• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why is a man allowed to have more than one wife in Islam?

A-ManESL

Well-Known Member
The Qur'an did allow polygamy, no matter what you think, although I agree it was concerned with the necessity and subjected to the justice element, and not for fulfilling the lust of men but canceling polygamy no matter what the circumstances are is just like allowing polygamy without any boundaries.
What we need is regulation not prohibiting what Allah prescribed.

This is the classic letter over spirit argument which can be carried out indefinitely. I reject the thesis that all verses of the Quran have to be taken literally at face value. (See also Quran 3:7).

What a joke!! On Islamic grounds in Tunisia?! You can't be serious. The personal status law in Tunisia was a part of the wide secularization programs adopted by the government in 1956. Canceling polygamy was based on westernized secular anti-Islamic ground just like in Turkey (actually the one wife law in the West has Christian origin).

Regarding Tunisia, my knowledge is limited (actually nearly zero). I read this fact in a magazine and quoted it here. At any rate, even if they didn't ban it on Islamic grounds, this makes no change in the whole orientation of my post. The Tunisia factoid was just to illustrate that a Muslim country has disallowed polygamy and a secular country like India hasn't.

P.S.: I tried to search the web for reasons that Tunisia banned polygamy and came up with this book. Page 46 states that the Tunisian government claimed that this action is in accordance to Quranic injunctions and the Divine Law. So at least, on the face of it, Tunisia claims to have banned polygamy on Islamic grounds. Whether this claim is justified is a matter of opinion.
 
Last edited:

Sahar

Well-Known Member
This is the classic letter over spirit argument which can be carried out indefinitely. I reject the thesis that all verses of the Quran have to be taken literally at face value. (See also Quran 3:7).
Funny I always thought the spirit argument is used whenever the ideas are clearly inconsistent with the Qur'an.
Regarding Tunisia, my knowledge is limited. I read this fact in a magazine and quoted it here. At any rate, even if they didn't ban it on Islamic grounds, this makes no change in the whole orientation of my post. The Tunisia factoid was just to illustrate that a Muslim country has disallowed polygamy and a secular country like India hasn't.
Tunisia is ruled by a secular government, so your point is...?
The orientation of your post? I though you went to prove that disallowing polygamy has an Islamic basis which is nonsense, for sure.
 

Sahar

Well-Known Member
T
P.S.: I tried to search the web for reasons that Tunisia banned polygamy and came up with this book. Page 46 states that the Tunisian government claimed that this action is in accordance to Quranic injunctions and the Divine Law. So at least, on the face of it, Tunisia claims to have banned polygamy on Islamic grounds. Whether this claim is justified is a matter of opinion.
Yeah, they might claim that they ban Muslim women from wearing hijab on Islamic ground too; as a means of ijtihad you know like they did concerning polygamy issue. :shrug:
Again, the Tunisian government is secular.

Does it matter what this or that government say if it clearly contradicts the Qur'an and Islam?
 
Last edited:

A-ManESL

Well-Known Member
Funny I always thought the spirit argument is used whenever the ideas are clearly inconsistent with the Qur'an.

Tunisia is ruled by a secular government, so your point is...?
The orientation of your post? I though you went to prove that disallowing polygamy has an Islamic basis which is nonsense, for sure.

Yes disallowing polygamy has an Islamic basis was the orientation of my post. The post contains the reasons for which I espouse the belief that polygamy as prescribed by the Quran in 7th century Arabia is not applicable today. There is no need for me to write them out again.

You feel that it is nonsense, but tell me does the egalitarian spirit of Islam, coupled with its natural justice as existing in today's society justify polygamy? Perhaps it does so in the social context of Arab society, but not in India. My post was really with reference to India. I have personally seen the effects of polygamy in India first hand and cannot reconcile to it being with the spirit of Islam. Moreover as my link shows this is not my view alone, rather some other people have also articulated this view. One of those who professed this is your compatriot: Muhammad Abduh. I don't know with what esteem he his held in Egypt today. But at any rate this current of thought cannot be waved away as "nonsense for sure".

