Number of wives?
-
No, because if she has to share a man, she's only getting half a man, and the existing wife loses half a man. Neither of them have a real husband.
Liquiddharma,
-
What do you mean "no"? Is the "no" about the first point I made or the second? Or do you think I am wrong about both.
-
Where do you get the idea about how a real husband is suppossed to be? What is your criterion/furqan?
-
Is one women getting "half a man/husband" better than the other women getting no husband at all?
-
When do you plan on responding to my response to you here http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597268.msg183254#msg183254 ?
I assure you, "No" was a response to your second point, because only your second point was a question.
I get the idea of what a husband is meant to be from human nature. A husband has one brain and one penis. Both are required to bond with his wife, both physically and psychologically. Human beings are monogamous mammals, chemically speaking.
http//nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ZooGoer/2004/3/monogamy.cfm
Is half a husband better than no husband? I don't think there is much difference morally between multiple wives and multiple husbands. Men and women are not so different. Both are undesirable and both lead to mistrust, exploitation and unhappiness. As I said, when the new wife gains half a husband, the old wife loses half a husband. So instead of having one functioning family, you have two broken families.
I think one functioning family is better than two broken families. But this is a false dichotomy. It is not the case that there are a shortage of men in the world. What is required is for husband a wife to work properly as a team, not to have more children than they can afford to look after, and both to use their skills and talents to keep the family unit working.
Instead of the rich man being a greedy pig, hoarding his wealth in a poor society and marrying all the young girls, he should instead invest his money in the community and create jobs, employ the jobless men so they can earn money and afford to marry the single women. Only backward, ignorant and greedy societies need to use polygamy because they are too corrupt to provide young men with work.
-
-
I assure you, "No" was a response to your second point, because only your second point was a question.
I get the idea of what a husband is meant to be from human nature. A husband has one brain and one penis. Both are required to bond with his wife, both physically and psychologically. Human beings are monogamous mammals, chemically speaking.
http//nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ZooGoer/2004/3/monogamy.cfm
Is half a husband better than no husband? I don't think there is much difference morally between multiple wives and multiple husbands. Men and women are not so different. Both are undesirable and both lead to mistrust, exploitation and unhappiness. As I said, when the new wife gains half a husband, the old wife loses half a husband. So instead of having one functioning family, you have two broken families.
I think one functioning family is better than two broken families. But this is a false dichotomy. It is not the case that there are a shortage of men in the world. What is required is for husband a wife to work properly as a team, not to have more children than they can afford to look after, and both to use their skills and talents to keep the family unit working.
Instead of the rich man being a greedy pig, hoarding his wealth in a poor society and marrying all the young girls, he should instead invest his money in the community and create jobs, employ the jobless men so they can earn money and afford to marry the single women. Only backward, ignorant and greedy societies need to use polygamy because they are too corrupt to provide young men with work.
Humans are not biologically monogomous.
-
I assure you, "No" was a response to your second point, because only your second point was a question.
I get the idea of what a husband is meant to be from human nature. A husband has one brain and one penis. Both are required to bond with his wife, both physically and psychologically. Human beings are monogamous mammals, chemically speaking.
http//nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ZooGoer/2004/3/monogamy.cfm
Is half a husband better than no husband? I don't think there is much difference morally between multiple wives and multiple husbands. Men and women are not so different. Both are undesirable and both lead to mistrust, exploitation and unhappiness. As I said, when the new wife gains half a husband, the old wife loses half a husband. So instead of having one functioning family, you have two broken families.
I think one functioning family is better than two broken families. But this is a false dichotomy. It is not the case that there are a shortage of men in the world. What is required is for husband a wife to work properly as a team, not to have more children than they can afford to look after, and both to use their skills and talents to keep the family unit working.
Instead of the rich man being a greedy pig, hoarding his wealth in a poor society and marrying all the young girls, he should instead invest his money in the community and create jobs, employ the jobless men so they can earn money and afford to marry the single women. Only backward, ignorant and greedy societies need to use polygamy because they are too corrupt to provide young men with work.
bravo bravo
-
Peace Elke.
Peace Fahad,
Well, that means something like 1+1=3...or more
I am sorry, i dont understand. How?
As to the statement of your last sentence ... i do not believe that polygamy reduces prostitution...
How many prostitutes do you think would have practiced polyandry if they could find a husband?
you know there are women that know how to gain a living without opening their legs for it
And there are women who don't. Plus, its not just about the financial needs. Its about their need to open their legs.
...AND a woman doing just that, as long as she's not being paid for it, is IMO not a prostitute.
Payment can be made in forms other than money. If she is getting whatever she wants from the man, thats her payment, her reward.
And what about male prostitution ?
