ByMukhtar Mai, Glamour Magazine’s woman of the year 2005, ties the knot, for reasons she defines as “to support women’s rights.” I hope that this woman who has not backed down in the face of oppression in the name of culture, tradition and religion will continue to hold on tight to that principle even when the honeymoon is over. There are some troubling signs in this new relationship. One is that the groom, Mr. Gabol is an unstable character, younger and indelibly lacking in the maturity she possesses, and was a little too quick to commit suicide with sleeping pills when she turned him down in 2007.
Interestingly, his wife (yes he was married) tried convincing Mukhtar to marry him (the law allows for multiple wives and ample opportunity to ignore the rules about getting permission from the prior wives). Expectedly, his first wife, Shehla, seems not to take things too seriously, and defiantly loves the camera. She told journalists her and Mukhtar are “like sisters.” How biblical. Agreed that women should make alliances, but my issue with this is that the story of Mukhtar is the story of triumph over tragedy that the shackles of traditionalism confers on women, and yet we now see Mukhtar herself stepping into a complex relationship which is sadly typical of Pakistan’s favorite soap opera theme: one man and two women.
The good news is that Mukhtar seems to be a bit more steadfast and aware of everyone’s rights, including Shehla’s. She insisted Gabol signs over the land he owns and allocates a proportion of his monthly salary to his first wife, as precondition to the second marriage. She also took her time to decide, which is really buying more happiness, and more importantly she refused to move to the neighboring village with him. Mr. Gabol said he was happy about the fact that he is the husband of a famous woman, but it remains to be seen how he really will stand by her side after he marries her, and after she will still be Mukhtar Mai. At the end, she needs to find something other than her 2 girls school and 1 boy’s school to entertain him with, or he will get bored like he did with Shehla. Pressure is not new to Mukhtar, but this kind takes a new emotional muscle. I am maintaining an “I don’t know” stance on this.
Yes its wonderful that a stigmatized rape victim defied local dogma and married in “holy” matrimony, but with the fall of Swat to the hands of Taliban thugs, and the release of the flogging video of the girl from Swat, there is so much to lose if Mukhtar becomes a victim of someone else’s expectations. She is a national asset in the hands of another man. How enlightened can a man be in and around Multan, feudal capital of Punjab? But then again, like I said I don’t know. How bold and emancipated can a woman be from the same region. Mukhtar shocked the world by being a poster girl for women’s rights. Yet, when the mundane takes over the creeping up sun every day, he may just may not yell at her for leaving the corners of the rotis thicker or shove her around for attending to him later than she should have when he’d come for his visits, or storm out in a fit of anger if she prefers her school kids to his aspirations.
I don’t know if she’ll feel weary and tired for having fought too many battles on too many fronts, and maybe say, this one let me try the local witch doctor solution and endure with the quiet grace of a woman. I don’t know. Still I hope that she and he become the poster couple for a well balanced marriage partnership.
Pak Tea House 
How enlightened can a man be in and around Multan, feudal capital of Punjab?
Now, that’s an interesting sentiment.
She is a national asset in the hands of another man???
Wow. Wasn’t looking at women as the center of national pride lead to all that tragedy on a massive scale during/after partition and has continued since?
Now why would she settle for less than her worth anyways – a shared man? why did she select / accept unequal gender roles? what made her do that? self-worth issues? societal pressure? family pressure?
Would a man do that for love – marry an already married woman? If it is acceptable for a man to have many wives – why is it not acceptable for a woman to have multiple husbands? Why two different sets of standards for men and women? Is this gender equality? If not why did she do it?
Amna
@Amna:
Here are short answer to your questions:
If it is acceptable for a man to have many wives – why is it not acceptable for a woman to have multiple husbands?
Please do NOT ignore nature of males. Males are by nature jealous and can not share their female partners, this is true even in animals (unless after eating pork over centuries males nature changes–if you don’t understand this point then, please just ignore it). When there is only one man in a woman life, he is held resposible. If there are more than one man, these men will not take their responsibility. And at the end woman suffers. When a woman is pregnant by one man, she can not be impregnated by another man. If woman is having menses she could not be physically in health to have sex, say e.g. 7 days. Where as man can have sex through out the month with 4 different wives (as probability is that not all of them will be mensturating at the same time). BTW, as of rule, in Islam, for one man there is ONLY one woman.
Why two different sets of standards for men and women?
Physical and psychological realities has been taken into consideration. Only those laws can remain valid that do NOT go against human nature.
Is this gender equality?
Your premises are wrong. Each gender has their own sphere to function, and some common sphere. So, both spheres need to be taken into consideration when making laws.
If not why did she do it?
Why are you against right of woman, who wants to have at least half loving home (or one third, or one forth) if she can not have a full loving home?? Here in US there a women who are willing to become 2nd wife, so that they can at least able to enjoy half loving homes if they can not fnd a full loving home.
NOT LETTING WOMEN TO BECOME 2nd, 3rd, or 4th wife IS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THEM
@Amna:
Here are short answer to your questions:
If it is acceptable for a man to have many wives – why is it not acceptable for a woman to have multiple husbands?
Please do NOT ignore nature of males. Males are by nature jealous and can not share their female partners, this is true even in animals (unless after eating pork over centuries males nature changes–if you don’t understand this point then, please just ignore it). When there is only one man in a woman life, he is held resposible. If there are more than one man, these men will not take their responsibility. And at the end woman suffers. When a woman is pregnant by one man, she can not be impregnated by another man. If woman is having menses she could not be physically in health to have sex, say e.g. 7 days. Where as man can have sex through out the month with 4 different wives (as probability is that not all of them will be mensturating at the same time). BTW, as of rule, in Islam, for one man there is ONLY one woman.
Why two different sets of standards for men and women?
Physical and psychological realities has been taken into consideration. Only those laws can remain valid that do NOT go against human nature.
Is this gender equality?
Your premises are wrong. Each gender has their own sphere to function, and some common sphere. So, both spheres need to be taken into consideration when making laws.
If not why did she do it?
Why are you against right of woman, who wants to have at least half loving home (or one third, or one forth) if she can not have a full loving home?? Here in US there a women who are willing to become 2nd wives, so that they can at least able to enjoy half loving homes if they can not fnd a full loving home.
NOT LETTING WOMEN TO BECOME 2nd, 3rd, or 4th wife ARE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THEM
Separate but equal is now a discarded paradigm. There is ample proof to show that this argument is just a tool for discrimination.
Your portrayal of men is sad – it shows them to be no more and no better than animals – I disagree – they are or at least are supposed to be thinking feeling beings – now this is interesting – feminism always complained of objectification of women in a male dominating system – after reading your post I realized that such a system objectifies men too in a very degrading manner
Let me rephrase my question – if it is not allowed for women to have multiple husbands why is it allowed for men?
Women get jealous – and this is coming from a woman – I don’t understand when men pretend to know exactly how women feel – by doing so they act in a selfish way by bestowing expert authority on themselves so that they can claim to be better suited to decide what is best for women – but it is not fair or honest.
It is not just a matter of gender equity, it is a matter of distribution of costs and benefits – while women go through the pain and jealousy of sharing their husbands , men have the advantage of being the dominant partners of multiple wives – more tools in their hands to control the behavior of wives. It is an unfair distribution – women bear most of the costs and men most of the benefits – and pleas don’t tell me about kifalat – women can be their own kafeels. I cannot believe that any God would want to be unjust – but humans acting in self interest are.
Like I said, it is a self-worth issue, you said:
“Here in US there a women who are willing to become 2nd wives, so that they can at least able to enjoy half loving homes if they can not fnd a full loving home.” why is the same not true for men – just because they are men? There are many men in US who are unable to find a full loving home, why would they not be willing or not be allowed to be 2nd husbands? Trust me there are many who would happily be the 2nd husbands – why else would they have affairs with married women? Won’t it be better for them also if they could legally wed those women? But alas they cannot – Only women can be legally wedded to the love of their life and not men sad sad sad and very discriminating against men.
Again @ Amna:
Most of what you wrote is your OPINION not reasons against polygyny (man having multiple wives). I will answer to your questions:
Let me rephrase my question – if it is not allowed for women to have multiple husbands why is it allowed for men?
Again your question is based on WRONG premises. It is Women choice. No one is forcing women to become 2nd, 3rd or 4th wives. Do not discrimitae against them by stopping them from doing so. In societies that allow polygyny, social problems will NOT expand, rather they will be solved. Where as polyandry will increase problems for society….as we see unofficially when it is practiced in e.g. western/ European countries.
Actually, being a student of psychiatry, i can tell you good chunk of social problems in US could be solved by allowing Polygyny. This is reason, Russian Duma (parliamant), despite being a European, educated, modern…. are working on proposal of allowing polygyny. As they see solution to problems faced by them. It will take long to provide reasons behind their proposal. (It is 1:27 am in NY).
There are many men in US who are unable to find a full loving home, why would they not be willing or not be allowed to be 2nd husbands?
Unfortunately, legal system and family laws in US are cause of these problems. If men are not happy just like when women are not, they should be allowed to get divorced, e.g. the way islam permits in its laws of marriage and divorce. I can provide a link here to a wonderful book ‘Religion of Islam’ by Maulana Muhammad Ali, but then my post won’t get posted.
Trust me there are many who would happily be the 2nd husbands – why else would they have affairs with married women?
As you answered yourself. Polyandry increases problems in society.
Won’t it be better for them also if they could legally wed those women?
Solution is provided in Islamic law. Both such individuals should get divorced from their respective spouses and get marry with each other. This practice will contain problems in society.
Just a comment:
But alas they cannot – Only women can be legally wedded to the love of their life and not men sad sad sad and very discriminating against men.
Yes, you are right. Being a man i am jealous. I won’t say like men who practice (officially or unofficially) polyandry “we have too much love to give… so need more than one wives”. As it is NOT possible, regardless how much a man tries to distribute his love to all his beloved wives.
ohhhhh I am so impressed you are in NY. I am amazed at your novice – only men in the “US” have affairs with married women because of the legal system – my God, you were not born yesterday.
my opinion matters as much as yours and again separate but equal does not hold anymore – it is nothing but discrimination. Hence your premise of equal but different is wrong has been proven wrong and will always be wrong no wonder you very conveniently ignore it. My premise of equality is correct.
I am not arguing against men having multiple wives – I am saying that the standards for both genders should be equal – and I can provide many examples societies where only women are allowed to have multiple husbands and it works out just fine for them – most of them are vegetarian societies and hence pork is most definitely not a factor for changed human nature.
As for Islamic laws – laws are for humans – humans are not for laws – again God cannot be unjust humans are – religious laws or any laws for that matter become repressive and irrelevant if they do not follow the basic rules of justice, reasonableness and fair play.
I simply cannot be convinced of anything only because presumably “God” said this – most of such things as attributed to God are done only because they are done in self interest and hence do not have any logical basis of fairness, reason and justice – that is why God is used as a tool to prevent investigation and demand for justice.
Amna,
Richard Dawkins provides an interesting hypothesis in The Selfish Gene. Looking at your question from a purely evolutionary point of view, and introducing ‘human nature’ into the equation, this is what Dawkins would say (unless I have misinterpreted him massively)
Basic argument is that everyone – men and women only want their genes to be carried on to the next generation, which is a reasonable premise. When a woman is pregnant, there is a 100% chance that her genes will continue into the next generation. However, from her male partners point of view, there can be no certainty that the baby is his. So he goes around and ‘sows his seeds’, just to be sure that his genes have the best chance of survival.
This is a very simplified explanation of a complex concept – but you are welcome to read it up. Gives us men an evolutionary excuse to sleep around.
Once again @ Amna:
Your:I am amazed at your novice – only men in the “US” have affairs with married women because of the legal system – my God, you were not born yesterday.
Let me say it again: unlike Islamic laws of marriage and divorce (please note: NOT talibans/ mullah laws), there are FLAWS in laws of marriage and divorce in US/ European legal system. And it contributes and encourages affairs with married or unmarried women/ men. I can point flaws out but that will digress the original discussion.
Your: my opinion matters as much as yours…
I won’t comment on opinion. All I did is gave reasons in support of law of polygyny.
Your: I can provide many examples societies where only women are allowed to have multiple husbands and it works out just fine for them..
My point was polygyny CONTROLS problems in society. Where as polyandry CREATES problems in society. I can provide examples, but then again discussion will prolong and digress.
Your: As for Islamic laws – laws are for humans – humans are not for laws
Yes, I AGREE. But laws should NOT CREATE problems for humans in a given society. Again polyandry creates problems in society. Please note, I NEVER said adopt Islamic laws. Although, I believe Islamic law is the best. May be because Islamic laws that I know is different than the one that you know.
Your: I simply cannot be convinced of anything only because presumably “God” said this
Please quote me IF I EVER SAID, “God said this…”. I think you are confusing me with some mullah. Do You know: I believe Holy Quran allows Muslim woman to marry Jew, Christian, Hindu, Zorostrian (Parsi), Bhuddist etc man!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your: most of such things as attributed to God are done only because they are done in self interest and hence do not have any logical basis of fairness, reason and justice – that is why God is used as a tool to prevent investigation and demand for justice
Yes, you are CORRECT. Mullahs and non Mullahs such as Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto did exactly this when he declared reciters of Kalima Tayyaba as KAFFIRS (non-believers/ infidels) by constitution amendment in 1974.
@ SV:
Based on Richard Dawkins,
Your: So he [man] goes around and ’sows his seeds’, just to be sure that his genes have the best chance of survival.
People like Richard Dawkins are unable to appreciate benefits of permission of polygyny in a society’s social structure, so they try to justify the reasons of unofficial polygyny.
You never responded to my basic premise that separate but equal is never equal proven time and again – no wonder you’ve been conveniently ignoring it.
Moreover just as multiple wives solve many problems (presumably) of some societies – multiple husbands of one woman solve many problems of other societies – your “opinion” that it creates more problems is not substantiated by evidence. Neither is it an expert opinion nor does it come from a woman – your claims of knowing how women really feel is just so infantile. It is entertaining. Moreover I can also provide many examples which indicate that polygamy creates more problems than it solves – but of course it puts men at an advantage so who cares. I don’t care who you think a Muslim woman can marry – we are not talking about it and I am not asking your permission to marry a non-Muslim man of my choice. But here we are talking “equality of genders”.
Again, I stress, “separate but equal is never equal” – but yes has been proven a good tool for discrimination and works in this way – none of us exist in stone age – we all know that – however – some of us choose to ignore it to obtain unfair benefits and advantages. You would never respond to it however.
It is unjust in so many ways most importantly it sanctions emotional and mental infidelity for married men – since theoretically they can marry any woman inspite of already being married to one – while a woman cannot do that and if she does that she is a bad person. Can you and your so-called psychology even begin to understand the depth of humiliation a woman goes through knowing all this- and all sensitive women know this. It is the worst form of objectification of women – they are supposed to wholly belong to their husbands – yet how can they? when they know that he is only partially theirs – what happens my dear Watson of psychology – and this is coming from a woman – is a total disconnect of body with mind and heart of a woman – her body alone belongs to her husband – her mind pities him for that and her heart longs for true love. This is the whole truth and nothing but the truth –
You cannot even imagine the deep pits of insult a woman’s mind puts even potentially polygamous men into. Asfal-us-safeleen is not enough.
that is why I stress separate but equal is not equal – I pity the men more than the woman – they are stupid enough to think that they have it all – they do not have the most important ingredients – heart and mind of any woman –
do you even begin to understand the implications for the family – well of course not because you are coming from a perspective of objectification of people where only material matters not emotions not thinking and not feelings.
Again separate but equal s never equal.
BTW the so called “reasons” that you gave in favor of polygamy are mere opinions and the reasons I gave for gender equality are solid logical reasons about why genders are and should be equal – but you chose to ignore gender equality – I understand your objectification perspective.
Again once again @ Amna:
Your: You never responded to my basic premise that separate but equal is never equal proven time and again – no wonder you’ve been conveniently ignoring it.
Your: Again, I stress, “separate but equal is never equal” –
Please tell me where did I say that you are alleging me of saying???
I say MEN AND WOMEN ARE EQUAL. Also remember that thou both have breasts, but a normal healthy man can not have lactation where as a normal healthy woman can have. My point is there are differences too. Each has its own sphere influence too. So, for a society to work in harmony laws should be constituted taking into consideration biological and psychological realities of human body.
Wife has equal right to divorce her husband. No one has right to force wife to stay in marriage. No one has right to force woman to marry any particular man or any man at all.
My questions is, Why a woman who wants to become 2nd wife should be stopped from exercising her choice????
Why would a woman belong entirely to a man when he does not ? – it is not equal or fair. Moreover, using your logic why should any man who wants to be a 2nd husband stopped from doing so? He has free choice too.
If you can keep some of the sickness out of your comments I would say I have already explained this – it is a self-worth issue. The focus on physiological differences is nothing but objectification. You are unable and unwilling to see the human side of issues sadly it is a reflection on how you view yourself – just an object.
When you focus on physiological differences you are saying quite clearly that my paradigm of equality is WRONG. According to you what is correct is that the men and women are different and separate BUT equal. This according to me and most people in the world is discriminating and WRONG. We, unlike you focus on more substantive values of humans not just form. Now how much genius does it take to figure that out?
Rashid,
Dawkins is not saying anything about polygamy etc. Just provides a hypothesis as to why males in a species are often more inclined towards fooling around.
Read the book, it maybe fun.
Once again @ Amna:
Your:I am amazed at your novice – only men in the “US” have affairs with married women because of the legal system – my God, you were not born yesterday.
Let me say it again: unlike Islamic laws of marriage and divorce (please note: NOT talibans/ mullah laws), there are FLAWS in laws of marriage and divorce in US/ European legal system. And it contributes and encourages affairs with married or unmarried women/ men. I can point flaws out but that will digress the original discussion.
Your: my opinion matters as much as yours…
I won’t comment on opinion. All I did is gave reasons in support of law of polygyny.
Your: I can provide many examples societies where only women are allowed to have multiple husbands and it works out just fine for them..
My point was polygyny CONTROLS problems in society. Where as polyandry CREATES problems in society. I can provide examples, but then again discussion will prolong and digress.
Your: As for Islamic laws – laws are for humans – humans are not for laws
Yes, I AGREE. But laws should NOT CREATE problems for humans in a given society. Again polyandry creates problems in society. Please note, I NEVER said adopt Islamic laws. Although, I believe Islamic law is the best. May be because Islamic laws that I know is different than the one that you know.
Your: I simply cannot be convinced of anything only because presumably “God” said this
Please quote me IF I EVER SAID, “God said this…”. I think you are confusing me with some mullah. Do You know: I believe Holy Quran allows Muslim woman to marry Jew, Christian, Hindu, Zorostrian (Parsi), Bhuddist etc man!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your: most of such things as attributed to God are done only because they are done in self interest and hence do not have any logical basis of fairness, reason and justice – that is why God is used as a tool to prevent investigation and demand for justice
Yes, you are CORRECT. Mullahs and non Mullahs such as Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto did exactly this when he declared reciters of Kalima Tayyaba as KAFFIRS (non-believers/ infidels) by constitution amendment in 1974.
@ SV:
Based on Richard Dawkins,
Your: So he [man] goes around and ’sows his seeds’, just to be sure that his genes have the best chance of survival.
People like Richard Dawkins are unable to appreciate benefits of permission of polygyny in a society’s social structure, so they try to justify the reasons of unofficial polygyny.
Again once again @ Amna:
Your: You never responded to my basic premise that separate but equal is never equal proven time and again – no wonder you’ve been conveniently ignoring it.
Your: Again, I stress, “separate but equal is never equal” –
Please tell me where did I say that you are alleging me of saying???
I say MEN AND WOMEN ARE EQUAL. Also remember that thou both have breasts, but a normal healthy man can not have lactation where as a normal healthy woman can have. My point is there are differences too. Each has its own sphere influence too. So, for a society to work in harmony laws should be constituted taking into consideration biological and psychological realities of human body.
Wife has equal right to divorce her husband. No one has right to force wife to stay in marriage. No one has right to force woman to marry any particular man or any man at all.
My questions is, Why a woman who wants to become 2nd wife should be stopped from exercising her choice????
@ Amna:
Benefits of Polygyny Versus Polyandry.
Societies are strong when families are strong. Families are strong when marriages are intact.
Patrick Buchanan has written a book ‘Death of the west’. I rephrase what he writes: In 21st century many first world [Christian] countries in Europe and Japan will be flooded with immigrants and perhaps they will be in majority and so much so that these countries will depend on immigrants for their very survival including economic and military. And these countries will have majority of Muslims immigrants and their next generation, and Caucasian race will end. He blames many things but misses the very important point that unlike the first world non-Muslim countries, in Muslim Countries INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE IS INTACT AND WILL REMAIN INTACT. As a result of this Muslims have and will have more children.
All European countries are worried about decline in their population growth. Russia is worried because of more than this reason. In Russia there are 12 Million more women than men. As a result men have more availability of women for free sex without responsibility. And women in their efforts to grab “just one” man are letting men exploit this disproportion. Russian Duma is considering if Polygyny is allowed then good men will have chance to marry more than one good woman, and as a result more women will be married to good men. And this will create balance in male-female ratio, or perhaps shortage of women. Thus even bad men will correct their acts to win at least one women for themselves. Where as if polyandry is allowed the situation will go worse than it’s today. In other words women will be prostituting themselves and won’t even get paid for their services.
Amna,
1) Please tell us what in your opinion are benefits of permitting polyandry (one woman having multiple husbands)???
2) How polyandry strengthen families and societies as a result of it???
@SV:
Thanks for your suggestion. I will like to read Dawkins book.
PLEASE IGNORE MY ABOVE POST. thanks.
@ Amna:
Benefits of Polygyny Versus Polyandry.
Societies are strong when families are strong. Families are strong when marriages are intact.
Patrick Buchanan has written a book ‘Death of the west’. I rephrase what he writes: In 21st century many first world [Christian] countries in Europe and Japan will be flooded with immigrants and perhaps they will be in majority and so much so that these countries will depend on immigrants for their very survival including economic and military. And these countries will have majority of Muslims immigrants and their next generation, and Caucasian race will end. He blames many things but misses the very important point that unlike the first world non-Muslim countries, in Muslim Countries INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE IS INTACT AND WILL REMAIN INTACT. As a result of this Muslims have and will have more children.
All European countries are worried about decline in their population growth. Russia is worried because of more than this reason. In Russia there are 12 Million more women than men. As a result men have more availability of women for free sex without responsibility. And women in their efforts to grab “just one” man are letting men exploit this disproportion. Russian Duma is considering if Polygyny is allowed then good men will have chance to marry more than one good woman, and as a result more women will be married to good men. And this will create balance in male-female ratio, or perhaps shortage of women. Thus even bad men will correct their acts to win at least one women for themselves. Where as if polyandry is allowed the situation will go worse than it’s today. In other words women will be prostituting themselves and won’t even get paid for their services.
Amna,
1) Please tell us what in your opinion are benefits of permitting polyandry (one woman having multiple husbands)???
2) How polyandry strengthen families and societies as a result of it???
@SV:
Thanks for your suggestion. I will like to read Dawkins book.
Rashid – you’re an effing idiot. that’s all i care to say. it’s not even worth getting into a discussion with you. go screw ur 72 virgins or whatever mysoginistic crap you believe.
Sarah,
You are wrong in using obscenity for me and wrong in accusing me.
I only gave rationale behind permission of polygyny in Islam and why it can be a useful in certain situations even in this 21st century.
I also say, AS OF RULE A MAN IS TO MARRY ONLY ONE WOMAN. Polygyny is EXCEPTION, not a rule.
I don’t understand why you brought up issue of “72 virgins”. I do NOT believe in this theory. May be YOU believe in it!!!
In any case: Don’t forget these ’72 virgins’ come with ’72 mother in-laws’.
Cheers!
Pingback: Bride Denied: Media Coverage of Mukhtar Mai’s Wedding « Muslimah Media Watch
Amna:Now why would she settle for less than her worth anyways – a shared man? why did she select / accept unequal gender roles? what made her do that? self-worth issues? societal pressure? family pressure?
Well Islam allows a man to have 4 wives. Mukhtar Mai comes from poor and weaker section of the society. I don’t think many men would like to marry a woman who has been publically raped. Mukhtar Mai belongs to a society where 4 men raped her openly while she held Quran in her right hand. That should tell you some thing about her society, family and self worth. I don’t think she had a big line of suitors asking her to marry her. She married the person who offered her a proposal.
I don’t think men like Rashid from NY would have offered to marry her. Many men won’t mind spending a night with her but few would ever think about marrying her.
As far as a woman marrying 4 men, there should be no problem in todays world. Woman can take all the money and run the household and treat all men equally. She should also be allowed to beat her men if they go out of line, like trying to have affairs or if they don’t lower their gaze and stare at other women. DNA tests can be used to test paternity of the children. A woman can also beat men when it comes to love making.
Rashid: In Russia there are 12 Million more women than men. As a result men have more availability of women for free sex without responsibility. And women in their efforts to grab “just one” man are letting men exploit this disproportion. good men will have chance to marry more than one good woman, and as a result more women will be married to good men. And this will create balance in male-female ratio, or perhaps shortage of women
Response: There may be places where the population of men is more then women. If all Muslim men start marrying 4 women, 3/4th of male population will have no women in Muslim countries.
Bad men are more likely to marry more women too. If men population is less they may start prostituting too.
Rashid claims: “Please do NOT ignore nature of males. Males are by nature jealous and can not share their female partners,”
And women are not jealous?
Rashid needs to take up psychology 101.
Not many women be that muslim or non-muslim are willing to share their husbands.
“this is true even in animals ”
Men are like animals then? How insulting for the worlds men. Real men, who are not ruled by their genitalia.
Rashid’s premises are all wrong and all too basic and each of his homeknit premises has a just as basic a counterargument.
Who will take responsibility when 1+ husbands? Well all will. It is one household right.
Asking women to become 2nd, 3rd or 4rth wife is an insult against women.
Maybe Rashid could back up his words and marry some of the raped and mutilated sisters who stand without home, family and who are in dire need of a loving home. But then that would defeat the purpose for many to enter second marriages as they usually go for somebody hotter, younger and certainly women who have already been touched.
Talk is cheap.
Mukhtar Mia has inspired many women and men around the world to make a fair interpretation of the position of women in society.
Recently a group of Melbourne Turkish actors and actresses staged Mukhtar’s determination and made locals aware of such practices in Pakistan.
I was sadden to learn that Mukhtar, although her lawful right to remarry, ended up being the second wife. I would have seen her fighting for one man one woman matrimonial agreement.
I wonder whether she was convinced into this marriage. Or was it a genuine love between the two.
Whatever the reason behind her marriage, she is a heroine for many women around the world. And we wish her all the happiness – which every woman deserve.
http://storieswithinboundaries.wordpress.com/2010/07/11/a-pakistani-story-told-in-turkish-mukhtayar-mai/