Why are men allowed four wives in Islam?

[Ummer Khan]

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. ) ) )

hahahahaha








Sent from my Windows Phone 8X by HTC using Tapatalk

 

[Mughal]

Has anyone really studied the quran here? It is a guide book not a fully detailed guiding book.

Man is not created as a robot to follow given instructions, he is created to make sense of himself ie become self aware then become aware of the universe of which he is made a part and then rise to higher level of thinking to find out his purpose for which he is created and then plan and set up and do things to achieve his set out goals. All these require full use of his brain power and body power.

The quran is not a book like any other religious scripture. It is a book that is statement of God.

The rule for understanding the quranic text is explanation of the quranic text by the quranic text itself. In order to drive a context within verse and within the surah and within the quran as a whole. This involves a rule called tasreef al ayaat ie gathering of ayaat that discuss same thing in different places.

In short only that interpretation of the quran is correct which shows consistency within the quranic text itself. Any statement that is self contradictory is false. The self contradictory statement is such which has no explanation that explains the difference between any two pieces of text within the same testimony.

The other rule is that any statement is false which contradicts self evident facts.

So all such interpretation of the quran are false which either show contradictions within the quranic text or between the quranic text and self evident facts.

Only after proper understanding of the quranic text to gain sense of context one can refer to hadith reports and historical accounts and pick and choose what fits and quranic context and reject what does not.

 

[Yossarian]

^^^ Not disagreeing with the basic logic of what you say above. Especially since, whether one agrees or disagrees with my views as expressed, we appear to have at least one thing in common, ie the notion that context is everything.

However, can you give some examples regarding the gist of your post vis-a-vis thiis particular thread re- 4 wives?

 

[Pakz]

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.

'Their followers' are following them because that's the mosque or sect they were brought up in. Changing their view on a subject would not really have an affect on the followers if it's a imam of a mosques, or would it? I don't see how discussing and changing their view would make them seem less reliable amongst their followers who are just following - in some cases (maybe)? Also Aren't they supposed to be more knowledgeable on a particular field, just like a physicist and biologist are on their fields of science? So you could say that it doesn't make sense to say that they are just dodging the whole scenario.

I have not so far come across a mosque etc where any controversial topics have been discussed or any sort of discussions. Usually more history and/or rulings (from secondary and primary sources).

 

[KB-24]

Brother AbdulRazzaqFan, may Allah SWT reward you abundantly for providing insightful posts full of Haqq. Always enjoy and learn from you.

 

[Indiafan]

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.

Ok, my post will be only about the social context and not the religious one so do not take it any other way

You do know most women have equal sexual drive as men? And some are not satisfied with their husband? And some desire more than one man?

This quoted text is just an example of whats been written in this thread. The kind of disregard for a woman's desire, lack of understanding of them and them being treated as not even human is astounding. Every point is from the context of the man to the extent that he is even allowed to be unfaithful to his wife just because he is a man. Some of the worst sexist views ever

Someone also mentioned the men vs women ratio. Any self respecting women would prefer to remain unmarried every time than marry an already married man. Neither is marriage the be all and end all of a woman's life or her goal

IMO, many of these things tie together, don't they? Don't educate women, don't allow them to work, ask them to be covered from head to toe, do not allow them to talk to stranger and then one day she will also permit you to marry again because she does not know any better than being subservient. And she might marry a married man too.

In the end men will soon realize that times have changed. They cannot afford to be dinosaurs or bury their heads in sand. There is only so much BS and self indulgence men will be allowed now. No wonder they do not want women to be more independent. How else can they avoid the responsibility of being faithful to one partner, sharing equal responsibility to their family, etc, etc. Saddest thing is, some of people talking here might not be married at all and already they are demeaning marriage and women

 

[mithun_minhas]

No matter how much we try to justify our religions, they are all in favor of men.

All the rules, guidelines are written focusing from the men's perspective. Its all about how a man can be comfortable and how women can be controlled.

If a Man does it, its because he is doing his duty. If a women does it, she is lose, characterless, greedy and immoral.

You have to be blind if you cannot see it.

 

[Yossarian]

'Their followers' are following them because that's the mosque or sect they were brought up in. Changing their view on a subject would not really have an affect on the followers if it's a imam of a mosques, or would it? I don't see how discussing and changing their view would make them seem less reliable amongst their followers who are just following - in some cases (maybe)?

But how do 'the followers' know what to follow if it's not the imams telling them? Who is 'guiding' the average follower if not the imams?

Also Aren't they supposed to be more knowledgeable on a particular field, just like a physicists and biologists are on their fields of science?

Yes, 'should be'.

But, sadly, unlike the physicists and biologists that you mention, who start off with an 'open' mind and let the research data guide them and lead them towards their conclusions, the religious 'scholars' and imams, by and large, start off with a set of views already ingrained in their minds and the intention of their research is merely designed to support and justify them.

