'Please don’t judge someone’s Iman (faith)' - is what we often hear in social circles, as was the main message of some email responses I received. I’d like to challenge this statement by arguing that we not only judge other’s Iman when it is called for, but, as a Quranic principle, this is exactly what we ought to do.
Of course this should not give way to attacks on basis of suspicion or hearsay, but it also does not mean that we become blind to others’ Iman as reflected in their expressed thoughts and actions. An ideal Islamic social system awards the right to citizens to marry, give court testimony, join public office or the military, narrate a hadith etc. – all dependant on the judgment based on one’s professed thoughts and actions (reflecting Iman) beyond any other consideration.
What should matter most is for one to see whether the criterion one employs to judge Iman is tenable Islamically or not. If we feel embarrassed or fearful of speaking the truth about our Deen when called upon to do so then why should we feel upset when accused of being deficient in our Iman? Let me be clearer:
I feel that some people want to paint the whole idea of polygamy in Islam so as to show how closely Islam caters to the socially approved idea of gender equality. Hence they come up with lousy excuses to rationalize its Islamic allowance (first wife’s permission, only for supporting widows and orphans, not for a Western society, etc.). There is no need to do this. It is a dishonest policy not only towards ourselves and to our Creator, it is unconvincing and uncompassionate to the audience we are trying hard to please. People must be shown the true picture of Islam before given a choice on whether they’d like to accept it as a way of life or not. And if you yourself don’t like the true picture of Islam then, yes, perhaps you need to question your membership of a religion that stands for ‘submission to God’s will’. I have not invited anyone to leave Islam but to honestly evaluate one’s commitment level to what one claims to profess. Be thorough, whether in kufr (rejection) or Iman.
My initial response to Noor Javed’s articles was spirited and harsh toned. I felt she had already made up her mind on how she wanted to portray polygamy before she set out to gather material on the issue (If Noor is honest I’m sure she will agree).
An objective reader would note that the author:
- Cites multiple opposing voices speaking against polygamy in Canada (Syed Mumtaz Ali, Shahina Siddiqui, Rik Bala, Alia Hogben, Beverly Baines, Andrea Horwath, Ted McMeekin, public poll results and herself) but mentions only one source supporting it: Aly Hindy (the Imam we all love to hate). Of course she had to mention Hindy’s “friendship” with the family of a Gitmo youth detainee (innocent or not). Aly Hindy claims in a recent article that he stated his preference for the Islamic law over Canadian law in an interview with Noor only in a hypothetical case of the government’s decision to force him to fight in Afghanistan. He insists that it was not in reference to polygamy. Did Noor Javed deliberately misconstrue Hindy’s words to paint him more sinister than life? The balance is certainly not in her favor.
- Includes a poll in one of her articles asking the readers whether they’d agree with the enforcement of the polygamy law in Canada, not on whether the law itself should be revised, as it is “un-enforceable”.
- With high drama, illustrates the personal stories of the “victims” of polygamy (Safa Rigby, Fouad Boutaya) but conveniently ignores their ex-spouses’ side of the story.
- Entitles one of her articles with the caption “Multiple spouses are fine, just not in the West” on account of it being a “foreign exotic practice…brought by newcomers” but perhaps forgets that a similar argument could be made against homosexual marriages, also ‘foreign’ to mainstream society yet legally accepted.
- Mentions the 2005 report by the Justice Dept. and Status of Women Canada, but fails to mention its eye-opening observation: The polygamy law does nothing to protect women and children in Canada.
- Lastly and most regrettably, Noor Javed renders a dishonest translation of a relevant Quranic verse in her articles.
Another aspect of Noor’s writing was its bad timing. Post 9/11, certain social elements in society who have publicly confessed their Islam-hate in the past have become worryingly active. Do we really need a Muslim at this point to unfairly add to the feelings of anger, shame, contempt and hate towards Islam and Muslims under the garb of claiming to address a “common problem”? (Note the word unfairly. I am not against just self- criticism).
“Wonderfully Ignorant”
This is how Noor Javed described my article – only without an explanation. I would have preferred had she presented an alternative solution (other than polygamy) to deal with the surplus women population over men in Western societies. According to UN population stats for 2007, women outnumber men in the US by 4.8 million, in Russia by 10.6 million, in France by 1.5 million, in Germany by 1.8 million and in Canada by 311,000 – to cite a few. Of course the above societies armed by law normally deal with the issue by tacitly forcing the excess females to live as mistresses, lesbians or lonely spinsters. It is remarkably ironic that those who label polygamy as demeaning to women contribute to female degradation by allowing them options that are far more dishonorable and vile.
Nevertheless, as Muslims our ignorance on Islam is worrisome; ignorance often coupled with an arrogant, yet misplaced, sense of what Islam is. This is why the polygamy opponents are tangled up with each other on defining its status in Islam. For example, Sarah Zubeiri advises me “go back and read (the) Quran – it’s quite clear that polygamy is not prescribed at all”. Noor Javed says it is allowed: “Islam allows a man…to marry up to four wives…” only not in Canada. Presumably Arzoo Zaheer considers it allowed in Canada therefore plans to protect herself through “a prenuptial”; Naeem Siddiqui says it was once allowed in the past “to provide for widows and orphans” but “not any more”; Farzana Hassan, President of Muslim Canadian Congress, calls it an “unfair institution” because the Quran calls it “unfair” (Does she not know that the Prophet (S) and his eminent Companions were polygamous?). But if some don’t know the Sirah, others seem to know it too well! Arzoo Zahir claims that “Fatima, the daughter of Mohammed (had) specified in her prenuptial that Ali may not wed another while married to her”. Arzoo was apparently upset at me for not including this ‘fact’ in my article. I’m sure the Sirah specialists would love to know this hitherto unknown fact.
Then, Br. Naeem Siddiqui from CAIR-CAN enters the arena with his article “Divorcing Polygamy”. The Quranic ban in Naeem’s mind is as simple as: one-two-three. Naeem says that polygyny is “allowed only if a man can be just to all wives.” But wait. He then discovers another verse in the same chapter saying, “it is not within the power of men to be just to all wives”. Hence, Naeem concludes: “Polygyny isn’t merely discouraged” with a clear implication that he considers it declared Haram (banned) by the same Quran. What he ends up showing is that the god of the Muslims likes to legislate merely for fun all the while knowing that humans can’t follow his laws. But then later in the article Naeem presents his own ruling on why polygyny should be outlawed today. He says: “it was designed as a safety net for widows and orphans. It certainly was. It isn't any more.” Of course Noor Javed appears to disagree with Naeem Siddiqui’s implied idea of an eternal ban on polygamy as she informs us of the “conditions that would justify polygamous unions in Islam”. In her view these are in cases of “a widow, a divorcee, or a woman in need of financial or emotional support”. While everyone speaks on the Quran colored by one’s pre-conceived notions, sadly, no one bothers to check the Quran’s clear words on the issue. By this I also mean to draw attention to Noor’s repeated presentation of erroneous translations of the relevant verse. She quoted: "If you deem it best for the orphans, you may marry their mothers – you may marry two, three, or four. If you fear lest you become unfair, then you shall be content with only one, or with what you already have," (4:3). In its Arabic original, there is no mention of marrying mothers of the orphans; and there is a mention of ‘what your right hands possess’ i.e. concubines (also mentioned in 23:6 as a category distinct from wives). But of course, had Noor cited the verse from any one of the 1001 authoritative translations (not from the Quran translation of the false prophet, Rashad Khalifah) it would have spoiled her agenda.
At times, the agenda also spoils if you cite the entire verse. So it is better to cherry-pick and cite only the part relevant to one’s argument. I am referring to Noor’s quotation of 4:129: "You have it not in your power to do justice between the wives, even though you may wish it." The verse goes on to say “…so do not incline too much to one (wife) so as to leave the other hanging. And if you do right and be conscious (of Allah), then Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” Any layperson can see that instead of banning polygamy, the verse in its entirety (which Noor conveniently misses) consoles men fearful of not being able to do perfect justice between wives. It reassures them that so long as they are not deliberately unjust to women, Allah is “oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful” to failings beyond their control.
The Legal Argument
Some people felt the safest position on the issue was to hide behind the legal argument, which goes something like this:
- Islam enjoins us to abide by the law of the land
- Polygamy is against Canadian law
- Therefore, Islam enjoins us to oppose polygamy.
