Number of wives?
-
salam,
i agree with you a 100% in everything you say. and you are absolutley right.
but i must be completely honest with you after everythng i have been through from men wether it be my ex his brothers my father or brothers. if god sent me a man from heaven........i am really hating on all men, and for any women who think that they are above gods law, all lovi dovi with there husbands they can have them,i would rathere live alone for the rest of my life, then have any man of today be my husband, for the very reason is that they have no idea what god is, one either follows religion completely or not at all. >( >( brickwallPeace Anna,
Take it easy sister!!!
Maria
-
Quote from Fahad
No one is forcing those women to get married. If they do not think it is worth it, they wouldn't have gotten married in the first place. Plus, the big number of women left unmarried in a monogamous world, will be more frustrated because they will have no sexual satisfaction at all, except through unlawful means.Yeah, greedy men taking care of multiple women, providing them with family and children! Those women would have been better off prostituting themselves, right? Isn't that what you want?
Again i will ask you to do some research leave your living room and check for yourself those men who have multiple wives whether he is treating all his wives equally or he just care for the last one and others are left on their own and frustrated.
-
Do you really mean equally? One's treatment can be equal and unjust/incorrect at the same time. Have you thought about that? Therefore equal treatment is not what is necessary, but correct treatment.
-
Cannot a monogynous man treat his wife unjustly/incorrectly? If so, why single out the polygynous one?
And have you checked whether they have married that man willfully or they are forced to marry him.
Did you yourself first check whether all monogynous marriages in the world are forced or consensual?
You said no one is forcing those women to get married .
Because, and I have already told you twice, that I was not talking about forced marriages but consensual ones. I don't regard "forced marriage" as a marriage.
Yes and if they marry someone on their free well then they are condemn to death,
Even in a monogamous marriage. Therefore it does not prove anything against polygyny.
Just see here if you have a human heart two days back what happened just right under your nose
http//www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008\11\07\story_7-11-2008_pg7_15http//www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-16112467.html
I know you will say this has nothing to do with your question because you are brought up in a society who considers women as sex object they are tortured and killed if they ask for their rights.
-
Yes I will say that. So please just tell me what it has got to do with the topic of polygyny? Because that couple was monogamous.
-
Why won't you use this news item against monogamy?
Am I wrong that the big number of women left unmarried in a monogamous world will be more frustrated because they will have no sexual satisfaction at all, except through unlawful means?
Am I wrong that every woman has a right to have a husband and children?
Tell me.
Oh so would you please tell us that those women who are left unmarried in your kingdom due to shortage of men or the curse of dowry which you brought with you when you converted from Hinduism.
And by the way you are paying the dowry or ajar or the girl if she is poor she has to remain unmarried forever and pushed to prostitution.Is there any reason in the world that can prove me wrong in my two questions above? Did you even understand the questions? Can you rephrase them in your own words so that I am sure that you understood what I meant?
You haven't answered any of my questions. You can't defend a thing you say.
-
-
salam,
i agree with you a 100% in everything you say. and you are absolutley right.Wa salaam. Thanks.
but i must be completely honest with you after everythng i have been through from men wether it be my ex his brothers my father or brothers. if god sent me a man from heaven........i am really hating on all men, and for any women who think that they are above gods law, all lovi dovi with there husbands they can have them,i would rathere live alone for the rest of my life, then have any man of today be my husband, for the very reason is that they have no idea what god is, one either follows religion completely or not at all. >( >( brickwall
I am sure there are many men who think the same way about women. But you know that they are not right about women, the same way you are not right about men.
-
......, for the very reason is that they have no idea what god is, one either follows religion completely or not at all. >( >( brickwall
Salaam Anna
I agree with you absolutely! If men want more than one wife then give the wives their due rights and support and be there for them. If you can not deal justly with them then only one (not exact quote) AND dealing justly is not easy it's TOUGH!
A) Nowadays "Muslim" men find it diffiult to support even one wife. Most women are expected to, not only raise the children but also to bring home an income and look after the house too. On top of that no man is seriouly interested in taking on another headache as wife but just wants to use and abuse women who come handy as a mistress or a girlfriend.
Most " Muslim" men only think of taking more wives when their heart is set on a woman but they have no regard for the many women who have lost both their husband and their home in the midst of disasters/war, like in Iraq where you see women left to struggle on their own.
B) Many "Muslim" wives on the other hand suspect that their husbands are having fun outside marriage, but the idea of their husband taking another wife is abhorrent to them. In other words they are themselves making it easy for men to have affairs as taking another wife is no piece of cake.
C) The other " Muslim" woman, if she insists on her right to be taken as a wife then, clearly she is not cheaply available for fun only but the other woman, once she sees that the man is in love with her, expects him to break up his family rather than to share him as a husband. She would rather see him have an affair than to be generous enough to share love.
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.? ( >( brickwall -
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?