20 Most Common Questions about ISLAM

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hello Herostratos,

As you have not denied that the FAQ has been using statistics in a very dishonest/ignorant way, I trust you will no longer recommend that site.

I haven't seen evidence that they have used statistics in a dishonest way. On the topic of polygamy, I would agree that it is not accurate to simply make the generalization of more women than men in the world, but a single inaccuracy in one article does not render all content on the entire website useless.

The point I tried to make - although I admit it was a little unclear - was this: Polygamy is practical in countries where women are very dependent on a husband to survive, and where women does not have enough independency to demand that the male shall devote himself to her. Typically because most other men are poor, I'd guess. These countries are typically poor and uncivilized. Civilized cultures will inevitably become so rich that women can demand monogamy.

You've made quite a few errneous generalizations. While I agree that polygamy is a more suitable arrangement in some situations, not necessarily all situations, that doesn't mean it is restricted to the "poor and uncivilized". I think we can be more open-minded by simply saying that it works better in some cases than others.

No, a marriage is none of the above

You didn't answer my argument at all. Even in western countries marriage is done through the government because once someone agrees to the marital contract they have assumed obligations and responsibilties towards their spouse which need to be protected. Cohabitation and marriage are not looked on as the same thing.

There is no logic behind this. Some men must be able to deal fairly with more than 4 women, right? Why restrict those at all, if marrying and taking care of many women are a good thing?

Because most people can't.

Or, if you have to restrict the upper limit because some people will abuse it, why have a limit of 4 at all?

Because beyond four, it becomes much more difficult. The point is there has to be a limit somewhere. Islam has placed that limit at four.

I were not talking about not having children, I were talking about having a limited number of them. Say, each man got two each, not unnormal for an industrialized country, and the women will then give birth to four children, which is certainly not unusual in many muslem countries.

You're talking about two husbands here, not four. Again, the problem is that the woman has to alternate between these two with her pregnancies to ensure a fair relationship, which relates to what you said here:

What if the men in question simply accepts to not get to "visit" their wifes so often?

Exactly. Sooner or later you have to acknowledge that because men and women are different a woman would not be able to sustain the same relationship with four husbands that a man can sustain with four wives. You've admitted that the intervals between her visits to her husbands will be larger than a polygynous husband's to his wives. Do you think a relationship that is interrupted by several month intervals will be a healthy relationship? Do you think a relationship that terminates and resumes ever few months will be positive? Obviously not. The woman ends up being with one husband at a time, so in reality she is not really polyandrous, she is just changing husbands every once in a while.

Are you serious? Your objection against polyandry is that the men in question would not get their desires satisfied???

My objection is that the relationship would not be sustainable if there is not adequate time spent together and mutual care between the individuals involved. And the desires a man has are fundamentally different from those that a woman has. A healthy relationship occurs when the needs of those involved are satisifed and they share mutual responsibilities.

And exactly why is it that such a family cannot function as one?

Becuase there is an uneven distribution of burden and obligations within the family. It is a fact that with each relationship comes obligations, responsibilities. You increase the relationships, you increase the obligations. The woman with four husbands has four times the obligations and responsibilities than the woman with a single husband. But the woman who gets pregnant will need support not increased obligations to maintain multiple relationships.

 

[Herostratos]

You've made quite a few errneous generalizations. While I agree that polygamy is a more suitable arrangement in some situations, not necessarily all situations, that doesn't mean it is restricted to the "poor and uncivilized". I think we can be more open-minded by simply saying that it works better in some cases than others.

I guess that's also a way to say it..

You didn't answer my argument at all. Even in western countries marriage is done through the government because once someone agrees to the marital contract they have assumed obligations and responsibilties towards their spouse which need to be protected. Cohabitation and marriage are not looked on as the same thing.

Well, you claimed a marriage was public... Which I showed it wasn't.
There is no standard-contract issued by, e.g. the Norwegian government. The obligations and responsibilities are determined by the people involved.

Anyways, what do you think is the main difference between cohabitation and marriage? And would it be okay by you if you a woman and two men merely cohabitated?

Because most people can't.

Most people can't deal fairly with four either.

