Saturday, March 10, 2012

New Study Shows Polygamy Leads to Higher Levels of Crime, Violence, Poverty, and Gender Inequality

Interesting. Islam institutionalized polygamous marriage. Researchers have determined that polygamous marriage in a culture leads to higher levels of crime, violence, poverty, and gender inequality. Hence, Islam institutionalized a practice that led to the problems we now see in Muslim societies: rampant violence, poverty, and gender inequality. Shouldn't Allah have known better?

For those unfamiliar with Islamic teachings, here's a quick review. According to the Qur'an, Muslim men are allowed to marry up to four women:

Qur'an 4:3—And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry (other) women of your choice, two or three or four, but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one or (the captives and the slaves) that your right hands possess. That is nearer to prevent you from doing injustice.

Of course, Allah gave Muhammad (and only Muhammad) special moral privileges, namely, the right to marry more women than anyone else (nothing suspicious here!):

Qur'an 33:50—O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makkah) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her—this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large).

According to Tabari, Muhammad married fifteen women:

History of al-Tabari, Volume IX, pp. 126-7—“The Messenger of God married fifteen women and consummated his marriage with thirteen. He combined eleven at a time and left behind nine.”

Bukhari confirms that Muhammad had at either nine or eleven wives at one time (far more than the standard limit of four):

Sahih al-Bukhari 268—Anas bin Malik said, "The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number." I asked Anas, "Had the Prophet the strength for it?" Anas replied, "We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty (men)." And Sa'id said on the authority of Qatada that Anas had told him about nine wives only (not eleven).

Since Muhammad is the highest moral example in Islam (Qur'an 33:21), and Muhammad was polygamous, and the Qur'an allows Muslims to engage in polygamy, this practice has been a part of Muslim society for nearly fourteen centuries. And now for the results of Islamic teachings, in a report by Science Daily:

SCIENCE DAILY (Jan. 24, 2012)—In cultures that permit men to take multiple wives, the intra-sexual competition that occurs causes greater levels of crime, violence, poverty and gender inequality than in societies that institutionalize and practice monogamous marriage.

That is a key finding of a new University of British Columbia-led study that explores the global rise of monogamous marriage as a dominant cultural institution. The study suggests that institutionalized monogamous marriage is rapidly replacing polygamy because it has lower levels of inherent social problems.

"Our goal was to understand why monogamous marriage has become standard in most developed nations in recent centuries, when most recorded cultures have practiced polygyny," says UBC Prof. Joseph Henrich, a cultural anthropologist, referring to the form of polygamy that permits multiple wives, which continues to be practiced in some parts of Africa, Asia, the Middle East and North America.

"The emergence of monogamous marriage is also puzzling for some as the very people who most benefit from polygyny -- wealthy, powerful men -- were best positioned to reject it," says Henrich, lead author of the study that was recently published in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. "Our findings suggest that that institutionalized monogamous marriage provides greater net benefits for society at large by reducing social problems that are inherent in polygynous societies."

Considered the most comprehensive study of polygamy and the institution of marriage, the study finds significantly higher levels rape, kidnapping, murder, assault, robbery and fraud in polygynous cultures. According to Henrich and his research team, which included Profs. Robert Boyd (UCLA) and Peter Richerson (UC Davis), these crimes are caused primarily by pools of unmarried men, which result when other men take multiple wives.

"The scarcity of marriageable women in polygamous cultures increases competition among men for the remaining unmarried women," says Henrich, adding that polygamy was outlawed in 1963 in Nepal, 1955 in India (partially), 1953 in China and 1880 in Japan. The greater competition increases the likelihood men in polygamous communities will resort to criminal behavior to gain resources and women, he says.

According to Henrich, monogamy's main cultural evolutionary advantage over polygyny is the more egalitarian distribution of women, which reduces male competition and social problems. By shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, institutionalized monogamy increases long-term planning, economic productivity, savings and child investment, the study finds. Monogamy's institutionalization has been assisted by its incorporation by religions, such as Christianity.

Monogamous marriage also results in significant improvements in child welfare, including lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death, homicide and intra-household conflict, the study finds. These benefits result from greater levels of parental investment, smaller households and increased direct "blood relatedness" in monogamous family households, says Henrich, who served as an expert witness for British Columbia's Supreme Court case involving the polygamous community of Bountiful, B.C.

Monogamous marriage has largely preceded democracy and voting rights for women in the nations where it has been institutionalized, says Henrich, the Canadian Research Chair in Culture, Cognition and Evolution in UBC's Depts. of Psychology and Economics. By decreasing competition for younger and younger brides, monogamous marriage increases the age of first marriage for females, decreases the spousal age gap and elevates female influence in household decisions which decreases total fertility and increases gender equality.

46 comments:

Osama Abdallah said...

Both Jesus and Paul addressed polygamy and both allowed it in the NT. I've written a detailed article on this with ample verses from the NT at: http://www.answering-christianity.com/ntpoly.htm There is also a link to a detailed rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's response to my article.

The modern-day Christianity that prohibits polygamy is nothing but a politically-correct man-made system made to appease certain fews' desires.

Now in regards to Polygamy, polygamy provides solid social solutions. Here are some of them:

1- It provides a balance between the numbers of men and women, especially when a lot of men get killed in battles.

2- It provides social stability and ensures man's dominance and authority. If the wife doesn't please her husband as he should be pleased, then marrying another woman might certainly be a good solution.

3- It provides protection to the less fortunate women in beauty and stature. By not being limited with only one woman, the man can marry from these women and provide homes and protection and security for them, while the man can still marry the woman of his dreams that he most desires.

4- Marrying multiple women also provides more man-power to the family in the rural areas that live primarily on agriculture and livestock. The man and the 4 wives and their grown children can all work to raise the farms and the livestock to help feed the family and grow its business.

5- During the days of the swords, the male children also provided protection to the family and the entire village. There is a difference between a ONE GUY with 10 SISTERS, and ONE GAL with 10 BROTHERS. Both are 11 in numbers, but in strength there is just no comparison.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Osama,

You're an idiot.

I know that means nothing to you.

But it's not even funny anymore.

dstewart said...

Thanks Osama for proving the point of this post while apparently trying to refute it. #2 is about the most misogynist "defense" you could actually give.

Osama Abdallah said...

"Osama,

You're an idiot.

I know that means nothing to you.

But it's not even funny anymore."

I love you too, Hezekiah Ahaz.

VJ said...

Osama


You and your articles are a big joke.
BTW how would you react if your dad or your sister's husband had to marry multiple wifes?

PETE said...

@Osama Abdullah

You pretend that you understand well what its means by the verse mathew 19 : 1- 12(NT). So Jesus said to his disciple marry 4 wife is allowed..?

Hello..?

DOn't be stupid..

Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Osama loves me...I wanna cry...Have you been reading the bible?

By the way do you love pork chops?

Osama Abdallah said...

"@Osama Abdullah

You pretend that you understand well what its means by the verse mathew 19 : 1- 12(NT). So Jesus said to his disciple marry 4 wife is allowed..?

Hello..?

DOn't be stupid.."

RESPONSE:

Jesus lived among polygamists for 33 years. Never once did he denounce polygamy or prohibit it.
Jesus was also challenged multiple times with examples that involved polygamy. Never did he also denounce polygamy or prohibit it. IN FACT, JESUS CALLING YOU (his followers) HIS WIVES IN HIS PARABLES FURTHER PROVES POLYGAMY!

Furthermore, the man and his wife become 1 response by Jesus is referring to the sacredness of the marriage between the man and the woman. Their bedroom and what they do in it is theirs. Islam also honors this. A man can not be with multiple women in one bedroom. He can only be with one.

Furthermore, when Paul prohibited polygamy to the Church leaders ONLY, his reason behind the prohibition was that they would become too busy to serve the people if they marry multiple women. But to satisfy their sexual needs and urges, he permitted them to only marry one wife, each.

QUESTIONS TO CHRISTIANS:

1- Show me where did Jesus exclusively prohibit polygamy!

2- Since Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit, according to your beliefs, when what kind of answer was this from him???
It's like me saying to my wife do not go and sleep around with other men because you'll get very busy and you won't be able to spend enough time here at home?????? How about answers such as:

1- It's considered adultery, and it's punishable by stonning to death in Islam.

2- It's a grave sin and one of Islam's forbidden sins.

The answer about getting busy and not having enough time to spend at home is a lame and gay and very stupid one! Period! ********SIMILARLY, IF PAUL BELIEVED THAT POLYGAMY WAS FORBIDDEN, THEN HIS prohibition of it to only the Church leaders and not to anyone else, and his reasoning behind it was so that those Chruch leaders won't get overwhelmed with too many wives and end up neglecting the Church proves that polygamy was never prohibited in the NT. Period!

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Foolster41 said...

Osama, it seems you can't refute the answers to your previous lies (1 Chron 5:5, no subjugation of non-muslims, anti-muslim hate is rampant, to criticize Islam or argue that anto-muslim crimes don't happen very often is "Islamaphobia", etc.) so you continue to run and tell new lies and slanders.

You still owe me an apology for slandering me by insinuating I want to see anti-Muslim crimes happen just because I don't believe they happen that often. Having a dissenting voice is one thing, and mud slinging is something else.

I'm also waiting for an apology for the atrocious lie about 1 Chron 5:5 where you pretended it meant to kill the unbeliever, which contrasts with the rest of the New testament.

I think these might be Osama's favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120630
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0130827
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074812
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102818

PETE said...

@Osama Abdullah

Osama Abdullah want to show us that Bible sound like Alquran.. And yet, he makes fun with the verse in NT and dancing with it to make people understand what he try to prove. But sorry Osama.. what are you try to prove is not the same with the meaning with the verse in NT that you shown.

You just make people laugh. Ha..ha..ha.

Compare with al quran.. It's VERY CLEAR that muslims men can marry 4 wife. In the bible (NT), It's VERY CLEAR that men just can have ONE wife.

Thats why people think that you so stupid because you said otherwise.

PETE said...

@Hezekiah Ahaz

Of Course Osama read the bible but he read just to make a Bible sound like Al Quran. He still don't understand and make fun of it.

gabriella oak said...

Hezekiah Ahaz,

I bet Osama's wives drape themselves in pork chops to keep him at bay.

It's the Dracula/Garlic principle.

D335 said...

@Osama Abdallah

1. It provides a balance between the numbers of men and women, esp.. bla2.

Wow, I thought it just poke a V game or freesex whatever you want to call it justified by "Sharia Law".

I guess muslims follow what "little brother" down there wherever he wants to go just to even out numbers :p

2, It provides social stability and ensure man's dominance and authority.

Oh, if you can't have sex slaves like muhammad, therefore get a legal wife to put your domination upon her!

3. It provides protection to the less fortunate women in beauty and stature.

Yup, I'm sure, it's whoring made legal by Sharia. Is it whoring? well if you include sex in it, rather than just helping people...

4. Marrying multiple women also provides more man-power to the family in the rural areas that live primarily on agriculture and livestock.

Sex slave argument, nope. Domination on gender and age, nope. Howbout this, cheap and free worker scheme?
Well, how to make something ugly smelling sweet all while you don't have to spend more money? Yes, rather than illegal workers, marry a lot ! Sharia will provide non-payable workers at your disposal ! That is smart right?

5.- During the days of the swords, the male children also provided protection to the family and the entire village. There is a difference between a ONE GUY with 10 SISTERS, and ONE GAL with 10 BROTHERS.

Incredible, that is why most muslim nations in the world get their expansive military campaign dead on their track.

See Osama? my female cousin beat 10 boys on her class before she finally gets expelled. Not such a good example, but I believe she can also kick your ass even if you bring 10 other wives to help you fight.

Days of the sword ended, now days of firearms and entering the age of pushing buttons. It's already a failed argument in the start and it only shows how the muslims thinks... let your brother /sister, sons and daughters to sacrifice their lives for you first before your skin gets a scratch!

aaron said...

Arrrh osama where did it say we can have multiple wives? notice how it says "and the two will become one flesh" not 3,4,5.

adultery and divorce was disapproved my jesus. that his disciples says it was better not to get married. want to know why osama? its easier to avoid it remaining by as virgin to avoid that sin.

btw allah created pigs so that he could hate them. what is the point of creating pigs? it would be a kinder fate if they had not existed.

simple_truth said...

Osama Abdallah said...

=========== quote ============

Both Jesus and Paul addressed polygamy and both allowed it in the NT. I've written a detailed article on this with ample verses from the NT at: http://www.answering-christianity.com/ntpoly.htm There is also a link to a detailed rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's response to my article.

The modern-day Christianity that prohibits polygamy is nothing but a politically-correct man-made system made to appease certain fews' desires.

=========== reply ============

Without actually reading your article, I can correct you on your points quite easily, i.e,, if you are really interested in a contextual perspective of the NT.

Now to set the record straight, in Genesis, the Bible indicates that marriage consists of one man and one women. Secondly, God is the one who instituted marriage as such. Jesus later confirms this in Mat 9:4-6.

Mat 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.


Paul also continued the same theme in Eph 5:33.

Eph 5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

The idea is one husband, one wife as God ordained it from the beginning.

=========== quote ============

Now in regards to Polygamy, polygamy provides solid social solutions. Here are some of them:

1- It provides a balance between the numbers of men and women, especially when a lot of men get killed in battles.

=========== reply ============

But, what if Muslims are killing off the men that they capture while keeping the women and children as slaves. That artificially results in more women than men. Is that also a license to marry multiple wives? Throughout world history, the ratio of women to men has changed; so, that means that Allah's way of looking at things depends upon there being more women than men? What happens when men outnumber women? Will your theory work then?

simple_truth said...

........continued

Osama Abdallah said...

=========== quote ============

2- It provides social stability and ensures man's dominance and authority. If the wife doesn't please her husband as he should be pleased, then marrying another woman might certainly be a good solution.

=========== reply ============

But that is treating women like property and disposables. What about the woman being able to do the same? But, that can't happen so easily since the man can easily divorce the woman but not the other way around. The woman is always at a disadvantage. Your assumption is that men aren't equally susceptible to the same problem(s).

Mat 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
Mat 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Why should a man be dominant over a woman? In the Bible, authority is a matter of order in relation of Christ to the Church. It is not a position of dominance, but of order in which God views the head of the woman (the husband) in a similar manner as He sees the head of the Church (Christ) to the Church itself.

Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
Eph 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
Eph 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:


=========== quote ============

3- It provides protection to the less fortunate women in beauty and stature. By not being limited with only one woman, the man can marry from these women and provide homes and protection and security for them, while the man can still marry the woman of his dreams that he most desires.

=========== reply ============

You are insinuating that women can't be taken care of unless they are married? That is so outrageously stupid!

Well, that is what charity and brotherly love is about. It is quite silly to think that in order to help widows, orphans, etc., one has to engage in marriage to somehow save them from desperation and provide security. Christians have been giving charity for centuries without marrying the less privileged. What happened with Islam?

I guess you fail to support your stance in spite of what the study says. Please provide some evidence, perhaps scientifically, anthropologically, etc.

simple_truth said...

continued.............

Osama Abdallah said...

=========== quote ============

4- Marrying multiple women also provides more man-power to the family in the rural areas that live primarily on agriculture and livestock. The man and the 4 wives and their grown children can all work to raise the farms and the livestock to help feed the family and grow its business.

=========== reply ============

That's funny since even as late as 60 years ago, the average family size in America included 5 or more kids with only one man and wife raising them. Often the older children would help to take care of the younger ones and were quite mature and responsible in aiding the family. Go back earlier in American history and this number goes up even more. On both sides of my family my mom and dad, my grand moms remained married to the same husbands and had over 10 children each. This was very common too. I don't buy that, Osama. They also, were raised on farms and helped with the chores. In fact, they did more work as children than many grownups do today in a more technically driven world. Back then, they had family and community as the backbone of society. Each family helped the other. You can see this kind of stuff from early American life as displayed in such old TV classics as Little House on the Prairie and The Waltons. Family and neighbors mattered then as a means of survival and stability in society.

=========== quote ============

5- During the days of the swords, the male children also provided protection to the family and the entire village. There is a difference between a ONE GUY with 10 SISTERS, and ONE GAL with 10 BROTHERS. Both are 11 in numbers, but in strength there is just no comparison.

=========== reply ============

Is your message that males are more valuable as females or somehow so much tougher? I can tell you that my mom and her sisters were very tough. They even beat up boys, growing up, even in high school. You didn't mess with them or else, you got your teeth handed to you. Males are generally stronger and physically tougher than females; but, if you teach females to be tough, then can carry their own weight.

I think that your view may seem to work if, and only if there is some kind of disruption in the social cycle such as war, plagues, and other desolation whereby the populations of men become adversely affected. Your model wouldn't work very well otherwise, unless you want to ignore the findings both quoted and cited in the article. Now, in context of the Bible, multiple marriages always ended in chaos and enslavement to man--not God. Society functions at its maximum when there is one man and wife in a stable monogamous marriage that produces the next generation of men and women to continue society in that orderly fashion. When monogamous relationships start to deteriorate, the society also deteriorates.

Naren said...

@Osama

Guess u forgot to check the date... it is 2012 and not the barbaric 6th century populated by Jahils... at this time, the population of men and women are almost the same. You may have a few countries such as India wherein the male population is 1-2% more than the female population... so, WHAT BALANCE IS ACHIEVED BY POLYGAMY BETWEEN THE NUMBERS OF MEN AND WOMEN ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!. If you reply by saying that this was for the 6th century wherein men were dying off in battlefield then you are by default accepting that the commandments of the Quran are not for all time and that the people who still follow the commandment of 4 wives to a man are not following the actual "spirit" of the law. Muhammad should have clarified that this is only for those Jahil times and for those Jahil Arab populace.

In point 2, you have written that "If the wife doesn't please her husband as he should be pleased, then marrying another woman might certainly be a good solution." I had heard this argument when I used to travel to the still barbaric Middle East. But, tell me, what is the solution for the woman whose husband cannot satisfy her. Even Muhammad used to bluff about his sexual prowess. Premature Ejaculation, Erectile Dysfunction, etc are rife only in men and as u "may" be aware, women are the only side capable of multiple orgasms whereas you must "be going down" with the first one"

Let me ask you Osama, How do you know that you are able to satisfy your wife Multiple studies are shown that a large percentage of men "Finish" in seconds but the women are still left unsatisfied. By your logic then, you should have no qualms if your wife, sister, mother, etc decide to get on with other men to "satisfy their urges"... as it is well said "What is good for the goose should be good for the gander"

Brother, I know that last statement must hurt but am sorry, I couldn't think of any way in which to make you see the loop in your argument. As long as you are not on the receiving end but only on the "enjoying side", it doesn't seem unfair.

Lastly, how do you explain Bukhari Vol 66, No: 3523 "It is related that al-Miswar ibn Makhrama said, "'Ali ibn Abi Talib proposed to the daughter of Abu Jahl and Fatima heard about it. She went to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and said, 'Your people claim that you do not become angry on account of your daughters. This 'Ali is going to marry the daughter of Abu Jahl.' The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, got up and I heard him say after the tashahhud, "Following on from that, I married my daughter to Abu'l-'As ibn ar-Rabi' and he spoke to me and told the truth to me. Fatima is part of me and I dislike that she be vexed. By Allah, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and the daughter of the enemy of Allah will not be joined together by the same man.' So 'Ali abandoned his proposal."
So, the hypocrite... oops I meant Muhammad could understand that his daughter would be unhappy with a polygamous spouse but somehow felt that it was ok for the rest of the female population in the world to come.

I read your article, I couldn't believe that anyone can sink to such lows in Asinine Logic. I don't want to reinvent the wheel... guess Sam/James have already lost a lot of hair refuting such articles.

In Christ


Naren

Deleting said...

Osama said, "The modern-day Christianity that prohibits polygamy is nothing but a politically-correct man-made system made to appease certain fews' desires."

So..you're also siding with the fundlimentalist Latter Day Saints?

Joseph Smith would be so proud of you.

Next step-spiritual polygamous marriages for you Osama so you can go make mormon spiritual babies because multiple marriages is a spiritual command in order to be saved.
Don't worry, the mormon church can carry this out after you've died (baptism for the dead. I don't remember the D&C entry for this one but the polygamy part is D & C 132). They did it to the jews who died during the holocaust. They can do it to you too.

Still sound like a politcally correct man made system that suppresses polygamy?

Let's see what jesus actually said about it:
Matthew 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?"

How many times is a man to leave his father and mother? Just once?
Note how scripture says 'man' and not 'woman' which would be the case in polygamy, no?

Oh, you know what, let me give you the other verses Jesus says after that:

19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?


19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.


19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.



FYI-one more side note: Joseph Smith called himself the king of the world and I think tried to run for president when he was still alive.

Joe Bradley said...

Osama

The Bible does not contain a study on the pressing negative impact that Polygamy has on a culture. The reasons for your belief that there are solid social benefits in Polygamy are superficial and hypothetical at best, not addressing the actual cited negative effects that Polygamy has on a society. Since you were silent on the issues brought forth in this report, I must presume that you accept these findings (silence=acceptance). You dodge the data presented in the study with the following points which fail under the light of scrutiny.

"1- It provides a balance between the numbers of men and women, especially when a lot of men get killed in battles."

World War 1 saw 116,708 United States soldiers die in battle.

World War 2 racked up 416,800 U.S. military deaths.

Korea was witness to 33,000 U.S. military deaths

Viet Nam lost 50,000 U.S. soldiers.

Post war polygamy was never an issue in the aftermath of war as there was never a problem in the "balance between the numbers of men and women" that was deemed necessary to correct through Polygamy.


"2- It provides social stability and ensures man's dominance and authority. If the wife doesn't please her husband as he should be pleased, then marrying another woman might certainly be a good solution."

Apparently Polygamy is not a sufficient panacea to solve these problems. If it were, why is it deemed necessary for Muslim men to beat the daylights out of their wives (supported in the Qu'ran by the way) and then, if that does not work, murder their errant wife under the banner of an "Honor Killing"?

"4- Marrying multiple women also provides more man-power to the family in the rural areas that live primarily on agriculture and livestock."

So do agricultural Co-Ops.

"5- During the days of the swords, the male children also provided protection to the family and the entire village."

It only takes 1 ounce of trigger squeeze to dispatch an enemy - I think a woman can handle that.

I find the reasoning in the article, against Polygamy, to be far more compelling than your reasoning which, speciously, attempts to justify this practice.

I'm just saying: said...

Psalm 92:6
6 A brutish man knoweth not; neither doth a fool understand this.

You cannot twist the Bible to justify your beliefs.

sara said...

@ Osama
Its funny how Muslims in the west want to make the bible sound like the Quran and the Quran to sound like the bible.
if you are so proud to be a muslim Osama you should be proud of your perverted violent Quran and stop trying to justify it by ripping the bible out of content to make it sound like the quran.

Samatar Mohamed said...

