Does Islam Look bad in Polygamy?

Angela thank you for your input:

Angela wrote: In a way, the trend of non married and gay couples in this country are changing the laws and making it easier on the unregistered plural wives of men.  But, is that really a benefit you want to partake of?  I would rather a Muslim family challenge and change the law, thus continuing to encourage lawful marriage and cohabitation. Its easier to challenge the immorality of fornication and adultery if you are fighting to preserve the legal marriage as a tenet of society.

I know there are "Muslim personal laws"  which can be applied on muslims in certian areas. These laws can easily accomodate issues like marriage, divorce, child custody, inheritance etc. There are countries which have this system, and I hope muslims in the west think about it as well.

On a side note, I never said polygamy is a requirement in Islam. It is a permission only. However one shld understand that if something has been made permissible by the divine, it cannot be treated with a frown, disgust, intolerance etc  - which was how the post sounded - the original one to which i had posted my objection in this thread.

Polygamy is not always a need, and most men even in Islam maintain one wife only.

Thank you for your input, NS.

I agree with all of what you have said above. I did not have any clash with the above facts you have listed.

Najamsahar wrote: UmmTaaha, you are speaking about the society, these stories are dime a dozen, all under the banner of islam, quran and sunnah. And this is what is giving the religion a bad name. We cannot be so wishful as to seperate what we do from what Islam is.

It all depends on how we mention and discuss the problems of our society. Where denying the problems would be siding with falsehood, approaching  the sunnah itself with negetivity is not the best way of solving problems.

We may discuss with congineality, giving due recognition and respect to the sunnahs in Islam. Because sunnahs are not merely examples. And permissibilities from Allah are blessings.

Problems come to a dead end, when we go at two separate exteems.

The requirement for second marriage does not have to be a woman  not having a mahram, and her kids being orphans. These are merely good reasons, and a way to make things halal - to protect a woman's honor etc. However a man is allowed to marry even if he is attracted to her. (of course keeping all the conditions for second marriage).  

Another thing I have seen people arguing about is that a husband should be loving all his wives equally. This is not correct. He is not supposed to nor can he do this. Even the prophet(saw) was not obliged to do this.

Coming to the west, I dont think if a man sincerely approaches a scholar to find out what he must be doing, he will be adviced in favor of polygamy. I do not deny this, nor am I unaware of this.

Even in countries where polygamy is allowed, if one is unable to afford two homes financially, he should not give way to his desires in marriage. So much so, that Islam says, if a man does not have the means to marry even the first time, he should wait, and during those days, years ... he should fast.

It is easy to be intolerant towards someone who is breaking a law, but let us make sure this intolerance is not stemming from the need to prove our ownselves.  Muslims have come under a microscopic eye of everyone in the west, and so has Islam. However we do not have to go overboard pleasing the societies we are living in, to prove our sincerity or loyalty as citizens.  If we have our priorities straight, our concepts of Islam well grounded, there is literally no need to have attitudes against fellow muslims such as sending blanket statements. 

We were speaking of a society where literally haram actions have been given licenses.  How much energy will any non-muslim westerner spend in speaking against these, or calling to attention the civic duty of people involved?  However when it is about muslims, standards are different. We should not be naive enough to accept these double standards, nor should we be naive enough to join them to strengthen their voices.

There is a lot muslims in the west must be doing. First and foremost of that should be organizing themselves - not having 5+ different groups in one mosque. One should do dawah among the ummah, and UNITE the muslims on the foundations of Quran and Sunnah. This we cannot do if we are simply intolerant towards muslims. We need to be intolerant towards their wrong actions, and making efforts - no matter how small they are - rectifying the society of these blemishes.

It is taught in a hadith that a muslim should help his brother when he is doing good and help him when he is doing wrong. - the explainiantion of which is help the first brother by aiding him in doing good, and helping the second is to check him, and try to bring him to the straigh path.

I said:

We were speaking of a society where literally haram actions have been given licenses.  How much energy will any non-muslim westerner spend in speaking against these, or calling to attention the civic duty of people involved? 

It is a double standard if you do speak against polygamy but not against the haram activities ie. the illegal sexual activities like homosexuality, adultary and fornication. 

Where is the law that would jail such kind of ppl, or deport them or exile them?  

Angela wrote: If you come here as an immigrant you are bound to our laws, end of argument.  If you don't agree with the laws, then don't come here, go somewhere else.

Angela, I see an overstress on abiding by the laws in all your posts. This, despite the fact that nobody has suggested muslims in your country shld be breaking them. I don't really understand your concern to this extent.

My concern to begin with were two, both of which were to do with muslims treating their religion and fellow muslims.  If you thought my opener was a suggestion for muslim to break US laws, your were only presuming things.

Secondly I am presuming the second person pronoun "YOU" in your message is not for me, rather for a general audiance. Coz, if you were addressing me, and you have said it at least three times in this post and some more times in others, that muslims shld either leave US, or not go there - I do not plan to live in US for many reasons and they are all religious. So thank you for the caution, but I personally don't need any.

Angela wrote: If a Mormon or Muslim practices polygamy in this country, they understand that they are doing so against the law and must accept that there will be consequences if they are discovered and prosecuted.  They must understand that for all the illegal/spiritual wives and legally illegitimate children that there are no protections under the law.  The if the second wife needs assistance from the government, the US can garnish the mans wages in child support with no respect for his first wife and their situation.  If the husband dies, the first wife becomes sole inheritor with her children.  Lastly, all the children could suffer if the father is arrested, fined and jailed and the spouses as well. So, yes, there are things that are permissible in this society that are ugly and wrong, but you cannot force your beliefs on the entire 300 million people, therefore, you either deal with it and teach your kids the correct way, or you leave.  But, if you break the law, even if your beliefs say its okay, then you become a criminal in society.

If a muslim is a US citizen he/she is islamically bound by the her laws as long as those do not command this person to go against the commands of Allah. Polygamy is not a command of Allah, it is only a permissibility, thus muslims in the US must not circumvent the laws which enforce monogamy.   My argument with you was not this rather slightly different.

I do learn a few important things from your discussion.

The concern you bring regarding polygamy practised in US is very interesting. 

All what I see in your posts is DO NOT BREAK THE LAW. This is not at all a wrong attitude, however, when it comes to why one should not break them, the answer does not reflect a real responsibility.

The law is a law, you said that, and I understand, however, what is the law for? Is it for people not to break, ie to serve?

Or is it to protect people in various ways?

You see, my entire argument with you was an attitude towards the law and not the law itself. Please make a note of this.

Let us forget about the religion for a while and consider two hypothetical situations:

We have a Mr. A who is a muslim, US citizen, and a Mr. B. who is a non-muslim US citizen. They are both married, and have children.

Mr. A plans to get married a second time, and he does this secretly- he does not register his marrige, and understands the jeopardy he has put his second family into.

Mr. B on the other hand is interested in a lady, he does not marry her, rather only have a relationship with her.  Even they have children through this relationship.

Now, you tell me, if Mr. B dies, will the lady living with him or her kids get any share in his inheritance?

Will the lady living with Mr. B have a better status than the one with Mr. A, if either of them were to die? Keeping in regard that Mrs A. keeps her marriage a secret from the state.

The difference between Mr A  and Mr. B is that Mr A. has broken US state laws, while Mr. B has not. However the people involved in both these relationships have much to lose. So the consequences of the actions of both men hurt people. Neverthless, you would mind the actions of Mr. A, but not Mr. B (or so I read through your posts - correct me if I am wrong).

This was strange to obeserve in the first place - given the sincerity of your posts. Laws should not be there merely to be upheld, otherwise they become sekeletons governing the society, asking it to serve them. They (the laws) should also be able to prevent people from getting hurt.  However in this argument, we see that the people are  being considered as potentials to receive hurt only if they break a law - if in a similar situation, when there are no laws broken, the potentials of people getting hurt is only recognised as "personal choices". - and please note here, I have not weighed the two on the basis of religion, I have only compared the legal status of the two respective families.

Is this a suggestion to challenge the law? - I don't know - It is rather an observation of your attitudes before anything else. 

You said you do not believe in adultery, fornication and homosexuality. Is this a matter of personal belief only? For those who do believe in it cause people to suffer through their actions. When there are others suffering because of us, the matter does not remain that of personal belief only.  It becomes a social problem.

angela wrote: A non-muslim westerner is going to argue on their beliefs.

When a man enters into an extra marital affair, he jeopardizes his marriage and brings bad consequences on his family. Family is personal, but is also a social unit. How can one have only personal beliefs regarding a social unit?

This is the difference between your thinking and mine.