Tuesday, October 29, 2013

My Turkish Destinations


 Since visited Istanbul, the love of this Metropolis had invaded my heart.. It is an hour flight to most Europe.. It is the kick start of Orient Express.. The leader of the Euroarians.. The hub for mythical Islam.. The land of contradictions and matches as well.. The paradox of facts and necessities..!!
The living mystery of history and future..
It is the non-Arabic Islam in its utmost flourish..

No wonder that thousands of visionaries had chosen to reside.. 
For my retirement inshallah, I had chosen the guardian on northern intake of the Bosporus: Rumeli Feneri or Anadolu Feneri..
You all will be most welcomed.. inshaallah..

Rumeli Feneri
Anadolu Feneri

The Dream Turkish Home

Istanbul.. Istanbul..



Monday, October 28, 2013

The Architect of Obamacare

During the last 30 years; no political initiative was controversial as Obamacare did.. However, lots of people do not understand, not only worldwide, but within the USA itself.. Therefore, Commentators from all political orientations have a great yard to play..!!

The Architect of Obamacare, Ezekiel Emanuel, Interviewed by Megyn Kelly
David Leeper | October 28 2013
Obamacare is looking more and more like some sort of Rube-Goldberg parody of a healthcare system. Does this lumbering leviathan actually have some architects who still stand behind it?
The answer is yes, and in the video below, we get to see and hear one of them as Fox News’ Megyn Kelly tries to interview Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. He is a bioethicist, which is a person who studies controversial ethics questions brought about by advances in biology and medicine

The core of the interview is about the president’s (in)famous promise that Americans who like their health care plan and doctors can keep both. And he promised premiums would go down. In practice, for millions, those promises are turning out to be false. Why is that, and who is to blame?
Emanuel blames the insurance companies, and (evidently) the insurance companies blame Obamacare, which has forced them to make so many “upgrades” that they have to terminate old policies and offer new ones compliant with Obamacare regulations.
Defenders of Obamacare say that insurance companies didn’t have to cancel old policies. But according to Obamacare’s critics, insurance companies really had no choice because any change at all to any policy makes it, by law, a “new” policy subject to mandatory coverages and other restrictions that come with Obamacare.

Did the president know he was making a promise that wouldn’t/couldn’t be kept? Or did he pay so little attention to detail that he actually thought people could keep their insurance plans and doctors? Did he even bother to care?
Does it matter?
I guess in the future, when the president or anyone else in Big Government starts making promises on just about anything, we should visualize them in a Hawaiian shirt with two gold chains, trying to sell us a used car.
And how do you feel about Dr. Emanuel making  ”bioethical” heath care decisions and promises for you and your family?


Friday, October 18, 2013

The Arab Sunset..

Low level clouds float over Dubai's Marina area as the sun sets on Dubai, December 31, 2008
Low level clouds float over Dubai's Marina area as the sun sets on Dubai, December 31, 2008 (Steve Crisp / Courtesy Reuters)

Since their modern formation in the mid-twentieth century, Saudi Arabia and the five smaller Gulf monarchies -- Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) -- have been governed by highly autocratic and seemingly anachronistic regimes. Nevertheless, their rulers have demonstrated remarkable resilience in the face of bloody conflicts on their doorsteps, fast-growing populations at home, and modernizing forces from abroad.

One of the monarchies’ most visible survival strategies has been to strengthen security ties with Western powers, in part by allowing the United States, France, and Britain to build massive bases on their soil and by spending lavishly on Western arms. In turn, this expensive militarization has aided a new generation of rulers that appears more prone than ever to antagonizing Iran and even other Gulf states. In some cases, grievances among them have grown strong enough to cause diplomatic crises, incite violence, or prompt one monarchy to interfere in the domestic politics of another.

It would thus be a mistake to think that the Gulf monarchies are somehow invincible. Notwithstanding existing internal threats, these regimes are also facing mounting external ones -- from Western governments, from Iran, and each other. And these are only exacerbating their longstanding conflicts and inherent contradictions.

The existence of substantial Western military bases on the Arabian Peninsula has always been problematic for the Gulf monarchies. To their critics, the hosting of non-Arab, non-Muslim armies is an affront to Islam and to national sovereignty. Their proliferation will likely draw further criticism, and perhaps serve as yet another flashpoint for the region’s opposition movements.

Among the largest Western installations in the Gulf is al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which owes its existence to the country’s former ruler, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani. In 1999, al-Thani told the United States that he would like to see 10,000 American servicemen permanently based in the emirate, and over the next few years, the United States duly began shifting personnel there from Saudi Arabia. Today, al-Udeid houses several thousand U.S. servicemen at a time and has also served as a forward headquarters of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), a U.S. Air Force expeditionary air wing, a CIA base, and an array of U.S. Special Forces teams. Nearby Bahrain

Continue Reading:

Thursday, October 17, 2013

Slavery 2013

We think of slavery as a practice of the past, an image from Roman colonies or 18th-century American plantations, but the practice of enslaving human beings as property still exists. There are 29.8 million people living as slaves right now, according to a comprehensive new report  issued by the Australia-based Walk Free Foundation.

This is not some softened, by-modern-standards definition of slavery. These 30 million people are living as forced laborers, forced prostitutes, child soldiers, child brides in forced marriages and, in all ways that matter, as pieces of property, chattel in the servitude of absolute ownership. Walk Free investigated 162 countries and found slaves in every single one. But the practice is far worse in some countries than others.

The country where you are most likely to be enslaved is Mauritania. Although this vast West African nation has tried three times to outlaw slavery within its borders, it remains so common that it is nearly normal. The report estimates that four percent of Mauritania is enslaved – one out of every 25 people. (The aid group SOS Slavery, using a broader definition of slavery, estimated several years ago that as  many as 20 percent of Mauritanians might be enslaved.)

The map at the top of this page shows almost every country in the world colored according to the share of its population that is enslaved. The rate of slavery is also alarmingly high in Haiti, in Pakistan and in India, the world's second-most populous country. In all three, more than 1 percent of the population is estimated to live in slavery.

A few trends are immediately clear from the map up top. First, rich, developed countries tend to have by far the lowest rates of slavery. The report says that effective government policies, rule of law, political stability and development levels all make slavery less likely. The vulnerable are less vulnerable, those who would exploit them face higher penalties and greater risk of getting caught. A war, natural disaster or state collapse is less likely to force helpless children or adults into bondage. Another crucial factor in preventing slavery is discrimination. When society treats women, ethnic groups or religious minorities as less valuable or less worthy of protection, they are more likely to become slaves.

Then there are the worst-affected regions. Sub-Saharan Africa is a swath of red, with many countries having roughly 0.7 percent of the population enslaved -- or one in every 140 people. The legacies of the transatlantic slave trade and European colonialism are still playing out in the region; ethnic divisions and systems of economic exploitation engineered there during the colonial era are still, to some extent, in place. Slavery is also driven by extreme poverty, high levels of corruption and toleration of child "marriages" of young girls to adult men who pay their parents a "dowry."

Two other bright red regions are Southeast Asia and Eastern Europe. Both are blighted particularly by sex trafficking, a practice that bears little resemblance to popular Western conceptions of prostitution. Women and men are coerced into participating, often starting at a very young age, and are completely reliant on their traffickers for not just their daily survival but basic life choices; they have no say in where they go or what they do and are physically prevented from leaving. International sex traffickers have long targeted these two regions, whose women and men are prized for their skin tones and appearance by Western patrons.

Here, to give you a different perspective of slavery's scope, is a map of the world showing the number of slaves living in each country:
Yes, this map can be a little misleading. The United States, per capita, has a very low rate of slavery: just 0.02 percent, or one in every 5,000 people. But that adds up to a lot: an estimated 60,000 slaves, right here in America.

If your goal is to have as few slaves as possible -- Walk Free says it is working to eradicate the practice in one generation's time -- then this map is very important, because it shows you which countries have the most slaves and thus which governments can do the most to reduce the global number of slaves. In that sense, the United States could stand to do a lot.

You don't have to go far to see slavery in America. Here in Washington, D.C., you can sometimes spot them on certain streets, late at night. Not all sex workers or "prostitutes" are slaves, of course; plenty have chosen the work voluntarily and can leave it freely. But, as the 2007 documentary "Very Young Girls" demonstrated, many are coerced into participating at a young age and gradually shifted into a life that very much resembles slavery.

A less visible but still prevalent form of slavery in America involves illegal migrant laborers who are lured with the promise of work and then manipulated into forced servitude, living without wages or freedom of movement, under constant threat of being turned over to the police should they let up in their work. Walk Free cites "a highly developed criminal economy that preys on economic migrants, trafficking and enslaving them." That economy stretches from the migrants' home countries right to the United States.

The country that is most marked by slavery, though, is clearly India. There are an estimated 14 million slaves in India – it would be as if the entire population of Pennsylvania were forced into slavery. The country suffers deeply from all major forms of slavery, according to the report. Forced labor is common, due in part to a system of hereditary debt bondage; many Indian children are born "owing" sums they could never possibly pay to masters who control them as chattel their entire lives. Others fall into forced labor when they move to a different region looking for work, and turn to an unlicensed "broker" who promises work but delivers them into servitude. The country's caste system and widespread discrimination abet social norms that make it easier to turn a blind eye to the problem. Women and girls from underprivileged classes are particularly vulnerable to sexual slavery, whether under the guise of "child marriages" or not, although men and boys often fall victim as well.

One of the world's most vulnerable populations for enslavement is Haitian children. Haiti has the world's second-highest rate of slavery -- 2.1 percent, or about one in every 48 people, many of them underage. There's even a word for it: "restaveks," from the colonial French for "reste avec" or "stay with." Traditionally, the word refers to a poor family sending their child to live with and work for a wealthier family. Often it is innocuous. But it can also encompass parents who feel they have no choice, typically because they have no income other than what they derive from selling their children into forced labor conditions that strongly resemble slavery. About one in 10 Haitian children are believed to participate. Those who run away, according to the report, are often "trafficked into forced begging and commercial sexual exploitation."

What's perhaps most amazing about the prevalence of slavery around the world is how similar it can look across very different societies. The risk factors might change from one place to another, the causes varying widely, but the lives of the enslaved rarely do.

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Charles Taylor and the Paradox of The Hague

Former Liberian President Charles Taylor was transferred to prison in the United Kingdom on Tuesday to serve out the remainder of his 50-year sentence. Taylor had been in custody at The Hague in the Netherlands since his 2012 conviction at the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in Sierra Leone's civil war -- itself an extension of Liberia's civil war -- during his rule from 1997 to 2003. While the transfer symbolically concludes a decadelong effort to bring Taylor to justice, the unintended consequences of the prosecution have been felt far and wide and are likely to complicate attempts to resolve violent conflicts in the future.
The desire for justice is understandable. Both West African conflicts were archetypically Hobbesian in nature. Diamonds mined from shallow alluvial deposits financed the just-as-easy acquisition of small arms, fueling the lusty imperial ambitions of Taylor and his allies (including former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi). Life in wartime Liberia was nasty, brutal and short, and images of limbless war survivors and of child soldiers mutilating their elders abound. Since Taylor fell, Liberia has largely been governed adequately by current President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, and an array of peacekeeping forces and modest foreign investment have helped stabilize the country and allow normalcy to return.
However, the International Criminal Court played no part in resolving the Liberian and Sierra Leonean wars (Taylor was pushed out of power by rival militias attacking from Guinea and Sierra Leone and, ultimately, by a West African peacekeeping mission), and the significance gained by the court in recent years has largely been inadvertent and, at times, counterproductive. Indeed, in the corridors of power in Africa and beyond, the court is now seen at the very least as a political liability -- and even an obstacle to conflict resolution.
The prosecution of Taylor created incentives for leaders in conflict zones elsewhere to refuse mediated resolutions. In 2003, Taylor agreed to resign from the presidency in exchange for safe exile in Nigeria. But the deal was reneged upon, and Taylor was arrested in 2006. Fearing a fate similar to Taylor's, beleaguered leaders have become more likely to cling to power until forcibly removed.
The International Criminal Court has also effectively lowered the bar in its selection of cases to prosecute. Instead of attempting to prosecute leaders currently orchestrating mass conflicts, the court has focused more on losers of political conflicts -- and only long after their alleged crimes occurred. Furthermore, African leaders believe that the court focuses an inordinate amount of attention on them. To its detractors, the court has lost legitimacy by choosing to prosecute relatively defenseless officials who were involved in relatively minor events.
As a result, leaders from Kenya -- which is currently calling for an Africa-wide withdrawal from the court -- to Sudan to Zimbabwe have appeared more determined to hold onto office (and the executive immunity privileges it affords), at least in part to prevent what happened to Taylor from happening to them. For example, Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe's government will not yield to the opposition Movement for Democratic Change and risk exposing itself to a prosecution for uncertain crimes by the International Criminal Court.
In Libya, Gadhafi likely kept fighting until he was killed in part because he lacked a secure alternative. Ousted Ivorian President Laurent Gbagbo, meanwhile, argues that he was only defending his legitimate government against an armed rebellion during Ivory Coast's civil war in the 2000s and through to national elections in 2010. Regardless, Gbagbo would not have ended up at The Hague if French-backed Ivorian rebels had not captured him.
Most concerning today is the conflict in Syria, where President Bashar al Assad has refused all exile offers and instead continues to fight, knowing a safe exit immune from prosecution cannot be guaranteed. For this reason, the International Criminal Court, like many international organizations, will remain part of the institutional fabric of the international community but its relevance and ability to contribute to conflict resolutions may continue to wane.


A Short History of the Highrise,”


“A Short History of the Highrise,” a four-part interactive New York Times “Op-Doc” reminds me of a pop-up book. The very first lever I pulled (actually it was a wooden bucket) added a couple of stories to a medieval tower! I even snagged a couple of complimentary factoids about the Tower of Babel! Bonus!
The kids are gonna love it!
There are doors to push, scenic postcards to flip, a little Roman guy to drag to the right… what a creative use of the Times’ massive photo morgue. Director Katerina Cizek skitters throughout history and all over the globe, swinging by ancient Rome, Montezuma’s Castle cliff dwelling, China’s Fujian province, 18th century Europe, and Jacob Riis’ New York. Apparently, vertical housing is nothing new.

( I did find myself wondering what director Cizek might be angling for at the Dakota. The storied apartment building was long ago dwarfed by taller additions to New York City’s urban landscape, but its multiple appearances in the series indicate that it’s still its most desirable. Mercifully, none of the interactive features involve John Lennon.)

Would that a similar restraint had been exercised with regard to narration. I would have gladly listened to Professor Miles Glendinning, the mass housing scholar who lends his expertise to the project’s subterranean level. Alas, the non-interactive portion is marred by a bizarre rhyme scheme meant to “evoke a storybook.” If so, it’s the sort of storybook no adult (with the possible exception of the singer Feist, who was hopefully paid for her participation) wants to read aloud. A sample:
Publicly sponsored housing isn’t everywhere the diet
Beyond Europe, North America and the Soviet Union, high rise development is rampantly private.

Given the level of discourse, I see no reason we were deprived of a rhyme for “phallic symbol.” Those animated buildings do reach for the sky.
If it all gets a bit much you can head straight for “Home.” The final installment jettisons the cutesy-bootsy rhymes in favor of a lovely tune by Patrick Watson, which makes a pleasant soundtrack to reader-supplied photos of their balconies. The images have been arranged thematically – pets, storms, night – and the cumulative effect is charming. Click “More readers’ stories of life in high-rises” to read the first-hand accounts that go with these views. If your perch is high enough, you can submit one of your own.

You can watch a video trailer for “A Short History of the Highrise” up top and Part 1 of Cizek’s film below that. But to get the full interactive experience you’ll want to head over to the New York Times web site.

Related Content: 
Ten Buildings That Changed America: Watch the Debut Episode from the New PBS Series
The ABC of Architects: An Animated Flipbook of Famous Architects and Their Best-Known Buildings
The History of Western Architecture: From Ancient Greece to Rococo (A Free Online Course)
Ayun Halliday has temporarily relocated to the ground floor, but she still can bust a rhyme. Follow her@AyunHalliday

How you see, envision or feel about it..!?

Monday, October 14, 2013

Eid Mubarak

عندما يتمثل الحب أضحية ، وينتشر الحب موعداً ووعداً
When Love is replaced by a Sacrifice, and spread for a promised Date

Friday, October 11, 2013

I am Malala..

I started thinking about that, and I used to think that the Talib would come, and he would just kill me. But then I said, 'If he comes, what would you do Malala?' then I would reply to myself, 'Malala, just take a shoe and hit him.'  But then I said, 'If you hit a Talib with your shoe, then there would be no difference between you and the Talib. You must not treat others with cruelty and that much harshly, you must fight others but through peace and through dialogue and through education.' Then I said I will tell him how important education is and that 'I even want education for your children as well.' And I will tell him, 'That's what I want to tell you, now do what you want.'

(I like the intact PR and Political campaign that plans and manages her Case)

Malala Yousafzai, the 16-year-old Pakistani advocate for women's rights and access to education, appeared on the Daily Show last night, ahead of Friday's pending announcement for the 2013 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Her answer to one of Jon Stewart's questions left him speechless.
An outspoken critic of the Taliban's tactics in her native Swat Valley from a young age, Malala was the subject of an attempted assassination at the hands of a Taliban gunman because she was unafraid to speak out.

Then, at just 14 years old, a Talib fighter boarded her bus, pointed a pistol at her head, and pulled the trigger. But she survived, made a full recovery in England, and has become and transformative figure in human rights.

Now, she is poised to become the youngest Nobel Peace laureate ever.
In the key moment of the interview, Stewart asked her how she reacted when she learned that the Taliban wanted her dead. Her answer was absolutely remarkable:

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/malala-yousafzai-left-jon-stewart-speechless-2013-10#ixzz2hOaHVll5

Thursday, October 10, 2013

The Ottoman Empire

People walk through the Sultan Ahmed Square in Istanbul (PA)

The fascinating history of the Ottoman Empire is the subject of a new BBC series fronted by Rageh Omaar. The title of the series tries to sneak in a rather contentious point as a given – Europe’s Muslim Emperors. Some mistake, surely? While large swathes of Europe did fall under Ottoman rule, for centuries this rule was deeply resented, and the powers of Europe, or at least most of them, did their best to expel the invader. Even if the Ottoman Turks may have ruled parts of Europe, their civilisation was not European, but Asiatic. As someone once said: “Turkey has always represented a different continent, in permanent contrast to Europe.” It would make sense to describe the Turkish Sultans not as European, but anti-European.

To be fair, the programme did not gloss over the reasons for Turkish difference. The Ottoman Empire (let us not forget the origins of Turkic peoples in central Asia) had more in common with the Chinese Empire than the Roman. The Topkapi Palace in Istanbul bore more than a passing resemblance to the Forbidden City: both were the preserves of eunuchs and concubines. But the Turkish system was far more ruthless than the Chinese. The concubines were all slaves, and because it was forbidden to enslave one’s fellow Muslims, they were Christians who were enslaved and then forcibly converted to Islam.

As for the civil servants and soldiers of the Empire, they were Christian boys, taken from their homes and converted to Islam by being forcibly circumcised. True, some of these orphans had glittering careers, but this should not disguise the cruelty of the system. This levy, known as the devsirme, carried on until the beginning of the 18th century. This way of recruiting members of the privileged caste, rather than relying on noble families, or feudal loyalties, as in Europe, must have been one of the reasons why the Ottomans were so successful in the short term. There were no better fighters than these traumatised boys, when they grew up. But in the long run one suspects that this practice must have been one of the reasons why the Empire declined so markedly from the late seventeenth century onwards. Cruelty is never a good policy.

The same may well have been true of the dynasty. As a male line the Ottomans endured for centuries, thanks to polygamy, but this came at a high price. The concubines were chosen for their beauty alone, and the claustrophobic atmosphere of the harem was hardly healthy. The death rate among the children these women bore the Sultan was high, perhaps due to poor sanitation, and each reign ended with a massacre of all the new Sultan’s brothers, as possible rivals were eliminated. Mehmed III had nineteen of his half-brothers killed on his accession in 1595. Many of the later Sultans were idle, or half-witted, or both, and quite dominated by their mothers. The later Sultans hardly ever left Istanbul, or indeed the walls of their places. One only has to read the later history of the Ottoman court to realise that polygamy is a very bad thing indeed.

The Ottomans also perfected a divide and rule approach to their subject peoples; they were allowed a certain degree of freedom in return for tribute, and the head of each confessional community would be held accountable for misbehaviour. Hence the hanging of the Orthodox Patriarch Gregory V from his own gateway on Easter Sunday 1821, because he was blamed for the Greek revolt of that year. This sort of multi-culturalism has won a few politically correct admirers in our own times, but it has to be remembered that there was a steady stream of converts to Islam throughout the Balkans, as people wished to evade the tax on non-Muslims, as well as having their sons taken away from them.

And it should not be forgotten that the subject peoples turned against their Turkish overlords in the end; and that the Turks themselves resorted to ethnic cleansing in Anatolia in 1915, massacring one million Armenians. As a multicultural experiment, the Ottoman Empire ended very badly indeed.
It should not be surprising therefore that even today, as the programme made clear, people in the Balkans and Greece regard the Ottoman era as anything but a golden age. Ottoman domination imposed three hundred years of stagnation and decline on parts of the Balkans, and some countries are still perhaps paying a high price for Ottoman rule. This is not to say that Istanbul is not one of the world’s most beautiful and fascinating cities, or that the Turks of today are not charming people. But Mustafa Kemal, who founded modern Turkey, was right, surely, to break with the past, and to reject the Empire and the Ottoman identity so comprehensively. It will be interesting to see how Rageh Omaar deals with that.


What if I Take off My Hijab?

 "I had too much pity and I took off the hijab to visit her. Since that moment, I’m living a double life: I wear the hijab in the city where I live and take it off to visit my parents. I feel so hypocritical, but every time I tried to visit them wearing hijab, they refused to let me in their home...."


It is a million dollar question that no final or "Acceptable" answer is given.. There are great differences between an answer to be accepted by the middle eastern "emotional" mindset, and the one to meet any other "Rationale" mindset.. Let's be frank and clear; without the typical fears or attires..!

Hijab is not the attestation of the belief; but a tool for modesty.. It compliments tangible and intangible theological issues.. It draws identities of both community and individuals.. It enables unspoken set of close, intimate and personal abbreviations..

Hijab was never a solely hallmark of Islam.. Across all beliefs and religions, Hijab is a statement of sacred practice and envision of life..

Islam was never meant to exhaust its believers in unnecessary confrontations instead of the continuous acknowledgement of the Mighty Creator swt.. This is in both public and private venues and events.. Muslims are advised to avoid wasting time and energy in nonsense, and focus on progressive matters and ways to enforce the belief rather than defending it..

If we look to the matters from the point of view that once AbdulMutalib had put prior to Islam; that the House has its own God to protect.. We shall invest all resources to empower, strengthen and understand.. rather than defend, protect or shield.. Then, all practices will be gauged by the inner sense rather than the policing one..

Allah swt looks into your heart.. measure your brightness.. and is pleased by your sincerity.. Anything else, including Hijab, Bear or Turban is just a compliment.. If ones inner is empty, what any custom would do..?

This is not a call to take off the Hijab.. but to realize that to live with or without is not the problem.. nor the true wrongdoing.. A True Muslim Believer would magic the senses of all surrounding people; to witness the belief not the believer..!!

Got it..?

Sunday, October 6, 2013


Matrimony is the most sacred practice of Mankind.. Despite the notions of breading, mating or intimacy, true mystery of matrimony is only known by Aallh swt.. Therefore, addressing all related issues had to provision for the unknown aggregates and the non-comprehended details..!

During the last couple of decades; the matter of (Polygany) had got lots of debates and noises.. The active Muslims, particularly in the Western hemisphere; had inevitably brought the subject for open discussions and research.. However, (Polygamy) is wrongly and widely used as a term; which means multiple spouses for a single mate, regardless of the sex.. Most dictionaries don’t address the true term (Polygany), defining the multiple females for a single male spouse..  Muslim, Mormons, some other Christians, some indigenous people in Africa already acknowledge (Polygany) as a lawful matrimony practice.. Notably, most of the living species practice (Polygany) in some way or another..!

Polygany is not odd, nor norm.. It is not compulsory nor discretionary.. Polygany is spontaneous rather than rationale.. It is a simple application to promote, support and celebrate the livelihood.. The overwhelming discussions would only develop discomfort and confusion over an application that is related to circumstances, capabilities and taste.. Regretfully, most enthusiastic ones would find themselves either lack supporting rationales or been heavily scrutinized by the monogamists.. Thus, the whole Islamic belief is unintentionally reduced to relevant details on housing, socialization and mating..!

The link below was my conclusion of an intensive research; which had avoided the use of the Quranic verses, but explored the true Islamic context.. Certainly, the (few) associated conditions with (Polygany) are widely ignored; and often replaced by material resourcefulness.. The majority of the polyganous practices certify disgraceful episodes of unspoken domestic abuse, unrest and sometimes violence.. This injustice would never interpret or serve Islam or Muslims..!

The true context would define (Polygany) as a progressive tool to enhance and empower the Muslim family; and the Muslim Community.. The least added values would be physiological relief and psychological comfort; which would affect both parties.. The optimum added values would be social sustainability, demographic strength and political immunity..!

Certainly (Polygany) is affiliated to acceptable level of bread-earning resources; in order to reasonably host two families or more.. Sharing a husband is not associated with sharing a house or any other facilities.. Muslims are religiously advised (by Quran and Sunnah) to mind their way of doing things, and avoid challenging their own selves..!

or on this blog: