Polygamy - Time to settle the issue
-
Peace,
It all depends on the circumstances that befall a society.
I feel that the circumstances are clear within the text. "If you fear for the orphans"
If there is no shortage of either sex, the reasons for poligamy, masculine or feminine would be due to very particular circumstances, and in that case, there should not be a reason to make a law that allowed poligmy as a universal right, but may be for those very particular circumstances, allow exceptions to be validated through the courts.
If there is shortage acute shortage of either sex, unless there is a very conscientious campaign for celibacy among the more numerous sex, it is very likely that there will be poligamy, whether legal or ilegal. Depending on the extent of the excess of one sex, it may be well advised to authorise and regulate peoligamy. The greater the excess the more difficult it will be to absorb it through celibacy, that is, voluntary celibacy. Involuntary celibacy would result in ilegal poligamy without any regulation and open to abuses.
How can polygamy for females be sanctioned in the Quran? This is the part that I am really not understanding. What a mess that would in regard to the children. Honestly, for me, "marry the single among" is directed toward males and female. We are asked to marry the single, though one such circumstance gives allowance for polygamy. I don't believe polygamy has anything to do with tackling shortages of either sex. I just don't see that in the Quran. Can you please highlight for me as to where shortages of one particular sex, could make polygamy encouraged?
Masculine poligamy, ilegal mostly, with the lovers, or "the other" has existed pretty everywhere, even without shortage of males. For that it took that it was socially tolerated for males. The position of the ilegal wife in those cases not always was good. At certain times it was nothing degrading at others made outcasts of those women.
I understand, but what is wrong is wrong. This is why we have a law for adultery in the Quran, and such a serious one! We need to utilize if the existence of "lovers" outside of marriage can be proven by those 4 witnesses. It has never been socially tolerated, most women (and men) do not put up with that situation even in western society. Unfortunately, they do not utilize the Quranic prescribed punishment for such activities, and such a punishment in fact acts as a deterrence.
To propose celibacy in case of shortage is very well and good, but to impose it will result in wild poligamy, which will still be poligamy, but which may be made to feel good, by not calling it that, but which may be detrimental for those who are ignored in the legal set up.
Those who cannot marry, are encouraged to remain chaste. People are encouraged to marry among different groups in the Quran, if one cannot marry among those who within their socio-economic status, then they are encouraged to marry among the MMA. One can broaden their horizons and marry outside of their community. The world is a big place! We do not have to resort to rampant polygamy just to tackle shortages in either sex. Nowadays, with internet and matchmaking sites, it is almost impossible not to meet someone. Polygamy may help marry off the doomed celibate for life population, but it may also increase the divorce rate, with no proper checks within the system. Also, again, I don't see anything but monogamy encouraged and prescribed, except for an allowance in Chapter 4 for what I know are very genuine reasons
Tehre seems to be some sort of mindblocks whend ealing with aspects such as these, since some people seem to interpret that to allow this or that means that it will be forced on anybody. When the law allows something that does not mean that anybody is forced to do it, but that those who for whatever reason are willing to do it, can do it legally. To allow poligamy of either sex does not mean that anybody can impose poligamy on anybody else, but that those who want to contract it are free to do so.
I understand that everyone will not forced to do it, but the allowance itself will encourage inequalities, by compelling one spouse to accepting the situation, because it is made permissible by law. Polygamy goes beyond sex, I am going to address that in a separate paragraph.
The same with collective or simultaneous marriages, it does not mean that anybody is forced to marry it means, simply, that those marriages are arranged and celebrated at the same time.
I do not have a problem with collective marriages, nor see anything in the Quran discouraging them. However, I do see an issue with the polygamous type. Collective marriages are something that I would put money into ( no lie), as I would like to see people get married (those who wish to)
In today wars, specially those of the first world against the others, since women and children are killed alike, like when bombing cities, we get the "blessing" that the sex proportion is kept stable. But history is not finished no matter what the guy Francis Fukuyama may have said in the title of his book and we do not know what awaits us in the future. They may invent the sex intelligent bomb, like they were also traying to invent the race intelligent bomb.
These are some interesting ideas. Again, in a situation where women (men too, as the MMA category can include men) and children survive in great numbers, we have two options the MMA category as well as polygamy. If the government has enough funds and has not been completely destabilized, then they may also have a role in allocating both money and overseeing the welfare of the women and children. In the case that the government is left in shambles, then it is up to the remaining members of the community, to decide how they want to work things out. Some couples may decide on the MMA option, while others may opt for polygamy for reasons having to do with finance.
