Ali Eteraz initiated this round on his blog and comments are opened at the bottom of my counter-argument on my blog.
My defense of polygamy is not in an effort to say this practice should be the norm or it should be practiced in societies were it is prohibited. The defense is primarily based on three factors; not only is polygamy something not prohibited by the Quran it is something that was practiced by the Prophet (pbuh) and the Sahabah, the absence of polygamy leaves many women without husbands and the natural state of the adult in Islam is to be married, and polygamy is an institution rooted in a family based society as opposed to the welfare state systems on the modern West.
Because I do not have time to address it with the word limitations (1000) of this debate series I will also point people towards the works of B. Carmon Hardy who has done an excellent job looking at polygamy in the history of the Mormon Church, the blog post on the topic at Marginal Revolution, and the book written from a Muslim perspective entitled Polygamy and Islam co-authored by Bilal Phillips and Jameelah Jones.
To say that polygamy is unethical, immoral, or the practice of male-perverts is to say that the Prophets of Islam and their companions fit into these categories and as I am a Muslim and believe in the revelation revealed by Allah to His Prophets I cannot hold this position.
Polygamy was understood by most people of faith as normal, or at least not immoral, until St. Augustine promoted his dislike of polygamy in his work the good marriage and even in that work Augustine did not say polygamy was in contrast to scripture; but rather in contrast with Roman tradition and shouldn’t be practiced by Christians (for the record, though a Roman citizen, Augustine was of Berber North African origin). We should also note that throughout the history of Christianity, until today, there have been individuals and movements arise who practice polygamy. It was not uncommon for Ashkenazi Jews to practice polygamy until the 11th century opinion of Rabbeinu Gershom discouraging it and many Sephardic Jews moving to Israel in the 20th century arrived with two and three wives. As Muslims continue to practice polygamy today (along with many non-Muslim traditional cultures) it is clear that polygamy is a part of the social make-up of those that descend from Abraham and it is not religious doctrine, or the words of the revealed, that have made polygamy illegal, rather it is pressure from those who either have competing religious visions based on their own opinions or a secular humanistic world view.
Now to the second phase of the argument. We are all familiar with the hadith that states marriage is half of your deen, this may or may not be a weak hadith, but we all get the point; it is important for the believer to be married and Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, places a high premium on believers reproducing and creating a new generation of the righteous.
In the secular society we live in today many people choose not to get married and others who get married choose not to have children and you will find that this is a class of people who are either non-religious or atheists for the most part ( unless their are some medical or socialization factors involved). For this discussion I will leave alone the social problems that this kind of a lifestyle causes for the individual and the society and instead look at the competing vision of societies of faith. The vision of the Abrahamic societies is one where the believer is married and reproducing and those values are reinforced in society. In some cases there are more women in the society than men, should the women who may not be that attractive or wealthy be left to her own ( or even the shy male be left to live a life of loneliness)? Or should the widow of a believer be left to live in a single unnatural state for a believer? On the flip side should the man, whose biology is telling him he needs more than one women, be forced to go into the streets and fulfill his desires in an illegal way ( which a slight majority of married American men do according to studies), or should he have the option to fulfill his desires lawfully? If you believe marriage is the natural state for the believer, and accept what religion and modern science tells us about the differences between most men and women regarding views on sex, you cannot secure marriage for all without polygamy.
Lastly I will look at the issue of the family-based society as opposed to the welfare state society. I will preface this by saying that there are some elements of the welfare state system I support and believe that in prosperous societies such as the United States the nation has a moral obligation to have a safety net for the least among us. However, in a society where there is almost full-marriage, families are having children and those who can’t have children are adopting children, and societal ills are at a minimum due not only to the lifestyle of the believers but due to what is being encouraged as normal in the popular culture, the need for the welfare state, which puts a tremendous burden on the citizenry via taxation, is substantially reduced.
In closing I will say that in the American-Muslim community polygamy exists and I know of a few beautiful Muslim families where this is working wonderfully for all; but I know of many more cases of some deadbeat Muslim brothers doing some “halal pimpin” ( but I’m not hatin on my Senegalese Muslim brother from St. Louis Akon) . The instances of abuse will remain in any society where polygamy is illegal and it is brought underground. If it is hidden the community cannot address the problems revolving around it in a public way. In America, I will not criticize anyone for practicing polygamy nor will I encourage it, I will say that if gay marriage is made legal, which is something that is not rooted in any human tradition, those people of faith whose religion recognizes polygamy should actively lobby the government for its legalization.
I really enjoyed reading your post and the historical overview you gave with reference to early Christian and Jewish- Abrahamic- cultures. I want to add that these cultures, over the span of centuries, have evolved and omitted the practice of polygamy. As Muslims, we need to reinterpret the sacred text in a modern applicable context, where I don’t see polygamy as feasible, for economic and emotional reasons.
One of the conditions for polygamy within Islam is that the first wife, and then any consecutive wives, gives their husband permission to take another wife. I also seen several cases where polygamy worked due to equally consenting spouses (with an emphasis on the word equally), however in reality this crucial legitimizing step within Islam is largely by-passed within patriarchal societies and this side-stepping condition of polygamy thus legitimized in these societies. Also, most healthy fertile women with healthy loving relationships with their husbands would not want to share their man with another, any more than a man would want to share his wife with another man.
I want to redirect back to and quote what the Quran says: “Wa lan ta’dalu.” In Egypt, regardless of whether the first wife supports her husbands decision to espouse another, a man must prove within a court of law that he can materially and emotionally provide for both (assuming only two) spouses in an equitable fashion. Algeria favors “Wa lan ta’dalu” and interprets this to mean, literally, that you cannot be equal. Sex aside, Can one honestly love to people in an exactly equal fashion? Finally, who says that a man’s libido is stronger than a woman’s desires? I beg to differ! Part of marital commitment is sexual commitment to one person, for both men and women.
Finally, regarding how marriage is half of one’s religion, ‘el zawaj nus el deen’: In the state of Islam marriage is advocated, absolutely, but in readdressing this I want to veer the emphasis off of procreation and sexual gratification (let’s assume these are givens), and onto the state of harmony, love, and transcendental love that a state of marriage can fulfill and should provide. What is a marriage without these things? Islamic mysticism says that the first level of heaven is found through marriage for these former reasons. How can this be achieved if a woman’s heart is broken by her husband for marrying another without her consent? What impact does this have on our moral and social fabric as Muslims? In many Gulf Middle Eastern countries, one impact this has is a reinforcement of women as lesser creatures, and breeds dysfunctional households that thwart the proper rearing of children. Can it not be said that a man who espouses another without his wife’s consent be technically cheating on her and his marriage invalid?
Thanks for hearing me out.
Umar, I agree with you up til you start on “what if a man feels he needs more than one woman” train of thought. Polygamy should not just be used as a halal substitute for adultery. A man should honor his wife and show some discipline. I know you don’t think Muhammed was afraid of cheating and so took other wives, so why give a reason for polygamy that involves neither Qu’ran nor Sunnah?
Dave, I think the issue is more complex than that. Most men desire more than one woman and that is natural and there is nothing from the Quran and Sunnah that says it is impermissible to marry more than women based on sexual desire. That is something the liberal thinkers have revised into the Islamic history and the sexual desire of a man is natural. However, I think that for most men polygamy is not practical, and economically in these days and times few can afford it.
I will try and post more substantively later, but I’m wondering what Akon’s picture is doing in this post. He is a disgusting human being and should be called out for that – simulating sex on a stage with a 14 year old girl? He’s no “brother” of mine.
I agree, polygamy should be legal, and while we are at it, we should also make polyandry legal as well. Quite a long history of polyandry as well. What do you think? The girls should also have fun :), provided they can treat each man absolutely equally in the eyes of man and Allah (as the men have to do! :)
Umar, please clarify this statement, “should the women who may not be that attractive or wealthy be left to her own ( or even the shy male be left to live a life of loneliness)?”
Are you suggesting ugly women get in where they fit in? What about ugly brothers, why should we marry them? Shouldn’t brothers follow the sunnah and seek the one with deen, or continue down the losing path by picking the beautiful woman or wealthy (so he can live off her)?
THe problem I have with polygamy is when a brother or sister ATTEMPTS to make it obligatory. You’ll always hear sisters say, “Sister you need to fear Allah,” when another says she doesn’t want to be in such a marriage. As women we have the right to say no thanks, and brothers should be honest and let us know whether they are already married and/or seeking to remarry for whatever reason.
I like the Eygptian concept, Imams in America (then again most of us are getting married in Farooq’s basement ;) ), should ensure the brother is able to FINANCIALLY provide for all families and they shouldn’t be living in the same house. Also AIDS, HIV, and STD testing should be mandatory (even if it’s not a polygamous situation) on both parties.
As far as loving someone equally, that will never happen. As a mother I love all three of my children, however I will not sit here and say I love them all on the same level BUT I do treat them all the same with small differences according to their ability, needs, and age. Same applies with my siblings and parents.
Maleeha, Akon is not the only one to blame, the girl (she’s knew what she was doing and needs kick to the throat), as well as her parents. Her parent’s (isn’t her father a preacher or minister?) shouldn’t allowed her to be out (I searched deep within and couldn’t come up with any reason why any parent does not know the whereabouts of their child.) Akon practices polygamy, so I assume that’s why his photo was there. ALso, some of our young sisters are married. I meet a sister who is now 20 with 4 kids, she married at 15 so are our brothers disgusting as well when they marry little girls? Frankly I believe so, even when a man marries a woman 10 years younger than he I think he has some issues be it control or a pervert but that’s my opinion.
Now what about women with a high sex drive or need for emotional attention…what is she supposed to when it’s not her night? Suppose she needs some comforting, if she’s anything like me she needs some steadying hugging and cuddling ON DEMAND. What happens if she needs to vent?
What’s the deal with sisters looking for a cowife because they need help with their bad *ss children?
“On the flip side should the man, whose biology is telling him he needs more than one women, be forced to go into the streets and fulfill his desires in an illegal way, or should he have the option to fulfill his desires lawfully?”
I’m sorry, but this is just ridiculous. If I exchanged “man” for “woman” in that sentence, I doubt you’d agree. The perception that men have stronger sexual desires than women isn’t as much about biology as it is about the social conditioning that we receive from our patriarchal up-bringing. And even if you don’t agree with me, even if we suppose that men’s libido IS stronger than women’s, should’nt they learn to discipline themselves? Yours is the same argument that has been used for imposing the veil – “protect” yourself by wiping out your identity because the men are out of control. Frankly, this is more insulting to men than women.
Ali:
Although polygamy is legal for Muslims in India, I can assure you that an overwhelming majority of polygamists are not taking in widowed/divorced/abandoned women. The second wife is almost always younger/prettier (read:fairer/slimmer)/richer than the first. So its not like polygamy is serving its purpose there either. The only saving grace is that since it is legal, atleast the women have their rights as in any other marriage.
Harmonie:
I’m curious – how exactly does a man prove in an Egyptian court that he is capable of providing for both women “emotionally”. If his first wife is pissed off with him because he’s marrying another, isn’t it obvious that he’s not even capable of looking after ONE emotionally? :D
Loved your response btw.
AHah! Polygamy..dear to my heart.. Its actually Polygyny when a man has more t han one wife. Polygamy isnt from Islam because women dont have more than one husband. It we did it would be polygamy. If a woman has more than one husband its called Polyandry and there is a Island on the South Seas where the women have more than one husband. When they were asked about who the father of their children was they said they didnt know. They had little husband and big husband. They said noth were considered the childrens father.
Interesting huh?
I’m all for Polygyny when practiced in the best manner. Just not for this mack version that can be prevalent in our communities.
Oh and FYI–I;d love to know who’s Akons “wifelets” are. I read he had 7. Truly His-Lamic.
Wasalaam
Multiple relationships (having more than one girlfriend) is perfectly LEGAL in the United States and most countries of the world.
It is legal for a man to have a wife and girlfriend as long as he does not marry her (hence making a commitment in the relationship)
A man can have 10 girlfriends and it is legal. If a man have two wives that he is taking care of then he is a criminal
I think this debate, on either side, regurgitates familiar arguments. Several issues in the above post:
In the first phase of the argument, the author makes the historical case that most (religious) communities have always practiced polygamy. This is a flawed approach. It may be interesting from an anthropological point of view, but it’s not helpful at all for debating moral/religious norms. Most communities throughout history have also practiced slavery — does that make it right or justifiable? Furthermore, as someone above has already pointed out, numerous human societies have also practiced polyandry. How come we’re leaving that out of discussion?
Re: “the man, whose biology is telling him he needs more than one women…” To make a statement like this completely ignores women who naturally feel the desire for multiple men. And there are men who naturally desire only one companion. Biology is not an excuse; biology does not even mandate social insitutions like marriage.
Re. “I know of a few beautiful Muslim families where this is working wonderfully for all…” How are anecdotal evidences like this at all helpful to the debate? How about Muslim families where it’s not working out at all? Most polygamous marriages are messed up and unhappy — I’m not saying it need be, I’m just saying we need to open our eyes and confront reality, as opposed to just dodge it. Just check out the polygamy blogosphere one of these days, and read about the experiences of women involved in polygamous marriages. Not very pretty, I tell you.
The frequent reference to “social ills” is not helpful to the debate either. Social ills are just as pervasive, if not more complicated/worse, in many Muslim countries that are just as strictly family-based as you wish, which are reproducing happliy, which freely allow polygamy, and where women are still abused, and men still “go into the streets and fulfill [their] desires in an illegal way.”
Lastly, I agree with harmonie22′s emphasis on the questions of love/harmony in marriage. Much of this debate has completely ignored the factors that dominate human relationships, and resorted merely to arguments about social processes like reproducing, etc. Let’s quit the top-down approach for a bit and look bottom-up, from the point of view of the human individual…the Muslim man and the Muslim woman.
Daddy, why are you leaving again?
I’m going over to my other wife, your aunt secondia. When you’re older, you’ll understand.
But why? Don’t you love me more? Don’t you love mommy more?
I love you all equally.
But I don’t love love you equally. I love you lots more.
(sigh) I know son. But I am a man and a man has needs.
Hey, me too daddy. I need you.
I’ll be back in a few days.
You always say that. But then you to aunt thirdy and aunty fourthy. I NEVER see you!!
Look, I have to go. I’ll be back soon. Take care of your little sister.
Daddy, does that mean that sis will be an aunt secondy or thirdy or fourthy when she grows up?
Well, I…I, (gulp). It’s different for girls.
Why?
Uh…
Why? Why? Why?
Maleeha….you are spot on!
I also wanted to say much more about this post, but find it impossible to get past the acknowledgement of AKON. You call him disgusting but I would prefer “animal”. I did hear about the event in Trinidad and later saw it on youtube. “no brother of mine”…INDEED!
He is also planning a “reality” show featuring him and his 3 wives and their “lives” together ALL UNDER ONE ROOF.
GROSS. I am so thrilled that there is a “muslim” out there in pop culture to represent the beauty of polygamy to the planet….make me puke.
Irving……you are spot on too!
LOL
A few people asked above why polyandry was left out of the argument. Simple: Is there anything in the Qur’an and Sunnah that makes it permissible under ANY circumstance? It is agreed upon that this has no place in islam so therefore should not be in the discussion.
All anecdotal evidences aside because one can use personal experiences to argue anything. Indeed there are people in monogomous marriages that are bad, but is this an argument against marriage itself?
The bottom line comes down to what Allah said and what his Messenger sal Allahu alayhi wa salam said.
I have been married only once to the same woman and have no plans to take another wife in the foreseeable future, if ever, but that does not make me try to make impermissible what Allah has made permissible.
Yes there are brothers abusing polygamy, but there are others abusing monogamous marriages too. That does not make the institution itself a bad one.
I advise the people on this board to watch what they are saying when they try to interpret Allah’s deen with no knowledge. This is a dangerous thing.
And finally Umar, once again you have this strange tendency to make an argument only to destroy everything you are trying to say at the end (this time with the picture of Akon and praise of him that had nothing to do with this and could have been left out)
It all comes down to how much a man fears Allah.
There are countless men in monogamous marriages who don’t treat their wives well, even though the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “The best of you are those whom are best to their wives.” There are also men in polygamous marriages who don’t treat their wives well.
And there are some men in monogamous or polygamous marriages who realize the responsibility of justice and responsibility when dealing with their families and do their best to fear Allah.
Thus, the problem is not with monogamy or polygamy: the problem is with how much an INDIVIDUAL fears Allah and obeys Him, thus showing his commitment to his family, how he is Islamically supposed to.
I’ve grown to dislike the desire argument as well. I’ve seen how we’ve become an ummah that slaves behind our desires. Everything we see, we want and without any care for who we trample over, we go for it. That’s not how a Muslim man or Muslim woman should be behave, that’s how Muslims who are suffering from diseased hearts act. I don’t want to think or act like that and wouldn’t want to be married to a Muslim man who acted like that either.
Also, logically if you give that much credit to a man’s desire the same credit would eventually have to be given to a woman’s desire as well. Today, women are 10,000 times more sexually free than they were during the time of prophet (saaws) and that has had an affect on us Muslim women as well. The stranger marriages didn’t become popular by brothers, it was because there were/are groups of Muslims; men and women, who are hot to trot and want to hook-up and marry similar like minded people.
The flipside is that a man or woman who chases after their desires are the exact people who don’t have the ability to practice polygyny and this is part of the reason why polygyny is failing amongst the Muslims world wide. When brothers and sisters are more concerned with the singles in their community than how many salat they’ve make on time or how much Qur’an they’ve memorized or how much sadaqah they’ve given to their own community then things are not going to be right.
Yet, we have to keep the modernist and so called progressives amongst us in line. Polygyny is lifestyle allowed by Allah. You can’t reinterpret the halal or haraam, it is what it is. It has it benefits and it has it’s disadvantages. Mature, responsible, and financially able Muslims are free to choose it, if it’s not any interest to you, no problem. Monogamy is sunnah too. Enjoy it.
What I really have mounting issues with is forced polygyny. Brothers, fear Allah. Don’t lie, scheme and then cause more pain and harm by oppressing your wife with a marriage she no longer wants, even if it is solely because you have wed again. That’s her right to choose if she wants to be in a relationship with a man who is married to other women.
Then there are the Muslim polygynous bullies out there especially amongst the sisters. They’re aggressive and often plain mean in their approach. I’m good at ignoring studpidity but some times you have to be blunt and tell the bullies to leave alone what doesn’t concern them or in other words: MYOB!
I have this feeling that much of the advocacy for polygamy these days has different reasons than there were in times past. Before, it was simply social custom and often the mark of a wealthy man or wanna-be socialite. But, today I think one of the main reasons people stand by polygamy is because its yet another thing to make us stand out from the “evil” West. Having polygamy makes some Muslims (I’m not directing this towards Umar the individual, BTW) feel distinguishable from the non-Muslims they live amongst. If we give that up, then to some, its yet another step down the proverbial lizard hole following the Christians and Jews. That’s maybe why so many Muslims equate righteousness with marrying more than one woman or the woman accepting co-wives.
As for me, I think that polygamous relationships are inherently unstable. The families who make it work, IMHO, are the exception because of the unending drama. Just because it was / is permissable doesn’t make it a great idea. Heck, even the Prophet had to deal with some serious drama, so much so that God had to reveal verses about him letting them go or not!
I’m going to respond to sisterinIslam. I think we as Muslim women have a problem owning up to our own responsibilities and failures. Monogamy and polygyny are marriages and in Islam marriages involve men and women.
It’s not up to one individual, it’s up to ALL indivdiuals involved in the marriage to ensure it is working properly.
If no Muslimah was willing to marry brothers secretly, then most secret marriages wouldn’t take place (except in those cases where a brother is lying about his marital status and even that could be cut down).
If sisters would take the time, effort and patience to find reliable guardians and listen to their advice on the men they are pursuing; the liars, promiscuous, serial divorcees and brothers who are financially unable to afford monogamy or polygyny would often get weeded out.
If the sisters who desired polygyny spoke to the current wives she would know beforehand whether the brother’s first family was accepting of the marriage or if they were going to be hostile to her.
These are just a few things sisters could do to protect themselves from fitna, but often it isn’t done.
Scientifically speaking, there is strong evidence to suggest that female desire is a whole lot more powerful and complicated than most (men) think.
Males are more sexually aggressive, at least on the surface (convex genitalia, et cetera, et cetera), but compared to men, women are practically sexually indefatigable. Women are also capable of experiencing multiple orgasms – and when they do receive pleasure from sex, it is much greater than the pleasure a man could receive.
The idea of a man “naturally” roving for more sexual partners, and a woman “naturally” sitting at home and “submitting” to her one-and-only male when prompted is a myth. You can debate the matter spiritually all you want, but nature, I think, is not clear-cut on these issues at all.
Also, I think it’s fairly obvious that although monogamy has an extensive list of benefits – it’s not strictly “natural” either, although for some it is more “natural” than others. And this goes for both men and women.
I’m not a “natural” monogamist by any stretch of the imagination myself, for example – but this doesn’t negate my responsibilities to my partner, who is very monogamous, and whose love and affection I treasure above all. Either one is capable of love and self-sacrifice, or one is not. You can’t have your cake and eat it too, and people like Akon are sad examples of this, imho.
All of this has to do with why I think that bringing nature into a religious debate surrounding polygamy muddies the waters quite a bit. Nature is mysterious and violent and not at all bound up by ethics, morals, commandments, and haraam/halaal distinctions.
Assalamu alaikum, *sigh*, you had to bring up Akon. Why oh why did you have to do that? *smile* He can use Islam and “culture” to justify polygamy but has anyone heard any of the lyrics of some of his songs? Very “Islamic” (sarcasm intended) to me! He can be all “Islamic” when it comes to polygamy, but act anything but when he writes his songs, etc. You’ve got a guy singing about going to strip clubs and watching women, taking women back to his home and “smackin’ dat” (wonder if his three or however many wives he’s got would approve of this?), among many other things. What gets me about htis, is he can go on a radio program and use Islam and culture as a justification for his lifestyle, etc., but what about the other tenets of Islam? What about “lowering the gaze”, etc., etc. or dies this not apply to him ’cause he’s some big celebrity now!? As far as the incident with the 14-year old girl goes, I’d liek to know what she was doing in that club, and why her parents didn’t know anything about it until the video emerged. And Akon didn’t put out a statement on this until Verizon dropped their sponsorship of the tour! To me, it’s not so much about him dancing with a 14-year old gilr, it goes back to Akon wanting ot use Islamwhen it suits him, i.e. polygamy, yet forget all about Islam while simulating sex with a woman / girl that he’s not married to! Maleeha above said “he’s no borhter of mine”, etc., well, I’m tempted to say that, but I stop short because if he is a Muslim, if he saiys the shahadah, he’s still a “brother” technically, though as I said on my blog, I think he needs a Muslim intervention or something! Because as a Muslim, he’s embarrassing me with all this polygamy and taking cues from R. Kelly by dancing with underaged girls. Yet seemingly forgetting about Islam, except when it comes to his three, or how many wives he’s got. Just antoher example of how some men love to use “Islam” or culture to justify their behavior! Yet, what is this doing to non-Muslims image of Islam, and Africans, as well? Go and read some of the blog comments on http://www.vibeconfidential.com to see what I’m talking about! And also listen to the sound clips where Akon basically states he’s representing all Africans / Muslims. He darn sure ain’t representing me as a Muslim! *sigh* Inshallah, I’m done with this!
polygamy in india, where it is legal, is controversial for two reasons:
1) women usually do not want their husbands to take up another wife. the fear of another wife (like the fear of unilateral divorce) has women endure abuse, just so they won’t be divorced.
2) it would be one thing if polygamous arrangements were consensual, but more commonly i’ve seen men either marry their second wife secretly or cultivate a separate household without the first wife’s consent. (as sana pointed out, second wife is usually fairer/slimmer, not a destitute widow, and also favored in terms of affection, money, and time).
this isn’t to demonize men. in arranged marriages, men don’t always ‘consent’ to their first marriage. but it doesn’t change lack of consent on the part of the first wife.
I like omar g’s point that the emphasis on polygamy is another distancing measure from the West.
i am also sympathetic to Umar Lee’s argument that there are other ways of living/being than that offered by secular liberalism. but, the realities of polygamy have to be evaluated before they are sanctioned as theologically ‘good’.
Pingback: Part Two of Debate with Ali Eteraz: Polygamy « Umar Lee « Ginny’s Thoughts & Things
“It’s not up to one individual, it’s up to ALL indivdiuals involved in the marriage to ensure it is working properly.
If no Muslimah was willing to marry brothers secretly, then most secret marriages wouldn’t take place (except in those cases where a brother is lying about his marital status and even that could be cut down).”
Yes, I agree with you sister Musleema, jazaki Allahu khair for bringing that point up.
The main point I wanted to make in my comment was that many people these days hate the law of Allah or hate the institution of polygamy at its root and basis, when in actuality, they should dislike the certain people who MISUSE and ABUSE this institution for their own desires. If men AND women implemented the justice, kindness and responsibility that Allah, the Lord of the Universe, ordained for them, a lot of the issues that correspond with modern polygamy would be virtually non-existant.
Of course, I’m not trying to oversimplify things either; there are of course, many other factors, such as culture, environment, other family members’ mentalities, etc… but what I am trying to say is that if individuals improved themselves and actually put in the effort, feared Allah and lived up to what He wanted of them, then numerous of the problems would be gone.
May Allah guide us all and help us all, ameen.
Sana: thanx :))
I don’t think you can demonstrate emotional equity in a court of law, perhaps not even to yourself. I saw an Egyptian talk-show a few years back that addressed about this too, it had coverage of one case where a man’s 1st wife actually came in to testify that her husband was being emotionally fair.. at the end of the day, if every one is transparent and happy who am I to argue.
PS Natalia nice one…
Hi Umar
You have made an adequate case (if only taken on faith) for marriage.
The only case you have made specifically for polygamy and Islam is that it is not forbidden.
Technically, neither is killing.
In special cases, as you alluded to, there are needs to kill (and Holy Prophet did ) and there may be needs for polygamy ( lightly populated tribes in the Arab peninsula who suffered loss of men in the casualties of war ).
Neither of these cases is the norm. Common sense would dictate that War is a exception to the way humans should treat each other due to special circumstance. Marriage standards follow the same logic.
If, as the Qur’an states, men and women share an equal status, how can we expect the holy sanctioned institution of marriage to disrupt the balance the Qur’an advocates?
A women is not equal in status to a man if she is merely one of many wives.
I don’t share all of Ali Eteraz’s opinions, but in this case, the conclusion is clear: polygamy is outdated.
Irving,
you have me over here singing…the cat’s in the cradle. This song isn’t about polygamy, but it’s the same. The father is too busy and basically misses his son’s childhood. When the boy grows into a man, dad would like to spend time with him…you got it, now he’s too busy for dad.
On another note, how is the man being a protector of his woman, especially in today’s society when’s he’s not home on a regular basis?
My child arrived just the other day
He came to the world in the usual way
But there were planes to catch and bills to pay
He learned to walk while I was away
And he was talkin’ ‘fore I knew it, and as he grew
He’d say “I’m gonna be like you dad
You know I’m gonna be like you”
And the cat’s in the cradle and the silver spoon
Little boy blue and the man on the moon
When you comin’ home dad?
I don’t know when, but we’ll get together then son
You know we’ll have a good time then
My son turned ten just the other day
He said, “Thanks for the ball, Dad, come on let’s play
Can you teach me to throw”, I said “Not today
I got a lot to do”, he said, “That’s ok”
And he walked away but his smile never dimmed
And said, “I’m gonna be like him, yeah
You know I’m gonna be like him”
And the cat’s in the cradle and the silver spoon
Little boy blue and the man on the moon
When you comin’ home son?
I don’t know when, but we’ll get together then son
You know we’ll have a good time then
Well, he came home from college just the other day
So much like a man I just had to say
“Son, I’m proud of you, can you sit for a while?”
He shook his head and said with a smile
“What I’d really like, Dad, is to borrow the car keys
See you later, can I have them please?”
And the cat’s in the cradle and the silver spoon
Little boy blue and the man on the moon
When you comin’ home son?
I don’t know when, but we’ll get together then son
You know we’ll have a good time then
I’ve long since retired, my son’s moved away
I called him up just the other day
I said, “I’d like to see you if you don’t mind”
He said, “I’d love to, Dad, if I can find the time
You see my new job’s a hassle and kids have the flu
But it’s sure nice talking to you, Dad
It’s been sure nice talking to you”
And as I hung up the phone it occurred to me
He’d grown up just like me
My boy was just like me
And the cat’s in the cradle and the silver spoon
Little boy blue and the man on the moon
When you comin’ home son?
I don’t know when, but we’ll get together then son
You know we’ll have a good time then
Interesting…..I think you have to walk the walk(in this case) to understand the talk..if you know what I mean. Plural marriage is difficult. I know many many women involved in plural marriage. Many who have been married for years and many who havent. Not one of the women I know have had idyyllic marriages. All of them have had problems arising from the situation. The only women who dont have problems are those who are kept in the dark about the previous marriages or are encouraged to “worry about themselves”. Seems to me the only way to really have a happy plural marriage these days is to concentrate on your own little pasture and to hell with anything else.
I have strong views on plural marriage because a) I have been in plural marriages and b)I have children who were a result of plural marriages.
I think in all the children do tend to be the ones who are short changed.They are the ones who are forced to see their fathers sporadically. They are the ones who lose out from the more normal nucleur family. The Prophet(saw) didn’t have any natural children from his wives when he began to practice plural marriage and there arent that many texts that specifically talk about the children in plural marriages so in this respect we are doing it blindly.
If the marriages can be maintained in the same area and all the sisters arent the jealous type ..then this can be wonderful. When I lived in Saudi..I met a family who’s husband had an entire 4 floor building with an apartment on each floor. All his wives lived in the building having one floor each. He had the 4th apartment ready for his 4th wife who was coming from Egypt. Thats the way that polygyny should be practicd.Its honest, fair and sincere. The way that its practiced in the west tends to be different. For example the women tend to have to help to support the family..a lot of times the women already has her own place so marriage to a man only neccessitates him moving a thobe or two in.Paying a bill or two but never really takin it all on. The other thing is in divorce….usually the children are the ones that are left to suffer. I know a lot of sisters who’s children havent seen their father for years while he has gone on to marry other women and have children in polygynous marriages…its too idyllic to say be careful what you say when you arent living it or have never lived it.
I also wanted to say that , yes, all should be responsible and make it their business to find out if a brother is up for the job..but for a lot of women…half a man no matter how lacking he is …is better than no man..therefore plural marriage is attractive.
For me…Nah Im through with plural marriages.More power to the sisters who can make it work and are happy. Im too jealous as it it to share my man so I just ask Allah not to bring it to my door again. Ameen! :)
DMZ, I hear your argument, but if polygamy is outdated, as you say, what else in the Quran is outdated when you take modern times into consideration? Surely, with the long commutes most of us have to work, and the long hours we work, praying 5 times a day is outdated? You get my point, once we start trying to filter the Quran through Harvard what are we left with? Eternal truths or faith by opinion polls?
Polygamy has eugenic effects, in which the best genes will prosper. Polygamy has actually been the natural state of man and is the same with many ape species. In modern society, however, marriage is outdated and cumbersome.
Dear Umar,
I dont think DMZ means to say that polygamy is outdated and therefore should be removed, however, i think that our interpretation of the quran, and this particular part should be changed. While it is sacriligious to change the quran, changing the way we interpret it is fine, as long as we can justify our interpretations. I believe that polygamy is no longer needed by society as a whole, and i believe that you could make a could argument that you cannot treat all women equally in a polygamous relationship, and ergo, you could interpret that polygamy is not something that should be sanctioned in modern times
I do think both debaters are using common arguments and haven’t brought much of anything new to the table. Obviously polygyny is permitted, the conditions for it are clear, its purpose is clear (protecting orphans)…that is the normative Islamic purpose of polygyny. All else is elaboration and interpretation from various scholars.
Then you have polygyny how it is actually practiced. The above mentioned Algerian law is the only one that I have heard of in which polygyny is at all regulated. In all other places, a man many marry up to four at will without any question as to his reasons for doing so (are you protecting an orphan???) or his ability to support another family. No social checks and balances are in place. (Interestingly, there are many legal checks and balances in place to regulate the morality of women in these same countries, and this is encoded in family and personal law according to interpretations of the locally accepted school’s version of shari’ah, even when shari’ah is left out of other types of law, say, laws regulating business)
We can’t say polygyny is wholly wrong, it IS permitted in the Quran. However, we cannot conjecture androcentric justifications for it based on males’ supposed giant sexual appetites, women outnumbering men in the world (which is sooo not true) and all the rest.
I also value experiental/anectdotal reasoning. I myself live in a place where polygyny is legal, I know many many children of polygynous parents, have female friends in polygynous marriages, I know the devastated first wives, the jealous 2nd wives, I have seen it all with my own eyes. I have seen weird ways that polygyny is used: there are these guys who get into serial divorcing just for “halaal” sex. As local women where I live are no longer accepting polygyny as readily as their grandmothers, local men go to nearby countries to get young brides from impoverished families, which leads to more abuse. As polygyny is not practiced here or anywhere else for protecting orphans, nor is it regulated to ensure justice, it is basically a major social evil and source of fitnah for every family member involved including the children. Even the Prophet saws didn’t want his beloved daughter Fatima ra to become a co-wife because “what would hurt her would hurt him,” as per the hadeeth.
I think the problem isn’t polygyny itself, it is how we see it practiced on the ground—the causes of abuses of polygyny are of course because men make a mockery of Allah’s laws and because androcentric cultures support male whims under the pretense of them being somehow Islamic and natural. I think the problem lies in ensuring that polygyny is only practiced under certain conditions.
The reason why polygyny is a taboo in the West (which goes back at least as far as pagan Rome), is because Western societies have (in theory at least) been committed to freedom and/or equality.
Since in normal circumstances men and women are roughly equal in number, any polygynist is effectively denying to another man the chance to marry at all. (Unless polyandry is also allowed, but this is the case in almost no human societies…)
This meant that polygyny became associated in the West with highly stratified and despotic societies – think of the traditional Western stereotype of the “Oriental despot” with his harem!
“When the one man loves the one woman and the one woman loves the one man, the very angels desert heaven and come and sit in that house and sing for joy.” — Brahma Sutra
It is also natural that women desire more than one man – have you not realised that yet? of course you will not admit to that – you are a man and would no doubt find that threatening!
So men can give in to their desires in a ‘halal’ way but women cannot.
End of story – that’s the bottom line you’re telling us.
p.s. there must be a biological reason to not have one man as the ‘seed’ for all these children. Is this the desire of males to be the ‘alpha male’?
Ali Eteraz wrote:
Lets understand this: Women marrying more than one man is clearly prohibited in 4/24, so the Quran is against polyandry. On the other hand, there is no prohibition for men to marry more than one women, so logically, polygyny is allowed in the Quran.
“DMZ, I hear your argument, but if polygamy is outdated, as you say, what else in the Quran is outdated when you take modern times into consideration? ”
See. This is the fear and I think we Muslims should shed this fear: the slippery slope of revising Islam.
We are human beings (potentially) raised to a high status by God. We should give ourselves credit and not be afraid to have common sense.
There are many trivial things that are outdated in the Qur’an and many modern mundane questions the Qur’an does not specifically address.
The Holy Prophet was a man, like you and me, and he had limitations. Allah revealed the Message to a man at a time.
Where the spirit is concerned, the Qur’an is timeless. Because so is the spirit or soul. It will obey the same laws for eternity. Nature is in a state of change. The very nature of Nature is adapt or die.
Let’s not be afraid to use our common sense and righteous intention to see that procreation is a delicate and important decision that affects the whole planet as well as each individual.
The situation has changed alot since the time of the Prophet and the Qur’an never MANDATED polygamy anyway.
We cannot say that Polygamy is forbidden. We can just say that the situation no longer requires it.
Don’t you think?
I think we need to appreciate the difference between permissiblity and norm. War is permissible but should it be the norm of human society? A zabeehatarian McDonald’s burger is permissible, but is it healthy to live on greasy fast food for all three meals a day? I don’t see why we’re regarding this issue as if it’s a religious obligation, like prayer and fasting.
It also puzzles me that we make a big deal about the interpretation of scripture, without actually engaging with it on a systematic level. What if a strictly literalist mufassir were to argue as follows: SINCE the Qur’an recommends that men marry two/three/four women IF they fear they won’t be able to deal justly with orphans, THEN that must be the only circumstances under which a man may engage in polygyny. This is now how this has been interpreted traditionally, but it’s clearly plausible. Aren’t we just projecting our own experience/tradition/understanding to justify certain things and not others?
To argue that a social practice may become outmoded is not against the spirit of the religion. The Qur’an accepts the existence of concubinage and allows it. But that practice has died out, due largely to the evolution of social structures over the centuries (Except of course we Muslims seem amazingly oblivious to the nature of these changes — as Tariq Ramadan admits and regrets). But just because it was permissible does not mean it’s a mandate that must be revived! How come we’re not defending a man’s right to own concubines, just as passionately as we seem to be debating polygamy? (Now that makes me wonder, maybe ‘brother’ Akon just wanted that 14 year old girl in the dance club to be his concubine…!)
Just a couple of comments to some of the comments posted here …
harmonie22 said,
While I agree that getting the permission of the other wives is a good idea (if only to make things smoother within the family and between the husband and wives), there is nothing in Islam which stipulates that it is a condition upon the husband to ask his first wife (or other wives) before taking another. Those who claim this need to bring their evidences from Islamic texts to support it.
Dave said,
Rasheed Gonzales *SIGH*
You should know by now that Bint Will NEVER SUGGEST anything and you know I do not like for anyone to TWIST my words. Regarding the Prophet’s (PBUH) marriage to Aisha, which was something ordained by Allah. If we were to carefully the time this took place as well as the life expectancy we can easily see this was a special case – remember the Prophet had more than 4 wives, AND was also in a MONOGOMOUS marriage for the marriage of his life to a woman 15 years his senior who had been previously married with children —hmmmm our PHONEY, I mean pious brothers always OVERLOOK that fact! NOw fast forward to America during the early 1900s. Many of our grandmothers were married at very young ages (13, 14, 15, 16) at least mine were, this was acceptable back then. It’s not today. South Carolina recently changed the age of legal age of marriage from 14 to 17, if I am not mistaken, and this recent change was about 5 years ago. SO Aishah getting married at 16 – SIXTEEN – doesn’t surprise me given the era it occurred.
NOW LET ME BE BLUNT AND SAY THIS: TODAY’S MAN IS A SICK MUTHAFUKIN’ PERVERT IF HE MARRIES A LITTLE GIRL. There is absomotherf*ckinlutely no reason why any SANE MAN in 2007 should seek pleasure from a little girl. Let’s some sick bastard approach my husband or me and ask about my 15 year old CHILD and see how fast he gets his ass kicked by husband or get his little ass dick sliced, and I won’t make the same mistake as Lorena Bobbitt, because it will be shoved so far up his ass…
One more time for the road
Gomez, I’ve read elsewhere that its not possible that she was so young according to rigorous analysis of the reports and hadith where her age is mentioned. Its more probable that she was in her early to mid teen years.
Since people are writing here that marriage is for halal sexual enjoyment, what possible sexual allure would a prophet find in a six year old!? That’s the biggest reason why we should reject those erroneous reports about her being 6 or 9 years old which were probably fabricated by the enemies of Islam to discredit the Prophet. Such a thing was NOT considered normal in Ancient Arabia nor anywhere in the Classical World. Its still a sick thing today, don’t you know?
“In the first phase of the argument, the author makes the historical case that most (religious) communities have always practiced polygamy. This is a flawed approach. It may be interesting from an anthropological point of view, but it’s not helpful at all for debating moral/religious norms. Most communities throughout history have also practiced slavery — does that make it right or justifiable?”
Thank God for someone sensible!! I agree wholeheartedly. While naturally i think Ali should clearly win this ‘blog debate’ – i still think he’s whitewashing polygamy in the past. method of social welfare indeed. that sort of understanding of marriage as an ‘economic transaction’ is what leads to such flawed gender relations in the first place.
“Biology is not an excuse; biology does not even mandate social insitutions like marriage.”
i think rawi makes the most sense around here.
Rasheed, sorry, not Gomez. Anyway, several modern scholars have given fatwas thatthe first wife’s consent is needed. If you believe otherwise, find your evidence and argue it to them…
natalya hits the nail on the head as well. of course traditionally men have thought that women weren’t interested in sex – shows how much they knew. And ‘they’ are still using that as part of an argument to justify polygamy – how bizarre is that?
“Nature is mysterious and violent and not at all bound up by ethics, morals, commandments, and haraam/halaal distinctions.”
superbly put.
umar, you’ve got a lot of genius commenters on your blog debate.
Omarg,
Firstly, the last name is Gonzales, not Gomez.
Secondly, I’ve read some of those articles claiming that the authentic hadîths concerning ‘Â’ishah’s age at the time of her marriage to Prophet Muhammad. They’re weak arguments and have been answered nicely by a few brothers. One reply, which was written by brother Abu Khaliyl (from dkh-Islam.com), can be read here. Another one written by brother Abdurrahman Squires can be read here.
If you have read Islamic history and the reports concerning ‘Â’ishah’s marriage to Prophet Muhammad, you’d know that it was revealed to Prophet Muhammad in a dream that he would marry her. You’d also know that the marriage wasn’t consumated until she reached the age of 9, and presumably the age of puberty–the defining characteristic in Islam which determines when a girl has reached womanhood.
The burden of proof is upon the claimant. These “modern scholars” claim the first wife (or other wives) need to give consent before the husband marries another, then they need to bring the evidence from the source texts. As I mentioned in my earlier post, there is nothing that stipulates consent from the husband’s wife/wives as a condition for the husband to marry another.
I think the only reason why women were not allowed plural marriages is the issue of parentage. It is a simple biological fact that the woman gets pregnant. If she had multiple husbands there would be no clear way to determine fatherhood.
A lot of it is just pure neccesity. Hundreds of years ago men died in large numbers for various reasons and the women and their families had to be taken in.
In this day of DNA, this is no longer the case, as ew saw with the “Anna Nicole Smith” issue, even DNA takes time and loads of fitnah before it sorts things out.
Today I feel there are only a few places in the world that might Islamically justify plural marriages, those being Iraq, Chechnya and Bosnia, anywhere that happens to have a small number of men due to conflict and war. Anywhere else I feel it has nothing to do with Islam, rather culture and the ego and the prestige of the man.
Fatwas are all nice and good, but you can find fatwas that say anything.
Like one Khaliji blogger posted recently, one Sheik from al-Azhar in Egypt has written that it is haraam for men and women to use the same office, unless of course, the man has breastfed from her five times, then it is okay.
Like he said, sometimes a fatwa can be a “faswa” (Khaliji dialect for a “silent but deadly” burst of flatulence.)
The Muslims in this debate, who seem to be defining polygamy as something purely unethical and immoral, seem to be saying that all men who have engaged in this practice, including the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) were evil male perverts and according to Hallmark and Harvard they would be right but I don’t go by them.
Secondly, read what I say and don’t construct a straw man argument, I have never said women have less or no sexual desire than men, I said the thing that most studies conducted show and that is most women are msot happy with one partner.
DMZ,
A fear this slippery slope because it will make the Muslim no longer one who submits to the will of Allah and the deen as it has been understood but one who submits to a bunch of pompous pseudo-intellectuals who thin they are g*ds whi change their opinions according to what will make them look best at dinner parties. This would be purely a man=made religion, like Mainline Protestantism and and Reformed and Conservative Judaism, which are all dying movements by the way as the young seek authenticity or or no religion at all.
Rawi,
Did you read the first sentence of what my post?
And the divine guy or gal, that sounds nice, but in all honesty I do not have such romantic visions of love and male-female relations and think such things are largely the fictional creations of mystics, poets and writers yearning for what they don’t have, and people in entertainment trying to make money.
Crap! My dinner party plans are ruined.
Thanks alot Umar.
Umar, I understand that your point was not to argue for polygamy as the norm but to defend it. I was addressing the general tenor of this debate, esp. some of the comments.
I don’t think anyone here has defined polygamy as ‘purely’ unethical/immoral. The problem with taking an apologetic stance toward the issue is that we inevitably end up turning a blind eye to the way the system has been and is being abused, particularly to the severe disadvantage of women. In much of the same way, our community continues to dismiss concerns over the pervasive problem of domestic abuse, etc.
Also, I think we shouldn’t make opportune use of scientific evidence when it suits us but ignore it when it doesn’t. We seem perfectly okay with studies if they show that most women are happy in monogamous relationship, but we don’t seem to care if studies also show that most women in polygamous marriages are unhappy.
By the way,
Obviously, you know and I know that your response is not a response. It is simply assertion and a retreat to traditionalism and literalism.
Religious arguments end here alot. You say its one way. I say it ain’t.
I am not gonna question a guy on his religion.
Believe whatever you want.
0 dif to me.
Hows that halal mujra dancing coming along, dmz? Us orthodox literalist cavemen want to know.
I’d actually be really interested to see a study like this. What would it be based on? After reading Freakonomics, I’ve stopped taking all studies at face value, but, naturally, I’d love to take a look.
Have you got a link handy?
Much thanks. :)
I don’t need links, go research it your self. Do need a link or your professor to tell you there is a natural difference between men and women?
Hey man, I can do my research just fine, but I’ve never come across anything scientific that proves your hypothesis. Self-reportage, maybe, but that’s not reliable. Furthermore, you’re conflating two separate issues – I never said that there are no “natural differences” between men and women, but on the subject of monogamy and what is or isn’t natural, in the strictest sense of the word, I just haven’t seen any data, hence my question.
Like I said – bring in nature into a spiritual debate, and the waters are thoroughly muddied.
Rasheed, why do you want to believe that the Prophet would be romantically or sexually interested in a 6 or 9 year old?? A dream?? Why do you *want* to believe it and then call it submission to the will of God? Why? What purpose does it serve? Does anynone think that by disproving this young age that the whole validity of hadith is then shattered?
OmarG,
I believe these things because that’s what’s narrated in authentic hadîths and authentic narrations from the Prophet and his companions. This religion isn’t based on what you, I, or anyone else “wants” to believe. It’s based on what has been revealed to us and what has authentically been conveyed to us from Prophet Muhammad and his companions.
Some of the narrations concerning ‘Â’ishah’s age when she married Prophet Muhammad are reported from ‘Â’ishah herself—I think she of all people would know how old she was when she married him better than some nobody writing about it over a thousand years later. Two such narrations are found in Sahih Muslim with authentic chains; one being: az-Zuhrî, from ‘Urwah, from ‘Â’ishah, and the other being: Ibrâhîm an-Nakha’î, from al-Aswad, from ‘Â’ishah.
The Revelation and the authentically narrated reports constitute facts in Islam. And for me, they take precedence over anyone’s ill-conceived notions concerning them.
So, Squire’s argument rests solely upon reports from the Sahih hadith books. Another pillar of his argument is that early marriage was/is normal in Semitic cultures and he used that term and line several times especially in relating how no one opposed it because it was the cultural norm. So, he allows that culture is a legitimate evidence as do some faqih’s who call it “aada/adat”. Well, in my culture, marrying 9 year olds and having sex with them is not accepted. We also do not have concubines today and almost no one advocates permitting it even though the Prophet captured Safiyya from a Jewish tribe. So, why not also let marriage to 9 year olds be dropped??
No where in Islam does it mandate that brides can be as young as nine. Since it is a Western sickness to not want to marry 9 year olds, **who will be the first righteous Muslim here to distinguish themselves from the evil Western kuffar and 1) marry a 9 year old and have sex with here (even better if she’s the fourth wife) and 2) get thier 9 year old married off? Any takers!? **
Hows that halal mujra dancing coming along, dmz? Us orthodox literalist cavemen want to know.
I’ve been enjoying the substance of this debate, so Dr. M I hate to see the above statement be the first volley in an ensuing flame war.
Anyhow, the basic consensus I get is that no one really disagrees with the idea that polygyny is a concept tolerated in the Qur’an when applicable (as is war, etc.) However, I guess what some want (including myself) is more regulation and ‘stricter’ standards (social, legal, etc.) that can countermand the often clear abuses we see going on unchecked in our Muslim communities.
I do feel it’s impossible to make blanket assessment on the validity of polygyny for every given situation. For instance, I don’t see a polygynous marriage as generally serving its ‘purpose’ in our contemporary American society, but as others have stated already I do see merits in areas such as Chechnya, Iraq etc. for obvious reasons. What I hope for are sensible leaders (Imams, Academics, community leaders etc.) articulating these more nuanced positions, rather than simple yays or nays.
Ironically, in some ways I find the concept of polygyny akin to the issue of capital punishment in the U.S.. In that, I ostensibly support the concept as is, but that doesn’t mean capital punishment should be treated as a handy meatgrinder/social tool. Similarly, polygynous marriages are in many ways exceptional and should be treated as such.
Coming back and reading these comments, every1 has something has given me an intersting perspective on this issue but
DIVINE PAIRING OF EQUALS says it best:
“When the one man loves the one woman and the one woman loves the one man, the very angels desert heaven and come and sit in that house and sing for joy.” — Brahma Sutra
anaeem summed up the polygamy issue pretty well.
I have no interest in a flame war, Anaeem but pro-regressives like dmz and omarg are here to poison the discussion with their usual nonsense.
The Qu’ran is not a bunch of fuzzy parables so I don’t know where dmz gets of using terms like “literalists.” Its even more laughable that Eteraz has a problem with polygamy yet seems to find great value in muhra dances of desi red light districts. Go figure why he can’t hold onto just 1 wife.
Then we have G.I. broken-racist-right-wing-action figure aka omarg with his usual whiny strawman arguments borrowing heavily from third rate orientalists. He can’t handle the fact that he’s lost his white privilage, and phrases his inept arguments with talk of “my culture.” What culture is that? Paris Hilton and high cholesterol? One where he sleeps with multiple partners(non-consentially with 14 year Iraqi girls ofcourse) and then lectures us about how bad polygamy is and was in 7th century Arabia. His attack on the Prophet’s(saw) marriages reveal him for the munafiq that he is.
Polygamy isn’t a mandatory practice in Islam, it is allowed, not encouraged, and only if certain conditions are met. End of story.
I’m sorry, Omar, but that’s just plain retarded. No where in Islamic law is it found that cultural norms can render something that Islam has made legal (halâl) forbidden (harâm). Perhaps you can argue that in this time and place it may be ill-advised to do such things, but that’s a far cry from saying that it is wrong/forbidden to do so according to Islam.
Actually, the Qur’an sort of does. In sūrah at-Talaq, Allah says, «And those of your women who passed the menstruation (i.e., gone through menopause), if you doubted, then their waiting period (‘iddah) is three months, and [likewise] those who those who did not menstruate, [their waiting period is also three months], and the possessors of the burden (i.e., those who are preganant) their deadline is that they drop their burden (i.e., give birth). And whoever fears Allah, He makes ease for him from his affair» (65:4). There is no ‘iddah for a woman you’ve married and haven’t touched as is mentioned elsewhere in the Qur’an. Thus, this is a clear proof that marrying girls as soon as they reach puberty is permissible in Islam–even if they haven’t started having their menstrual cycles. Now, would doing this be a good idea in Western non-Muslim countries and do I advocate that Muslims practice this here in the West? No; the disadvantages (mafâsid) outweigh the advantages (masâlih).
As for your call to any righteous Muslim to distinguish themselves from the “evil Western kuffar” by doing those things … there’s a difference between saying that something is permissible according to Islamic teachings and saying that something is obligatory.
Now that Paris Hilton has been mentioned (why does every discussion degenerate into this nowadays? “Well, YOUR culture has Paris Hilton, nyah!” “YOUR culture has Osama Bin Laden!” – I’ve been getting kinda bored), let me just go on record as saying that Haifa Wehbe is a whole lot hotter. ;)
As for Aisha – what you’re forgetting, gents, is that at that point in time, and in those particular conditions, women’s bodies matured even quicker than now. People didn’t live as long before, we have to remember that.
Although this bothers me,
Have you seen any advantages to this in the MUSLIM world? We’ve all heard stories of old hairy men ripping into pre-pubescent, uneducated brides on their wedding nights (I’m sorry to be graphic here, but that’s the truth – and women in these places do not mature nearly as fast as before), and I know plenty of so called Muslim boys (not pointing any fingers at anyone here – sadly, I know them in real life) who get off on such fantasies, but, you know, as to the actual advantages of the practice – I’ve yet to hear any convincing arguments.
Natalia,
I’ve read how women in hot climates (physically) mature earlier than they do in cooler climates, and to my personal knowledge, this hasn’t changed much (Puberty101.com states that the onset of puberty in girls is usually between 8-11 years old). Do you have any support to suggest this has changed and they now mature later than they used to? If so, I’d be curious enough to see it.
On the subject of child sexuality, I found this Wikipedia article on it sometime ago (being that it’s Wikipedia, I’m not sure if it has changed much from when I first read it). It’s (or was) quite interesting.
DrM.
You’re making a fool of yourself. Don’t you have a miswak to chew? Better use for your time “doctor.”
You can’t conjoin all the admitted ills of western society and call it an either-or proposition. Nor can you say that if one admits polygamy is not advised in this time, it means one has to believe the whole Qur’an is fuzzy stories. I’ve already explained these details. I guess you can’t follow along.
Where did you take your doctorate? Clown University?
A civil discussion is never poisoned until an angry so-called doctor comes in with all his angry venom.
I doubt you have anything useful to add to this discussion. Take your personal attacks back to your clown blog.
OmarG,
You are out of line. If you attack the prophet for this, what else do you attack him for?
He married her at nine, it doesnt mean he had sex with her at nine. I was taught that he married her, as a way of shoring up tribal relations, and didnt consumate the marriage until she hit puberity.
This was common practice at the time, how old was Mary when God implanted the prophet Jesus in her? Most scholars say in her early teens.
By your words you would make God out to be some sort of a pervert for impregnating an early teen aged girl.
Situations and realities were different back then. Your condemnation of the prophet for his marriage is as misguided as the extremists use of things from 1,400 years ago to justify their campaign of murder today.
You, like the extremists have got it completely wrong, even though you might be on polar opposites when it comes to beliefs.
I think Mary was 12. I’m not entirely sure that this is fact – but there is that interpretation out there.
Miswak, dmz? Sounds good right about now. Given your consisting shilling for eteraz(who, oddly enough has no problem disrespecting sisters in hijab), I can guess what you’ve been chewing on.
Interesting that you speak of “civil discussion” and dismiss criticism of your dodgy talking points as “literalism.” Seriously, for once I’d like to see you proggies base your arguments on topics within Islam on the Quran and the Sunnah, instead of your backside.
And I’m still waiting for your explanation of how you reconcile your views on polygamy with fawning praise of mujra dancing in desi red light districts. Clown university alumni want to know, 0 munafiq extraordinaire.
These “liberal” Muslims are often just as bad as the “extremist” Muslims.
They both like to think they have the right to tell you what is right and what is wrong. They feel they can speak for all Muslims and when a Muslim doesnt agree with them they feel they have the right to insult them. They are as quick to label another Muslim as “extremist” as the real extremist is to label everyone else a “kaffir”.
I get a kick out of people who go against hijab and say women have a “right to think for themselves” then turn around and insult women who “think for themselves” but choose to wear hijab.
For these people “think for yourself” means “think like me” or you get insulted.
The fact that you would call me a munafiq is enough to condemn you outright. You have no knowledge of my religion, you takfiri moron.
Mujra dancing in desi red light districts? I don’t know. ASK SOMEONE WHO CARES! I have never even commented on the subject, far less posted something.
What a dim light shines from your weak mind.
You are not consistent enough, nor capable of debating. Your thinking skills, based just on what you have written here, are only detrimental to yourself.
It stands to reason that you would not be able to interpret the Qur’an or make sense from it. You have chosen wisely to follow only what you are told and to let others do your thinking for you.
I have nothing more to say to you except
Salaam.
Abu Sinan
Are you are just a DR. M appendage? An echo?
Think for yourself indeed.
And think for yourself can never mean think just like me. Obviously! Sheeesh! Did you spend your whole life in the madrasa? Get a clue.
I have already said that I have no right to judge another’s religion.
Nor do you. So if you are calling me a “liberal” muslim, you would only be right on the count that I support the rights of ALL individuals within Islam and do not advocate subjagation of any party to another.
Have one of Dr. M’s slaves or concubines get back to me on that.
DMZ,
See, when you go off tossing insults at anyone who doesnt agree with you, you are bound to look the fool, as you do.
I am a white American, I have never attended a “madrassa”.
You completely missed the point I was making. Many people who tell others to “think for themselves” do not really mean that. What they really mean is “think like me”.
Proof, it is clear. I made a statement disputing what you said, not insulting you. You came back with wild and inaccurate statements about myself. So it is clear you dont wish to talk to people who “think for themselves” you are only here to insult and attack people who do not agree with you.
Of course when my opinion does not match yours suddenly I must be someone’s lackey, someone’s tool, or something of the kind. It doesnt occur to you that different people can have the same opinion and not have a clue as to the other person.
I dont have any idea who “DrM” is, nor do I care. The fact that you came and did nothing but insult me for giving my opinions says all I need to know.
Take a second and re-read my post. Where did I call you a name? Where did I even mention your name in the post?
It is clear that you felt that my statements were directed at you, when they were not. They were directed at a certain mindset.
Liberals/Extremists, opposite sides of the same coin.
This debate has degenerated into pointless personal insults and name-calling. How typical of good Muslim behavior! I’m out.
Rawi: Quite right. I was only trying to clarify.
Abu Sinan: I only asked you questions. No names called. I said think for yourself. Not echo Dr. M. You are not connected? Fine.
Then politely read and do not project. I don’t CARE whether you agree with my position or not.
You have not even commented on that (polygamy), so your statement that “liberals” who do not agree with a position are insulted or that “think for yourself” has some other meaning than it should is without base or merit.
I do not know what your position on polygame is, nor do I care.
ALL you have done, as far as I have read, is pidgeon hole positions.
This is not much of a contribution.
And you are wrong on liberals and extremists. They are no where near alike. But that is for another time and thread.
So, Rasheed, you admit that you yourself would not marry a 9 year old who has otherwise fulfilled the conditions in fiqh for marriage? Why not? Is it because you find it unsuitable for yourself? If so, just say so!
Just so everyone doesn’t this is abstract, Iranian Law permits the marriage of 9 year olds. I doubt, however, that hardly any men actually do so because almost nowhere in the urban world does anyone have much desire to do so. I will not believe the Prophet would have done so and I make the choice to believe the content (matn) analysis of Kandhalvi as outlined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha%27s_age_at_marriage where the many inconsistencies of the reports about her age are analyzed. People who believe she was 9 only do so on blind faith in the isnads *only* of the reports that say that and are afraid to engage in critical analysis of the facts by taking into account other facts as has Kandhalvi. It is not nifaq to beleive that the age of Aisha was higher than what people want to believe about it. To call it that is a sign of fear. Don’t be afraid; the hadith will still be there for us even if you choose to believe the Prophet was a better man than to be engaged to a six year old. Also, you say there is no guarantee that he did not sleep with her; there is nothing in the texts that say otherwise and people here marriage is for halal sexual enjoyment is Islam so why wouldn’t a man sleep with his wife who as you say is halal for sex? I think you’re trying to backtrack here since I suspect even you are uneasy with the idea of sex with 9 year olds. Oh, and just because a girl had her first period doesn’t mean she is otherwise ready for sex, emotionally or even biologically.
Abu Sinan, I am *NOT* codemning the Prophet! I am saying I will not believe the reports about her being 6 at engagement and 9 at marriage. Therefore I cannot condemn the Prophet, subhanallah, for something I do not beleive that he did in reality.
Didn’t Eteraz do an interesting post about Aisha’s age a while back? I’d dig it up, but I’m knackered.
DMZ writes “They are no where near alike.”
They most certainly are! Extremists, on either end of the spectrum, whether to the right or to the left, are EXACTLY alike.
They both feel they are right and they both feel that they have the right to attack others if they dont agree.
They are exactly the same.
As to my view on plural marriages, if you can take the time to scroll up you’ll I most certainly did give my view on plural marriages.
Whilst you are doing that, please look at the post where you called me an apandage of DrM or an echo, sounds like calling names to me.
But hey, that is usually what debate with extremists comes down to. Doesnt matter, right or left, it always comes down to insults and attacks.
That is why liberal extremists and right wing extremists are all the same, whether inside of Islam or outside of it.
OmarG,
How old you do think Aisha was at the time of engagement and marriage? What sources do you use to come up with your dates and how do those dates compare with society, cultural and religious norms of the time?
You are getting all bent out of shape for something that was commonplace at the time.
So even if it was 12 he married Aisha at, can you point out to me the difference?
Like Natalia has said, she has read scholars who say Mary was 12 years old when God made her pregnant with Jesus.
If you read The Qur’an and The Bible you’ll see that if you accept the age of 12 for when she got pregnant, she was not worried about being so young and pregnant, she was worried about being pregnant and never being with a man.
It is very clear from both religious accounts that being pregnant at age 12 would have been completely normal at that time.
What I am saying is if Mohammed did marry Aisha at age 9 and consumated a couple of years later he would have been 100% within the normal actions of that time.
As it has been pointed out already, the average life span of people at this point was very short. If they waited until late teens or early 20s to marry they would have had only a few years left to have children before they died.
So young girls at this time matured quicker than they do today. Girls started their families when they were 12, 13, 14. That isnt a big deal. It is when you try to pull these things out of historical context that they become a big deal.
This is EXACTLY what Islamophobes do, they try to pull actions of early Muslims out of the historical context and apply it to modern standards. Dont buy into their tactics.
All it looks like is a Muslim who is ashamed for the actions of their Prophet, rather than someone who realise that the same things were done by the “Jewish” prophets and with the birth of Jesus and in early Christian societies as well.
As to some scholars using these actions to try and justify things today, these men are evil and are seeking nothing more than to justify the evil acts of them and their followers.
The girls of 2007 are not the girls of 670, so to try and compare them and make judgements based upon this is error and stupidity. This is nothing more than culture being passed as religion.
It is common sense. The prophet was entirely justified in marrying a 9 year old girl and consumating the marriage when she become 12, 13, 14, whenever it happened.
The Prophet, if he were alive today, certainly would not do this as the situation is not the same.
Anyone who thinks so is guilty of pulling actions out of context to try and support whatever agenda it is that they have at the moment.
I ignore 95% of all scholars because I believe most of their “fatwas” are “faswas”. Nothing more than hot air.
What I would prefer for myself and what Islamic laws permits are two different issues. We’re discussing what Islamic law allows, not my personal preferences. Whether I would marry a 9 year old or not is irrelevant.
Many of the points in that Wikipedia article made in support of the claim that ‘Â’ishah was older than she was as mentioned in the authentic hadîths that report it were already answered and refuted by brother Abu Khaliyl in the email I linked to above. Have you bothered reading it?
I never said it was. Please address your comment regarding it to the appropriate person.
Again, that wasn’t me. Please address the proper person when replying. I never said anything regarding the Prophet not sleeping with ‘Â’ishah after their marriage.
Scientific fact disproves your suggestion here that a girl whose had her first period isn’t biologically ready for sexual relations. If her body is ready to reproduce (for which menstruation is a clear sign), then she’s ready for sex–at least physically.
Abu Sinan
Listen to yourself.
You can hardly maintain yourself on a subject that has nothing to do with the post or thread. And people have already complained about namecalling, YOU INCLUDED!
Again, it makes no matter to me except that this thread should be about polygamy: right or wrong.
No your own extreme views of extremists and your passive-aggressive nature to attack and complain about the responses.
Wah!
I’m afraid it’s not clear-cut like that at all. There certainly are young girls out there whose bodies are ready to reproduce at a very young age and not suffer for it, but this “old enough to bleed, old enough to breed” mindset is actually quite misleading.
Today, if you are 9 years old and you are preganant – in most cases, you will need a ceasarian. That’s besides the health risks associated with getting pregnant before you’ve finished growing up. The reason why teenagers are asked to WAIT with all that growing up are not only economical and social. There is a health factor involved as well.
The body doesn’t always make sense. I remember getting my period at age 12, I remember what my body was like then, and I can tell you right now that there was no way in hell that I was ready for anything like reproduction, et cetera. COULD I have physically conceived? Yes. Would it have been damaging? Probably. I hardly hard any hips until I was 18, for pete’s sake.
At 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and beyond – you are still growing. A period does not a woman make. The present environment plays a role in this.
Years ago, life expectancy was lower and we matured faster. But for millions of people today – things are different.
All of this is diluted science of course. And I recall having read that this stuff varies among ethnic groups.
Pure sexual gluttony on the part of muslim males. Nothing more, nothing less. Dress it up how you like.
Nice try but no miswak, dmz. You sound like such a broken record, its painfull. I take it you’re one of the far left self-proclaimed muftis who can interpret any part of the deen any way or time you want. You must be a psychic to have guessed that Abu Sinan went to a madrassa, even though he’s never been to one. What was that about civil discussion? Not only are you a munafiq, but an idiot as well.
As far as your foam filled rantings go, your contribution here has been nothing short of being an flaccid appendage for Eteraz. Unless you happen to be the prime pervert himself, no doubt dreaming of concubines on Hollywood blvd. Not quite mujra dancing but I guess you’ll have to do with what you can get.
When the energy runs low the nastiness gets high:
last comment and look-over from me but I just want to say this to ALL of you:
What is the highest truth in this debate? For me, the outcome should be that the most just, accurate view on polygamy, or anything else in life, should be to ask yourselves this:
am I being fair to everybody?
Briefly, I only read Squires and have not finished Abu Khaliyl. Also, as for the arguemnt about Mary and all that: *12 is not 9*… nor is it the same as 6 years old…oh, and in Islam Mary’s conception was immaculate and the Quran, AFAIK, mentioned only that Mary was in a cloister run by Zakarias; it makes no mention of two things: her age and her being married to Joseph. These additions seem likely to be Israiliyyat addittions.
myopic vision makes good points about the reality of polygamous situations.
why are women so desperate for a man they’ll have another woman’s man? therein lies the big problem – women clearly need to feel a bit more solidarity with each other. Look at the men – they’ve been clubbing together for centuries!
good point sonia. women in these cases display the typical symptoms of an oppressed class- rather than experiencing solidarity with each other they exhibit behaviour typically associated the oppressed (even the former “negro” slave)- (so-called wiles, manoeverings, duplicity, dishonesty) in order to ingratiate themselves with the ruling class. (nobility is the luxury of the free person.)
Just like the slave says “yes, sir” and dances for the master, so the woman of the harem dances for her man on a precarious tightrope. If men knew half of what went on in these situations- of how much of the woman is expended in the energy and pain goes into the battle for resources, affections, power plays and how much of the “dancer” he is seeing in the soul he has married rather than her true self- he would be surprised. One full woman, in all her full glory of mind and power is enough to keep a real man exploring and entranced forever.
The arguments about “sexual need”, “nature” or “halal/haram” are incomplete without an analysis of the ways in which social structures have framed normative power relationships between men and women, that favour certain parties interests.
Even the sahabah- revered figures- the saints of Early Islamic history THEY were not immune to natural human feelings. The favoured (and controversial) wife Aishah would be riven with bouts of jealousy at the beautiful rivals amongst her co-wives. Ah if saints have hands the pilgrims hands do touch…then pity the ordinary mortal woman.
Conversely i reckon the whole “you are my essential love/but let’s have contingent loves” of the liberal variety can be just as oppressive. If you read Simone de Beauvoir’s novel “She came to stay” a kind of mildly autobiographical novel account of Sartre’s relationship Olga Kosakiewicz
You can literally feel the pain of the women- who loved these great men- felt when their man’s affections was divided.
But to be fair- at least the liberal variety allows both partners prosmicuitory licence.
So perhaps the argument the extremist/liberals are the flipside of the same coin isn’t too far off.
Sexual objectification and opportunism is not a prerogative of the polygamous man- perhaps it’s the feature of any man with enough power and opportunity. I’d def put some so-called liberal “feminist” men in that category too.
In conclusion to this unholy rant- I say Live it up ladies. It’s time to get out our own back after 2000 years of patriarchy. Thank God we can read and write and think now and thus in some way respond to the “Men of God/Knowledge/Authority” (who frame religion and philosophy to suit their own desire.)
Unholy.
Follow the stated positions, not Simone de Beauvoir. No reframing.
The “two sides” of the traditional/non-traditional (extremist/liberal) coin are simply this:
A men’s rights are broader than women’s rights vs. individual rights are equal under God regardless of gender.
The free love element is something you’ve introduced yourself.
I’m afraid you will have to defend it alone.
Rasheed, I’ve read Abu Khaliyl and I must say I’m dissappointed by the low quality of his argument. Squires’, even though its directed to non-Muslim missionaries, is much better though still not convincing. Abu Khaliyl’s points are basically: the isnads are valid, so there!; the scholars say so, so there!; you’re not a scholar that I recognize, so there!. His only real valid point was the dodginess of using historical books without isnad chains as evidence, which is a good point. Another good point was saying how al-Nakha’i also narrated the hadith, which merits further research. However, his argument completely flopped as a whole and did not address any of the timeline argument nor the rest of the points arguing that the hadiths are misinterpreted, especially the interpolation of numbers as in omitting 1′s or 2′s where the listener supplies them him/herself as in the hadith about Laylat al-Qadr and that the same process may have operated on Aisha’s speech: 16 instead of 6 and so on. I should hope that Abu Khaliyl’s emotionalism (“That is a bold face lie!” and so on) are not mistaken for real critical thinking. If that represents the best the Traditionalist or Salafist scholars can do, it goes a long way to explain the crappiness of the intellectual so-called debates and scholarship…
I guess you missed the bit where Abu Khaliyl quoted Hâfidh Ibn Hajar as saying that ‘Â’ishah was born “four or five years after the advent” i.e., after the beginning of Prophet Muhammad’s prophethood. This would make her 9 years old by the time her marriage to the Prophet was consummated in the year 1H. I think this in and of itself dispells the doubts regarding this timeline arguement presented by those who reject these authentic hadîths concerning ‘Â’ishah’s age at the time of her marriage.
Of the four points mentioned in the Wikipedia article you linked to under the evidences supporting the inauthenticity of the narrations, the first (the conspiracy theory about the ‘Abbâsids) and last (the number thing) are speculative and not really evidence at all. they are theories that need evidence to support them. The second is inconsequential given the fact that Hishâm bin ‘Urwah isn’t the only one to have authentically narrated the reports concerning ‘Â’ishah’s age: two others being az-Zuhrî and Ibrâhîm an-Nakha’î (who were both mentioned by Abu Khaliyl). The third is irrelevant as Islamically, a father can engage his prepubescent daughter to a man of his choice without her consent, as was the case with Abū Bakr marrying ‘Â’ishah off to Prophet Muhammad before she reached puberty. Consent is required for women i.e., those who have already reached puberty.
Alright maybe the free love tangent was wack. What I’m trying to say is that maybe free love/polygamy are kind of a little similar- in that in the real world they are practiced in a way that just seem to perpetuate inequality- ways men can get more sex without obligations far removed from their noble philosophical and religious justifications. (i.e it works in the ideal theoretical world but in the real world- there’s heartbreak, violence and ruin.)
-Pfft to the guy who coolly asserts that pubescent menstruating bodies are more than capable of churning them out. Are you a gynaecologist?? Dr. Catherine Hamlin is (http://www.fistulatrust.org/sept_2006.html. )
She conducts vaginal surgeries on young ethiopian girls who develop a painful condition called fistulaes as a result of the trauma inflicted by early pregnancy on their young bodies.
“They soon became aware of the many young women suffering the catastrophic effects of obstructed labour, a problem that is disastrous without medical intervention. The awful injuries that such labour produces are called fistulae. Those who suffer this catastrophe are totally incontinent and stinking of urine.
Young women are married too early and their pelvis is not fully developed. The baby, usually their first, invariably dies. Many are rejected by their husband and live in misery, isolation and poverty, unwelcome because of their incontinence and smell”.
Pleasant no?
Abu Khaliyl mentioned that the isnad of Zuhri came through Urwah. So, like I said, that leaves al-Nakha’i's to research more in depth.
When the author quoted Ibn Hajar, Abu Khaliyl only said, “I have no idea where he got that from”. He had to, since AK used Ibn Hajar in his own criticism of Age debate, so he could not discredit the use of Ibn Hajar.
He also casually dismissed the Only-over-15-years-in-expeditions argument. Like I said, he made two good points only one of which is damaging to the original argument in any manner (al-Nakha’i's narration). Again, its still a matter mostly of “The Isnad’s are valid, ha!” His engagement of the matn left me unimpressed. Not surprising, since matn analysis was not the emphasis of hadith scholars. Maybe the fuqaha took it up in some cases to resolve logical contradictions, but it doesn’t seem so. I have to wonder why…
This type of comment is one that typically comes from someone who hasn’t read much on the science of Hadîth, its history, or its scholars.
While this may be true of some scholars of hadîth, it definitely isn’t true of all of them; especially those like Imams al-Bukhârî, Muslim, and the authors of the Sunan. If you’ve read any decent book on Mustalah al-Hadîth, you’d have seen that a hadîth’s authenticity is dependant on both the chain of narration being sound and the hadîth’s text being sound and accurate.
OmarG,
Your tricks have already been tried by that other “Muslim” Stephen Schwartz, and he got nowhere. Time for you to go back to your handlers (Daniel Pipes, Emerson and the rest) for more training mate. And don’t forget to take that arrested adolescent friend of yours DMZ.
Well said, Sinbad. Preach on, brother!
well spoken unholy rant! as you say – the power dynamic is simply not taken into account.
the other thing is of course that polygamy is hardly good in terms of biological thinking – it effectively reduces the gene pool.
Bismillah
As Salaamu Alaikum rahmatullahi
Dear Muslims:
I have called myself salafiyyah for over 17 years. However I am getting fed up with the lack of political movement. I sent a youtube to one of my groups where the israeli army was shooting women in the streets. the sister said this is a “knowledge based site-I don’t see the benefit in seeing Muslimahs getting shot in the streets” I was LIKE WHAT needless to say I am no longer a member of that site. I gave them the dalil about what the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam said about if one Muslims hurts we all hurt she sent me something back from a present day scholar a’uuthu billahi minash shaytanir rajim. Are you a group of Muslims Standing UP? If not don’t let me post and don’t answer if so Where are the Muslims who are doing something in the Northeast I am in Delaware but I am only a car ride away from nyc wash dc and the likes Whats Up
Your sister in Din
Umm Makkah bint Hyman
Abu Sinan, you seem to have been misled. You keep saying the prophet married Aisha when she was nine and consummated the marriage at some later date when she got her period.
In fact, he married her at six and consummated the married when she got her period at nine.
correction: consummated the marriage*
i don’t know why the free love thing didn’t strike a chord with anyone else. it’s exactly like ‘swinging’ minus the swinging for the missus – bloke gets himself extra partners but none for the missus. it’s basically like having a forced open relationship – you know – where it’s ‘open’ for one person only.
And if people are fine with polygamy they should have no issues with couples who have open marriages. frankly, although a lot of people may like the thought of having an open relationship – it often falls apart if they find out they’re not so keen to extend the same freedom to their partners – it is only a few people who are actually able to deal with it. and good for them if they can handle it. frankly most men would not even hear of their wife no.1 having sex with another man while they go off with wife no. 2 – and that would be the only fair thing. So bottom line: unless you’re willing to share your wife, don’t share yourself. it ain’t honest.
at least if you do it, then realize what it is you’re doing! don’t use religion to whitewash it.
frankly, this thread ( and others like it) just show how much we’re still stuck in the Middle Ages with views like these floating around. Pubescent children having babies..how disgusting.
I hate to say it – but I do think people get off on that, sonia. :(
Baarak Allahu feeki, ukht Umm Makkah.
Those Muslims you’re looking for are very few. Most people on this blog are indifferent about Palestine. In fact, they called for handing it over to the Jews and forgetting about it.
There are Salafis who forbid politics, and there are those who are drowning in it. Just know where to join and make a positive difference without harming anyone in the process.
Also, learn not to worry so much about the lack of enthusiasm from laypersons. They have so much in their plate to add more to it or focus on another one. Only the elite of this ummah cares to look around to see if everyone like them is eating from the best food around (I give this analogy because most people in this blog care about their own stomachs too, maybe now they can see how low and sub-animal they can be when they don’t care about fellow Muslims’ suffering one bit).
I read the last few comments, I see some infidels talking about religion and our Prophet. I will visit here again soon, I’ve been so busy.
i think bernie hits the nail on the head:
“Pure sexual gluttony on the part of muslim males. Nothing more, nothing less. Dress it up how you like”
and im glad natalia picked up on the ‘girl ready for sex at menstruating age’ – hello!- that statement just points to the underlying problem of viewing female children as objects.
yes it is very disturbing how some people on this thread think they can come out and just say things like that.
It’s a biological fact that when a female starts menstruating she is able to conceive and ready for sexual relations. How does this point to your so-called “underlying problem of viewing female children as objects”?
Dear GAWD – Haven’t we been through this already? I need a bloody cigarette after all this, I really do, and I don’t even smoke.
Oh noes! Teh marauding kuffar speak! ROLFMAO.
And yes, I am joking, in case anyone is wondering.
I had forgotten that I didn’t post the reply I was intending to write for your post.
There’s a big difference between saying that a female cannot conceive and engage in sexual relations at the onset of puberty and between saying that she shouldn’t. All your post suggests is that girls that young shouldn’t because of possible physical harms they may encounter.
Like you said, ” … it’s not clear-cut like that at all. There certainly are young girls out there whose bodies are ready to reproduce at a very young age and not suffer for it … .” Some females develop very quickly, some don’t. Some develop very early, some don’t. Some grow wide hips ideal for childbirth, some don’t (and never do). Some girls grow breasts, some don’t (or at least very small ones). Everyone’s different. However, I’m not speaking about these specific differences that may or may not be factors for X, Y, or Z females. I’m speaking in general terms. Generally, when a female begins menstruating, it’s a sign that she’s able to conceive and ready for sexual relations. Islamically, the onset of puberty is when a Muslim (male of female) legally becomes an adult–whether he or she is mentally is another issue altogether.
If a man can fulfill his duties toward his wives then there is nothing wrong. But, the problem lies in the fact that most men are not going to be able to fulfill their obligations in a polygamous marriage, as so therefore polygamy is allowed only to the exceptional men. For that reason, polygamy is meant to be rare in Islam.
Pingback: Google Search Terms and Another Akon Rant, or "What *really* Bothers You so Much about Akon?" « Ginny’s Thoughts & Things
All the people back then had more than one wife including the pagans. Umar the 2nd caliph is reported to have had 9. Also Ali and Abu Bakr had more than a wife. It was acceptable back then as was slavery. Now society has changed and so should we. Why should we have to live like people did in the 7th century? Many companions had concubines and slaves, so does it make it alright for us to do so? I am tired of us taking only superficial things from the past and thinking this is Islam. Islam is a religion and how we practice this religion is a function of the era and norms of societies. Life evolves and so do we but religion remains since its about theology and ethics and not norms.
Lets live in the 21st century for a change. Damn!
Weather we agree or like polygamy the quraan and Islam allow it. As for placing *new* conditions on how it should be done this is VERY dangerous. The quraan is complete and perfect who will disagree about that? Prophet muhammad said he delivered the entire religion and Allah(swt) said on this day i have perfected your deen..*translation* Brothers need to be open and honest and take the feelings of the wife into consideration for sure. No woman can be FORCED to be a second wife. She can divorce if that what she wishes to do. As far as the sister harmonie claiming that the man must ask permission….well i need to see your proof from quraan and sunnah on that….might be the nice thing to do but this does not mean it’s a condition. The last point i wanna make is that this is not Egypt and real muslims don’t follow Egypt in matters of deen but rather Quraan and sunnah so leave what Egypt in egypt. It’s best if we include proofs from quraan and sunnah over our personal wants or feelings. thats my word
i am married and have been to 1 sister for 10 years and i love her… I can afford a second wife but I do not want another wife. I do know that based on quraan and sunnah that i do not have to ask because our prophet married the mother of his ONLY son and he did not ask Ayisha. At times even the wives of the prophet did not get along according to hadith. Our prophet was the example on how this should be done and he was not mean, disrespectful or a lier about anything he did. But if polygamy is not what you are feeling then don’t marry a second or become a second…..You have a choice…. MAKE dua and ALLAH will help you as he loves you….Trust in Allah(swt) everything will work out. I love you all for the sake of Allah(swt)
*also we have to be careful about saying we don’t like parts of the religion of Allah(swt) or the sunnah of the prophet…google what nullifies ones Islam.