SIGHEH

To Bahram

You still don't get it! The law of divorce is not evil if it treats men and women equally. The Islamic law of divorce (as practiced in Iran) IS evil because it favors men over women. If a man treats his wife fairly and doesn't take advantage of what the LAW provides for him, he is just a good man. It doesn't change the evil nature of a LAW that permits men to divorce their wives at will but denies the same right from women.

Look, there is no way around this! The family laws in Iran are backward, cruel, discriminatory and evil. The fact that many Iranians live more egalitarian lives, and many men don't treat women as their property, only means that Iranians have the ability to modernize themselves and overcome their outdated traditions, religious beliefs, and Islamic leaders.

Sigheh, Polygamy, Divorce, Prostitution.

I like the analogy to divorce mentioned below by Janamijan.

Just because divorce can be abused (a man may divorce his long-time wife in order to marry a younger one) doesn't mean that divorce is an evil institution and inherently abusive to women. I would say the same about both sigheh and polygamy.

In addition, these comparisons to prostitution and slavery are more than a bit hysterical.

Yes, many relationships do involve an exchange, even if the couple don't make that explicit. And sometimes sex is part of the exchange--and it is not just women offering sex: in case of a wife with a bigger libido, it could be the man providing sex to make his wife happy so she stays in the relationship and continues making her own contributions. It can work both ways.

And, yes, relationships do often have that in common with prostitution.

But it's like saying that Hitler and Mother Theresa are the same because they both have noses and ears.

Bahram

Perplexing Thought

به نظر میاد میشه به هر قانونی که وضع بشه ایراد گرفت:

اگر قانون مرد و زن را ملزم کرد که بیش از یک همسر اختیار نکنند (مثل آمریکا) آنوقت طرفداران چند همسری میتوانند بگویند که دولت علیه آنان تبعیض کرده (که اتفاقا در آمریکا همین استدلال را میکنند)
این در ضمن دقیقااستدلال طرفداران ازدواج همجنسبازان در آمریکا نیز هست چراکه میگویند غیر قانونی بودن ازدواج دو همجنس تبعیض است بر ضد آنهایی که فقط این نوع ازدواج به طبعشان میسازد

ولی اگر قرار شد که چند همسری قانونی باشد (چه برای مرد چه برای زن) آنوقت مخالفان میگویند که این برای زن (یا شوهر) اولی عادلانه نیست.

در مورد این استدلال چند نکته میشه ذکر کرد

اولا با این استدلال طلاق را هم باید غیر قانونی اعلام کرد چون شاید مرد بخواهد زن اولش را طلاق دهد تا بجای آن با زن جوانتری ازدواج کند کماکان که این اتفاق در همه جای دنیا به کثرت دیده شده و فقط زنان کاتولیک ازش در امان هستند

ثانیا اگر زن و شوهر هر دو از چند همسری راضی باشند (چنانکه در خانواده های فرقه های منشعب از مذهب مورمون در آمریکه دیده شده) آنوقت نمیشود آنرا ناعادلانه دانست

ثالثا بعضی از زنان (ومردان) ترجیح میدهند که زن (یا شوهر) دوم باشد تا اینکه همسرشان طلاقشان بدهد و ازشان جدا شود

رابعا اگر گرفتن همسر دوم با اطلاع همسر اول انجام گیرد آنوقت همسر اول میتواند طلاق بگیرد (در کشورهای اسلامی این باید در عقد نوشته شود).

Justice

The Islamic law of marriage does not REQUIRE that a man marry more than one wife. It PERMITS him that. It gives the man FREEDOM. There's nothing inhumane about that. It's good. It makes it possible for couples with a different, polygamous lifestyle to be happy.

If you're unhappy about inequality, you need to campaign for women being given the same FREEDOM, rather than trying to take that freedom away from men!

خانم ساناز

شما هم تفاوت آزادی فردی و قانون را درک نکره اید. اگر میخواهید همسرتان شما را کتک بزند یا با چند زن و مرد دیگر بطور گروهی همخوابگی داشته باشد یا با زنجیر و شلاق شما را بنوازد (که همه این رفتار ها طرفدارانی دارند) باید مختار باشید که با توافق دوجانبه چنین همسری اختیار کنید و در زندگی خصوصی هرگونه که میخواهید رفتار کنید. ولی یک مملکت مدرن و انسانی که حقوق بشر را محترم میدارد حق ندارد قانونی وضع کند که به شوهر شما اجازه دهد شما را کتک بزند ولی این اجازه را به شما ندهد ، یا بشوهرتان اجازه دهد (چه شما بخواهید چه نخواهید) چندین زن بگیرد ولی شما را محدود به یک شوهر کند و اگر با کس دیگری همخوابه شوید سنگسارتان کند. مسئله این نیست که شخص شما چه نوع زندگی میخواهید مسئله اینست که قانون مملکت نباید آنرا بشما تحمیل کند.

To Bahram

I just read this article and the comments. You say that you have a sigheh and are happy together. Well, good for you. People can have good relationship and be happy without sigheh or any other form of contract too. That is not news. What is amazing is you inability to understand the difference between LAW and personal behavior. What the article talks about is the backward and discriminatory nature of the LAW of sighe, not how individuals behave in their personal life.

Contrary to what you say it is the LAW of sigheh that dictates sexual morality and ethics. It is the LAW that permits men to be unfaithful and have multiple partners but restricts women to one partner. It is the LAW that defines and enforces what Islam considers morality and ethics. It is the LAW that is backward and unjust, regardless of how individual people actually behave.

Mr. Bagherzadeh

Actually, it is not perfectly clear from your article where you stand. You attack Iran's marriage law, but don't fully explain what kind of marriage law you personally endorse.

Which of the following do you support?

1-marriage should be abolished as a legal institution.

2-only monogamous hetrosexual marriages should be recognized.

3-only monogamous marriages, be they hetrosexual or homosexual, should be recognized.

4- marriages of n males and m females in a single union should be recognized. For example: 3 men and 5 women, in a single marriage would be OK.

For you, what should be the allowable range of n and m? Should one of them be 1? Should there be any type of limit on n and m?

It seems that you don't like arbitrary "delbekhahi" distinctions (not realizing that law and jurisprudence are all about arbitrary distinctions each legal tradition inherits from the past).

If you give me an answer, it will make it easier for me to understand your point of view.

To Bahram-Bahram

آیا فقط یک مدل زندگی درست است؟

شاید خیلی از دوستانم در این مورد مثل من نباشند ولی من خیلی دوست دارم شوهری داشته باشم که در عین حال اینکه مهربان هست و عاشقم هست خودش رو بر من مسلط بدونه و فرمانروای من باشه و اگر لازم شد احیانا حتی منو بنرمی تنبیه کنه

اتفاقا برای همین بود که با نامزد قبلیم زیاد کنار نیومدم و بالاخره بهم زدم چون مثل خیلی از جوونای امروزی تسلط چندانی نداشت

حالا من نمیگم همه باید مثل من باشن ولی در تعجب هستم که اونهایی که به اسم آزادی طرفدار برابری مطلق هستن میگن که همه باید دقیقا مثل اونا باشن و اصلا حاضر نیستن که به من و امثال من این آزادی رو بدن که آنطور که دوست داریم زندگی کنیم و خوشحال باشیم

خوب شماها که مدل زندگی سنتی رو معادل عصر حجر و قرون وسطی و دوران بردگی میدونید اصلا به مغزتون خطور کرده که شاید خیلی ها ترجیح بدن اینجوری زندگی کنن

خوب حالا جوابتون اینه که مشکل شما با قانون هست نه با موارد خاص. خوب مگر قانون برای کیه؟ برای مردم یک جامعه هست. در جامعه ای که اینهمه آدم سنتی ریخته کی گفته قانون باید دقیقا اونطوری که شما دوست دارین باشه؟

شماها که دارین از خوبی چند همسری زنان صحبت میکنین میخواین این رو بزور به خورد مردمی بدین که اصلا همیجین چیزی رو قبول نمیکنن؟

Mr. Bagherzedeh & Ms. Azad

With due respect, comparing sigheh with slavery is silly.

First: slaves do not make a choice to become slaves. Yet my sigheh wife made a choice to join me in a sigheh contract.

Second: my sigheh wife knew that the contract would not prevent me from lying to her, having a bad temper, being a mean person, abusing her, stealing her money, exploiting her, etc. It is not the function of a contract to make people moral and honest. It's for people's personal ethics to regulate morality. You're confusing law and ethics.

It is actually dangerous to expect law to fully cover areas that are normally regulated by personal ethics. You want law to play the role of ethics. That is a potentially dangerous thing, as it's a slippery slope to a totalitarian society where the laws seek to force people to be "good," where what is "good" is determined by the lawmakers or by the majority.

.

.

Hossein Agha, as always you

Hossein Agha, as always you make my day! Thank you for your articles.

Azadeh, I would diagree with

Azadeh, I would diagree with you on most issues, but I agree with you 100% on this one!

To: Ms Azad

Thank you very much for your comments - as always insightful and constructive. I quite agree with your point about the term "monogamous, egalitarian marriage". The title of article may distract the reader as you pointed out - it is not mine, but was selected by iranian.com (and not a good choice in my view). However, in the text I refer to the "men's unlimited sexual freedom" in contrast to the limitations imposed on women.

And so to Well-wisher: my article is not about sexual freedom (good or bad) but about the inherent nature of the institution of marriage as defined by tradition/shariah/law.

To Bahram-Bahram: the temporary marriage contract (sigheh) requires fidelity from the woman but not from the man. It's inherently unequal and degrading to women. Individuals' behaviour is a different matter. A slave owner could be very kind to their slave and treat them with respect, but it doen't alter the fact that slavery is inhuman.

Some objections

Mr. Bagherzadeh's article did not merely state that temporary marriage is *often* abused in practice. He went so far as to say that it CANNOT be used in a respectable way. In other words, it is INHERENTLY dishonorable. Azadeh says a similar thing, using the word "inherent."

I would respond in two ways.

(1)

We can all think of evil and harmful laws and institutions. Nevertheless, we tend to forget that the vast majority of laws and institutions are neither inherently evil nor inherently good. Legal devices can be used to good or evil ends.

Consider the law of commerce; for example, the law that allows us to create companies. One can use this law to make a living and benefit society, and one can use it to exploit others, abuse workers, and make harmful products such as cigarettes or weapons. It is inherently neither good nor bad. To point to the inevitable abuses and then say the law is inherently bad would be misguided. All one can say is that certain reforms in the law would be desirable to reduce the amount of abuse, while recognizing that it will NEVER be possible to end all abuse. As long as there exist rotten human beings, there will also be abuse, and it is not for law to eliminate that, for the simple reason that law is distinct from ethics.

The laws of marriage, too, except for a several outdated features limiting women's rights, are for the most part inherently neither good nor bad; neither ethical nor unethical.

It is not written in the law of marriage that the man HAS TO abuse the wife. It is also not written that he should not do so. The personal values and ethics of the man and a woman are what determine whether the marriage is fulfilling or not. We can all point to both good AND bad marriages that were created under the exact set of laws.

(2)

When Mr. B. says sigheh CANNOT be dignified and honorable, he should note that this claim can be easily tested.

As they say, "The proof is in the pudding" آفتاب آمد دلیل آفتاب

To disprove a claim about the IMPOSSIBILITY of something, it suffices to provide a single counter-example. Now, you seem to recognize my own sigheh relationship is possibly dignified (because she and I are monogamous and exclusive, and you personally happen to like monogamy). Well, then, a dignified sigheh CAN exist!

By the way, sigheh can be put to many diverse uses. For example, Shiite law does not permit permanent marriage between a Muslim man and a non-Muslim woman. So, instead some couples perform 99-year sighehs.

I don't want to give the impression that long-term and monogamous relationships are the only morally legitimate uses of sigheh. I agree with "well-wisher": Short-term and polygamous uses of it are, in my view, morally acceptable too, as long as they're done in a way that is not based on deception and exploitation.

Just because many use sigheh to cheat on their partners and lie to them doesn't mean sigheh is inherently an instrument for deception. It can be and IS used in an honest way.

For Bahram

You are confusing marriage as a social institution with sexual practice and behaviour. You are also speaking in abstract, without thinking of a social context for sexual practice or marriage. Furthermore, individual temperements do not constitute a basis for social norms regarding sex or marriage. It is the cultural norms that decide what is a "dignified" or "undignified" behaviour. Human beings do not live in isolation.

I believe that the laws of a land *should not regulate sexual practice among adults*. It ought to be up to every single adult individual to decide how to satisfy her/his sexual needs in whatever context and way that does not violate the rights of children to be spared from adult sexuality and does not infringe on other human rights (as described by the UN.) Therefore, I believe that the laws should not prohibite homosexuality, incest among adults, masturbation (in private space), or sexual orgies (in private space.)  

However, the laws of a society need to define marriage and establish all its implications in terms of the rights of the spouses and children (if any) as well as their obligations such as contributing to the maintenance of a working marraige (financially, behaviourally, etc) - the lack of which would be grounds for divorce or loss of custody.

In today's Iranian society, citizens' sexuality is being regulated by the Islamic State based on religion, laws and cultural traditions. This sexual regulation covers not only the sexual practice and behaviour of unmarried people (which is inherently oppressive to both sexes, whether heterosexual or homosexual), but also two forms of marriage - which are both oppressive to women (and I'd say to homosexuals) as described in this article.

You seem to be for women's polygamy (polyandry) as well as men's. In the former case, you need to be also for matrilineality (children getting their names from their mother), which is quite alright to me. However, I think the *institution of polygamy* (that is not the same as having multiple sexual partners) complicates life for everyone. 

Finally, the article is not about sexual freedom but about *unjust sexual regulation*; although its title as well as the frequent use of the phrase "men's unlimited sexual freedom" could easily distract the reader.

Azadeh

been married twice and have had sigheh once, but can't figure...

what this article is talking about. just in case it is about sexual freedom: heep heep hurrah!!!

S.A.M (an official Khar Vazir)

Don't Take Away Men's Sexual Freedom!!!

Hossein: Instead of taking away men's sexual freedom, we should give women their sexual freedom. In the name of freedom, you're trying to take away people's freedom and impose YOUR personal sense of morality on them.

Also, it is not just about sex. Often, it takes more than one person to satisfy one's intellectual and spiritual needs.

One partner might be specially intelligent, the other specially kind. By having both partners, one has the best of the two worlds

In the West, this is called "polyamory" (Google it). A man or a woman can have honest, loving, respectful, satisfying relationships with more than one person.

آزاد

گرچه من شخصا علاقه ای به روابط نامحدود ندارم میخواهم بدونم شما چرا میخواهید روابط با بیش از یک نفر را الزاما غیر قابل قبول اعلام کنین؟

به نظر من اگر مردی خواست با بیش از یک زن رابطه داشته باشد و یا اگر زنی خواست همین کار را کند اگر این کار را بدون دروغگویی و ظلم و با صداقت کامل انجام بدهد (یعنی همسرش مطلع باشد) آنوقت من نمیتوانم الزاما به آن برچسب "نا محترمانه" بزنم : اینکه چنین رابطه اخلاقی هست یا نه را فقط با بررسی هر مورد خاص باید تشخیص داد. باید دید در یک مورد خاص آیا یک طرف دیگری را گول زده و حقش را خورده یا نه؟

از هر نهادی (چه ازدواج موقت چه ازدواج دایم) میتواند بصورت عادلانه و محترمانه یا بصورت ناعادلانه و ظالمانه بهره برد.
بنابراین محکوم کردن هر نهادی بطور کل منطقی نیست.

بهرام

Marriage in Islamic Iran = women's slavery

Thank you, Mr. Bagherzadeh, for this discerning article.

There is no doubt that the sexual politics in Iranian society ought to change, but you cannot call the monogamous marriage "the marriage in its lexical/etymological sense," as there are - and there have historically been - many other forms of marriage notwithstanding their just or unjust nature. I suggest that you use the sociological term "monogamous, egalitarian marriage" for the type of marriage you call "customary."  Thanks again.

To Bahram:

The fact that you and your "sigheh" have been faithful to each other does not exclude nor contradicts your religious right as a Muslim man to have an unlimited number of other sighehs.  You need to read this article at the societal level and not in the light of your specific and personal case.

Cheers,

Azadeh 

Sigheh

I would have been interested to read your article but sadly I can't read or write farsi.

Javaneh

آقای باقر زاده پس تکلیف بنده چی میشه؟

آقای باقر زاده شما نوشته اید

"نهاد صیغه اصولا برای ‌تأمین آزادی جنسی نامحدود مرد تعبیه شده است و نمی‌توان از آن به عنوای وسیله‌ای محترمانه برای به قاعده درآوردن روابط جنسی خارج از ازدواج بین زن و مرد بهره گرفت"

بنده الآن مدت دو سال و نیم هست که با خانمی رابطه مشروع صیغه داشته ام.
هر دو نسبت به هم کاملا وفادار بوده ایم

حالا شما میگویید نمیتوان از صیغه برای ایجاد رابطه محترمانه استفاده کرد. به چه معیاری؟ فقط به صرف اینکه شما میگویید نمیشود ؟ پس تجربه بنده و سایرین که این کار را انجام داده اند چیست؟
من واقعا منطق جنابعالی رو درک نمیکنم.

و در ضمن شما که دم از آزادی میزنید و میگویید حکومت نباید در زندگی خصوصی افراد دخالت کند چطور شده الان زندگی خصوصی بنده را به مسخره کشیده اید؟

بهرام