Malaysian's Man's Two Wives Collectively Decide To Divorce Him; Two Divorces In Three Minutes

Talaq, talaq, talaq.

A Malaysian man divorced his two wives in three minutes, saying they had "collectively decided" to end their marriages to him and he had "never expected" such an outcome, reports said on Wednesday.

..

The 44-year old businessman told the daily that his wives, a housewife and a nurse who lived in the same house, had both wanted to divorce him.

"(My first and second wives) are like good friends but I never imagined that both of them had collectively decided to divorce me," he said. "I admit that my relationship with them had been strained over the past few months but I never expected our marriages to end in this manner."

Roslan married his first wife in 1986 and his second in 1995. He married a third time in 2001 but divorced shortly afterwards.

Asked if he would marry again, Roslan, who has eight children with the three women, said: "I will not put off marriage indefinitely, God willing."

You know how many times "talaq, talaq, talaq" must be said in the Islamic world?

If we had that -- say this three times and you're divorced -- honestly, how many arguments would end with one person saying "talaq, talaq, tala--" to get the other one to shut up?

Might As Well Put It Here: Jonah Goldberg on the strange rules of "tolerance" as apply to "Fitna:"

"Fitna" is certainly provocative, yet it has good reason to provoke. A cancer of violence, bigotry and cruelty is metastasizing within the Islamic world.

It's fine for Muslim moderates to say they aren't part of the cancer; and that some have, in response to the film, is a positive sign. But more often, diagnosing or even observing this cancer -- in film, book or cartoon -- is dubbed "intolerant" while calls for violence, censorship and even murder are treated as understandable, if regrettable, expressions of well-deserved anger.

It's not that secular progressives support Muslim religious fanatics, but they reserve their passion and scorn for religious Christians who are neither fanatical nor inclined to use violence.

I think that last bit crystalizes a lot of the frustration here. As children of the Enlightenment, we are taught to judge each person on their merits as individuals and reject tribal loyalties. We do not completely reject tribal loyalties, of course -- no one does -- but we strive to.

But Muslims are by and large not children of the Enlightenment, and do not reject tribal loyalty. In fact, even among otherwise moderate minded Muslims, loyalty to one's fellow Muslim, no matter how vicious he may be, seems often to trump most other considerations.

The good-faith judge-individuals-by-the-content-of-their-character ethic most of us try to extend to the Islamic world just doesn't seem very much reciprocated.

Which breeds resentment and, inevitably, hostility and a championing of one's own tribe -- if the other side's going to do it, why not us?

That's the visceral reaction. The higher-minded reaction might be "We believe in this ethic because it's right, not because we expect to gain anything in return for our belief in it," but the visceral often -- usually -- trumps the higher-mind.

I do want something in return for good behavior. I'm not a believer in the idea that goodness is its own reward. Goodness isn't really its own reward, at least not tangibly; metaphysically, maybe. But I, and I think most folks, choose to do the "good" thing in the expectation that others will do the good thing right back to us. And when that expectation is frustrated, belief in the "good" thing begins to seem like a chump's game.

posted by Ace at 04:45 PM

| Access Comments