Polygamy in France: On Wives and Mistresses
The Arab press is buzzing with the story of this French Algerian Hebbadj fellow, whose wife was pulled over for wearing a niqab (basically a face veil that doesn't cover the eyes), after which it seems to have become apparent that he is a polygamist with four wives. President Sarkozy has highlighted the case in his attempt to get the face veil banned in France. Most of the press in the Arab world is about the nature of polygamy as a practice, to me (who has a pretty settled opinion of course against the practice) less interesting and a pretty tired debate at this point.
But the broader story, to be the really fascinating bit, is the Algerian fellow's defense. I have one wife, he has told the press. I have three mistresses. If mistresses are illegal, well then let's put all the politicians in Paris in jail, then come worry about me. His financial claims are consistent with this claim, as they are for most polygamous men in France. The way it works is the man marries one, and then the others claim state benefits as single parents, with of course the money being funnelled back to the whole household. To me, this whole affair, aggressive prosecution of polygamy and the mistress defense reveals a rather stark and troubling divide as between the French establishment and some of its more extreme (and fringe, only a tiny proportion of immigrants are polygamous) Muslim immigrants. They do not seem to have respect for each other in the slightest.
Despite my general criticisms of French policy as concerns Islam and its Muslim immigrants, I have some sympathy actually for the French concern over polygamy (much more than their concern about what someone chooses to wear on the street). Clearly there is a serious women's rights concern that attends polygamy in France in particular that is hard to deny reasonably. Four women living in the same cramped living quarters with God knows how many children, turning over cash meant for single mothers to a head of the household, it's all quite horrible frankly. And the French policy of "decohibitation" (getting the women to live separately) instituted after the ban came in on polygamy in 1991 helps to lessen this.
But when you use an instrument as blunt as the criminal law can be (as opposed to the whole decohabitation policy which in my view is excellent) to deal with polygamy, it does seem that to some extent one is no longer talking about women's rights exclusively, but attaching some level of social opprobium or disapproval as to a practice they find uncivlized and ridiculous. Which by the way is precisely the position the secular Arab presses take--who is this damn unshaved Algerian making us look like we're all from the Taliban. That might not be the best way to go about things in a society like France where apparently second families albeit nonpolygamous ones are if not common at least not a shocking scandal. The man's defense helps to highlight this, and in fact is picked up in other contexts as a conceptual matter (not in defense of Hebbadj) by defenders of polygamy within the Muslim meta-community. How is it, they ask, that to be legally married to four women does not protect their rights and abuses them, but to have one wife and a family, and then a second family through a mistress (e.g. Francois Mitterand), is somehow less abusive? How could it be that the legal recognition afforded the second sexual partner, they ask, deprives her of rights rather than facilitates her greater protection?
Of course the answer lies not in the nature of the relationship, but in particular social practices of the relevant communities. In other words, what makes Mitterand different isn't that his mistresss isn't married to him, it's that she isn't living in a 400 square foot apartment with six kids she shares with his first wife and their four kids while all collect government income and none of the women goes to school or works or does much of anything to enhance her own well being. I tend to think the better way to deal with these situations is not aggressive criminalization and expressions of presidential outrage, but maybe criminalization but with rather minimal enforcement (that's the US model with the breakaway Mormon splinters) and then dealing with the actual social problem concerning women's rights through things like the model of decohabitation. Otherwise, it might seem that part of the objection is less about women's rights and more about deciding some forms of mulitple sex partner relationships are modern and expected (even if not encouraged) and others are what hillbilly rednecks do and the latter deserve prison. In fact, it IS part of the objection, expressed in almost as many words. It's not going to succeed as policy to protect women however to deliver that message to their families.
But if he is being regarded with some level of contempt as a backwards ruffian by the French establishment, it seems fairly clear on his end that Hebbadj and his fellow polygamous men are showing equal contempt for French law. he doesn't have three mistresses, he isn't engaged in the Islamically prohibited crime of fornication which would get him stoned (he is "confessing" after all) under what we have to assume is a shari'a rule he takes seriously, given that his wife wears a face veil. So in defending himself as a man with a wife and three mistresses, he is basically shoving his middle finger straight back at the French authorities and telling them that their legal recognition of his "marriage" means nothing to him. That is, he is saying to him it's a piece of paper, meaningless garbage, the only real marriages are those he makes Islamically. In other words, to Habbadj, there is Frenchmarriage, and Realmarriage. He is Frenchmarried to one woman, he has three woman to whom he is not Frenchmarried and so they are Frenchmistresses. He is Realmarried to four women, he'd never claim otherwise. That is to say nothing of the fraud against the state perpetrated when the three women to whom he is Realmarried but not Frenchmarried claim as single parents. The near total contempt for the law engaged here is remarkable, in a manner it should be said that is unambiguously criticized by a fair number of mainstream Muslim scholars. Whether Yusuf Qaradawi or the late Shi'i Sheikh Ahmed Al-Waeli, there usually isn't much debate among a fairly conservative group of folks that if you live in a place that isn't Muslim, you respect its laws so long as they do not require you to break your own vows to God. It's usually discussed in fairly straightforward and in Al-Waeli's case, strident terms. That view is not precisely liberal cooperation, that would involve more than just strict adherence to law and so it might fall short. Still, on the point of adherence to law that does not involve sinning, most mainstream authorities do not differ greatly.
While the banning of the headscarf in France causes conservatives to rile in anger, becuase they consider it a central Islamic obligation and therefore obedience to law is itself the sin, polygamy is not an obligation of the believer and according to the same conventional sources, discouraged. They believe in it anyway, but that is different from saying they think it should be practiced abroad in lands where it is forbidden. So Hebbadj shouldn't be engaged in polygamy under this (conservative) theory for no reason other than that the French tell him he cannot, and he has chosen to live in France. That there is a sizable population of French immigrants who do not hold even this minimal Muslim position on citizenship despite ample contemporary and classical doctrinal authority in favor of it is quite troubling indeed.
HAH
But the broader story, to be the really fascinating bit, is the Algerian fellow's defense. I have one wife, he has told the press. I have three mistresses. If mistresses are illegal, well then let's put all the politicians in Paris in jail, then come worry about me. His financial claims are consistent with this claim, as they are for most polygamous men in France. The way it works is the man marries one, and then the others claim state benefits as single parents, with of course the money being funnelled back to the whole household. To me, this whole affair, aggressive prosecution of polygamy and the mistress defense reveals a rather stark and troubling divide as between the French establishment and some of its more extreme (and fringe, only a tiny proportion of immigrants are polygamous) Muslim immigrants. They do not seem to have respect for each other in the slightest.
Despite my general criticisms of French policy as concerns Islam and its Muslim immigrants, I have some sympathy actually for the French concern over polygamy (much more than their concern about what someone chooses to wear on the street). Clearly there is a serious women's rights concern that attends polygamy in France in particular that is hard to deny reasonably. Four women living in the same cramped living quarters with God knows how many children, turning over cash meant for single mothers to a head of the household, it's all quite horrible frankly. And the French policy of "decohibitation" (getting the women to live separately) instituted after the ban came in on polygamy in 1991 helps to lessen this.
But when you use an instrument as blunt as the criminal law can be (as opposed to the whole decohabitation policy which in my view is excellent) to deal with polygamy, it does seem that to some extent one is no longer talking about women's rights exclusively, but attaching some level of social opprobium or disapproval as to a practice they find uncivlized and ridiculous. Which by the way is precisely the position the secular Arab presses take--who is this damn unshaved Algerian making us look like we're all from the Taliban. That might not be the best way to go about things in a society like France where apparently second families albeit nonpolygamous ones are if not common at least not a shocking scandal. The man's defense helps to highlight this, and in fact is picked up in other contexts as a conceptual matter (not in defense of Hebbadj) by defenders of polygamy within the Muslim meta-community. How is it, they ask, that to be legally married to four women does not protect their rights and abuses them, but to have one wife and a family, and then a second family through a mistress (e.g. Francois Mitterand), is somehow less abusive? How could it be that the legal recognition afforded the second sexual partner, they ask, deprives her of rights rather than facilitates her greater protection?
Of course the answer lies not in the nature of the relationship, but in particular social practices of the relevant communities. In other words, what makes Mitterand different isn't that his mistresss isn't married to him, it's that she isn't living in a 400 square foot apartment with six kids she shares with his first wife and their four kids while all collect government income and none of the women goes to school or works or does much of anything to enhance her own well being. I tend to think the better way to deal with these situations is not aggressive criminalization and expressions of presidential outrage, but maybe criminalization but with rather minimal enforcement (that's the US model with the breakaway Mormon splinters) and then dealing with the actual social problem concerning women's rights through things like the model of decohabitation. Otherwise, it might seem that part of the objection is less about women's rights and more about deciding some forms of mulitple sex partner relationships are modern and expected (even if not encouraged) and others are what hillbilly rednecks do and the latter deserve prison. In fact, it IS part of the objection, expressed in almost as many words. It's not going to succeed as policy to protect women however to deliver that message to their families.
But if he is being regarded with some level of contempt as a backwards ruffian by the French establishment, it seems fairly clear on his end that Hebbadj and his fellow polygamous men are showing equal contempt for French law. he doesn't have three mistresses, he isn't engaged in the Islamically prohibited crime of fornication which would get him stoned (he is "confessing" after all) under what we have to assume is a shari'a rule he takes seriously, given that his wife wears a face veil. So in defending himself as a man with a wife and three mistresses, he is basically shoving his middle finger straight back at the French authorities and telling them that their legal recognition of his "marriage" means nothing to him. That is, he is saying to him it's a piece of paper, meaningless garbage, the only real marriages are those he makes Islamically. In other words, to Habbadj, there is Frenchmarriage, and Realmarriage. He is Frenchmarried to one woman, he has three woman to whom he is not Frenchmarried and so they are Frenchmistresses. He is Realmarried to four women, he'd never claim otherwise. That is to say nothing of the fraud against the state perpetrated when the three women to whom he is Realmarried but not Frenchmarried claim as single parents. The near total contempt for the law engaged here is remarkable, in a manner it should be said that is unambiguously criticized by a fair number of mainstream Muslim scholars. Whether Yusuf Qaradawi or the late Shi'i Sheikh Ahmed Al-Waeli, there usually isn't much debate among a fairly conservative group of folks that if you live in a place that isn't Muslim, you respect its laws so long as they do not require you to break your own vows to God. It's usually discussed in fairly straightforward and in Al-Waeli's case, strident terms. That view is not precisely liberal cooperation, that would involve more than just strict adherence to law and so it might fall short. Still, on the point of adherence to law that does not involve sinning, most mainstream authorities do not differ greatly.
While the banning of the headscarf in France causes conservatives to rile in anger, becuase they consider it a central Islamic obligation and therefore obedience to law is itself the sin, polygamy is not an obligation of the believer and according to the same conventional sources, discouraged. They believe in it anyway, but that is different from saying they think it should be practiced abroad in lands where it is forbidden. So Hebbadj shouldn't be engaged in polygamy under this (conservative) theory for no reason other than that the French tell him he cannot, and he has chosen to live in France. That there is a sizable population of French immigrants who do not hold even this minimal Muslim position on citizenship despite ample contemporary and classical doctrinal authority in favor of it is quite troubling indeed.
HAH
Comments