According to the “News Minute” the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) recently gave a 68 page affidavit to the Supreme Court in support of polygamy and “triple talaq” divorce in the hopes of getting Islamic law and tradition protected on the grounds that any interference by the state would violate Muslims' fundamental rights.

The “Times of India” reports that Women's groups have “slammed” the affidavit.

And no wonder. Here are some of the more “controversial” statements made by the board as reported by News Minute.


“Personal laws of a community cannot be re-written in the name of Social Reform.”

What this means is that how Muslim men treat women is not subject to change. In simple terms “Long live misogyny!”.

 

“Following a system of patriarchy, though certain practices in Islam appear to be apparently less favourable to the female, since father is the head of the family, the personal law is devised in such a manner that the rights and obligations are adjusted to create balance, for instance when Islam confers certain rights on the male, it also imposes obligations on him and while females are given lesser rights, no obligations are imposed on them, thereby creating harmony, even without disturbing balance.”

So it's only “apparently less favourable” that a woman's testimony is worth half a man's or that she requires four witnesses to prove rape against a man?

The idea of lesser rights and obligation in effect reduces the woman to the status of a minor or child, or so the the All India Muslim Board is telling us.

 

…in cases where serious discords develops between the parties and the husband wants to get rid of the wife, legal compulsions of time consuming separation proceedings and the high expenses of such a procedure may deter him from adopting such a course and in extreme cases he may resort to illegal criminal ways of getting rid of her by murdering her [or] burning her alive. In such cases, Triple Talaq, is a better recourse in comparison to these illegal ventures.”

This is true, I suppose being thrown out on the street would be better than being murdered, though in a Country with too few refuges and too little social support the difference would be be less than we might assume.

But what a statement to make! The AIMPLB is effectively saying that Mussalmen are so violent and misogynistic that any thwarting of a desired divorce can/will lead to murder.

Thus Indian Mussalman are violent bullies who must get their way instantly and the law of the land  be damned.

 

“Shariah grants the right to divorce to husband because men have greater power of decision making...”

Right. Tell that to the female leaders around the world, the businesswomen etc. and see what happens...

“... They are more likely to control emotions and not to take a hasty decision.”

And this statement follows the upholding of “triple talaq” - which is a decision so hasty that Islamic law holds it as “reprehensible” (one step above haram).

 

“Securing separation through court entails that the weaknesses of the opposite party be brought into public domain. Some moral failings are considered more scandalous for women in our society. For example the charge against a male that he has loose conduct and temper may damage only a little his prospects of remarriage. However, husband’s same charge publicly against his wife about her loose character may deprive her the chance of remarriage. She may be more harmed than benefitted by court proceedings.

Oh of course! I hadn't realised. Of course a woman would be “harmed” by a court-based system that treats the rights of men and women equally rather than a Sharia one that is inherently biased against the women and regularly sends abused women back to their violent abusers. Whatever were we thinking? [Sarcasm off]

Note that whilst a man may exhibit “loose conduct” an equivalent woman has a “loose character”; thus whilst a man's (sexual) sins-and-crimes (Islam seldom differentiates between the two) are due to “mistakes” or “moments of weakness” and thus may be pardoned (according to the doctrine of Sitr - “veiling”) as “aberrations” in behaviour,  a woman's are due to her sinful/evil/criminal nature.

The words “fatuous”, “sexist” and “infantile” come to mind to describe this statement.

The irony here is that it is women who are widely punished – often by stoning to death – for a “loose character” whilst the man gets away with it even though logic dictates that one is less culpable for a genuine character defect that leads to wrong-doing than one is for choosing to do wrong.

 

“Granting husband the right to divorce indirectly provides security to wife. ...”

Excuse me? The 'husband' (or is that slave-master) being able to throw the woman out onto the street at the drop of a hat provides security for her?

“Marriage is a contract in which both the parties are not physically equal. Male is stronger and female weaker sex. Man is not dependent upon woman for his protection.”

In short: “Might make right”. So much for any sense of natural justice.

Note also that the woman needs the protection of the man. Protection from whom?

Given the attitude to women shown herein it is the predatory nature of other Mussalmen.

“However, where women outnumber men and polygamy is not permitted, women will be forced into leading a spinster’s life. In sum, polygamy is not for gratifying men’s lust...”

Of course it's not about lust, fifty year old men never marry pre-teens for lust! O wait, Mohammed did.

Implicit in the rejection of the “spinster's life” is the notion that the only position a woman has in Islamic society is as a wife and mother, something stated on “International Women's day” by several Countries' Presidents/Prime-ministers who just happened to be Mussalmen themselves.

In India it is men who outnumber women overall (at least in the fertile years) and so the premise falls at the start.

“...it is a social need.”

Oh no it isn't!

The “social need” is for Indians (not just Muslims) to stop aborting female fetuses.

The irony here is huge. The  AIMPLB is claiming that women outnumber men which is a lie, the converse being true, that polygamy is not about lust, which it often is, and that it is a social need, which it isn't.

That's three bare-faced lies in two sentences.

Of course it must be added that since Islam sees non-Muslim females as sex-slaves,“easy meat” and ripe for rape-conversion then the  AIMPLB has a point. There are more women “out there” than can be legally 'married' under a monogamy law. Only Sharia law allows sufficient sexual licence to Mussalmen to fulfil their Allah-mandated 'right' to non-Muslim women in chatteltry.

I'm not sure what worries me most here: that the  AIMPLB is prepared to lie so brazenly or that they might actually believe what they are saying in that they see all  non-Muslim women as “available” to Muslim men.

 

“Polygamy ensures sexual purity and chastity. Whenever polygamy has been banned, it emerges from history that illicit sex has raised its head.”

This one is almost clever. It depends on the definition of “illicit sex”. What is meant here is something not allowed in Sharia. Thus four wives and an unlimited hareem of non-Muslim sex-slaves is licit, whereas having a lover prior to marriage is illicit.

Most non-Muslims would regard imprisoning multiple women as sex-slaves a greater wrong (not to mention sexist) than having a lover prior to marriage, but that isn't Allah's view it seems.

 

“Concern and sympathy for women lie at the core of the provision for polygamy...”

Oh of course it is... Mohammed was going to divorce Suada for being “old and ugly” (in her thirties!) - some commentaries add “fat” too(!) -  at least in comparison to his usual pre-teen, teen and early twenties 'wives', but she “begged” Mohammed not to and as a “sweetener” offered to give up her night to Mohammed's favourite Aisha so he could spend extra “quality time” with his child-wife. Thus one reason for polygamy, as demonstrated by Mohammed (who's example is supposed to be moral perfection) is to allow an old man (Mohammed was in his fifties at the time to set aside his younger wife for a very young wife.

Doesn't the “concern and sympathy” just hit you right between the eyes here?

“... If a woman is chronically ill or if her husband is bet[sic, I assume “set” is meant] upon taking a second wife because of her barrenness, or any valid or flimsy ground, and if the option of polygamy is not available to, him he will either divorce her which is something reprehensible...”

Odd that divorce is now “reprehensible”, earlier the  AIMPLB was exhorting the retention of the “triple talaq” which is instant divorce.

Note that a Mussalman is now to be allowed mutiple wives even if  his reasons are “flimsy”, in other words he is to be allowed multiple wives according to his whim.

It should be pointed out that in Islamic law marriage is a sex-contract that can be terminated at any time (even by triple talaq) to make space in the home for a new wife. Thus the Mussalman is not limited to four wives, just four at any one time.

“...or he may indulge in illicit polygamy. An unlawful mistress is more harmful for social fabric than a lawful second wife. For the former, blackmails him.”

In other words, if the Mussalman “tires” of his wife he can't be expected to keep it in his trousers but will either take a new, young and attractive one, hie himself off to the knocking-shop or take a mistress who will – note the certainty here – blackmail him. Once again the virulent misogyny comes through.

In all the above instances, polygamy is a blessing, not a curse for women.

No, it's a licentious “blessing” for Mussalmen who are sexually incontinent due to their intent to follow the example of Mohammed.

 

Conclusion

What is interesting here is the truths that the AIMPLB inadvertently reveal in these statements. They admit – sometimes elliptically - that:

  1. Mussalmen are not to be bound by the legal system of their Country of residence and that Sharia law trumps all others (this is actually quite well known now to non-Muslims).
  2. Mussalmen are so violent and misogynistic that if their desires for a “sweet young thing” are thwarted by they may commit savage murder to free up space within the matrimonial household.
  3. That human rights are not applicable to Muslim women who may be “harmed” by a court process that would uphold those rights. This says nothing about Muslimas but a lot about the Mussalmen.
  4. That might makes right in a Muslim marriage (at least in theory).
  5. That a woman needs the “protection” of a man … from the predatory nature of other Mussalmen.
  6. Non-Muslim women are prey for Muslim men.
  7. Islam grants licence for sexual misdeeds to men that is not extended to women.
  8. If a Mussalman is “concerned” by the age, looks, etc. of (one of) his wife (wives) then she should be “sympathetic” to this and let him take another (or divorce-and-replace).

 

The most striking thing that comes through from the Affidavit is the misogyny and sexism of the authors which reflects that same themes within Islam.  AIMPLB also tell us that:

  1. In Islam women are no more than minor children in terms of their rights and duties within the household.
  2. Women can't make “wise” decisions because they are too emotional.
  3. Women is weak.
  4. A “loose woman” is that way because of the inherently deficient character of women.
  5. A women's only proper role is that of wife and mother.
  6. Women will blackmail a man if they can.
© 2005 - 2017 Islam-Watch.org