All links on this page (except the back-to-index link) take you offsite,
so you may want to bookmark this page to make it easy for you to come back.

 

WHAT AIDS MEANS IN A FAMINE

By Alex de Waal, New York Times

ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia (11/19/2002)--Just as H.I.V. destroys the body's immune system, the epidemic of H.I.V. and AIDS has disabled the body politic. As a result of H.I.V., the worst-hit African countries have undergone a social breakdown that is now reaching a new level: African societies' capacity to resist famine is fast eroding. Hunger and disease have begun reinforcing each other. As daunting as the prospect is, we will have to fight them together, or we will succeed against neither.

About 29 million Africans are infected with H.I.V. The epidemic is spread by heterosexual transmission almost entirely. Only 30,000 of these people are receiving antiretroviral treatment. Between three million and four million people are dying each year from AIDS-related diseases. Twenty percent of adults in South Africa live with H.I.V.; the figure is higher still in Botswana, where life expectancy has plunged below 40 years.

How do such realities relate to famine? Traditional agrarian societies in Africa were well adapted to the threat of drought. Food shortage was like a familiar virus, unpleasant and painful but one to which most people had resistance. For example, the victims of famine were almost exclusively young children and the elderly. Young adults rarely died--and women survived better than men. Society's core was preserved, and it could recover. Rural Africans were experts at surviving famine. Women knew exactly what wild grains, roots and berries could be eaten as famine foods when there was no maize. Families scattered their members over a wide area and called on distant relations for help when times got hard.

These coping skills meant that rural Africa was forgiving of the shortcomings of international relief programs. Typically, calls by the United Nations for food donations fall short of their goal by half or more. Yet the inhabitants of, say, Mozambique or Sudan have still pulled through.

This is changing. We are facing a new variant of famine: in societies hurt by AIDS, famine is more deadly and less susceptible to existing treatments. The reason is that AIDS attacks exactly those capacities that enable people to resist famine.

AIDS kills young adults, especially women--the people whose labor is most needed. When the rains come, people must work 16 hours a day planting and weeding the crop. If that critical period is missed, the family will go hungry. In a community depleted by AIDS, each working adult must produce more to feed the same number of dependents--not just children but sick adults, too.

The burden of care for those sick with AIDS can cripple a family. Many employers--private and public--have withdrawn benefits. Town dwellers who fall sick go home to the village to pass their final months, to die and be buried. Children orphaned by AIDS are sent to the village to be cared for. There is a prevailing myth that the African extended family will cope with this double burden of care. We are learning the hard way that it cannot.

The drop in adult life expectancy also has implications that we are only just beginning to appreciate. The normal generational cycle means that assets like land and cattle are accumulated and handed down by the older generation. Grandparents can assist with child care; older women can pass on a lifetime's experience of gathering and preparing wild grains and fruits to their daughters. Today all this is interrupted. Young people are inheriting debts and are not learning essential skills. How can a young woman, looking after six children, have the experience and skill of her mother or grandmother in cultivating her field, collecting wild fruits and planning for survival through a tough year? And can she even make any plans on the premise that things will return to normal some day?

Finally, the first response of any adult faced with a harvest failure is to tighten her belt. Relief workers in Africa have become so used to this physiological resilience that they ignore adults' nutritional needs and just focus on children. But adult hunger is no longer a passing difficulty. A person living with H.I.V. needs better nutrition--more calories and especially more protein--to stay healthy. Malnutrition accelerates the progression to AIDS.

As their livelihoods collapse, their family networks fold and their coping strategies vanish, millions of young women are turning to what is called "survival sex" to feed their children. The consequences for H.I.V. transmission do not need to be spelled out.

In short, H.I.V. is imperiling the ability of African societies to reproduce themselves. Even when the rains come we will not see a return to normalcy but merely a breathing space. And we will be forced to appreciate just how different this crisis is.

Some senior United Nations leaders, notably Kofi Annan, the secretary general, have recognized the scale and gravity of the AIDS cataclysm and its link to famine. But the policy tools we have are blunt, fashioned for a different kind of crisis. We can't just ship in food. Food assistance and scaled-up antiretroviral treatment must go hand in hand. We need imaginative and large-scale responses to the burden of care: how to support the millions of people who are looking after dependent children (many of them orphans) and people with AIDS? We need to re-examine farming systems to put more money into farmers' hands and more protein on their tables. Above all, we need to restore a sense of the future to a generation facing an appalling crisis, to help unlock their energies in search of solutions.

Alex de Waal is director of Justice Africa and an adviser to the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa and Unicef.

See also the original article at the New York Times.

 

COMMERCIAL RADIO STATION OWNERSHIP CONSOLIDATION SHOWN TO HARM ARTISTS AND THE PUBLIC, SAYS F.M.C. STUDY
Small number of gatekeepers dominate access to critical public resource

From the Future of Music Coalition

WASHINGTON (11/18/2002)--The unprecedented consolidation of the commercial radio industry that followed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has led to a loss of localism, less competition, fewer viewpoints and less diversity in radio programming in media markets across the country, according to "Radio Deregulation: Has It Served Citizens and Musicians?" a study released today by the Future of Music Coalition (FMC).

"Our report clearly demonstrates that the radical deregulation of the radio industry has not benefited the public or musicians," said Jenny Toomey, executive director of the Future of Music Coalition. "Instead, it has led to less competition, fewer viewpoints, and less diversity in programming."

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has recently commenced the third biennial review of broadcast ownership rules and released a series of studies to support its policy decisions. "The public deserves a full debate about how consolidation has changed, and is changing, this critical public resource," said Michael Bracy, Director of Government Relations of the Future of Music Coalition. "We are filing our study today at the FCC as a public comment, and look forward to reading the response from citizens and broadcasters alike."

"Radio Deregulation: Has It Served Citizens and Musicians?" utilizes industry data to demonstrate that deregulation has failed to benefit both musicians, who rely on access to radio to promote their music, and citizens. The FMC’s report has found that, contrary to the claims of commercial broadcasters, radio consolidation has had profound and negative effects on this democratic medium. Key findings include:

Ten parent companies dominate the radio spectrum, radio listenership and radio revenues. An industry traditionally local in nature is now dominated by ten parent companies that control two thirds of both listeners and revenue nationwide. Two parent companies--Clear Channel and Viacom--control 42 percent of listeners and 45 percent of industry revenues.

Oligopolies control almost every geographic market. In virtually every local market, four or less firms control 70 percent of market share or greater. In a majority of cases, these oligopolies include one or more of the dominant national players. This has led directly to a loss of localism, as independent station owners have difficulty competing with the resources of huge conglomerates.

Virtually every music format is controlled by an oligopoly, with four companies or fewer controlling over 50 percent of national listeners in 28 of 32 formats according to three separate measures: self-reported formats, BIA format categories and Radio and Records-based categories. A very small number of gatekeepers control access to the majority of listeners to specific formats.

Claims about increased format diversity are misleading. From 1996 to 2000 format variety--the average number of formats available in a market--increased in both large and small markets. However, format variety is not equivalent to true diversity in programming. Analysis of music chart data in the report reveals considerable format homogeneity, with many songs overlapping on various format playlists.

The state of commercial radio directly impacts musicians and citizens. The consolidation of station management, coupled with industry trends toward shorter play lists and streamlined program decision making, means a very small number of "gatekeepers" control access to the public airwaves. Since one of the five major labels release between 80 and 100 percent of songs on the charts, artists are often forced to balance their hopes of gaining significant radio airplay against having to sign much-maligned major label contracts and transferring their ownership and control of their work over to their record company.

Consumer groups, unions, academic researchers and music-related organizations applauded the release of the study. Author and media scholar John Nichols said:

The Future of Music Coalition has exposed the extent to which concentration of ownership and rank commercialism has denied the democratic promise of radio. This is a breakthrough study that will be referenced for years to come as the document that quantified a growing sense of unease with what radio has become.

Ann Chaitovitz, National Director of Sound Recordings, American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) said:

Royalty artists are a significant part of AFTRA’s membership, and radio consolidation has harmed them. The FMC study has proven what recording artists have known -- radio consolidation has resulted in less variety of music being played on the radio, shorter playlists, homogenization of playlists, and less local music being broadcast.

The report also serves as a cautionary tale for other media on the verge of deregulation. Mark Wahl, Project Director, Center for Digital Democracy said:

This report is a wake-up call, for the same FCC policies responsible for radio’s decline into homogenous oligopoly are now being imposed upon the high-speed Internet. If allowed to proceed, this radical deregulatory agenda will result in the Clear Channelization of broadband, threatening online openness and competition, reducing diversity of expression and inhibiting democracy.