Otherwise how does one even attempt to analyze or explain why the perception of Islam is going downhill so fast, with the religion and it's religious followers becoming synonymous with killings, bombings, corruption, human rights abuses, abuses against women...... even to the extent that muslims are killing muslims 'in the name of Islam' everywhere the muslims form the majority of the population of a country .... when Islam itself preaches against all of those things?

Do you think a suicide bomber would be prepared to blow himself up, leaving his loved ones behind to suffer the consequences, kill innocent victims, often young, innocent, muslim victims, if he was allowed to think for himself and ask the difficult questions 'why?' as opposed to simply accepting being told, by someone else who also claims to be an 'imam' or 'scholar', that 'It's the will of Allah - don't question it'.

So, unless you ask the 'forbidden' questions, how does one know that it's really 'the will of Allah' and not something that is said as a cop-out?

So you could say that it doesn't make sense to say that they are just dodging the whole scenario.

I have not so far come across a mosque etc where any controversial topics have been discussed or any sort of discussions. Usually more history and/or rulings (from secondary and primary sources).

In other words everybody accepts the status quo and is afraid to discuss anything that might cast doubt or raise difficult questions regarding the prevailing viewpoints. ie akin to the fable of the Emperor with no clothes, where everybody was reluctant to tell the Emperor what they saw with their own eyes, either due to fear or in case it was their own eyes that were deceiving them, that is until a child came along and blurted out the truth.

So yes, as you've rightly pointed out, no controversial topics get discussed - it is far easier to cop-out.

 

[shaykh]

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. ) ) )

Trust you to miss the point...

My example was to illustrate that permissability and impermissablity in Islam isn't determined by your own logic but by scripture...

So just as you know its permissable to eat chicken because of scripture we know full well that it is halal to marry four women...THATS THE POINT...

You evaded the issue...what has been misintrepeted?...

Nowhere in scripture does it state that there must be a specified purpose for four marriages...if you want to marry four times you can...

And as stated on numerous occasions...the Prophets marriages have nothing to do with what is stipulated for everyone else because he had different rules for himself...

Its really not that tough a concept to understand...

 

[Yossarian]

^^^ Read my post above. Especially in relation to suicide bombers. And then come back with an answer.

 

[shaykh]

What is your perspective?

I'm not sure to be frank...I could do the Javelin route and find things distasteful and then convince myself that Islam is being misinterpreted on issues such as this, slavery, puberty, concubinage etc...but I'm not willing to lie to myself...I am satisfied that I know what Islam says about specific matters...and it doesn't sit kindly with me at all...

Now the other aspect is whether that even matters because if one truly believes in Islam then even if he finds the whole religion full of things that horrify him then proof of religion overrides that...ie if you believe the Quran is from God then you HAVE to accept what is in it cos you believe God is more knowing than you...

However in my attempts to find proof I have been quite dissatisfied with the arguments presented...ie our purpose, proof of Quran etc...also the idea that belief is judged to be a choices makes little sense to me cos one can't lie to themselves...ideas have to convince them...

In terms of polygamy in particular...I believe it is acceptable from Islam...the Prophet was permitted more for himself and the rest of Muslims were set four...it was the continuity of a practice that existed during that time, much like child marriage, slavery, concubinage etc...and I think the major issue is these issues weren't prohibited much like alcohol and gambling were for instance...some of the worst things happening today were allowed by Islam...and are NOW permitted also...

Judging from the hadith I have read and posted here it is evident that even the Prophet couldn't treat his wives equally from THEIR perspective...the Quran even states that it is impossible to love their partners equally yet also states that one must treat their partners equally...its vague and to me contradictory...

And AR Fan's answer hasn't made things sound any better...its the most patriarchal perspective but probably the most Islamic...the idea that polygamy prevents zina and adultery...whilst of course he completely failed to recognise that women aren't simply recipients of sex but also want to have it too...

 

[ElRaja]

Judging from the hadith I have read and posted here it is evident that even the Prophet couldn't treat his wives equally from THEIR perspective...the Quran even states that it is impossible to love their partners equally yet also states that one must treat their partners equally...its vague and to me contradictory...

just playing devli's advocate, ironic terminology given the point argued, having read the hadiths you posted, the perception of inequality is that of mohammad's wives, and as such could be argued were biased accounts due to their love / possessiveness over him, whereas in fact for all that is said, he may have treated them as equally as possible, but equality was not what they were after and as such the lack of favouritism, shrouded under the guise of inequality, is what they were actually complaining about.

just thought id throw that in there

 

[shaykh]

But how do 'the followers' know what to follow if it's not the imams telling them? Who is 'guiding' the average follower if not the imams?Yes, 'should be'.

But, sadly, unlike the physicists and biologists that you mention, who start off with an 'open' mind and let the research data guide them and lead them towards their conclusions, the religious 'scholars' and imams, by and large, start off with a set of views already ingrained in their minds and the intention of their research is merely designed to support and justify them.

