Polygamy in Christianity and Islam

[Lynx]

the link wasnt working.

but anyway....

So it not essential that a guy has to tell his first wife if he is to marry again but it is permissible for her to stipulate in her contract that she doesn’t want to be a co-wife.

so let me get this straight:

Polygamy (to you) still stinks, despite the indisputable fact that she is allowed to stipulate in her marriage contract that she doesn’t want to be a co-wife (That alone takes puts out all your other arguments).

Then you come up with some baloney about things which aren’t even relevant to the Islamic perspective of polygamy to begin with, such us backward and retarded cultural practices to support you claim that polygamy ought to be a no-no, despite it being pointed out to you that culture and islam are two separate things which actually results in a unfounded argument on your part

then you have the audacity to come up with some baseless crap on how the marriage contract may not always be applicable/practical, at your own convenience.

if you're going to base your argument on the Islamic perspective of polygamy, you might as well as be consistent in it, something you cant even seem to uphold throughout your own argument.


Im not seeing a how a woman is loosing out here. Sure the husband doesnt have to tell her, but at the same time, she IS permitted to stipulate in her marriage contract that she doesn’t want to be a co-wife.

dumb culture isnt islams fault. full stop.

But the fact that he can marry without her permission is what I am condemning. Yes she can by most scholarly accounts, but not all, (sucks if she is raised in an environemtn with a scholar who says no :>) stipulate that her husband cannot marry again BUT why is it allowed in the first place. By allowing it in the first place the Quran allows for exploitation. It would not be a burden to God to add one more ayah: and only if your first wife allows you to. This sounds like an improvement to the quran imO . It's like a bad contract deal where in the fine print it says "well btw, you can stipulate that he shouldn't marry again".

Well, its not a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies are arguments which are self-contradictory or irrelevant. My argument, even if weaker or based on no ground, is not inherently logically fallacious. It very well could have been true if what I stated was true. Take that.

No a logical fallacy is an unjustified inference.

Some X's are Y's
Z is an X
Therefore Z is a Y.

The inference to the conclusion is where the fallacy occurs. Notice there isn't any contradiction and it's quite possible that the conclusion is true but to infer the conclusion from those set of premises is where the logical fallacy occurs. Similarly, your previous comment was not only weak but it was a logical fallacy because you inferred from 'the natural state of man' to 'this ought to be the case' without any justification.

But having multiple partners to spread his seed around is the very mechanism that insured his survival. Getting rid of that can be frustrating. So after the demolition of the institution of polygamy, in 21st century we see "innocent relationships" taking its place. A man beds 20 different women in his 20s before he finds the "right one." Then he sings the song "someday I am gonna make you my wife" to her but before that he has bedded 50 different women in his 50 different socially acceptable "innocent and cute valentine-style relations." So is the case with women though.

Well this goes against the fact that there are a lot of men who can stay with one woman and not cheat or anything. It's called self-control and restraint. Anyway, again man is now rational; he can control himself and he ought to control himself. If he can't then he should find a wife that will allow him to marry again if he wants to or not get married at all so that he does not hurt any future wife. Again, if that permission clause was there I would have no problem with it.

The strength of women's desire to not "share his husband" with anyone seems unique to humans only and very much dependent on culture! Women from villages cutoff from modern century do not feel any shame in that!

Again, if the woman is okay with it then go on right ahead.

What moral and ethical basis, principles and framework you have to say that "cheating" on one's wife by having relationships with neighbors wife is wrong? both are consensual and it should not piss that woman off whose husband engaged in such consensual relations with other woman, if I go by your godless worldview.

Consensual means ALL parties have to consent who will be affected. That includes the wife. If she doesn't care and lets the guy go sleep with the girl next door then you can say it's consensual. I am a very conservative person when it comes to sexual behavior so I wouldn't condone such lewd behavior but I don't think it is unethical if all 3 members consented. I have different categorization for such behavior. But yeh, the important thing to remember here is consent has to be given by all parties.


Edit: Oh, and I am not an atheist. I do believe in God just not anything like your God that sends people to Hell for not being convinced by really bad argumentation

 

[Danah]

Lynx believes in no holy book.

I am talking about Christians in general.

