Number of wives?
-
Let me know of a woman that wants man 24/7.
Of course they do. This doesn't mean they don't want any alone time. But they want their husband to be contributing to the family unit 24/7. Either earning money for her and her children, or looking after the children when she is working. Never does the wife benefit from the husband banging other women, having to split his energy and money with anther woman, reducing the inheritance of her children.
"...And the souls resort to greed..." 4/128
-
There's a difference between greed and assertiveness, standing up for your own rights. A husband and wife make a promise to each other and so they have a duty to each other.
Why, was he allowed to marry only one of his adopted son?s wives or other women for that matter? Even if it was his first time, is there any ?haraj? in doing it again?
It says ?wives of their adopted sons?. That?s plural.
Yes, and "sons" is plural. Otherwise it would be "wife of their adopted sons". ?Wives of their adopted sons? no more suggests multiple wives than it does multiple husbands.
-
There's a difference between greed and assertiveness, standing up for your own rights. A husband and wife make a promise to each other and so they have a duty to each other.
What is a right, and who determines what is her right, she, you, me, Govt or God ? Rather I would say, by creating hurdles, she is eating up hisGod given rights, and rights of another fellow sister (wife to be)
siki
-
Why, was he allowed to marry only one of his adopted son?s wives or other women for that matter? Even if it was his first time, is there any ?haraj? in doing it again?
No, and that's my point. Don't use this verse to argue, nor to refute polygamy. It has nothing to do with it.
It says wives of their adopted sons. Thats plural.
Which "plural" do you mean "Their", "wives", "adopted (in Arabc it's plural)" or "sons"? And what should it be, and to mean what?
-
There's a difference between greed and assertiveness, standing up for your own rights.
It is a woman?s right to share the husband of another. But it is not her right to have the inheritance from the husband all to herself and her children. It?s greed. The only thing that shouldn?t reduce if the husband marries another woman is whatever was already given to the previous wives(ajar/?dowry?, or any gifts etc). 4/20
A husband and wife make a promise to each other and so they have a duty to each other.
There is nothing in the Quran forbidding the man from making the same promise with another wife if he can keep it.
-
There's a difference between greed and assertiveness, standing up for your own rights. A husband and wife make a promise to each other and so they have a duty to each other.
What is a right, and who determines what is her right, she, you, me, Govt or God ? Rather I would say, by creating hurdles, she is eating up hisGod given rights, and rights of another fellow sister (wife to be)
True.
-
Yes, and "sons" is plural. Otherwise it would be "wife of their adopted sons". ?Wives of their adopted sons? no more suggests multiple wives than it does multiple husbands.
No, and that's my point. Don't use this verse to argue, nor to refute polygamy. It has nothing to do with it.
Quran rules out polyandry for believers. Therefore it cannot suggest multiple husbands. It does not however rule out polygyny. ?Wives of their adopted sons? therefore suggests whether a believer has ?
one wife of one adopted son,
many wives of one adopted son,
or many wives of many adopted sons, ??there is no haraj in marrying them.
Which "plural" do you mean "Their", "wives", "adopted (in Arabc it's plural)" or "sons"? And what should it be, and to mean what?
?Wives?.
-
It is a woman?s right to share the husband of another. But it is not her right to have the inheritance from the husband all to herself and her children. It?s greed.
No it isn't, it's common sense. It is abusing the rights of the children from the first wife. It's absolutely no different from a women having more than one husband. Both situations mean the children of the relationship are step brothers and step sisters you either have to share the same mother or the same father.
If they have many mothers they get less parental attention from their father, having to share him with the children of anther woman.
If they have many fathers they get less parental attention from their mother, having to share her with the children of anther man.
Maybe in the prophet's time it was difficult to identify paternity, today it isn't. Today we should wake up and realise that polygamy is bad and an abuse of the rights of children regardless of whether it is the mother or father who wants it.
-
It is a woman?s right to share the husband of another. But it is not her right to have the inheritance from the husband all to herself and her children. It?s greed.
No it isn't, it's common sense.
Can you quote the verse forbidding it?
It is abusing the rights of the children from the first wife.
Can you quote the verse giving them this right?
It's absolutely no different from a women having more than one husband.
It is very different. Polygyny is allowed, polyandry is prohibited.
Both situations mean the children of the relationship are step brothers and step sisters you either have to share the same mother or the same father.
Where does the Quran prohibit sharing a father, mother or husband?
If they have many mothers they get less parental attention from their father, having to share him with the children of anther woman.
If they have many fathers they get less parental attention from their mother, having to share her with the children of anther man.
Does the Quran seem to have any problem with polygyny like it has with polyandry? Where?
Maybe in the prophet's time it was difficult to identify paternity, today it isn't. Today we should wake up and realise that polygamy is bad and an abuse of the rights of children regardless of whether it is the mother or father who wants it.
Time may be your ilah, not mine.
-
You're asking can I quote the verse for common sense? You don't believe in common sense existing seperately from the quran? And you think you live outside time?
-
You're asking can I quote the verse for common sense?
I am asking you to quote a verse for what is making sense only to you. Why do you think the Quran did not leave everything to your ?common sense?? Quran deals with the rights of men, women and children. Why did it exclude this ?right? and include others?
?Quran Alone? remember? Neither the hadees of Bukhari and co, nor yours.
You don't believe in common sense existing seperately from the quran?
I do. But what is making sense to you is not making sense to me. Since the book of Allah is revealed so we can solve our disputes with it, we need to refer back to the book. And the book is also revealed so people can establish Justice. By referring back to the book we can figure out whose interpretation is being unjust, whose interpretation will take away the rights if implemented.
Ok? Now quote the verse that give them the rights.
And you think you live outside time?
No, I just don?t take time as my ilah. I don?t let time dictate haraam and halaal for me. And you?
-
Nobody wants to talk about 33/37 anymore?!
Salaams Br,
Although i do agree with your overall view about the topic.............however verse 33/37.........
How come no one else is mentioned by name whome the prophet new personally or is it just my mis-information?
I do think the ayah is somewhat mistranslated and no person is named there at all..........but that is is my understanding.
hmm
God Bless.
-
Wa alaikum salaam br.
Salaams Br,
Although i do agree with your overall view about the topic.............however verse 33/37.........
How come no one else is mentioned by name whome the prophet new personally or is it just my mis-information?
Just your mis-information.
I do think the ayah is somewhat mistranslated and no person is named there at all..........but that is is my understanding.
It was a crude translation that I posted. But when I asked if no one wants to talk about 33/37 anymore, I was talking about the polygyny part, the "wives of their adopted sons" part.
-
I am asking you to quote a verse for what is making sense only to you. Why do you think the Quran did not leave everything to your ?common sense?? Quran deals with the rights of men, women and children. Why did it exclude this ?right? and include others?
?Quran Alone? remember? Neither the hadees of Bukhari and co, nor yours.
I do. But what is making sense to you is not making sense to me. Since the book of Allah is revealed so we can solve our disputes with it, we need to refer back to the book. And the book is also revealed so people can establish Justice. By referring back to the book we can figure out whose interpretation is being unjust, whose interpretation will take away the rights if implemented.
Ok? Now quote the verse that give them the rights.
No, I just don?t take time as my ilah. I don?t let time dictate haraam and halaal for me. And you?
Well, yes, that's why I don't regard myself as 'quran alone', and this isn't just a 'quran alone' website, it's the 'freeminds' forum encompassing broader monotheistic concepts. I find the hadiths etc quite irrelevant but science and reason are very relevant and as I have said before human beings are socially monogamous, and polygamy is an abuse of human nature.
-
Well, yes, that's why I don't regard myself as 'quran alone', and this isn't just a 'quran alone' website, it's the 'freeminds' forum encompassing broader monotheistic concepts. I find the hadiths etc quite irrelevant but science and reason are very relevant and as I have said before human beings are socially monogamous, and polygamy is an abuse of human nature.
Human beings are not socially monogamous... ask any divorce attorney, or a guy who spends time with many women. Well... that's in the case of fornicating humans. But masculine individuals desire many feminine partners, even when they are in abstinence. Feminine individuals desire one close masculine individual, with perhaps many non-sexual relationships.
But seriously, if you believe men are monogomous in their heads... then you can in no way be a man in that old brain of yours.
-
Quran rules out polyandry for believers. Therefore it cannot suggest multiple husbands. It does not however rule out polygyny. ?Wives of their adopted sons? therefore suggests whether a believer has ?
one wife of one adopted son,
many wives of one adopted son,
or many wives of many adopted sons, ??there is no haraj in marrying them.
I have not seen this post before, so sorry for the belated response.
Since you can infer from it the confirmation of your understanding, and I can infer from it the refutation of your understanding, this means that this verse is insignificant in this subject, and you cannot use an insignificant result to build a theory
-
Human beings are not socially monogamous... ask any divorce attorney, or a guy who spends time with many women. Well... that's in the case of fornicating humans. But masculine individuals desire many feminine partners, even when they are in abstinence. Feminine individuals desire one close masculine individual, with perhaps many non-sexual relationships.
But seriously, if you believe men are monogomous in their heads... then you can in no way be a man in that old brain of yours.
There is very much a man in my brain but maybe it isn't old enough to be so jaded. It's nothing to do with desire. It's to do with what works. It doesn't matter how many people divorse. It doesn't matter how many commit adultery. The fact is that many monogamous couples do not divorse, and many husbands and wives do not cheat. And you know what? It is the children of these couples who succeed in staying together and treating each other with respect who do best in life.
If you want an example of how psychologically healthy a child from a polygamous relationship is, just look at Bin Laden.
-
I have not seen this post before, so sorry for the belated response.
No problem.
Since you can infer from it the confirmation of your understanding, and I can infer from it the refutation of your understanding, this means that this verse is insignificant in this subject, and you cannot use an insignificant result to build a theory
But where is the refutation?
-
Human beings are not socially monogamous... ask any divorce attorney, or a guy who spends time with many women. Well... that's in the case of fornicating humans.
would matter who you ask.
But masculine individuals desire many feminine partners, even when they are in abstinence. Feminine individuals desire one close masculine individual, with perhaps many non-sexual relationships.
I'm fine with one wife
But seriously, if you believe men are monogomous in their heads... then you can in no way be a man in that old brain of yours.
above