What about it?
-
Humans are not biologically monogomous.
This is why I posted the link - it is quite detailed in describing the biochemistry of monogamy in mammals - including humans
Give a vole a dose of cocaine and dopamine is released in its nucleus accumbens. Likewise, let a vole mate for 24 hours, and dopamine is released in its nucleus accumbens. This holds true for every mammal, including humans, in which scientists have studied dopamine levels.
And now here's the trick, the little smackerel of data upon which this whole story hinges Monogamous voles, and every other monogamous mammal scientists have examined, have nucleus accumbens that are absolutely lousy with oxytocin receptors. The presence of these receptors means that when oxytocin is released by that 24-hour bout of mating, the nucleus accumbens can't help but stand up and take notice, neurons ablaze like fireworks on the Fourth of July.
Non-monogomous voles, on the other hand, don't have any oxytocin receptors in their nucleus accumbens. They likely find mating pleasurable, because the feel-good molecule dopamine is dumped all over the feel-good nucleus accumbens. But because they lack the proper receptors, their nucleus accumbens can't "hear" the wailing klaxon of billions of little oxytocin molecules flooding their brains. As a result, montane voles don't associate mating with a specific kind of pleasure with a specific partner. If we could read the montane vole's thoughts, he or she would be thinking "Gee, sex feels great!" Whereas the monogamous prairie vole would be thinking, "Gee, sex with this particular partner feels great!"
In this way, we can imagine that voles, humans, and many other monogamous mammals come to associate a particular partner with reward.
Note - the definition of monogamy in science is different from our definition. These biologists mean 'social monogamy' - i.e. the mammal prefers to live with one partner. It doesn't mean they don't cheat (i.e. commit adultery). They do, after all, they are animals. But they are monogamous because they fall in love with, choose to live with and regularly mate with only one partner - and this is chemically determined. Likewise, many human beings - men and women - engage in casual sex. However, this doesn't mean they aren't biologically monogamous, they still fall in love with one person. It's just that they don't have the strength of will to make good on this and live together properly.
I think religion in general, and Islam in particular, is something that is meant to help us to gain this will power we need to live properly an in accordance with out human nature.
-
Finally I reiterate that I don?t find polygyny unfair to women as you are not allowed to inherit women by force nor are you allowed to take a woman for granted. In fact, if properly understood, it is to safeguard women against abuse. It would stop men from deceiving their wives and abusing other women behind the shield of monogamy but, sadly not many Muslim men understand the logic behind Polygyny and one forum member, who considers himself to be ?The voice of God? did not acknowledge the responsibilities associated with taking a wife but is, I believe, the whisper of a very different Potentate. He wrote
?If the gentleman had married one woman, went on to marry another woman, then married a third woman, all three without giving any one of them a talaq, this gentleman is well within the hudood, he has a right accorded to him by Allah to have more than one wife. To speak ill of his conduct is gheebat, his conduct is that of a momin.? > brickwallHere we go another "momin? within Hudood
The THREE wives of former clergyman march to court as he is accused of bigamy and ?10,000 forgery
By Daily Mail Reporter
Although he was not in court, it was clearly a day the three wives of former church minister Roderick Sangster were determined not to miss.
In court they heard that Sangster, who is accused of bigamy and forgery, was a conman who used vulnerable women to get his hands on money.
The trial at Warwick Crown Court, which took place in the 58 year old's absence, heard how Sangster had targeted women, conning them out of cash before moving on
peace
http//www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1085141/Pictured-The-THREE-wives-clergyman-march-court-accused-bigamy-10-000-forgery.html -
Its not what I expect or is something in the back of my mind but this is what several studies on men have shown that men are generally polygamous.
peaceIf studies (what studies) suggest that men are generally polygamous, then why are some people here using their logic to prove that the quran is against polygny?
-
I am 100% sure that any study conducted among whores will show that women phantastically poligamous. It will also show that poligamy practiced by women does not enhance their social status.
Any study will show that men(males) are naturally monogmous, poligamous, murderers, heroes, saints, mathematically gifted, ungifted, etc. etc.
I do not mean to discourage anybody from conducting studies. Far from it, but we should look at what we can readily see without taking the trouble of doing any "study" that men (and women) are naturally capable or inclined or disinclined to practiclly everything. It is not a naturally predetermined thing but a social, moral and individual materialisation of conditioning through education, peer approval or dispproval, prestige, acceptance, general moral values or lack of them of the community or society in which the persons live and as many etcs. as you may care to add.
Natural monogamy or poligamy doesn't exist, the same way that heterosexuality or homo or bi or bestilism or any of those things doesn't exist except where physiologically determined. To a great extent man is not "natural" but made out of mud, that is, eminently fashionable, like putty. So studying any of its "naturally" givens will not lead us anywhere. WE OURSELVES SHOULD DETERMINE where we want to go. No "nature" is going to solve our problems for us nor relieve us of our responsibility for fashining our own destiny.
This reliance on "nature" to derive principles to guide humand kind is not very different from the reliance of certain supermuslims on the purported "complete system" of life where everything is presolved, failsafe and pefectly foreseen and structured to the minutest detail, so that if we follow to the dot, our society will be perfect so that we may logically conclude that the need to go to Paradise is obviated.
Salaam
-
I am 100% sure that any study conducted among whores will show that women phantastically poligamous. It will also show that poligamy practiced by women does not enhance their social status.
Any study will show that men(males) are naturally monogmous, poligamous, murderers, heroes, saints, mathematically gifted, ungifted, etc. etc.
I do not mean to discourage anybody from conducting studies. Far from it, but we should look at what we can readily see without taking the trouble of doing any "study" that men (and women) are naturally capable or inclined or disinclined to practiclly everything. It is not a naturally predetermined thing but a social, moral and individual materialisation of conditioning through education, peer approval or dispproval, prestige, acceptance, general moral values or lack of them of the community or society in which the persons live and as many etcs. as you may care to add.
Natural monogamy or poligamy doesn't exist, the same way that heterosexuality or homo or bi or bestilism or any of those things doesn't exist except where physiologically determined. To a great extent man is not "natural" but made out of mud, that is, eminently fashionable, like putty. So studying any of its "naturally" givens will not lead us anywhere. WE OURSELVES SHOULD DETERMINE where we want to go. No "nature" is going to solve our problems for us nor relieve us of our responsibility for fashining our own destiny.
This reliance on "nature" to derive principles to guide humand kind is not very different from the reliance of certain supermuslims on the purported "complete system" of life where everything is presolved, failsafe and pefectly foreseen and structured to the minutest detail, so that if we follow to the dot, our society will be perfect so that we may logically conclude that the need to go to Paradise is obviated.
Salaam
A whore does not get married. And no, Mutah is not valid.
As for your rejection of knowledge. Surely that's why the mu'slims fell. Especially those who said "we ourselves should determind where we want to go". Yes, I'm sure the tribe of Israel said the same to the god.
As for your method of thinking, I don't think I could accept that. One goes to those who know, not to those who have many opinions.
-
Where do I reject knowledge my dear? And whose knowledge are you talking about?
At any rate I don't see in your post an answer to my post, I see a dogmatic rejection of my post by not anything that enlightens as to what you oppose to it or your understanding of it, other than an opinion of what you think I have in mind and there you seem to have got it wrong. You seem to be more in a hurry to be judgmental of what you think others think than to study the matter thoroughly.
As to those who know, my dear, only God knows, and only God knows who knows what, anything else is just opinion.
Salaam
-
Where do I reject knowledge my dear? And whose knowledge are you talking about?
At any rate I don't see in your post an answer to my post, I see a dogmatic rejection of my post by not anything that enlightens as to what you oppose to it or your understanding of it, other than an opinion of what you think I have in mind and there you seem to have got it wrong. You seem to be more in a hurry to be judgmental of what you think others think than to study the matter thoroughly.
As to those who know, my dear, only God knows, and only God knows who knows what, anything else is just opinion.
Salaam
Have you've forgotten what the god gave to adam in Quran 230-39, specifically Quran 231?
Also, what do you understand from Quran 217 and 1643, specifically Quran 217?
And please let's stop being off topic regarding this thread, perhaps create a new thread, but unless we stick to polygny.
You said that reliance on nature is some how bad, but what of Quran 453? If such is what the god is refering to, we'd be wrong to deny research of nature when it comes to figuring out verses of the quran and thus giving an interpretation of the quran, no?
-
salam simple. polygyny is wajib. polygyny is not fard, haram, or makruh.
there is no limit on the number of wives a momin can have in the quran. what is even more important, is that the right to more than one wife is conferred on the husband, it is a man's discretionary right. there is an exception, the prophet was told he could have no more wives except from those in his guardianship 3352.
those who seek to interfere with this right, men or women, interfering with the laws of allah, comitting shirk, adding words to the quran, associating themselves with allah, are warned their hands are testifying against them. their hands will testify against them on the day of judgment.
in response to the women who lie and claim they are not polygamous, i have found that they have had more than one man go into them, therefore they are liars and polygamous.
allah is the truth and the law
-
Surely you are mistaken al araf - many of the Prophet's wives had previous husbands, so "having more than one man" does not mean you are polygamous.
-
liquiddharma. your claim betrays nothing short of utter ignorance. ignorance of english. ignorance greek, from which the particular english word is borrowed. in this age of the computer, there is no excuse for blithely posting on the forum, without doing your research.
polygamy is a greek word. poly means multiple in greek. gamy means going in. polygamy means multiple going in. the word polygamy defined the greek practice of going into young boys and later going into women. medieval europe took this word and altered the defintion to describe the biblical restriction on a woman marrying more than once, that a woman could not get a divorce, and if her husband died she had to be locked up. post medieval europe got rid of the widows restriction leading to the current "serial monogamy" claim of definition. currently the "serial monogamy" definition is, one husband at a time. this sequence of events demonstrates that pagan europe never knew what was right in the first instance, did not have it right in the second instance, and do not have it right in the third instance. the fact that they change the meaning of a word to suit their arbitrary practices and fashions, demonstrates their pagan blundering around.
the word polygamy does not exist in the quran. using this pagan term demonstrates the pagan influences on the speaker. to compare the actions of the prophets to this greek word, is ludicrous, and those that seek to impose this greek word on muslim practices are pagans who try and bring their pagan practices along with them. listeners for the sake of a lie. people who will only believe if they can find something that they think is the same as their pagan beliefs in the quran. a person who utters the word polygamy cannot be a muslim or a momin. the fact they use the term polygamy is their mouth and hands testifying against them, that they worship the greek gods and the laws of greece.
the prophets follow the hudood, plural of hadd, the limits and laws established by allah. it is jaiz, and wajib for a muslim and momin, to have multiple zawj and amrat fi malkat aymanakum. in english, it is permitted and optional for a believer and practitioner to have multiple wives and wards held in righteousness.
allah is the lawgiver.
-
Assalaam Alaikum
Excellent topic Simple. Unfortunately, (for the Men) the polgamy reference in Sura Nisa 43 is a mistranslation in english and misinterpretation along with a 'lustful' fallacy developed by Men.
Allah makes it clear.....
MARRY THOSE AMONG YOU WHO ARE SINGLE, and the virtuous ones among yourselves, male or female. if they are in poverty, Allah will give them means out of His grace. for Allah encompasseth all, and he knoweth all things.
Thus the ayah An-Nur 24.32 destroys the polygamous fallacy.
If the female Musilimah's gave the married Males who approach them Sura An-Nur 24.32, the fallacy and misinterpretation would cease to exist.
Now for those Men who believe they can still practice Polygamy, 'because Muhammad did'
Allah addresses these Men in the following Sura and ayahs....
Wa-ith taqoolu lillathee anAAama Allahu AAalayhi waanAAamta AAalayhi
amsik AAalayka zawjaka waittaqi Allaha / amsik AAalayka zawjaka waittaqi Allaha = Keep your dignity with your wife/mate and have regard for Allahwa tukhfee fee nafsika / and Be aware of your soul;your inner feelings
ma Allahu mubdeehi watakhsha alnnasa waAllahu ahaqqu an takhshahufa lamma qada zaydun minha wataran zawwaj nakaha li-kaa (for YOU) la yakoona AAala almu/mineena harajun fee azwaji adAAiya-ihim itha qadaw minhunna wataran wakana amru Allahi mafAAoolan
Any excesses (i.e. polygamy, oppressing women, etc.) that were practiced in regards to females and marriage have now ENDED and those practices should cease.
O those who believe in the Prophet! ....ANY BELIEVING WOMAN WHO DEDICATES HER SOUL TO THE PROPHET IF THE PROPHET WISHES TO WED HER;- THIS ONLY FOR YOU, AND NOT FOR THE BELIEVERS / waimraatan muminatan in wahabat nafsaha lilnnabiyyi in arada alnnabiyyu an yastankihaha/ khalisatan/ laka min dooni almumineena
Yastankihaha (imperfect, 3rd person) wish to marry
Dictionary of the Holy Quran page 577 (nakaha)Khalisatan (active participle) Distinct Quality, Someone with exclusive right, one who is pure, genuine, best choice, most excellent; Mukh-la-san / Mukh-lee-san means one who is Chosen, Chosen by Allah, pure from pollution or hypocrisy, pure & sincere towards Allah, purely believing in the unity of Allah (applied to a Human)
Lanes Lexicon Volume 2 page 785-787;
Online Single Page http//www.studyquran.co.uk/LLhome.htm
Dictionary of the Holy Quran page 161 (khalasa)
Sorry (ladies) gentlemen, Allah makes it clear you can nolonger practice excesses and marry all the women you want. The exclusive right to practice polygamy in its true sense was ONLY relegated to the Prophets of Allah
Now we can address Sura Nisa 43 in light of the truth.