Whether Tunisia was correct in banning it and stating that it was in accordance with Islam is an aside. It is a 99% Muslim country as I understand it. My point is that even if it is not so, and the Tunisian example is not relevant even so nothing else about my post changes. Tunisia was not to prove a point but just to provide a possible example.

I think that I understand your point perfectly: You say that since the letter of the Quran permits polygamy, that it is sufficient. But you are ignoring the context and the conditions within which it permits polygamy. Since these do not exist today I do not feel that polygamy is consistent with the Quran. If you feel, that despite this the letter of the Quran should be followed then I say: "To each his opinion. I do not accept your opinion. May God guide us all. "

I think we understand each other.

Regards.
 
Last edited:

Sahar

Well-Known Member
I think that I understand your point perfectly: You say that since the letter of the Quran permits polygamy, that it is sufficient. But you are ignoring the context and the conditions within which it permits polygamy.
I think you ignored what I said before:
The Qur'an did allow polygamy, no matter what you think, although I agree it was concerned with the necessity and subjected to the justice element, and not for fulfilling the lust of men but canceling polygamy no matter what the circumstances are is just like allowing polygamy without any boundaries.
What we need is regulation not prohibiting what Allah prescribed.
:)
I think it seemed that I completely disagree with you when I replied to the Tunisian example which is not true. I disagree with the conclusion and parts of your approach.
Yes disallowing polygamy has an Islamic basis was the orientation of my post. The post contains the reasons for which I espouse the belief that polygamy as prescribed by the Quran in 7th century Arabia is not applicable today. There is no need for me to write them out again.
"The Qur'an is not applicable anymore" (or parts of it) is a dangerous trap which entangled some Muslims. The Qur'an was not intended to be for specific limited time and place but to be universal. If we started to claim that this part is not applicable today, this excuse can be used to justify unIslamic approaches and thinking, actually some Muslims do say that drinking alcohol and homosexuality shouldn't be haram (forbidden), and their excuse, the prohibition is not applicable in the "modern" society now.

Islam is a religion of moderation, we shouldn't view this specific issue from the two extremes; complete prohibition or unrestricted permission.
The Qur'an itself restricted polygamy with the requirement of justice. And this means not all men can have another wife, if someone can't carry out the obligations to his first wife and family, how come he can fulfill the precondition of justice with the second wife and family?! Marrying another wife is not for any man.
I agree from the context of the ayaat, polygamy is not prescribed for vain desire and lust but for necessity. It's mentioned in the hadith that who often marry for the mere sake of lust, no more, are cursed.
This necessity could be national, social or individual. And the necessity is not confined to the time of the prophet only, and not only to a national problem like warfare, marrying another wife could be for individual necessity like hindering one's self from falling into Zina and illegal relation, if the wife was sick..etc and we can't prohibit what Allah permitted.
So polygamy can be very helpful and a solution for problems in many cases but if polygamy caused real harm to the family and the society then it could be regulated and restricted and not prohibited. Like any thing halal (allowed), it could be restricted. Like food, food is halal but when it causes harm to a patient, the doctor regulate and restrict it.
As you mentioned Muhammed Abduh :), according to my knowledge he or his students suggested that marrying another wife comes after the permission of the judge, to see if the man is capable of fulfilling his duties towards the two families and fulfilling the justice requirement.
Moreover, if the wife felt that marrying another woman will cause/caused harm and injustice to her, she can ask for khul' or divorce. Not to marry another woman can be inserted in the marriage contract, if the woman wanted to.

What I am saying is Islamic Shari'a basically ensured the principle of justice. Polygamy is not open for anyone but restricted by necessity and justice. We just can't prohibit what Allah allowed but we can regulate the halal (allowed) when it's necessary.
 
Last edited:

gwk230

Active Member
This is the cycle with hints of where we currently are in it from the last general conference, official LDS site:
LDS.org - Ensign Article - Learning the Lessons of the Past

If that is what you want to believe but it really has little to do with the fact that it was the US governments threats to take control even by force if polygyny was continued to be accepted by the lsd church. We can dream up all we want to give a wide range of wild excuses to the latter but the facts are still the facts.

Very few were able to handle the law in the OT too. Very few have been commanded to live it. It is hard for all of us throughout all time.

