a ready fund available to Muslim women needing assistance in the event of a familial breakdown. 

With respect to Christianity as being the grounds for the prohibition of polygamy, one need only look at the cases in Canada and the United States upholding the criminalization of polygamy.  In both cases, explicit appeals were made to Christian notions of marriage, and at least in the relevant US decision, polygamy was explicitly associated with non-white cultures.  The current prohibition of polygamy in North America is simply irrational in light of other developments in family law in the 20th and the 21st century.  Among these is no fault divorce, the abolition of illegitimacy, the decriminalization of consensual extra-marital sex and finally the inevitable legalization of same-sex marriage.  In short, all the Christian baggage of marriage has been stripped out of the law except the anachronistic prohibition of polygamy.  Any doubts you have as to the role of the prohibition of polygamy in Christian identity in North America should be dispeled by the fact that many (if not all) opposnents of same sex marriage then say in the same breath that if you have same sex marriage, you must allow for polygamy.  See for example this column written by a Canadian opposed to same sex marriage published in response to a recent decision recognizing that a child had three parents: his biological father, his birth mother and her partner.  I do believe that given the constitutive role polygamy plays in Christianity as defining the religious "other," it is completely understandable that Muslims -- in reaction to anti-Islamic polemics centering around polygamy -- would glorify it.  That's why I think it would be a positive thing were polygamy to be decriminalized in North America.  It would be a recognition of the obvious: that polygamy is no more intolerable than other sorts of consensual sexual practices engaged in by pockets of the community, e.g. sex clubs. 

Once decriminalized, polygamy would be banished from the realm of symbolic politics entirely, and we could instead focus on the tangible consequences of such relationships.  Decriminalization of polygamy could be coupled with criminalization of specific acts that are deemed to be harmful, e.g., marriage to another without notice to the other spouse or failure to support, rather than the practice itself.  A similar approach has been suggested toward prostitution.  The point is that regulation dealing with sexuality should be narrowly targeted to the specific secular harms rather than enforcing particular views of morality.

Wa-allahu a'lam.

Salam alaikum, Very quickly, the scheme I propose is not **charity**; rather, it is a mutual insurance scheme whereby women would pool their resources to protect themselves in the event of familial breakdown. It assumes that familial breakdown is not a **moral** failure but akin to a type of accident that all persons are liable to experience, and accordingly, should plan for in a prudent fashion. Men generally do not need such insurance because they are systematically advantaged over women subsequent to divorce (although that does not mean that in some cases, women do better post-divorce than their husbands).

Islamic law provides an ideal structure for the funding of such a cooperative through the institution of dowry and the concept of unjust enrichment, viz., because men are legally bound to maintain the household -- and this is a non-waivable obligation -- support contributed by wives should be deemed to be loans to the husband. [Historical note: the Malikis took the view that what a wife contributes to the household is presumptively an act of charity, and therefore, she has no claim against her husband in the future for the return of that money. There are a couple of reasons why I believe that, as a legal matter, this rule is based on erroneous logic, but in any case, they agreed in principle that a wife's contribution to the expenses of a household could be deemed a loan to the husband, but only on the condition that the wife made it clear that the contribution was a loan at the time she makes the contribution].

In order to do this successfully, we need to draft a model pre-nuptial which would specifiy the mahr al-mithl, and provide for its payment as instalments into the cooperative. The amount of the mahr al-mithl should approximate the opportunity costs incurred by the wife as a result of pregnancy and child rearing. It would be possible to calculate how much income an average woman loses as a result of child rearing. I would guess it would approach at least $100,000 for a college educated woman. For this to work, of course, we need functional communal institutions that can force these terms on Muslim men. Nevertheless, I believe that the approach I am suggesting would be palatable to large sections of the North American Muslim community, and if successful, could at least insure that a dedicated pool of resources to assist Muslim women who are suffering familial breakdown in putting their lives back together.

Finally, I don't think a universial prohibition of polygamy is relevant: it will not stop serial marriage and divorce, nor will it reduce other sources of marital breakdown. Prohibitions of polygamy only serve a symbolic agenda, and that agenda is hardly palatable to most Muslims, so they wouldn't heed the "moral" lesson you seek to convey anyway.

Mohammad

Salam alaikum, I would say that people in general tend to pool resources in the time of emergencies, but that does not obviate the need for insurance: where foreseeable risks exist -- and those risks are distributed randomly -- it is cheaper to pay on an ongoing basis by requiring everyone exposed to that risk to pay a fractional amount of expected losses on an annual basis before the risk materializes. That is why the best time to fund this mutual insurance project is at the time of marriage, prior to the occurrence of any marital breakdown, just like you are required to purchase liability insurance for your car immediately upon purchase of a car. Moreover, people are generally over-optimistic in their ability to avoid risks -- whether they are car accidents or marital breakdown -- and as a result, would not -- if left to their own devices -- lay out money today for an event that only might occur in the future. In short, managing these risks presnts a classical problem of collective action, and requires institutional solutions, which is a good segue into the issue of whether or not such a scheme is feasible. I believe it is for the following reasons. First, it appeals to everybody's sense of risk: I hope people are not too cynical to believe that parents are indifferent to the prospect of their daughters being abandoned or being stuck in a bad marriage solely for economic reasons. I don't think that represents the aspirations of any family for their children. So, it is a solution that is in the interest of everyone, including, prospective husbands, the majority of which presumably are not interested in abusing their spouses, because it serves as a credible "bonding" device that goes beyond mere "trust." It is also thoroughly consistent with the contractual principles of Islamic law, and therefore should not be subject to attach on ideological grounds as a device to undermine the Muslim family. Finally, I believe it is possible to have an organization such as ISNA endorse such a project, because marital breakdown and the risk it creates for impoverishment of wives results in serious problems for the community, a problem that the community cannot run away from, if only for publicity reasons. Once the model pre-nup is endorsed by ISNA or like organizations, it can then be used by hundreds of mosques in North America that reflexively look to ISNA for guidance on such questions.  Moreover, it becomes hard to resist if this is believed to be a commnity norm.  Now, the issue you raise about the valuation of a woman's in-kind contributions to the household is important. I take this as more a question of accuracy in determining the amount of money that the husband should be giving his wife as dowry. As a general matter, at least according to the Malikis, such contributions in principle may be subject to a wife's demand for compensation. In other words, a wife under Maliki jurisprudence is not legally obliged to provide uncompensated in-kind services to the household, although custom may so require. The fact that it is custom and not law that creates the obligation means that express contractual terms override the general custom, so the model pre-nuptial I am talking about could take that into account by providing a formula for valuing the wife's in-kind contributions to the household's welfare. Because of the variable nature of this contribution, it is more difficult to assess on an ex ante basis than her opportunity costs, but the problem is not insoluble as a drafting matter. I do not want to get bogged down in these details, however: what I am merely suggesting is that the vehicle of mahr, combined with properly drafted pre-nuptial agreements that are endorsed by institutions such as ISNA, could finance what would functionally be a mutual insurance society to assure that Muslim women do not stay in bad marriages solely for financial reasons. It does not guarantee that they will not stay in bad marriages for other reasons, e.g. loyalty to children or the like, but at least it solves the financial problem. Now, I'm not sure why you think such agreements can't be enforced: pre-nuptial agreements are routinely enforced in Canada and the US. Moreover, if this project got off the ground, the wife could assign her finanical interest in the pre-nuptial agreement to the insurance company, which would then certainly have a right to enforce the agreement against the husband. I see no enforcement issues whatsover. The biggest potential problem is if the husband is bankrupt. Ideally, the husband would have a guarantor, e.g. his family, or a Muslim institution, perhaps NAIT. The point is if we can create institutions for pooling resources there would be enough money to overcome these kinds of problems. Regarding the decriminalization of polygamy, as a lawyer I believe that it probably would be unconstitutional to prosecute somone soely on the grounds of practicing bigamy. Prosecutors realize that, and accordingly, only prosecute bigamy when they can demonstrate other violations of the law, e.g. fraud, statutory rape, or the like. The reason why prosecution of consensual bigamists between adults would be unconstitutional and would violate the charter in Canada is because it is punishing people for nothing more than consensual sex. That does not mean there is a constitutional right to bigamy. The most I am comfortable in concluding is that one cannot be prosecuted solely for engaging in bigamy. There may be valid grounds for refusing to recognize civilly second marriages. In any case, many progressive scholars of family law are now arguing that the state should get out of the business of defining marriage entirely, and instead only concern itself with the law of maintenance. In other words, the state's only legitimate interest is determining the who owes whom what based on their relationship. Consider the fact that under both US law and Canadian law if a married man fathers children with a woman who is not his wife he will still be obliged to support those children but he will have no obligation toward the mother of those children. This is an outcome that is very hard to defend under contemporary legal principles, so I think it is only a matter of time before the law becomes officially indifferent to polygamy, just as it is practically indifferent to it now. BTW, at the time the American colonies were settled, bigamy was a capital offense! Now, is this development a positive thing for Muslims in North America? I believe so, for the following reasons. First, it does not alter the status quo in a way that harms women's situation relative to men. Today men are already free to partner with women other than their wives without fear of legal sanction as long as they do not commit other crimes in so doing. They can also engage in serial adultery and suffer no criminal or civil consequences. It is hard to understand why it should be a crime if coupling is preceded by a private contractual formality under a religious law. Recognizing this reality simply makes the law more consistent with actual practice. Second, decriminalization of polygamy would focus society and legislators on the more important issue of the substantive harms associated with plural marriage, e.g. impoverishment of women and children. Instead of regulating polygamy as a proxy for these harms, these harms should be regulated directly. Divorce and adultery are also devestating to wives and children, but they are nevertheless allowed. Why should polygamy be criminalized solely on a prophylactic basis when these acts also have the potential to cause the same harms? Third (and this is particular to the Muslim community), it would strip defenders of polygamy of the argument that by engaging in it, one is defending an Islamic practice against those who declare it to be immoral. Once the state declares its neutrality with respect to polygamy, engaging in it is no longer a heroic act of defiance. I want to be clear that I do not think polygamy is an inalienable right of Muslim men (in a pre-sexual reolution society like Egypt, for example, I would be much more willing to support a ban on polygamy), nor do I wish to minimize the emotional and financial trauma of being involved in a polygomous relationship. As a lawyer, however, I am only pointing out that the law is generally indifferent to emotional distress in the family law context (that's what "no fault divorce" means), and that the financial trauma can be at least mitigated by proper planning. And, given the fact that a person in a marriage can suffer emotional and financial trauma for reasons unrelated to polygamy, it is better to treat polygamy simply as one of many causes of marital tragedy and breakdown, rather than something as uniquely pernicious. I suspect that while many Muslim marriages break down, only a minority do so as a result of polygamy. Was-salam, Mohammad Fadel

Oh, and Muhammad, I think it would be disasterous if polygamy were legalized in North America: after that, even the legal remedy would disappear for those women strong enough to turn the bums in. Although it may be the next logical step, the cultural feminism in the US is too strong to pass if put to a vote. Polygamy, unlike same sex marriage cannot be cast as a human rights issue or even an issue of equality since it is rightly denounced as a most unequal relationship. To paraphrase Lincoln, it is "that peculiar institution."

- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.

It is one thing to encourage communities to build civic institutions
of mutual assistance premised on egalitarian principles, i.e one
man equals one woman, and quite another to unwittingly ( or
wittingly as the case may be) to sanction inegalitarian practices
such as polygamy. Does such an insurance fund not indirectly
raise the social prestige of polygamous unions and pass cost off
to the community, leaving it to pick up the broken pieces instead
of holding the husband greedy for another wife accountable?
( Not to digress but I am often struck by how those who rave and
rant about the evils of Western materialism so rarely take newly
enriched men to task for their desire to get a younger prettier wife!) Why not educate young Muslim women on how to draw up
pre-nupital agreements that stipulate the husband will not take on
a second wife and that if he does so her material assets would be
protected? Women might then have grounds for citing an infraction
of a civil contract to protect them from polygamous unions in the
future. Why not have progressive Muslim lawyers educate married
women on the need to have wills, trust funds, to put their financial
houses in order? Besides, why create another class of managerial
experts to regulate women's lives and determine what is or isn't in
their masalaha?

Unlike you I am not so certain that families always do what is in the
interest of their children and am not so trusting of authority. From
personal experience I have learned that fathers eager to remarry or
free up resources often marry off young daughters in a most cynical
manner and don't always have their best interest at heart. I am not inclined to view the family as a romantic institution. I remember reading somewhere, for instance, that a significant number of
homeless children in Egypt who were interviewed cited remarriage
as a major reason for running away from home. Now I know this
certainly applies to serial monogamy as it does to polygamy. Perhaps
that is why communities need to spend more time focusing on how
to hold adults accountable for the intended and unintended consequences for their behavior.

I find it somewhat problematic to equate consensual sex
between two adults and polygamy. It would seem to me that this
is not so much about free consenual sex between adults as it is
about a theologically sanctioned practice of ensuring that males
(exclusively) gain access to more than one spouse. I doubt that
even the most progressive of scholars would support polyandry
as a form of free consenual sex between adults. Given recent technology and DNA testing, of course, it could be argued that
proving paternity is no longer in the realm of the impossible.
Marriage is so much more than consensual sex. Besides, is it really
in the best interest of a community that is already beseiged and
in certain ways alienated to create parallel systems that contain
the further risk of entrenching the power of community elders
and strengthening authority figures, conservative, progressive or
otherwise? I agree with Omar that legalizing polygamy in North
America would be disastrous.

Ginan

Salaam:

( I got the impression that women would also be pooling their
resources for such a fund)

It increases the prestige of polygamy by implementing institutional
practices that enable, yet again, wealthy men who can afford to
pour money into this insurance fund to acquire multiple wives
with the implicit approval and theological sanction of the
community. I am still at a loss as to how the community can
enforce payment given that many young couples trying to establish
themselves may not have money to spare for yet another insurance
cost. It is often in middle age after a woman has contributed to
the fortune of a family that a man may decide to take on an
additional wife. She has a right to half his wealth, much of which
may not have been earned at the beginning of the marriage and
may include assets like real estate and so forth. To this wealth she
is entitled and not just as a passive recipient of a dowry. It is not
a matter of who is at fault but of who needs to be protected in
ways that accord with a sense of fairness. Those assets- not just
an insurance policy- are rightfully hers and should be beyond the
reach of a second wife. You know MH's piece spoke about how
women in such situations would rather their husband's had an
affair. My friend speaks of having been robbed of her history, her
dignity, her energy and all that she had built with this man. It can
be deeply humiliating for a woman to be a wife among others. I
am not sure money can compensate for that kind of deep hurt
and the sense of enraged injustice many women experience in
such situations. Besides, Wealth is not an inert constant and the intial dowr might not adequately account for the woman's contributions.That contributes to the feeling of being cheated and treated unjustly. It is deeply inequitable. It means a man can
legitimately have access to more than one sexual partner at the
same time. A woman who does so is a ""whore'' or guilty of adultery.
( so much for sex among consenting adults I suppose). In such
cases, of course, scripture can be mobilized against women who
freely engage in sexual activities with another adult. Fidelity itself
becomes gender inflected and we Know from practice that there are
a lot of fault lines here. Polygamy inadvertently strengthens the double standard in sexual behavior sanctioned by custom in many muslim communities. This is a profoundly feminist issue. For me
it is not a symbolic agenda but a matter of deep commitment to
equality, a sense of fairness and liberty for the human individual.

Ginan

Laury I couldn't agree with you more. I certainly want to see
the government out of people's private lives and the business
of consenual sexual relations. But I am equally eager to see
the mosque and a professional class of clerics out of the
bedroom as well. Why would we want them meddling?
Religiously speaking would you want to see polygamy
legalized within the framework of civil unions? Who would
create and administer these legal opportunities?

It might be true that MH's husband would find a way to behave
as he does no matter what. But the issue is not to punish or
legislate ethical behavior. Rather, it is to hold people accountable
for the consequences of what they do.

GInan

Maybe I should add that to my mind some relationship models are more resistant to abuse than others. I would consider polygamy to be less resistant to abuse than monogamy.

Laury,

I know I don't I agree with the last portion of your post, and your suggestion that ignoring clerics is practically impossible suggests that Muslim women lack independent agency.  If that is what you are suggesting, then I also disagree with that. I know we have talked about the problems converts face -- and their being stripped of the power of their moral convictions in some cases -- but you are taking subjective confusion on the part of a woman in her decision to consent to something and then saying her "consent" under those circumstances is morally irrelevant and we might as well deem her to have been raped.   Please clarify what you mean by rape in this context.

In addition, I don't believe that the failure of a Muslim woman to turn her husband in for bigamy indicates abuse: it just shows the irrationality of a legal rule that criminalizes a second marriage but permits adultery.  No Muslim man who has taken a second wife Islamically is stupid enough to register that marriage with the state.  In the absence of such an attempt, he is only an adulterer, not a bigamist.  Even if he could be prosecuted in such circumstances (even though an adulterer could not), how does that help his first wife?  Or, for that matter, the second wife, or is she just a whore and we should not be concerned about her welfare?  Again, if he fathers children with the second "wife," they would have maintenance rights and rights to inherit, regardless of the fact that he is not the husband of their mother, so why should the mother be left out in the cold merely because she was second in time to the legal wife?

Thanks,

Mohammad