The intertwined relations of polygamy between marriage and sex
polygamy
The verse: “Marry as many women as you wish, two, three, or four.” Here, Islam commands a man to marry four women at the same time.
The scholars differed regarding the word “marry,” is it an order from God for men to marry four, and whoever does not carry out the order is considered disobedient, or is it just permissibility?
It is really a farce that God commands men to marry four.
And the man in Islam is sexually spoiled to the extreme, so he has the right to intercourse with the blonde tonight, and tomorrow he plays with the brunette, then the fat and the skinny, this cold and the hot one, and he roams between delicious banquets to taste different types of pleasure and pleasures and satisfy his lust to the maximum degree possible.
It is every night with a different color of pleasure for fear of poison or boredom. This is a matter of change and entertainment.
And if he likes a woman and desires her beauty, then he does not have to do more than marry her or buy her if she is a maidservant, in order to satisfy his lust immediately and fulfill the call of the raging desire. Why should he bear the hardship and trouble of deprivation while he is a man?
Islam fully fulfilled the man's desire and neglected the woman's feelings, her dignity as a female and her feelings. The woman is torn apart by jealousy and feels a dagger stuck in her chest while she sees her husband leaving her to sleep alone at night and going to sleep in the arms of others.
And when the Shari’a allowed polygamy for a man, he did not take into account the feelings of jealousy that burn the woman’s chest while she thinks about what her husband is doing with others, while she sits alone, ravaged by jealousy and tormented.
The relationship has always been opposite and intertwined between the view of the secular in the man’s freedom to have multiple sexual relations apart from marriage, and the view of the Muslims, especially those keen to convey the rulings in their entirety without affecting them at all or modifying them, in the man’s freedom to have multiple sexual relations through marriage. The second is in the dock of insulting women, and so does the second party with the first. In both cases, women in our societies stand helpless most of the time between delving into their rights and feelings alike.
In fact, the human rights discourse should not be mixed with the discourse of feelings in this issue, but the criterion should remain only the margin of freedoms, or as the Geneva philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau says.Freedom is not to do what I want, but not to be compelled to do what I don't want.And this means that both parties have complete freedom in polygamy, whether through marriage or without it, provided that the other party is not forced to accept the matter and continue the relationship, and that is precisely what the secularist is upset about in the matter of polygamy, and by that I mean that the wife is forced to accept Continuing her marriage because her life partner’s willingness to marry another is not considered a sufficient reason for separation unless he (the husband) wants to end his relationship with her, and despite the advanced steps in facilitating divorce procedures at the will of the female in Arab societies, but this does not happen with the expected ease or For logical reasons, as the wife is forced to lie in the arenas of the family courts and mention a reason other than the reason for polygamy if she wants to gain her freedom and refuses to have her husband become a sexual partner to another, so she says, for example, that she is beaten and assaulted (of course sometimes this also happens), so that the judge has A good space to complete the separation process while preserving the rights of the wife agreed upon beforemarriage.
Therefore, the matter is not complicated, and the secular party did not have a contradictory position on that vision, which can be summarized in saying that the man has the right to have multiple sexual relations, whether through marriage or otherwise, and the woman should also have the right to reject this plurality without facing social and legal complications while taking this decision. A decision that is entirely her right, which is separating from her partner, especially since the rulings in these matters, if they touch on the legal aspect, will be the ruling not to grant the first wife her right to separate, because it is Islamic .It is not permissible for the first wife to request a divorce because of her husband’s decision to have plural marriage, nor even to condition her knowledge of the marriage or to take her permission in it. Sexual relations in which a woman can separate from her partner without the need for papers gives her the freedom to move forward away from that unsatisfactory relationship in the presence of others.
Does this mean that if a female agreed to be half, a third, or a quarter of a man's life partner, then the matter became acceptable? From my point of view, yes, as long as all parties are satisfied and not forced, even if I see that as detracting from them and tampering with their feelings, but in the end, the human will is what limits his decisions and puts the mark of right or wrong on his choices, provided that the person himself puts the mark without coercion, interference or intimidation At least by law.
A story from the truth
I would have liked not to touch on specific examples in the article, but while I was writing these lines, Egypt witnessed a state of division in media circles in particular because of the emergence of the story of the marriage of writer Yasmine Al-Khatib and the famous parliamentary director Khaled Youssef on the scene again, and because this is the first time that the matter has been officially mentioned after The circulation of an anonymous image according to its publisher, in which Yasmine appears in a romantic scene with Khaled Youssef (who is married to another woman). Those who were reticent to issue their judgments until the matter was confirmed started accusing Yasmine of betraying the principles of feminism, and her infringement of the right of Khaled Youssef's first wife to be She is a full partner to him as well as agreeing to what they consider to be a diminution of Jasmine herself.
And I say here that the only decisive factor in making a decision accusing or acquitting Yasmine Al-Khatib is the reaction of Khaled Youssef’s wife, did she know? did you agree? What we know is that she is still married to the famous director, so based on the fact that each of Khaled Youssef, his wife, and Yasmine Al-Khatib are adults who have the freedom of their decisions, it is natural that we do not put anyone in the dock before knowing the details of the story, except that what Khaled Youssef’s wife came out asking For example, otherwise feminism would become an obstacle to women's freedom in one way or another, and here one question remains: Does feminism not mean women's freedom of choice?
Those who accuse secular thought of attacking religion without an actual human rights goal may come back, and say that some feminists do not respect a woman's right to accept her condition, just as the law does not respect her right to reject it, and here some feminists should review themselves, bearing in mind that their position is understandable and justified by what The reality is that acceptance is largely compulsory, even if societal at least (and we will discuss this in detail at the end of the article).
Therefore, let us whisper in the ear of the above-mentioned examples of feminists, that feminism is equality that does not bully, with all logic, freedom must be the most general and comprehensive concept from which all other concepts, including feminism, stem. With factional demands and secret groups that chase everyone who does not owe them allegiance even if it costs the mother group (freedom) to disavow.
Returning to the subject of the main article, I see that polygamy is a man’s right as long as the woman agrees, and that emotional relationships between a man and a woman should not deviate from the framework of the rest of the relationships in their definitions just like friendship. Taking into account the rights that are the subject of our discussion in the first place, and wherever one's right is, he must mark his own correctness without fearing the hammer of law based on satisfying the desires of men or the hammer of feminism if it is denied from the balance of freedom.
The problem raised should not be closed for discussion by ignoring two very important matters. Does a woman have the ability to actually refuse if a law is presented to her that allows her to do so? The other thing is the multiplicity of sexual relations for women, just like men.
The relationship has always been opposite and intertwined between the view of the secular in the man’s freedom to have multiple sexual relations apart from marriage, and the view of Muslims, especially those keen to convey the rulings in their strictures without affecting them at all or modifying them, in the man’s freedom to have multiple sexual relations through marriage.
Even with the existence of a law that allows a woman to divorce her husband due to polygamy, while preserving her rights agreed upon before marriage, perhaps other things will prevent her from doing so, the most important of which is the “divorced” seal, which puts her in a social category that is largely rejected by her surroundings.
And finally.. what about on the ground?
The problem raised should not be closed for discussion by ignoring two very important matters. Does a woman have the ability to actually refuse if a law is presented to her that allows her to do so? The other thing is the multiplicity of sexual relations for women, just like men, and both of them revolve around the orbit between two rulings, which are equality and society.
With regard to the first matter, even with the existence of a law that allows a woman to divorce her husband due to polygamy, while preserving her rights agreed upon before marriage, perhaps other things will prevent her from doing so, the most important of which is the stamp (divorced), which puts her in a social category that is largely rejected by her surroundings, so she may Some believe that polygamy should be prevented from the ground up, as happened in some European countries previously, to protect a woman who cannot confront society if she uses her right (which we demand) to divorce her husband while legally allowing him to have polygamy, and at that point I will answer the question with another question, suppose A law has already been issued banning polygamy, so what if the husband decides to engage in other sexual relations without marriage? Isn't it then that the woman will stand in the same position as her previous reluctance to separate for fear of society's reaction? I clearly see that the battle will not succeed if the woman herself does not participate in her desire, and let the logical situation that does not conflict with the freedom of men and women be that we fight for the existence of a law that protects women’s freedom in
As for her freedom to have multiple sexual relations inside or outside the marriage system, if we decide that the man has the freedom to do so, and since we now know with certainty that equality between men and women is not a grant, but it is a right that increases in clarity as the years and events pass, then of course the woman must become She is free to have multiple life partners just as the man is free to have multiple life partners, but this should not become a sword that the woman brandishes to threaten the man, otherwise she will fall into the trap of limiting the problem to sexual need only. Simply put, you are in one relationship if that relationship is not satisfactory. Not to make more cracks in its walls as long as everyone is free to leave without having to concede something because of an unfair law or a society that does not realize that the station of equality has been missed and that a large number of societies have already realized it without it.
Source : websites