Print Page | Close Window

1st Question asked about islam

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Islam for non-Muslims
Forum Discription: Non-Muslims can ask questions about Islam, discussion for the purpose of learning.
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12412
Printed Date: 26 November 2014 at 4:33pm


Topic: 1st Question asked about islam
Posted By: Tariq
Subject: 1st Question asked about islam
Date Posted: 09 May 2008 at 1:59pm

1. POLYGAMY
Question:
Why is a man allowed to have more than one wife in Islam? i.e. why is
polygamy allowed in Islam?

Answer:

1. Definition of Polygamy
Polygamy means a system of marriage whereby one person has more than one
spouse. Polygamy can be of two types. One is polygyny where a man marries
more than one woman, and the other is polyandry, where a woman marries
more than one man. In Islam, limited polygyny is permitted; whereas polyandry
is completely prohibited.

Now coming to the original question, why is a man allowed to have more than
one wife?

2. The Qur’an is the only religious scripture in the world that says,
“marry only one”.
The Qur’an is the only religious book, on the face of this earth, that contains the
phrase ‘marry only one’. There is no other religious book that instructs men to
have only one wife. In none of the other religious scriptures, whether it be the
Vedas, the Ramayan, the Mahabharat, the Geeta, the Talmud or the Bible does
one find a restriction on the number of wives. According to these scriptures one
can marry as many as one wishes. It was only later, that the Hindu priests and
the Christian Church restricted the number of wives to one.

Many Hindu religious personalities, according to their scriptures, had multiple
wives. King Dashrat, the father of Rama, had more than one wife. Krishna had
several wives.

In earlier times, Christian men were permitted as many wives as they wished,
since the Bible puts no restriction on the number of wives. It was only a few
centuries ago that the Church restricted the number of wives to one.

Polygyny is permitted in Judaism. According to Talmudic law, Abraham had
three wives, and Solomon had hundreds of wives. The practice of polygyny
continued till Rabbi Gershom ben Yehudah (960 C.E to 1030 C.E) issued an
edict against it. The Jewish Sephardic communities living in Muslim countries
continued the practice till as late as 1950, until an Act of the Chief Rabbinate of
Israel extended the ban on marrying more than one wife.

(*Interesting Note:- As per the 1975 census of India Hindus are more
polygynous than Muslims. The report of the ‘Committee of The Status of
Woman in Islam’, published in 1975 mentions on page numbers 66 and 67 that
the percentage of polygamous marriages between the years 1951 and 1961

4
was 5.06% among the Hindus and only 4.31% among the Muslims. According
to Indian law only Muslim men are permitted to have more than one wife. It is
illegal for any non-Muslim in India to have more than one wife. Despite it being
illegal, Hindus have more multiple wives as compared to Muslims. Earlier, there
was no restriction even on Hindu men with respect to the number of wives
allowed. It was only in 1954, when the Hindu Marriage Act was passed that it
became illegal for a Hindu to have more than one wife. At present it is the Indian
Law that restricts a Hindu man from having more than one wife and not the
Hindu scriptures.)

Let us now analyse why Islam allows a man to have more than one wife.

3. Qur’an permits limited polygyny
As I mentioned earlier, Qur’an is the only religious book on the face of the earth
that says ‘marry only one’. The context of this phrase is the following verse from
Surah Nisa of the Glorious Qur’an:

“Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if ye fear that
ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one.”
[Al-Qur’an 4:3]

Before the Qur’an was revealed, there was no upper limit for polygyny and
many men had scores of wives, some even hundreds. Islam put an upper limit
of four wives. Islam gives a man permission to marry two, three or four women,
only on the condition that he deals justly with them.

In the same chapter i.e. Surah Nisa verse 129 says:

“Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women....”
[Al-Qur’an 4:129]

Therefore polygyny is not a rule but an exception. Many people are under the
misconception that it is compulsory for a Muslim man to have more than one wife.
Broadly, Islam has five categories of Do’s and Don’ts:

(i) ‘Fard’ i.e. compulsory or obligatory
(ii) ‘Mustahab’ i.e. recommended or encouraged
(iii) ‘Mubah’ i.e. permissible or allowed
(iv) ‘Makruh’ i.e. not recommended or discouraged
(v) ‘Haraam’ i.e. prohibited or forbidden
Polygyny falls in the middle category of things that are permissible. It cannot be
said that a Muslim who has two, three or four wives is a better Muslim as
compared to a Muslim who has only one wife.

 

4. Average life span of females is more than that of males
By nature males and females are born in approximately the same ratio. A
female child has more immunity than a male child. A female child can fight the
germs and diseases better than the male child. For this reason, during the
pediatric age itself there are more deaths among males as compared to the
females.

During wars, there are more men killed as compared to women. More men die
due to accidents and diseases than women. The average life span of females
is more than that of males, and at any given time one finds more widows in the
world than widowers.

5. India has more male population than female due to female
foeticide and infanticide
India is one of the few countries, along with the other neighbouring countries, in
which the female population is less than the male population. The reason lies in
the high rate of female infanticide in India, and the fact that more than one
million female foetuses are aborted every year in this country, after they are
identified as females. If this evil practice is stopped, then India too will have
more females as compared to males.

6. World female population is more than male population
In the USA, women outnumber men by 7.8 million. New York alone has one
million more females as compared to the number of males, and of the male
population of New York one-third are gays i.e sodomites. The U.S.A as a whole
has more than twenty-five million gays. This means that these people do not
wish to marry women. Great Britain has four million more females as compared
to males. Germany has five million more females as compared to males. Russia
has nine million more females than males. God alone knows how many million
more females there are in the whole world as compared to males.

7. Restricting each and every man to have only one wife is not
practical
Even if every man got married to one woman, there would still be more than
thirty million females in U.S.A who would not be able to get husbands
(considering that America has twenty five million gays). There would be more
than four million females in Great Britain, 5 million females in Germany and nine
million females in Russia alone who would not be able to find a husband.

Suppose my sister happens to be one of the unmarried women living in USA, or
suppose your sister happens to be one of the unmarried women in USA. The
only two options remaining for her are that she either marries a man who
already has a wife or becomes 'public property'. There is no other option. All
those who are modest will opt for the first.

 


Most women would nto like to share their husband with other women. But in
Islam when the situation deems it really neccessary Muslim women in due faith
could bear a small personal loss to prevent a greater loss of letting other Muslim
sisters becoming 'public properties'.

8. Marring a married man preferable to becoming 'public property'
In Western society, it is common for a man to have mistresses and/or multiple
extra-marital affairs, in which case, the woman leads a disgraceful, unprotected
life. The same society, however, cannot accept a man having more than one
wife, in which women retain their honourable, dignified position in society and
lead a protected life.

Thus the only two options before a woman who cannot find a husband is to
marry a married man or to become 'public property'. Islam prefers giving
women the honourable position by permitting the first option and disallowing the
second.

There are several other reasons, why Islam has permitted limited polygyny, but
it is mainly to protect the modesty of women.




Replies:
Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 12 May 2008 at 5:53pm
GOD's first intentions:  man didn't listen.
 
Genesis 2
 
 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.


-------------
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 16 May 2008 at 6:42pm
believer,
Tariq has touched on a subject that is very important when it comes to understanding Islam. It is used to scare people specially woman here in the west if they are getting close to a Muslim man in relationship. " be careful, he is Muslim, they have many wives".
Tariq has done a good job.
 
Anyway that quote of yours does not say anything about having one or more wives. I can tell you that it was "a nothing out of ordinary practice among the O/T prophets and their people" as I have found proof of such in my own study of the Bible.
I will give some quotes from the Bible that prove my claim. I find the followiing quote to be very convincing that having more than one wife was a very ordinary practice then, and I find no place where its forbidden or even restricted to a certain number. And remember these were God's guided prophets who are quoted here.
1) Exodus 21:1 "These are the laws you are to set before them:........
10 If he (a man) marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.
That is exactly in line with the Islamic teachings.
And here are only some of the prophets and their many wives as recorded in the Bible. Remember that Christians honor them as well as name their kids after them (except those who were taken from the maidservant):
Genesis 35: 22.......Now the sons of Jacob were twelve: 23 the sons of Leah were Reuben, Jacob’s firstborn, and Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun; 24 the sons of Rachel were Joseph and Benjamin; 25 the sons of Bilhah, Rachel’s maidservant, were Dan and Naphtali; 26 and the sons of Zilpah, Leah’s maidservant, were Gad and Asher. These were the sons of Jacob who were born to him in Padan Aram.
So, Jacob here is recorded to have Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, Zilpah.
So believer if we count, that is four wives!!!!
In Genesis 36:
1 Now this is the genealogy of Esau, who is Edom. 2 Esau took his wives from the daughters of Canaan: Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite; Aholibamah the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite; 3 and Basemath, Ishmael’s daughter, sister of Nebajoth. 4 Now Adah bore Eliphaz to Esau, and Basemath bore Reuel. 5 And Aholibamah bore Jeush, Jaalam, and Korah. These were the sons of Esau who were born to him in the land of Canaan.
I see three wives of Esau mentioned here. There are many many more examples, Abraham, David, Solomon and so on that did have many wives. And remember these were man of God, practiced what God approved and  taught them to preach and practice.
Hasan 


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 16 May 2008 at 7:34pm
honeto, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here.  Judaism did indeed permit polygamy thousands of years ago, but it no longer does; and mainstream Christianity never did.  Every Jew and every Christian knows this, and so does just about everyone else.  Do you really think you can convince anyone otherwise just by citing a few polygamous patriarchs?


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 17 May 2008 at 9:21am
Ron,
what I did is to show refrances from the source that is claimed to be 'devine source' of those two believes (Christianity and Judaism). And that source does not teach against polygamy.
If now those people have made new rules that is fine with me. I am not arguing that.
believer have suggested that it was not a practice approved of God. I am a man of reason and I do my own homework on what I post. And according to my own studies those who are mentioned in this book (the Bible) practiced it as a normal way of life. The were teachers and Prophets who are followed and refrenced on other issues yet on this one you say, "no longer does".
If it was not for the man made laws, for example here in the US against ploygamy, many Christians of various sects (Mormons in particular) as well as other would have practiced it without making a fuss, and they do not say what you say.
If you put your trust in that book for guiding you into this life and you trust it enough to put your hereafter at risk, why is it that when it comes to matters like this you distance yourself from its teaching. Don't you have full belief and trust on this book and its teachings and practices??
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 17 May 2008 at 11:05am

Ron,

You wrote:  "Judaism did indeed permit polygamy thousands of years ago, but it no longer does …"

Could you please provide a source?  I am interested.  I would have thought that the reason we don’t see much Jewish polygamy is because the Torah is not (at least not yet) the law of the Land (of Israel, especially).  I don’t see –and neither have I read- where the laws of polygamy, or polygyny, in Judaism were ever either annulled or abrogated (by Judaism).  Have you read otherwise?

Serv



Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 17 May 2008 at 3:03pm
I repeat:  GOD's first intentions:  man didn't listen.
 
Genesis 2
 
 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
 
GOD did not will multiple wives but he did allow it.  Big differance here.
 

1 Timothy 3

2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

 12A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.
 

Titus 1

6An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.


-------------
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 18 May 2008 at 11:16am
Originally posted by Servetus

Ron,

You wrote:  "Judaism did indeed permit polygamy thousands of years ago, but it no longer does …"

Could you please provide a source?  I am interested.  I would have thought that the reason we don’t see much Jewish polygamy is because the Torah is not (at least not yet) the law of the Land (of Israel, especially).  I don’t see –and neither have I read- where the laws of polygamy, or polygyny, in Judaism were ever either annulled or abrogated (by Judaism).  Have you read otherwise?

Serv

 
Well, I don't know much about Judaism myself, but you can find out just about anything you want from Google. Smile
 
Polygamy was banned for Ashkenazi Jews in the eleventh century by Rabbi Gershom ben Judah. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbenu_Gershom - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbenu_Gershom ) Technically his ban extended only to Ashkenazi Jews (currently about 80% of all Jews); but most other Jews abide by it as well.  For all practical purposes, polygamy is no longer permissible in Judaism.
 
The thing you need to understand about Judaism and (especially) Christianity is that they are living, progessive religions.  Although the basic values, traditions and framework of belief are defined by scripture, the specifics are continually re-appraised and adapted to different times and places.  There are certainly "fundamentalists" who resist change and insist on a literal interpretation of ancient scripture (and who may still cling to polygamy), but they are small minority.
 
In Islam, on the other hand, it seems to me that the fundamentalist viewpoint is mainstream, and progressives are the minority.  Muhammad was the last prophet, the "door to ijtahad" is closed, and every detail of life was frozen for all time back in the seventh century.


Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 18 May 2008 at 11:56am

Thank you, Ron.  I have reviewed the link that you kindly provided and notice that, at least as I read it, the rabbinic ban on polygyny is not necessarily perpetual:  

“He [Gershom ben Judah] is famous for his religious bans within Judaism, which include: the prohibition of polygamy for 1,000 years.”

It sounds to me as though, given the years during which Gershom ben Judah lived and wrote, the ban on polygamy within Orthodox Judaism has either expired or soon will.

Best regards,

Serv



Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 18 May 2008 at 1:07pm

You're absolutely right, Servetus.  If you take "a thousand years" literally, then the ban technically expired a few years ago.  However, I don't think there is anything magical about a thousand years.  I think the phrase was intended to mean "for the forseeable future".  Anyway, I don't see any rush among Jewish rabbis bring back polygamy.  The reasons Gershom banned it are if anything even stronger today than they were in his time.

This issue is a lot like slavery, which is also mentioned in the Old Testament.  Both slavery and polygamy may have made sense in ancient times, when constant warfare meant a perpetual shortage of men and a periodic surplus of orphan (enemy) children; but they have no place in modern times.

That is not to say that there will never come a time when polygamy and even slavery may become acceptable or even beneficial again.  Perhaps if some horrible disease wiped out half of the male population, then both Christian and Jewish leaders would advocate a return to polygamy.  That's what I meant by a "living, progressive" religion.



Posted By: Servetus
Date Posted: 19 May 2008 at 12:36pm

Ron,

 

To my view, there is every reason to think, or to assume, that Jewish legal injunctions, when they stipulate a time limit, are quite possibly literal.  The Gaonate was operating in diaspora and many of the Mosaic laws, not to mention temple rites & rituals, were necessarily in abeyance.  That is part of the Jewish experience and sojourn.

 

One notes, for instance, and as you originally pointed out, that it is primarily among the Ashkenazim, or dwellers in (heretofore largely Christian) Europe and North America, that the prohibition against polygamy was most universally applied.  Among the Sephardim, on the other hand, who were often located in Islamic countries, the practice, according to the author of the article below, although increasingly discountenanced, was nevertheless continued.

 

You wrote:  The reasons Gershom banned it [polygamy] are if anything even stronger today than they were in his time.”

 

I haven’t read his decision, but if it involved the costs, then I would have to agree.  In fact, I sometimes wonder if one is ill-advised, from a financial standpoint, to take even one wife:  Smile

 

”Even in the Orient monogamy [among Jews] soon became the rule and polygamy the exception; for only the wealthy could afford the luxury of many wives.”  (Jewish Encyclopedia)

 

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=425&letter=P - http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=425&letter=P

 

Thanks, again.  I hadn’t looked into this issue in detail until this ongoing discussion.

 

Best regards,

 

Serv



Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 20 May 2008 at 6:15am
It is interesting that having no polygamy is viewed as "progressive" when it can be argued that it is a detrement to women to not have choice.
 
For instance, there are far more women then men out there. (except in China and one or two areas of India). Women are more likely to be in poverty and stay in poverty if unmarried. If there are not enough men, who should women marry (assuming they'd like to marry)?
 
Men earn more then women, that is the case and you can create all the laws you want, but the reality is that they do. And why not, if a man is wealthy enough, should he not have more than one wife?
 
Anf if you ask many women would you want 50% of a good man or 100% of a bad one they'll take the first.  It actually raised the options for women.
 
Islam is a very basic religion in which part of the component is taking care of people. People should be provided for and the fact that there are more women then men forces women to not get married if they want to, or forces them into arrangements that may be detremental. 
 
And on top of it, women live longer than men, should she go without the comforts of a partner? 1 woman-1 man is not practical. And Islam is about practicality.
 
if there were not secualr laws to deal with, a single woman could marry any man (Muslim of course) and why not pick one with a proven track record of being a good husband and father?
 
And honestly, it can seem like a "great thing" for the guy but let me tell you, it is not easy. Knowing people in these situations, hard trying to please two women.. lol
 
Islam is about rights and protecting those rights. I as a woman have the right to get married and all the benefits of marriage. And this provides me with far more optionsthen if I can only marry those not attached.
 


-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 20 May 2008 at 7:37pm

Originally posted by Hayfa

For instance, there are far more women then men out there. (except in China and one or two areas of India).

Sorry, Hayfa, but that's just not true.  Overall, men outnumber women slightly.  You're right that women outlive men by several years, but men outnumber women by about 5% at birth.  At the age when most people get married the difference is not significant.  If you want country--by-country stats, you can look here: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/indwm/tab1a.htm - http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/indwm/tab1a.htm

Men earn more then women, that is the case and you can create all the laws you want, but the reality is that they do. And why not, if a man is wealthy enough, should he not have more than one wife?

(Well, there go my illusions about women marrying for love. Smile )

To answer your question: He shouldn't, because he would be leaving some other man unmarried.  Some things money can't buy; and even if it can, it shouldn't.  The opportunity to be married and have a family is one of those things.

And if egalitarianism doesn't move you, consider the theory, which I think has some credibility, that a surplus of unmarried men is a major cause of social unrest and potential violence.  Having a wife and kids quite literally gives a man something to live for.  Without it, he will redirect his passion in other ways, which may be unhealthy both for himself and for his society.



Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 21 May 2008 at 6:02am
Well your statisitcs show most places have more women then men.. except for countries in war or India ot China.. go look at it again! Here in US women outnumber men.. (never mind those in prison, a whole added issue)
 
And really why not? Why should I not have he choice?? Men are dominant in 99% of soceities. Men are physically stronger, why should I not marry who I want? 
 
These women out causing trouble, I bet, also have kids, they sleep around, there IS no commitment. Why should I marry one of those???
 