It is not hard. Man chooses not to plain and simple. Man wants it all to be about him and what he wants as opposed to the will of Yah. His Torah is plain and simple to keep. Man just keeps coming up with all of his own thoughts and feelings for excuses as why not to abide by the Torah and even using the traditions of those that have been making up excuses for thousands of years before them.

Question?

List what laws of the Torah that you seem to think that you couldn't keep realistically. :)
 

A-ManESL

Well-Known Member
Well I agree that the message of the Quran is and will remain valid for ever. But when the internal purpose of a Quranic injunction ceases to exist then merely the external injunction is not truly representative of the Quran. I do not accept that it is wrong to defy mere external aspects since they are changeable with time. For example, interest was prohibited in the Quran with the purpose of removing economic exploitation. If interest as provided by a bank is actually beneficial to a poor man, then the Quranic prohibition does not apply. In fact, the opposite: as the Quran talks of welfare and succor to the poor as well, giving interest to the poor seems the Islamic idea to me.

I have personally seen the misery of a woman due to polygamy in India, and cannot accept that this is in view of Quranic injunctions. At least in Indian society I do not see any need for polygamy. There is no pressing need for saving the Muslims from dying out in India. In fact, I feel that the Islamic idea would be that in the interest of justice and preserving tranquility in a family, polygamy is banned in India.

Muhammad Abduh believed that although taking one more wife is permitted in Islam, the permission is conditioned by the fact that the husband should deal with them justly. But Quran 4:129 also clarifies that no matter how hard a husband tries he can never deal with them justly. Based on this Abduh, (and some other scholars too), have professed the opinion that polygamy is unlawful and prohibited. Moreover Abduh also opinioned that since the conditions in which polygamy was allowed have ceased to exist, and now the practice is being used by uncommitted people not for any sake of God (as was originally intentioned), but for personal interest, it would be appropriate to withhold or ban the practice.

(Source: Pg 45 of the link in my earlier post)

I also gave a source for a hadith in my first post in which Hz Ali (ra) was denied permission for a second marriage by the Prophet on the basis that he will not be able to do justice to them. If a personage as high as Hz Ali (ra) was denied permission then how can we lesser mortals be sure of doing justice.

I hope you will at least appreciate my stand, if not accept it. If not, that's fine too.

Regards
 

idea

Question Everything
It is not hard. Man chooses not to plain and simple. ...
List what laws of the Torah that you seem to think that you couldn't keep realistically. :)

How about this - why don't you list all the people who have kept all the laws of the Torah. List all of the 100% perfect people who have never sinned that you know.

Can't list anyone? I guess you can't keep the laws realisitically either.
 

gwk230

Active Member
:facepalm: So being you can't come up with an answer to my question you turn things around and ask one of your own?

O.k. :p

How about this - why don't you list all the people who have kept all the laws of the Torah. List all of the 100% perfect people who have never sinned that you know.
Can't list anyone? I guess you can't keep the laws realisitically either.
 
So now you add 100%. You got me cornered now. :rolleyes:
 
See, as it is written for all men have sinned and fell short. No one is 100% hence my use of the word "realistically". Even Moshe himself fell short but it is my understanding that he will still be granted eternal life. Even King Daweed. He committed adultery and murder. Elohim saw that it wasn't his nature to do such things and even though he punished him he also forgave him. Elohim knew that Daweed wasn't one who continually practiced iniquity. It shows very well that so many have been bullied into believing that the Torah is so hard to keep that man has just gave up on it and turned to what they think and feel for themselves, as well as other men, is right or wrong. That’s so sad. I feel so sorry for all of them have been lied to their whole lives. But in any case here are couple that are found to be blameless and righteous in the eyes of Elohim…………..
 
Gen 6:9 This is the history of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time. Noah walked with Elohim.
 
Gen 7:1 YAH said to Noah, "Come with all of your household into the ark, for I have seen your righteousness before me in this generation.
 
Luk 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judah, a certain Priest named Zekharyah, of the priestly division of Aviyah. He had a wife of the daughters of Aharon, and her name was Elisheva.
Luk 1:6 They were both righteous before Elohim, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and ordinances of YAH.
 
Even though we read those in scripture that did break the Torah, most didn’t give up. They went on and worked hard to do their utmost best to please Yah their Elohim. They didn’t lie down in the dust and say woe is me, your law is to hard for me to keep. They sucked it up and went forth and worked the Torah and strived to keep it in all adversity. They worked the good work of the Torah and not the bad work of disobedience. Sure they slipped and fell but just as King Daweed got up and brushed himself off and did eat, they too went forward with their lives asking for forgiveness from Elohim and strove to do better and please him. They didn’t come up with vain excuses stating the law has been nailed to some fictitious cross and was to hard to keep. Man today is a bunch of lazy ungrateful selfish workers of iniquity that feel that their own thoughts and feelings are that which is above their creator. What a sad sack of bruised potato’s they are indeed. :(
 

blackout

Violet.
Why is a man allowed to have more than one wife in Islam?

Maybe they figure why string all of your wives out over a lifetime like those westerners.

All the extra legal work, lawyers fees, constantly regrouping, changing homes, custody issues.

Just get all your wives up front is much easier.

Also less houskeeping/maid service costs and all.

It's pragmatic. :yes:
 

Perfect Circle

Just Browsing
 
They didn’t come up with vain excuses stating the law has been nailed to some fictitious cross and was to hard to keep. Man today is a bunch of lazy ungrateful selfish workers of iniquity that feel that their own thoughts and feelings are that which is above their creator. What a sad sack of bruised potato’s they are indeed. :(

Do you need help getting down off that horse you rode in on?
 

gwk230

Active Member
Do you need help getting down off that horse you rode in on?
 
My statements and replies are not for the unbelievers. To them it has no meaning but it is for those who know truth as in pricks their conscience. Those may be persuaded to keep from continuing as the stubble and the tares. I to am but a man that has, and will sin. I am not perfect but are of the lowly unworthy servants of my Elohim. I sit right in the middle of all this nastiness and used to play a part in it as I was ignorant of the true will of Elohim. I acknowledged my stupidity over and over, unlike those still steeped in such things. I only strive as do my brothers and sisters in trying to be worthy enough to win the favor of Yah my Elohim to gain that beatific vision of eternal life.
 
Gal 4:16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
 

Perfect Circle

Just Browsing
 
My statements and replies are not for the unbelievers. To them it has no meaning but it is for those who know truth as in pricks their conscience. Those may be persuaded to keep from continuing as the stubble and the tares. I to am but a man that has, and will sin. I am not perfect but are of the lowly unworthy servants of my Elohim. I sit right in the middle of all this nastiness and used to play a part in it as I was ignorant of the true will of Elohim. I acknowledged my stupidity over and over, unlike those still steeped in such things. I only strive as do my brothers and sisters in trying to be worthy enough to win the favor of Yah my Elohim to gain that beatific vision of eternal life.
 
Gal 4:16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

That's all well and good... But you'd probably do better to tone down you rhetoric, and quit lecturing those that have a different take on the same text as you. At present, you come across like a televangalist (at least to me). And you're exactly right... You're not perfect. You've made mistakes in the past, and as you said, have acknowledged your stupidity. So why don't you apply those lessons you've learned to your current thought processes and realize that, maybe... just maybe... you don't have it all figured out.
 

Aquitaine

Well-Known Member
I have debated with many Muslims in my lifetime over this issue, and yet they still haven't been able to provide any decent justification for Polygyny so far.

Every scenario they're mentioned where it would apparently be useful turns out to be nonesense, basically.

So far, the only reason (again, this isn't meant to be a bash at Muslims, but this is my own opinion) why Muslim Men want Polygyny is because they simply want more Wives for personal gain.

I also find it hilarious how they support Polygyny but as soon as someone mentions Polyandry, the stance totally changes!

:D

If they can have Polgyny, then why not Polyandry too?

You use the population excess of Females as an excuse, well, why not just allow Lesbians to marry and adopt children? Problem solved.
 

gwk230

Active Member
That's all well and good... But you'd probably do better to tone down you rhetoric, and quit lecturing those that have a different take on the same text as you.
 
Thanks for your concern and I will take it under advisement but I do not see where giving my understanding is in anyway lecturing. If it is then it is what the whole of this forum does to which I myself enjoy and take with a grain of salt as I would suggest to you. :yes:
 
At present, you come across like a televangalist (at least to me).
 