Polygamy goes beyond sex. I don't mean to be crude, but sex does not make up the bulk of our time. Polygamy means to spend adequate (and equal) time, money, and resources on all of the families that you are involved with. Who can get hurt the most, if polygamy is practiced with unhappy and neglected family members? The children. Yes, the women as well, we cannot not ignore the psychological impact on women. In can go both ways, and this is why even in the case of caring and protecting the orphans, still God warns the believing men in regard to it.
Salaam
-
Peace All,
Just out of interest. In Nottingham, we have 4 women to one man. Perhaps a good situation for polygamy? Unfortunately, given the economic climate, I fear the men could not afford to look after 1 wife let alone 4!
Women do go further afield though, in the search for a husband. Oftentimes via the Internet. Just an interesting little interlude.
Dawn.
Peace Dawn,
No, not a good situation. If you have read what I wrote, I wrote in regard to the orphans. You are correct, most men cannot master this impossible feat. Even with an desirable economic climate, how does 1 man run from woman to woman, there must be other things he has to do in life? The outcome would be good enough to put into a soap opera.
-
Peace,
I will have to agree. I have never been in a society where women do not have rights, nor where polygamy is permitted. You make very valid points here, and I think that is why other countries have outlawed polygamy, because they know the unfairness that it will more than likely cause.
-Amina
Peace Amina,
I will write to you more (through PM) in this regard, God willing.
-
In 4.3 some of you see an injunction to poligamy. I do not see that there is such injuction to poligamy. I have said it several times. So I am not going to answer anything that is founded on that aya as the sole reason for admitting poligamy in Qur'an. I also said I do not know how many times already that neither poligamy masculine nor femine is prohibited, but that it is clear from the content of the whole Qur'an that the marriage, the standard marriage is the monogamous marriage and that any other must respond to some very serious circumstances which warrant it.
This argument that you give for 4.3 to be justified because of the orphans would in reverse justify poliandry for the orphans. Some lady in the forum wrote something about that, I can't remember the thread. But before that I thought that th Qur'an did put a "no" to poliandry, but after looking at the whole thing carefully I came to the conclusion that there is no prohibition of poliandry as there is no prohibition of poligamy, although, I repeat, it is abundandly clear from the whole of Qur'an that the normal or standard marriage is the monogamous one.
So no, again, no, 4.3 as far as I can see does not speak of poligamy or not poligamy. I have not yet seen a single reason or indication to take it as commanding poligamy.
As to shortage of men or women. Well I did mention, I think also several times, the case of Paraguay after the war against it of the Triple alliance 28 women to 4 men, and almost all of those men tenagers and very old men. If you do not have poligamy, you do not have a country, and please, tell me all the hapilly married women by virtue of what you condemn hundreds of thousand of other women to eternal virginity against their will or not to know motherhood against their will.
Without getting as far as 28 to 4, when the disparity becomes significant, I can't see why women who want to know a man or be mothers should rennounce to it forever so that other women do not have to undergo de pains of poligamy or divorce. In such circumstance, I, no matter how happily married I were, I would certainly not wish for other women what I do not wish for myself. They would also be human beings. If they would prefer to stay single and not become mothers, that is up to them, but I most certainly, in that circumstance, cannot expect them to respect a "monopoly" just because I would not be happy with sharing a very scarce kind of person. As far as I can see, and since the Qur'an does not forbid it, that would be a reason to regulate poligamy legally, so that in fact you do not get a society where singles mothers with children without a legal father would bring about that situation on which some of you seem to be so keen, which is the one depicted in 4.3, that "marry the mothers of the orphans". That is marry the mothers of those children their real fathers have not wanted, or have not wanted to have legally. That is since before there were no orphans, why should you have to share a husband, but after they through illegitimate sex do have orphans, then it is ok and act of charity. I find that very contradictory. And yes, of course, when there is one sex in great minority it bears a very strenuous burden, but that is so more the reason to share that burden as evenly as possible.
Salaam
-
Peace Huruf,
In 4.3 some of you see an injunction to poligamy. I do not see that there is such injuction to poligamy. I have said it several times. So I am not going to answer anything that is founded on that aya as the sole reason for admitting poligamy in Qur'an. I also said I do not know how many times already that neither poligamy masculine nor femine is prohibited, but that it is clear from the content of the whole Qur'an that the marriage, the standard marriage is the monogamous marriage and that any other must respond to some very serious circumstances which warrant it.
I guess this is where we disagree, Huruf. I see 4.3 as the sole verse in the entire Quran that provides the parameters for polygamy. I wouldn't use the word injunction though, as God does also give warnings in this regard as well. I also disagree with you, in that I believe that polyandry is not permitted. It is very important for children to know who their father is. With polyandry, this makes it almost impossible. How are we to know who it was that impregnated the woman?
335 Name them by retaining their fathers names. That is more just with God. But if you do not know their fathers, then, name them as your brothers in the system and your patrons. There is no sin upon you if you make a mistake in this respect; but you will be responsible for what your hearts deliberately intend. God is Forgiver, Merciful.
How do we call them by their father's name, if we do not know exactly is the father? Back in the day, we did not have the science and technology to do paternity tests. However, now we do. Still, in some areas of the world, it is difficult to attain paternity testing. If a child was left at an orphanage, and we do not know who his or her father is, then this unintentional and there is no sin on us. However, if we deliberately make it so, that we do not know who the father is, then there is sin on us. We could have avoided the situation by simply not allowing for polyandry. It appears that the God requires us to preserve the lineage of an individual.
Also, God tell us that men are the maintainers of women. It's not the other way around. Though, if we empower women, they usually are able to take care of themselves just fine. There isn't a single verse that tells us that women will maintain, protect, and care for men in her custody. I know that in remote parts of India and Nepal, polyandry still continues to this day. However, these people are not very concerned with lineage and requiring that the women maintain the men. Today, the practice is dying out even within their communities due to advancements in technology, and younger people moving into the cities.
This argument that you give for 4.3 to be justified because of the orphans would in reverse justify poliandry for the orphans. Some lady in the forum wrote something about that, I can't remember the thread. But before that I thought that th Qur'an did put a "no" to poliandry, but after looking at the whole thing carefully I came to the conclusion that there is no prohibition of poliandry as there is no prohibition of poligamy, although, I repeat, it is abundandly clear from the whole of Qur'an that the normal or standard marriage is the monogamous one.
So no, again, no, 4.3 as far as I can see does not speak of poligamy or not poligamy. I have not yet seen a single reason or indication to take it as commanding poligamy.
It's not really an injunction per say. It's that it becomes permissible within this context. I've written an entire post on the rationale. God speaks speaks of polygamy because the men are marrying the women, it's not the other way around. As a result, polygamy is made permissible.
As to shortage of men or women. Well I did mention, I think also several times, the case of Paraguay after the war against it of the Triple alliance 28 women to 4 men, and almost all of those men tenagers and very old men. If you do not have poligamy, you do not have a country, and please, tell me all the hapilly married women by virtue of what you condemn hundreds of thousand of other women to eternal virginity against their will or not to know motherhood against their will.
I have yet to see hundreds of thousands of women committed to eternal virginity anywhere in the world. Your example on Paraguay is thought provoking, but it still does not give allowance for polygamy unless there are orphans in the picture, and the entire thing is consensual between the initial married couple. Otherwise, it turns into an injustice regardless of who we're saving from "eternal virginity". By the way, there is nothing in the Quran in regard to marrying women so one can save them from having to live celibate lifestyles.
Without getting as far as 28 to 4, when the disparity becomes significant, I can't see why women who want to know a man or be mothers should rennounce to it forever so that other women do not have to undergo de pains of poligamy or divorce. In such circumstance, I, no matter how happily married I were, I would certainly not wish for other women what I do not wish for myself. They would also be human beings. If they would prefer to stay single and not become mothers, that is up to them, but I most certainly, in that circumstance, cannot expect them to respect a "monopoly" just because I would not be happy with sharing a very scarce kind of person. As far as I can see, and since the Qur'an does not forbid it, that would be a reason to regulate poligamy legally, so that in fact you do not get a society where singles mothers with children without a legal father would bring about that situation on which some of you seem to be so keen, which is the one depicted in 4.3, that "marry the mothers of the orphans". That is marry the mothers of those children their real fathers have not wanted, or have not wanted to have legally. That is since before there were no orphans, why should you have to share a husband, but after they through illegitimate sex do have orphans, then it is ok and act of charity. I find that very contradictory. And yes, of course, when there is one sex in great minority it bears a very strenuous burden, but that is so more the reason to share that burden as evenly as possible.