 

[Ummu Sufyaan]

But the fact that he can marry without her permission is what I am condemning. Yes she can by most scholarly accounts, but not all, (sucks if she is raised in an environemtn with a scholar who says no :>) stipulate that her husband cannot marry again BUT why is it allowed in the first place.

why is it allowed for her to to for the "no co-wife" option without his permission? why dont you whine about that?

i dont know why it is allowed, and quite frankly, i dont care. i dont care about something that there is another option to, and even if there wasn't, i still would not care, because that is the law that i believe in, that i know that Allah has perfected. why would i question something i know and believe is perfect and complete?


the laws been set. what is arguing going to do about it? (unless you are genuinely interested in finding an answer and not one of those typical Islam hate mongers who think they've got Islam "uncovered") we are not like other religions or idiotic secular laws where we chop and change according to our whims and desires. dont like it? we dont care. when were we supposed to?
was God waiting for your approval when He sent these laws? what exactly do you hope to achieve with your hate mongering? dont like it? go jump in the lake
now was that so hard?

do you think there would be a term 'belief' if there was room for doubt and argument. the fact that people actually dispute a particular authenticity/perfection of a belief, is a clear indication of their lack of conviction in it, not to mention a plain mockery as well coming from those who supposedly believe/follow it. how is someone called a true follower of something when they deem aspects of that "something" incorrect, missing, etc.

this is why i cant take religions/followers (for eg) Christianity (and secular laws) seriosuly (other than the fact that i despise them for their disrespect of Isa, aleyhisalaam- i mean Christians). their Scriptures have been changed by so-called people of integrity, no one knows the chains of authenticity of the scriptures, god knows how many times its been translated and as a result, been lost in translation.

when you understand the term 'belief', then you'll realize how ludicrous and time wasting these debates are.


the amount of time i've *literally* gotten a headache from debates like this, where people cant even seem to grasp and comprehend the basics of how to debate (eg getting the facts straight), let alone getting their points across clearly.

...why whinge when it is permitted to to put in the marriage contract the "no co-wife" option?


perhaps when you stop being so arrogant and sincerely search for the truth (as opposed to throwing child like tantrums in-guise of debate in effort to "expose" Islam) then you might perhaps find your answer. till then, no answer would satisfy people like you expect or us to deny the Quran. not happening.

By allowing it in the first place the Quran allows for exploitation.

now you're just being a drama queen holding onto straw men for the sake of arguing.

It would not be a burden to God to add one more ayah: and only if your first wife allows you to.

says the one who cant even distinguish between Islamic practices and cultural practices, And you want an extra ayah in the quran. pull the other one.

This sounds like an improvement to the quran imO

.
i think this forum would majorly improve without emotive people such as yourself.

It's like a bad contract deal where in the fine print it says "well btw, you can stipulate that he shouldn't marry again".

again, the drama queen comes out.

 

[Grace Seeker]

So you're calling the prophets sinners, you christians really are a unique but misguided bunch

We certainly do call the prophets sinners. We call all persons (save Jesus himself) sinners. Whether it be because of polygamy or something else I'm not arguing, I'm just reminding you that it doesn't defame us to question our calling the prophets sinners, for there is none righteous, there is no one who does good, everyone has turned away from God (see Romans 3:10, Psalm 14:3, Psalm 53:3).

David himself said, "Do not bring your servant into judgment, for no one living is righteous before you" (Psalm 143:2). And his son Solomon reiterated that same thought, "There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins" (Ecclesiastes 7:20).

 

[Grace Seeker]

polygamy is an allowance not an injunction.
There will be a subset of the population to whom this is a perfect solution especially in the west where multiple illegitimate relations sprout and likewise the commonality of illegitimate children.
Televangelists I assume would benefit the most and come across less hypocritical because they all say one thing and practice another!
my two cents

Your proposal may sound good on the surface, certainly Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker, and unnamed others would "appear" to be more righteous if having multiple wives was condoned. But it would be a false sort of goodness. Rather, just as even though there is no law forbidding it, you still believe that the Qur'an and even the Tanakh speak against Christians who eat pork. So, too, even if polygamy were legitimatized by secular law or popular culture and worldwide acceptance I would still find that the New Testament speaks against Christians who have more than one spouse.


As to the points made by the OP:

I first would like to prove to you that Jesus peace be upon him did honor the laws of the Old Testament, and did order his followers (the Christians as we call them) to follow the laws of the Old Testament:

Jesus said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)"

Many people mistakenly think that this is a passage which promises there never to be abbrogation of anything found in the Old Testament. Such a belief is a complete lack of understanding of what Jesus was referring to. The only point that they have correct is that Jesus didn't come to abolish the Torah. But go further and see what he did come to do, to fulfill the Torah. The word Torah, even in Jesus' day, could be used in more than one way. The manner in which Jesus uses it is in reference to a Torah way of living. A Torah lifestyle is defined by some as being one that never varies in any degree from all of the ritual and ceremonial laws that are recorded in the Torah. However, if this is the case, then Jesus didn't fulfill that, for the gospels record more than one occassion when Jesus did things that are notable violations of Torah -- working on the Sabbath for example. But Jesus means is that he is living a Torah lifestyle that is totally submitted to God -- not to the ceremonial law, but to God's will -- and we see this as Jesus continually seeks to know and carry out his Father's will in all things. Indeed the climax of that is his willingness to submit even to the cross. And the reason why, is because it too fulfills Torah and by doing so Jesus completed it:

from the Jewish New Testament Commentary, by David Stern

It is true that Yeshua kept the Torah perfectly and fulfilled predictions of the Prophets..."to make full"(plerosai) the meaning of what the Torah and the ethical demands of the Prophets require. Thus he came to complete our understanding of the Torah and the Prophets, so that we can try more effectively to be and do what they say to be and do.

(emphasis original)

And in the cross Jesus, as the perfect-Israelite, does what the nation of Israel was supposed to do but never did, he actually keeps Torah and surrenders himself totally to God's purposes. And because he completes it, the specific provisions of the covenant that it was a sign of become fulfilled. Thus the application of the law is no longer relevant nor complusory on those new folks who will also become God's chosen people through the life giving sacrifice of Jesus.

Jesus' reference to the Law is completely misunderstood when people make it about keeping a bunch of Levitical ceremonial rules, it has nothing to do with them.


And then the OP commits the classic sin of opening mouth and inserting foot with this portion of his post:

Matthew 19:8-9
8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."


...I'd like to mention that, first of all, it is important to notice the logical and textual fallacy in the verses. Moses does not permit anything! It was GOD Almighty who supposedly Permitted everything in both the Old Testament and the New one. The reason I am emphasizing on this point, while it might look very minor, is because it goes to further prove that the texts that exist in the Bibles of today, with all of their variant quantity of "books" and "gospels", are not the Original, Pure, unaltered and uncorrupt Holy Word of GOD Almighty. They are rewrites and writings of men's interpretations and narrations of what really took place during Jesus' times, peace be upon him. So what ever you read from the New Testament doesn't mean a whole a lot because it is not the original writing. It is simply man made.

The OP is either ignorant of, or simply choose to ignore, the fact that Jesus is using the colloquial expression wherein the phrase "Moses permitted XYZ" is equivalent to our expression, "The Torah says XYZ." In other words, the OP has made a big deal about nothing.

Finally, some of the OP's efforts at logic can best be described as silly:

Have polygamy been really prohibited by Jesus, Paul would not have told his religious leaders to not practice it!!


Paul would not have seen the need for it! It's like him telling them and only them: "Do not worship idols!"

Yet, we see that Paul did indeed tell them not to worship idols (see 1 Corinthians 12:2, 2 Corinthians 6:16, and 1 Thessalonians 1:9).

Plus, how do you think it is that people like Timothy in the province of Galatia would have received the teachings of Jesus. They would have received it from Paul, Mark, Barnabbas and others who came to visit with them bearing Jesus' message. They didn't hear it directly from Jesus. And his letters are one way of communicating that, a communication that preceed the reception of the teachings of Jesus in a gospel accounting of his life. But when the gospels are produced, we find them not once contradicting Paul's testimony regarding the message of Jesus. If polygamy was acceptable in Judaism (and I do grant that it certainly was in much of the Tanakh), then for what reason would Paul change it accept that his message might be in agreement with that of Jesus himself.

