Ayub Maftoon

Well said.
Now go back to where you came from and where such scholarship is appreciated and relevant. I for one do not want to change your mind nor do I want to offer you and your type the comfort of thinking that people like me may now rush to compromise our position on polygamy to enable you to get a foothold in our secular democracy where men and women are equal before law. Our laWS ARE MADE BY OUR POPULARLY ELECTED MEMBERS.

NICE TRY,MAFTOON.BUT IT CUTS NO ICE.yOU ARE WASTING YOUR TIME.

pOLYGAMY IS SO IMPORTANT TO YOU AND MUSLIMS LIKE YOU.WE WHO HAVE LIVED IN THE UAE HAVE BEEN CLOSE ENOUGH TO SAUDI ARABIA all UAE countries AND YEMEN

to know that you lot are the world's biggest debauched hypocrites when it comes to the treatment of women.Which country has the greatest number of women in captivity? Where is the slave trade in girls the greatest?
Now try and pretend you dont know.

socratease

I notice that Mr Ayub is using the Quran to 'instruct' us as to how his well intentioned but virtual apostate comrade Irfan 'should' be acting.

Of course Pericles and CJ and TRTL will suitably rebuke him for using 'obscure ancient documents' to make a case for modern Australian life... (or..will they?)

If Mr ayub is happy to use the Quran to justify having 4 wives.. I hope he will also be as forthcoming from the same chapter which permits a man to beat his wife... "Institutionalized domestic violence"

I hope he will also be forthcoming on the issue of divorce... and that even young children can be 'divorced'....

Then there is the matter of Mohamamad not only having set us an example with his many wives, but also his concubines.. unmarried sexual 'assistants'

All in all.. it seems to describe the "Islamic Paradise" where according to Ibn Kathir their giant of history and doctrine.. life will be perpetually deflowering virgins..

Not a bad lark if ur a bloke.. but then.. as they say.. things which seem too good to be true usually are.

I don't see the problem with polygamy, except that it will leave a lot of men without wives, which would be a shame. Perhaps there is a solution to that.

You people (especially Cosmogirl) realise that women who enter these relationships would do so voluntarily? Why are you so sexist? I think it must be (yet again) feminist indoctrination and brainwashing.

Polycarp, I can't speak for Pericles, CJ or TRTL but in my case there is a big difference between someone wishing to apply ancient docuuments to how they live their own lives and those seeking to use those documents to tell others how to live their lives.

If those involved in fundy religious faiths wich to live by just a small section of the knowledge and accumulated wisdom available to modern humanity thats their choice as long as it does not directly impose on those who do not choose to do so.

Whilst history (past and present) makes it clear that muslims are not immune to imposing the restrictions of their faith on others this is not one of those issues (expcept for the risk that some women may have their options restricted within specific communities).

When muslims behave on this forum as our resident christain fundies do I'll have no qualms about challenging them. My guess is that the posters you mentioned will do likewise.

R0bert

Very well said R0bert.

Polycarp, I could have sworn I already weighed in to criticise the exaggerations and falsehoods in this article.

Though to add another layer of criticism, where's the mention of the small towns in Australia that have far more men than women? Globally, what about the 30 million estimated surplus Chinese men, a result of gender favoritism at birth which would only be exacerbated by polygamist attitudes?

The more I think about this article, the more foolish it becomes. Maftoon attempts to justify polygamy with numbers (number I think I've reasonably shown to be misleading) but what about when the numbers flow the other way?

Would Mr Maftoon suggest that in the aforementioned small towns or in China, women be permitted multiple husbands?
Were I to believe in a creator, I'd point out that for every 100 female births, there's 104 or 105 men, perfectly suited to the slightly higher number of male fatalities and the longer lives of women (which can also be attributed to evolution). Were I to believe in a creator, it would seem a pretty conclusive vote against polygamy, because if it were encouraged, there'd be more women than men.

So on top of the misleading commentary in this article, (who honestly thinks extramarital affairs are approved of by wider society, or 'swingers' are anything more than a minority?) the stats are wrong, large chunks of information are missing and yes, it relies on superstitious religious piffle. As has been mentioned by others, living your own life in such a way is one thing, but attempting to dictate it to others is another.

Boazycarp: << Of course Pericles and CJ and TRTL will suitably rebuke him for using 'obscure ancient documents' to make a case for modern Australian life... >>

I can't speak for anybody else, but to me Ayub Maftoon seems to be arguing for polygyny with Koranic evidence in much the same way that an honest Bretho might have argued for women's lower status in their church on the basis of a biblical "creation mandate". Of course, if anybody's deluded enough to base their contemporary values on the ancient myths and legends of various tribes of Middle Eastern goat-herders, then that's fine by me, so long as they're not trying to impose those values on everybody else.

If Ayub Maftoon wants to marry four wives simultaneously and they all want to marry him, then it's not really my business, is it? Similarly, if Bretho women want to wear their version of the hijab, or to defer to their husbands and male church elders, then what business is that of mine?

I'm more worried about Maftoon's gross misreading of our society's values with respect to married people engaging in extramarital sex. While of course it occurs relatively frequently, it is hardly "...with very small exception, a common practice in western society". Further, his references to an ancient psychology text from 1910 and a 1932 biography of Mohammed are somewhat more problematic, coming from someone who claims to be a journalist, than is his Koranic justification of polygamy.

At least he displays the courage of his screwy convictions, unlike paranoid Islamophobes who spread their fear and loathing under a variety of pseudonyms.