I see what you saying here. Of course, I want for others what I want for myself. However, there are limits to this Huruf. I cannot want for someone else what I want for myself, and then in turn, completely ruin the quality of my own personal life. If you look at the peer reviewed scholar journals I provided in the other thread, you will see that polygamy is often disastrous. I am glad to hear that you would happily accept a polygamous lifestyle, if you felt that there was need for it. However, according to research, most women can't even bear to think of such a lifestyle. Sometimes, in life, things don't go exactly how we wanted them to. I could end up divorced or widowed tomorrow or in the next 5 minutes. However, I wouldn't dream of burdening another family in that way. I would happily become someone's MMA (though I have earning power, so I may not have to), but I wouldn't dare encroach on someone's marriage bed. How selfish of me to want something so badly, that I would compel others to cater to my own needs?
Polygamy without regulation is a slap on the face to women. It allows for men to do as they please, and we have all seen the repercussions of this in sectarian countries around the world. It is an example of a lawless society with little regard for its female citizenry.
Yes, we're human beings. Human beings with feelings. Many of us go into marriages thinking that we have found our soul mate (not always the case), we have found our best friend, our confidante, and the bond is very sacred. It's not something that can be shared as easily as you say. Do you to want to compel women to share this? To give up their rights to a monogamous marriage, no matter what they feel or want? That's an injustice to those women who are and were happily married. How do you keep love and tranquility in a marriage where one spouse feels cheated and betrayed. I wouldn't allow for my husband to marry another, just as I would not give my child to another. These bonds go beyond charity. My husband isn't some scarce material that I can pass on to someone else. He is a human being as well, and that particular aspect of our relationship is beyond special.
Also, who says that the children were born from illegitimate sex? Don't we have adultery and fornication laws to take care of that mess? In a country with these strict laws, such incidents will be rare in the first place. These are widowed and divorced women, and we're taking care of their children either as categorizing them as MMA or through marriage.
Salaam
I'd like to add that there are far worse things in this world, then living a celibate lifestyle. If celibacy were such an issue, then God would not ask us to remain chaste until marriage. Some people get married very late, while others get married rather young. I got married rather late (for my culture's standards), because I wanted to do other things. Also, I never thought I would find anyone with my views.
-
Peace,
One point I forgot to make
You said
I find that very contradictory.
It isn't contradictory. We're talking about orphans here. Children. With the marriage comes more responsibility than just sexual relations. This is the marriage that is truly of convenience. Convenience to the orphans.
-
For God's sake, Realease, It seems that I am talking to a wall, I don't wanto to compel anybody to anything at all, at all, my God.
What I am saying is that anybody can have as beautiful ideals as she or he may want, but that there are or there can be circumstances and there have been historically, where all preconceived notions go through the window and that people may be quite happy just to live to see the next day, widows, or orpahns or divorced or married. You seem to take for granted that because you feel the way you do, that everybody is going to go that same way, and that if there are 20 women to a man, they are going all to think like you and forgo motherhood, forgo sex, yes sex, just because some lady has such beautiful ideas about everything. No. It doesn't work that way, whether I want it to go that way or not does not matter, simply if you have that situation, a certain number of women will prefer celibacy and forgo motherhood, you I suppose would be among them, but many, many women wont, and those women will cling to the men they can catch, and they have a right to do so. They are women and the type of women who needs that kind of thing, that weird thing that is motherhood and sex.
To pretend that to avoid that everybody must prefer ro remain celibate so that those who manage to catch the ones available may enjoy it in royal peace, there it is you who wants to impose things, because of many women prefer to share than forgo altogether sex and motherhood you would be imposing that on them if you forbid poligamy. And besides that it would be to dream of people who are not real people and who on top of that are under no obligation to uphold anything so that some beatiful ideas han be upheld. People are more important than ideas.
If you prefer divorce to poligamy, legal or ilegal, or "adultery", in this case, it is very very likely that you, or if not you many like you, will have your hands full of it in those circumstances, and it is to be expected, not something irrational or wicked, something very understandable.
Salaam
-
Peace All,
I have been watching the discussion and I find the arguments being put forward extremely laudable. I am particularly impressed with Released's insistence on the idea that 43 allows polygamy. Indeed, I believe Edip also believes this.
My own personal view still remains that if we accept that polygamy is allowed, then we cancel out some important verses in the Koran that appear to teach us the importance of monogamy. I do believe that we still have not understood 43, because contradictions exist.
So, as I pointed out before, surah 4 actually begins with God telling us He made a mate for us.
Surah 2235 reminds the men that they can keep the engagement secret. Does that mean his new marriage will come as a surprise to his current wives/wife?
Surah 2187...they are the keepers of your secrets and you the keepers of their secrets... Really? Are secrets really going to be kept between 1 man and 4 women? -
Please release use the quote feature en the message for every part you answer, because if not, if somebody wants to answer, cannot do so in turn, cannot quote your message.
You keep hammering on the 4.3 that it talks about the orphans concerning poligamy. Give that argument to those who accept that assertion. I have told you that I do not see any permission or injunction or anything to do with poligamy in that aya. It does not touch the subject. It says nothing concerning poligamy whether to allow it or to disallow it. So all the arguments you give me founded on that assupmtion on me fall flat. As far as I can see the aya does not say what you take it says.
So the argument that poligamy is only for the sake of the orphans it is useless that you repeat it to me. I abondoned it. It does not wash. It says nothing of the sort.
As to poliandry, well I won't go into that with you. I have repeated too many things too many times to no avail. I do not have time to involve myself on the poliandry issue in those terms.
But however much you may deny it, it is not forbidden, exactly like poliginy. And you should know that not all women are fertile and that all women at one point in their life stop being fertile, apart of course from all those things you mention to determine fatherhood, and the possibility of keeping track of it by simply organising sessions and acts, so that there is no confusion.
Of course nobody wants such a situation where there will be much fewer women than men. It would be a tragedy. But God is very, very foreseeing and if he has not forbiden poliandry he knows better than any lady of the beginning of the xxi century whether at same time or other it will be or not be useful.
And of course nobody is under the obligation whether of poliandry or of poliginy. Given the situation it is to be hoped that there should be voluntaries.
And I think that I am closing my participation in this thread.
Salaam
-
Peace Huruf,
You forgot to include this icon brickwall
One has to forgo these things when they are simply not within reach. As I've said before, celibacy and lack of children are very minor things. They are simply wants and desires. They are not necessities.
No woman has the right to cling to any man out of the need for sex and children. Especially, not when that man happens to be a married man. It's just selfish and greedy. Now, I am truly understanding what your argument is about. It is a terrible thing to cling to a man who is married and impose one's self on someone else's marriage bed. A terrible thing. How dare a woman ruin another's marriage, out of sheer desire. It's not food, water, and shelter, mind you. It's about sex and children. I'm sorry, but that's just terrible.
I would accept a life of celibacy and childlessness as God's will. I would get on with my life and do other things. I would never think of imposing on someone's marriage. May God curse my soul to the deepest pits of Hell, if I were to ever wreck havoc on someone's marriage, regardless of context.
-
Peace All,
I have to say marrying a woman to look after her children sounds a lot like benefactors with benefits. We must remember all this is for the good of the orphans. And we want this to be clear to readers. So far, it sounds like if a bloke has a bit of dosh then he can look after a few women and have lots of sex into the bargain. Sorry, it just does not hang together, unless we have all misunderstand God's view on sex. Perhaps he is a permissive God?
-
Peace Huruf
Please release use the quote feature en the message for every part, because after if somebody wants to answer you cannot do so in turn.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Can you clarify?
You keep hammering on the 4.3 that it alks about the orphans oncerning poligamy. Give that argument to those who accept that assertion. I have told you that I do not see any permission or injuunction or anything to do with poligame in that aya. It does not touch the subject. It says nothing concerning poligamy whether to allow it or to disallow it. So all the arguments you give me founded on that assupmtion on me fall flat. As far as I can see the aya does not say that.
So the argument that poligamy is only for the sake of the orphans it is useless that you repeat it to me. I abondoned it. It does not wash.
As to poliandry, well I won't go into that with you. I have repeated to many things to many times to no avail. I do not have time to involve myself on the poliandry issue iin those terms.
But however much you may deny it, it is not forbidden, exactly like poliginy. And you should know that not all women are fertile and that all women at one point in their life stop being fertile, apart of course from all those things you mention to determine fatherhood, and the possibility of keeping track of it by simply organising sessions, so that there is no confusion.
There is nothing in the Quran that says that man cannot approach his wife at any time. He has not addressed infertile women or organizing one's sex schedule. How do you schedule such a thing? Have you ever been married? How do you schedule sex? By default, the pregnant woman would also have to schedule sex with all of her husbands as well. The whole set up looks and sounds weird.
Of course nobody wants such a situation where there will be much fewer women than men. But God is very, very foreseeing and if he has not forbiden poliandry he knows better than any lady of the beginning of the xxi century.
And of course nobody is under the obligation whether of poliandry or of poliginy.
And I think that I am closing my participation in this thread.
The issue is that you have yet to convince me that 4.3 has nothing to do with polygamy, when it has polygamy written all over it and on both sides of it. Yet, you have arrived at some far fetched conclusion, that makes zero sense to me. I've read all of your responses, and have tried very hard to understand where you are coming from. Yet, it's not making sense to me at all. So, I'll just keep hammering on and on, because I have every right to do so. Yes, I am aware of the fact my interpretation does not resonate with you. I don't expect it to, at this point. Nevertheless, what needs to said has to said.
I know it's your choice, but I do want you to continue in this thread.
-
Peace All,
I have been watching the discussion and I find the arguments being put forward extremely laudable. I am particularly impressed with Released's insistence on the idea that 43 allows polygamy. Indeed, I believe Edip also believes this.
Yup
My own personal view still remains that if we accept that polygamy is allowed, then we cancel out some important verses in the Koran that appear to teach us the importance of monogamy. I do believe that we still have not understood 43, because contradictions exist.
You are entitled to your view, as Huruf is entitled to her viewpoint. However, you cannot expect anyone else to accept your view. This was the point I was trying to make in your thread. In the end, you set the precedent for your marriage. What do you want in your marriage? What don't you want in your marriage? That's up to you.
So, as I pointed out before, surah 4 actually begins with God telling us He made a mate for us.
Surah 2235 reminds the men that they can keep the engagement secret. Does that mean his new marriage will come as a surprise to his current wives/wife?
Surah 2187...they are the keepers of your secrets and you the keepers of their secrets... Really? Are secrets really going to be kept between 1 man and 4 women?As I've said before, polygamy is allowable within very strict parameters and it is monogamy that is encouraged. The verses that you bring forth highlight that monogamy is what is encouraged, and is the norm. However, 4.3 still pertains to polygamy, from my readings and analysis. If you disagree then that is perfectly fine with me.
-
Peace All,
I have to say marrying a woman to look after her children sounds a lot like benefactors with benefits. We must remember all this is for the good of the orphans. And we want this to be clear to readers. So far, it sounds like if a bloke has a bit of dosh then he can look after a few women and have lots of sex into the bargain. Sorry, it just does not hang together, unless we have all misunderstand God's view on sex. Perhaps he is a permissive God?
Permissive God? Please elaborate as I have no idea what this means. It's not all about the money, Dawn. Money isn't everything, though you are going to need it if you plan on providing shelter, food, clothing, education, and etc to these children. Dawn, honestly, did you read my post? It's about being a father to these children. Do you know it is like to be an orphan in the world, without a father? I gave you an example of the kids I work with.
-
Peace Huruf,
You forgot to include this icon brickwall
One has to forgo these things when they are simply not within reach. As I've said before, celibacy and lack of children are very minor things. They are simply wants and desires. They are not necessities.
No woman has the right to cling to any man out of the need for sex and children. Especially, not when that man happens to be a married man. It's just selfish and greedy. Now, I am truly understanding what your argument is about. It is a terrible thing to cling to a man who is married and impose one's self on someone else's marriage bed. A terrible thing. How dare a woman ruin another's marriage, out of sheer desire. It's not food, water, and shelter, mind you. It's about sex and children. I'm sorry, but that's just terrible.
I would accept a life of celibacy and childlessness as God's will. I would get on with my life and do other things. I would never think of imposing on someone's marriage. May God curse my soul to the deepest pits of Hell, if I were to ever wreck havoc on someone's marriage, regardless of context.
Do as you will and have the convictions you wish, but because you have such and such conviction you cannot impose on ALL women that you may leave millions of other women childless because you are ever so moral. All women are not like you. Many women would understand that need and the need for good will towards other women who may not be as virtuous and hardy as you are.
So forbid whatever you want to forbid to yourself, but do not pretend that you are upholding sublime morals, because that is not the case. To other people it is far more moral to share and help each other along under difficult circumstances. They are not obliging you to anything. But have the generosity to let them decide for themselves, and in case it is not clear, because there seems to be such a big block in this, I say VERY DIFFICULT, UNUSUAL, SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, SUCH AS MAY BE SIMILAR TO THE PARAGUAYAN EXPERIENCE. Glory be to God the Paraguayan women did not have such a picky disposition, there would be no Paraguay today. ?Alhamdulillah and may God have in His intimacy those heroic women and men who fought and resurrected from a certain grave that brave and beautiful people and nation! Today they are monogamous, but they were greater than their plight and gave all it took to continue being a people for God's glory.
See
brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwallthere you have some more to practice, I won't need them, I quit.
Salaam
-
Peace All,
Can I humbly point out that this is a discussion. By dint of this fact, we are not always going to agree. I don't know where you all went to school, but I was taught that you remain polite whatever. Also, please remember we are all entitled to our own points of view and that no-one needs to tell us that. I thought that was a natural given. I must say I was surprised when this was pointed out a couple of times. If we are going to fall out then attempting to have a discussion is pointless - especially on such an emotive and controversial topic as polygamy.
-
Peace Huruf,
Do as you will and have the convictions you wish, but because you have such and such conviction you cannot impose on ALL women that you may leave millions of other women childless because you are ever so moral. All women are not like you. Many women would understand that need and the need for good will towards other women who may not be as virtuous and hardy as you are.
Yes, I will leave the women as childless, so that my own marriage doesn't go down the drain, and so my children do not grow up within yet another broken family. Yes, being virtuous and chaste are good things that are encouraged in the Quran, let's all make an effort.
So forbid whatever you want to forbid to yourself, but do not pretend that you are upholding sublime morals, because that is not the case. To other people it is far more moral to share and help each other along under difficult circumstances. They are not obliging you to anything. But have the generosity to let them decide for themselves, and in case it is not clear, because there seems to be such a big block in this, I say VERY DIFFICULT, UNUSUAL, SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, SUCH AS MAY BE SIMILAR TO THE PARAGUAYAN EXPERIENCE. Glory be to God the Paraguayan women did not have such a picky disposition, there would be no Paraguay today. ?Alhamdulillah and may God have in His intimacy those heroic women and men who fought and resurrected from a certain grave that brave and beautiful people and nation! Today they are monogamous, but they were greater than their plight and gave all it took to continue being a people for God's glory.
I am very interested in the Paraguayan experience. Actually, I've been reading up on it. I understand that they lost 70-90% of their male population? Now, I'm not saying that polygamy under such circumstances is permissible merely because women want to have sex and babies, but perhaps to repopulate the community? In such circumstances, a state of emergency could be announced, and polygamy be made lawful to those who are okay with it? (I'm sure the men will be more than okay with is). I don't think 4.3 pertains this reasoning those. Some things become permissible when we are left without a choice, such as eating pork becomes permissible when there is nothing else to hunt and eat? I need to think about it, Huruf, but you've got some points. Though, I did read that many Paraguayans married Brazilians as a result. Interesting, how people speak Guarani along with Spanish. Do you know how long it took for people to go back in the direction of monogamy?
See
brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwall brickwallthere you have some more to practice, I won't need them, I quit.
I know, I feel the same sometimes.
Salaam
-
Peace All,
Can I humbly point out that this is a discussion. By dint of this fact, we are not always going to agree. I don't know where you all went to school, but I was taught that you remain polite whatever. Also, please remember we are all entitled to our own points of view and that no-one needs to tell us that. I thought that was a natural given. I must say I was surprised when this was pointed out a couple of times. If we are going to fall out then attempting to have a discussion is pointless - especially on such an emotive and controversial topic as polygamy.
Where was I not polite? Let me know so that I can catch myself next time, God willing.
-
Peace Released,
By permissive I meant in the sense of a permissive society - anything goes!
The last little boy I worked with, he had sat in a dis-used railway tunnel all night while he waited for his single mum to get home from the pub.
-
Peace Dawn,
Yes, I do not believe that we have a "permissive" God. However, I suppose some things become permissible given dire circumstances, though not to fulfill individual desires.
That's really sad. What is his mother doing at the pub? Does she work there? Or is she just partying?