Such position also taken by the Imam Council and Haroun Siddiqui was weak and disappointing. How quick we are to sacrifice divine guidance and recommendation at the altar of public approval and professional image! It is true that polygamy is “illegal on paper” but that is soon to change – thanks not to the big and brave Muslims out there, but to the secular legal experts realizing the law’s redundancy and ridiculousness. Imagine three or more people being jailed for 5 years or fined $50,000 for the ‘crime’ of taking part in a religious ceremony of marriage. The same penalty would also befall the attending guests and those who facilitate/consummate the ceremony – at a time when the term ‘marriage’ is redefined, as it should’ve been, to better reflect the present social picture. It is of no wonder that top constitutional experts consulted by the Attorney General’s office in 1995 regarding the Bountiful case unanimously stated: “(the polygamy law) is in direct conflict with the freedom of religion guarantees in Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” Another expert and retired justice, Richard Anderson, called it “obsolete” and “inadequate to solve the real problems confronting society” – a view shared by chief justice Allan McEachern. All crown lawyers agree that no charges would stick on the accused under the polygamy law. Eventually, this 19th C law will not survive a constitutional challenge. Due to its un-enforceability, polygamy in Canada is de facto legal.
Thus we expect the Muslim public figures to grow a backbone and support efforts to fully legalize polygamy. Most importantly, the legalization would ensure the rights of those women who although enter a polygamous relationship consensually but must endure an unjust relationship with a man relative to the first wife.
The legalization of polygamy in Canada would not generate a class of women upset at their husbands for having taken other wives under their newly found freedom. This is a scare tactic used by the anti-polygamists to ensure the status quo. Polygamy is, and in all likelihood, will remain on the fringes of our society regardless of the change in its legal status in future. After all it is exceedingly rare in Muslim countries where it enjoys far greater legal and cultural support.
To those who advised polygamous couples to emigrate elsewhere as recourse, we say: It is time you rid yourselves of your immigrant inferiority complexes. Consider the pride Gina Powell, a revert, takes when she says: “if I (have) the chance to be a co-wife, I would be very honored”. Another lady, J. D. Costa, a co-wife, says: “Mashallah…I hate it when Muslim women denounce the things prescribed by Allah”. Does it behoove Muslims to knowingly go against what is allowed by God only to appear more ‘modern’ than the unbelievers?
The Difference-of-Opinion Argument
Some people felt that what Noor expressed through her articles was voicing “another perspective”, “difference of opinion”, “another interpretation” etc. and is therefore legitimate. Sadly our lack of knowledge renders us impervious to what constitutes a legitimate difference of opinion in Islam and what is plain out wrong. For example, if a person supports 6 daily fard prayers instead of 5, his view cannot be taken as a legitimate difference of opinion in shari’ah. “Al-ikhtilaf” in fiqh is known as the disagreement/difference of opinion among jurists over the interpretation of a matter of law. It is not meant for laypeople that generally have no idea about the basic principles (al-arkan), conditions (al-shurut) and the rules of conduct (adab) of fiqh – whereby matters are distinguished on the basis of supporting evidence from the primary sources – to hop on the ijtihad-buggy. Nor for those who are unacquainted with juristic istidlal (argument/reasoning), tarjih (giving preference), tatbiq (conciliation) or takhrij (deduction) as established by our tradition spanning 1400 years. Skimming a Quran translation over the net or attending half-baked Islam 101 classes at the university is not enough. Over the years I have noted that the ones who start by saying “in my opinion…” are the usually the ones most unqualified to speak on juridical matters. Blurting out personal opinions based on faulty understanding does not turn one into a jurist and his ideas do not automatically acquire validity within the recognized difference of opinions among those trained in fiqh. In short what I am saying is that one needs to have a minimum level of understanding and knowledge of religion before one can form a correct view and responsibly disseminate it in public. This criterion is not restricted to religion but to all fields of knowledge known to humanity.
As Allah is my witness I do not carry malice toward anyone either mentioned in this article or those who sent their feedback as critics. However, if people continue to speak ignorantly on religious matters propelled by shady agendas, I will continue to disagree with them and voice my disagreement with them as a matter of principle. The best course for us to take as a community is to make a resolve not only to learn about the religion we so passionately speak about, but also, rise for its defense when an occasion calls for it.
Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|