Why are men allowed four wives in Islam?

[Mamoon]

Read the post properly. It was in reference to why the rule came about in the first place. I don't think they had DNA testing 1400 years ago, but then again I could be wrong - perhaps you have better info?

True. That explanation was perfectly reasonable for that time.

 

[James]

Think twice before you post anything about ISLAM.

He didn't.

 

[akheR]

Islam was born in a turbulent era, in the harsh desert of Arabia plagued by tribal warfare ; in a patriarchal society where you're recognized by your paternal line, to have children was a sociological imperative, and in such barbarian society, polygamy was the only solution to maintain the tribe alive.
But in fact, if you follow the Quranic orders, polygamy (or stoning) is impossible as one of the conditions (see sura 4/verse 3) is to treat the wives "equally", that you can either understand in regard to the material conform (which would mean that Islam is a bourgeois religion favouring the rich) or in nobler, moral way (to treat all of them equally on the emotional level, which is de fact impossible.)

Also, you can see that in civilizations which are at their apex there's not only tolerance but literal encouragement for pederasty/homosexuality, in order to maintain a good demographic balance, considering that with economic prosperity comes demographic surplus.

 

[Ims1]

When did I post anything against Islam?

How is Arabia of 1400 years before not a primitive society?

This threatening postures[ by poster you quoted ]on forum are one thing but when this intolerance,insecurity & persecution complex gets translated in to some thing violent in real life is when i worry .

 

[Cracket]

I feel all is good if its agreeable by both the partners, there's nothing wrong with polygamy (the complicated part here is - No authoritative or abusive force was used by the male in order to get the female to agree with him).

And I mean it both ways. The world today will ofcourse never tolerate a women having two husbands. I wonder why that is and what values makes it okay for Men to have multiple partners and not women?

In any case - there's a better way to go about enjoying a life where you enjoy close relationships with many partners. Its called living the bachelor life.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Yes he can which is why Quran does not stop a man from marrying more than once.

If there are fertility issues, he can marry. It's a logical solution and nothing wrong with it.

Then it's applicable in modern society too. I'm glad you have taken back your silly statement.

I second IndiaFan's question on your logic based argument...

Many men are unable to have children...whether it be through impotence or simply not having strong soldiers...surely then the woman should be allowed to marry again so she can give birth going by your logic...

On a serious note...if she can't give birth then how does that become a reason to get another wife...either don't have children or adopt...thats what most people do...

This argument doesn't hold up just like the male-female ration argument doesn't hold up...

I was merely replying to post which suggested women are capable of looking after themselves so don't need to share a husband to which I added an alternative reason for marrying more than one.

Of course men can be impotent but we know women cant marry more than one man for other reasons. If you don't agree with these reasons then up to you, I find them very reasonable.

 

[KingKhanWC]

In any case, leaving your spouse or marrying again just because she's infertile is a pathetic thing to do. You can adopt a kid instead or take the blame if you love her so much.

Didn't your parents split up for a lesser reason than this? Perhaps you should lecture them first?

Not everybody wants to adopt. Many people prefer to have their own children and if they prefer this option then there is no harm.

 

[Mamoon]

Didn't your parents split up for a lesser reason than this? Perhaps you should lecture them first?

Not everybody wants to adopt. Many people prefer to have their own children and if they prefer this option then there is no harm.

Which is why I don't have much respect for them. I love them because they are my parents, but I don't look up to them. I think they are two selfish individuals.

Of course everyone has his/her own desires, but I was stating my opinion. Not giving a fatwa.

In my opinion, ditching your wife because of something this is beyond her control is diabolical and not many women happily permit her husband to remarry for children. Most of them that do are influenced by family pressures.

 

[Mamoon]

Then it's applicable in modern society too. I'm glad you have taken back your silly statement.

Did you read my initial statement?

I said Quran does NOT stop a man from marrying more than one wife but in no way does it encourage it even remotely.

There is a big difference between the two.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Which is why I don't have much respect for them. I love them because they are my parents, but I don't look up to them. I think they are two selfish individuals.

Of course everyone has his/her own desires, but I was stating my opinion. Not giving a fatwa.

Aren't you being selfish wanting a couple to stay together just because they can baby sit you?

Did you read my initial statement?

I said Quran does NOT stop a man from marrying more than one wife but in no way does it encourage it even remotely.

There is a big difference between the two.

You are correct but the fact remains Islam allows you to marry more than one wife for various reasons. Many of these reasons are still valid today and will remain so forever. This was not a temporary ruling as you claimed.

 

[Mamoon]

This threatening postures[ by poster you quoted ]on forum are one thing but when this intolerance,insecurity & persecution complex gets translated in to some thing violent in real life is when i worry .

You should address him in this case, not me.

 

[Cracket]

Aren't you being selfish wanting a couple to stay together just because they can baby sit you?

That is not being selfish in the slightest. They made the decision to bring a human being into this world which come with responsibilities - like babysitting that child until he is of an age where he can take care of himself.

This is how our species continue and we get more productive members of society. Or are babies just supposed to feed, raise, entertain themselves?

Did your parents spend enough time on you? Doesn't look like it.

 

[Mamoon]

Aren't you being selfish wanting a couple to stay together just because they can baby sit you?

If you can't stay together, don't have kids.

Once you become parents, your personal petty grudges need to go for a walk because one day the kid is going to grow up and he will succumb to the social pressures that a divorcee kid does.

That is not about being selfish, its about consideration for the people who will suffer throughout their growing years for a decision that they had no say in and had no fault whatsoever.

I was born years after my parents were onto each other's throats and I don't see the logic behind it.

 

[AbdulrazzaqFan]

The Quran does not give a man permission to marry more than one wife. The Quran just doesn't forbid marrying more than one. There is a big difference.

1400 years ago in the desert. In time of war. It became necessary.


This ayat was delivered to the Prophet PBUH after the battle of Uhud. It only makes sense why it was after the battle. In that small village of Medina, which was not even a city but a small scattered settlement, most of the men died. Leaving behind women and children. Orphans. There was no concept of an orphanage.

Absolute nonsense, the Arabs were polygamous even before Islam & this ayah came down. They used to have tens of wives until this ayah came down and some of them had to divorce those wives and limit the number to 4. Also, are you claiming that Prophet saw's time was the only time in history when Muslims fought wars and there was an increase of women & orphaned children? If that's your argument then it's a foolish one. There have been many wars after the passing away of Rasool Allah saw and even presently in many countries and therefore we can assume that the percentage of women in those countries & times would be higher than men. This logic then goes out the window. The permissibility of polygyny has nothing to do with war so don’t make up your own history.

This was a primitive society with no education. No real way for a woman to earn a living. Mostly the way to earn bread for your family was hard physical labor. That is why the prophet said marry the women so you can take responsibility for their children. It was a necessity, for that time.

Not applicable now in this society.

Even today, most uneducated/less educated women in Islamic countries find it difficult to sustain a living. Furthermore, this isn’t the only reason that women marry; they too like men have physical and emotional needs which need fulfilling. Thus, to attribute the reasons for marriage to survival is plain nonsense. Spare us from issuing fatwas. Polygyny is still as applicable today as it was in past.

If God thought having more than one wife was the way to start a family, he would have created four Eves for Adam.

If God thought that marrying more than one woman was wrong, then he would never have allowed it.

The illogical baseless reasons provided by the general Mullah population are beyond stupid. They are actually quite funny.

