Muslims in Italy now calling for polygynous marriage

[psychoslice]

If between consenting adults why not? I dont have a problem with it. Personally though, one wife is plenty for me.

Hell yea, one is too many for me lol.

 

[Altfish]

An Italian-born convert has called for men to be allowed to marry multiple wives in civil polygynous marriages for the first time.

Hamza Piccardo thinks that because gay people are allowed to marry the one they love, Muslims should be allowed to marry whomever they like.

Here's the story on RT

Does he make a convincing argument? Do you think Muslims should have the right to engage in polygynous marriages in Italy or anywhere in Europe?

Personally, I can kind of see his argument as making sense as long as I focus solely on his argument about equal rights for all. Once you stop and actually strip it down though, it falls apart. I'll explain more once people start responding.

I wouldn't have a problem if women were also allowed to have multiple husbands

 

[McBell]

I wouldn't have a problem if women were also allowed to have multiple husbands

Something tells me that that goes against the Islamic definition of marriage....

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

It always has been

Before easy divorce was introduced, it signified a legal binding that was truly intended for life.

Regardless of your religious views, it has meaning in the sense that it was truly intended for life, a unique bond that a man and woman would choose to accept, and could not leave easily. This kept more families together through difficult periods, less broken homes and less forgotten children.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Or is this just code for "we hate ... Muslims, and therefore connect our stereotypes of them to polygamy in general"?

Are you seriously suggesting that the position of women in Muslim nations is anything to admire? Sometimes a so-called stereotype is actually a judgement based on observation and experience.

 

[Willamena]

Does he make a convincing argument? Do you think Muslims should have the right to engage in polygynous marriages in Italy or anywhere in Europe?

I do think polygamous marriages should be allowed, and it would open the door for polyandrous marriages. Marrying "whomever you like," within the law, is a human right, though not one all countries are obliged to recognize (Article 16).

I can't say his argument is convincing, though. It's just "they did it, so we can too."

 

[First Baseman]

An Italian-born convert has called for men to be allowed to marry multiple wives in civil polygynous marriages for the first time.

Hamza Piccardo thinks that because gay people are allowed to marry the one they love, Muslims should be allowed to marry whomever they like.

Here's the story on RT

Does he make a convincing argument? Do you think Muslims should have the right to engage in polygynous marriages in Italy or anywhere in Europe?

Personally, I can kind of see his argument as making sense as long as I focus solely on his argument about equal rights for all. Once you stop and actually strip it down though, it falls apart. I'll explain more once people start responding.

You reap what you sow. Enjoy the new age way of "PC."

 

[LuisDantas]

I can't say his argument is convincing, though. It's just "they did it, so we can too."

Ain't that the truth, and weird too?

I half believe he meant to speak from a stance of supposed moral superiority, pointing out that if "even misguided unions" are allowed then so "should" those that "God approves of".

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Such as women not being able to escape abuse

I am criticising the current 'no-fault' divorce law.

Before this was introduced, there had to be fault.

Cruel and abusive treatment was indeed one of these faults.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I do think polygamous marriages should be allowed, and it would open the door for polyandrous marriages. Marrying "whomever you like," within the law, is a human right, though not one all countries are obliged to recognize (Article 16).

I can't say his argument is convincing, though. It's just "they did it, so we can too."

Having the power to marry "whomever you like" is rather contradictory to having a polygynous system, since it almost always involves coercion and treating women like cattle. Women are often married off in arranged marriages to much older men while they are in their teens or younger. Polygynous marriage is proven to go hand and hand with the violation of human rights, especially this: "They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution".

You can't have an equal say in marriage and in the home when your power is being shared with multiple other people who are sharing your role. With each new wife, your individual share of power in the relationship shrinks. The husband's share of power stays the same, simply because a man is viewed as a full human with 100% of rights, while women are viewed as lesser than the man with lesser rights when the man.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You reap what you sow. Enjoy the new age way of "PC."

It didn't help that people opposed to gay marriage kept equating it to polygamy. Rather poisoned the well there.

 

[LuisDantas]

Before easy divorce was introduced, it signified a legal binding that was truly intended for life.

Regardless of your religious views, it has meaning in the sense that it was truly intended for life, a unique bond that a man and woman would choose to accept, and could not leave easily. This kept more families together through difficult periods, less broken homes and less forgotten children.

Valuing lasting commitment is all well and good, but you make it appear like having the choice to divorce somehow devalued marriage. I don't think there is much truth to that.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Valuing lasting commitment is all well and good, but you make it appear like having the choice to divorce somehow devalued marriage. I don't think there is much truth to that.

The ensuing skyrocketing divorce statistics testify to it.

And it's not about having the choice.

