SC: If sati can be banned, why not polygamy ?

[Indika]

Banning multiple wives can only be a good thing for men in general, and Muslim men in particular.

All married men suffer from bouts of homicidal ideation.

Multiply that by 4 and you have some idea of why some Muslim men do what they do.

Interesting observation and thought provoking analysis.

 

[vsdoc]

Interesting observation and thought provoking analysis.

Either an explosive vest, or you buy yourself a nice axe.

 

[I.R.A]

Polygamy under Islam is not a practice rather a choice, and a better choice than raping an innocent woman or women. And it has no resemblance whatsoever to practice of Sati, which was or is a practice rather than a choice (in most cases). Not allowing widows to live their normal lives and get remarried is what can be termed as injurious to public morals and violation of women's very fundamental right.

Regarding inheritance disputes Islam allows the person to write his will about how to utilise his wealth and how to distribute it, and if he fails to write one then it is to be settled in accordance with what Quran says.

Third arbitrary divorce, well Islam prefers that a dispute be settled between husband and wife be arbitrated by a group of other Muslims and the future course of action be decided then. Divorce cannot happen in an instant.

 

[Maira La]

Many Abrahamic invaders attempt was to codify the Hindu religion as they saw from their own system of the straight and narrow path to salvation (by violence, by "persuasion", by perceived superior moralism...you name it)....and in the attempt failed miserably....because the systems are diametrically opposed at a foundational philosophical level. Hinduism forever will be both united and non-united and has always been so, right from the days of its Vedic age. It is more large and complex than anything....and most Hindus like it like that.

So your assertion that it was the outsider that supposedly united something in one supposed context...that by its very nature has multiple realms of unity/non unity to begin with is like a Man telling the Earth he has tamed and united it.

Too many claims and assertions, incoherent. Just picked a part of your prose - time to rip it apart and analyze the problems.

Many Abrahamic invaders attempt was to codify the Hindu religion as they saw from their own system of the straight and narrow path to salvation (by violence, by "persuasion", by perceived superior moralism...you name it)....and in the attempt failed miserably

No one attempted to codify Hindu religion. The term "Hindu" was used for convenience, to refer to the inhabitants east of Persia and Khoarasan (Afg/West Pakistan). Later it was extended to refer to people further beyond Indus, and still further beyond by the British and Peninsular Muslim rulers.

When you say "failed miserably", at doing what? Elaborate.

because the systems are diametrically opposed at a foundational philosophical level.

Big words, but please explain to us laymen.

Hinduism forever will be both united and non-united and has always been so, right from the days of its Vedic age. It is more large and complex than anything....and most Hindus like it like that.

Such a profound claim. It's not large and complex, it's just chaotic because of lack of leadership. That's just the South Asian nature. Our South Asianized Islam too is full of rituals, Sufi stuff, large, chaotic.

So your assertion that it was the outsider that supposedly united something in one supposed context...

You hold grudge against outsiders for naming all regional rituals collectively as "Hinduism", yet you don't appreciate the influence this had in forging a "modern Hindu identity"?!

that by its very nature has multiple realms of unity/non unity to begin with is like a Man telling the Earth he has tamed and united it.

Oh boy..

 

[Rangila]

One is the need, four is the greed.
But.....
Dharmendra & Hema to vote "no"

 

[FullMetalJacket]

Oppressing women is not nice, yet I'd rather be oppressed than be burnt alive. Just accept the fact that Hindu practices were far more barbaric and not comparable to the lesser injustice of the Abrahamic religions!

A more logical (and thus less Indian) argument would be, if polygyny is allowed, why not polyandry? Now that's gender equality!

If I was a 7th century conqueror, I would most definitely have taken you into my harem, where I would have my ways with you on a hourly bases; so much so that you would probably spend most of your life standing up, had you not committed sati. But the muslim countries in africa commit female genital mutliation, but you'll probably never mention that.

 

[Nilgiri]

Too many claims and assertions, incoherent. Just picked a part of your prose - time to rip it apart and analyze the problems.

Yah beats having to answer where it states in any Hindu scripture where wife burning is sanctioned and required to be a Hindu.

No one attempted to codify Hindu religion. The term "Hindu" was used for convenience, to refer to the inhabitants east of Persia and Khoarasan (Afg/West Pakistan). Later it was extended to refer to people further beyond Indus, and still further beyond by the British and Peninsular Muslim rulers.

By painting the inhabitants as "pagan" "polytheist" "uncivilized" "devil-worshipper" "nature-worshipper" etc....and any use of singular adjectives for these inhabitants, yes the Abrahamic thought process definitely codifies what Hinduism was and is and will be.... I have seen it too many times in just this forum.

Some of us laugh when you do so, others ignore, some others get angry and even violent. Thats the full extent of human emotion right there....which by the way permeates religion and culture in uniting the human species.

When you say "failed miserably", at doing what? Elaborate.

Failed miserably at getting those external codifications of Hinduism recognized within a critical mass of Hindus itself...with the hope that will cause most of its destruction.

Again like putting your hand in water, most of it just slides off....although your hand will retain a small part as well. Both the fanatical Muslims and snobby British painted themselves as civilisers and it seems some like you have bought that narrative....makes sense since you are part of the water that stuck to the hand. So I laugh at your attempt at comparative religion.

Big words, but please explain to us laymen.

One philosophy enshrines a narrow, prescribed path for salvation...and that being the only type of result juxtaposed with damnation if you don't follow that path. Faith of hard stone.

The other sees multiple paths leading to the same attempted goal within a greater but interpretative/dynamic framework of ethics and morality...and even allows for different interpretations of what that goal is...and that we ultimately have no way of knowing for sure. Faith of fluid water.

It's not large and complex, it's just chaotic because of lack of leadership.

Not large and complex? Definitely compared to any one of your Abrahamic religions it certainly is. None of them contain even 1% of the philosophical network of Hinduism....that contains all forms of theism, agnosticism and atheism....nor do any of them have a multitude of parallel and even contradicting narratives of creation, existence and destruction. Have there been multitudes of arguments and debates in any of the Abrahamic religions about the actual essence of a higher deity, whether such a force exists at all...how exactly such a force manifests in the universe and whether we should care about it at all? Or do they care more about controlling society through a set of instructions and linear narratives of supposed good vs evil (which also are found in Hinduism, but form just one small portion of it, although probably the most accessible to people who are too used to a more Abrahamic religion system) with a reward or punishment depending if you follow or not?

Chaotic because of lack of leadership? Hinduism cannot be led by any one individual or a group of individuals, it is a repository of human history, experience and debate. It will forever remain leaderless and founder-less in its entirety, though such concepts may be found within parts of it.

The very moniker you use "chaos" shows your inherent disparagement and inability to properly understand what it is. An elephant must seem very chaotic to an ant.

That's just the South Asian nature. Our South Asianized Islam too is full of rituals, Sufi stuff, large, chaotic.

Chicken or the egg situation. Did our natural philosophy evolve because of the way we are pre-disposed or are we what we are because of the philosophy we established? I think its a balance between the two, and there is nothing wrong with it. If you want to get rid of rituals, then be so. If you want to have them, keep them. This is the freedom of human existence. What should only control are morality frameworks that thus create law for the society....but having absolute pre-conceived notions about their basis, especially having a religious basis that is set in stone....is quite short-sighted imho. It is why Sharia imho has no basis in the modern day world.

You hold grudge against outsiders for naming all regional rituals collectively as "Hinduism", yet you don't appreciate the influence this had in forging a "modern Hindu identity"?!

Where did I say I have a grudge against the labeling and collectivization from outsiders? Such labeling has also been done internally by various "Indian" empires and large kingdoms in various fashions and formats as well. It is simply a result of human organisation and endeavour.....it is neither good nor bad. The modern Hindu identity is also a very vague statement and phrase....you will have to first define it....otherwise its meaningless. Then I will simply poke holes in your definition, so whats the point?

 

[vayuputhra]

Nop, it was a pretty popular practice among you guys:


Has been abolished, but not by choice - you were forced to abolish by a civilized foreign bunch.

Stonning to death, whipping, cutting of their heads, hands, is the humane way of islam which is been practiced as we speak, sati has been stopped 150 years ago, but your progressiveness is debatable

 

[Kashmiri Pandit]

I am sociology student , So from that perspective I was wondering :

Was Polygamy introduced in those societies where Females were in high numbers compared to Men ???
It will be a total waste of Human resource if 1 man married 1 women , in a society that had a ratio of 2 or more Women : 1 Man .

On a lighter side :

Females were earliest form of worship , May be in those days Women were dominating men in numbers

 

[Nilgiri]

Was Polygamy introduced in those societies where Females were in high numbers compared to Men ???
It will be a total waste of Human resource if 1 man married 1 women , in a society that had a ratio of 2 or more Women : 1 Man .

Religions that promote expansion through conquest often lose men to war and also capture war booty in the form of females as well. So often thats why its coded into their doctrine and religion (although this is not the reason given officially).

Its a problem when they are no longer expanding through such means, and the rest of the world has "advanced" on that matter.

Females were earliest form of worship , May be in those days Women were dominating men in numbers

Its no joke. Women were the hearth and the child-bearers. Without them there is no sustainable population. Why do you think they still often control the family finances . In Hinduism the mother is first manifestation of God on Earth (Mother, father, teacher, guest).

 

[Kashmiri Pandit]

Religions that promote expansion through conquest often lose men to war and also capture war booty in the form of females as well. So often thats why its coded into their doctrine and religion (although this is not the reason given officially).

Its a problem when they are no longer expanding through such means, and the rest of the world has "advanced" on that matter.

Its no joke. Women were the hearth and the child-bearers. Without them there is no sustainable population. Why do you think they still often control the family finances . In Hinduism the mother is first manifestation of God on Earth (Mother, father, teacher, guest).

 

[Mike_Brando]

Oppressing women is not nice, yet I'd rather be oppressed than be burnt alive. Just accept the fact that Hindu practices were far more barbaric and not comparable to the lesser injustice of the Abrahamic religions!

A more logical (and thus less Indian) argument would be, if polygyny is allowed, why not polyandry? Now that's gender equality!

Again a big lol,covering you women in black tent like cloth 24*7*365 seems to be really oppressive and barbaric to me.I would rather choose Sati which could happen only once in your life over this oppressive life anytime,anywhere

 

[Nilgiri]

Multiply that by 4 and you have some idea of why some Muslim men do what they do.

Thats a very intriguing way of looking at it lol.

Multiply the 4 into 4 separate mothers-in-law and you have an exponential potentiation of that explosive (pun unimplied) situation.

This would be the real horror show. I guess circumvent by marrying 4 sisters

 

[Mike_Brando]

Polygamy under Islam is not a practice rather a choice, and a better choice than raping an innocent woman or women. And it has no resemblance whatsoever to practice of Sati, which was or is a practice rather than a choice (in most cases). Not allowing widows to live their normal lives and get remarried is what can be termed as injurious to public morals and violation of women's very fundamental right.

Regarding inheritance disputes Islam allows the person to write his will about how to utilise his wealth and how to distribute it, and if he fails to write one then it is to be settled in accordance with what Quran says.

Third arbitrary divorce, well Islam prefers that a dispute be settled between husband and wife be arbitrated by a group of other Muslims and the future course of action be decided then. Divorce cannot happen in an instant.

Ohh come on we all know what kind of treatment rapists receive in terms of sharia,as far as i know the victim has to produce 4 witnesses to support her rape claim otherwise it is she who gets brutally punished!!Sati was never a popular practice in the sub-continent before the advent of the central asian barbarians who were nothing but an uncivilized bunch of animals having no respect for women folk.Hence,to save the Hindu women from the yoke of these barbarians "Sati" was made a widespread custom so that our women didn't suffer all those humiliation after the death of their husbands.So the prevalence of Sati in India is directly related to the advent of the barbarians!!

 

[Hindustani78]

Simple, because Polygamy is endorsed in Asmaani Kitab!!

Actually its endorsed in all the Asmaani Kitabay but there are restrictions placed which are different from each other and depends on the situations.