A collection of statements from other organizations and individuals including Consumer Federation of America, Media Access Project, American Federation of Musicians, American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, Artist Empowerment Coalition and the Louisiana Music Commission is available.

Results of a national telephone survey of 500 adults conducted by the Behavior Research Center were released in May 2002. This survey found widespread support for congressional action to hold the line on consolidation, outlaw payola-like practices and expansion of community-based Low Power radio stations. The complete survey is included in this report and is available online. See the complete survey.

In addition to the morning’s press conference, at 2:00 PM FMC will also host a live, 2-way teleconference via telephone to service interested journalists who are unable to attend the Washington, DC briefing. Dial 1-800-247-5110, code 220033. An audio recording of the teleconference will be available within one hour of the call.

The Future of Music Coalition is a nonprofit collaboration that identifies and promotes technologies, policies and business models that can benefit artists and citizens. In January 2003, the FMC will host its third annual Future of Music Policy Summit, a three-day conference focusing on policy issues of concern to musicians and citizens. Information about the conference is available.

The entire study can be downloaded (PDF).

See also the original press release with plenty of links at the Future of Music Coalition.

 

THE FISH STORY
'No take' zones may be only way to allow fish stocks to regenerate

From the New York Times

(11/14/2002)--Not long ago the California Fish and Game Commission permanently banned fishing from 175 square miles of ocean around the Channel Islands off Santa Barbara, creating one of the largest fully protected marine reserves in United States waters. Though the announcement received little notice outside California, it signaled an important step forward in the uncertain campaign to arrest the decline of commercial fish populations here and abroad.

Marine biologists are increasingly coming to believe that short of taking boats out of the water--a step that may in time become necessary--the only way to rebuild fish stocks and guarantee food for a growing global population is to create "no take" zones to give fish a chance to reproduce. California's decision gives that idea a big boost.

The next step would be for President Bush, who has been largely indifferent to marine issues, to expand the network of reserves into adjoining federal waters, which begin three miles out to sea. The combined state and federal system would then cover 426 square miles. That would be the largest marine reserve in the continental United States. It would do wonders for California's once-abundant coastal species, including Pacific red snapper and abalone. It would also give high-level credibility to the sanctuary strategy just when the world's fish populations need all the help they can get.

The recent numbers are disturbing. Perhaps two-thirds of the world's fish populations are being harvested at or beyond sustainable levels. Some are actually declining and a few have crashed altogether. This is true not only in third-world countries that depend on fish for protein but in wealthier nations as well. The collapse of the cod fisheries of Canada and New England has been well documented. A similar implosion now seems possible in the North Sea, whose codfish have long been a dietary staple in Britain and much of Scandinavia.

There are many reasons for this--pollution, for one, as well as the loss of wetlands that nurture early marine life. But by far the biggest factor is overfishing, especially by large and often heavily subsidized industrial fleets. It follows that the only sure path to revival is a deliberate reduction in commercial fishing, including the creation of sanctuaries like the one in California.

Commercial fishermen, of course, don't much like the idea of no-take zones, despite the fact that their future may depend upon them. Recent studies of three smaller reserves--one near Cape Canaveral, another in the Caribbean and a third off the Florida Keys--show that they boost fish populations quickly and dramatically, not only within the zones but in adjoining waters as well.

The key to extending these protections and taking other steps to protect the fish is political will. As a rule, governments tend to listen to the commercial fishermen, even when they're pressing for action that is against their own long-term interests. Recently, for example, scientists declared that a campaign to reduce commercial catches of swordfish had produced a dramatic increase in swordfish numbers. But within days of this happy news, the international commission that governs swordfish catches in the Atlantic authorized a 40 percent increase in the annual swordfish quota--an irresponsible and deeply demoralizing decision that could stall a promising but still incomplete recovery.

The crisis in the world's fisheries will not be solved without active government help. By endorsing and extending California's action, Mr. Bush could not only do the right thing but also set an enlightened example for the rest of the world.

 

THE NEED FOR NEW WEAPONS IN THE WAR ON POVERTY

From Conservative Christian Fellowship

(10/2001)--Poverty is today usually defined in relative rather than absolute terms.

Poverty is increasingly regarded as being inextricably tied up with other social problems, eg. homelessness, teenage pregnancy, and so on, which need to be tackled together rather than separately, hence the use of the umbrella term 'social exclusion.'

The State is not the only answer. Evidence increasingly shows that social exclusion is best tackled by community and voluntary projects, including faith-based work, character education and a 'zero tolerance' approach to minor crime.

What is poverty?

The emotive concept of poverty is not easy to define. We are familiar with the poverty inherent in the harrowing TV images from faraway countries of people dying from a lack of basic necessities and we understand that we are hugely privileged in comparison. Yet we are also aware of need in town and cities within Britain. Who are the poor and what should be our response?

Absolute?

One way of defining poverty is in absolute terms. Absolute poverty is characterised by a lack of basic necessities such as food, clothing and shelter. Using that standard, Keith Joseph stated in 1976 that poverty had, to a large extent, disappeared from Britain. At the height of the Thatcherite 1980s the then Social Security Security, John Moore, wrote a CPC pamphlet that proclaimed the 'end of the line for poverty'.

Or relative?

The trouble with the idea of absolute poverty is that people instinctively feel that an acceptable standard of living goes beyond biological needs and is linked to social and cultural factors.

The second principal way of looking at poverty is to see it in relative terms. Poverty becomes not merely a lack of basics but a lack of sufficient resources to participate in the life of the community. This participation will be characterised by things such as leisure and holiday opportunities, and the ability to afford the kind of Christmas presents for one's own children that their friends in school are receiving.

Poverty is actually experienced - and therefore defined - in relation to the wealth and spending patterns of others. But this definition risks detaching poverty from any international or historical perspective. It ignores the incredible progress that has been made in improving the lot of the very poorest members of our society, and it fails to acknowledge the material blessings we all enjoy in the West compared to those from the Third World struggling in conditions of enormous need. Those regarded as living below the poverty line in the UK today would not be regarded as materially impoverished in a number of other nations.

For these reasons relative poverty does not carry the moral force of the absolute measure.

Incidentally, although recent Tory governments were berated for allowing the 'rich to get richer' and the 'poor to get poorer' the evidence suggests otherwise. Absolute poverty diminished throughout the Conservative years and a recent Joseph Rowntree study demonstrated that inequality actually decreased during the Major years.

Social exclusion

The term which has come into current usage is 'social exclusion'. The thinking is that poverty is not just about a condition of low income; it is about people beset with multiple and complex problems: welfare dependency, 'sink' housing estates, poor educational attainment, criminal activity, high rates of teenage pregnancy, and lone parenthood.

In late 1997 two books appeared which sought to lift the lid on poverty in the UK. Nick Davies' Dark Heart was a disturbing investigation into the people who inhabit the slums and red-light areas of our cities, prompted by the author's chance encounter with two young boy prostitutes at a Nottingham fair.

Danziger's Britain (Nick Danziger) set out to discover "the huge ranks of the excluded and marginalized people of Great Britain", from inner city to tiny village, from recent immigrants and child drug addicts to single mothers and joy riders. Both books make uneasy reading for Conservatives, because they reveal a world few of us have any direct experience of and which is far bigger than we dare to imagine.

Christian teaching

Most Christians should have few problems understanding the duty that Scripture places on them to take the issue of poverty seriously. The Old and New Testaments are laden with injunctions to be compassionate to the poor. Under God's ideal plan for Israel, poverty ought not to have existed at all (Deuteronomy 15:4) but it was recognised that the reality of human nature would not allow it to be eradicated.

In words that would later be echoed by Jesus Himself (Matthew 26:11), Deuteronomy 15:11 states that "the poor you will always have with you in the land". But because poverty was so clearly contrary to the divine purpose there was a special duty to strive to relieve it as far as possible.

The Church's record in serving the poor is second to none. Yet the innovative activities of the Church and charitable organisations have been eclipsed by the growth of state welfare spending. And while absolute poverty has decreased, too many communities exist in Britain where economic deprivation, crime, relationship breakdown, and failing public services feed on each other in vicious, unbroken cycles.

Beyond state welfare

Every individual and family deserves the chance to earn a living and gain an education; to live in a warm, safe home; to go about their daily lives without fear of crime; and to have the support of the wider society in times of illness or other adversity. The state has an important role to play in providing people with parts of this vision of 'social security'. But the state cannot be truly compassionate. It is difficult for Benefits Agency staff, for example, sitting behind bulletproof screens processing the claims of hundreds of "clients" per week to 'suffer with' the poor and give them the personal, holistic attention that very vulnerable people need. Churches, on the other hand, are rooted in real communities and often have a better understanding of the immediate needs of the poor than the bureaucrats. This is coupled with a powerful motivation to see these needs met. This is the essential dynamic behind faith-inspired social action which George W Bush wants to see flourish.

The expansion of the state can even be counter-productive insofar as it actually serves to snuff out compassion and important social values. He state and the market can trample upon the bonds between people and their families and communities. Despite the prosperity and welfare expenditure of recent years too many social problems are getting worse. It's time we pursued new responses to poverty. These responses might include:

• A recognition that there is a profound tension between addressing poverty and what is called 'social libertarianism'. Insofar as social libertarianism indulges soft drugs, minor crime, non-directive education and any chosen family and lifestyle pattern - it is betraying an indifference to the poor.
• Greater reliance on character education where teachers and practically-experienced civil society groups help young people to develop the skills and knowledge needed to resist the connected risk behaviours of drugs, alcohol, tobacco, violence and sexual experimentation.
• Empowerment of neighbourhood groups that are run by and serve local people.
• Greater emphasis on prevention and focus on at-risk neighbourhoods age ranges and behaviours (eg borrowing for consumer purchases).
• Support for families and the marriage relationship (see ccfwebsite.com briefing on the family).
• An end to the humiliation and ineffectiveness inherent in the Government's increasingly complex, means-tested benefits system.

Compassionate conservatism

During his 2000 campaign Bush echoed Disraeli's famous comment about the "two nations" (rich and poor) of the 1800s. In a moving description of an encounter with jailed young offenders, Bush spoke of a wall within American society: "On one side are wealth and technology, education and ambition. On the other side of the wall are poverty and prison, addiction and despair."

Although 'One Nation' has been a popular political banner, which many aspire to wave, Bush's Compassionate Conservatism is ultimately not about re-discovering slogans. It is about awakening a restless heart of compassion and love for those in need and enabling it to generate practical solutions.

Until God's Kingdom is fully realised, poverty will never be eliminated. But responsible Christians - both in their personal conduct and in helping to shape public policy - must return to the subject again and again.

Conservative Party policy

The 2001 election general manifesto contained a commitment to establish an Office of Civil Society, to help voluntary and faith-based organizations to reinvigorate communities and tackle social exclusion and poverty.

Quotes

"By necessities I understand not only commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without?" - Adam Smith

"If anyone has material possessions, and sees his brother in need, but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?" - 1 John 3:17

"For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me. to the extent that you did it one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me." - Matthew 25:35-36 and 40

Further reading

• J R Porter's 'Wealth and Poverty in the Bible'
• Lord Harris' 'Poverty and Wealth Creation' from 'Christianity and Conservatism' (edited by Alison and Edwards, Hodder and Stoughton, 1990).

See also the original article at Conservative Christian Fellowship.

 

POLYGAMY AND THE KORAN

By Muhammed A. Asadi

Indeed, people living in our part of the world, view polygamy with hostility and hate. Such is the case behind outlawing all forms of polygamy in the U.S.

The cause of this hate is rooted in Western culture which accepts [at present] all illicit [outside of marriage] sexual relationships between a man and a woman in plurality [except rape] but the same relationship made responsible by marriage is condemned.

It may sound surprising that the root for abhorring polygamy does not lie in the Christian religion. The early Lutheran Church in Germany, particularly the city of Munster proclaimed polygamy (polygyny) as the "ideal form of marriage" ( Cairncross 1).

The Bible [Old Testament as well as the NewTestament] does not have a single word in its text which condemns polygamy. Contrary to that the patriarchs mostly had more than one wife and were not condemned by God. To David, according to the Bible, God says that He gave him many wives [2 Samuel 12:8]. Abraham had more than one wife, so did Moses. God Himself gives the method and rights when another wife is taken in,, according to the Bible [Exodus 21:10]:

"If he take him another wife her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage shall he not diminish."

In the New Testament, Paul forbade bishops and deacons to have more than one wife [I Timothy 3:2]. This implicitly suggests that others were allowed polygamy [polygyny- one man taking on more than one woman]. It is for this reason that polygamists among the early Christians were baptized unconditionally (Cairncross 69). There is not one word attributed to Jesus in the Gospels, which condemns polygamy. The insistence of monogamy was introduced as an invention by the Church [Roman Catholic] as late as A.D 600 just as the invention of celibacy of the clergy (Cairncross 70).

Islamic (Koranic) polygamy

If the Koran is taken as the criterion in judging what Islam is then, polygamy (polygyny) is allowed but severely restricted so as to retain its social benefits.

Two things that come to mind whenever Islam or the Koran is mentioned in the West (in relation to women) are Islamic polygamy and the restrictive Islamic dress for women (the infamous veil). A third thing also commonly crops up when talking about Islam in general and that is terrorism [Jihad or so-called holy war]. These three effectively describe the stereotype of Islam held by the West. Like most stereotypes they are based either on ignorance or describe the practice of those that base their actions on tradition more than the Koran. Instead of attacking tradition and custom, those with vested interests attack Islam and the Koran even though it is evident that these stereotypes aren't rooted in the Koran.

There is nothing in Christianity or Judaism against polygamy (polygyny- one man taking more than one wife). Indeed the Old Testament assumes that marriages will be polygamous and laws are constructed based on that assumption. For example, Exodus 21:10 in the Bible states:

"If he take to him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage shall he not diminish." (The Bible, Exodus 21:10)

There is not a word attributed to Jesus in the New Testament which disallows polygamy. Paul forbade bishops and deacons from marrying more than one wife (1 Timothy 3:2), this implicitly suggests that other were allowed polygamy (polygyny). The insistence on monogamy was an invention introduced by the Roman Catholic Church as late as AD 600 just as the invention of the celibacy of the clergy [the Church being against marriage in general and not only polygamy] (Cairncross 1974:70). The early Lutheran Church in Munster, Germany proclaimed polygamy (polygyny) the "ideal form of marriage" (Cairncross 1974:1)

Any mention of polygamy in the West today, among feminists and non-feminists alike, evokes feeling of hate. This hate is rooted in Western culture and not religion as we have seen above. The culture that hates polygamy however allows all sexual intercourse between a man and a woman in plurality [as long as it is pre or non marital]. However the same intercourse made "responsible" by marriage in the plural is outlawed and hated.

The Koran severely restricted the open practice of polygamy. The statement in the Koran that deals with polygamy is just one yet it is misused and abused by both Muslims and Non-Muslims. It states:

"And if you fear that you will not be able to deal justly with the oppressed women [Yatama- literally, the Orphans among women-see the context], then marry from among them two or three or four, but if you fear you wont be just [even then], then marry only one (Koran 4:3)."

The Koran states explicitly above that polygyny is allowed only if the women you marry belong among oppressed (orphan) women. Men cannot pick and choose from "any" women who they want as a second wife Polygamy is to be practiced only if marriage would bring social justice to such women, justice that they are otherwise denied. If marrying more than one cannot bring such justice then polygamy is not allowed. Thus the Koran severely restricts the open practice of polygamy in society. The Koran does not, like the early Lutheran Church, term polygamy the "ideal" form. According to the Koran, polygamy is a good option only when it brings social justice to the oppressed classes of women.

According to poverty expert William Julius Wilson (1996), 31% of the continually poor in America comprise of "non-elderly" African American women. Now these are among the oppressed classes of women. If polygamy by well established men could bring social justice to them by removing their children and hence future generations from this "cycle of poverty," it is good. It is also recognized by many sociologists and by Dr. Wilson himself that "non-marriage" and the "lack of marriage" is a viable reason in their poverty and status. "Lack or marriage" or a "broken household" is recognized universally by sociologists as contributing to such poverty. It is recognized that divorce and out of wedlock childbearing has resulted in the "feminization of poverty." In Iraq, after the Gulf War when hundreds of thousands of women became widows, restricted polygamy by just individuals would similarly have been very functional.

A country like the United States where the population of women is a few million more than the population of men, some women can statistically never find husbands if everyone practiced monogamy. Such oppressed women [I say oppressed because a lack of marital intimacy is to me deprivation and oppression of a sort] could be given family life and hence social justice by "restricted" Koranic polygamy.

The Koran is well aware that men misuse polygamy as they are "swayed by the greed of their hearts" and thus puts severe restrictions on the practice of polygamy to protect the rights of women and wives. As a result the only "religious" book that states explicitly, "then marry only ONE (Koran 4:3)" is the Koran. Monogamy is prescribed for society in general with "restricted" polygamy being allowed when special circumstances warrant it.

"And their Lord has heard them (and says): `I suffer not the work of any worker male or female to be lost. You (men and women) proceed one from the other." Koran 3:195

See also the original article with references. You can also e-mail the writer.

 

SUPPORT OUR SOURCES! Life-Net Raw material is used without permission. Please show your appreciation for their services to us by paying some of them a visit or sending them a responsive e-mail.