If there is fault on either party, then yes there is reason to divorce. It wasn't restricting it entirely. I am talking about no-fault divorce, where you can choose to regardless, despite vowing to the other on your wedding day, completely of your own will, that you would love and honour them all the days of your life.

 

[LuisDantas]

The ensuing skyrocketing divorce statistics testify to it.

Hardly. They testify that marriages tend not to last these days, and that it is not always hidden when they fail.

There is plenty of reason to suspect that they failed often before as well, but people felt the need to pretend otherwise.

And it's not about having the choice.

If there is fault on either party, then yes there is reason to divorce. It wasn't restricting it entirely. I am talking about no-fault divorce, where you can choose to regardless, despite vowing to the other on your wedding day, completely of your own will, that you would love and honour them all the days of your life.

You are talking about the supposed merits about pressuring people into situations that they would rather avoid, presumably because they will "learn to develop their character" out of that.

That is being generous with other people's courage and commitment. Isn't it enough that people who want to be commited have consistently been allowed to?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

You reap what you sow. Enjoy the new age way of "PC."

How about answering the question in the OP instead of self-righteous posturing?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

It's legal to have many (illimited) girlfriends at same time in West, but it's illegal to have 2 wives !!

You may find some people had wife , they cheating all time with sluts or girlfriends .

What some Muslims call for it in daylight , the non-Muslims do it at night

The question of plural marriage is to do with active legal recognition. Having affairs with people isn't legally recognised here either - but neither is it forbidden. The law takes a neutral stance on it.
The law doesn't recognise polygamous marriage here because having multiple spouses greatly complicate legal matters like divorce settlement, child custody or visitation rights or division of a recently deceased person. There are also human rights and gender role elements to be considered - as well as the problem with Islamic law inherently being biased against women in divorce cases.

I wouldn't have a problem if women were also allowed to have multiple husbands

If it was gender equal I don't mind plural marriages.

The problem is it won't be - the article says the Muslim(s) in question is advocating polygynous marriage and since Islam perpetuates very patriarchal gender roles with the husband traditionally taking on the role of breadwinner and the woman the role of home-keeper, there's no way Muslims would advocate for a situation which might include polyandrous marriages.

The title says "Muslims in Italy", and the content talks about a muslim in Italy.

I believe the man is the head of a significant group of Muslims (mentioned in the report) and it is presumed he is speaking in his capacity as the head of that organisation.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I was talking about the above comments, it was more that I wouldn't mind if they made it equal. I didn't think they were.

My mistake.

 

[Willamena]

Having the power to marry "whomever you like" is rather contradictory to having a polygynous system, since it almost always involves coercion and treating women like cattle. Women are often married off in arranged marriages to much older men while they are in their teens or younger. Polygynous marriage is proven to go hand and hand with the violation of human rights, especially this: "They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution".

That's a consequence of religious/cultural beliefs, not of polygamy.

You can't have an equal say in marriage and in the home when your power is being shared with multiple other people who are sharing your role. With each new wife, your individual share of power in the relationship shrinks. The husband's share of power stays the same, simply because a man is viewed as a full human with 100% of rights, while women are viewed as lesser than the man with lesser rights when the man.

Each can have their own role, then they can have equal say.

You're arguing against one specific model for what polygamous marriages might be. They do not have to be that.

 

[Politesse]

Are you seriously suggesting that the position of women in Muslim nations is anything to admire? Sometimes a so-called stereotype is actually a judgement based on observation and experience.

I do not hate Muslim women either, no.

Stereotypes are not in fact based on experience; only ever shallow observation. I will concede that most Muslim nations are hideously patriarchal and even misogynistic, but this does not differentiate them from anywhere else on the planet, nor am I convinced that legally forced monogamy is going to somehow (magically?) result in equal rights for women either in Italy or Syria.

 

[Acim]

An Italian-born convert has called for men to be allowed to marry multiple wives in civil polygynous marriages for the first time.

Hamza Piccardo thinks that because gay people are allowed to marry the one they love, Muslims should be allowed to marry whomever they like.

Here's the story on RT

Does he make a convincing argument? Do you think Muslims should have the right to engage in polygynous marriages in Italy or anywhere in Europe?

Personally, I can kind of see his argument as making sense as long as I focus solely on his argument about equal rights for all. Once you stop and actually strip it down though, it falls apart. I'll explain more once people start responding.

Why only Muslims? Or why only men? As long as it is available to everyone, as equal right, I don't see how it can be argued against, other than appeals to emotion type stuff.

Legally, it'll take awhile, but I'd say within 10 to 15 years, it'll be understood as of course we have to go in this direction. It's what (some) consenting adults want.

As long as it's not the equal right, I'll sit on the sidelines and continue to point out how 50% of monogamous marriages fail and present a whole load of legal troubles during their breakups.