Thursday, October 8, 2009

Recent Speech on the issue of polygamy

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious the Most Merciful

Speech delivered at the Sydney Opera House, Saturday 3 October 09 as part of the Festival of Dangerous Ideas which was sponsored by:
The Sydney Opera House and the St. James Ethics Centre

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.

Thank you for choosing to join me this afternoon. It is an honour for me to be part of this inaugural festival, even if I am speaking on a topic that is seen by some as controversial; not only because of the topic itself, but also because the topic is associated to a religion that is regularly maligned by politicians and media.

A special feature of the religion of Islam is that it is a natural faith. We believe Islam is in perfect harmony with the pure unadulterated nature of humanity. As such, the various teachings in Islam address the natural dispositions of real human beings, dispositions which had been instilled in us by our Creator, God the Almighty.

Simply explained, Islam gently invites humanity to believe in one God and in Muhammad, peace and blessings upon him as God’s final messenger.

Through this final messenger, God sent to us His final message of guidance and Grace to humanity.

As the Holy Qur`an tells prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings upon him: Say, I am no bringer of a new-fangled message (46:9). The Qur’an is a continuation of God’s grace which we witnessed in the missions of Noah, Abraham, Moses and Christ, peace be upon them all. Islam is also a conclusion and a criterion over what remains of the earlier messages.

I was born and raised in a polygynous household for the first dozen years of my life. I experienced firsthand what it is like to have two mothers. I know people who have lived through similar experiences.

From time to time, the topic comes up, the topic rarely fails to inspire the imagination; drawing either praise or derision, it is rare to receive a reaction of indifference.

To set the record straight Islam did not introduce, encourage or promote polygyny.

Like all faiths, Islam promotes fidelity, openness and honesty in all aspects of life and especially in relationships. The family unit is crucial in Islam because it is a subset of community, which is a subset of society and therefore the nation as a whole.

The Old Testament details many accounts of polygamy, for example, Moses himself married two women: Zipporah, daughter of Jethro (Exodus 2:21), and an Ethiopian woman. (Num. 12:1) In the case of the latter marriage, the book of numbers tells us that God is critical of both Miriam and Aaron for their criticism of this union.

Polygamy was practised before Moses by Abraham and Jacob and after Moses by many others.

For example Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 kings 11:3). David had a multitude of wives (2 Samuel 5:13). Other biblical polygamists included Gideon, Elkanah, Saul, Rehoboam and countless others.
For the details, see Judge. 8:30; I Sam. 1:2; II Sam. 12:8; 21:8
In (2 Sam. 12:8), God is quoted as giving David “thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom”. God does not give you sin, God gives you goodness.

The Great Theosophist Mrs. Annie Besant in her essay on the life and teachings of Muhammad (Adyar pamphlet 162 published in 1932) says: (Annie Wood Besant Clapham, London October 1 1847 – September 20 1933 in Adyar, India) was a prominent Theosophist, women's rights activist, writer and orator and supporter of Irish and Indian self rule.):
... “I pointed out to them (she is referring to a previous speech) that monogamy with a blended mass of prostitution was a hypocrisy and more degrading than a limited polygamy. Naturally a statement like that gives offence, but it has to be made, because it must be remembered that the law of Islam in relation to women was until lately, when parts of it have been imitated in England, the most just law, as far as women are concerned, to be found in the world. Dealing with property, dealing with rights of succession and so on, dealing with cases of divorce, it was far beyond the law of the West, in the respect which was paid to the rights of women. Those things are forgotten while people are hypnotised by the words Monogamy and Polygamy, and do not look at what lies behind it in the West — the frightful degradation of thousands of women who are thrown into the streets when their first protectors, weary of them, no longer give them any assistance.


3). Note the liberality and inclusiveness of Islam. It is declared in Europe that Islam sanctions polygamy, and leads to the degradation of woman. When Muhammad began his teaching, Arabia was plunged in the grossest licentiousness and sensual degradation; no union between the sexes was recognised; profligacy was found on every side; and so the Prophet began by narrowing down the limits within which there might be connection; so he limited the number of wives to four, but made a provision which would gradually lead [Page 25] to a close union; for he declared: "Take a second wife only if she could be loved and cherished as the first".

It is so very easy to try to pick holes in another man's faith, but what Westerner shall dare to speak against the limited polygamy of the East, so long as there is prostitution in the West? There is no monogamy as yet in the world save here and there among the purer-living men. It is not monogamy when there is one legal wife, and mistresses out of sight. In thus speaking, I do not speak to attack, but to strive that men may give justice to each other.

I often think that woman is more free in Islam than in Christianity. Woman is more protected by Islam than by the faith which preaches monogamy. In AI Quran the law about woman is juster and more liberal. It is only twenty years (bear in mind that she wrote this in 1932) that Christian England has recognised the right of women to property, while Islam has allowed this right from all times. Says AI Quran: "Be ye kind to your wives; be just to them; if there is a quarrel, seek a reconciliation before divorce". The period of divorce is intentionally prolonged so that the parties may come to a better understanding in the interval. Muhammadan law in its relation to women, is a pattern to European law. Look back to the history of Islam, and you will find that women have often taken leading places — on the throne, in the battle-field, in politics, in literature, poetry, etc. [Page 26]

The noted mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russell says: in his 1929 book (marriage and morals p 154 paperback Rutledge edition 1985) that human beings are not by nature monogamous, he adds: at page 154 of the 1985 edition:
“In this connection there is one respect in which our existing moral code might be altered with advantage. There are in England some two million more women than men and these are condemned by law and custom to remain childless, which is undoubtedly to many of them a great deprivation. If custom tolerated the unmarried mother, and made her economic situation tolerable, it cannot be doubted that a great many of the women at present condemned to celibacy would have children. Strict monogamy is based upon the assumption that the numbers of the sexes will be approximately equal. Where this is not the case, it involves considerable cruelty to those whom arithmetic compels to remain single. And where there is reason to desire an increase in the birth-rate, this cruelty may be publicly as well as privately undesirable.”

Moving to the New Testament, we find emphasis on celibacy, There is more than one verse in the new testament that promotes celibacy, to be an eunuch (Matt 19:12) or make oneself a eunuch. Tertullian tells us that for example St. Paul was castrated.

The great church father St. Augustine (November 13, 354 – August 28, 430), like other Church fathers, preferred “continence” (celibacy) and monogamous marriage if one cannot be continent. This echoed his master’s instruction preferring for one to become an eunuch only to marry if one would otherwise burn with passion (1 Cor 7:9). However, in his treatise “on the good of marriage” St. Augustine acknowledges polygamy as a means of populating the earth which he deemed no longer needed in his time, but he added in section 20 of this treatise that polygamy was valid and was not contrary to the nature of marriage.

It was Roman Emperor Constantine (27 February c. 272[2] – 22 May 337) who in the fourth century AD empowered or popularised Christianity to a status of an official religion. However, it was not until the year 534 AD that Emperor Justinian (AD 483 – 13 or 14 November 565) banned all forms of sex except for sex within a monogamous heterosexual marriage.

Ironically Emperor Justinian himself maintained a mistress during the reign of his predecessor Justin. He is believed to have influenced Justin to repeal the law banning senators from marrying courtesans and actors so that he can eventually marry his mistress.

Shortly after the death of his wife Euphemia (523/4 AD), Justinian married his long term mistress, the courtesan, Theodora (525 AD) (born c. 497 ce died June 28, 548, Constantinople). History records that the two plundered their people and Theodora’s strength of will saved him from rebels in 532 AD. Encyclopaedia Britannica says that it was Theodora’s influence that led to the passage of most of the laws that are attributed to Justinian.

The Justinian or Theodoran monogamy provisions passed in 534 AD are perhaps the first of their kind anywhere in the world. Human society outside the Roman Empire continued to practice various types of familial relations. Polygyny (a union of one man and more than one woman) was practiced in most parts of the world. The other form of polygamy known as Polyandry which is a union of a woman to more than one man was practiced in parts of India, in Tibet and to a lesser degree in some other places.

Theodora may have been motivated to promote such a law because of the exploitation she was bound to have witnessed whilst a courtesan and mistress. However, despite this law, Roman society continued to be known for its non monogamous sexual infidelities.

In essence, the new ban on polygamy merely maintained a facade, or drove the exploitation of women underground.

Justinian claimed to have been influenced by St. Augustine to ban non monogamous relations. This must have been a very narrow reading of St. Augustine’s on the Good of marriage which I have already shown maintains the legality of polygamy under Christian doctrine.

More than a millennium later, John Milton (9 December 1608 – 8 November 1674), goes much further than St. Augustine in his 'Treatise on Christian Doctrine'. Milton cites a number of biblical verses in support of the practice of polygamy, after citing these verses, he states:
“In the definition which I have given, I have not said, in compliance with the common opinion, of one man with one woman, lest I should by implication charge the holy patriarchs and pillars of our faith, Abraham, and the others who had more than one wife at the same time, with habitual fornication and adultery; and lest I should be forced to exclude from the sanctuary of God as spurious, the holy offspring which sprang from them, yea, the whole of the sons of Israel, for whom the sanctuary itself was made. For it is said, Deut. xxiii.2. "a bastard shall not enter into the congregation of Jehovah, even to his tenth generation." Either therefore polygamy is a true marriage, or all children born in that [B226] state are spurious; which would include the whole race of Jacob, the twelve holy tribes chosen by God. But as such an assertion would be absurd in the extreme, not to say impious, and as it is the height of injustice, as well as an example of most dangerous tendency in religion, to account as sin what is not such in reality; it appears to me, that, so far from the question respecting the lawfulness of polygamy being trivial, it is of the highest importance that it should be decided.”
And in arriving at the decision, Milton proceeds in his treatise to debunk the misinterpretations of a variety of verses that apologists claimed to prohibit polygamy, after debunking the opposing arguments, Milton says:
“Lastly, I argue as follows from Heb. xiii.4. Polygamy is either marriage, or fornication, or adultery; the apostle [C147] recognizes no fourth state. Reverence for so many patriarchs who were polygamists will, I trust, deter any one from considering it as fornication or adultery; for "whoremongers and adulterers God will judge;" whereas the patriarchs were the objects of his especial favor, as he himself testifies. If then polygamy be marriage properly so called, it is also lawful and honorable, according to the same apostle: "marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled."

The debate on polygamy and Islam is not born today, I was first quoted on the topic in the Sydney Morning Herald in 2001, the ABC resurrected the topic again last year, and being a slow media week, it received a great deal of media attention. One of my interviews on the topic was on radio 2ue with Mike Carlton, at the conclusion of the interview, Carlton in his inimitable style declared that as a Judeo-Christian nation, we marry one person for life. After a pause, he added: we just have lots of affairs on the side.

This delusion of monogamy and clandestine relations may have worked in the past, however, according to professor Aaron Ben-Zeev of the University of Haifa, “proclaimed monogamy and clandestine adultery” are no longer working for modern society. Whilst Ben-Zeev is correct in his diagnosis of the problem, he goes wrong is in his concluding suggestion that cohabitation and serial monogamy may serve as means to remove the boredom from a marital relation. Such suggestions are well and truly put to rest by the findings of Bettina Arndt to which I will refer later. Arndt’s work shows that it is usually the woman’s libido that suffers but not the man’s. Ben Zeev’s conclusion is also disproved by the child custody orders in the UK which show 95% of cases were without divorce, meaning, to cohabitating couples. It is also disproved by the Bristol Community Family Trust whose 2006 paper titled “conflation of marriage and cohabitation in government statistics”, showed that unmarried couples run 5.5 times the risk of family breakdown compared to married couples and run 3 times the risk of poverty to those who are married. Also, in a 1993 paper, the Australian Institute for family studies shows that remarriages have a higher rate of divorce than first marriages. The rate of these divorces increased to 60% in 2009.

Therefore, whilst Ben-Zeev has diagnosed the problems associated with monogamy and clandestine adultery, he is still to identify a workable solution.

The prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings upon him, was born in 570 AD, five years after the death of Justinian and 22 years after the death of Theodora. He received his mission from God in the year 610 when he was forty years of age.

The Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings upon him, was instructed by God through verses to become part of the holy Qur’an to institute a limit on plural relations and to place stringent regulations on polygyny.

Prior to these revelations, relations spanned all ends of the spectrum, from unrestricted polygamy to strict monogamy and everything in between. The Islamic teachings as they usually do, prescribed a middle path which implies monogamy as a norm, but permits polygyny in cases where the man is confident that he will do justice to his wives.

Hence the verse: If you fear that you cannot do justice to the orphans, then marry what appeals to you of women, two, three or four, however, if you fear that you cannot treat them equally, then only one ... (4:3)

This verse restricts the limit to four. Muslims who had more than four wives at that time were required to divorce some to bring their number down to four.

Other restrictions that Islam placed were that sisters could not be co-wives and the same would apply to aunts, mother in law etc. This meant that a man would not be allowed to marry a lady and her sister nor a lady and her aunt. Further, physical intimacy in polygyny as in monogamy is private between two people only, so the husband in a polygynous relation can only be physically intimate with one wife at a time.

The most stringent restriction that came with polygyny is the requirement to treat wives equally and provide for them to the same standard of luxury that the male enjoys himself.

As I have illustrated the Qur`an stresses: if you fear that you cannot treat them equally, then only one.

The Hadith also comes in with a very strong warning, that those who favour one wife over another will come on the day of judgement falling on one side, meaning, that they will have torment in this life and torment in the next because of their favouritism.

These restrictions have led some people to believe that Islam made it impossible for people to enter into polygynous relations. The counter to their argument is the fact that the prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings upon him, his devout companions and devout and upstanding Muslims throughout history have entered into such relations and have endeavoured to maintain such relations within the rules stipulated by the faith.

This does not preclude aberrations. Indeed, there are polygynous relations that go terribly wrong just like there are monogamous relations that go terribly wrong.

Some in modern society argue that polygynous unions are not equal, they cite polyandry as a possible equaliser.

Neither Islam, nor any of the three monotheistic faiths has ever condoned polyandry, There are many reasons for this. Some are medical, some relate to paternity. Others pertain to the sexual proclivities of the different genders.

Sex therapist Bettina Arndt, promoting her latest book, The Sex Diaries, outlined the loss of libido amongst women and the merits of women saying ‘‘yes’’ more often to the sexual advances of their husbands. If Arndt’s research is reflective of a greater portion of the population, a monogamous relationship leads to reduced interest in sex among women and a perpetual state of conjugal frustration amongst men.

If men in monogamous relations are not satiated, then by its very nature, polyandry creates an overwhelming burden for a woman in long term relationships.

The question of equality can be answered very easily by knowing the rules and conditions that pertain to a valid union under Islam.

For a marital or de facto union to be valid under Islam, the following conditions must be met:
A – The most important condition is consent of all parties, especially the woman.
B – If the woman has never been married, then the consent of her guardian is also required.
C – The groom must offer a dowry to the bride of a value that she stipulates, the dowry can be negotiated with the bride, but it must be a value to which she is agreeable. The dowry is hers to keep and use at her discretion.
D – The union must be proclaimed to at least two rational adult witnesses.

God praises these unions by outlining:
Amongst His signs is that he created for you, of your own kind, spouses, with whom to find tranquillity, and He made between you love and compassion. In that indeed, are signs for people who think. (Al Rum 30:21)

He also says: Your women are like raiment for you and you are like raiment for them (2:187).

An Islamic union between a male and a female creates love and compassion between the parties and makes each of the parties a source of tranquillity for the other and makes each like raiment to embrace and provide support, love and warmth for one another.

I am trying as much as possible to use the term union because modern society is more flexible with this term than it is with the term “marriage”. Because the secular in Australian law has to a large degree taken marriage away from God to try and make it a secular institution. In doing so, it has taken away all the rights and responsibilities of spouses towards one another as I will explain shortly. It suffices to say that we need to be careful when defining the difference between marriage and divorce under the secular law as distinct from religious guidance.

A Muslim marital type of union must be conducted under the rules of Islam, it cannot be conducted by a secular celebrant, it has to be conducted by a Muslim celebrant. Similarly, separations must also adhere to the requirements of the Islamic faith, this is why we hear about the establishment of Sharia tribunals in the UK for Muslims and why there are calls for the Family Court in Australia to consider the need to ensure that women are not disadvantaged when they are given a secular divorce that is isolated from the religious requirements.

A Muslim union does not require a celebrant to be recognised under a secular system, it merely requires an individual who can apply the requirements that I have stipulated. This is significant because a secular celebrant, or under the secular law for marriage, we have a union of two people which carries no rights or obligations towards each other.

A secular marriage does not compel the parties to live together or be faithful to each other or to fulfil each other’s needs for intimacy. It is only the social conventions that are the remnants of religious marriages that create any semblance of rights and obligations between husbands and wives in modern society.

This is perhaps why, that whilst the number of secular marriages have increased to 65% of all marriages in Australia, the number of divorces for 2008 were approximately 40% of all marriages.

This is perhaps why 77% of people marrying were already living with each other and why the rate of marriage dropped from 7 per 1000 in 89, when our population was 16,806,730 to 5.3 per 1000 in 2001 and hovered around that rate till now (5.5) where our population is presently estimated by the ABS at 21,779,000. Whilst marriages in this period dropped, the divorce rate has remained fairly steady moving between 2.5 and 2.9 and 2.2 per 1000.

Whilst marriages today mean very little in terms of commitment of the wedded parties towards one another, divorce or separation brings with it a great deal of emotional and financial trauma.

Why does a commitment of marriage that has no clauses require such a complicated separation is an issue that has been plaguing our society for some time! To address this issue, young people have turned to very brief loveless relations that entail little more than gratification and conclude as soon as the gratification is over. There are no rights, no entitlements, often they don’t remember each other’s names, and they don’t need to unless the experience leads to a new life entering this world.

This phenomenon is spreading more widely in modern society and seems to favour males more than females. Studies in Australia reveal that the pool of eligible males shrinks dramatically for women in their thirties. The male continues to be able to select from a pool of younger one night stands whereas the females end up facing far greater competition once they reach that age.

Interestingly, this problem also meets another problem that affects women a few years into their relationships.

Nietzche, in Twilight of the Idols (London, Penguin 2003, first published in 1889) at page 106 states: “Marriage as an institution already includes in itself the affirmation of the largest, the most enduring form of organizaiotn: if society as a whole cannot stand security for itself to the most distant generations, then marriage has really no meaning. – Modern marriage has lost its meaning – consequently it is being abolished.”

Before I move on, I am addressing phenomena that are widespread and are salient, this does not mean that every person, or every relationship falls into these categories, there are exceptions to everything, especially when it comes to the behaviour of human beings, we can be very creative and we tend to morph and contort in all directions in our efforts to reach our goals. Some of us work within an ethical framework and some of us will not always do so.

Australia’s leading contributor in the area of amorous relationships is Bettina Arndt, Arndt has been a courageous advocate for successful families and she has braved some criticism for her pioneering work in the field of relationships and intimacy in relationships.

Arndt’s most recent works are very important and relevant for our topic. In her recent “The Sex Diaries”, Arndt explores 98 relationships showing that in the majority of cases (and I paraphrase), women lose their libidos a few years into the relationship. Usually, when they feel most safe and are confident that they love their partner and their partner loves them, somehow, those brief moments of physical intimacy are no longer welcome.

In an article she wrote for the Canberra Times, Arndt who also backs up her findings with the research of Professor Rosemary Basson says that women should say yes more often, because the mood or the desire can come with the interest or the stimulation proffered by the partner.

The general rule is in fact quite ironic, the man who must play an active role and have the energy to engage in intimacy retains the libido, whilst the woman who is able to be very passive during intimacy loses her libido.

We should be grateful to the women’s liberation movement which moved society to the standard of civility where a man has to wait for an invitation. It is this very development that has brought to the modern world the discovery of the difference in libidos and backed this with empirical research. It has also given impetus to the debate on the validity of polygynous relations.

Writing on the paradoxes of polygamy for the psychology today blog, environmental psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa proves that polygamy is mostly to the advantage of women because it allows more of them to choose the most desirable male.

Dr. Charles Mercier, a physician for mental diseases says in his Conduct and its Disorders Biologically Considered, (p. 292-3): "Woman is by nature monogamist; man has in him the element of polygamist."

So what does a fellow with an active libido do in a monogamous society?

He loves his wife and does not wish to leave her, what options remain open for him?

Well, consistently almost two thirds of males surveyed admit to having an affair, many admit to having flings and as we know, brothels continue to operate and are legal in modern society and their acceptability is increasing. Street prostitution is also widespread in modern society.

The drive exists and is strong and modern society has no method of dealing with it other than to continue the Roman facade of one wife but the vicious cycle of frequenting prostitutes and having affairs on the side.

We as a modern society are not willing to acknowledge that the difference in libido exists so that men are compelled by this innate drive to support more than one woman in a matrimonial capacity, not all men, but those with the commensurate means and libido.

Our Roman heritage though is about maintaining the facade of monogamy against a male nature that is polygynous. In that sense, this very word facade has a very significant yet ignominious meaning in Arabic. The Facade that means to the English reader, a face or a front that does not always reflect what lies behind it in fact means in the Arabic language: Corruption.

