Web Exclusive
girl next door

Faiza S. Khan relocated to Karachi from London three years ago, specifically not to find herself. She is the administrator of a short story prize and editor-in-chief of literary journal, The Life’s Too Short Review.

EMAIL AUTHOR

More than a Woman

To rail against polygamy is to suggest a quick cosmetic fix for a far more deeply rooted problem. It is the rights of women that require urgent improvement, and one’s revulsion is better served there.
8
Tagged Under | marriage | polygamy

The Pakistani male’s predilection for second wives has been splashed about in the news a fair amount this year, starting with the claim that 80 per cent of the country’s parliamentarians had a spare wife tucked away somewhere, followed by the disproportionate, nay, fetishistic interest in cricketer Shoaib Malik’s nuptials. While the inability to be satisfied by one spouse isn’t, I confess, the world’s most admirable quality, it was nevertheless surprising to read a column in a local newspaper recently equating the practice of polygamy to suicide bombing. Reasons cited for the outright denunciation of one husband to several wives were limp at best—social awkwardness, an innate sense of ‘wrongness’, and the desire to disassociate oneself as much as possible from the dating habits of the Taliban. Now, I’m generally reluctant to criticise anything consensual that takes place in the private sphere, even more so when the unspoken basis of the argument rests on the assumption that conventional monogamous relationships are not just righteous but also equal. Would that this were the case.

Unlike the widespread and very pleasant Christian ideal of marriage—made in heaven, till death do us part—Islam’s less sentimental system is more recognisable as realpolitik, given to practical concerns such as pre-nuptial agreements and divorce clauses, centuries before these same things became all the rage in America. Much as one may wish it otherwise, monogamy, even after millennia of indoctrination, can still more fairly be described as common rather than natural, hence the hysterical eagerness of pretty much every culture on earth to force it down your throat. As far as I can see, the distaste aroused by polygamy isn’t directed at a man for having more than one partner, what with bounders, cads and loveable rogues having historically cut romantic figures in the public imagination. The public discomfort comes from the tacit, blanket assumption that being a second wife or allowing your husband a second wife is an act of complete subjugation. To rail against polygamy, then, is to suggest a quick cosmetic fix for a far more deeply rooted problem. It is, of course, the rights of women that require urgent improvement, and one’s revulsion would be better served there.

An account of a polygamous marriage in an Abu Dhabi-based magazine recounted, last year, the experience of a woman who felt humiliated that her husband had taken a second wife of the same age as her daughter, undoubtedly much like the humiliation endured by, say, Mrs Silvio Berlusconi or Mrs Charlie Chaplin or Mrs Robin Cook. The reporter agitated repeatedly against the practice of allowing men more than one wife, not once mentioning that the alternative would not be happily ever after, but either infidelity or abandonment. The woman ought surely to be allowed to choose her poison. If the wife in question were economically and socially empowered (mind you, several financially independent women opt for polygamous partners) she ought to be able to walk out, if she does not wish for her husband to remarry she ought to be able to deny him this permission or then divorce him, or for that matter, inform him that she’s leaving him for her young lover on the side. None of her problems relate to polygamy so much as the lopsided distribution of power between the sexes and the less than joyous realities of human nature. Incidentally, with no money and no social clout, does one really imagine that women in conventional marriages of two are not as much at risk of abuse and humiliation as those fending off other wives?

Amongst the urbane, it is strangely adulterers and philanderers who are considered more socially palatable than polygamists. This is not due to an intrinsic difference in conduct but instead because of our attitude to those double standards that we are accustomed to. In sophisticated circles, we cling to the comfortable and familiar hypocrisy of being able to turn a blind eye to extra-marital (or supra-marital, as the case may be) activity. It’s harder to do when accompanied by a nikkahnama.

OLDER COMMENTS FIRST

8 COMMENTS

Permalink

Wow Faiza. A serious piece. Very good stuff.

Also, young Ruttie Jinnah was Mr. Jinnah's second and in her teens. Ms. Nusrat Bhutto was also wife No. 2. And I believe Shahbaz Sharif has divorced and wed for a fourth time.

Xristobal

19 April 2010 | Xristoabal Pierce

Permalink

Focus on an extreme (Muslim men taking additional wives the age of their daughters) to divert ourselves from the more difficult questions of the normal (women, both Hindu and Muslim, being subjugated by their men). Older women relatives even in my family routinely use the existence of "worse-off cases" as justification for their own unacceptable predicaments: "At least my husband won't say talaq talaq and leave me like those Muslim men do."

The media opinion and focus, more often than not and definitely in this case, is simply an extension of individual behaviour.

22 April 2010 | Rohan Nair

Permalink

You are balanced most of the time in your writings.

This time, I will beg to differ. I always find Muslim women using eloquence to defend the issues of Islam. Give Muslim women equal rights to begin with and then talk about choosing the poison, alright? But I know it's futile because once Islam has attached itself to your identity, your easier choice is to rationalize and justify the WTFness of Islam. When you write like this, and Zakir Naik keeps rambling nonsense - it's clear that Muslims are trapped in their religion so badly, it will take a rebirth to show them a world where sophistry of Islam or it's proponents doesn't cloud judgment.

24 April 2010 | mike

Permalink

This is not about religion. It is about human freedom and civility vis-a-vis everyone else. No matter how you look at it, we need to maximise individual freedom of choice within constraints imposed by others' well-being and freedom.

The best solution seems to be this: let the human species, like any other species, freedom of sex but within the civilised unserstanding that the relationship are legit (and reversible if need be) and humans beings are EQUAL regardless of gender, sexual preference etc.

Therefore, it makes sense to have CONSENSUAL multi-partner relationships accepted by us all.

The prissy Victorians/Crusaders/ultratraditionalits think otherwise, of course, and the Papal/colonial control of minds in India, Pakistan, USA and elsewhere continues, so debate is likely to be prejudiced.

30 April 2010 | free thinker

Permalink

Apropos the article,
May I bring to the attention of the writer and readers that C.G.Jung states how, with the advent of forced Christianity in Africa, prostitution flourished, because, till then a woman had the option of being a third or fourth wife of a man, whereas, after christainisation ( if I may use a neologism, she had no option but to be a prostitute!
Vikshiptha

5 May 2010 | K.Niranjan Sharma aka Vikshiptha

Permalink

A lot of people would think have an opinion close to this, but the prevailing sentiment in the Western world, which controls the consciousness of most of the rest of the world like a churail's aatma, will make people think twice before openly saying so. Do not feel disheartened, Faiza dear, just as the idiocy of screaming "bloody witch" (or "bitch" etc) at the slightest sight of a black burqa is slowly becoming apparent to anyone who has a brain in true working order, so will other forms of stupidity and prejudice vanish over time. Be patient.

15 May 2010 | Saffi

Permalink

I think instead of getting so hassled by men having more than one wife women should also be allowed to have more than one husband. That makes it equal. Better yet, let go of marriage, as that institution itself is so unnatural. I completely agree monogamy is unnatural, enforced by those interested in retaining control over the masses. All institutions in society, like marriage and religion, are just tools with which to control, and more specifically to control women. In case you're wondering how this may be so, think about this: A man may rise to head a religious organisation but no woman can. A man is socially sanctioned to cheat on his wife but not a woman. The ancient times when there were no marriage or religion were the times when the genders had equal rights and dignity and lived in harmony.

29 August 2010 | Bidisha Ghosal

Permalink

the writer is a muslim first and a woman second...its pretty pathetic how muslim women no matter how independent still cling onto the archaic and most often misogynistic rules of their religion...just dont try to shove ur 'rationalization' of this issue down our throats...be someones second wife by all means and hare ur husband an ur individuality by dont expect any pats on the back from other women...u r pretty sad..

2 November 2011 | kala

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

CAPTCHA
NOTE: Please enter letters [case sensitive] in the box provided before you submit your comment. This is to prevent automated spam submissions
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.