I am not denying the fact that there is a lot of misogyny in the Muslim (as wel as non-Muslim) world. I strongly believe that things like FGM and ‘honor’ killings are barbaric and unislamic practices that have plagued the Muslim world and must be stopped. However, I know that in the West isn’ t much better. Just look at all those domestic abuse crises centers throught America.

If you want some statistics, look at these websites:

-http://www.actabuse.com/dvstats.html

-http://home.cybergrrl.com/dv/body.html

-http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fvs.htm

Also, while you are correct that in Islam, it is permitted for one to physically discipline his wife, this is not permission to brutally assault or kill one’s wife. And just so you know, I was raised in a matriarchial household, with my mom being the head of the house.

As for the Shias, I was raised as a shia, though for a period in high school I was agnostic/deist. I do not blame everything on the Jews, and Shias are one of the most anti-semetic people on earth. Just look at the president of Iran, wanting to nuke Israel.

Not all non-muslim countries are part of the darul-harb. Only countries that are hostile to Islam are. I am a patroitic American, and I hate the guts out of Bin Laden or any other Anti-American retard.

Prophet Muhammad ended mutah marriage, contrary to Shia propoganda. And I don’t see why we should end polygamy. Monogomous relationships can and many times are more abusive than many polygynous marriages. Domestic violence is a crises in many Western countries. There are many non-abusive polygynous relationships, but you people only see the bad ones.

Mohammed (SAW) put an end to it?

Mut’a was forbidden on the Day of Khaibar according to a hadith narrated by ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib and found in Sahih Muslim (4763).

Anyway, Hamed, this crisis you speak of in the west: care to put forward any comparative figures. You can’t? You know why? Because smacking the wife around is accepted in many – if not most – non western countries. The laziest person in the world can find a fatwa online that contends that Mohammad himself supported a light beating when your wife was irreligious or didn’t put out.

So this “crisis” you speak of is a crisis of REPORTED beatings.

Honestly! This is why the Ummah is so fucked. Too many believers are utterly delusional and will twist any fact they can find, or just make one up, to support the contention that Muslims are not inferior to non-Muslims or that dar el-harb is inferior to dar el-Islam… even when said Muslim is TYPING from deep inside dar el-harb. There is such a profound inferiority complex!

As for marriage privatisation… HUH? Whatchoo talkin’ ’bout Willis? In fact gay marriage is the exact opposite of privatisation: it is the bringing into the public realm what used to be a private agreement only.

Marriage is now regulated by the state. It is illegal for two men, two men and a woman, or three men and one woman to register a marriage as the state, in most Western societies, recognises marriage as only being between a man and a woman. Therefore, by privatisation, I was refering to the idea that the regulation of such contracts could be taken away from the state and ‘privatised’. That is to say, a marriage contract becomes like any other legally binding contract between two or more people.

You know, it’s funny: I wrote and deleted a little caveat in the first post about causation not equalling corellation. And sure, it is a fundamental error to onflate the two. Equally, though, I think it’s problematic to dismiss correlaions that are as strong as the one regarding polygyny.

The thing about polyguny is that it is the product of certain evolutionary pressures, brilliantly described by Jarod Diamond before he became a whinging environmental catastrophist. I won’t go into the minutiae here, but polygyny’s causes are very much a product of the “natsy, brutish, and short” evolutionary pressures that no longer exist in developed countries – or, inded, in countries like Saudia. What they do do is institutionalise a very dangerous sexual double standard that sanctions multiple partners for one while forbidding that to the other. Such double standards are perfectly in tune with the miserable status of women in places such as Saudia. So we have correlation. That’s clear. Where causation comes into it is that the very same eveolutionary pressures that CAUSE men to rape and otherwise mistreat women in porder to ensure that the men are not cuckolded also CAUSED the possibility that multiple female partners are permissible while multiple males for women are not.

That’s pretty messy, but for 2am, it’s all I got.

As for marriage privatisation… HUH? Whatchoo talkin’ ’bout Willis? In fact gay marriage is the exact opposite of privatisation: it is the bringing into the public realm what used to be a private agreement only.

The thing is, gay unions in no way are linked to subjugation or double standards. The only violence that has ever been associated wth gay men’s sexuality has been homophobic bashing. So comparisons are spurious when you’re trying to win over social liberals like me. And I’m not even that liberal. Feminism, abortion and gay marriage put me in the liberal camp, but othetwise I am somewhere to the right of… er… Alan Jones, I guess.

One more thing: don’t we have a f***load more things to be worries about? When Muslims are screeching about discrimination and certain neanderthal non-Muslims are telling us that the west needs a RE-reconqistador-style routing of Muslims, bringing up your ability to pork more than one lady legally (religiously speaking) seems a bit self-indulgent.

But kudos to you for not being good humoured about it all.

As Becker and other economists have pointed out, if women’s property rights are protected and dowry is paid by the man, the allowance of polygny would lead to an increase in the ‘value’ of women. That is, it would lead to an increase in the dowry that is paid to them and also an overall increase in the net benefits that each prospective suitor would need to offer in order to be ‘competitive’.

Obviously, I’m not posting this to convince people to accept the permissability of polygamy under Islamic law. However, I do find these arguments interesting and, given the liklihood that the push for gay civil unions could lead to an eventual privatisation of marriage contracts, it is possible that such relationships might end up legal in some Western societies.

Jesus, Amir. I thought Baybers was the sad sak undie around here. Maybe I misjudged the authors on this site altogether.

I hope you mean fundie rather than undie.