From: sherwani@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Naveed Sherwani)
Subject: Re: Contradictions in Quaran
Summary: Mother is center of family and man and center of everything
Organization: Western Michigan Univ. Comp. Sci. Dept.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:44:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.170346.3087@bernina.ethz.ch>, nadeem@igpho (Nadeem Malik) writes:
> Since just about everyone has given their opinion on this hot thread, I may
> as well add my ta-pence worth of comments:
> 
> Polygamy and polyandry (sp?)
> ============================
> 
> The ban on polyandry (women with more than 1 husband) in Islam is not 
> merely because the father cannot be identified etc. Islam seeks to raise the
> moral standards of human beings to the level where they are not just seen
> as an animal homo-sapien-sapien. In this connection, it should be well
> understood that a family is really built by the woman of the house. No
> wonder the Holy Prophet, when asked by a disciple who is the most important
> in rasising a family, he replied 'the mother; when further asked who was
> the next most important person, he replied 'the mother' again; when asked
> again the same question, again he replied 'the mother'; only when asked
> the fourth time did he answer 'the father'. On an other occasion he stated
> one his most celebrated sayings, "Paradise lays at the feet of the mother".
> 
> From this, it is abundantly clear the position of the woman in the house
> is paramount in raising a moral and spiritual household, and ultimately
> for the building of society in general. 
> 

May we ask, what happens to females who don want to participate
in this ultimate society. Islam dos not apply to career oriented women
or does it ?

The problem is Islam does not HAVE a definition of career oriented 
woman.

> If we look at the lower mammals, we see a curious phonomenon; the female
> consorts with any number of males and the children can only be indentified
> through her. The question is whether humans, as social, moral and spiritual
> beings, could also practice this behaviour. The fact that human society
> is built essentially on the moral and spiritual excellence of the mother
> strongly implies that this should not be allowed under any circumstances ..
> whther DNA coding reaches 100% certainty or not. A loose woaman in the house
> means the moral decay and ultimate destruction of society.
> 

Animal kingdom is full of diverse family structure. 
In many animals,  couples form a life long partnerships (many birds) , 
in others males actually carry the fetuses to birth (sea-horse).
In primates (most closely related to males), we have male dominated
groups (mountain gorillas) and female dominated groups (chimps).
It is a simple observation that all the family structures evolve
to answer the needs of the environment.

> I do not claim that Muslim men are not promiscuous in some countries and in
> some social circles (although in comparison to the West this is undoubtedly
> much less); but I do claim that the really big difference between Islamic
> and Secular societies is that women in Secular societies are as promiscuous
> as men. This is the crucial imbalance (or is it balance!) that is really
> destroying the moral fibre of the Western orientated societies.
> 
> 
> Polygamy is allowed, not recomended in Islam. It has been allowed to cope
> with situations of (1) war (2) men travelling far from home for long times;
> (3) severe illness of a man. (There may be other cases also.) In the past
> travelling was a real problem, and traditinally it is alway the man who
> travels. Polygamy in this context can be well understood. However, as
> travelling has become easier, I think that this may cease to be an important
> factor. Indeed, the more advanced a scoiety, the less polygamy one observes
> even in Muslim countries.
> 

What about females travelling from home for long times ? 
Many wives (girl friends) go to long distances (other universities)
these days to get Ph.D (5-6 years), what about them ?

Now that women travel for long distances for longtimes, should we
apply this law to females ?

[stuff deleted]

> 
> 
> Finally, readers may be interested to note that the World Wode Anglican
> church finally allowed polygamy at their last Lambath Coulcil, which is
> held every 11 or so years. They said that in some regions of the world
> polygamy is rampant; but this should not be prevented from receiving
> Jesus in their hearts (or something like that). They meant Africa where
> Christianity simply cannot prevent polygamy which is indeed rtampant 
> their.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Nadeem Malik
> nadeem@p.igp.ethz.ch

I think polygamy is direct result of sexist attitudes and whenever
societies can take advantage of some of its members they do. It is
easy for men to pass laws about polygamy, stop and ask a female.
Then you will understand, how wrong it is. It is easy for males
to make long speeches about WHY females cannot have two husbands ?
Is it difficult to be a female to be subject to these laws.

Let me give you another example, it is easy to sit in your home
and make big speeches about How bad is abortion and killing of
life etc etc, it is totally differnt to be a female, who has become
pregnant and dont want the baby ?
Under pressure even Bush and Qualye have admitted that their policy
is a two-faced (in fact a LIE), a policy meant for others but not
for them.

Same is true for polygamy laws in Islam, these are laws made by MEN
to be imposed on WOMEN, if women had some say in this, I would 
like to see how these laws would look like.

I like Islam for great things it achieved in terms of equality
of races, some rights of women, etc. but it scores rather low in 
equality of man vs. woman, as examplified above.

I dont want to bash Islam too much, but at the same time we must
point out its weakenesses if we see any.

regards,

-Naveed

Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan