The idea that human body is dirty and having a "relationship" outside of marriage is "evil" goes back to times of Abraham, in the context of his conflict with ancient Egyptians. Egyptians were his antagonists/adversaries, so everything they did had to be dirty and bad. Christianity and Islam took this maxim from Judaism. Ever since people feel ashamed of their body, and any "relationship" not sanctioned by priests of God is viewed as criminal (in our modern times the State, even one that claims to be secular, and the mass media with constant publication of marital scandals , de facto function as priests of God).
I reject the idea of "dirty" human body in its' entirety, in terms as uncompromising and absolute as can be expressed by words. Of course, not taking a bath and shower will make any body dirty as hell, but we are talking about "dirt" as understood in aesthetical and moral terms. I believe in sanctity of human freedom and adult consent. The only red line is the line of adult consent (without it any relationship is an assault and criminal). Therefore, to me there is no "good" or "bad" Islamic law. As far as I am concerned, it's based in its' entirety on Judaism and Christianity, and as such is absolutely unacceptable to my secular perception of inherent freedoms and rights of a man in an enlightened society.
The question I asked was not so much to discuss the history and roots of "moral" maxims though, but out of curiosity. I wanted to find out how the conflict in customs and law would be resolved when someone, in perfect harmony with customs and laws of their place of origin, was considered to be in illegal and in illicit relationship by Canadian standards, and decided to immigrate to Canada.
It's now my understanding (based on response one member left earlier) that the first spouse of the male immigrant would be considered his lawful spouse, and eligible to be sponsored and immigrate to Canada as PR. And the rest would not be recognized as spouses according to Canadian law. It logically follows from this that children from other lawful marriages would also be viewed as "bastards" by Canadian laws. I wonder then what options would the second, third and fourth wives have, if they chose to also immigrate to Canada? Let's say the man married 4 women with PhD's and stellar careers in multinational corporations in UAE or Saudi Arabia, fathered at least one child with each wife and the two or all four of his wives qualified for immigration to Canada on their own merits. What would their options be then? As wives of the man , lawfully wed to a man by their own customs and laws, (yet in illegal and illicit ,unrecognized by Canadian laws, relationship with the same man), they would be unable to marry another man (now it would be illegal according to their own laws and customs). Yet, if they decided arrive to Canada as PRs on their own merit, how would their affairs be settled in Canada? What would be the status of the children and father's obligation toward them? How would so called "multiculturalist" , "liberal" flagman of the relativistic moral theories of Michel Foucault or ardent LGBT activist treat such foursome polygamic relationship in Canada? Would he or she be consistent with their position of unconditional tolerance and acceptance, or turn all of a sudden into the voice of moral indignation and rejection? I find these questions to be interesting and valuable for contemplation, not just entertaining (though I must admit there is a good deal of entertainment value in opening and discussing matters that are considered not conventional by our implausible and inconsistent standards).
Last edited: