I have been utterly amazed to discover that a major newspaper recently carried an opinion piece by a Muslim spokesman advocating polygamy in Australia. If a Christian were to write an article suggesting something equally bizarre, it would never see the light of day. Or if it would, the only reason would be for it to be roundly condemned by one and all. But the Melbourne Age evidently thought it was quite alright to actually run with this nonsense, presumably because a Muslim was pushing it.
To be sure, there are all sorts of nutter groups out there promoting polygamy and polyamory at the moment. Simply type the latter term into a search engine, and see the multitude of sites promoting it. There are plenty of groups out there – some seeking to pass themselves off as ‘respectable’ – calling for the full legalisation and normalisation of polyamory.
Of interest, the very same arguments being used for polyamory (group love and marriage) are the ones being used for same-sex marriage: ‘Hey, what’s wrong with it if it is consensual, confined to adults, and doesn’t hurt anyone?’
In an age of moonbattery, people making such arguments actually think they are on to something. But why stop there? Bestiality, incest and all sorts of other forms of sexuality can be argued for in a similar fashion. And with so many people arguing for the lowering of age of consent laws, we might as well include paedophilia in there as well.
Indeed, if a dad and daughter are “in love” and agreeable about their relationship, who is to say that the state should object to such an arrangement? Such is the moral and mental freefall we find ourselves in that these positions are actually being pushed, apparently with a straight face.
But back to Islam and the Age article. Of course, the real issue here is polygyny, because Muslim men are allowed to take up to four wives, while Muslim women can only have one husband. It’s a man’s world, when it comes to Islam.
And to seek to foist this upon a Western democracy is ludicrous. I and others have long warned that Western democracies are being undermined within by Muslim minorities seeking to push for sharia law.
Indeed, they are seeking for a two-tiered legal system: one for Muslims, and one for everyone else. Suffice it to say, this of course is a recipe for disaster. If Muslims are allowed all sorts of privileges to promote their own unique laws, then why not other groups? Indeed, why not in the end allow every person to simply decide which laws they will adhere to or not?
Either the rule of law applies to everyone impartially and without distinction, or it applies to no one. No society will last long at all if its legal cohesion is torn asunder, and differing legal systems are allowed to compete in the same land.
And the arguments put forward by Keysar Trad are weak, illogical and mischievous. For example, he makes this incredible remark: “Monogamy is great, but it is clearly not for everybody.” He might as well say, ‘Sexual self-control is great, but not for everybody’. ‘Acting like a human being, not an animal, is great, but not for everybody.’ ‘Alcohol in moderation is great, but not for everybody.’
He not only seems to think that men are really beasts who must have more than one woman to satisfy his lusts, but he (and Islam) is being blatantly sexist about it as well. Women cannot have multiple partners, but men can get their sexual cheap thrills by having up to four women.
He also claims that legally enforced monogamy was only a late development, implying that prior to Justinian things were a swinger’s paradise, and that Christians were quite happy with polygamy. That of course is far off the mark, with monogamous marriage the norm for the New Testament writers and early church fathers. State pronouncements on anything having to do with Christian morality of course were late in coming, since for the first four centuries Christians were a persecuted minority.
He closes with these very odd words: “A man can have multiple girlfriends. Why not formalise that into a commitment for life? Why should ‘bigamy’ be a crime?” Again, let’s just extend the logic of his thinking here a bit:
-A woman can have multiple boyfriends. Why not formalise that into a commitment for life?
-A woman can have multiple girlfriends. Why not formalise that into a commitment for life?
-A man can have multiple boyfriends. Why not formalise that into a commitment for life?
And so on.
Trad also whitewashes the whole issue, implying that things are all sweetness and light for the multiple wives. Sorry, but the reality is far different. As I have written elsewhere, such arrangements are usually quite deplorable for the women involved, while men end up in a sexual free-for-all.
Former Muslim Nonie Darwish wrote an important book about the treatment of women in Islam called Cruel and Usual Punishment. In my review of that book I wrote these words:
“Muslim women are prohibited under sharia from marrying non-Muslim men. But Muslim men can marry Christian or Jewish women. And the sharia marriage contract ‘is essentially a document granting sexual intercourse rights to the male and giving him total control over his four wives’.
“There are even temporary marriages purely for the purposes of sexual pleasure for the male, called mutaa, or pleasure marriage. This ‘marriage’ can last as little as an hour. Then there is misyar, or traveller’s marriage, which is “designed to accommodate the male sexual appetite while travelling’.
“Divorce is of course also all one way traffic in Islam. Men can divorce their wives instantly, simply by saying ‘I divorce you’ three times. A Muslim woman cannot initiate a divorce. In custody cases, children after the age of seven (or sometimes nine) belong to the father.
“And a male can beat his wife and sexually abandon her. Under sharia a husband deserves total submission and gratitude. As one revered Muslim scholar, Imam Ghazali has said, ‘Marriage is a form of slavery. The woman is man’s slave, and her duty therefore is absolute obedience’.”
We do not need this sort of cruel oppression of women to become legalised in this country. We have been seeking to liberate women in the West, not return them to chains. I conclude with some words I also used in a previous article:
“Most Muslim women despise such [polygamous] arrangements, and usually there is one woman that is singled out for special treatment by the husband, while the other three languish. It is this inequality of love and affection which makes polygamy so miserable for the majority of women involved in it. Jealousy, tensions and strife are common in such scenarios.
“Polygamy is all about the lusts of the males, but not the wellbeing of the females. Right now polygamy is illegal in Australia. To legalise it will not only set in cement the misery many Muslim women already experience, but it will be a further nail in the coffin to heterosexual marriage, and the near universal principle of one man, one woman for life.”