I agree with what Endon Mahmood, wife of Acting Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said at the launch of the Coalition o­n Women's Rights In Islam (Cowri) that "Marriage is an agreement and contract between two persons. o­ne party should not coerce the other party into accepting situations which have caused injustice and misery o­n the latter's part." ( Women's groups launch monogamy campaign with Endon's support )

This is because, no matter that Muslim law allows polygamy under certain instances, if at the time of the first making of the marriage contract, the wife did not expect the spouse to take another wife, and if he had informed her of his desire to subsequently do so she would not have agreed to marry him in the first place - then and in such an instance, it would be tantamount to coercion to force her by law to accept after marriage his subsequent polygamy that she had never agreed to in the first instance when she entered into the marriage contract.

It would then be logical for Cowri to campaign for Muslim women to be given the legal option to divorce (with recourse to share in matrimonial assets and custody of children) if they are not willing to tolerate their husbands taking another wife as Sisters in Islam executive director Zainah Anwar said.

This option will eliminate the element of coercion and is fair.

It is however important to note that to give Muslim women an option to divorce if they are not willing to tolerate their husbands taking another wife is entirely a different ball game from depriving Muslim husbands by law from taking another wife (even up to the fourth) if their preceding wives consent (the premise being with consent , there is no unfair force or coercion).

If the campaign is to alleviate problems faced by Muslim women, it should be a campaign against "one man, more than o­ne wife by force".

It should be a campaign for "one man, maybe more than o­ne wife subject to first wife's consent or option to divorce".

It should not be a campaign for "monogamy, o­ne husband and o­ne wife". This is totally non sequitur the original objective of addressing Muslim women's problems of being forced.

The worse part is that monogamy is not even fair to older wives who otherwise are content to accept their husbands' taking a younger wife subject to their privileges and status in the matrimonial pecking order being prioritised and preserved intact but who under the monogamous regime are forced to be divorced by their husbands in avoidance of being prosecuted for bigamy.

How could these women groups protect women in general? They o­nly protect by law a select group of women who do not wish to share their men.

In so doing, the women groups take away protection of the middle-aged or older women who otherwise acquiesce with their husbands taking, under certain conditions, another wife but who are now to be divorced because of monogamous laws, to face old age alone; and they further take away the legal protection of all other 'mistresses' and their children who had formed liaisons with already-married men.

Wanita Ikram coordinator Mariam Abdul is right to say that "Islam does not force a wife to unwillingly accept and live with the husband's decision to marry another wife".

So give the wife the option; don't force her. If she is willing, polygamy is OK. It is however different from saying let's join the monogamy bandwagon and make illegal polygamy entirely whether or not the wife agrees to the husband taking another!

For o­ne thing monogamy is a more in line with Judeo-Christian tradition (though now prevalent in secular societies), as polygamy is in Islamic tradition.

It is odd that Muslim as well as non-Muslim women groups should advocate monogamy under the umbrella of Cowri. Although both groups' agendas are united to promote women's interest, I would have thought that Muslim women groups would do so under Islamic tradition of polygamy by eliminating the element of force than jumping into the bandwagon of the other group hitched o­n monogamy that proscribes polygamy entirely under whatever conditions whether just or unjust to the first wives!

The fact that "divorce rate among Muslim married couples is seven times higher than that of non-Muslim couples" according to Wanita Ikram is no justification for monogamy because if divorce rate is that high under existing polygamy regime in which men are allowed to marry another without divorcing the first, it may even be higher if monogamy were introduced.

The US, Britain and other Western countries all have monogamous regimes - and women's equality - but they record comparatively the highest divorce rates (one divorce in every two or three marriages) - so can it be said that monogamy o­n a stand-alone basis can ameliorate social problems of fractured family, delinquent children or dumping of children or drug addition?

These may be caused by other factors and not polygamy as it is practised and if monogamy is pushed through it is just as plausible to contemplate these problems being aggravated than mitigated.