Otherwise how does one even attempt to analyze or explain why the perception of Islam is going downhill so fast, with the religion and it's religious followers becoming synonymous with killings, bombings, corruption, human rights abuses, abuses against women...... even to the extent that muslims are killing muslims 'in the name of Islam' everywhere the muslims form the majority of the population of a country .... when Islam itself preaches against all of those things?

Do you think a suicide bomber would be prepared to blow himself up, leaving his loved ones behind to suffer the consequences, kill innocent victims, often young, innocent, muslim victims, if he was allowed to think for himself and ask the difficult questions 'why?' as opposed to simply accepting being told, by someone else who also claims to be an 'imam' or 'scholar', that 'It's the will of Allah - don't question it'.

So, unless you ask the 'forbidden' questions, how does one know that it's really 'the will of Allah' and not something that is said as a cop-out?

In other words everybody accepts the status quo and is afraid to discuss anything that might cast doubt or raise difficult questions regarding the prevailing viewpoints. ie akin to the fable of the Emperor with no clothes, where everybody was reluctant to tell the Emperor what they saw with their own eyes, either due to fear or in case it was their own eyes that were deceiving them, that is until a child came along and blurted out the truth.

So yes, as you've rightly pointed out, no controversial topics get discussed - it is far easier to cop-out.

Well your perspective here again is whatever I think is what Islam must be...if I disagree with a point then it must be scholars corrupting the faith...

We can do this with any rule...if you suddenly feel yourself attracted to a dude then scholars have misrepresented Islam on homosexuality...its halal of course...

If you like a drink then scholars have misrepresented Islam's views on alcohol...its halal of course...

Do you see where I am going with this...anyone can apply their own reasoning and essentially create their own faith...I meet Muslims like this all the time who deny things they don't like about Islam...when Islam is pretty clear cut on the matters...

There are some issues where difference of opinion exists ie ikhtilaaf...an example I provided was whether permission needs to be asked from ones first wife before taking on another...these are issues of contention...what however has NEVER been an issue of contention is that man is allowed to marry upto four wives in Islam...

I don't exactly know where you get your Islam from...seems to be from your own head and not scripture to be frank...

Yet to see you post a verse of Quran or refute anything I've written using any scripture...

Your views are not Islam...they are your views...and they certainly seem to have nothing to do with Islamic scripture...

 

[shaykh]

just playing devli's advocate, ironic terminology given the point argued, having read the hadiths you posted, the perception of inequality is that of mohammad's wives, and as such could be argued were biased accounts due to their love / possessiveness over him, whereas in fact for all that is said, he may have treated them as equally as possible, but equality was not what they were after and as such the lack of favouritism, shrouded under the guise of inequality, is what they were actually complaining about.

just thought id throw that in there

Thats actually a very good point...

Is equality even what a woman wants?...does treating all wives equally even make a wife happy?...cos essentially all wives want to be the favourite or the only one...

Does equality even make a good argument for polygamy considering this point...

 

[Yossarian]

^^^^ @ shaykh

In other words, there are many aspects of Islam that you find distasteful, but you are still unwilling to question them, because you accept them as being the will of God?

And you say I'm the one sitting on the fence?

From what you say, I can't make out whether you are trying to convince yourself that you are a muslim and thus must follow Islam without asking 'forbidden' questions, or whether you are in the process of leaving Islam and looking for arguments to convince yourself that its the right thing to do.

 

[Maaya]

Acutally 4 are a good practice for 70 virgins that are to come in paradise.

 

[Maaya]

4 are a good practise for the 70 virgins that are to come in Paradise.

 

[Yossarian]

^^^^ @ shaykh
I notice in your haste to throw insults at me, you've evaded addressing this particular paragraph.

Originally Posted by Javelin

Do you think a suicide bomber would be prepared to blow himself up, leaving his loved ones behind to suffer the consequences, kill innocent victims, often young, innocent, muslim victims, if he was allowed to think for himself and ask the difficult questions 'why?' as opposed to simply accepting being told, by someone else who also claims to be an 'imam' or 'scholar', that 'It's the will of Allah - don't question it'.[/B]

So, unless you ask the 'forbidden' questions, how does one know that it's really 'the will of Allah' and not something that is said as a cop-out?

Whilst you claim to be a 'believer' and follower of scriptures, whilst also saying that some aspects of Islam are 'distasteful', how do you reconcile yourself with these views considering that a 'believer' does not regard any of his religions rules and methods as being 'distasteful', whilst at the same time also claiming it to be God's will, otherwise he believes that his God is acting distas....... you get the picture.

 

[shaykh]

Acutally 4 are a good practice for 70 virgins that are to come in paradise.

72 are promised for martyrs only...and of course martyred men...

It was narrated that al-Miqdaam ibn Ma’di Yakrib said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The martyr has six blessings with Allaah: he will be forgiven from the first drop of blood shed; he will be shown his place in Paradise; he will be protected from the torment of the grave; he will be safe from the greater terror; a crown of dignity will be placed on his head, one ruby of which is better than this world and everything in it; he will be married to seventy-two wives from al-hoor al-‘iyn; and he will intercede for seventy of his relatives.”

Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 1663; Ibn Maajah, 2799; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.

Your average man gets at a minimum two:

It was narrated from Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The lowest of the people of Paradise in status will be a man whose face Allaah will turn away from the Fire towards Paradise, and make a shady tree appear before him. … Then he will enter his house and his two wives from among al-hoor al-‘iyn will enter after him. They will say: ‘Praise be to Allah Who has created you for us and us for you.’ And he will say: ‘No one has been given the like of that which I have been given.’” Narrated by Muslim, 188.

And these girls will always be virgins:

Abu Hurayrah narrates that RasUlullah was asked, "Will we have sexual intercourse in Jannat?" He answered, "By the oath of that being in whose hands my life is, yes. [Sexual intercourse will be with] hard pushes. When one of us completes the task of intercourse with his wife, she will once again become a virgin and a pure woman." [Ibn Hibban]

 

[shaykh]

^^^^ @ shaykh
I notice in your haste to throw insults at me, you've evaded addressing this particular paragraph.


Whilst you claim to be a 'believer' and follower of scriptures, whilst also saying that some aspects of Islam are 'distasteful', how do you reconcile yourself with these views considering that a 'believer' does not regard any of his religions rules and methods as being 'distasteful', whilst at the same time also claiming it to be God's will, otherwise he believes that his God is acting distas....... you get the picture.

I haven't claimed to be a believer...Ive stated quite openly that proof of Islam arguments aren't convincing...

I have however stated that if one believes in Islam then they take whatever is in it whether it offends their sensisibilities or not...

I've questioned myself...and my faith...and the things the faith allows...

You have simply decided to state that things the faith is clear about are scholastic manipulations...you're lying to myself basically and creating your own version of Islam...

 

[shaykh]

^^^^ @ shaykh

In other words, there are many aspects of Islam that you find distasteful, but you are still unwilling to question them, because you accept them as being the will of God?

And you say I'm the one sitting on the fence?

From what you say, I can't make out whether you are trying to convince yourself that you are a muslim and thus must follow Islam without asking 'forbidden' questions, or whether you are in the process of leaving Islam and looking for arguments to convince yourself that its the right thing to do.

No I have questioned them...but you get the stages mixed up...

If I believe Islam is the word of God then even the most distasteful things to me are still correct because I believe in Allah's wisdom over mine...

Thats the simple point...

 

[Pakz]

But, sadly, unlike the physicists and biologists that you mention, who start off with an 'open' mind and let the research data guide them and lead them towards their conclusions, the religious 'scholars' and imams, by and large, start off with a set of views already ingrained in their minds and the intention of their research is merely designed to support and justify them.

It's different. Scientist are not following a set of rule and/or guidance. They are using observations and hypothesis which may change using different results and understanding. Unlike an imam who will derive knowledge from previous sources to interpret the main one.

So in essence that's the most they can do. However you could argue that they can be more open minded and use the secondary sources to analyses and understand and not base rules on. It would though lose them followers as they might confuse people and be declared as wrong, leading to more arguments than discussion.

Imagine that though. An Imam playing the Devils Advocate.

 

[Yossarian]

If I believe Islam is the word of God then even the most distasteful things to me are still correct because I believe in Allah's wisdom over mine...

That is the most weirdest reasoning that I've ever heard.

 

[AbdulrazzaqFan]

Brother AbdulRazzaqFan, may Allah SWT reward you abundantly for providing insightful posts full of Haqq. Always enjoy and learn from you.

BarakAllahu feek.

Ok, my post will be only about the social context and not the religious one so do not take it any other way

Muslims social context is based on Islamic laws so your rant is pretty much irrelevant but let me try...

You do know most women have equal sexual drive as men?

How does having an equal sex drive translates into wanting multiple sex partners?

And some are not satisfied with their husband?

They’re free to divorce if the husband does not satisfy them and it’s keeping them unhappy.

And some desire more than one man?

Laws are made for what’s good for the general majority and not on what is desired by a small minority.

This quoted text is just an example of whats been written in this thread. The kind of disregard for a woman's desire, lack of understanding of them and them being treated as not even human is astounding. Every point is from the context of the man to the extent that he is even allowed to be unfaithful to his wife just because he is a man. Some of the worst sexist views ever

Spare me your sanctimonious tone. This is actually your own vivid imagination because I have already acknowledged that it’s an extremely painful experience for women – the greatest test for them perhaps, and men should consider discussions with their wives prior to taking the plunge again. And even a deadbeat knows that Allah has given a privilege to men, however, the believing women accept it as something that their lord has prescribed and hope for something better for their patience in the afterlife.

Someone also mentioned the men vs women ratio. Any self respecting women would prefer to remain unmarried every time than marry an already married man. Neither is marriage the be all and end all of a woman's life or her goal

And who gives you the right to dictate what a self-respecting woman should and shouldn’t do? Islam actually protects households from wreckage should women choose this relationship in the sense that the husband does not have to divorce his first wife and continue to be her husband. This is better than what other religions/people have to offer in these situations. And your “advice” for women can only be suited for non-Muslim women since they can choose to fulfill their sexual desire without the need for marriage. This is not an avenue available to Muslims.

IMO, many of these things tie together, don't they? Don't educate women, don't allow them to work, ask them to be covered from head to toe, do not allow them to talk to stranger and then one day she will also permit you to marry again because she does not know any better than being subservient. And she might marry a married man too.

This is again your wonderful imagination at work filled with strawmen. Acquiring an education is an obligation for both Muslim males and females and it is not MEN that dictate the level of modesty but the religion and contrary to popular belief, majority of the Muslim women adhere to Islamic dress code of their own free-will.

In the end men will soon realize that times have changed. They cannot afford to be dinosaurs or bury their heads in sand. There is only so much BS and self indulgence men will be allowed now. No wonder they do not want women to be more independent. How else can they avoid the responsibility of being faithful to one partner, sharing equal responsibility to their family, etc, etc. Saddest thing is, some of people talking here might not be married at all and already they are demeaning marriage and women

More non-sense. I suggest you direct your sensitivities to your own sex deprived, dog-like Indian men that don’t think twice before jumping a woman with a gang, rather than worrying about the social issues of Muslim women, that are in a much better situation than the Indian women ever will be.

 

[Mamoon]

This discussion has gone so out of order, I am simply left as an observor.

I have no idea where to start. I feel sorry for you Javelin and I regret bumping this thread.

Stop banging your head against a brickwall.

 

[Yossarian]

It's different. Scientist are not following a set of rule and/or guidance. They are using observations and hypothesis which may change using different results and understanding. Unlike an imam who will derive knowledge from previous sources to interpret the main one.

Two words "butterfly effect"

So in essence that's the most they can do. However you could argue that they can be more open minded and use the secondary sources to analyses and understand and not base rules on. It would though lose them followers as they might confuse people and be declared as wrong, leading to more arguments than discussion.

And that I agree with.

Imagine that though. An Imam playing the Devils Advocate.

And that's why, on this forum, I am comfortable playing the role of the Devils Advocate - unlike some others who are attempting to play the role of Imams. (not you hz, I hasten to add)

 

[shaykh]

That is the most weirdest reasoning that I've ever heard.

Not really...

Is it rules that determine belief...or proof of the scripture?...

If you are happy with the proof regarding the authenticity of the scripture then you accept that which is within in...

If you believe the Quran to be the word of God then invariably you take everything within it to be from him and then correct...

Thats why the likes of AR Fan can state that they believe in slavery, concubinage etc...because they believe it is from Islam...

Even if things within the scripture disagree with you then you still believe in the legitimacy of the scripture...

So if you think something is the word of God then you feel you can disagree with his word?...

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Agree with Shaykhs reasoning here.

 

[Yossarian]

More non-sense. I suggest you direct your sensitivities to your own sex deprived, dog-like Indian men that don’t think twice before jumping a woman with a gang, rather than worrying about the social issues of Muslim women, that are in a much better situation than the Indian women ever will be.

C'mon man, Indiafan was not being abusive towards Islam, but merely putting forward an alternative set of arguments.

No need to start throwing such insults at 'Indian men', especially considering that India contains almost as many muslims as does Pakistan.

Lets try and keep the discussion at a civilised level.

 

[AbdulrazzaqFan]

^ You're right, I shouldn't have said that. Apologies to IndiaFan. I got over excited due to his incessant generalizations and strawmen. Nonetheless, I shouldn't have replied in that way. Please accept my apology for the last few lines.

 

[Mamoon]

Not really...

Is it rules that determine belief...or proof of the scripture?...

If you are happy with the proof regarding the authenticity of the scripture then you accept that which is within in...

If you believe the Quran to be the word of God then invariably you take everything within it to be from him and then correct...

Thats why the likes of AR Fan can state that they believe in slavery, concubinage etc...because they believe it is from Islam...

Even if things within the scripture disagree with you then you still believe in the legitimacy of the scripture...

So if you think something is the word of God then you feel you can disagree with his word?...

So you agree that a significant portion of belief in Islam is based on blind faith?

 

[Mamoon]

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.

You didn't read my statement correctly.

I said Islam doesn't encourage marrying 4 women, but God hasn't put a ban on it either because there will be adverse and extreme cases where a man will have to marry multiple times.

When did I say battle of Uhud is the only example?

I said it was revealed after the battle of Uhud and its timing was perfect. Post war.

The point was that in similar scenarios, you are allowed to marry 4 times.

I never mentioned that it was for that particular war only.

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.

In how many countries is the number of women greater than the number of men and what is the ratio?

How does one decide how many times a particular man will have to marry?

and what about a place where there are more men and more women, so can the women marry multiple men? why not?

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

if God thought marrying more than one woman was right, he would have encouraged it.

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.

What a ridiculous statement. So what you are implying is that a man can marry more than once even if he has no valid reason apart from "lust"?

How will you feel if your daughter has a perfectly fine relation with her husband and has kids as well, everything is normal and suddenly your son in law decides to marry again just because he has started to lust for another woman?

And how many women are going to be happy with their husbands suddenly lusting for another woman and marrying again, in spite of having a proper family?

 

[Mamoon]

Quran is a guidance book, just because there is permission for something, doesn't mean that its allowed in each and every circumstance and in all scenarios. Just because there is no restriction, does not mean you violate the rule.


A man can marry again, leaving his perfectly happy wife and kids in tatters just because he has started to lust again.

What does Islam teach you about not hurting the feeling of others?

 

[Mamoon]

Here is a question for everyone.

According to AbdulrazzaqFan,

A man can marry again without any valid reason, if he desires so and lusts.

How would you feel if your daughter's husband does this?

 

[Yossarian]

^^^ @ Mamoon
You felt sorry for me banging my head against a brick wall. I'd like return the sentiments as it's now your turn to bang your head against the same wall.

I needed a time-out, thanks for taking over.

 

[Mamoon]

^^^ @ Mamoon
You felt sorry for me banging my head against a brick wall. I'd like return the sentiments as it's now your turn to bang your head against the same wall.

I needed a time-out, thanks for taking over.

LOL

 

[Haroon786]

Honestly, I have no idea, how people could legitimately endorse this idea.

 

[Yossarian]

Here is a question for everyone.

According to AbdulrazzaqFan,

A man can marry again without any valid reason, if he desires so and lusts.

How would you feel if your daughter's husband does this?

Most of those arguing in favour are probably not even married, and unlikely to have experienced true love, which is also reciprocated, with someone who they would like to spend the rest of their life with.

As for those already married, and arguing in favour ... in modern times ...... lust? ... along with no love for their existing wife/wives and children?

 

[Mamoon]

Most of those arguing in favour are probably not even married, and unlikely to have experienced true love, which is also reciprocated, with someone who they would like to spend the rest of their life with.

As for those already married, and arguing in favour ... in modern times ...... lust? ... along with no love for their existing wife/wives and children?

You know the biggest problem, nobody cares and is least bothered to understand the essence behind why certain things are allowed and disallowed and in what circumstances because it makes things difficult and complicated for them.

Since Islam has allowed 4 wives, who cares in what context and circumstance?

Simply change your wife like clothes and take advantage of the liberty.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Here is a question for everyone.

According to AbdulrazzaqFan,

A man can marry again without any valid reason, if he desires so and lusts.

How would you feel if your daughter's husband does this?

silly post.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Most of those arguing in favour are probably not even married, and unlikely to have experienced true love, which is also reciprocated, with someone who they would like to spend the rest of their life with.

As for those already married, and arguing in favour ... in modern times ...... lust? ... along with no love for their existing wife/wives and children?

If unmarried posters comments can be dismissed because they haven't experienced marriage or love then yours hold no weight either since you haven't experienced polygamous relationships and are merely assuming how the other women feel.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Also love the way you guys are asking simple questions but dramatising it in such a way as if you have discoverex a new element or made some other ground breaking discovery.

 

[Pakz]

Agree with Shaykhs reasoning here.

Yes. It's a different perspective.

I don't know how you would define that view though?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Yes. It's a different perspective.

I don't know how you would define that view though?

Why the need to define it?

 

[Mamoon]

silly post.

How is it silly?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Because its an appeal to emotion.

How would you feel is a second cousin was lusting after your daughter?

You see what I mean? Most males are generally uncomfortable with the marital habits of their female offspring. It doesn't make an action right or wrong.

 

[Pakz]

Edit Delete

 

[Yossarian]

If unmarried posters comments can be dismissed because they haven't experienced marriage or love then yours hold no weight either since you haven't experienced polygamous relationships and are merely assuming how the other women feel.

You're right. Not being a woman, I would'nt know how the other women feel.

 

[Mamoon]

Because its an appeal to emotion.

How would you feel is a second cousin was lusting after your daughter?

You see what I mean? Most males are generally uncomfortable with the marital habits of their female offspring. It doesn't make an action right or wrong.

What a poor analogy.

If my daughter's second cousin likes my daughter and he wants to marry her, why will I mind provided he keeps her happy?

how is this comparable to marrying another woman in spite of having a great family, just because you lust again?

we are humans not sheep.

Sacrificing your wife and kids just because your hormones are getting the better of you?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Why are you assuming its a sacrifice always?

 

[Mamoon]

Wait what? emotions are emotions. They don't go black and white from gender to gender.

Its not even a question how a woman would feel if her husband marries another woman just because of lust.

 

[Mamoon]

Why are you assuming its a sacrifice always?

How many kids will feel happy about their daddies marrying another woman suddenly out of the blue?

How many women are going to be happy to see their husbands marry another woman because of lust?

how would you feel if your wife leaves you because she has started to lust for another man?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

I dont have the number to answer your questions. Do you?

 

[Mamoon]

Its common sense.

perhaps you aren't married, but you have parents. Imagine your Dad doing this when you were a kid, how would you have taken it?

 

[Mamoon]

This "lust" reason to marry again is very barbaric and inhuman, morally.

 

[Yossarian]

I dont have the number to answer your questions. Do you?

How about zero ?

 

[Mamoon]

Besides of being highly immoral, its also illogical.

If you can marry again because of lust, why is there a limit to 4?

Will your lust die down after four women?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Also those feelings stop occuring when something becomes culturally acceptable. A Saudi kid will know growing up that his father has other wives. It wont effect him much as its normal for him.

Polygamy isnt for me either but your whole argument is based on assumptions of unhappiness in families despite this practice flourishing worldwide for centuries as normal.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

How about zero ?

So in the space of seconds you took a survey of polygamous relationships?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Besides of being highly immoral, its also illogical.

If you can marry again because of lust, why is there a limit to 4?

Will your lust die down after four women?

If we use your theory of polygamy used to help downtrodden women ( one I don't disagree with tbh) then why only four. Is giving 4 women a better life enough? Why not 400?

 

[Mamoon]

Kids wll be normal about if he's born with having multiple step mothers but no women is going to be happy about their husbands bedding other women.

There are stories of Prophet's wives feeling jealous. Now if the Prophet's wives felt jealously, what do you expect from other women?

This is against human nature. A woman develops sort of possessiveness over her husband.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

You're right. Not being a woman, I would'nt know how the other women feel.

You havent answered my question and reply with a point about grammar. You know full well my sentence makes sense.

 

[Yossarian]

Also those feelings stop occuring when something becomes culturally acceptable. A Saudi kid will know growing up that his father has other wives. It wont effect him much as its normal for him.

The question was

How many kids will feel happy about their daddies marrying another woman suddenly out of the blue?

ie The kids were already old enough to understand what was going on when the father took another wife, so it was not 'normal' for him/her when the other woman came along.

Polygamy isnt for me either but your whole argument is based on assumptions of unhappiness in families despite this practice flourishing worldwide for centuries as normal.

Slavery too was 'normal' for centuries. Not anymore though.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Kids wll be normal about if he's born with having multiple step mothers but no women is going to be happy about their husbands bedding other women.

There are stories of Prophet's wives feeling jealous. Now if the Prophet's wives felt jealously, what do you expect from other women?

This is against human nature. A woman develops sort of possessiveness over her husband.

How do you know no woman will be happy?

Jealousy is not to be equated with unhappiness. Some women feel jealous of female colleagues etc.

 

[Yossarian]

You havent answered my question and reply with a point about grammar. You know full well my sentence makes sense.

Does it?

 

[Mamoon]

If we use your theory of polygamy used to help downtrodden women ( one I don't disagree with tbh) then why only four. Is giving 4 women a better life enough? Why not 400?

No one can answer this, and my theory of polygamy wasn't concerned with the exact number of wives, it was about the logic of marrying more than once and the purpose behind it and how relevant it is today.

if you ask me, I think many people at that time could have sustained 5 widows as well.

But its also illogical when it comes the lust theory. Different men have different sexual needs.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

The question was ie The kids were already old enough to understand what was going on when the father took another wife, so it was not 'normal' for him/her when the other woman came along..

Its a hypothetical and rare case you are presenting full of assumptions again.

Slavery too was 'normal' for centuries. Not anymore though.

We are talking about the perceived unhappiness of the 'victims' of polygamy here, there is no parrallel with slavery in this case.

 

[Mamoon]

How do you know no woman will be happy?

Jealousy is not to be equated with unhappiness. Some women feel jealous of female colleagues etc.

Because it is not a natural reaction. Exceptions are always there, but they don't make the rule.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Does it?

Well if it doesn't then perhaps instead of worrying about number of wives in hypothetical situations you should start worrying about the number of braincells in your head.

 

[Mamoon]

Forget everything else, you think DV that it differs from women to women, child to child on how they react to their husband/father marrying another woman for lust?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Forget everything else, you think DV that it differs from women to women, child to child on how they react to their husband/father marrying another woman for lust?

Yes of course.

 

[Yossarian]

Well if it doesn't then perhaps instead of worrying about number of wives in hypothetical situations you should start worrying about the number of braincells in your head.

Resorting to ad hominem and abuse ?

 

[KB-24]

I like how a clear cut issue has again been blown out of proportions ... typical on PP.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Resorting to ad hominem and abuse ?

What was your post? If it was the words of a concerned english teacher I apologise. I suspect it wasn't though.

 

[Mamoon]

Yes of course.

Fair enough, nothing left to discuss.

 

[shaykh]

So you agree that a significant portion of belief in Islam is based on blind faith?

No you misunderstand...

One is supposed to in theory take up belief in faith based on proof of some kind...this isn't blind faith...this is reason...

So the like of AR Fan whose perspective I respect is a Muslim because the evidences for Islams legitimacy made rational sense to him...

Now if one makes a reasoned decision that the Quran is the word of God then you accept that which is within in...

It doesn't matter if something disagrees with your own thoughts because you accept God is wiser than you...thats no blind faith...cos you made a reasoned decision to take on Islam...

 

[shaykh]

And Mamoon I haven't seen an iota of scripture from you yet you continue to discuss YOUR ideas and present them as Islamic...

Islam permits the marriage of a Muslim male with upto 4 women...stop trying to say Islam doesn't...

If you think its bad then so be it...like I have already said there are aspects of Islam that are bound to hurt ones sensibilities...now either your belief in the Quran and Sunnah is strong enough that you accept Allah is wiser than you and will make rules you disagree with...or you don't believe in the Quran and Sunnah really?...

Cos Quran and Sunnah permit this practice you keep lambasting...you can lie to yourself all you want...but its an accepted Islamic practice...

The Prophet did it and he allowed all his followers to do it...its not an ikhtilaaf issue...its clear cut really...just you and Javelin feel the need to reform the religion and create your own version...

All you're presenting is Mamoonism...not Islam...

 

[AbdulrazzaqFan]

You didn't read my statement correctly.

I said Islam doesn't encourage marrying 4 women, but God hasn't put a ban on it either because there will be adverse and extreme cases where a man will have to marry multiple times.

When did I say battle of Uhud is the only example?

I said it was revealed after the battle of Uhud and its timing was perfect. Post war.

The point was that in similar scenarios, you are allowed to marry 4 times.

I never mentioned that it was for that particular war only.

This is what I call a classic example of putting your foot in your mouth. Re-read your own post before you tell me that I misread it. This is the Post that I quoted.

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.

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.

So first you claim that it became NECASSARY during the time of war when there’s no such evidence found. Neither Quran nor Sunnah says that polygyny is NECESSARY under ANY circumstances, so it’s your own assertion. Then, you follow it up with a historical blunder claiming that “most” men died in the battle of Uhud, when the number was only 70-73 out of 700+ which is about 10%-12%. Then you further claim that “It is not applicable now” which to any neutral reader sounds like passing of a judgement for specificity of a time.

Your claim of it becoming a necessity during adverse or extreme times has no proof from history, Sunnah of the Prophet, or the Quran. It is just a claim that you have made up.

In how many countries is the number of women greater than the number of men and what is the ratio?

I don't know but the world's population ratio of men & women is almost even right now.

How does one decide how many times a particular man will have to marry?

People marry for various reasons, I can;t give you a definitive answer.

and what about a place where there are more men and more women, so can the women marry multiple men? why not?

In Islam, women are permitted to marry only one man at a time.

if God thought marrying more than one woman was right, he would have encouraged it.

Who's encouraging it? I'm simply defending the position that second marriage without a 'noble' reason is a legitimate position in any given time. Assuming that the man will fulfill all the rights due on him for each wife.

What a ridiculous statement. So what you are implying is that a man can marry more than once even if he has no valid reason apart from "lust"?

Lust including love is a valid reason for some people to marry, it's not my problem you find it ridiculous.

How will you feel if your daughter has a perfectly fine relation with her husband and has kids as well, everything is normal and suddenly your son in law decides to marry again just because he has started to lust for another woman?

I'm not married yet, but if I ever have a daughter then I will raise her upon Islamic values, inshallah. If an incident like that ever occurred in her life, then naturally seeing her sad would make me sad, but I won't object to it as long as my son-in-law continues to give her her due rights.

And how many women are going to be happy with their husbands suddenly lusting for another woman and marrying again, in spite of having a proper family?

Just because women don't like it doesn't mean it never happens. I'm sure all of us here know someone who's cheated on their spouse or have carried multiple relationships. Hiding from the issue won't make it go awy.

 

[Yossarian]

^^^ @ shaykh

You believe what you want and I'll do the same. Argue and debate with me as much as you like but don't judge me, as I will not judge you.

Resorting to name calling is demeaning to both the one who is doing so and the one against whom it is directed, but more so for the former than the latter. Some would even argue that resorting to name calling is a sign of starting to lose the argument.

 

[Yossarian]

^^^ @ shaykh

And to further answer your question, yes, on occasions I have gone against the 'wisdom' of those more 'learned' as it contradicted with my own views and feelings.

Here is one such example:

When my father passed away, and after the janaazah prayer, some of these 'learned' individuals informed me that my mother, my sisters and my aunt could not follow the funeral procession to the burial site and be anywhere near when the burial took place. I informed these gentlemen that my female relatives were not going to be prevented from offering their du’aa and to pay their last respects to our loving father, my mother's dear husband and my aunts beautiful brother, and if any of these learned friends objected to that then they were welcome to depart.

Funnily enough none of them did depart and my fathers daughters/wife/sister did attend.

And to cap it all, since my stance, even some of those who originally objected, have followed suit when one of their loved ones has passed away.