One of the criticisms often made against Muslims living in western countries is that they see the host culture as impure and they make constant demands for the culture to adapt to them, rather than the way most migrant cultures see things of the migrant having to adapt to life in the new culture.England and France, where there are regular calls for sharia law to be recognised have been further down this road than Australia. But now it looks like the campaign is beginning in earnest here also.
From the ABC:
Legalise polygamy, says Islamic leader
An Islamic leader in Australia is calling on the Federal Government to recognise polygamous marriages.
Keysar Trad from the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia says there are polygamists in the Muslim community in Australia who would like their relationships to be legal.
He has told triple j's Hack program that the women are left in a vulnerable financial position if the man dies.
"If this woman has wilfully chosen to enter into this relationship and make a lifelong commitment to this person to be married, it shouldn't matter," he said.
"If it was a business and the business had four partners we'd recognise that, but why don't we recognise it when it comes to consensual relationships amongst adults?"
Article
It doesn't matter that western legal tradition is built on 2000 years of Christian law that says marriage is about one man + one woman. It doesn't matter that history shows that polygamy is actually detrimental to women in nearly all cases. It doesn't matter that the overwhelming majority of Australians think that marriage should be monogamous.
Let's just ignore this and demand that we can have what we want.
Of course, it's easy to see that the homosexual lobby would back this because anything that undermines the sanctity of monogamous heterosexual marriage supports their political agenda.
Of course if they, the Islamists, were to get their way in this the results would horrify them. Why is one man + four women particularly sacred? In our "anything goes" culture it would become any group of people irrespective of gender that could become married. Why stop at adult humans? Why can't I marry my horse/ cat/ car/ computer? In opening up one particular combination or more than two partners, in our "rights" society there is nothing to place boundaries or limits on where this kind of "marriage" can be taken. If adults, why not children? The Islamists already think that twelve year olds should be married.
Of course with the total depravity that would come from this agenda, the Islamists would then be even more justified in their thinking for demanding sharia law.
Welcome to Ozziestan!
[/FONT]
Excellent points and very well made, Keith! Thanks for putting into words what I believe a lot of people think.
ReplyDeleteI heard Keysar Trad speaking on the radio this morning and he said that in Sydney there were religious marriage services happening every week. That means that people are in a sense flouting the law and then expecting the government to change the law to legitimise what they have done, because the women can be left vulnerable. Well it seems to me that it's the tradition that is at fault not the law.He also said that some imams refuse to do it, because they recognise it is not central to Islam.
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking that the only reason (at this time) the woman would be left financially vulnerable would be if she were one of several wives. If the marriage was one woman and one man, would not the laws of Australia protect her? It seems to me that they're more worried about not being able to have a lot of wives than they are in protecting women. Maybe because the women wouldn't go and live with them unless they are married?Also, if one man can have several wives, this must mean that there are a lot of men who cannot marry. It seems a little unfair that they should be denied a family, children and grandchildren. What about these single men when they get old? I don't know about Australia, but here the old people's pension is not huge and it's very helpful for two people to live together and pool the pension money. Most older couples here are a man and his wife. With this philosophy, the single men would become somewhat financially vulnerable unless he would choose to live with other men in his older years.I don't know Keith, it just seems that polygamy only benefits a very few people, but they are trying to sell us on the idea that it's good for others too.
ReplyDeleteThe immediate problem, as I see it, is that people are "marrying" multiple wives under Islamic ceremonies, but as the law only allows one wife to be legally married to any one man, they are not registering the subsequent "wives" under the law. That means that the first wife is the only one with any legal recognition. So that does leave subsequent wives in an inferior position. On the other hand, de facto relationships are recognised in state laws so that shouldn't be an issue.Polygamy is not only culturally abhorrent in the west it is also a social anachronism anyway. It really arises in cultures where there is a "shortage" of women, usually due to high rates of death in childbirth. In most modern cultures, both men and women live well past their child bearing years and women usually out-live men anyway. As well as that, in western cultures, women have opportunities in the work force or may be supported through Social Security programmes. It's a very different situation to Middle Eastern cultures where women were totally dependent on men, were not allowed to earn their own income and were subservient in every way.
ReplyDelete