Let’s try to imagine this situation:
One Muslim woman “A” is originating from Syria and now lives in Germany. She came there 2 years ago escaping the war in her home country and has sought asylum in the place she is living in now because she knew Germany has open-border policy for asylum seekers like herself. However, she’s still worried if in Germany her “marital situation” is accepted—she’s part of a polygamous family and she’s fleeing there with her husband “B” and his co-wife “C”.
Unbeknownst to her, B had already found out about this issue and that was why he chose Germany as a safe sanctuary for his whole family fleeing the war—simply because a polygamous marriage, if performed in a country abroad as a part of the legal process there, under German law, is recognizable. It is part of the “personal law” of a person, where a person is free to choose a law that is applied to him/her as long as that law is recognizable in a foreign land. (source: click here)
Looking at how the development of this situation has unfold, it seems like a very democratic way of thinking, right? Or, is it?
In the political spectrum, polygamy can be seen through either 2 conflicting different lenses. The liberals will say that it’s a part of a certain culture; and thus, those who seek to enter a polygamous marriage have the right to do so. It’s like gay marriage—it’s an individual choice and the State is obliged to facilitate it. On the other hand, the conservatives, maybe you can guess, unsurprisingly takes a hostile stance towards polygamous marriage. Under the context of—(to borrow Huntington’s words)—clash of civilizations, polygamy is a product of a culture (Islam, of course) which is in direct clash to the fundamental value of the Judeo-Christian civilization (source [not specifically about polygamy, but if polygamy is seen as a part of the Quranic teaching—which it is—polygamy can be seen as an oppression against women the feminists forget about]: click here). However, this can be taken as a hypocritical stance that is only targeted the Muslims; ‘cus after all, the Amish and the Mormons have long existed as active polygamists before the recent Muslim arrivals in Europe; and although surely they are an outcast in the society, nobody bats an eye on them.
As someone who champions individual liberty, I tend to side with the liberals on this issue. I feel like polygamy shouldn’t be outlawed—in fact, those who decide to enter it should be respected. However, having lived most of my life in a Muslim-conservative society, I know to explain this much: polygamy should be rejected. Let me explain why.
First and foremost, polygamy is a form of religious oppression against women in Islam. Quran (verse An-Nisa:3) outrightly allows men to have multiple wives (polygyny) without mentioning the other way around—if women can have multiple husbands (polyandry). It falls on the same category as other sexist oppressions authorized by Quran, like: 1. Daughters will only be counted as half of sons for parental inheritance in the events of the parents’ death (An-Nisa:11), and 2. Quranic verse of Al-Baqara:282 instructs that testimony in court is only acceptable if this threshold is fulfilled: firstly, it should be two men, and if one of the men couldn’t make it, he can be replaced with two women—not only that men’s position is prioritized over women, men’s words weigh twice as women’s.
I understand, however, that this is like preaching to a choir, simply because Muslim women nowadays have known better; and thus believe that such oppressive Quranic verses against women are too outdated to be applied. However, it is undeniable that there exists a troubling rhetoric—an exclamation of male’s superiority over female (An-Nisa:34 “Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other […]); and compared to regulatory verses mentioned in the previous paragraphs, a rhetorical verse like this has a loaded meaning in its nature and, hence, more blurry to be rejected.
Now, coming back to the liberal’s argument in favor of polygamy based on cultural reasons as its underlying assumption—I don’t fully agree with that, simply because this assumption inherently considers that when a woman decided to enter a polygyny relationship, she does it on her own free will. Now, is this a valid assumption? Logically, the case is that women are told to get married to the already-wived men by their parents because these men have gone through a life of household, have more experiences, know what to do, and thus are more favorable than other men unwedded. Not only that this means the position of women are belittled already—that they are so low and emotionally-unstable that they need a guidance from a more experienced figure; but it also elevates the position of the husband-to-be, being the one who is the “driver” of the household; which is false: isn’t marriage supposed to be the “union of two equals”? Now that, combined with unquestionable holy verses—the God’s words—women’s free will in the society is set in a particular backdrop: if they express a dissenting opinion, they will be labeled as the ones who are “acting out” or who “don’t know better.”
Pro-polygamy stance usually comes up with the argument equating polygyny to a gay marriage—if two men or two women can marry, why one man-multiple women cannot. The answer is simple; but in order for me to explain it, I would have you understood these terms first: “traditional gender stereotype” and “gender power relations”. As the names suggest, a marriage is only valid if it is filled with the perceptions that ‘women’s place is in the kitchen’ and ‘men’s job is to provide for the family’. These are traditional views which most people agree not to follow anymore. In polygyny, however, it is argued that these perceptions are fostered. Men are the “heads of the households” whose job is to provide and to protect their co-wives. To confirm this argument, please answer the following questions: in the context of polygyny, who is the decision maker of the household? How is the relation between the husband and his co-wives look like? Let’s say in a traditional marriage—a marriage between one man and one woman—the decision-making process could be done together; but could it be easily done in a polygyny? It would be much more difficult—simply because there are too many opinions to be taken into account. If I can take on this argument one step further: what could be the root cause of these perceptions? The gender difference. Again, this only happens because there are assigned roles to women and men in marriages. Now do these perceptions exist in the context of gay marriage? No—because there is no gender difference in between parties to the marriage. In fact, equating polygyny and gay marriage is out of context.
The pro-polygamy stance, most of the time, only favors polygyny (and, consequently, disfavors polyandry). I would call this out as counter-productive to the cultural discourse the pro-polygamy stance tries to bring, simply because if an equality between various kinds of marriages wants to be achieved (as the pro-polygamy stance wants it), polyandry should not be shoved out of the spotlight. I know this happens to be the case because not only that polyandry is against the teaching of Quran (and in case you need to have it clearer: pro-polygamy is a faith-based choice), this is also true in the face of psychological analysis: women are psychologically skewed to polygyny than men are to polyandry. There are multiple reasons (you can find it here: click here)—but just for sake of the argument—one of them lies in nature: how human’s reproduction works. Over the course of nine months, one man can impregnate multiple women and have multiple offspring, as compared to women which can only be impregnated by one man at a time and have one offspring only—disregarding the potential of having twins. Biologically speaking, a man has to wait for nine months in order to reproduce in a polyandry as compared to a woman who can reproduce anytime she wants in a polygyny. There is a constraint for men entering a polyandry in a way that there is no such thing for women entering a polygyny.
I found the discussion of polygamy is very similar to the discussion of ‘whether it is OK for someone to be a porn star.’ It is an individual right, no question there. Moreover, he/she can earn money out of making sex; and criticism against him/her is out of place and morally-hypocritical. It is out of place because simply a person’s right is not to be infringed no matter how the society disagrees with it; and it is morally-hypocritical because everybody have sex—just not for public’s eyes (same as polygamy; everybody gets married—"the way it's being done, however, is a separate issue," the pro-polygamy stance argues). Or, maybe those who disagree with porn stars making money the way they do is because they are envious towards them? I’m afraid that is not the case—there is a higher concern directed to the individuals who done it: porn stars are prone to mental illnesses (source: click here). The reason might be clear (since no research yet is done on this issue, this is me relying on my logic and hence the word “might be” there): a concept which is supposed to be done traditionally—having sex in private—is done the complete opposite—in public—will damage the state of mind. Traversing this issue to the context of polygamy, when a concept (of marriage) which is supposed to be done traditionally (between one man and one woman) is being practiced the exact opposite (polygamy)—there’s a solid chance there will be a fundamental impact on one’s mental health.
Now when it comes to legal issue, I am in disagreement with the status quo of a democratic State where polygamy is neither legal nor illegal. Coming back to the context of Germany I mentioned earlier, for example, polygamy is only permitted under the principle of “personal law”, but not to be performed in a German land, making it legally ambiguous: it seems like that the State does not allow polygamy, but permitting the polygamists to exist, and those who do not ‘sit well’ with the concept of polygamy—like me—do not have the legal basis to reject them. When it comes to polygamy—whether or not it falls under the principle of “personal law”—it should be banned based on one reason only: because it stems from a religious teaching. Religious teaching is dogmatic in nature, no room for dialogue: “X is X, Y is Y. X is never Y and Y is never X. No question asked, please.” When religious teaching is used in public domain, it creates discrimination (at most) or makes one’s eyebrows raised (at least). In the concept of marriage where the domain is public—check on your local civil registry the benefits of you being married, as opposed to you not being married; yes, marriage is a personal issue, but it stems on a public domain—there will be questions raised, “why would person A be allowed to have polygamous marriage just because his religious culture allows him to do so, while I’m not—what if I identify myself with his culture, will I be able to do it?” In order to prevent such legal ambiguity, I would argue that the State should reject polygamy.
Having all the reasons above weighed in, I would not support polygamy. Although I’m a staunch supporter of individual liberty—whatever cultures one’s from—I don’t think polygamy would fit well in the modern society. Not only the concept of polygamy is in multiple direct conflicts with our established perceptions—about women’s independence over man, or about keeping discriminatory practices out of our pluralistic-democratic society; but it also garners support based on some flawed logics—that, like gay marriage, it is just another form of marriage (it’s not); that, contrary to the struggle towards egalitarian principle of not having been favored the same way as the “traditional marriage” culture it endorses, it only favors one kind (polygyny) and disfavors the other (polyandry—and it is impossible to favor polyandry, based on biological reasons, anyway); and that, like porn industry, there might be a risk of mental problems for people who practice it.
[Originally published on 8/12/18, on my Facebook page]
No comments:
Post a Comment