Really?…………Maybe I should ask for money huh? LOL. No but seriously I then wouldn’t be much different then all the others whether they are on the television or in the church. Oh and for your information, and not meaning to nit pick or anything, it is spelled “televangelist”. ;)
 
And you're exactly right... You're not perfect. You've made mistakes in the past, and as you said, have acknowledged your stupidity.
 
Just like everybody else with maybe the exception of their admittance to their own stupidity. So many think they are to perfect or above it all to even see the real truth. They are those that are usually the first to call out everyone else’s faults. I like to call those type of people bigots and hypocrites. This is why I always try to make sure that everyone knows that what I have to say is only my understanding from what I have learned. I stick to it as it is what I believe to be true. How others look at things only interest me if it is something that I can prove through articulating and contextualizing the scriptures. If I cannot qualify it by that then it is of no use to me other than to show others the error in which some misunderstand what is plainly and simply written.
 
So why don't you apply those lessons you've learned to your current thought processes and realize that, maybe... just maybe... you don't have it all figured out.
 
Oh, but I have and I do have it all figured out, for myself and my family. We are perfectly happy with our knowledge and live quite well. Hopefully you have it all figured out for yourself and those you love and are closest to you. It would be a real shame for one to go all through life being allowed the grace of time to get it all figured out only to waste that time and never really even try. That would be so sad.
 
In any case, Thanks again for your concern and suggestions. :)
 

Perfect Circle

Just Browsing
 
Just like everybody else with maybe the exception of their admittance to their own stupidity. So many think they are to perfect or above it all to even see the real truth. They are those that are usually the first to call out everyone else’s faults. I like to call those type of people bigots and hypocrites. This is why I always try to make sure that everyone knows that what I have to say is only my understanding from what I have learned. I stick to it as it is what I believe to be true. How others look at things only interest me if it is something that I can prove through articulating and contextualizing the scriptures. If I cannot qualify it by that then it is of no use to me other than to show others the error in which some misunderstand what is plainly and simply written.

Weren't you the one who called the founder of a major religion a "so called prophet". That's a bit demeaning, don't you think? You then go on to insinuate that any abrahamic religion that that does not observe all of the laws of the torah is making excuses. And then... You ask which laws of the Torah could one not realistically keep. Does this mean that you keep every single law in the Torah? i.e.

Anyone who dreams or prophesizes anything that is against God, or anyone who tries to turn you from God, is to be put to death
~Deuteronomy 13:5

The eating of fat is prohibited forever
~Leviticus 3:17

Stubborn children were to be stoned, and the stoning was to be instigated by their parents
~Deuteronomy 21:18-21

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives
~Deuteronomy 22:28-29


Does this mean that you're out killing atheists? And I sure as hell hope your kids aren't stubborn.
 

gwk230

Active Member
Oh you want to continue your folly. So be it.:)
 
Weren't you the one who called the founder of a major religion a "so called prophet".
 
Uh, am I wrong. They do call him a “prophet” don’t they?
 
That's a bit demeaning, don't you think?
 
Nope. I do not see anything wrong with stating that others call individuals by certain titles even if I do not share in their belief.
 
You then go on to insinuate that any abrahamic religion that that does not observe all of the laws of the torah is making excuses. And then... You ask which laws of the Torah could one not realistically keep.
 
No you are incorrect. I didn’t insinuate anything. I stated a cold hard fact as to my understanding. That question is still on the table. Care to answer it for those who seem to shy from it?
 
Does this mean that you keep every single law in the Torah? i.e.
 
If every single law of the Torah were legitimately legal for me to keep then with no doubt I am bound by a covenant to do so.
 
In my understanding the scripture that you have partially posted with some misinterpretations is as follows………
Anyone who dreams or prophesizes anything that is against God, or anyone who tries to turn you from God, is to be put to death
~Deuteronomy 13:5
 
And as well………..
 