Polygamy is necessary in certain instances, like when the number of women are much larger then the number of men due to battles and such. But lets not forget the clear guideline that is in the Quran with regard to polygamy.

Surah Nisa, verse 3

"If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, 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, or that which your right hands possess. That will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice."

It is quite clear that the four women should be treated equally in the Quran, and if you fear injustice then marry only one. The Quran actually does prohibit polygamy for the men who cannot treat his wives justly.

Herakleios said...

Hmm ... so muslim have to treat your wife equally, but Osama said about polygamy :

"3- It provides protection to the less fortunate women in beauty and stature. By not being limited with only one woman, the man can marry from these women and provide homes and protection and security for them, while the man can still marry the woman of his dreams that he most desires."

Doesnt that contradict? Osama tells us, you wont have to sleep with your ugly wife - thats what the good looking ones are for! But the Quran says you have to treat them equally. I think Osama misread something there - the ugly wifes will be happy about that news ;)

The point about "balance" is ridiculous anyway, because most nations now have almost equal numbers of women.

And regarding Monogamy in Christian belief:

1. Kor 7,2 :"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every women have her own husband."

Truthiocity said...

I read in a psychology textbook years ago about how when one culture values a trait it becomes a factor in mate selection.

This in turn causes the trait to become more common and expressions of it more extreme. The most extreme expresions of a psychological trait are insanity.

This becomes more pronounced when a population is geographically remote from others.

Sadism is the psychological need to dominate others. It is more known as a sexual dysfunction but there is a school of thought which believes it to also be a personality disorder, known as Sadistic Personality Disorder, or SPD.

Someone with SPD, or merely an extreme need to dominate others, will inflict pain, force restrictions, use insulting or humiliating language and all manner of manipulative behaviors to dominate others.

Does that sound familiar to readers of this and similar blogs? You bet yer burka it does.

AS with the Sexual dysfunction, the person with the personality disorder has an abnormal need for others to submit to them. Key to this is for the dominated to acnowledge that they are dominated. The inflicted pain, humiliation and restrictions are merely methods to achieve the feeling of dominance rather than desires in their own right.

A culture which practices polygamy will see an increase in sadism or SPD because the available mates all go to the most dominant men, leaving the less dominant with fewer or no mates.

This will cause successive generations to have more and more of a predisposition to have a need to dominate those around them. The most extreme manifestations will be SPD.

Of course there are other factors but there is a synergy between societal and psychological causes. Personal psychology influences the culture and culture influences personal psychology.

There is contention about the existance of SPD seperate from the sadistic sexual dysfunction.

But if you accept the existance of SPD, that does explain a hell of a lot of what we read in the newspapers (and have experienced first hand in comments sections).

Here is some information about SPD from a Forensic Psychologist.

http://www.forensicpsychiatry.ca/paraphilia/sadPD.htm

cheryl_maree said...

Osama Abdallah said...

3- It provides protection to the less fortunate women in beauty and stature. By not being limited with only one woman, the man can marry from these women and provide homes and protection and security for them, while the man can still marry the woman of his dreams that he most desires.
Well if that isn't proof right there that they would not be treated as equal, you are not even making one bit of sense, if he married the one only because she needed to be provided for. What about LOVE. Then he goes and marries the woman of his dreams and of course he will still LOVE and TREAT them equally. GET REAL and think about that!!

agrammatos said...

Part 1 of 2...
­@Osama

On 06mar2012 you wrote in response to GEJ,

>>"And what...were you doing teaching the "history of Islam" to others when you weren't a Muslim??"

So, I must ask you now why you wrote anything about Christianity since you are a Muslim? Why Osama? Why? Hmm...

You're not a hypocrite are you? You don't have two sets of rules do you - one set of rules for yourself and another set of rules for everyone you disagree with?

Do you, Sir, want to now make any retraction on your words to GEJ?

Osama, let me address just one of your points from your website article on polygamy. Let's look at your comments on the Apostle Paul explicitly prohibiting polygamy in the case of church leaders, viz. elder-overseers and servants in the local church, viz. deacons. You, in your argument there, have committed an informal logical fallacy known as arugmentum ad ignoratium (an argument from ignorance, or an argument from silence). It is simply a logical fallacy in reasoning and argumentation to assume that which is not stated. Please, let me illustrate: in our little New Testament assembly we have two brothers. If I told you that John has a beautiful singing voice, are you right to conclude that his younger brother James does not? No, of course not. Me making such a statement about John says nothing at all about James' ability to sing. In fact, James can sing rather well also.

Prohibitions against polygamy for elder-overseers and deacons says nothing at all about allowing polygamy in the life of rank and file saints, i.e. believers. To put the burden of proof for such a positive statement back where it belongs, i.e. on you, please respond with the passage(s) quoted from the Apostle Paul that clearly and explicitly states that polygamy is permitted for the believer. Sir, you won't be able to provide such a quote from Paul's writings.

Existing polygamy in one's life did not prevent one from becoming a Christian, but it did, and still does, prevent one from becoming a local church leader or recognized local church servant is what those passages are positively teaching.

Osama, your point in your article (I still can't believe you have the "chutzpah" to, seemingly hypocritically, write about Christianity) "Have [sic] polygamy been really prohibited by Jesus, Paul would not have told his religious leaders to not practice it!!" fails for a number of reasons.

agrammatos said...

Part 2 of 2...
First, you *assume* that you can understand quite intimately the reasons why the Apostle Paul wrote his prohibition against polygamy in 1Tim3 and Tit1. Can you please quote the words of the Apostle Paul where he states what you simply *assume* without any Scriptural warrant, that is that Paul wrote such because the Lord Jesus Christ failed to explicitly teach against polygamy? Sir, again, you will not be able to do so. You are assuming. Once again, you commit an argumentum ad ignoratium. Your argument fails, Sir, and is logically fallacious.