 


-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 22 May 2008 at 9:59am
Ron, I go to citydata.com a lot to play where I am going to go next. Each time randomly I go a place, I get delighted, more women.Big%20smile I haven't come accross a single place here in the US search that brought different results.
Just for this post, I went to three cities, and here is my delight. No, but I am a married man, and I know my limits.
Hasan
 
Chicago:
Males: 1,405,107   (48.5%)
Females: 1,490,909   (51.5%)
 
Houston:
Males: 975,551   (49.9%)
Females: 978,080   (50.1%)
 
Omaha:
Males: 190,032   (48.7%)
Females: 199,975   (51.3%)


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 22 May 2008 at 6:32pm

Originally posted by Hayfa

Well your statisitcs show most places have more women then men.. except for countries in war or India ot China.. go look at it again! Here in US women outnumber men.. (never mind those in prison, a whole added issue)

Ermm My fault for pointing you to a misleading Web page.  Yes, most countries do have slightly more women than men -- except for India and China, and that's a mighty big "except".  Those are the two most populace countries in the world.  Together they represent more than a third of the world's population.

Wikipedia quotes the 2001 World Almanac as saying that there are 101.3 men for every 100 women.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women  

In fact, the ratio at birth is more like 105 men for 100 women ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_ratio - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_ratio ), and that ratio continues for young men and women into their twenties, when most marriages take place.   The ratio doesn't flip in favour of women until the mid-thirties or so.  You can see a graph for the United States that makes this clear here: http://nationalatlas.gov/articles/people/a_gender.html - http://nationalatlas.gov/articles/people/a_gender.html

Anyway, there's no point in quibbling over a few percentage points either way.  Widespread polygamy would soon overwhelm such minor differences, leaving a substantial number of men with no possibility of marriage.  That is a recipe for social unrest.

And really why not? Why should I not have he choice?? Men are dominant in 99% of soceities. Men are physically stronger, why should I not marry who I want?

Well, if you're asking me, I would agree that you should be able to marry whoever you want, but that's only because I am a libertarian when if comes to matters of sexuality and family life.  It just seems rather incongruous to me that a Muslim should argue for personal choice here, to the detriment of society as a whole.  I strongly doubt that you would say the same about same-sex marriage, or group sex, or extramarital sex, etc.



Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 23 May 2008 at 8:45am
Well considering in Muslim countries and some places in Africa polygamy is allowed and no one can claim it is "rampant" nd so widespead it causes unrest.  For instance, no unrest in Saudi Arabia due to roving bands of males looking and preying on females.. somehow places have worked it out..  They have some that do, some that don't..
 
And really, it is that you must be able to support more than one.. so.. not sure HOW it could be rampant...and a detriment...
 
in fact, would it not besaid it would help if the rich supported more people anyways?? Smile  They can afford it...
 
And you you are saying that we should not have it at all, what should be done for all those unmarried women if they want to marry? You have yet to answer that.. that is one main reason it is allowed, no matter the birth rations, the realty is that there are more adult women then men.. not the other way around. And if they must be married to have "relations" and such well???
 
 
 


-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 23 May 2008 at 5:23pm
Even Allah intended just a pair-
 
053.045
YUSUFALI: That He did create in pairs,- male and female,
PICKTHAL: And that He createth the two spouses, the male and the female,
SHAKIR: And that He created pairs, the male and the female


-------------
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 23 May 2008 at 8:54pm
Originally posted by Hayfa

Well considering in Muslim countries and some places in Africa polygamy is allowed and no one can claim it is "rampant" nd so widespead it causes unrest.  For instance, no unrest in Saudi Arabia due to roving bands of males looking and preying on females..
 
No, they don't prey on females.  As I said, their passion is redirected in other, more sinister ways.  Need I remind you that fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 terrorists were Saudi?  Are you aware that most of the suicide bombers in Iraq are Saudi?
 
And you you are saying that we should not have it at all, what should be done for all those unmarried women if they want to marry? You have yet to answer that.. that is one main reason it is allowed, no matter the birth rations, the realty is that there are more adult women then men.. not the other way around.
 
No, the reality is that there are about one percent more men than women globally, as I just showed you.  Even in advanced countries such as the U.S., the reality is that there are more men than women of marriageable age, as I've also already shown.
 
There are indeed more elderly women than men, but I fail to see how that is pertinent.  If men want to take on octogenarians as additional wives, then that would be fine -- but somehow I doubt that is what they have in mind.


Posted By: Mystical
Date Posted: 03 June 2008 at 6:41am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

No, the reality is that there are about one percent more men than women globally, as I just showed you.  Even in advanced countries such as the U.S., the reality is that there are more men than women of marriageable age, as I've also already shown.
 
There are indeed more elderly women than men, but I fail to see how that is pertinent.  If men want to take on octogenarians as additional wives, then that would be fine -- but somehow I doubt that is what they have in mind.
 
Thumbs%20UpThumbs%20Up
 
Polygamy is for the man's pleasure not for the betterment of women. It is a grave misconception in Islam if Muslim men believe that woman like to share their man (husband) with other women. We LOATHE this just as much as a man loathes to share his woman (wife) I believe the only reason a Muslim woman accepts this is because they must believe this is the from Allah/God but trust me give the woman a choice and she will yell from every roof top AGAINST polygamy. Polygamy stems from man's desire to dominate and procreate with as many as posible the "deficient in intelligence" other half of humanity Angry. It is legalised (in the religious sense) adultery! That's my opinion as a woman but admittedly if I was a man I would probably justify it too. Wink
 
God created ONE man and ONE woman, Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve, Rebekka, Rachael and Hannah!
 
 


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 03 June 2008 at 3:40pm
Mystical I will have to realistically disgree with that. I agree that a woman in normal circumtances will not agree to share her husband, but a true believer woman probably won't be as blunt if a unusual situation arises when its not a matter of man's benefit but purely for the benefit of the woman and the society. That unusual situation can be after a war and loss of a lot of men, leaving childless widows or those woman with children who are still young. Then it may be not about sharing the man but about helping and giving hope to those who otherwise would have none.
Right in our lifetime, right here on this earth in many regional crises such a situation has arised where big number of men are lost to conflicts.
 
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Hamzah
Date Posted: 03 June 2008 at 4:52pm
[QUOTE=Ron Webb] As I said, their passion is redirected in other, more sinister ways.  Need I remind you that fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 terrorists were Saudi?  Are you aware that most of the suicide bombers in Iraq are Saudi?
 
[quote]

Off the subject, do you know Ron that 5 of the so called 15 Saudi hijackers turned out to be living, and funnily enough the guy who the US claim to have found his passport (they should use the same material they use in our passports for everything) in the debris of the wreckage turned up somewhere in Saudi too, 9/11 was an inside job, i would advise you to look up 9/11 just a coincidence on youtube, it's a 19 part series, please watch them all and give me your fair and honest feedback.
I would welcome you to visit Saudi Arabia and i will be your host for your entire stay (i'm not joking), and at the end of it i want you to tell me if you still think Saudi's are sinister.


-------------
"Whosoever fears Allah, he will appoint for him a way out, and provide for him from where he does not expect"


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 03 June 2008 at 6:37pm

Originally posted by honeto

Mystical I will have to realistically disgree with that. I agree that a woman in normal circumtances will not agree to share her husband, but a true believer woman probably won't be as blunt if a unusual situation arises when its not a matter of man's benefit but purely for the benefit of the woman and the society. That unusual situation can be after a war and loss of a lot of men, leaving childless widows or those woman with children who are still young. Then it may be not about sharing the man but about helping and giving hope to those who otherwise would have none.
Right in our lifetime, right here on this earth in many regional crises such a situation has arised where big number of men are lost to conflicts.

Would the same apply in reverse?  For instance, India and China, through selective abortion, are both creating lopsided societies with a severe shortage of women.  Do you think women should be allowed to have multiple husbands in such a circumstance?  Would the men be as willing to share their woman, "giving hope to those who otherwise would have none"?



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 04 June 2008 at 7:23am
It is interesting what you wrote. There are tribes, I know in Nepal where the women marry two brothers.. ya.. it happens..
 
Many women don't like to share. .and really quite a number don't care that much.. and it is not about religion but it is culture and society. For some it is just a better arrangement.
 
Mystical, you do sound very upset by the idea of polygyny.. it realyl does work for some people, and some women are quite happy in it.. they often are better friends with co-wives then husband.. lol
 
 


-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 04 June 2008 at 4:28pm
I agree, it might work very well for some individuals.  I just don't think that on the whole it is good for society, especially if it is slanted in one direction only (i.e., multiple wives but not multiple husbands).  I don't think it should be forbidden, but it probably should be discouraged.

-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 04 June 2008 at 8:11pm
 
 Ron, that is no reply, i.e. might and probably... If it is the question of polygamy then it has been in practice for ages. We read that king david had a few wives. King Soloman had 300 wives and 1000 concubines. That is all according to the bible, nothing is there about that in the Quran.
 
 Even prophet Jacob had two wives. So please tell us which way you are heading. Are you questioning the very old senior great persons?? That they were wrong and they were at fault and you are a better thinker?? I do not see that you can say anything against the system of multi marriage of Islam in the case of need/ necessity.
 
 I have read the bible Isaiah ch.4 verses 1-3 in which the prophet Isaiah had predicted about polygamy as follows:
 
Isaiah 4

 1 In that day seven women
       will take hold of one man
       and say, "We will eat our own food
       and provide our own clothes;
       only let us be called by your name.
       Take away our disgrace!"

The Branch of the Lord
 2 In that day the Branch of the LORD will be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the land will be the pride and glory of the survivors in Israel. 3 Those who are left in Zion, who remain in Jerusalem, will be called holy, all who are recorded among the living in Jerusalem.
 
(Please note that Jerusalem and Zion are only symbolic. It is not necessary that it be the two cities/places)
 That was a clear indication of the time of the prophet Muhammad when there will be wars against the infidels (enemies of Peace) and many men pious men will lay their lives in the cause of truth. There will become serious shortage  of young men and some ladies will become widows.
 
 The prophet will order men to marry more than one woman so as to uproot any dismay or corruption in the society. Please read the frst line of the chapter above.


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: Saladin
Date Posted: 06 June 2008 at 2:12am

 Islam did not invent polygamy. Islam only regulated an already existing practice of every nation and culture. Neither does Islam make a muslim polygamous. There are many more muslim men strictly faithful to their only wives than people who are supposedly monogamous but are just polygamous without the label. Man's polygamous nature is a fact and polygamy as in Islam is only the alternative to an otherwise adulterous society with its ills.



-------------
'Trust everyone but not the devil in them'


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 06 June 2008 at 3:28am
 That is right. Islam only regulated the matter, as in the case of slavery, Islam regulated the bad practice in such a way so that there would be no slaves in the end.
 
 About polygamy, it was the practice in general without any limit or any rules. Islam regulated it to limit it to a maximum of four wives at a time and with many conditions of equal treatment etc. Also Islam advised that only one wife was better. That sentence is an important part of the quran. It is recommending that only one wife is better. What else could we need?
 
 There are certain times when it is cruel to throw of a  lady  for any reason of her illness. The second marriage becomes necessary.  otherwise the whole life becomes miserable. Wise wives allow such things and one of those wise wives was Hazrat Sarah, the wife of Hazrat Abraham a.s.
 
 There is no need to argue and question the wisdom behind the Quranic injunctions. The Jews and the christians have to thank the Islamic system. Otherwise, if there was strict monogamy in practice then there would have been no Jews are christians.


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 06 June 2008 at 4:07pm
Originally posted by minuteman

There is no need to argue and question the wisdom behind the Quranic injunctions. The Jews and the christians have to thank the Islamic system. Otherwise, if there was strict monogamy in practice then there would have been no Jews are christians.
 
Sorry, minuteman, I don't understand.  Why would there have been no Jews [or?] Christians?


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 06 June 2008 at 5:49pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by honeto

Mystical I will have to realistically disgree with that. I agree that a woman in normal circumtances will not agree to share her husband, but a true believer woman probably won't be as blunt if a unusual situation arises when its not a matter of man's benefit but purely for the benefit of the woman and the society. That unusual situation can be after a war and loss of a lot of men, leaving childless widows or those woman with children who are still young. Then it may be not about sharing the man but about helping and giving hope to those who otherwise would have none.
Right in our lifetime, right here on this earth in many regional crises such a situation has arised where big number of men are lost to conflicts.

Would the same apply in reverse?  For instance, India and China, through selective abortion, are both creating lopsided societies with a severe shortage of women.  Do you think women should be allowed to have multiple husbands in such a circumstance?  Would the men be as willing to share their woman, "giving hope to those who otherwise would have none"?

 
Ron,
the answer is simple, selective abortion is un-Islamic, so this sort of population imbalance would not happen in an Islamic soceity.
As far as the matter of a woman having more than one husband at a time, I don't have much knowledge about it. I will say however, that it seams impratical since man has a leadership role for his family in Islam and in Judeo-christian teachings. Thus, besides many other compilications, there cannot be two learders under one roof! I do not see such complications (though not easy probably) in case of a man having more than one wife in many examples not just in Islam, but in the Judeo-Christian practices according to the "Bible".
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 06 June 2008 at 8:19pm

Originally posted by honeto

Ron,
the answer is simple, selective abortion is un-Islamic, so this sort of population imbalance would not happen in an Islamic soceity.

Gender imbalances can arise in many ways. You suggested that a shortage of men could arise in a society at war, because a great many (male) soldiers are killed.  Let us suppose instead that the enemy is intent on exterminating the entire race, and specifically targets women of reproductive age (perhaps through some kind of biological weapon).

So, the question remains: Do you think women should be allowed to have multiple husbands in such a circumstance?  Would the men be as willing to share their woman, "giving hope to those who otherwise would have none"?



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 07 June 2008 at 3:36am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by honeto

Ron,
the answer is simple, selective abortion is un-Islamic, so this sort of population imbalance would not happen in an Islamic soceity.

Gender imbalances can arise in many ways. You suggested that a shortage of men could arise in a society at war, because a great many (male) soldiers are killed.  Let us suppose instead that the enemy is intent on exterminating the entire race, and specifically targets women of reproductive age (perhaps through some kind of biological weapon).

So, the question remains: Do you think women should be allowed to have multiple husbands in such a circumstance?  Would the men be as willing to share their woman, "giving hope to those who otherwise would have none"?

 
There are several loopholes in Polyandry . . . and it is unnatural, which is why Islam does not allow it:
 
1. First of all, the situation you have outlined is highly unlikely. True, as technology advances, only men will not get killed. . . rather, BOTH genders will get killed i.e mass destruction. In this case, the solution is Polygamy to repopulate the society.
 
2- The situation u mentioned above is only likely in a Hollywood movie. However, EVEN if that happens. . .too bad for the Men. Polyandry can have adverse affects which is why it is not permissable in Islam.
 
3- A man having multiple wives, can help propogate the society in terms of population . . . a Female having mutiple husbands (Polyandry) cannot do that. Which is one of the reasons Polyandry isnt ideal. I'm not saying that She cannot have kids . . .but in a population crisis, A polygamous marriage is more advantageous, compared to Monogamy. And Polyandry doesnt help the situation.
 
4- Of the several things wrong with Polyandry is the issue of the Fathering of the child. Which husband is responsible for the baby? We only have DNA tech NOW. Islam is for the past as well as the present. It would be unfair to disallow Polyandry in the past and allow it now just bcz we hav DNA tech. Besides, it will not be widley available for some time yet.
 
5- During Polygamy, if the woman is indisposed, sick, not feeling well, pregnant or not upto it, the other partner does not suffer. The husband can have relations with his other wife, and the indisposed wife can take time off guilt-free. In the case of Polyandry . . . If the Wife is indisposed . . .multiple ppl will suffer i.e ALL her husbands.
 
6. You may call life unfair or whatever, but this is the reality of things. Most males have a higher sex-drive compared to females... a female in a Polyandrous marriage will not be able to keep up with mutiple sexual partners on a normal basis. Atleast one of the partners will have to give up his 'turn' or right for the other. Women in Polygynous marriages however do not have to suffer sexually.
 
7. Again, you may call life unfair . . . but Women with multiple sex partners are more likley to catch veneral diseases compared to Men with multiple sex-partners. Thats how God made us. . .like it ir not, that is the reality.
 
8. Men may find it easier to cope with the emotional demands of more than one woman. But woman, who are prone to varying emotional needs due to the presence of Oestrogen have thier 'times' when they need space . . .and during these times cannot possibly cater to the emotional/whatver issues/needs of mutlple partners. During thier emotional times, they find one husband difficult enough to cope with :p Men howver, since do not go thru any hormonal surges, can find themselves emotionally available to care for thier wards/wives throughout the month/lifetime. Atleast more than when compared to women.
 
9. Men are sexually/reproductivley active throughout most of thier lives. That again, is a fact/reality. As they grow older, thier wives dont have to suffer sexually or otherwise (most of the times). That is not the case with Polyandry. Women go thru menopause and thier libido diminishes with age. What then becomes of the multiple male partners after menopause? Especially since they still have thier needs. I dont think all of them will be nice enough to stick around.
 
All that and more are the reasons Polyandry is impractical, unrealistic and just a fantasy.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 08 June 2008 at 6:13pm

Hi Chrysalis,

That's quite an essay.  I'm not sure I can reply to all of it, but let's see what happens:

1 and 2. I agree that what I described is unlikely, but not impossible.  After all, we already have a disease (AIDS) that seems to target men based on their behaviour, so there's no reason a disease could not disproportionately affect women.  Childbirth is the single most dangerous event in most women's lives, and it wouldn't take much to make it deadly on a regular basis.  But let's leave that aside.  Neither scenario (more women or more men) is especially likely at present, so either way we're talking about a hypothetical situation.

3. If the only purpose of marriage is to propagate society, then I agree, but in my opinion that is a very narrow view of it.  If there were a shortage of women, the surplus men would still want a chance to be part of a family, for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with propagating society.

4. It should be of no importance to know which man fathered the child.  The parents are responsible for raising the children -- and that means all the parents, not just the biological father.

5 and 6. In terms of sexual relations, one woman is more capable of satisfying multiple men than the other way around.  As for men having an innately higher sex drive, I believe that is a cultural presumption, not a physical fact.

7. Sexually transmitted diseases are spread via promiscuity, regardless of gender.  Neither gender is safe if they have sex outside of marriage, and both genders are equally safe if they stay within the marriage.

8. See 5 and 6.  Even allowing for a few days each month when women are not sexually available, a woman is far more capable of satisfying multiple men than vice versa.

9. Again, I think that is a cultural presumption, not a physical fact.  Women may no longer be capable of having children, but they are no more likely than men to lose their interest in sex.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 08 June 2008 at 7:42pm
Curious when we think of polygamy we think of sex.


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 09 June 2008 at 4:16am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

13. If the only purpose of marriage is to propagate society, then I agree, but in my opinion that is a very narrow view of it.  If there were a shortage of women, the surplus men would still want a chance to be part of a family, for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with propagating society.

Nobody said that propogation of society is the only purpose of marriage. This was in response to the hypothetical scenario of mass destruction in the society and the need to increase the population. EVEN if only the female population is the one that decreased . . . the solution AGAIN would be to repopulate. With the natural birth balance which causes more females to be born as compared to males. . . natural propogation (polygyny would help the process) will STILL result in more females being born. . .
 
4. It should be of no importance to know which man fathered the child.  The parents are responsible for raising the children -- and that means all the parents, not just the biological father.
 
It is of utmost importance to the child and society to know BOTH the parents of a child. There is no difficulty in knowing the identity of the mother, even in Polygyny. It is usually Fatherhood that is difficult to foretell under unordinary circumstances.
 
For the child's stability, emotional wellbieng, sense of security and what-not, the Child should be aware of his parent's presence. You will perhaps agree that a lot of psychological disorders take root from childhood. Growing up with 2/3 fathers, and not knowing which is not exactly going to effect the child positivley.
 
Then there is the question of the Father's themselves. There is no such thing as a natural 'fathering' instinct as opposed to a natural maternal instinct. To a large extent, the feelings a father develops has something to do with genes and biology. Are u going to say that 3 (or less) men are going to have NO issues whatsoever raising a child and loving it wholeheartedly, whilst knowing that there is a huge chance the child isnt even his? and his rival's? I think there are difinitley going to be issues.
 
Psychology aside . . . Medical issues. In case of ill-health . . . knowing the paternity can determine cures. Bone Marrow, Blood-types, etc etc. The doctor will need to know who the father is, it not anyone else. I'm sure this particular area can be talked about in detail itself.
 
5 and 6. In terms of sexual relations, one woman is more capable of satisfying multiple men than the other way around.  As for men having an innately higher sex drive, I believe that is a cultural presumption, not a physical fact.
 
We're talking of natural means to intimate relations. And I'm sorry, this is nothing cultural, its a scientific fact. In the MAJORITY of cases (I'm not saying 100%) Males DO have a higher libido. You will find that the biological reason for this is the presence of Testosterone. Testosterone effects the libido in BOTH men & women. And since its a widley known fact that Males have MORE testosterone compared to thier female counterparts . . .hence they have a higher libido. I'm afraid what YOU are saying is a cultural phenomenon, post-women's lib . . .which considers males and females the same. I'm all for female rights, but we need to differentiate facts from fiction.
 
7. Sexually transmitted diseases are spread via promiscuity, regardless of gender. 
Unfortunatley, just like Homosexuals are more likely to catch STDs than Heteros . . . Females are more likley to catch STDs than males. One can argue that nature is biased against Homo's and Females. . . but thats the way things are. It has something to with the anatomy of both genders. Thus females with multiple partners are more likley to catch STDs than those with a single partner.
 
9. Again, I think that is a cultural presumption, not a physical fact.  Women may no longer be capable of having children, but they are no more likely than men to lose their interest in sex.
 
Again, this myth was propgated post-women's lib. I KNOW that NOT ALL females lose interest as they mature. I am talking about a significant if not majority number. This again is a blatant scientific fact. Refer to the causes/symptoms of menopause. The DECREASE in hormones such as Testosterone, Estrogen and Progestrone has everything to do with decreased interest. You may want to refer to http://www.epigee.org/menopause/sexdrive.html - http://www.epigee.org/menopause/sexdrive.html  It also explains OTHER anatomical reasons for lower libido . . .that I dont wish to go into the details of.
 
Thus its not a cultural presumption.
 
I agree with Israfil here, this has boiled down to sex . . .but unfortunatley, the EMOTIONAL aspects of it cannot be proven as scientifically. Which is why the discussion boiled down to what it did.
 
Just a quick survey of uninhibited societies of the world will show you that men are more naturally inclined to be keeping multiple partners at the same time compared to women. Which I think proves that women are not naturally, emotionally and physically inclined to be keeping multiple partners. And they do so out of choice.


Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 09 June 2008 at 6:33am
Interesting in the tribes in Nepal that practive poygamy, wife with two husbands they rotate.. one husband is off in the mountanis for six months and then they switch. If wife gets pregnant they know who the  child's father is, although they are brothers so less relavant.
 
So practically speaking people DO run societies around it. Agered not many. But some do.
 


-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 09 June 2008 at 6:32pm

Originally posted by Chrysalis

For the child's stability, emotional wellbieng, sense of security and what-not, the Child should be aware of his parent's presence. ...

Then there is the question of the Father's themselves. ... I think there are difinitley going to be issues.

Well Chrysalis, you're welcome to your opinion, but I don't agree.  There were no "issues" for me or my stepdaughter, despite there being no biological connection between us.  What matters is the stability of the parent-child relationships, not the biology.  As for medical issues, etc., you said yourself that biological paternity can be determined if necessary.
 

We're talking of natural means to intimate relations. And I'm sorry, this is nothing cultural, its a scientific fact. In the MAJORITY of cases (I'm not saying 100%) Males DO have a higher libido. ...

Women's sexuality is entirely different than men's (not surprisingly).  I don't even know how you would measure it, let alone compare the two scientifically.  I'd be interested in any references you can provide (privately), but I don't think this is the right forum to discuss it.

Just a quick survey of uninhibited societies of the world will show you that men are more naturally inclined to be keeping multiple partners at the same time compared to women. Which I think proves that women are not naturally, emotionally and physically inclined to be keeping multiple partners. And they do so out of choice.

I agree that men (young men in particular, I'm not so sure about older men/women) are more inclined to seek multiple partners.  But frankly I think that is more about promiscuity than lasting relationships; and I think it illustrates not only that young men are more comfortable with multiple partners, but that they are more comfortable with their women having multiple partners.