Quite the contrary, it is you who’s illogical because it’s you who’s having a problem reconciling the idea that Allah indeed has allowed men to marry more than one women WITHOUT a necessity. If he married his first wife to fulfill his lust and start a family, then it is perfectly fine for him to marry another woman for similar reasons, given that he takes full responsibility of both in terms of their physical and financial needs. The Quran does not give any of these reasons that liberals project neither does the Sunnah of the Prophet saw. It is only the conjecture of those that want to rationalize everything in deen. The only criterion that the deen puts forward is taking of equal responsibility – and that’s it; anything else is mere conjecture which should be ignored.

 

[FusedBulb]

The world today will ofcourse never tolerate a women having two husbands.

Actually there are cases in India where a woman has more than one husband.

 

[KingKhanWC]

That is not being selfish in the slightest. They made the decision to bring a human being into this world which come with responsibilities - like babysitting that child until he is of an age where he can take care of himself.

This is how our species continue and we get more productive members of society. Or are babies just supposed to feed, raise, entertain themselves?

Did your parents spend enough time on you? Doesn't look like it.

Being an Indian you're lucky you're weren't a female, abortion could have the time spent by your parents with you.

My parents haven't left me and taught me about my identity which is why I don't spend any time on Indian dominated forums. Perhaps your parents didn't explain you're Indian but I can't understand you wanting to be around Pakistani's more, which Indian in their right mind wouldn't

 

[DeadlyVenom]

) KKWC back with a bang!

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Out of interest what makes a society primitive?

 

[chaiwala]

Read the post properly. It was in reference to why the rule came about in the first place. I don't think they had DNA testing 1400 years ago, but then again I could be wrong - perhaps you have better info?

I read it perfectly fine, which is why is said the reason was no longer applicable. So I guess we can all agree that it's perfectly acceptable for women to have 4 husbands given that they have access to a paternity test.

 

[Yossarian]

And I mean it both ways. The world today will ofcourse never tolerate a women having two husbands. I wonder why that is and what values makes it okay for Men to have multiple partners and not women?.

I read it perfectly fine, which is why is said the reason was no longer applicable. So I guess we can all agree that it's perfectly acceptable for women to have 4 husbands given that they have access to a paternity test.

Funnily enough, Polyandry (- a woman having multiple husbands - at the same time) is still practiced in parts of India and a few other places around the globe. You need to brush up on your facts fella's before jumping to conclusions.

Polyandry in Tibet was a common practice and continues to a lesser extent today. In Tibet, polyandry has been outlawed since the Chinese takeover of the area, so it is difficult to measure the incidence of polyandry in what may have been the world's most polyandrous society.[17] Polyandry in India still exists among minorities, and also in Bhutan, and the northern parts of Nepal. Polyandry has been practised in several parts of India, such as Rajasthan, Ladakh and Zanskar, in the Jaunsar-Bawar region in Uttarakhand, among the Toda of South India,[17] and the Nishi of Arunachal Pradesh.[citation needed]

It also occurs or has occurred in Nigeria, the Nymba,[17] and some pre-contact Polynesian societies,[18] though probably only among higher caste women.[19] It is also encountered in some regions of Yunnan and Sichuan regions of China, among the Mosuo people in China, and in some sub-Saharan African such as the Maasai people in Kenya and northern Tanzania[20] and American indigenous communities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry

 

[ElRaja]

Out of interest what makes a society primitive?

one in which contempory societal norms that have evolved and stood the test of time were not previously present?

im just hypothesising, was so bored of all the other topics on TP felt i needed to interject somewhere.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

one in which contempory societal norms that have evolved and stood the test of time were not previously present?

im just hypothesising, was so bored of all the other topics on TP felt i needed to interject somewhere.

How much time must elapse before we can judge if something 'stood' the test of time'?

 

[ElRaja]

How much time must elapse before we can judge if something 'stood' the test of time'?

hard to quantify, id say any time span that spanned two different generations and was still present.... would imply acceptance as normal by a given society.

im pbly waffling, i dont know, what do you think?

 

[shaykh]

In terms of polyandry...we live in an age where birth control exists as do DNA tests...there is no issue with determining the father of a child...

And still no-one has answered a question about equal treatment...its not measurable and frankly not possible to treat partners equally...and what does treat them equally even entail?...

 

[DeadlyVenom]

I wouldn't measure a society being primitive by what you mentioned. Its about how they governed themselves, if they had an ability to write, contact with the wider world, recognition of crime/justice/morality and technological advancement.

The society that Muhammad (saw) established in Madina was in no way primitive, it was a civilization that ended up spanning the globe and whose legal system exists to this day and is in some shape or form followed by 1/6th of the planet ( isn't primitive by your definition either).

Its very unjust and incorrect to label it primitive as Mamoon did.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

In terms of polyandry...we live in an age where birth control exists as do DNA tests...there is no issue with determining the father of a child...

And still no-one has answered a question about equal treatment...its not measurable and frankly not possible to treat partners equally...and what does treat them equally even entail?...

You play devils advocate a lot.

What is your opinion on polygamy as it was practiced in Muhammads (saw) time? Given that you feel that its impossible to treat someone equally.

 

[Yossarian]

^^ fair enough. Lets then call it 'not as advanced' instead of 'primitive'.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

^^ fair enough. Lets then call it 'not as advanced' instead of 'primitive'.

In what way though? Technologically?

 

[ElRaja]

I wouldn't measure a society being primitive by what you mentioned. Its about how they governed themselves, if they had an ability to write, contact with the wider world, recognition of crime/justice/morality and technological advancement.

The society that Muhammad (saw) established in Madina was in no way primitive, it was a civilization that ended up spanning the globe and whose legal system exists to this day and is in some shape or form followed by 1/6th of the planet ( isn't primitive by your definition either).

Its very unjust and incorrect to label it primitive as Mamoon did.

so are you talking about relative primitivism, i.e. being more or less advanced than societies around them, or absolute primitivism, being more or less advanced than contemporary society, since if technological advancement and contact with the wider world is a measure of primitivism then surely even society 200 years ago would be considered primitive compared to today?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

so are you talking about relative primitivism, i.e. being more or less advanced than societies around them, or absolute primitivism, being more or less advanced than contemporary society, since if technological advancement and contact with the wider world is a measure of primitivism then surely even society 200 years ago would be considered primitive compared to today?

A bit of both. The technological and contact with the wider world have to be relative. Systems of governance etc are absolute.

 

[Yossarian]

In terms of polyandry...we live in an age where birth control exists as do DNA tests...there is no issue with determining the father of a child...

And still no-one has answered a question about equal treatment...its not measurable and frankly not possible to treat partners equally...and what does treat them equally even entail?...

'Treating them equally' implies a master/slave or master/servant relationship between the husband and wife/wives. Whereas the whole (in theory) purpose of marriage is to form a relationship based upon love and equality, albeit with different roles and responsibilities (- which, in reality, is seldom the case, even in 'happy' marriages in the 'enlightened' West)

 

[chacha kashmiri]

As a direct 'victim' of polygamy, i can see the dangers if it is not done in accordance with all it's obligations

Although there is a difference in schools, i.e in the hanafi fiqh you have to ask your wife's permission to marry again , in the shaf'ee fiqh you don't

Alot of people defend polygamy by comparing it against current western culture and the fact most men have alot more partners than 4
It's the wrong thing to do, looking at the flaws of another system is not a way to win the argument.

The only thing to really say is that has Allah allowed it, the prophet pbuh followed it, the sahabas followed him and if man wants to do and do it the halal way, there's nothing islamically you can say to stop him.

 

[ElRaja]

A bit of both. The technological and contact with the wider world have to be relative. Systems of governance etc are absolute.

what forms of governance would you consider primitive?

 

[Yossarian]

In what way though? Technologically?

A combination, to varying degrees, of technology, ie knowledge of the workings of the world around us (- which in itself is relative), education, commerce, self governance (again relative), and numerous other factors.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

what forms of governance would you consider primitive?

Monarchy/despotism/plutocracy, especially where there are no codified laws or a courts system.

 

[Yossarian]

As a direct 'victim' of polygamy, i can see the dangers if it is not done in accordance with all it's obligations

.....


The only thing to really say is that has Allah allowed it, the prophet pbuh followed it, the sahabas followed him and if man wants to do and do it the halal way, there's nothing islamically you can say to stop him.

I believe you've contradicted yourself. Islam does'nt/should'nt create 'victims' as a result of following it. And as you've said, if done, it needs to be done in accordance with all it's obligations (which should include adhering to the reasons and circumstance pertaining in the society at the time).

In which case, Islamically speaking, you can and should dissuade him, perhaps even stop him, unless and until he fulfills those obligations, and the circumstances under which Islam allows it also exist at the time.

You mention the Prophet (pbuh) having multiple wives - I put it to you that is was not done for personal satisfaction or desire but for the needs of the society pertaining at the time. In which case, Islam should not allow multiple wives per se, or simply for pleasure and desire, but to fulfill the needs of the society depending upon the circumstances at the time.

 

[shaykh]

You play devils advocate a lot.

What is your opinion on polygamy as it was practiced in Muhammads (saw) time? Given that you feel that its impossible to treat someone equally.

Well the Quran gave the Prophet special privileges...he was allowed to marry more than 4 at one time due to his perceived ability to treat them all equally whatever that may mean...we simply presume he treated them all well...and he had no preferences for one over the other...

The focus on your normal man is on whether he can treat them equally:

“But, if you fear that you will not maintain equity, then [marry only] one.” (4:3)

So essentially what?...If i decide yes I can treat them equally then yep I might as well marry more than one...nothing measurable and as stated...not possible...

Polygamy was standard back then prior to the Prophet and continued with him...the practice of concubinage continued with him also...

Mariyah was a gift from an Egyptian king...

The likes of Rayhāna bint Zayd ibn ʿAmr were war booty...

Its debated as to whether he actually married his slaves or they remained as such...Mariyah for instance bore a son for the Prophet...

I would argue that having wives and slaves can hardly be defined as treating women equally...

Furthermore on the angle of polyandry...if a woman is unable to have children then her having multiple husbands holds no issue...

 

[chacha kashmiri]

I believe you've contradicted yourself. Islam does'nt/should'nt create 'victims' as a result of following it. And as you've said, if done, it needs to be done in accordance with all it's obligations (which should include adhering to the reasons and circumstance pertaining in the society at the time).

In which case, Islamically speaking, you can and should dissuade him, perhaps even stop him, unless and until he fulfills those obligations, and the circumstances under which Islam allows it also exist at the time.

You mention the Prophet (pbuh) having multiple wives - I put it to you that is was not done for personal satisfaction or desire but for the needs of the society pertaining at the time. In which case, Islam should not allow multiple wives per se, or simply for pleasure and desire, but to fulfill the needs of the society depending upon the circumstances at the time.

You misinterpreted me

As for doing it for satisfaction and desire that is a valid reason for polygamy should you wish to go down that line

 

[shaykh]

I believe you've contradicted yourself. Islam does'nt/should'nt create 'victims' as a result of following it. And as you've said, if done, it needs to be done in accordance with all it's obligations (which should include adhering to the reasons and circumstance pertaining in the society at the time).

In which case, Islamically speaking, you can and should dissuade him, perhaps even stop him, unless and until he fulfills those obligations, and the circumstances under which Islam allows it also exist at the time.

You mention the Prophet (pbuh) having multiple wives - I put it to you that is was not done for personal satisfaction or desire but for the needs of the society pertaining at the time. In which case, Islam should not allow multiple wives per se, or simply for pleasure and desire, but to fulfill the needs of the society depending upon the circumstances at the time.

He had more than four but your average man was permitted four...

Muslims don't follow the actions on the Prophet on this topic because these privileges were alone for the Prophet...Muslims were limited to 4...

So even if Muhammad was able to marry more and treat them equally your average man can't so why allow them to marry four?...

And btw if you want to marry four women simply cos your horny and can then you can...there is nothing restricting that...some schools of thought don't even require permission from your first wife to seek another wife...

 

[Saeed]

Why would you even marry in this age when there are so many people. We need to follow the british law in marriage case and chinese law in children's case.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Shaykh- Is there an error in the Quran/Sunnah then? If they both allow for polygamous marriages if equal treatment can be given but if its impossible to treat wives equally then whats the point of the ayat and why were polygamous marriages allowed for the Sahaba?

Not an accusatory question, im just interested in your thought process.

 

[Yossarian]

As for doing it for satisfaction and desire that is a valid reason for polygamy should you wish to go down that line

He had more than four but your average man was permitted four...

Muslims don't follow the actions on the Prophet on this topic because these privileges were alone for the Prophet...Muslims were limited to 4...

Both of you side stepped the question raised in my previous post. So let me rephrase it.

Did the Prophet (pbuh) have mutiple wives for reasons of personal desires and satisfaction or due to the needs of the society at the time? I say it was the latter and not the former. In which case, there is no case for allowing multiple wives per se, or for personal desires and satisfaction, unless there were circumstances such that it was necessary to do so for the society as a whole.

You can't simply try and justify it on the basis that the Prophet (pbuh) did it, without also looking at the underlying reasons as to why he did it.

 

[James]

Victim of polygamy?

 

[shaykh]

Both of you side stepped the question raised in my previous post. So let me rephrase it.

Did the Prophet (pbuh) have mutiple wives for reasons of personal desires and satisfaction or due to the needs of the society at the time? I say it was the latter and not the former. In which case, there is no case for allowing multiple wives per se, or for personal desires and satisfaction, unless there were circumstances such that it was necessary to do so for the society as a whole.

You can't simply try and justify it on the basis that the Prophet (pbuh) did it, without also looking at the underlying reasons as to why he did it.

Actually you misinterpreted what I wrote...

I stated the Prophet did indeed marry multiple wives and they were for various 'moral' or strategic reasons...

Your average Muslim doesn't have the same privileges as him so why allow polygamy whatsoever whether that be for lust or any other reasons?...

I'm not encouraging polygamy...I'm asking why Muslims on the whole were allowed to do it in the first place...the Prophet already had his privileges being a Prophet...there would be no issue telling everyone else they were limited to one spouse cos they unlike him were not divine and unable to treat all their women equally...yet not only were his followers allowed upto four wives with no restrictions set on reasons for marriage but they were also allowed concubines who serve no other purpose than fulfilling sexual needs...

 

[chacha kashmiri]

Both of you side stepped the question raised in my previous post. So let me rephrase it.

Did the Prophet (pbuh) have mutiple wives for reasons of personal desires and satisfaction or due to the needs of the society at the time? I say it was the latter and not the former. In which case, there is no case for allowing multiple wives per se, or for personal desires and satisfaction, unless there were circumstances such that it was necessary to do so for the society as a whole.

You can't simply try and justify it on the basis that the Prophet (pbuh) did it, without also looking at the underlying reasons as to why he did it.

It wasn't that the prophet pbuh allowed it after revelation, polygamy was widespread across arabia it was that islam curtailed it to four.

There was a couple of examples when the prophet married wifes of extreme beauty, whether this was to extend ties or for personal desires, i do not have sufficient knowledge to say so.

 

[shaykh]

Shaykh- Is there an error in the Quran/Sunnah then? If they both allow for polygamous marriages if equal treatment can be given but if its impossible to treat wives equally then whats the point of the ayat and why were polygamous marriages allowed for the Sahaba?

Not an accusatory question, im just interested in your thought process.

Read my reply to Javelin...equality of treatment is a subjective concept...do I have to believe I am treating my wives equally if I have more than one...or do my wives have to agree im treating them equally?...

Is it measurable...so if i had 4 wives...do I have them on equal rotation in terms of time spent or simply see them as much as they deem necessary...is it provision...ie I provide as much for each wife as i do another?...

As for why polygamy was allowed to continue...it wasn't introduced by Islam but simply carried on by it...just as slavery and concubinage were...if you want a rational explanation for why concubinage was allowed to continue then i can't fathom one...

 

[Pakz]

Both of you side stepped the question raised in my previous post. So let me rephrase it.

Did the Prophet (pbuh) have mutiple wives for reasons of personal desires and satisfaction or due to the needs of the society at the time? I say it was the latter and not the former. In which case, there is no case for allowing multiple wives per se, or for personal desires and satisfaction, unless there were circumstances such that it was necessary to do so for the society as a whole.

You can't simply try and justify it on the basis that the Prophet (pbuh) did it, without also looking at the underlying reasons as to why he did it.

I understand your point, even from previous threads as well. Context is important, but the actions of the prophet were supposed to be of universal morality, so in essence that justifies the reasoning behind those actions or rituals. If not then isn't that just denying the prophet as a perfect example?

I know you will say it was due social needs, but that is the society and not the actions of the prophet who is supposed to be an example. Unless you see that differently all together?

I don't have much knowledge on these topics or opinions (compared to others), so I guess I might sound repetitive, but its just a point and it could be wrong?

 

[shaykh]

Mariyah was said to be gorgeous...and made the other wives jealous...

Narrated Aisha: "One night, when he was with me, the Messenger of Allah went out. I became angry and started to tear up some of his clothes. When he came and saw what I had done, he said: 'What is the matter, O Aisha? Are you jealous?' I replied: 'And why should I not be jealous, Am I not your wife?"
(Musnad, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v6, p115)

"Narrated Aisha: I have never been as jealous of any woman as I have been of Maria. That was because she had the most beautiful ringlets of black hair past her waist..."
(al-Tabaqat, by Ibn Sa'd, v8, p212)

"Narrated Aisha: "When Maria's son, Ibrahim was born, the Prophet of Allah brought him to me and said: 'Look how much he resembles me.' I said: 'I do not see any resemblance.' The Prophet of Allah said: 'Don't you see how robust and fair he is?"' "I said: 'Whoever is fed with the milk of sheep becomes fair and robust.'" (referring to Maria's breastfeeding!)
(al-Tabaqat, by Ibn Sa'd, v1, p37)

Aisha was jealous of Khadijah too...

Narrated Aisha: .....So I became jealous and said, "What makes you remember an old woman with a teethless mouth of red gums who died long ago and in whose place Allah has given you someone better than her?" Upon hearing this, the Prophet became very angry until his hair stood up"
Sahih Bukhari Hadith: 5.168.b

"(Aisha to the Prophet) ...Khadija! Khadija! Khadija! You speak of her as if there is no woman on earth except Khadija!"
Sahih Bukhari Hadith: 5.166

She was jealous of Safyah too...

"Safiya sent a dish she had made for the Prophet when he was with me. When I saw the maidservant, I trembled with rage and fury, and I took the bowl and hurled it away. The Prophet of Allah then looked at me; I saw the anger in his face and I said to him: 'I seek refuge from my Husband cursing me today.' The Prophet said: 'Undo it'. I said: 'How, O Prophet of Allah?' He said: 'Cook me food like her food, and bring it to me in a bowl like her bowl.'"
(Musnad, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v6, p227)

'(Aisha to the Prophet)... Enough about Safiya is such and such!"
(Sahih al-Tirmidhi)

Does this sound like the marriages are equal in the minds of the wives?...

 

[Yossarian]

It wasn't that the prophet pbuh allowed it after revelation, polygamy was widespread across arabia it was that islam curtailed it to four.

There was a couple of examples when the prophet married wifes of extreme beauty, whether this was to extend ties or for personal desires, i do not have sufficient knowledge to say so.

And that's a fair enough comment.

And that's why I have a problem with so called 'scholars' and 'imams' trying to justify it solely on the basis of the Prophet (pbuh) also having many wives, and not even attempting to understand why he did, and thus whatever the reasons or circumstances under which he did it, the same reasons and circumstances should also apply to any other man wishing to do the same under the guise that Islam permits it..

You can't have one without the other.

 

[shaykh]

Furthemore...

How does one explain this Ayat of Quran:

http://quran.com/4/129

And you will never be able to be equal [in feeling] between wives, even if you should strive [to do so]. So do not incline completely [toward one] and leave another hanging. And if you amend [your affairs] and fear Allah - then indeed, Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful.

The above states CLEARLY that a man can not love his wives equally...yet they were permitted to marry more than one...

Here is Maududis interpretation:

Allah made it clear that the husband cannot literally keep equality between two or more wives because they themselves cannot be equal in all respects. It is too much to demand from a husband that he should mete out equal treatment to a beautiful wife and to an ugly wife, to a young wife and to an old wife, to a healthy wife and to an invalid wife, and to a good natured wife and to an ill—natured wife. These and like things naturally make a husband more inclined towards one wife than towards the other.
This means that wives are the source of a man's inability to treat all of them equally. One is beautiful, while another is ugly. How can Allah demand from a husband super—human strength under changing circumstances in his wives?
In such cases, the Islamic law does not demand equal treatment between them in affection and love. What it does demand is that a wife should not be neglected as to be practically reduced to the position of the woman who has no husband at all. If the husband does not divorce her for any reason or at her own request, she should at least be treated as a wife. It is true that under such circumstances the husband is naturally inclined towards a favorite wife, but he should not, so to say, keep the other in such a state of suspense as if she were not his wife.

 

[AbdulrazzaqFan]

^

I think Maulana Maududi’s explanation is pretty accurate. Not sure what’s so complicated after this. Yes, in terms of one’s feelings you cannot be equal towards all wives because matter of hearts are not in one’s control, but this doesn’t mean that you cannot be equal in terms of other aspects.

As to your question why did Allah allowed it if he knew that man could never display equality in his love then this indicates that there are benefits in polygamous marriages such as protection from adultery (one of the major crimes in Islam), taking care of widows, divorcees and perhaps their children, and many other. Thus, due to these benefits Allah has allowed it, and in my opinion, Allah talah’s acknowledgement is an encouragement for those that want to sincerely protect themselves by not falling into zina, and also for those that want to help weak women in society. Allah understands the complications of these types of relationships and is willing to forgive the short-coming of those that try their best with sincerity. And only Allah swt knows best.

 

[shaykh]

^

I think Maulana Maududi’s explanation is pretty accurate. Not sure what’s so complicated after this. Yes, in terms of one’s feelings you cannot be equal towards all wives because matter of hearts are not in one’s control, but this doesn’t mean that you cannot be equal in terms of other aspects.

As to your question why did Allah allowed it if he knew that man could never display equality in his love then this indicates that there are benefits in polygamous marriages such as protection from adultery (one of the major crimes in Islam), taking care of widows, divorcees and perhaps their children, and many other. Thus, due to these benefits Allah has allowed it, and in my opinion, Allah talah’s acknowledgement is an encouragement for those that want to sincerely protect themselves by not falling into zina, and also for those that want to help weak women in society. Allah understands the complications of these types of relationships and is willing to forgive the short-coming of those that try their best with sincerity. And only Allah swt knows best.

Well the claim is you can treat your wives equally which you can't...

And treat them equally means what exactly?...does it mean from the mans perspective or does it refer to the wifes perspective...is it based on what they deem equal?...

Look at the hadith which display jealousy...a natural reaction when you know your spouse is spending an evening with another woman or man...

And your answers are really massive copouts...

The advantage of polygamy is the prevention of adultery?...really?...why not just not be an adulterer and stay loyal to one wife like many do...and when you have the likes of Shafii who state you don't even require your wifes approval to marry again then somehow i dont feel that wife will feel any better about what her husband is getting upto...

Again taking care of widows, divorcees etc is nonsense...cos the fact is there are more than enough single men to look after these women...lol the Arab world has a shortage of women yet polygamy is rife...its a joke...

And zina being another awful copout...again just control yourself and satisfy yourself with your wife...your suggesting that having four wives is better than having intercourse with four women...it really isn't much different really...

Essentially one is provided shortcuts for men to deal with their instincts...

Yet women are not provided any sort of similar recourse...you make excuses for men needing extra wives cos of their NEEDS...well what of womens needs...what when their husband cant perform...

What provisions have been made to deal with their sexual instincts?...

 

[Yossarian]

I understand your point, even from previous threads as well. Context is important, but the actions of the prophet were supposed to be of universal morality, so in essence that justifies the reasoning behind those actions or rituals. If not then isn't that just denying the prophet as a perfect example?

I know you will say it was due social needs, but that is the society and not the actions of the prophet who is supposed to be an example. Unless you see that differently all together?

I don't have much knowledge on these topics or opinions (compared to others), so I guess I might sound repetitive, but its just a point and it could be wrong?

I'm sorry, but that is a cop-out by so called 'scholars' and 'imams' who are afraid of facing the question in case it makes them re-evaluate the way they have interpreted Islam, or worse, it makes them look like idiots in the eyes of their followers.

Context is everything. Without context, there is no way to even attempt to understand Islam, either that or Islam has no purpose. And I don't believe it's either.

As to your question why did Allah allowed it if he knew that man could never display equality in his love then this indicates that there are benefits in polygamous marriages such as protection from adultery (one of the major crimes in Islam), taking care of widows, divorcees and perhaps their children, and many other. Thus, due to these benefits Allah has allowed it, and in my opinion, Allah talah’s acknowledgement is an encouragement for those that want to sincerely protect themselves by not falling into zina, and also for those that want to help weak women in society. Allah understands the complications of these types of relationships and is willing to forgive the short-coming of those that try their best with sincerity. And only Allah swt knows best.

Whether or not one agrees with the part in bold above, at the very least it's an attempt to try and understand the purpose and underlying principles of Islam.

If I did'nt believe that there is/was a purpose and a real underlying practical reason for everything within Islam (bearing in mind the society of the region 1400 years ago), even though some of those reasons may not yet be fully understood by mankind, then I would have been an atheist. But I'm not.

 

[shaykh]

I'm sorry, but that is a cop-out by so called 'scholars' and 'imams' who are afraid of facing the question in case it makes them re-evaluate the way they have interpreted Islam, or worse, it makes them look like idiots in the eyes of their followers.

Context is everything. Without context, there is no way to even attempt to understand Islam, either that or Islam has no purpose. And I don't believe it's either.Whether or not one agrees with the part in bold above, at the very least it's an attempt to try and understand the purpose and underlying principles of Islam.

If I did'nt believe that there is/was a purpose and a real underlying practical reason for everything within Islam (bearing in mind the society of the region 1400 years ago), even though some of those reasons may not yet be fully understood by mankind, then I would have been an atheist. But I'm not.

Lol yes...polygamy is protection for men from adultery...what a wonderful explanation...

 

[Yossarian]

Lol yes...polygamy is protection for men from adultery...what a wonderful explanation...

And where did I make such a stupid remark?

And just in case you think it's this "Whether or not one agrees with the part in bold above, at the very least it's an attempt to try and understand the purpose and underlying principles of Islam.", I was referring to the fact the poster (AbdulrazzaqFan) had at least made an attempt towards finding a reason, whether or not that reason was correct or anyone else agreed with it, including myself.

It appears that you also did not understand the key point of my arguement, ie context is everything, even when reading others PPers posts!

 

[chaiwala]

Funnily enough, Polyandry (- a woman having multiple husbands - at the same time) is still practiced in parts of India and a few other places around the globe. You need to brush up on your facts fella's before jumping to conclusions.

Obviously I meant in the context of Islam. Why do Muslims still follow the rule banning polyandry when the original reasons behind it are now obsolete?

 

[hamzie]

The reason has already been posted, but ill also say Quran is the only religious book to have the words "marry only one" in it

 

[Yossarian]

Obviously I meant in the context of Islam. Why do Muslims still follow the rule banning polyandry when the original reasons behind it are now obsolete?

If you've been following any of my posts, then you'd know that you're posing that question to the wrong person!

 

[Yossarian]

The reason has already been posted, but ill also say Quran is the only religious book to have the words "marry only one" in it

So how does that reconcile with the notion of Islam permitting four wives. A bit of a contradiction, no?

 

[AbdulrazzaqFan]

Well the claim is you can treat your wives equally which you can't...

And treat them equally means what exactly?...does it mean from the mans perspective or does it refer to the wifes perspective...is it based on what they deem equal?...

The equality depends on what both parties agree upon mutually as well as the general rights of wives given in Islam. The general rights of a wife are financial, physical, and emotional. So, in terms of financial and physical a man CAN spend equal amount of money & time but in terms of his emotional leaning, he can like one wife more than another, therefore, in this regard he can’t be equal.

Look at the hadith which display jealousy...a natural reaction when you know your spouse is spending an evening with another woman or man...

Yes, and this is why it is a major test for women from Allah swt. It is an extremely painful and difficult experience to share a spouse, however, our lord has allowed it so we submit to his commandments.

And your answers are really massive copouts...

No they’re not, they’re practical answers that have been practised by our Prophet saw, his companions and millions of Muslims from generations.

The advantage of polygamy is the prevention of adultery?...really?...why not just not be an adulterer and stay loyal to one wife like many do...

Because, adultery is a MAJOR sin, and the purpose of living life for a practising Muslim is to live in accordance with Allah's law.

and when you have the likes of Shafii who state you don't even require your wifes approval to marry again then somehow i dont feel that wife will feel any better about what her husband is getting upto...

I don’t see anything wrong in Imam al-Shafi’s opinion. It should be common courtesy for any man indulging in polygyny to inform his first/second/third wives, to mentally prepare them and to make them understand. And it is pretty obvious that women are not going to like it, and it will be extremely difficult for them, but ultimately, they will have to decide whether they want to stay in that relationship, continue on with that relationship while foucsing on the real purpose of the creation of humanity or just be miserable.

Again taking care of widows, divorcees etc is nonsense...cos the fact is there are more than enough single men to look after these women...lol the Arab world has a shortage of women yet polygamy is rife...its a joke...

The majority of Muslims are neither Arabs nor do they live in arab lands. And So what if there are more men there? There are plenty of single/divorced/widowed women in other Islamic and non-Islamic countries as well that want to get married but can’t because they’re not pretty, rich or stigmatised or because nobody wants to take responsibility of their children.

And zina being another awful copout...again just control yourself and satisfy yourself with your wife...your suggesting that having four wives is better than having intercourse with four women...it really isn't much different really...

Everything is a cop-out for you, because you obviously do not have conviction in this religion or it's practices. I’m not suggesting that a man should marry a woman because he wants to have a one night stand, NO - not at all. What I am suggesting is that a man has the ability to develop feelings for more than one woman at a time, and if such a man develops very strong feelings so much so that he cannot see himself being without her, and thinks that he can fall into sin if he did not have her then the best thing in this scenario is to propose her for marriage. This man should also think of the consequences it'll have on his other relations, but just to avoid those complications, he should not take a route which will lead him to hell fire.

Essentially one is provided shortcuts for men to deal with their instincts...

Yet women are not provided any sort of similar recourse...you make excuses for men needing extra wives cos of their NEEDS...well what of womens needs...what when their husband cant perform...

What provisions have been made to deal with their sexual instincts?...

Allah has allowed them to take divorce if they are unhappy or unsatisfied with their husbands, in fact there have been instances during the time of Prophet saw’s time where women did exactly that. I sincerely believe that it is probably one of the greatest tests for women, and believing women should have patience, hope, and a great reward from their lord on the day of Judgment.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Ancient Hindus were polygamying long before the Islamist brothers started it. Hundreds of years of misery however has made us forget our glorious polygamious past. Even Polyandry was there, Draupadi was married to all of them 5 Pandavas. If i succeed in unifying more passionate hindu nationalists in coming 10-20 years, you might see a serious Kamagraha movement that would freed all of them closet polyandri/gamists.

 

[AbdulrazzaqFan]

I'm sorry, but that is a cop-out by so called 'scholars' and 'imams' who are afraid of facing the question in case it makes them re-evaluate the way they have interpreted Islam, or worse, it makes them look like idiots in the eyes of their followers.

Context is everything. Without context, there is no way to even attempt to understand Islam, either that or Islam has no purpose. And I don't believe it's either.Whether or not one agrees with the part in bold above, at the very least it's an attempt to try and understand the purpose and underlying principles of Islam.

If I did'nt believe that there is/was a purpose and a real underlying practical reason for everything within Islam (bearing in mind the society of the region 1400 years ago), even though some of those reasons may not yet be fully understood by mankind, then I would have been an atheist. But I'm not.

The problem with you is that you go into extremes rationalising everything whilst badmouthing Islamic Scholars. I have no problems with anyone trying to look for reasons or making sense out of a ruling but it becomes problematic when a reason is not obvious or something doesn't make sense then people start cursing: a) the Islamic Scholars or b) rejecting Islamic sources. Hope you understand.

 

[mithun_minhas]

<quote>
Narrated Aisha: "One night, when he was with me, the Messenger of Allah went out. I became angry and started to tear up some of his clothes. When he came and saw what I had done, he said: 'What is the matter, O Aisha? Are you jealous?' I replied: 'And why should I not be jealous, Am I not your wife?"
(Musnad, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v6, p115)

Quote:
"Narrated Aisha: I have never been as jealous of any woman as I have been of Maria. That was because she had the most beautiful ringlets of black hair past her waist..."
(al-Tabaqat, by Ibn Sa'd, v8, p212)

"Narrated Aisha: "When Maria's son, Ibrahim was born, the Prophet of Allah brought him to me and said: 'Look how much he resembles me.' I said: 'I do not see any resemblance.' The Prophet of Allah said: 'Don't you see how robust and fair he is?"' "I said: 'Whoever is fed with the milk of sheep becomes fair and robust.'" (referring to Maria's breastfeeding!)
(al-Tabaqat, by Ibn Sa'd, v1, p37)
</quote>

Is the above thing for real?

So fair skin obsession was there in Prophets time too?

 

[Bhaijaan]

<quote>
Narrated Aisha: "One night, when he was with me, the Messenger of Allah went out. I became angry and started to tear up some of his clothes. When he came and saw what I had done, he said: 'What is the matter, O Aisha? Are you jealous?' I replied: 'And why should I not be jealous, Am I not your wife?"
(Musnad, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v6, p115)

Quote:
"Narrated Aisha: I have never been as jealous of any woman as I have been of Maria. That was because she had the most beautiful ringlets of black hair past her waist..."
(al-Tabaqat, by Ibn Sa'd, v8, p212)

"Narrated Aisha: "When Maria's son, Ibrahim was born, the Prophet of Allah brought him to me and said: 'Look how much he resembles me.' I said: 'I do not see any resemblance.' The Prophet of Allah said: 'Don't you see how robust and fair he is?"' "I said: 'Whoever is fed with the milk of sheep becomes fair and robust.'" (referring to Maria's breastfeeding!)
(al-Tabaqat, by Ibn Sa'd, v1, p37)
</quote>

Is the above thing for real?

So fair skin obsession was there in Prophets time too?

Human interpretation does that. If God says you're beautiful, humans would think of colour, shape, curves and all that sht and describe it as such in their words. But you never know what the original commentator thought. What confuses me however is that i was under the impression that prophet was actually black, No?

 

[mithun_minhas]

Human interpretation does that. If God says you're beautiful, humans would think of colour, shape, curves and all that sht and describe it as such in their words. But you never know what the original commentator thought. What confuses me however is that i was under the impression that prophet was actually black, No?

Black as in African?

 

[Bhaijaan]

Black as in African?

I dunno whether afro, but i saw a very nice BBC documentary last year where he was depicted in a darker complexion. Scholars correct me on that if wrong.

 

[Yossarian]

The problem with you is that you go into extremes rationalising everything whilst badmouthing Islamic Scholars. I have no problems with anyone trying to look for reasons or making sense out of a ruling but it becomes problematic when a reason is not obvious or something doesn't make sense then people start cursing: a) the Islamic Scholars or b) rejecting Islamic sources. Hope you understand.

And there I was defending you in the other post,

As for 'badmouthing scholars', who says I can't do that considering how they've twisted Islam to such an extent that Islam and it's followers are perceived by non-muslims, as being violent, medieval, extremist, dishonest, subjugating women and full of hypocrisy, with muslims being synonymous with killings and bombings wherever you look, muslims killing muslims in every country in which they are the majority, whilst Islam itself teaches the exact opposite of all that above.

If it's not the fault of the 'scholars', 'imams' and 'maulvis', considering that they are the one's who are supposedly interpreting Islam for the muslim masses and guiding everyone in the correct way of following it, then who's fault is it if not theirs?

So yes, I'll keep badmouthing them as long as their methods keep affecting my life. I, as a muslim, did'nt always face the possibility of being singled out at airport immigration counters and security gates - not because of my colour or ethnicity but because of my muslim name.

If it smells like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and walks like a duck...then it must be a duck.

 

[Yossarian]

Human interpretation does that. If God says you're beautiful, humans would think of colour, shape, curves and all that sht and describe it as such in their words. But you never know what the original commentator thought. What confuses me however is that i was under the impression that prophet was actually black, No?

In that part of the Arabian peninsula, born into the tribe he is said to have been born into, with the following he achieved, 1400 years ago? Doubt it.

 

[AbdulrazzaqFan]

And there I was defending you in the other post,

I understood your point however I have also read your arguments on this topic which are similar to Mamoon's and if i'm not wrong then I think you too believe that polygamy was subscribed for a specific time in history and you use your rational arguments to defend this position, something which I disagree with hence my reply. But thank you if your intention was to defend my point.

As for 'badmouthing scholars', who says I can't do that considering how they've twisted Islam to such an extent that Islam and it's followers are perceived by non-muslims, as being violent, medieval, extremist, dishonest, subjugating women and full of hypocrisy, with muslims being synonymous with killings and bombings wherever you look, muslims killing muslims in every country in which they are the majority, whilst Islam itself teaches the exact opposite of all that above.

If it's not the fault of the 'scholars', 'imams' and 'maulvis', considering that they are the one's who are supposedly interpreting Islam for the muslim masses and guiding everyone in the correct way of following it, then who's fault is it if not theirs?

So yes, I'll keep badmouthing them as long as their methods keep affecting my life. I, as a muslim, did'nt always face the possibility of being singled out at airport immigration counters and security gates - not because of my colour or ethnicity but because of my muslim name.

If it smells like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and walks like a duck...then it must be a duck.

If you apply the same principle of context to the Scholars, it will be easier for you to understand their stances and their services for the religion of Islam. But to blindly disregard someone without sufficient knowledge, and badmouth him and hold him responsible for the problems in the Ummah is ignorant, irrresponsible and foolish, imo.

 

[Yossarian]

If you apply the same principle of context to the Scholars, it will be easier for you to understand their stances and their services for the religion of Islam. But to blindly disregard someone without sufficient knowledge, and badmouth him and hold him responsible for the problems in the Ummah is ignorant, irrresponsible and foolish, imo.

Whilst to me, regurgitating over and over again interpretations that are clearly increasingly portraying Islam (incorrectly) in a negative way, and having a negative effect on muslims everyday lives, with muslims killing muslims 'in the name of Islam', is 'ignorant, irrresponsible and foolish'.

 

[shaykh]

The equality depends on what both parties agree upon mutually as well as the general rights of wives given in Islam. The general rights of a wife are financial, physical, and emotional. So, in terms of financial and physical a man CAN spend equal amount of money & time but in terms of his emotional leaning, he can like one wife more than another, therefore, in this regard he can’t be equal.

But you acknowledge that both parties don't need to agree to anything...fact is some scholarship states the wife doesn't even need to be consulted on whether her husband takes up a second wife...

And the fact is financial needs is all you can guarantee equally...emotional most definitely not and that is evidenced in the Quran and Maududis interpretation...there is no such thing as loving your wives equally or treating them equally...its an oxymoron...and frankly no wife will feel that she is equal when she is being shared...even you state he can't love them equally so then IT ISNT EQUAL...simply providing the same level of financial support isn't equality however you want to spin it...



Yes, and this is why it is a major test for women from Allah swt. It is an extremely painful and difficult experience to share a spouse, however, our lord has allowed it so we submit to his commandments.

Yet the man has no such test...women have to bare the burden of such a ridiculous test of sharing their husbands with other women...



No they’re not, they’re practical answers that have been practised by our Prophet saw, his companions and millions of Muslims from generations.

Not practical at all...im sorry...but these are simply words...no evidence to show practicality...look at those hadith and tell me those wives were loving the practicality...



Because, adultery is a MAJOR sin, and the purpose of living life for a practising Muslim is to live in accordance with Allah's law.

So it is quite simple...don't commit adultery...I don't see how you can justify polygamy as a solution to adultery...as stated for the wives its probably one and the same especially considering they don't even have to be consulted based on some scholarship...


I don’t see anything wrong in Imam al-Shafi’s opinion. It should be common courtesy for any man indulging in polygyny to inform his first/second/third wives, to mentally prepare them and to make them understand. And it is pretty obvious that women are not going to like it, and it will be extremely difficult for them, but ultimately, they will have to decide whether they want to stay in that relationship, continue on with that relationship while foucsing on the real purpose of the creation of humanity or just be miserable.

If I'm right in remembering Imam Shafii also believes FORCED marriage is halal too...how you see nothing wrong in the idea that a wife doesn't deserve to be consulted before her husband takes on another wife I don't know...basically the option you have given is either the women put up with the rule that their men don't have to bother with their views or they can leave the relationship...wonderful choices...it seems only women are having to make tough decisions...men can simply take care of their needs as they feel



The majority of Muslims are neither Arabs nor do they live in arab lands. And So what if there are more men there? There are plenty of single/divorced/widowed women in other Islamic and non-Islamic countries as well that want to get married but can’t because they’re not pretty, rich or stigmatised or because nobody wants to take responsibility of their children.

Lol cos of course ugly, widowed, divorced women are normally those who are targeted by polygamists ...your solution isn't a solution...just cos you can have 4 wives doesn't mean you're gonna downgrade...



Everything is a cop-out for you, because you obviously do not have conviction in this religion or it's practices. I’m not suggesting that a man should marry a woman because he wants to have a one night stand, NO - not at all. What I am suggesting is that a man has the ability to develop feelings for more than one woman at a time, and if such a man develops very strong feelings so much so that he cannot see himself being without her, and thinks that he can fall into sin if he did not have her then the best thing in this scenario is to propose her for marriage. This man should also think of the consequences it'll have on his other relations, but just to avoid those complications, he should not take a route which will lead him to hell fire.

But the point is he can marry four women cos he wants four women to do...A man can develop feelings for more than one girl at one time...and your solution is he should take both...when the real solution is to choose one cos neither girl wants to be shared...like I said your answer is a copout...


Allah has allowed them to take divorce if they are unhappy or unsatisfied with their husbands, in fact there have been instances during the time of Prophet saw’s time where women did exactly that. I sincerely believe that it is probably one of the greatest tests for women, and believing women should have patience, hope, and a great reward from their lord on the day of Judgment.

And I guess this is how these women are indoctrinated to think...put up with your man sharing you with three women cos this is your test and if you can stay in line and bare it then you are pious...I'm still waiting to hear about the mans test...doesn't seem to be one...his difficult situation is solved by simply attaining more and more women...

Refer to my replies in your quotes...

 

[shaykh]

Whilst to me, regurgitating over and over again interpretations that are clearly increasingly portraying Islam (incorrectly) in a negative way, and having a negative effect on muslims everyday lives, with muslims killing muslims 'in the name of Islam', is 'ignorant, irrresponsible and foolish'.

Thing is he atleast has a perspective based on something...you don't...and you sit on the fence...and want to reform Islam into something you feel it SHOULD be rather than what it is...

The 4 wives thing is pretty clear cut and wasn't for that specific time...The Prophet had a lot more than 4 wives at any single time but permitted his believers to have upto 4...

So your points about the Prophets marriages are null and void because those were SPECIFIC to him...

All scholars from day have stated that a man can marry upto 4 wives and there doesn't need to be any special or noble reason to do so...just like you are allowed to eat chicken or drive a car...you can marry 4 women...

Its there in the Quran and the Sunnah, in the scholarship...I don't see your basis for denying it...

ARFan to his credit may very well view his perspective as flawed but accepts it anyway cos he presumes God's wisdom is better than his own fallible thinking...

It's the same way Muslims justify things like slavery, child brides and concubinage...all things practiced prior, during and after the dawn of Islam and legitimised in Islamic scripture...

And why AR Fan would justify these things too...because they are there in the scripture...

Other than your own personal opinions what aspects of Islam have you brought up in this discussion...you keep going on about misinterpretation but what has been misinterpreted?...

 

[LooneyReturns]

I believe it was after the battle of Uhud when men were allowed to marry up to 4 wives . Many men were killed and women were left without anyone to support them and other problems .

 

[AbdulrazzaqFan]

But you acknowledge that both parties don't need to agree to anything...fact is some scholarship states the wife doesn't even need to be consulted on whether her husband takes up a second wife...

Firstly, Islam gives women the right to stipulate the condition of being in a monogamous marriage in the Nikah contract, so the men that have this condition HAS to take permission of the wife.

Secondly, do men that cheat on their wives ever seek their permission to cheat? Do you think women will EVER be OK with their husbands cheating on them emotionally or physically? They probably never will be, thus in my view, it’s not important to seek their permission but it is important to discuss and inform them of your decision.

And the fact is financial needs is all you can guarantee equally...emotional most definitely not and that is evidenced in the Quran and Maududis interpretation...there is no such thing as loving your wives equally or treating them equally...its an oxymoron...and frankly no wife will feel that she is equal when she is being shared...even you state he can't love them equally so then IT ISNT EQUAL...simply providing the same level of financial support isn't equality however you want to spin it..

I’m not spinning it in any way. I have already conceded to this and accepted that emotional equality cannot be achieved in this type of relationship.

Yet the man has no such test...women have to bare the burden of such a ridiculous test of sharing their husbands with other women...

Ridiculous by whose standards? Yours? Who are you to decide what is a legitimate test and what’s not? What standards should the test of life have? That it’s easy? Or where a person doesn’t have to go through pain, struggle, or toil? Or should it be something you and I mutually agree to? If it’s any of that then where’s the test?

Also, to give you a type of example of a test that a man has is Jihad. An offensive Jihad is only fard upon men and defensive Jihad also doesn't become fard on women unless there's an absolute need for it. Therefore, entering a battlefield with the knowledge that one could lose their life or a limb is a much difficult task than being a co-wife.

Not practical at all...im sorry...but these are simply words...no evidence to show practicality...look at those hadith and tell me those wives were loving the practicality.

It is absolutely practical because none of the wives of the Prophet saw ever complained about him being a bad husband in any regard. Jealousy on the other hand is something natural especially amongst women. And the criteria to judge a relationship for me is what each partner has to say about the other and the impact of their relationship. Does the relationship have more positives and a good impact on the lives of the individuals or does it only have negatives? Jealously alone is not a reason enough to dismiss a relationship.

So it is quite simple...don't commit adultery...I don't see how you can justify polygamy as a solution to adultery...as stated for the wives its probably one and the same especially considering they don't even have to be consulted based on some scholarship...

Because some men do have the strong desire to be with more than one woman and for such men the only legitimate means to achieving this is through second marriage.

If I'm right in remembering Imam Shafii also believes FORCED marriage is halal too...

I don’t know. I have never heard this before.

how you see nothing wrong in the idea that a wife doesn't deserve to be consulted before her husband takes on another wife I don't know...basically the option you have given is either the women put up with the rule that their men don't have to bother with their views or they can leave the relationship...wonderful choices...it seems only women are having to make tough decisions...men can simply take care of their needs as they feel

I see nothing wrong with it because I know from my observations that men do not take permission from their wives to cheat on them.

I have also witnessed men leading double lives because they cannot rationally explain their desire that god has put in them to women, therefore, based on this knowledge, I agree with Imam al-Shafi that the permission is not needed but out of the courtesy for the woman you have spent a significant time with and because it will affect her life too, it’s important that you discuss the matter with her but a permission is not something that you need.

Lol cos of course ugly, widowed, divorced women are normally those who are targeted by polygamists ...your solution isn't a solution...just cos you can have 4 wives doesn't mean you're gonna downgrade..

And your assumption that polygamous men only target pretty woman holds no weight either.

But the point is he can marry four women cos he wants four women to do...A man can develop feelings for more than one girl at one time...and your solution is he should take both...when the real solution is to choose one cos neither girl wants to be shared...like I said your answer is a copout...

Now you’re just putting words in my mouth. My scenario was based on a man that was already married and not someone who’s deciding b/w 2 girls.

And I guess this is how these women are indoctrinated to think...put up with your man sharing you with three women cos this is your test and if you can stay in line and bare it then you are pious...I'm still waiting to hear about the mans test...doesn't seem to be one...his difficult situation is solved by simply attaining more and more women...

This is the typical agnostic/atheistic rant that you’re perpetuating. Anything that doesn’t sit well with your rationale (which btw has its own limits), is an indoctrination of religion, because God probably doesn’t exist, and it is foolhardy to believe in a deity who puts you in difficult situations to test your true character and belief in his wisdom.

 

[hamzie]

So how does that reconcile with the notion of Islam permitting four wives. A bit of a contradiction, no?

nope.
do some research and look at the verse

 

[Ummer Khan]

This threatening postures[ by poster you quoted ]on forum are one thing but when this intolerance,insecurity & persecution complex gets translated in to some thing violent in real life is when i worry .

Please re-read my post. I wrote the word "about" and not "against". The post was meant for MAMOON(considering the fact that he is a muslim).

The poster whom i quoted in the first place used the sentence "Not applicable now in this society".I think it is the job of Islamic scholars to determine what is applicable to present society and what not.

Time to take-off your liberal glasses and stop this non-sense of being offended.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Thing is he atleast has a perspective based on something...you don't...and you sit on the fence...and want to reform Islam into something you feel it SHOULD be rather than what it is...

The 4 wives thing is pretty clear cut and wasn't for that specific time...The Prophet had a lot more than 4 wives at any single time but permitted his believers to have upto 4...

So your points about the Prophets marriages are null and void because those were SPECIFIC to him...

All scholars from day have stated that a man can marry upto 4 wives and there doesn't need to be any special or noble reason to do so...just like you are allowed to eat chicken or drive a car...you can marry 4 women...

Its there in the Quran and the Sunnah, in the scholarship...I don't see your basis for denying it...

ARFan to his credit may very well view his perspective as flawed but accepts it anyway cos he presumes God's wisdom is better than his own fallible thinking...

It's the same way Muslims justify things like slavery, child brides and concubinage...all things practiced prior, during and after the dawn of Islam and legitimised in Islamic scripture...

And why AR Fan would justify these things too...because they are there in the scripture...

Other than your own personal opinions what aspects of Islam have you brought up in this discussion...you keep going on about misinterpretation but what has been misinterpreted?...

What is your perspective?

 

[James]

Is Shakyh having second thoughts on his reversion then? An interesting case.

 

[Yossarian]

nope.
do some research and look at the verse

You are the one who wrote

Originally Posted by hamzie
The reason has already been posted, but ill also say Quran is the only religious book to have the words "marry only one" in it

What was your purpose in making that quote, if when asked to explain further the apparent contradiction you get so aggressive?

If you are going to make such one-line statements, then do the honor of elaborating further when requested to do so instead of making comments like 'do some research', which implies that you were taking those words out-of-context.

 

[Yossarian]

All scholars from day have stated that a man can marry upto 4 wives and there doesn't need to be any special or noble reason to do so...just like you are allowed to eat chicken or drive a car...you can marry 4 women....

And there you have it folks, Islam allowing one to marry 4 women is equivalent to being allowed to eat chicken and drive a car.

And he has the gall to claim that I'm sitting on the fence. With logic like the above, perhaps sitting on the fence would be the safest thing to do - otherwise you might get hit by a car driven by a man eating chicken and 4 wives in the back. ) ) )