Second, if the Apostle Paul explicitly prohibits anything that the Lord Jesus Christ explicitly prohibited, then your point becomes quite arbitrary and meaningless because it would be shown that that Apostle Paul did teach on the same subjects that the Lord Jesus Christ did. Both Paul and Christ explicitly used the following words quoted from Torah, "Thou shalt not steal" (Mt19.18 cp. Rom13.9). Your point, Sir, stands refuted.

Third, Christ did teach against polygamy. His words "from the beginning it was not so" in the context of one man and one women at the beginning before sin entered the world and man was going to live forever invalidates it. Even more, please quote anywhere the words of the Lord Jesus Christ where He explicitly taught that polygamy was permitted.

Fourth, you are confusing separate, but related in terms of a larger topic of discussion, viz. divorce, remarriage, and polygamy. You are making what is known in rhetoric and logic as a "category error" by combining two or more unrelated items into one category. Please don't confuse teaching on divorce and remarriage with teaching on polygamy. Again, don't assume, Sir, please quote the words of the Lord Jesus Christ which explicitly mention and permit polygamy? You may quote a passage that clearly deals with the subject even if the specific word "polygamy" is not mentioned. Unless my "old-timers" is actin' up, you still will not be able to do so.

Fifth, please don't assume that a brother in a levirite marriage was already married. Why did the closer relative in Ruth 4.6 explicitly state that he could not (lit. "not able"), not that he would not? "Cannot" is quite different from "will not". We can therefore state that there is some reason why a levirate marriage could not be performed. Could it be that he was already married? Perhaps. We can't dogmatically state such, nor can we dogmatically deny such.

I am not sure how long a post is allowed on this blog (i.e., if there are character limitations in a single post). So, let me end this here and if you want further responses, you may reply back and if I notice them, I will attempt to respond. Oh, and, by the way, you might want to first make a public retraction and apology to GEJ for your seemingly hypocritical indictment of him. Right now, the question is still open as to whether or not you are a man of honor. Your apology and retraction would speak to that issue.

agrammatos said...

Osama, I would be happy to interact with you on other erroneous points of your article if it would not be a waste of time to do so. You are not a Christian and have, perhaps unintentionally due to you listening to the wrong teachers, erected a "straw man" of Christianity to easily tear down. You are clearly from your points in your article quite unfamiliar with Biblical Hermeneutics and logic based upon the sophomoric rational in your article. If you are open to correction from one more knowledgeable about the Bible than you are, I would be happy to assist you in your quest for Biblical knowledge and truth. Any response to my two previous posts (I found that character limitation I feared when trying to post my reply to you) will largely determine your attitude to correction when you are in error and whether or not it would be worthwhile spending time interacting with you.

Zack_Tiang said...

Just stop, Osama... You're just further making a fool out of yourself.. with every comment/defense you make. Seriously...

Please accept reproof and admit you were wrong. There is absolutely nothing wrong or nothing weak about accepting you are wrong.

simple_truth said...

Samatar Mohamed said...

============= quote ==============

Polygamy is necessary in certain instances, like when the number of women are much larger then the number of men due to battles and such.

============= reply ==============

How about with the tsunami in Japan last year? How about when a tornado destroys towns and cities? How about after a devastating flood? Do you see that your position is dependent upon circumstances and not a true relationship with people? Why is it that when there are far more women than men, the woman can't marry in the same manner as the men?

If the point is just to take care of women, then one doesn't need to marry. All they have to do is to share their resources with those women as do charities, social groups, and other programs designed to aid social inadequacies. In difficult times, families, communities, and even nations come together to help each other with no need for marriages. Just imagine the UN promoting marrying Muslim women who are left without their husbands after military operations in Afghanistan, for example? Would you be OK for those poor Muslim women to be wedded, even to non-Muslims in order to keep them safe and nourished? Just remember that when you apply a standard, you need to see if you can feel fairly secure and rational if the rule is also applied to you. That is one way that you can help to determine if your position is tenable.


============= quote ==============

But lets not forget the clear guideline that is in the Quran with regard to polygamy.

Surah Nisa, verse 3

"If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, 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, or that which your right hands possess. That will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice."

It is quite clear that the four women should be treated equally in the Quran, and if you fear injustice then marry only one. The Quran actually does prohibit polygamy for the men who cannot treat his wives justly.

============= reply ==============

I have seen Muslims defend this verse before in this way. It is erroneous that polygamy is prohibited since there is nothing to prevent one from ignoring the warnings and marrying anyway. Your view is also condemned by the verse since it still allows for right hand possessions, which there is no limit. A right hand possession is not called a wife, but can function exactly like one. One way around the warning is to simply have one wife and many right hand possessions. Those possessions are still part of a multi-woman relationship--just without the title of wife. In Islam, one can always find a loophole to circumvent any problem while creating the impression that Islam allows or prohibits something.

Kangaroo said...

The person that wrote this article is a moron.

Nowhere does Islam force people to have multiple wives, as a matter of fact, the Quran recommends us to have only 1. But if you feel like you can handle and be fair with all of your wives, then you're permitted to do so.
So this has no relevance whatsoever.

How about the British Colombia students study pious, respected Muslims that have polygamous marriages? Not some random downtown gangster family that lives on welfare.

Foolster41 said...

@Kangaroo:
"Nowhere does Islam force people to have multiple wives, "

Also, nowhere does the article make this claim, Red Herring.

"But if you feel like you can handle and be fair with all of your wives, then you're permitted to do so.
So this has no relevance whatsoever."
But buy giving permission causes it happen and the effects the article presents. If the effects can be so bad, why did Allah allow it? Maybe if so many people misuse it, then Allah should have been safe and not permitted it (as the Jews and Christians before him did).

Nice try.

dstewart said...

I'm going to have to ask Osama for a reference to his claim that Jesus lived among polygamists. I could be wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that polygamy hadn't been the practice of the Jews for hundreds of years at that point. That's why it was argued against Jesus that if a man became tired of his wife he could DIVORCE her and marry another.