Men don't mind using prostitutes, for instance, knowing full well that the women are having sex with many other men.  How many women don't mind knowing that the man they are with today was with a different woman yesterday, and will be with another tomorrow?



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 09 June 2008 at 10:04pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

There were no "issues" for me or my stepdaughter, despite there being no biological connection between us.  What matters is the stability of the parent-child relationships, not the biology.  As for medical issues, etc., you said yourself that biological paternity can be determined if necessary.

 

I was/am not talking about an adopted/step relationship. Such a relationship can still grow to be very strong and beneficial. Because the stepfather knows frm the start that the child is not his, and is not faced with the boilogical dads. . . no conflicting emotions. Easy to make the child 'your own'.
 I am referring to a case where 2/3 'fathers' are sharing one child, without knowing the paternity. I don't think you would be loving the child as much, if you KNEW that 2 more men could easily be the biological fathers of the child. WHILST..sharing the child with those possible fathers, the not knowing, and facing the possible dads. This is not a case of an absent biological father whose place you can take, but active, present ones. One would have to be a Saint to do that. 
 
We're talking of natural means to intimate relations. And I'm sorry, this is nothing cultural, its a scientific fact. In the MAJORITY of cases (I'm not saying 100%) Males DO have a higher libido. ...

You can simply look up the 'sex hormone' testosterone . . .which determines libido, and compare its presence in males and females. I'm not going to be arguing about this furthur, no point butting heads. Fact.
 
  But frankly I think that is more about promiscuity than lasting relationships; and I think it illustrates not only that young men are more comfortable with multiple partners, but that they are more comfortable with their women having multiple partners.
Although young men are more likely to have more one-night stands, older men are more likley to indulge in affairs, keeping mistresses which is a relativley long term r/ship. A quick glance in history will give us ample examples of older men with long-term mistresses. And I think the men u r talking abt r probably ok abt thier one-night-stands having mulitple partners. . . but if the woman is thier lifepartner, girlfirend, wife . . .far from confortable, they would hate it.

Men don't mind using prostitutes, for instance, knowing full well that the women are having sex with many other men. 
 

Thats different. Why? Bcz its a one-time thing/prostitute, which is why men don't mind 'sharing' the woman. There is no long-term r/ship commitment involved. However, would the same men be willing to MARRY the prostitute? Or have a long-term r/ship with it? Knowing she has had numeous men? Let alone a (concious) child? No. . . (again, I expect u might say they most certainly will, but in all honestly, and in the majority of cases, the wont) Why? bcz he will not want to marry public property, and would like a more exclusive woman to marry. Unfortunatley, in MOST societies that is a fact, and perhaps the nature of men. INfact, even a woman will not want to marry a promiscuis man under normal circumstances.
 
 How many women don't mind knowing that the man they are with today was with a different woman yesterday, and will be with another tomorrow?
I dont think its a case of 'don't mind knowing'. . . Rather, I think they cannot help it. If ANY woman/man would have it his/her way, they would not choose a partner whilst knowing they had been with other ppl, and will be. The reason you say 'they dont mind' is bcz there basically is no other choice for these women. In such a society, all men have been wid other women, so the woman has to resign herself to that. Howevr, if the society offers single, chaste men . . .no doubt women would opt for them.
 


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 15 June 2008 at 7:52pm

Originally posted by Chrysalis

I am referring to a case where 2/3 'fathers' are sharing one child, without knowing the paternity. I don't think you would be loving the child as much, if you KNEW that 2 more men could easily be the biological fathers of the child. WHILST..sharing the child with those possible fathers, the not knowing, and facing the possible dads. This is not a case of an absent biological father whose place you can take, but active, present ones. One would have to be a Saint to do that.

So if I thought I might be my stepdaughter's biological father that would make me less loving?  This makes sense to you?

You can simply look up the 'sex hormone' testosterone . . .which determines libido, and compare its presence in males and females. I'm not going to be arguing about this furthur, no point butting heads. Fact.

Testosterone is the male sex hormone.  There are two female sex hormones: estrogen and progesterone.  Fact.

Howevr, if the society offers single, chaste men . . .no doubt women would opt for them.

No doubt.  I think you just made my point for me. Wink



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 17 June 2008 at 6:49am
One of the problems with polygamy!!
 
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-childbride11-2008jun11,0,5271790.story - http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-childbride11-2008jun11,0,5271790.story
 
Nujood's unemployed father, Ali Mohammed Ahdal, has two wives and 16 children. He is among the many tribal Yemenis who have migrated to the capital looking for work. Instead, he found misery.
 


-------------
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Posted By: Saladin
Date Posted: 18 June 2008 at 8:40am
 Has monogamy solved these problems?

-------------
'Trust everyone but not the devil in them'


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 20 June 2008 at 2:50am

So if I thought I might be my stepdaughter's biological father that would make me less loving?  This makes sense to you?.

Ronn, your situation/circumstances are vastly different from that of a polyandrous situation, where a number of Dads are sharing a child whilst not-knowing the child's paternity. . . while you are a single-stepdad with a stepdaughter and no doubt have a pretty normal life. Your relationship is defined, it is not vague and unknown. There is no 'not-knowing' involved here. . . all the facts are clear as anything.
 
 

Testosterone is the male sex hormone.  There are two female sex hormones: estrogen and progesterone.  Fact..
 
True! HOWEVER, Testosterone is a hormone found in BOTH men & women, and is also known as the sex-hormone, because it is what determines the libido/sex-drive in BOTH men & women. Higher levels of Testosterone mean a higher sex-drive. . . and one of the reasons why men have a comparitively higher sex-drive, especially in most cases is because they naturally have higher levels of testosterone in thier bodies, compared to women. Women have lower levels then men. Thus have a comparitivley lower sex-drive. In men, testes produce testosterone and in women, ovaries produce it.

 



-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 20 June 2008 at 5:40am
However, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that because women have less testosterone than men do, they have lower sexual interest than their male counterparts. Instead, it seems that women detect and react to much smaller amounts of testosterone in their circulation than men do.
http://health.discovery.com/centers/sex/sexpedia/hormone.html - http://health.discovery.com/centers/sex/sexpedia/hormone.html

-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.



Print Page | Close Window