Posted - Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 1:32 AM
|I just asked a simple question. Sorry if it offended you. Since you didn't answer it properly, I am asking it again very politely:|
Why would you like to make a law requiring permission of 1st wife when no such law is given in shariah?
When Allah has left something open for us, why do we restrict ourselves with new laws? You realize that a new law will limit the options we have.
I do not believe it is proper to tell others to do something or not to do somehting just because one approves or disapproves of it. Like the example of people who will say that shark are not to be eaten, or lobsters or shrimp are not to be eaten just because they dont like it, they tell others it is not halal even when all creatures of the sea are clearly halal as stated in holy Quran. Similary the mulahs, upon their whims, try to enforce a lot of things on the populace, like banning girls from education and work. Why do we need to steep down as low as these ignorant people? Why do we need to impose restrictions on ourselves by inventing new rules and regulations when Allah has made it easy for us? Remmember the story of people of Musa (a.s.) who kept asking him about the kind of calf to sacrifice and Allah kept giving them new rules as to what kind of calf it should be, and in essence those people were making their own lives more and more difficult.
My point is we do not need new rules in this matter, otherwise we will create difficulties for ourselves.
Btw, smoking is a bad analogy here because we are asked to stay away from things like smoking, that affect your mind via chemicals and narcotics. Nicotine is a strong drug - refer to verse 5.90. It physically affects your body. On the other hand, polygamy causes mental stress, but it does not cause direct physical harm nor is it addictive like smoking in any way.
Posted - Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 7:39 AM
|>>Sorry if it offended you. |
Apologies accepted. Please try to compose messages devoid of conjectures and accusations.
Having said that let me begin:
>>Why would you like to make a law requiring permission of 1st wife when no such law is given in shariah?
Quite simply it is left for us to decide.
>>You realize that a new law will limit the options we have.
That is the point, i.e., to discourage practices which are rampantly being misused in the Muslim world.
>>I do not believe it is proper to tell others to do something or not to do somehting just because one approves or disapproves of it.
I am not restraining people from marrying multiply. All I am saying is that they have the basic decency to ask their wife first. If she is OK with it, well and good, just as the example of Saudi women that you had given earlier, eager to have a sister.
However, many women would not like it. Why force it upon them? Remember this law of permissibility is only to safeguard existing marriages and to disallow creation of a new one at the expense of the previous one.
A person who loves his wife, will never do anything that goes against her wishes. On the contrary, most cases of multiple marriages come from males who are just fed up of their lives, i.e., there is no nobility in their motives. Understand that people who love their wives will not displease them by marrying matrons and widows. Can you see how rampant the misuse of this so called allowance is?
>>Like the example of people who will say that shark are not to be eaten,
In my opinion, Sharks are prohibited. But this is another debate.
As for the primarily carnivorous and predatory animals, these fall in the category of natural prohibitions, rather than the prohibitions of the Shari`ah.
>>even when all creatures of the sea are clearly halal as stated in holy Quran.
>>Why do we need to impose restrictions on ourselves by inventing new rules and regulations when Allah has made it easy for us?
To safeguard the sacred institution of marriage. Please try to understand that issues of wife beating, multiple marriages, are discouraged. They are mere suggestions. The underlying spirit is to keep the bonds of marriage strong and if anything disturbs that, we can try to impose laws within the Shariah to curb that.
No one is saying multiple marriages are to be banned, all I am saying is to introduce a condition which conforms with basic human decency and common sense. This is not a matter of preference or whims.
>>and in essence those people were making their own lives more and more difficult.
This comes out of context. People such as those were trying to avoid following the law, as for instance the netting before the Sabbath to get fish. You will get a better picture of why they asked these questions, once you see 'Ten Commandments'.
>>My point is we do not need new rules in this matter, otherwise we will create difficulties for ourselves.
On the contrary, the simple condition of permission is to facilitate marital bliss, not to create hardships. And what hardships would those be? To be unable to have legalized sex with more than one woman? To have to focus on one's wife and children with all one's heart as opposed to hankying pankying elsewhere and get added responsibilities and making life even more complex?
>>It physically affects your body. On the other hand, polygamy causes mental stress, but it does not cause direct physical harm nor is it addictive like smoking in any way.
Both cause harm and that is enough. Mental anguish can be worse. But the reason I employed the analogy was to show that in both cases Shariah is silent, and if we have no problems accepting laws on one, why must we rattle on the other.
For once, try to think beyond the box. Try to see the underlying principles and objectives of the Shariah.
PS: Eating lobsters, crabs is a personal issue. Public Smoking and Multiple marriage is not.
Edited by: junaidj on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 8:05 AM
Posted - Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 4:55 PM
First off the topic, let me give my reference for the sea-foods being halal:
احل لكم صيد البحر و طعامه
5.96 It is made halal for you the hunt of the sea and its eating....
Also even the dead of the sea is halal to eat. I can give you reference from hadith if you like of the Muslims who ate the dead beached whale and asked the prohpet of it.
Note there are no restrictions on what kind of sea-food is halal. It should be clear all hunt of the sea is ok then. If someone would put restricions on this, then that is not very wise. It would be really wrong to make laws in this regard and make haram certain sea creatures when all are clearly allowed in the Quran.
I believe, with all politeness and due respect I say this, that you are trying to make a law and ban something that is allowed. I believe that is wrong of you.
I understand the issue is not of multiple marriages being allowed or not, but that of the permission. That is what I refer to, the permission. It is not sanctioned by Allah to require permission, there must be some wisdom in that. Please respect that and keep it that way.
Your intentions are good in requiring permission, to protect women, but there are already laws for protecting rights of women, for treating them with equity 2.228, 229, 231, 232, and so many more asking men not to harm women in any way (physically or emotionally included), not to kick them out of the house or dump them on the street, to feed them and clothe them like you do so to yourself, to give them maintenance, etc. We need to learn these laws and follow them, and that would be sufficient for us, inshallah.
Have a good day.
Posted - Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 8:06 AM
|>>5.96 It is made halal for you the hunt of the sea and its eating....|
The verse goes like this:
"Lawful to you is the pursuit of water-game and its use for food,- for the benefit of yourselves and those who travel; but forbidden is the pursuit of land-game;- as long as ye are in the sacred precincts or in pilgrim garb. And fear Allah, to Whom ye shall be gathered back." (Al-Maaidah 5:96)
The verse is allowing game of the sea, and banning game of the land. It is not stating what is to be eaten form the sea. Please see
and we can discuss more on this.
>>Note there are no restrictions on what kind of sea-food is halal......when all are clearly allowed in the Quran.
There are many issues which are not EXPLICITLY forbidden by the Koran but are rather accepted as natural prohibitions as opposed to Shariah prohibitions. eg: eating carnivores, anal sex, homosexuality to name a few.
>>that you are trying to make a law and ban something that is allowed.
lets replace the word ban with discourage.
>>It is not sanctioned by Allah to require permission, there must be some wisdom in that. Please respect that and keep it that way.
Ofcourse I respect God's Law, but what I cannot condone is wrong interpretation. In my opinion, multiple marriages are discouraged (this could be contested) and that is when the Koran talks of equal treatment et al. And also when the Koran mentions specifically of the objective of taking care of widows and orphans. I think these conditions or objectives clearly restrain the scope of multiple marriages.
A different opinion is as follows:
According, to Moiz Amjad, the Koran neither allows and neither forbids multiple marriages, it simply alludes to the practice prevalent in 7th century Arabia.
Anyways, In this regard, the Koran simply grants us guidelines. Legislation is left to man depending upon situation and circumstances.
I have not brought the second issue of taxation in this regard, i.e., to make it costly to have multiple marriages.
But anyways, an alternative opinion for thought:
.....I would propose that rather than making the permission of the first wife a mandatory requirement for a second marriage, an Islamic state may promulgate a law whereby a person is required to satisfy a court of law regarding the social and moral justification of his decision regarding second marriage. The court, if it is satisfied that the action is being taken in conjunction with the provisions of the Shari`ah may allow such a second marriage, and where it is not, the court may disallow it. In this way, we shall not only be able to protect against nullifying the wisdom of the Shari`ah but shall also safeguard the misuse of the allowance given by the Qur'an .
>> but there are already laws for protecting rights of women, ....We need to learn these laws and follow them, and that would be sufficient for us, inshallah.
Do you suppose the already existing laws have been sufficient in protecting women rights? I think not. Infact even including permission of first wife has not been sufficient. I personally know of several cases of multiple marriages gone wrong, not to mention the cases espoused by human rights groups.
I think we have reached a deadlock. So let us begin from the beginning. Let me ask you a question.
Does the Koran impose any condition for second marriage, i.e., what is the objective of multiple marriage?
Also note the following:
Women not allowing second marriage is a generalization as good as man marrying a widow for the second time. No man will ruin his marriage, if he really is faithful to his wife, for a widow. Therefore, are we not condoning legalized sex and liberal after marriage conduct through multiple marriage allowance.
Edited by: junaidj on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 8:51 AM
Posted - Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 4:38 PM
I am afraid I do not agree with the interpretation of 5.96 in the link you provided. Since that is a separate topic, why don't you start a new thread and I would be glad to discuss it there.
The Islamic Shari'ah has exempted fish, whales, and other sea creatures from the category of "dead animals." When the Prophet (peace be on him) was asked about the sea, he replied, Its water is pure and its dead are halal. (Reported by Ahmad and other compilers of the Sunnah.)
Says Allah Ta'ala: The game of the sea is permitted to you and so is its food.... (5:99 (96)) and 'Umar explained, "Its game is what is caught from it and its food is what is thrown out from it," while Ibn 'Abbas said, "Its food is its dead (animals)."
In the two Sahihs of al-Bukhari and Muslim, it is reported on the authority of Jabir that the Prophet (peace be on him) once sent some of his Companions on an expedition. They found a dead whale by the sea and subsisted on it for more than twenty days. On their return to Madinah, they told the Prophet (peace be on him) about this and he said, Eat the food which Allah has brought forth for you, and feed us from it if you have any left. They then brought him some whale meat and he ate it. (Reported by al-Bukhari.)
By the same token, locusts are exempted from the category of "dead animals." The Prophet (peace be on him) gave permission to eat dead locusts, as the question of slaughtering them does not arise. Said Ibn Abu Awfa, "We went with the Prophet (peace be on him) on seven expeditions, and we ate locusts with him." (Reported by all the authentic collections of ahadith excepting that of Ibn Majah.)
Posted - Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 4:42 PM
|As for the quesion in this topic, does Quran impose conditions for second marriage - not any to my knowledge.|
Also I believe it is not recommended and discouraged to practice polygyny.
As far as discouraging the practice of not seeking permission from first wife, I am all for it, it should be discouraged. But my only stand against you was we should not make it into a binding law. If we can only practice the current laws, we will not need a new one to safeguard women's rights. And if we can't even practice the current laws, then what makes you think any one will follow the new law?
Posted - Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 8:08 PM
|As far as eating sea carnivores are concerned, for sure we have a disagreement. I will only state that it falls under natural prohibition (just as some other issues). Beyond that, I now think, that I will say nothing. I will respect your opinion here, while resorting to mine. |
>>But my only stand against you was we should not make it into a binding law.
Once again I disagree. The following is a transcript of an email I sent Shehzad Saleem and what follows is his response:
Smoking and Second marriage cause physical and mental anguish respectively. The Shariah is silent on smoking and on permission of first wife respectively.
If the state can make laws concerning prohibiting public smoking, then what is wrong with the law of seeking permission of first wife?
If the argument be that no first wife will give permission and hence one will not be able to take care of widows/orphans. Then there is a counter argument, i.e., orphans can be adopted and widows can either marry widowers, unwed men, or remain patient.
After all if homosexuals and unmarried people have to be patient, then why can't widows. Why must a second home be created at the expense of the first?
Women not allowing second marriage is a generalization as good as man marrying a widow for the second time. No man will ruin his marriage, if he really is faithful to his wife, for a widow. Therefore, are we not condoning legalized sex and liberal after marriage conduct through multiple marraige allowance?
Laws regarding the seeking permission from first wife can always be made if they can be of benefit. No problem at all!
I will only add, that Koran does not provide laws. Those are left to man. It simply grants you a direction and leaving it upon you to come up with a system.
After all the Koran simply states 'their affairs are decided by mutual consultation' and leaves the working and governing laws of the political system to man.
Same for interest. The Koran simply states Ribba is forbidden. The laws are left to man, i.e., how should a state formulate laws in this regard.
Likewise for polygamy. According to my revised opinion, the permission of first wife might be ineffective, as it has been clearly shown in Pakistan. So perhaps a justification in court or taxation could work better to discourage the practice. In both cases, both can be codified into laws.
After all did not Umar institute many new laws, all of which fell within the ambit of the Shariah, i.e., one practice being Tarawih in CONGREGATION. And this was never a CONDITION in the Prophet's time.
>>If we can only practice the current laws, we will not need a new one to safeguard women's rights. And if we can't even practice the current laws, then what makes you think any one will follow the new law?
That is the problem, what are the current laws? Many multiple marriages are technically (Islamically) sound but they destroy many homes. Something is missing in existing laws.
What you are referring to is individual practicing of Islam and what I am referring to is the scope of the state.
Edited by: junaidj on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 8:19 PM
Posted - Sunday, January 2, 2005 - 4:35 PM
"I will only add, that Koran does not provide laws"
You cannot be more wrong. Quran gives some very explicit laws. Infact Quran itself states that it gives laws:
98.2,3: A messenger from Allah, reading purified pages. Wherein are laws (or decrees) right and straight.
Quran gives clear cut laws about inheritance, bearing testimony, fornication, adultery, slander, theft. No doubt Quran also leads us to make laws and elaborate on rules, but Quran does explicitly give laws. Please retract your statement.
Shariah has granted man to marry a woman without requiring anyone's permission (except for that of the free woman he is marrying ofcourse). You think you are doing good by making the permission mandatory, but you fail to see what divine wisdom there could be in leaving this the way it is.
Your argument is it will cause emotional or physical harm to the first wife. Well, she is free to seek khula and divorce, be free and live happy without him. She wont have any emotional or physical harm any more. If he cannot be loyal to her alone, then she does not deserve him anyway. By requiring her permission, which she will in most cases not grant, you will make their marriage miserable. The husband will not be happy, and the marriage will suffer. When one is not happy, the marriage is not happy.
The harm such a ruling will cause is a miserable marriage.
I have a friend, and his wife wanted to get into debt and riba to buy something they could not afford. They had argument and she filed for divorce and took custody of the child. Several years later, she won't grant him divorce, she refuses to sign the papers, and she won't move back with him. She is waiting for her greencard based on her husband's US citizenship. She has denied him the family life he wanted, the children he wanted, and that which is a right of every married man.
Your ruling would make it almost impossible for him to get married to another woman and raise a family. He went to India, got married (where second marriage is allowed), and brought new wife here. Now he is living happily with a new child and wife. Meanwhile the first wife is still not granting him divorce because she hasn't received her greencard.
This is the case with many men in America and UK. Their wives file for divorce, and the proceedings take many years. This society does not allow them to get married while they are already married. This is a gross injustice to men whose first marriage has no meaning for them and they are unable to get a divorce.
May Allah guide us all to the truth.
Posted - Sunday, January 2, 2005 - 4:40 PM
|Also you failed to see that a man might resort to adultery if he is not allowed second marriage. Would you rather have a man married to one woman whom he is not happy with and cannot leave, and keeping a mistress on the side, or would you rather have him married to both and keeping them at an equal footing as Islam requires. In case of a mistress, he can refuse her rights and disown her (e.g. if she gets pregnant). That would be really bad for a helpless pregnant woman.|
Your ruling will inevitable cause this scneario, as is happening in the West.
Posted - Sunday, January 2, 2005 - 9:57 PM
|>>Quran gives clear cut laws about inheritance, bearing testimony, fornication, adultery, slander, theft. ...Please retract your statement.|
I stand corrected. Thank you. I will qualify my statement to 'the Koran allows for the scope of other laws.' i.e. as in the case of ribba and the political system.
>>Well, she is free to seek khula and divorce, be free and live happy without him.
You do know that the law 'permission of the first wife' would be there to discourage a man from hankying pankying elsehwere. However, despite the code of conduct provided by the Shariah (as you are aware of it quite well), and despite adding this additional law of permission(as in Pakistan), has not stopped men from their transgressions.
And if we do not have the permission clause, they are in a potential state to abuse their rights blatantly. I don't have to tell you more on this.
and without this law, hankying pankying outside marriage becomes legalized. Do you not see the gross injustice in this?
My issue is why spoil one home for another? Divorce in this case sounds much better, than to live with a heedless man , according to your own words:
>>If he cannot be loyal to her alone, then she does not deserve him anyway.
Permission, perhaps might facilitate that divorce, instead of having the woman live in constant threat of her husband. This law is merely to empower women on an equal basis.
After all should not the important decisions of a household be taken jointly?
>>By requiring her permission, which she will in most cases not grant
I think you had mentioned of Arab women encouraging second marriages to share the burden of the household.
>>Meanwhile the first wife is still not granting him divorce because she hasn't received her greencard.
But can he not divorce her?
>> This is a gross injustice to men whose first marriage has no meaning for them and they are unable to get a divorce.
this is a separate issue, in my opinion, one related to the divorce laws.
>>Would you rather have a man married to one woman whom he is not happy with and cannot leave, and keeping a mistress on the side, or would you rather have him married to both
Neither. Either with the former or the latter (divorcing the former). Or, both if the former grants permission.
>>In case of a mistress, he can refuse her rights and disown her (e.g. if she gets pregnant).
The laws of adultery should deal with this. This reeks of legalizing and even encouraging extra-marital affairs?
PS: I am willing to concede that this law might be ineffective and hence may not be imposed, but not on the basis of the Shariah forbidding it (for it is silent), but simply on the basis of its ineffectiveness as in Pakistan. Then we'll have to come up with other laws like those of higher taxes on such homes, or clear justification by man in the court (but this might not be cost effective).
However, if it proves effective, then by all means I will support it.
Edited by: junaidj on Sunday, January 02, 2005 10:21 PM
Posted - Monday, January 3, 2005 - 1:00 AM
|Since you are fond of case scenarios let me give you a few, based on personal witness.|
1) A man married a woman out of love and family blessings. Later divorces her, out of disagreement and perhaps family pressure. The woman takes away the baby.
He gets married, and this time an arranged marriage, for some good six to eight years.
Later wants the former woman back, after all it is love.
So re-marries the former woman without the second and current woman's consent.
Establishes a separate home in a different city, abandoning the other woman with his mother.
Several issues arise from this incident.
1) the evils of arranged marriage.
2) divorce on the basis of family instigation.
3) no consent or say of the second woman.
The poor second woman comes from a place where her older sister (my mother's age) is still unmarried. Out of societal norms, she decides not to seek for a divorce. Her emotional life has been ruined utterly. Practically she lives like a nun.
Now what would Islam as interpreted by our mullahs advise her, patience?
and Islamically speaking, what law has the husband broken. none at all (since he sends her money), yet this is a gross violation of someone's rights.
and if there had been a law that would have required the husband to seek the wife's permission, it is quite possible that she would have refused.
Yet this concept of refusal is a generalization. Perhaps she would have relented imposing some conditions. But she would nonetheless have been consulted.
After all I would like to be consulted on a decision that affects me, then why must we deny the woman her right of granting permission.
When she retains this right, the husband can be kept in a check, just as the husband would expect his wife to be in check through modest conduct.
2) Another case. Man divorces first wife, and marries second out of love. Technically no violation of the law. The man cannot be punished. But what does the woman do in a society such as in Pakistan?
Permission would have kept him in check. A check that is in addition to the Shariah law of conduct.
The Shariah is very strict on extra-marital affairs. I cannot for once accept the legalization of such affairs
for it stands in stark contradiction to the very principles of Islam.
I will end here with two points:
1) It seems unfair not to include a woman in the second marriage decision. The right of permission should rest with her, and it should be upto the husband to convince her, that her rights would not be infringed.
2) I cannot condone legalization of extra-marital affairs.
In the end I would say, just as slavery was time specific, so too is polygamy. It was a custom of the Arabs. But if societies have evolved since then, then so must our laws to reflect changed circumstances.
Edited by: junaidj on Monday, January 03, 2005 8:24 AM
Posted - Monday, January 3, 2005 - 3:41 PM
I am afraid I do not agree with your conclusions. Neither is polygyny time specific nor was slavery time specific. Both these activities still exist, and to think that the laws regarding them are no longer applicable is living in denial of what is happening in the world. When ever and where ever these things exist, the Islamic laws must be applied.
I do agree that the woman will be hurt in the case scenarios you have described, and it seems like the husband has lied to his wife or kept her in the dark, which can't be good. So there should be some kind of check on such a thing. However you failed to comment on the scenario I described where the wife is not letting her husband a divorce while not living with him any more and at the same time not letting him marry someone else. In this case the man is clearly the victim.
Also hoping that extra-marital affairs will not be a more serious problem than before after your ruling is passed, is wishful thinking.
Islam clearly wants people to live within wedlock. What you are proposing will cause some weak men to have extra marital affairs. This is not good for the woman who is cheated, and not good for the mistress who will not get all the rights of a wife.
All I am saying is that what you think is good, might not be that great. You have to think of all the cases.
Posted - Monday, January 3, 2005 - 8:43 PM
|>>Neither is polygyny time specific nor was slavery time specific. Both these activities still exist, and to think that the laws regarding them are no longer applicable is living in denial of what is happening in the world. |
So do you allow for the scope of having sex with slaves?
>>However you failed to comment on the scenario I described where the wife is not letting her husband a divorce while not living with him any more and at the same time not letting him marry someone else. In this case the man is clearly the victim.
I agree about the man being the victim. But I did mention that this relates to divorce laws. If a man wishes to part then he has all right to divorce the woman. Same would hold if a woman would wish to part.
>>Also hoping that extra-marital affairs will not be a more serious problem than before after your ruling is passed, is wishful thinking.
I think I did mention this, when I wrote that despite the Shariah code of conduct and despite the law of 'permission of the first wife' as in Pakistan, men still commit transgressions. Therefore we need laws i.e. taxation, justification in court, etc.
>>What you are proposing will cause some weak men to have extra marital affairs.
No it will not. Those who are doing it are doing with/without that law as in Pakistan where the law exists, and in the Arab world where it does not exist.
>>This is not good for the woman who is cheated, and not good for the mistress who will not get all the rights of a wife.
My point is that having a mistress/ second wife out of lust/love is adultery/legalized adultery.
>>All I am saying is that what you think is good, might not be that great. You have to think of all the cases.
And all I am saying is, that we can have laws where the Shariah is silent based on the fundamental premise of human dignity and respect.
Posted - Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 9:52 AM
|I am a recent revert to Islam Alhamdulillah, and am married to a Muslim man. The more I read, the more I learn. If my husband came to me to discuss (not ask my permission) taking a second wife I would firstly ask the reason behind this decision. Should it be that the Muslimah was widowed with no brothers or family support and had children, then is it not our duty to provide for our Sister? If it is because I could not provide my husband with children then again, has my husband not the right of issue? Should it however, be no good reason other than legalised sex then no. I would have objections and would expect that my husband would then respect my wishes.I have been brought up in England to a non religous family, all around me I see divorce, extra-marital affairs - surely our respect for each other is what makes us, as Muslims, stand apart?|
Posted - Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 6:54 PM
|>> If it is because I could not provide my husband with children then again, has my husband not the right of issue? |
Saadia Malik writes:
I think despite the fact that Prophet Muhammad (sws) took more than four wives, his married life, in fact, seems to discourage polygamy, as is understood today, generally.
His first marriage with Khadija (ra) remained the only one, till the latter passed away after 25 years of marriage. After her, the Prophet (sws) married Sawdah (ra) - a widow - (he also had little kids that needed taking care of). Thereafter, all his other marriages had a solid purpose - the purpose to fulfill the responsibilities of Prophethood. Period. There was no minor reason for which he took women into marriage. Not issuelessness, not lust, not...
In my opinion, cases of issuelessness, hormonal imbalances are tests of patience, just as the Almighty expects the retarded, the deformed, the homosexuals, those who cannot get married et al. to retain their chastity and to remain patient.
Perhaps such people have been granted an opportunity to do a lot of good, i.e., the issueless couples can adopt needy children, or those who cannot get married can sponsor children, or look after widows through sponsorships.
Perhaps there is a reason why some people don't get married/remain issueless, i.e., to show the world the central tenet of faith, 'Love one another'.
Opinion of two experts:
The following is an excerpt from one of Moiz Amjad's pieces at understanding-islam.org.
>>The woman may be forced into giving a written approval. This has been the case in our society.....
>>I would propose that rather than making the permission of the first wife a mandatory requirement for a second marriage, an Islamic state may promulgate a law whereby a person is required to satisfy a court of law regarding the social and moral justification of his decision regarding second marriage.
When I prodded Shehzad Saleem at studying-islam.com, he retorted that the wife permission clause may be introduced IF it helps.
In effect, the issue becomes one of effectiveness/administration/implementation of the law as opposed to that of the Shariah.
Posted - Thursday, January 6, 2005 - 9:28 AM
|I'm sorry, but I can't see what the issue is. Sometimes you seem to answer your own questions. You are so convinced that the issue of a second wife is a violation to the first you don't seem to want anyone else's opinion. All I can say is that in MY OPINION if there was a valid reason to take a second wife then I would have no objection. As long as I knew my home life and the relationship I have with my husband is not to change. I don't feel there is any violation. If anything I would feel gratified that as a family we are growing in stature.|
|Reply to Topic