Anyway, it's the same fallacious argumentation people use to say that Jesus was OK with homosexuality...

Deleting said...

Kangaroo said, "How about the British Colombia students study pious, respected Muslims that have polygamous marriages? Not some random downtown gangster family that lives on welfare."

Kangaroo where would they find them? From your post it appears you don't know any either.

TL said...

A wonderfully Politically Correct study. “Culture” does not “permit” polygamy; RELIGION permits or does not permit polygamy. Instead of blaming all of these things – which like polygamy itself – come from the VERY TEACHINGS of Islam, the “sociologist” finds that all of these negatives things have no connection to the teachings of Muslim “holy” books, but instead are the result of polygamy that is “permitted” by a “culture” (as opposed to sanctioned or required by a RELIGION). Wake up. Culture is the sole result of religious teachings. Polygamy is an encouraged “symptom” of a religion; just as is “honor” killing, stoning, jihad, wife beating, Sharia finance, slavery, sexual slavery, oppression of religious minorities, etc. If the “sociologist” wants to know where these things come from? He might want to read the Koran and the Hadith. He’ll find all of Mohammad’s calls for crime, violence, poverty, and gender inequality. Where a religion calls for such things, it should be no surprise, that is what you will get in your society. Such things are NOT caused by “polygamy”. This is perhaps the most idiotic, politically correct thesis – by avoiding seeing Islam for what it teaches – I’ve ever seen or heard of. Sadly, the “sociologist” is likely well-paid and will get tenure for his/her “ingenious” (idiotic) “insights”.

simple_truth said...

Kangaroo said...

======== quote =======

The person that wrote this article is a moron.

======== reply =======

Well, this gives you no credibility because you are not even interested in the discussion of the article. Your aim seems to be to dismiss it outright. Calling people names and attacking their character rather than than their merits is known as ad hominem. Sure, you can shoot the messenger, but the facts still remain. Until you learn how to deal with facts and opposition respectfully, you will continue to look unfavorably by your opponent and peers. Your argument was lost the moment you called names. You need to be a bit smarter than that. Bring some substance to the conversation the next time. It could do wonders for you.


======== quote =======

Nowhere does Islam force people to have multiple wives,

======== reply =======

Either you misunderstood the claim or you purposefully misrepresented it in order to create a straw man argument. From the quoted Qu'ranic text, it should be very clear what was meant.


======== quote =======

as a matter of fact, the Quran recommends us to have only 1. But if you feel like you can handle and be fair with all of your wives, then you're permitted to do so.

======== reply =======

Yes, we know that.


======== quote =======

So this has no relevance whatsoever.

======== reply =======

Of course not! I believe you purposely made it that way to deflect from topic and prevent Muslims from having to critically respond to the study.


======== quote =======

How about the British Colombia students study pious, respected Muslims that have polygamous marriages? Not some random downtown gangster family that lives on welfare.

======== reply =======

I don't know of such a study. If there were one, you should have cited it and provided some quotes, but, you didn't.

What would some gangster have to do with the outcome of polygamy? Does polygamy somehow work properly if the people involved were pious people? How would that change the dynamics of the problems cited in that study?

Truthiocity said...

Kangaroo said "The person that wrote this article is a moron".

In my previous comment I wrote that sadistic behavior includes insulting and humiliating language AND that we have all experienced such behavior in comments sections.

Thanks Kangaroo for providing us all with a timely example. That was exactly what I was talking about.

I came back to this page because I felt the need to reiterate one aspect of sadistic behavior as defined by fornesic psychologists.

MANIPULATIVE BEHAVIOR, is also classfied by forensic psychologists as a sadistic behavior. For some reason that reminds me of many news articles and videos on just about every aspect of this subject matter.

A higher incedence of a trait isn't the same as a trait being universal. I also believe that Plato's "know thyself" and personal decisions (not to mention good manners) trumps predisposition.

ElenaG said...

Outside theological arguments, I as a woman w/a good education, living in the West, am quite capable of taking care of myself. I do NOT require a husband to put food on my table or a roof over my head. When my father died, my mother was equally capable of ensuring our middle class status w/o having to remarry. My brother is a physician, and I am working on a PhD (in Biblical Studies).

This is no longer Medieval Arabia w/days of the sword or other cultural baggage that require all women to have a keeper or minder.

When I marry it will be for love and companionship, not to be taken care of. And I am quite capable of living w/o sex until that day.

In Christ Jesus, God the Son.
Elena

Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Looks like Samatar won't be coming back he got knocked out of the ball park.



"Take me out to the ball game,
Take me out with the crowd.
Buy me some peanuts and cracker jack,
I don't care if I never get back,
Let me root, root, root for the home team,
If they don't win it's a shame.
For it's one, two, three strikes, you're out,
At the old ball game."

Quran is Corrupt said...

Here is another study;

http://www.emirates247.com/news/region/gulf-women-hide-weight-under-gowns-2011-01-12-1.341366

Gulf women are some of the fattest in the world.

Diana said...

Osama, it's very safe to say that Jesus did NOT live among polygamists, because Jesus lived under Roman law.

Polygamy was legally impossible under the Romans. Serial monogamy (via the divorce courts) was rampant, but polygamy literally never happened. A marriage contract could not be signed by a person who already had a legal spouse. If anyone broke the law and tried to do this, the second marriage simply had no legal status. It was considered adultery.

Since the Jews had not practised polygamy at least since the time of Ezra, it's safe to say that they accepted this aspect of Roman law without a murmur.

So what did Paul mean about a mature Christian being "the husband of one wife"? He was not addressing a non-existent problem He was fobidding casual divorce. A man who had a history of serially marrying and divorcing one woman after another was not suited to leadership because he was a sinner.

