From: azhar@duke.cs.duke.edu (D. Salman [Quintessential] Azhar)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Multiple Wives
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:38:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University Computer Science Dept.; Durham, N.C.

Personally, I am not for 4 wives. I would prefer 3 wives in
conjunction with one rotating spot for Saturday nights. However, allow
me to enter this conversation as impersonally as I could.

In article <BtLrFo.1D1@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> afzaal@mace.cc.purdue.edu (S. Afzaal) writes:
>Rukhsana Merchant writes:
>>A second point is that men are not able to deal with past relationships
>>of women, no matter their own past relationships.  It is not in man's
>>nature to share his wife with another.  

>This is a great generalization. I am sure we know exceptions to the

	   There are exceptions to all generalizations. However, in
general I would agree with RM. Men, especially Pakistani dudes, are
very insecure about their dudette's past relationships. Even after
practising the concept of "free love", they would like their wives to
be virgins. 

>above. There are many men  who are either involved or married
>to women who have already been in relationships. It is more
>common in this culture perhaps than the Pakistani culture but it in no
>way indicates that it is something in `man's nature'.

	   Nevertheless, these cultural biases are not limited to
Pakistani society. As a former student here, I have witnessed males
being dubbed as "studs" after becoming famiilar (read screwing) every
female in the block. On the other hand, I have witnessed femails
labeled as "sluts" when they change boyfriends.

>that a woman also experiences the  shattering pain when the man she loves is involved
>with someone else. 

	   Statistical studies show that women kill their husband's lover
more often than they kill their unfaithful husband. Men usually kill
their unfaithful wives. [Source: no longer in my cache]. 

>I don't think this nature business explains polygamy in 
>Islam at all. What I am surprised at is that it is coming
>from a woman. 

	   I can see this degenerating into a men vs women argument.
However, if consenting adults wanna share their husbands, and Islam
allows it, I don't see what the objection can be. It is difficult to
extrapolate one's own sentiments to general population. There might be
women who would like to share their husbands with other women [would
all these blessed ladies please send me email so that I can quote
them, and then later maybe..., just maybe... well never mind :-)].

> I don't think it is anymore a woman's nature to 
>share the man she loves than it is a man's nature. 

	   Just as Sunia Jee objected to RM's generalizations, I was
tempted to object to this generalization as well. However, any
statement qualified by "I think.." is a personal judgement call.

>Rukhsana Merchant also writes:
>
>>not given to the other and visa versa.  They have different obligations
>>and rights but there is equality.
>

>I  agree with you there. But things like religion are a matter
>of faith and not explained logically. Equality is a very shady
>term in such a complex situation. 

	   Couldn't have said it better meself!

>much meaning.  Read Sura-tu-Nissa and tell me
>that men and women are equal. It clearly states that men have a
>degree higher than women. Where does it talk about equality???

	   Aha! Thou need to contextually interpret the Sura-tu-Nisa
injunction. "MEN" in general do not have superiority over "WOMEN".
Quran repeatedly reminds us that humans are equal in all respects
except the extent of their "taqwa" (losely defined as the cautious
avoidance of wrong due to a respect (fear?) for God's commandments).
Having said that (and pleased most feminists), I must add that
HUSBANDS have a degree of superiority over WIVES (but BROTHERS don't
have anythings over SISTERS). [The following interpretation has
endorsed by Allama Javed Ghadimi as well, and is not (entirely my own).

>When it comes to explaining a religious commandment  which  doesn't
>quite make sense to us , we  can explain it  logically in terms of
>its social benifits if we  like. Everythng has its explaination if
>you look for it.   
>
>Sunia Afzaal

All said and done, religion remains a matter of faith. Either you have
it, or you don't, and the rest is just water under the bridge! :-)
What sez RM, Sunia Jee, and that lady across stormy seas.

dsqa



-- 
"To have loved and lost is better than to have won.... For, the burden
of victory has to be shouldered throughout life, and all losses rest
easy in the insatiable abyss called grave." 
--- D. Salman [Quintessential] Azhar CS Dept Duke U  azhar@cs.duke.edu