Marriage under Sharia Law, Tribal Law, Law of the Jungle

There have been recent suggestions that Australia (and England) should accept some parts of sharia law. The suggestions have been howled down. Why?

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

First: Should we allow sharia law for those people who choose to use it, in areas in which they wish to apply it? Certainly not! No-one should be allowed to choose which part of our system of laws they will follow. We follow all the laws -- or we do not follow all and accept that we are criminals.

Second: Should a muslim be allowed to claim extra government payments for each of his four wives? What a load of rubbish! If you can't afford four wives then just marry one... or none. What about tribal law? There have been suggestions that Australia should allow tribal law to apply to some of our citizens. Again: What a load of rubbish!

One country, one set of laws, all citizens -- and visitors -- equal within that system of laws. (Okay, for today we won't comment on the value of an expensive law team.)

Does that mean that sharia law is wrong? That tribal law is unjust? That law of the jungle is out of date? No!

Our law is set by a consensus. It is possibly an accepted view of the wishes of the majority. Our current system of laws is not necessarily perfect.

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

Example -- four wives:

Sharia law allows a man to have four wives. If your aim is to out-breed the enemy then it makes sense for one man to have lots of wives. Protect as many women as possible while you breed as much cannon fodder as possible.

The development of safe contraception leads to a different scenario: One woman could have several husbands. Makes sense, doesn't it? One man has limited staying power... If a woman enjoys sex then why should she have to stop just because the first man is exhausted?

(Remember the old story about penis envy? "Mummy, Johnny showed me what's between his legs. I don't have one of them." Don't worry, dear," replies Mummy. "With what you have between your legs -- you can have as many of those as you want.")

Back to marriage: Men want to marry men. Women want to marry women. Muslims say that they want more wives. Logic says that women could have more husbands. Perhaps we can learn from this?

Is our law perfect? No way... It is time to examine other systems -- to see if we can improve our own.

Don't just reject the alternatives. Examine them! Approach our laws with an open mind. Is it time to loosen up our laws on marriage?

• Point one: If a man wants to marry several women -- why not? If a woman wants to marry several men -- why not? If several men want to marry several women -- let them! Men, women, couples, groups, combinations... perhaps we should allow it all?!
  
• Point two: Do we then give government handouts to anyone who claims to be a supported spouse? Why not? If there is not enough money to go round -- well -- there's less money per spouse. Why do we pay for spouses anyway? Is it so that Australia will out-breed our potential enemies in neighbouring countries? What an awful -- frightening -- reason! Let's just not pay for any support for any spouses. That removes one objection to mixed marriages.
  
• Point three: Sharia law comes with multiple wives and all-powerful husbands. Is this acceptable in Australia? Is this really one point? or two... We can adjust our laws to allow combination marriages. That does not mean that we adjust our laws to allow subjugation of women. (Unless, of course, we decide that a majority of Australians want it.)
  

So let's open our minds. Look at these other systems of laws. Take what's good -- good for us. And leave the rest.

One country, one system of laws. But that system of laws must live and breathe and grow.

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com