Because beyond four, it becomes much more difficult. The point is there has to be a limit somewhere. Islam has placed that limit at four.

Well.. The second wife will mean a 100% increase in wives.. The third 50%.. the fourth 33%... the next only 25 %, so it doesn't become that much more difficult, assuming that each woman want an equal amount of attention...

Hehe, now I'm just playing with numbers, just kidding.

But, I don't think that answers my question. Why excactly four? "There has to be a limit somewhere" is not good enough. Some are able to handle more, some less. The koran is already limiting those that aren't able to have more than one by saying that they shall not have more than they can take care of.. Why is such a method of limiting sufficient for those with less than 4, but not for those with more?

Exactly. Sooner or later you have to acknowledge that because men and women are different a woman would not be able to sustain the same relationship with four husbands that a man can sustain with four wives. You've admitted that the intervals between her visits to her husbands will be larger than a polygynous husband's to his wives. Do you think a relationship that is interrupted by several month intervals will be a healthy relationship? Do you think a relationship that terminates and resumes ever few months will be positive? Obviously not. The woman ends up being with one husband at a time, so in reality she is not really polyandrous, she is just changing husbands every once in a while.

Well... Muslem unmarried men are not - at least in theory - visiting women to fulfill their needs at all. They are not dying from it... Whether the relationship will be a healthy one is something the people in it is best to decide.

The people may mutually care for each other even though they are not having sex...

Becuase there is an uneven distribution of burden and obligations within the family. It is a fact that with each relationship comes obligations, responsibilities. You increase the relationships, you increase the obligations. The woman with four husbands has four times the obligations and responsibilities than the woman with a single husband. But the woman who gets pregnant will need support not increased obligations to maintain multiple relationships.

The first part of what you say can be used against polygamy as well as polyandry. And, you know, some people may look at their obligations and responsibilities otherwise than the rest of the society. It is up to them to decide what their obligations to each others are.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hello Herostratos,
Nice to hear from you.

I guess that's also a way to say it..

Well, I'm glad we've acknowledged that!

Well, you claimed a marriage was public... Which I showed it wasn't.

I'm not sure how you've shown that. Marriage is generally regarded as a mutual contract which is to be upheld by the society, and hence the involvement of the government in marital contracts. The same is the case with divorce. If you want a divorce you have to go through the courts, right? Why do you think that is?

There is no standard-contract issued by, e.g. the Norwegian government.

And yet, Norway still has the Norwegian Marriage Act which marriages must be conducted in accordance with. The government is involved with marriage in Norway too.

Anyways, what do you think is the main difference between cohabitation and marriage?

The contract and the agreement to the mutual obligations and responsibilties.

And would it be okay by you if you a woman and two men merely cohabitated?

It would not be okay by me if a man and two women merely cohabited or a woman and two men merely cohabited - both are forbidden in Islam. If you want to have a relationship it must be done within the bounds of marriage and acceptance of the mutual responsibilties that such a relationship entails. This protects the rights of those involved in the relationship.

Most people can't deal fairly with four either.

Some can and some can't. Somewhere there has to be a limit.

But, I don't think that answers my question. Why excactly four? "There has to be a limit somewhere" is not good enough.

Why not? If we agree that there has to be a limit, then there should be no objections. If the limit was three, you would say, "Why three?" if it was five you would say, "Why five?" So you acknowledge the need for a limit on one hand, yet on the other hand you object to every possible limit. The most important thing is the limit, not what exactly the limit is. Now it may be that this is an issue involving human psychology and it turns out that four is the optimum limit - I can't assert that because I don't posses the research required to substantiate that assertion. So there may be divine wisdom in the specifying of the number four, but as far as I'm concerned, the primary issue here is the need for a limit, which sufficiently answers objections.

Well... Muslem unmarried men are not - at least in theory - visiting women to fulfill their needs at all. They are not dying from it...

I agree. But that really has nothing to do with my argument since I was discussing the mutual affection and sacrifice that must be expressed in a healthy relationship. See what I wrote about swapping husbands.

The first part of what you say can be used against polygamy as well as polyandry.

In polygyny the distribution of burden is not unfairly placed on one individual. A man does not get pregnant or have monthly cycles.

Regards