From: jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed A Khan)
Subject: Re: Contradictions in the Qu'ran
Reply-To: jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed A Khan)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 22:50:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.154739.18892@bernina.ethz.ch>, nadeem@igpho (Nadeem Malik)
writes:
> jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed A Khan) writes:
> : In article <MeWkzM200VB=EQGnxr@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Arun K. Gupta"
> : <ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> : > 
> : > Nadeem Malik is correct in the statistics that (at least in 1971 or so)
> : > there were more Hindu men with two or more wives than Muslim men with
> : > two or more wives in India.
> : > 
> : > As far as polygamy and Hinduism go: the matter of fact is there is no
> : > ONE Hindu code of law, there are several. I think some of them permit
> : > polygamy (and some permit polyandry.)  The law codes followed have
changed
> : > with the era and circumstances. However, the majority follow a monogamous
> : > code, (I think).
> : > 
> : > As I have said before, a good portion of the demand for a uniform civil
> : > code is thinly veiled Muslim bashing. There *is* however a need to
> : > reform the Muslim personal law in India.
> : > 
> : > -arun gupta
> : > ag3L@andrew.cmu.edu
> : 
> : 
> : It is very surprising to know that there were more Hindu men with more than
one
> : wife than Muslim men at least at one point in recent past in India. 
> : 
> : But as far as I know it is illegal for Hindus to practice polygamy as laid
down
> : in modern Hindu(Personal)Law or isn't it ? Maybe someone could clarify that.
> : 
> : I, for one, fully support the move for a reform in the Muslim Personal Law
and 
> : would especially like to see polygamy made illegal. Contrary to the
propaganda
> : dished out by the BJP-VHP-RSS propaganda machine though, as far as I have
seen
> : polygamy is not practiced by a great majority of Muslims in India and
instances
> : of polygamy being practiced are rare. 
> : 
> : The one source of misunderstanding by a lot of non-muslims concerning the
issue
> : of polygamy as mentioned in the Qu'ran is its apparent lack of precise
language
> : and hence the possibility of different interpretations but I think it is
agreed
> : by a majority of Islamic scholars (muslim and non-muslim alike) that there
is a
> : definite guideline against making polygamy the norm and that it is allowed
under
> : very rare circumstances. But the enumeration of such 'rare circumstances' in
the
> : Qu'ran is, IMO, inadequately precise and not exhaustive (simply because the
> : Qu'ran is not a legal document in that sense but a spiritual guide) and
hence
> : the 'privilege' has the potential of being abused. Polygamy has been
abolished
> : in some Muslim countries and I dont see why it can't be banned in India
too.
> : 
> : 
> : 
> : --Javed.
> :   
> 
> I think that there is a great danger here of over-reacting to modern
> Western intellectual thinking (because that what it is at the moment).
> Whereas I am one of the foremost in declaring that Muslims need fundamental
> and radical reform in many of the unislamic practices in which they often
> indulge today; there is a great temptation for some 'modernist' Muslims
> in their effort to portray Islam as fully matche for the modern world to
> go too far and in the end only finish up prostrating themselves before
> the 'intellectual' and 'modern' (i.e. Western) norms and practices.
> 





I agree with you when you say that we are (at least I am) influenced to some 
extent by western ideas. But its unfair to assume that it implies a blind
acceptance
of their values and customs by these 'modernist' muslims and that it leads them
to surrender their right to think and form an opinion on social matters.






> There is no reason to ban polygamy at all. In fact, if the West especailly
> adopts polygamy, then it would solve overnight a lot of social problems
> destroying their society. Besides, there is a defacto polygamy, and indeed
> polyandry, rampant since World War II in Western culture ... this is all in
> name of FREEDOM!



I'm no admirer of the 'defacto polygamy and polyandry' rampant in western
societies.
You make a good point in the last sentence but are using it to justify polygamy
which
seems strange (if I understand that you view such behaviour in the west with
disdain)and
you would be contradicting yourself. I'm no supporter of pre-marital sex nor am
I of polygamy.

Regarding the question of abolishing polygamy I don't see how it contradict's
the Qu'ran
in any case. If I assume your argument(there's no such reasoning given in the
Qu'ran as far as I 
know) that polygamy was allowed because of the fear that in the event of war
women would
outnumber men and hence the need to care for them; it wouldn't hold good in
peace times. How
would you justify men taking on a second wife then ? If you say that he can only
take on a 
second wife with the consent of the first then I can dig up statistics of how
the first wife
in most cases was forced to agree because they were so financially dependent on
their husbands.
IMO at least in Indian societies (which includes muslim communities) no woman
would choose to
permit her husband taking on an additional wife if she were not forced to
compromise due to
unfavourable circumstances. 

By the way I was told that in the Hindu (Personal) Law it is a non-cognisible
offense if a 
Hindu male takes on a second wife without the consent of the first wife. But if
the first wife
consents the husband may not be prosecuted. I dont know how far this is true.
Perhaps someone
more knowledgable might want to comment. 
But if this is true then this would be polygamy not objected to by law and
identical to polygamy allowed by the Qu'ran !!!! 




> 
> And on that last point, might I ask how can modern day freedom-thinkers
> justify banning polygamy? 
> 
> -Nadeem Malik (nadeem@p.igp.ethz.ch)




--Javed.


====
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
====
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan