about polygamy
-
Peace, mr. humble peace
I am familiar with this text, and, I am sorry to say, Zakir Naik is an idiot in my opinion. His theories and opinions often contradict scientific facts, and some are downright silly.
Some of the things he claims in this text don't make sense, some are offensive, some are un-Qur'anic.
First of all, polygamy is about orphans, not about men's supposed sexual appetites, "modesty of women", or some of the other things he lists.
I suggest you check out this thread, you might find some of it interesting
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=16221.30
World female population is more than male population
Wrong. In some countries, men outnumber women. I suggest checking out statistics on the issue.
Secondly, such games with numbers don't really make sense. Not every person who is not married wants to be married. Many women who don't have a husband are actually older women or widows, yet we rarely hear of men marrying an older or widowed woman as a second wife.
The U.S.A as a whole has more than twenty-five million gays. This means that these people do not wish to marry women.
Why doesn't he take Lesbians into the equation? Because they don't exist in his universe? Or because it would reduce the number of unmarried women in dire need of a husband, which he claims is a reason for polygamy?
Germany has five million more females as compared to males.
Not true. In 2007, the population of Germany was 82,5 millions, 42,2 millions of which were women. Too lazy to check the statistics for other countries right now.
Even if every man got married to one woman, there would still be more than thirty million females in U.S.A who would not be able to get husbands (considering that America has twenty five million gays). There would be more than four million females in Great Britain, 5 million females in Germany and nine million females in Russia alone who would not be able to find a husband.
As I said, such games with numbers don't make any sense. They don't take into account the age structure of those who are single, whether they actually want to marry / re-marry and other facts that play a role.
Suppose my sister happens to be one of the unmarried women living in USA, or suppose your sister happens to be one of the unmarried women in USA. The only two options remaining for her are that she either marries a man who already has a wife or becomes public property. There is no other option. All those who are modest will opt for the first.
As a woman, and a single woman at that, I find this highly offensive, and idiotic as well. So the only option for a single woman is to become "public property" or a second wife ... wtf?!? This guy needs his brain checked.
yuckIn Western society, it is common for a man to have mistresses and/or multiple extra-marital affairs, in which case, the woman leads a disgraceful, unprotected life. The same society, however, cannot accept a man having more than one wife, in which women retain their honourable, dignified position in society and lead a protected life.
Despite the fact that this is a favourite argument of people who promote polygamy, it is not true. It is not "common" for men to have mistresses and multiple affairs, neither is it accepted by society. Also, it's completely beside the point, because polygamy is not about men's desire for sexual variety.
Thus the only two options before a woman who cannot find a husband is to marry a married man or to become public property. Islam prefers giving women the honourable position by permitting the first option and disallowing the second.
Well, I do not consider being a second wife to be an "honourable position". If I can't find a man whom I'd wish to marry, I would rather stay single for the rest of my life than being someone's second wife. The "public property" argument, as I said above, is silly, insulting and has no Qur'anic basis at all.
There are several other reasons, why Islam has permitted limited polygyny, but it is mainly to protect the modesty of women.
Wrong. Mr. Naik should open the Qur'an and check what it actually says about polygamy. The Qur'an gives a very clear reason If you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphans. (43)
If a child born of such wedlock is admitted in school, and when the mother is asked the name of the father, she would have to give two or more names!
If a child born into a polygamous marriage is admitted in school and is asked the name of the mother, it would have to give two or more names. Is that any better?
Man is more polygamous by nature as compared to a woman.
Same old, same old ... men are always willing and able to have sex, women are created with less libido. That is nonsense; there are men AND women who have a high libido and enjoy having multiple partners.
Biologically, it is easier for a man to perform his duties as a husband despite having several wives. A woman, in a similar position, having several husbands, will not find it possible to perform her duties as a wife.
That is pure speculation. Besides, there are some societies that practice polyandry (a wife having numerous husbands).
A woman undergoes several psychological and behavioral changes due to different phases of the menstrual cycle.
Aha. And from that we conclude that a man can have multiple wifes, but a woman can not have several husbands?
A woman who has more than one husband will have several sexual partners at the same time and has a high chance of acquiring venereal or sexually transmitted diseases which can also be transmitted back to her husband even if all of them have no extra-marital sex. This is not the case in a man having more than one wife, and none of them having extra-marital sex.
wow
This does not make any sense at all, it's utter nonsense. -
Polygamy was invented by men who cannot control their penis. And actually, the New Testament does rule out polygamy in the same way as it rules out divorce
Matthew 19v8-9
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
-
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQaPBU5ppsk
-
He is such a clown. http//img52.imageshack.us/img52/7389/rofln.gif
precisely!
another example
Marriage of Ayesha (ra) with Muhammad (peace be upon him) Dr Zakir Naik
-
I don't understand why so many people flock to hear him. Not only does he talk mostly crap, it is very hard to understand him due to his strong accent, lisp etc. He is a really bad speaker. I can hardly bear listening to him for more than a couple of minutes.
hypno
-
salam leyna,
looks like the British Govt. agrees with u
they've banned him from entering the country..Britain bans Islamic preacher Zakir Naik
PTI, Jun 18, 2010, 06.12pm ISTLONDON Britain has banned controversial Indian Islamic televangelist Zakir Naik, who once claimed that "every Muslim should be a terrorist," from entering the country, citing his "unacceptable behaviour".
Home Secretary Theresa May said 44-year-old Naik would not be allowed to enter the country under laws that can exclude anyone who writes or publishes material that can "foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence".
Indian television preacher Naik was due to give a series of lectures at arenas in Wembley and Sheffield.
May said the doctor was being excluded because repeated comments attributed to him was evidence of his "unacceptable behaviour".
She said "Coming to the UK is a privilege not a right, and I am not willing to allow those who might not be conducive to the public good to enter the UK."Website footage had shown the preacher making the claim that every Muslim should embrace terrorism.
Naik said Muslims should beware of people saying Osama bin Laden was right or wrong, adding "If you ask my view, if given the truth, if he is fighting the enemies of Islam, I am for him.
If he is terrorising the terrorists, if he is terrorising America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, every Muslim should be a terrorist."
He is also reported as saying that western women make themselves "more susceptible to rape" by wearing revealing clothing.
Mumbai-born Naik is a medical doctor by profession, having attained a Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery (MBBS) from the University of Mumbai, India.
Naik is the founder and president of the Islamic Research Foundation (IRF) which is a non-profit organisation. It also owns and broadcasts the free-to-air global Peace TV channel.
reference
http//timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Britain-bans-Islamic-preacher-Zakir-Naik/articleshow/6064154.cms -
Hi harris,
there's already a thread about this
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9600960.0
I completely disagree with the nonsense he is spreading, and I think some of his views on women and rape, for example, are offensive, ignorant, and misleading. His statements about terrorism are debatable, but I don't necessarily think he should be banned for that.
-
oops-a-daisy! didn c tat thread..
well banning him or any other alien for tat matter is the right thing to do if a government has conclusive proof tat he incites negativity into the minds of its people enough to cause more harm than good... brickwall
ofcourse there is freedom of speech, bt then tats for citizens.. -
oops-a-daisy! didn c tat thread..
well banning him or any other alien for tat matter is the right thing to do if a government has conclusive proof tat he incites negativity into the minds of its people enough to cause more harm than good... brickwall
ofcourse there is freedom of speech, bt then tats for citizens..Freedom of speech is only for non Muslims. tempt
-
To protect orphans, as instructed by the Qur'an.
But also to have more children. This is common in tribal societies where the more people the stronger the tribe and family. There is nothing wrong with polygamy if the culture supports that. Marriage means different things to different societies and cultural norms. The Koran did not come to change society. Thats Sunni talk. It came to change people's religion and ethics hence the emphasis on treatment on the Koran regarding wives.
We know many prophets, including Muhammad had more than one wife. But the question here is equal treatment at least to the best of one's ability. If some societies do not approve of that then they don't have to allow it. There is nothing called you can not marry more than four wives. Thats Sunni talk. The verse never said that. Tow, three and four is just an expression of polygamy but not a limitation. The Koran uses such expression.
980-84 Ask forgiveness for them or ask not forgiveness for them; though thou ask forgiveness for them seventy times Allah will not forgive them. ??. And never (O Muhammad) pray for one of them who dieth, nor stand by his grave
Numbers may not mean much but an expression of many or more than one. Sunni tried to counter this argument by coming up with a hadith that said upon this verse Muhammad then proceeded to pray more than 70 times to ask for their forgiveness. Funny that this was one of the hadiths that many early Sunnis refused to accept even if it was Bukhari's hadith. They claimed it encouraged complacency for hypocrisy. But I doubt that. The idea here is to turn that expression into actual meaningful numbers. This was done in my mind the counter the two, three, four argument that some Koranist in the past laid out. If the Koran said do not marry more than four then we can say there are limits. There are no limits and thus the Koran never came t change these practices as they are part of the human cultural evolution and historic experience. This argument is made by Sunnis to justify the theocracy argument and to make it appear the Koran came down to establish a new legal system that was unique. The reality is these practices were always there and were there in many societies in Africa, Middle East or even Asia. The Koran came to change people's religion and not culture or practice unless its oppressive such as burying alive of daughters etc. If societies have problems with polygamy there is no reason why they can't abolish it if they chose or they can allow it if they chose. Can women marry more than one husband? have not seen any reason form the Koran why this can't be allowed also. If this is the cultural norm so be it.
In haj we know that many of these rituals were practiced by pagans and many other societies have religious rituals and rites. The Koran never came to change that but change to whom we should worship and not how. Thatw why Sunni always ask how do we do this and how then do we do that. These things probably existed before Koran and the Koran wen't along with it. The same case with food restriction for the Israelites. The Koran said that these restrictions were there before Moses was even before so God might have wen't along with that. In other times it can be a trial as the case with the Sabbath. The Koran says the Sabbath was introduced as a trial for the Israelites as the case of the direction of Qibla was a trial. It then made it clear that it was there for a specific purpose and it does not reflect a religious tradition as verse 2177 tells us.
-
Saying "treating each wife equally" is stupid because it can mean equally badly. Polygamy is stupid. A man only has one penis so of course if he's f**king a different woman he isn't being a husband to his first wife.
-
Saying "treating each wife equally" is stupid because it can mean equally badly. Polygamy is stupid. A man only has one penis so of course if he's f**king a different woman he isn't being a husband to his first wife.
interesting logic!
-
Saying "treating each wife equally" is stupid because it can mean equally badly. Polygamy is stupid. A man only has one penis so of course if he's f**king a different woman he isn't being a husband to his first wife.
In 'Behind the Veil Male-Female Dynamics in Modern Muslim Society', Fatima Mernissi goes into how polygamy, men's ease at divorce (and the extreme importance of a man's mother, over his wife) contribute to marriages not being secure for the woman. For how can they be? There is no merging of 2 people into a close-knit relationship if that's the case.
-
In 'Behind the Veil Male-Female Dynamics in Modern Muslim Society', Fatima Mernissi goes into how polygamy, men's ease at divorce (and the extreme importance of a man's mother, over his wife) contribute to marriages not being secure for the woman. For how can they be? There is no merging of 2 people into a close-knit relationship if that's the case.
But many monogamous marriages today are also failing. Many polygamous marriages work fine and many monogamous marriages don't. I know polygamous marriages that worked and some that did not usually because the man allowed one woman to dominate and isolate the other wife or wives.
Most people here are looking at it from a cultural prespectives where they see the relationship as sexual. Marriage decision for many traditional societies are not based on sexual desire or even romantic affair.
If you look at many of the ruling families in the Gulf today like Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi etc many have more than one wife. Even Prince Haya, the daughter of King Hussein of Joradan, married the ruler of Dunai. She is his third wife. Its only when neglect comes along as the case with Anwar Sadat and his first wife that trouble happens. Women in traditional societies see marriages perhaps different than today's woman do. But we must never assume this means their marriages will be more successful. Plus people can say polygamy protects against adultery. Maybe and maybe not. But I do not see monogamy as having any bearing to a marriage's successes.
-
Many polygamous marriages work fine and many monogamous marriages don't.
A large-scale study currently underway across Malaysia uncovers proof that polygamy harms everyone involved from emotionally scarred children, to wives who think they?d be better off as single-parent households, and even husbands who admit ?I wouldn?t recommend it for my son; it?s quite stressful.?
When Malaysian women?s rights organisation Sisters in Islam (SIS) argued that polygamy causes social problems and has a negative emotional impact, leading figures of the Islamic establishment in Malaysia would ask, ?What proof do you have??. When SIS cited cases of women who had approached the organisation for legal services or support, the rejoinder was ?That?s only isolated cases? or ?When it?s properly practiced, polygamy can create harmonious family life.?
...http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=16221.15
-
A large-scale study currently underway across Malaysia uncovers proof that polygamy harms everyone involved from emotionally scarred children, to wives who think they?d be better off as single-parent households, and even husbands who admit ?I wouldn?t recommend it for my son; it?s quite stressful.?
When Malaysian women?s rights organisation Sisters in Islam (SIS) argued that polygamy causes social problems and has a negative emotional impact, leading figures of the Islamic establishment in Malaysia would ask, ?What proof do you have??. When SIS cited cases of women who had approached the organisation for legal services or support, the rejoinder was ?That?s only isolated cases? or ?When it?s properly practiced, polygamy can create harmonious family life.?
...http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=16221.15
I think the Islamic figures you are talking about are defending based on ideology. But I also believe the opponents of polygamy are also attacking it based on ideology.