>Does it work the other way around? Can an islamic woman have multiple husbands? If not, why not?<
No, and neither can women in the other polygamous cultures around the globe have multiple husbands. Polygamy, which precedes Islam, is and always has been unidirectional in gender privilege. Can any woman in any polygamist society have multiple husbands? No, and it is because of the way that gender relations characterized division of labor in all early societies. Islam emerged at a time when Polygamy was the norm in many parts of the world. And, even at that, Islam encouraged monogamy. In fact, conservatively, more than 90 percent of the world’s Muslims are monogamous. The stipulations for more than one wife are rigid, and Arab cultural abuse of that condition is in no way informative of Islam.
If you remember from your history classes, the pre-Islamic Arabian Peninsula was steeped in ignorance, lawlessness and brutality. Women stood not a chance in that society. Islam introduced a lot of humanity and societal stability to that hostile condition. So, before bashing folks’ religion, isn’t it better to begin by appreciating what may be positive about it? Just asking.
>I thought both man and woman were equal in the sight of Allah?<
I do not think that there ever was absolute equality between the sexes in any part of the world. Mere physical differences dictate an imbalance. Equality between the sexes has to be defined wrt to a specified set of rights and functions. All religions and cultures use this notion of gender equality very liberally. If you insist on a loose interpretation of gender equality, can the law then dictate that your wife shares all the dangerous and physically challenging duties with you? Other cultures, in obvious ways, may offer more opportunities to women, but it does not erode the fact that all modern societies are still challenged to improve their record on gender equality. There are many Muslim communities that have better gender equality records than Grenada; so the issue is not as simplistic as the emotional jargon with which we like to represent it.
For my female relatives, I prefer their chances in a non-muslim society; but that should not cause me to deride and disrespect Islam and Muslims. Just as I cannot attribute the failure of Christians to Christianity, I also cannot attribute the failure of Muslims to Islam.
And when you take jabs at Muhammad for his many wives, you need to appreciate what was really happening at that juncture in Arab history. Have you ever considered that marriage was a mechanism, then, for how society developed and expanded from an infantile state? It was the way tribes and cultures melded together to grow in strength. Have you ever considered the depleted male population in Arabia at the time because of internecine wars, and the feasibility of polygamy as a partial solution? Sure, from our vantage point of 21 st century modernity these 14th century folks look primitive, but we should be more contemplative of the contrasting realities involved.
And you folks have taken jabs at him for marrying Aisha. But, again, these are the stubborn facts:
Muhammad was distinguished, but he could not exceed the natural limits of his time. Sure, Aisha was an 8 or nine year old virgin at the time she was married. But it was a time on the Arabian Peninsula when the average life span of a woman was 25 years, when menstruation was the accepted standard of maturity. At that level of societal evolution it is obvious that sex and conception would begin at an early age. The short window of childbearing and raring had to be taken advantage of, if posterity was to result. Aisha’s father offered her hand to Muhammad, because he was known to be good and gentle. Muhammad was a handsome and well-mannered guy who did not have problems attracting women. Why then did he first marry Khadijah who was 15 years his senior? Muhammad was not the kind of sex-crazed Mormon derivatives who take advantage of young girls today. That was not the dude’s mission.
Using our ‘modern’ standards to condemn folks who lived 14 hundred years ago is utterly absurd. We have to understand the differences that our centuries have wrought. Our appreciation of history cannot be so shallow, that we would condemn incest among the first few humans who lived on earth.
In ‘Christian’ America, just 150 years ago, the age of consent ranged between 10 and 13. Who are we today to condemn a Bedouin who married an 8 year old, who lived in the arid desert1400 years ago, when our business does not look any better? Jefferson is revered as a political prophet and founding father, but he may have raped his young slaves, and we do not know how low in age he went. 8? 9? 10? Who knows? At least, Muhammad waited for Aisha’s menstruation, as was the norm of Arabian society in that ancient time. We have to appreciate the development of age-of-consent, in relation to history and human lifespan.
Moderated By: mod@spiceislandertalkshop.com
|
|