If you look at the other requirements for a church leader, you'll see that all but one of them are about sin. A leader must not make a practice of any of these behaviours because a leader must be a mature Christian, advanced in personal repentance. (BTW, for this reason, I don't believe that the "husband of one wife" criterion excludes a remarried widower. I believe it specifically targets men who have committed marriage-related sins.)

Did you catch what I said earlier? These requirements apply to leaders because they apply to all Christians. You can't argue: "I don't plan ever to be a leader, so I can commit the sins on that list." That list of character qualities applies to all of us.

Mohammad Sharif Paktesh said...

Qur'an is the Best And you Guys Don't Ever try to say that its same sound like bible. we respect bible. but Qur'an is our holly book. and its clearly said that one man can marry 4 women and according to me its good and right too but its also describe the equal rights of these 4 women. its also define the rules.
One Question: after 2 year of marriage suppose your wife died so what will be your next Step?
you will get second married.
our god can understand our feeling that s y he send Quran and says follow my instruction you will got success in Life and In Doomsday.
Thanks.

Mohammad Sharif Paktesh said...

hi

MD said...

"When monogamous relationships start to deteriorate, the society also deteriorates",,,as said by simple truth

My respected friends, Islam as in the Quran does permit Polygamy, so that wealthy men can create a more balanced economy rather than confining his entire wealth in one spouse which may even end up in illegal sexual relationships if she fails to please him as a good wife. For fools its just sex connected to the term Marriage, but its more than that. And I bet all my Christian brothers in particular have to figure out why Monogamy is not helping to stop the enormous DIVORCE cases and CRIMES in the US and world wide, I hope they are not mistaken as Muslims. Moreover, FREE SEX and PORN SITES are not created by Muslims, its the art of SATAN, which means all the crimes in the west or east among Muslims is not by Polygamy, but by listening to the whispers of the Devil, SATAN. Quran has also warned of SATAN who will force people to illegal sexual affairs and even homosexuality, & thus deteriorate the growth of human civilization, which will only end up in miseries of human life and extinction. Quran has warned all Muslims to stay away from him and his deceptions as in the Bible, but they fail to do so on the long run for wealth, power and fame. we can conclude that studies prove otherwise, that people who believe in only Monogamy, have only ended up in miseries and faced Divorces, which means giving birth to children who miss their head of family or father's prescence. That is more severe than believing that a wealthy Muslim or non Muslim can have more wives to distribute excess wealth and create a more balanced society. use Your brains along with Your heart, rather than winding up with emotiuonal attachm ents to Quran and Bible, both being sent by the same GOD. Its God's will to change rules and command us to follow, we are just his slaves who ought to atleast be thankful and overwhelmed for creating us & letting us enjoy his worldly pleasures.

MD said...

Friends, Islam permits a man to marry more than one woman, unless he follows some strict conditions. so the bottom line is that WEALTHY MAN handling and balancing more wives ( more families ) which do good to the society. But if the man is not wealthy enough, it will cause only miseries, and ISLAM doesnt approve that. And as in reply to those who ask "why ALLAh permitted polygamy in the first case, if he knew it may be misused"
I would say Will You ask Yourself why GOD has created You and allowed You to be submissible to the DEVIL or SATAN, if he knew he will dwell his deceptions ?

My friends, GOD has created both GOOD and the BAD, wherein he puts his confidence in believers among MEN that they will only submit themselves to GOD and be grateful to his only creator. In that case he will be able to do only good deeds and Justice will prevail as they will be rewarded with Paradise unlike those who fail to do so will be rewarded with hell-fire.

Satan has no power to exert on man, apart from trying to mislead him by way of devilish insinuations and creating tempting conditions for man to commit what is vile.

Man, on the other hand, has been endowed with conscious intellect that can draw the line between good and evil and be clear on the Divine messages, which open up all the roads to acquire the necessary knowledge to lead to God’s way. Man has also been graced with a strong will that helps in the process of sound decision-making and walking with firm steps on the right path.

This is what makes the struggle between man and Satan an equal one. In this fight, man has the free will to make choices amidst evil inclinations, tempting climates, and devilish suggestions. Yet, he has the means, of willpower, intellect, and conviction, to emerge victorious from this standoff, without giving in to factors of weakness or failure.

In portraying the character of Satan and his part in misleading man, the Holy Quran has provoked in the mind of the believers the strength of conviction that is capable of defeating all the forces of evil, especially with the weapons of mental power and strong belief, should he use them in the struggle. As for those who fall victim to his temptations, their failure is not due to intrinsic weakness but rather, because they contributed to paralysing, and eventually neutralizing, the powers at their disposal.

In this light, we should now know that lengthening Satan’s life till the Day of Judgement, and giving him the freedom to seduce man, who is armed with all the weapons necessary to put up a determined fight, into leaving the right way is a sign of confidence in man. This is so that man should be able to choose his destiny on account of his will and capability, not because of coercion and repression that could weaken his resolve and make him buckle under pressure. This is the difference between one who gets influenced by events and falls under their sway, and one who is the master of his own destiny and who makes the events subservient to his willpower and choice.

UNDERSTANDING THE SATAN BETTER WILL ONLY GIVE A CLEAR PICTURE OF WHAT IS GOOD NAD BAD/ EVIL, SINCE SATAN WILL ADVOCATE BAD WHICH APPEARS TO BE GOOD, WITH HIS MIGHTY DECEPTIONS.

So if You are a christian or Jew it shoulnt be hard to understand ISLAM the more updated Version of the Monotheist Religion that have been existing for centuries, and ISLAM only invites people to follow what GOD has commanded us to follow, Its not Muhammad's ( SAWS) religion, its the continuation of what has been residng in the human spirits for a long time& Muhammed is just the last Prophet of ALLAH or GOD to reveal the same. ALLAH wants us to understand the concept of many forbidden things in our life like Alcohol, wine, Pigs or Pork which were earlier permitted through real life situations, so that we can understand it better. Infact SATAN can use the above said forbidden things wisely and precisely as strong weapons of deceptions.