Saudi Journalist Nadine al-Bedair has caused a stir after writing a controversial article published in Egyptian Newspaper Al-Masry Al-Youm entitled “Me and my four husbands” [1][AR].
The article, which was published on 11 December, has sent ripples through the blogosphere due to its provocative content and tone. In the article, Nadine asks why Muslim men are allowed up to four wives, while women must settle with one husband. She opens:
ائذنوا لى أن أزف إلى أربعة.. بل إلى خمسة. أو تسعة إن أمكن
أختارهم مختلفى الأشكال والأحجام. أحدهم ذو لون أشقر وآخر ذو سمرة. بقامة طويلة أو ربما قصيرة. أختارهم متعددى الملل والديانات والأعراق والأوطان. وأعاهدكم أن يسود الوئام.
I will choose them in different shapes and sizes. One of them will be blonde and another dark. Tall in stature, or maybe even short, i will pick them from different denominations and religions, races and countries. And i promise you there will be harmony.
Al-Bedair goes on to question the reasons traditionally used to support polygyny and prohibit polyandry, such as issues over paternity, stating that they have little validity in the modern world of science and DNA-testing.
Al-Bedair's article has been met with much criticism, as has al-Masry al-Youm, with news headlines such as al-Arabiya's “Egypt paper promotes polygamy for women” [2] circulating in December.
In fact, al-Bedair's article has caused such outrage that a lawsuit has been filed against al-Bedair by a member of the Egyptian parliament. The article has been seen as anti-Islamic and al-Bedair could face prosecution unless she retracts her article in the same paper. The newspaper is being charged with ‘promoting vice’.
Culture et Politiques Arabes [3] writes:
Et c’est naturellement sur ce terrain que se sont déchaînées la plupart des critiques, celles d’hommes de religion mais aussi celles d’hommes politiques, à l’image de Khaled Fouad Hafez, le Secrétaire général du PND (le parti du président Moubarak), trop heureux d’épouser ( !) cette bonne cause et qui a déposé plainte, considérant que de tels propos ne sont pas loin du blasphème.
There have been numerous comments on the article criticizing al-Bedair, accusing her of everything from blasphemy to loose morals and perversion. However, there have been those who have defended her article, stating that it has reopened the debate on polygamy and served the purpose of highlighting how badly some husbands treat their wives.
Aisha Gawad at Elan [4], an online publication on global Muslim youth culture says:
Both the newspaper and the author should be commended for not being afraid to spark honest (even if controversial) conversations. Especially as a woman working in the public sphere (as a TV journalist) Al-Bedair is kind of a baller for writing something she knew would be greeted with more scorn than applause. I think we should all tip our hats/hijabs/kufis to her.
Joseph Mayton at Bikya Masr wrote a piece [5] on the article. The first comment, left by ‘an Egyptian’ states:
No, polygamy should not be allowed for both men and women. It should be banned for both.
-But is that perhaps the point that al-Bedair was trying to highlight all along?
Marwa al-Bahraini, in her blog [6] has the overall reaction that people have been too quick to judge the article without fully understanding its intent.
اثبات عقد النكاح لا يتم الا باثنان الزوج و الزوجة ، اذا لم لا يشركها الرجل في قرارته او حتى في مشاعره…
هذا هو المقال للكاتبة نادين البدير
هذه وجهة نظري للموضوع ، الجميع لم يتعمق بقراءة المعنى الحقيقي المقصود من وراء عنوان اثار الجدل، ارادت اثارة الجدل لأن ما يثير الجدل يرغب القارئ بأن يقرأ ، للاسف الجميع غض النظر عن القراءة و راح يهاجم العنوان.
This is [the meaning of] Nadine al-Bedair's article.
This is my view on the matter. People have not read the article carefully, have not seen the true meaning intended behind the controversial title.
They have sought out contoversy because that is what they want to find;- in doing so they have unfortunately turned a blind eye to the text and gone straight to attacking the title of the piece.
It seems this is a view supported by others, who are keen to point out that much of the coverage of the issue has jumped on the controversy without understanding the intent of the article.
Hiba comments at Meedan [7]:
يفتقد تقرير البي بي سي لطبيعة المادة في المقالة الأصلية. لازم عليك أن تسأل: ” هل تدعو البدير فعلا النساء إلى طلب السماح لهن باتخاذ أكثر من زوج, أو أنها تحاول إعادة قضية تعدد الزوجات إلى الأضواء؟
(The BBC coverage she is referring to can be read here [8].)
Egyptian Ahmed Zidane comments on a piece [9] [AR] written by Mahdi at MidEast Youth, entitled “Multiple spouses-for one wife!!!!”, which is highly critical of al-Bedairs article, stating:
يا أستاذ مهدي
مقالة السيدة نادين هي مقالة هزلية، وأندهش كيف لم تدرك هذا من بين سطورها؟ كل ما تريده هي المساواة بالرجل، أي قانون زواج وضعي “برسم خارطة جديدة للزواج.” أما إذا لم يستغنِ الرجل الشرقي عن حقه الديني في أربعة زيجات، فلما لا يتم إعطاء الحق بالمثل للمرأة؟؟ أراني أتفق معها يا أستاذ مهدي… أتفق في أن أن تساوى الرجل بالمرأة… كل له زوج واحد، وفق قانون أحوال شخصية وضعي. تحياتي
And finally, in Ontd Political [10], commenter leprofessional reacts in frustration to the misunderstandings, by pointing out:
I love how everyone, including Egyptian clerics to Western commentators completely MISSED the mark on Nadine al-Bedair's article…
The word SATIRE is not even mentioned once in the article or in the comments above– whereas her writing SOUNDS JUST LIKE “A MODEST PROPOSAL”.She's criticizing polygamy, but I guess it requires one to be able to think a bit more abstractly.