Interestingly, this word appears 11 times in the holy Qur`an, nine of these are a warning against Facade or corruption, the tenth speaks of the increase of corruption under pharaonic rule. The most telling and distinct reference appears in the Sura (or chapter) titled The Romans. This is the chapter that speaks of the spiritual linkage between Muslims and Christians and starts off by prophesying that Muslims would in a few years celebrate the victory of the Christian Romans against the Persians who were at that time of the Magian faith.

It is interesting that the verse that proclaims tranquillity in a marital relationship is in this same chapter that also condemns the Facade that had become manifest.

The appearance of the word facade, at the forty-first verse of this chapter states that Facade has become salient, or conspicuous, or clearly manifest in the land and the sea through what the hands of the people have earned, in order to show them some of the result of what they did lest they change.

The predecessor of modern society, the Greco-Roman heritage had experienced many advances in that period before Europe went through its dark ages. At the same time of these advances, it also experienced corruption that is manifest and that continues to manifest itself to this very day.

This corruption strikes at the very core of human relationships, in particular the enforced myth of monogamy.

We are forced to maintain a facade that works for part of the population and compels approximately two thirds of males to the corruption of affairs and the knowledge of prostitutes.

I do not contend for polygyny to be a solution for all males, but removing it from our criminal codes will allow men and women to become honest about their natural urges.

In a society that does not criminalise polygyny, a male facing the dilemma of his beloved wife experiencing a reduced libido can openly talk to his wife about bringing a female friend into his life to take up some of his time and energy in a loving commitment. In many cases, it is this discussion itself that revives the intimacy or the libido. This discussion also allows the husband to be open when he speaks to another woman. His integrity will demand in such a situation that he says: yes I am married and I love my wife and I will marry again a woman whose mind is open to entering such a relationship. The new woman does not enter this relationship with any expectation that he would leave his loving wife and she would not want him to leave his wife. She knew what she was getting into and she and his wife can determine the level of interaction they will have with each other.

Yes, there may be jealousy, this jealousy is addressed by the requirement to treat co-wives equally and meet their needs.

Because a key ingredient of a valid marriage is consent, polygyny, as Satoshi Kanazawa (ibid) says: provides a choice for women. Polygyny does not give advantage to the man. A man cannot compel a woman into such a relationship and he cannot hide under the excuse of having to leave his wife before he can make a commitment to the second woman.

Polygyny is about changing many of those irresponsible secret relationships into a responsible open commitment that is proclaimed to the rest of society. This is a commitment that does not carry a stigma for the women for any of the potential children from the relationship. It removes the pressure from the woman to hide her relationship which would have otherwise been an affair. It allows her to raise her head with dignity and proclaim that she is married and her husband can visit her without looking over his shoulder worrying who might see him or catch him. Polygyny negates the need for the facade or the charade and encourages honesty and openness.

Decriminalising polygyny will not lead to an increase, but to a marked decrease in the incidence of plural relations as clearly evident in countries where it is legal.

Australian legislators have chosen to maintain the Justinian facade. Section 94 of the Marriage Act 1971 (federal) stipulates a penalty of 5 years for bigamy, whilst Section 92 of the Crimes Act 1900 No 40 (NSW) stipulates a penalty of 7 years, unless the partner has been absent for five years and the bigamist had reasonable ground to suspect that the partner to whom he or she was married was not living. Section 6 of the Family Law Act 1975 on the other hand recognises polygamous marriages that are conducted overseas.

A recent report about a non-Muslim polygynous marriage in South Africa highlighted the fact that the South African president had three wives. Polygyny, at worst, is criminalised for 20% of the world population (until recently where some populous nations started to also discourage the practice), yet this 20% with its high incidence of clandestine relations is refusing to recognise familial unions that are considered kosher by four fifths of the world population. Interestingly, this magical figure of four fifth reflects the number of women reverting to Islam as compared to men.

Polygamy already exists in modern society, it exists in a clandestine irresponsible manner through mistresses and prostitution. It is time to drop the facade and decriminalise a natural institution that has benefited men and women throughout history and one that as I have outlined, creates an advantage for women over the present monogamous relations.

Polygamy is about making man responsible for his libido.

With this ladies and gentlemen, I commend to you: the Islamic restrictions on polygyny and other Islamic values are good for Australia.

Video of the speech is at this link, (please note that they spelled the name wrong):

Keysar Trad
Islamic Friendship Association of Australia Inc.

1 comment:

  1. You are a hypocrite! You have taken refuge in a Christian country and speak venomously about women. You disgust me and I'll bash you if I see you in the street.