 

[جوري]

When will Muslims ever learn that just because something is natural it does not follow that it ought to be that way? It is quite sad to see someone in the 21st century appeal to the natural state of man as a basis of what ought our moral standards be.
?

Does that premise hold true for homosexuality as well?

 

[جوري]

Your proposal may sound good on the surface, certainly Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker, and unnamed others would "appear" to be more righteous if having multiple wives was condoned. But it would be a false sort of goodness. Rather, just as even though there is no law forbidding it, you still believe that the Qur'an and even the Tanakh speak against Christians who eat pork. So, too, even if polygamy were legitimatized by secular law or popular culture and worldwide acceptance I would still find that the New Testament speaks against Christians who have more than one spouse.

.

and I think for that reason we'll find that christians father the most amount of illegitimate children while simultaneously having the most amount of adulterous relationships!

all the best

 

[Grace Seeker]

and I think for that reason we'll find that christians father the most amount of illegitimate children while simultaneously having the most amount of adulterous relationships!

all the best

I would be interested if that is actually factually true or not. The sad thing is that whether it is borne out by actual facts that Christians have more children out of wedlock than any other group of people (I would guess not, I would guess that those with no religion do), that far too many Christians don't practice their faith with the full measure of devotion that they should. Frankly, there is no excuse for it, either. The NT speaks against any form of sexual activity outside the bonds of marriage.

 

[CosmicPathos]

But the fact that he can marry without her permission is what I am condemning. Yes she can by most scholarly accounts, but not all, (sucks if she is raised in an environemtn with a scholar who says no :>) stipulate that her husband cannot marry again BUT why is it allowed in the first place. By allowing it in the first place the Quran allows for exploitation. It would not be a burden to God to add one more ayah: and only if your first wife allows you to. This sounds like an improvement to the quran imO . It's like a bad contract deal where in the fine print it says "well btw, you can stipulate that he shouldn't marry again".



No a logical fallacy is an unjustified inference.

Some X's are Y's
Z is an X
Therefore Z is a Y.

The inference to the conclusion is where the fallacy occurs. Notice there isn't any contradiction and it's quite possible that the conclusion is true but to infer the conclusion from those set of premises is where the logical fallacy occurs. Similarly, your previous comment was not only weak but it was a logical fallacy because you inferred from 'the natural state of man' to 'this ought to be the case' without any justification.



Well this goes against the fact that there are a lot of men who can stay with one woman and not cheat or anything. It's called self-control and restraint. Anyway, again man is now rational; he can control himself and he ought to control himself. If he can't then he should find a wife that will allow him to marry again if he wants to or not get married at all so that he does not hurt any future wife. Again, if that permission clause was there I would have no problem with it.



Again, if the woman is okay with it then go on right ahead.



Consensual means ALL parties have to consent who will be affected. That includes the wife. If she doesn't care and lets the guy go sleep with the girl next door then you can say it's consensual. I am a very conservative person when it comes to sexual behavior so I wouldn't condone such lewd behavior but I don't think it is unethical if all 3 members consented. I have different categorization for such behavior. But yeh, the important thing to remember here is consent has to be given by all parties.


Edit: Oh, and I am not an atheist. I do believe in God just not anything like your God that sends people to Hell for not being convinced by really bad argumentation

I do not see how a wife would be effected by the man's relations outside the family with neighbor's wife? the more appropriate question is "Should she be effected?" No.... when humans marry, its not required to not bed outside the family.

Regarding whether men can control to stay single or not, being able to control something does not mean that the thing being controlled is any less valuable. Self restraint and control mean something else in my dictionary. it means to put restrain on logic and follow what is instinctive.

 

[جوري]

I would be interested if that is actually factually true or not. The sad thing is that whether it is borne out by actual facts that Christians have more children out of wedlock than any other group of people (I would guess not, I would guess that those with no religion do), that far too many Christians don't practice their faith with the full measure of devotion that they should. Frankly, there is no excuse for it, either. The NT speaks against any form of sexual activity outside the bonds of marriage.

I would have to say it is indeed true if the sexual proclivities of preachers are a measure of your average christian .. sadly more so as they are supposed to lead by 'positive' example...

all the best

 

[Grace Seeker]

I do not see how a wife would be effected by the man's relations outside the family with neighbor's wife? the more appropriate question is "Should she be effected?" No.... when humans marry, its not required to not bed outside the family.