Stubborn children were to be stoned, and the stoning was to be instigated by their parents
~Deuteronomy 21:18-21
 
Are to my understanding both judgments that can only be enforced within that theocracy in the land of Yisrael, or such land as given to those chosen by Yah my Elohim. See as to my understanding one would have to be in the land given by Yah and then one would have to have judges in place to hand down such judgments and then one would have to have those who have been appointed to carry out such judgments. We don’t have that as yet but it is of my understanding that it is going to happen at some point in the future.
 
The eating of fat is prohibited forever
~Leviticus 3:17
 
Lets put the rest of this verse in shall we?
 
Lev 3:17 "'It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings, that you shall eat neither fat nor blood.'"
 
I for one do not consume anything that looks to be either fat nor blood.
 
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives
~Deuteronomy 22:28-29
 
Here is what we have as to my understanding as a blatant misrepresentation of the true word of Elohim. This verse in no way insinuates nor states “rape”. This translation is very, very misleading and disturbing to say the least. As to my understanding I rather like this translation……..
 
Deu 22:28 If a man find a lady who is a virgin, who is not pledged to be married, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Deu 22:29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the lady's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has humbled her; he may not put her away all his days.
 
Now to my understanding if one has committed themselves to the will of Yah and does that which is pleasing to his eye then he would follow these precepts and commands for his good as well as the good of those that are his brothers and sisters in the service of Yah our Elohim.
 
Furthermore, to show that the scripture that you posted was a mistranslation as to my understanding we will have to go where it is understood to be talking about rape which is found just above that which you posted…….
 
Deu 22:25 But if the man find the lady who is pledged to be married in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only who lay with her shall die:
Deu 22:26 but to the lady you shall do nothing; there is in the lady no sin worthy of death: for as when a man rises against his neighbor, and kills him, even so is this matter;
Deu 22:27 for he found her in the field, the pledged to be married lady cried, and there was none to save her.
 
As to my understanding you see where it states “force her”? In Deu 22:28-29 there is found nothing of the same as to do with “rape” but being force was not an issue and also that she was not pledged or married to another and being that she did not cry out for help then again there is no such occurrence of “rape”.
 
Does this mean that you're out killing atheists? And I sure as hell hope your kids aren't stubborn.
 
If you have, by my understanding, been educated as to the true unadulterated word of Yah my Elohim then you would retract what I deem as to my understanding a vile and very scriptural ignorant question.
 

Aquitaine

Well-Known Member
I'll just post a link from a general site, something you should be able to understand. Read it, then if you have some inaccuracies you'd like to voice feel free to do so.


Good God, what is all this?

"To answer your speculation, let's continue our objective trip into the past. Obviously, when traveling back in time 1400 years to examine a lifestyle we never witnessed, it is unfair to apply our present day standards, so let's listen to the experts. Authentic historical records prove that the social traditions of the time and place—regardless of religion—considered Arab females as women as soon as their menstrual cycles began. The custom was to give daughters in marriage at that age. This was practiced by all dwellers in Arabia before Islam: pagans, disbelievers, Jews, and others. It's a fact that female menstruation in hot climates starts much earlier than in cold climates, so females in Arabia matured as early as 8 or 9; they also aged earlier than other women."

I see they, again, blame the negative Islamic practices on the "cultures of the time".

Nothing new there, and honestly that site seemed a little....... like the usual stuff I've read before from them, it's nothing new, and it's not justifying either Polygyny, or Mo's relationship with a child.

All they say in relation to that, is the paragraph I quoted above, and then:

"It's a neglected fact that before she was married to Muhammad, `A'ishah had been engaged to an infidel, Jubair ibn Mus'ab ibn Ady. Her fiancé broke the engagement on the basis of religious difference. So her father, Abu Bakr, agreed to give her hand in marriage to the Prophet."

So basically, when asked why did Mo' marry a child, their defence (on that site) is roughly:

*Hey look, it was the latest fad at that time period.

...and...

*Yeah but, before she married Mo', she was married to another Pedophile at the time anyways.

That's supposed to be Islam's defence on that issue?

As for the Polygyny, the site's defence was equally as useless. They base it heavily off the excess of females in our populations, yet allowing Equality and independence of Women, along with allowing Lesbians to marry and adopt children would solve such issues.

I have still seen no reasonable justification for allowing Polygyny but not Polyandry, or for the idea of Polygamy in Islam.
 
Top