Yousuff Siddiqi reponse to my comments is loaded with circular logic

Submitted by abhi (United States), Jun 1, 2009 at 23:34

Dear Dr. Pipes:

Your respondent Yousuff Siddiqi wrote a long letter in response to my comment on your site. This forum is not a place where two people should argue. But I need to respond to him otherwise his arguments might convince a gullible reader. While Siddiqi should be applauded for maintaining a scholarly tone, his arguments do not hold. I will respond in brief.

First, Siddiqi justifies "4 wives to a man dictum" based on population ratio, wars, and high male mortality etc. Well, how come God arrive at the number 4? Can we have 5 wives per man in case of severe wars? Also, isn't this solution worse than the probelm. Can this rule not incentivize muslim soldiers to kill the enemy male soldiers and civilians more than necessary so as to claim more women as wives.

Second, Siddiqi claims that all religions other than Islam allowed ploygamy in the ancient times while Islam explicitly recommended one wife per man. Mistake admitted and corrected. When will Islam admit and correct its mistakes? Human thought is a matter of continued discovery. But by its stubborn adherence to dispensable religious doctrines, Islam seals the process of discovery for ever.

Third, Siddiqi says that polyandry is blamed in Islam because Islam presupposes that man be the head of the family and no woman should live under the authority of more than one man. A lot of us --men and women-- are challenging this wisdom. While we advocate equal bidirectional love in a marriage, we see no reason why should an 80 IQ man necessarily be burdened with authority over an 160 IQ woman should they happen to marry.

The argument can go on and on. Siddiqi will only be able to preach and convince the choir.

Abhi.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".