This would seem to be an argument not just for polygamy, but also polygny.

 

[CosmicPathos]

This would seem to be an argument not just for polygamy, but also polygny.

and polyandry too.

Of course it only applies to a godless world that an atheist lives in.

 

[Grace Seeker]

and polyandry too.

Of course it only applies to a godless world that an atheist lives in.

Then it doesn't really apply to "Polygamy in Christianity and Islam" does it?

 

[Lynx]

why is it allowed for her to to for the "no co-wife" option without his permission? why dont you whine about that?

i dont know why it is allowed, and quite frankly, i dont care. i dont care about something that there is another option to, and even if there wasn't, i still would not care, because that is the law that i believe in, that i know that Allah has perfected. why would i question something i know and believe is perfect and complete?


the laws been set. what is arguing going to do about it? (unless you are genuinely interested in finding an answer and not one of those typical Islam hate mongers who think they've got Islam "uncovered") we are not like other religions or idiotic secular laws where we chop and change according to our whims and desires. dont like it? we dont care. when were we supposed to?
was God waiting for your approval when He sent these laws? what exactly do you hope to achieve with your hate mongering? dont like it? go jump in the lake
now was that so hard?

do you think there would be a term 'belief' if there was room for doubt and argument. the fact that people actually dispute a particular authenticity/perfection of a belief, is a clear indication of their lack of conviction in it, not to mention a plain mockery as well coming from those who supposedly believe/follow it. how is someone called a true follower of something when they deem aspects of that "something" incorrect, missing, etc.

this is why i cant take religions/followers (for eg) Christianity (and secular laws) seriosuly (other than the fact that i despise them for their disrespect of Isa, aleyhisalaam- i mean Christians). their Scriptures have been changed by so-called people of integrity, no one knows the chains of authenticity of the scriptures, god knows how many times its been translated and as a result, been lost in translation.

when you understand the term 'belief', then you'll realize how ludicrous and time wasting these debates are.


the amount of time i've *literally* gotten a headache from debates like this, where people cant even seem to grasp and comprehend the basics of how to debate (eg getting the facts straight), let alone getting their points across clearly.

...why whinge when it is permitted to to put in the marriage contract the "no co-wife" option?


perhaps when you stop being so arrogant and sincerely search for the truth (as opposed to throwing child like tantrums in-guise of debate in effort to "expose" Islam) then you might perhaps find your answer. till then, no answer would satisfy people like you expect or us to deny the Quran. not happening.




now you're just being a drama queen holding onto straw men for the sake of arguing.



says the one who cant even distinguish between Islamic practices and cultural practices, And you want an extra ayah in the quran. pull the other one.


.
i think this forum would majorly improve without emotive people such as yourself.


again, the drama queen comes out.

ummm okay. are you sure you aren't projecting a little bit there? you sound quite upset. anyway

I don't look for reasons to hate on Islam. I think religion is a great thing and it should be promoted because it makes the world a nicer place. It stresses family cohesion for instance which I am a big supporter of . I do think it isn't perfect and I was inspired to start this thread as some people were claiming that it is the best ruler for morality which it is definitely definitely definitely not.

Skye: Yes it would. If homosexuality was natural we wouldn't be able to infer that it was an acceptable behavior. Conversely, if it's unnatural we wouldn't be able to infer that it was unacceptable.

mad_scientist: I laughed at your post. Good parody.

 

[CosmicPathos]

ummm okay. are you sure you aren't projecting a little bit there? you sound quite upset. anyway

I don't look for reasons to hate on Islam. I think religion is a great thing and it should be promoted because it makes the world a nicer place. It stresses family cohesion for instance which I am a big supporter of . I do think it isn't perfect and I was inspired to start this thread as some people were claiming that it is the best ruler for morality which it is definitely definitely definitely not.

Skye: Yes it would. If homosexuality was natural we wouldn't be able to infer that it was an acceptable behavior. Conversely, if it's unnatural we wouldn't be able to infer that it was unacceptable.

mad_scientist: I laughed at your post. Good parody.

I was not expecting anything more sophisticated from you either.