Requirements for Muslim Men to become Polygamous

ThreeringsI believe polygamy should be legalized.

For polygamy to be legal it must be consensual, entered by adults, and absolutely equal.

This is against the beliefs of muslims, who claim that god has made men superior, and women inferior, bound to obey and submit to their men who have the right to force them into polygyny and beat them if they object.

So, I believe that in order to marry a second spouse, muslim men (and all others, with adjustments) should be obliged to take the following oath:

I marry you, NN, as my second (third, fourth et.c.) wife with the full consent of my prior wife/wives. By doing so I proclaim, before Allah, you and all of mankind, that I wholeheartedly and willingly accept your absolute and equal right to enter marriage to more men, or women if you prefer. I pledge myself to encourage and support you in polyandry/polygamy and I declare before Allah, you and all mankind that I do this with all my heart, all my soul and all my mind, holding your rights in every way to be the same as mine. My wives’ equal rights in every aspect of life, I do hereby declare to be a law of Allah, a law of nature and a law of society. I will accept any spouse you, or any of my wives, may bring into our polygamous family as your legal spouse and my co-spouse. I hereby declare that if I ever retract, verbally or mentally or by any kind of act, any part of this oath, if I have, or ever have, any proviso, restriction or reservation in giving this oath and keeping this oath, I commit my soul to burn in hell eternally. Ameen.

The day all  muslim men agree to take this oath as part of their nikah, is the day I will respect muslim polygamy.

5 thoughts on “Requirements for Muslim Men to become Polygamous

  1. In Oklahoma – a state with only 20,000 Muslims – state Representative Rex Duncan, and Sand Springs (both Republican) attempted to pass “state question 755” which were popularly known as the “Anti-Sharia” laws. Although #755 contained some general clauses in an attempt to seem legally innocuous, both supporters and opponents of the bill knew that the law would only serve to deny the constitutional rights of the state’s minority-Muslim citizens. The law was actually approved with 70% of the vote in the state general election on Nov. 2. 2011. Despite its popularity with the states white non-Muslim majority a Federal Judge struck down the measure as unconstitutional.

    Although white supremacists and anti-Muslim fanatics were utterly disappointed, people with reason and legal sense from all persuasions breathed a sigh of relief that their justice system actually stood by legal principles rather than the white-supremacist hate-filled mob-rule that Oklahoma has always been historically known for. In the spirit of justice and reason I have analyzed your oath of in order to determine whether it would be able to stand the scrutiny of legal reason and fairness or whether it is simple another “Anti-Sharia” bill.

    I have broken down this oath into 7 sections.
    1) The requirement that all parties agree to the arrangement.
    2) Declaration that the wife has a right to marry other men (or women)
    3) A mandate that the husband will encourage wife to marry other men and support her in these marriages.
    4) A mandate to give wife equal aspects in every aspect of life
    5) Declaration of the legal status of any additional spouses
    6) Prohibition to retract, speak, or think, against the above mentioned rules
    7) Consequence of eternal punishment (in hell) if any rule is violated.

    To only require this rule for Muslim men would be a prima facie case of discrimination and likely struck down by a court of law. You have stated that adjustments could be made, presumably to make this oath applicable to non-Muslim polygamists (the majority of polygamists in America)
    So lets us apply these adjustments in order to ascertain its fairness to everyone else.

    If this law were to be fairly applied to a general citizenry then we would have to replace its eschatological and Islamic terms with enforceable material terms. Thus “Allah”, would be replaced with the State, and “eternal punishment in Hell fire” would be replaced with a lifetime prison sentence. Laws, oaths, and commandments all have rules in common. So I will analyze the essence of these rules.

    Rules generally fall into four categories which are mandatory, prohibitory, discretionary, or declaratory. Your oath seems to combine both mandatory, and prohibitory.
    A mandatory rule requires that somebody act such as rule # 3 “I pledge to encourage and support
    (My wife) in polyandry.” A prohibitory forbids somebody from acting, such as rule #6 “I hereby declare that if I ever retract, verbally or mentally or by any kind of act, any part of this oath, if I have, or ever have, any proviso, restriction or reservation in giving this oath and keeping this oath…”
    When we analyze the elements, casual terms, and results and penalties what we essential have is a marriage oath cum criminal code.

    Rule #1 The consent rule is understandable and is already a requirement for polygnous marriages in Maldives, Malaysia, Iran, and Singapore.
    Rule # 2 Polygamy means multiple marriage which by definition includes both Polygyny and Polyandry. Polygamy, not “Mormon Polygyny” is what the U.S. outlawed 126 years ago. If this law is repealed then Polygamy (Polygyny and Polyandry) is what will be permitted by law. What would then be the purpose of the husband declaring an oath to specifically recognize polyandry if Polygamy is already recognized?
    Rule#3 Furthermore what would be the purpose of requiring a husband to specifically support and encourage polyandry? Is it fair to the couple that only one form of marriage (polyandry) is entitled to mandated support?
    Rule #4 The Equality declaration in Rule # 4 is undermined by the inequality of Rule #3 The wife is not mandated to specifically support and encourage Polygyny yet the husband is required to specifically support and encourage polyandry.
    Rule #5 the greek suffix “Gamy” means marriage. If the marriage element of polygamy has already been sanctioned by the state then why the need to specifically mention legal recognition of such?
    Rule #6 No freedom to change your mind, no freedom of speech and no freedom of thought. Therefore If the wife decides she does not like her polygynous arrangement then she is not entitled to a divorce. If the husband realizes that he is not cut out for the role of providing equally to all of his wives and would rather divorce the additional wives and remain married to his first wife he is prohibited from doing so under penalty of lifetime imprisonment.
    Rule #7 Lifetime imprisonment. So let’s say a woman doesn’t agree to be polyandrous or lesbian, despite her husband’s support and encouragement of it. However her husband wants to take on a second wife. The wife doesn’t mind the idea and she gives her consent as per rule #1. They follow all of the additional rules but a few months into the marriage despite her equal treatment she decides that she no longer wants to be in such a marriage arrangement. According to rule 6 if she speaks or even thinks about “retracting” the agreement (seeking a divorce)

    This is pretty harsh oath in my opinion and it is not equal to all genders. I think any woman with a father, sons, or brothers would fight to repeal such an oath if it were ever enacted.

  2. Hello ToV!

    I am not American. I am a subject of Her Majesty the Queen. I am neither knowledgable nor interested in American law.

    I can tell you however, that it is not unconstitutional to take an oath. You could claim that marriage in itself is unconstitutional, that you give up freedoms, e.g. concerning property. You could claim that becoming a nun is unconstitutional on the same grounds.

    This oath would be voluntary. Only people wanting to enter a marriage that allows polygamy would have to take it. You can simply choose to refrain, from the oath and from polygamy. Just like you are not obliged to become a nun.

    Yours, F

  3. American Law is based on the tradition of English Common Law. Thus America, and her laws would fall under the category of the presumably “enlightened western” legal systems that have been juxtaposed to the “absurd Islamic legal systems” in your posts.
    The specific Oklahoma’s anti-Sharia laws were only an example used to illustrate the principle of a “western” legal infrastructure rejecting a set of discriminatory laws.

    On a side note I actually believe that your country is light years ahead of mine due to the fact that they actually have provisions for religious communities. Jews, and Muslims can arbitrate civil matters in religious courts of their choice. Arbitration does exist in the U.S. but I don’t think that they have reached the level of the Jewish and Muslim courts you find in England. This may be due to the fact that Islam in the U.S. is largely the realm of an indigenous American population as opposed to the immigrant Muslim population that exists in the U.K.
    An indigenous American Muslim population may be more likely to reject importing an existing legal framework from a Muslim majority country in preference for a constructing a more customized Islamic framework which has been designed to suit the needs of an American reality. This r is a topic that Muslim American scholars have written volumes so I will leave it there and get back to my argument.
    I was simply saying that the oath that you have created, ostensibly in an effort to combat unfairness and discrimination, would more than likely be struck down in a “Western” court as being unfair and discriminatory.

    “You can chose to refrain, from the oath and from polygamy”
    Yes this is a given. It is also a given that if you and your partners found that particular oath discriminatory you could refrain from that particular oath in preference for another oath with terms that both you and your partners find acceptable.

  4. American Law is largely based on thoughts of the Enlightenment and on the Napoleonic Code. American law before the revolution was to a large extent based on English Common law. We do wish to forget sometimes, but there was a revolution in the Colonies alas, in the 1700 hundreds.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s