POLYGAMY SURVIVAL GUIDE – A CO-WIFE’S EXPERIENCE

[GINGERBEARDMAN]

https://gingerbeardmansite.wordpress.com/2016/09/21/polygamy-survival-guide-a-co-wifes-experience/


Polygamy is often seen as the end of a happy marriage, but it need not be that at all. Take it from me, I’m a happily married first wife and I’m friend with my co-wife, Masha’ Allah; in fact she’s sitting in the same room while I’m typing this. Polygamy can work if the husband and both or all wives go about it in the right way.


I have heard many horror stories about polygamy gone very wrong, and in all those cases, at least one person in the marriage was not following the Qur’an and Sunnah, usually the husband. Polygamy requires us to adhere to everything that Allah has taught us about marriage, and to follow the example of Muhammad and his wives.


This is the foundation upon which any marriage, monogamous or polygamous, is built, but with polygamy, it’s even more critical. Without this foundation, it isn’t going to succeed. While polygamy is frequently seen as benefiting the husband to the detriment of the wives, the reality is that it’s far more difficult for the husband...


Article continued in the link top of the post

 

[greenhill]

Can't say I'm in disagreement.

Nicely written :shade:


eace:

 

[kritikvernunft]

If the husband is sitting on a lot of money, polygamy looks like an excellent way to redistribute the wealth. If I were Bill Gates with his 87+ billions of dollars -- the richest man of the world -- I cannot imagine myself being so stingy to have just one wife. As we all know, the only realistic way to spend lots of money, is to involve enough women, and basically instruct them to outspend each other. They are so good at that. A man could never match a woman's profligacy, not even in his wildest dreams. If I am lucky, at some point, I will be able to do exactly that: to enroll an additional woman to hack additional holes in my balances, revenues and savings. Women ... how could we ever live without them?

 

[Futuwwa]

Any woman who would be up for an outspending contest like that would be utterly unworthy of marrying me. Not as a first, second, third nor fourth wife.

 

[kritikvernunft]

Any woman who would be up for an outspending contest like that would be utterly unworthy of marrying me.

Yes, but the rules are also conspiring against you, because you have to treat them equally. So, the first one gets a new car, and the second one a nice holiday. This is unequal. So, that means that the first one is now also entitled to a nice holiday and the second one also to a new car. That would make them equal again. However, this blows a hole into your accounts. Next step, they both "need" something different again. Seriously, you need a lot of money for that game. It is not just twice as expensive. It really is an outspending contest, and it is not even their fault, because it is not them who made the rules.

 

[Futuwwa]

A polygamous man is mandated to treat all wives equally. Not give every wife everything any one of them might decide she wants.

 

[Kiro]

Mooooore food to buy, take the free foood

you can have food, you can have food; everybody geeeeets foooood

 

[Little_Lion]

Dr. Bilal Philips is working on a free course in polygamy for IOU. It will be in two parts (from the man's perspective and from the woman's perspective) and the first part should be available within a couple of weeks.

Can we have strawberry milk?

 

[AnnaK]

I think that in order for it to work, the people involved have to first identify as polyamorous, and then have their definition of the term for them being clearly defined. Once they get to this point, they have to want to be in a relationship with the multiple people.

To add a little more, this sounds a little one sided. It sounds as if only a man could pursue a relationship with multiple people. It also sounds as if there's an assumption that men will be the providers and have a job that brings in revenue, but for some undefined reason the women won't.

 

[kritikvernunft]

It also sounds as if there's an assumption that men will be the providers and have a job that brings in revenue, but for some undefined reason the women won't.

They could, but that usually complicates the matter. In the end, it still has to remain some kind of exchange. If she has her own money, what would she need yours for? You see, if she does not really need me, I'd better also not really need her either. Love comes and love goes. So, emotions are not particularly a stable basis to rest a supposedly life-long relationship on. There will be times when it is not mutual love, but possibly even mutual hatred, but that should not matter, because the man will usually still call his wife for marital duty, and the wife will still need his financial contributions. So, that guarantees, especially for the sake of the offspring, that through love and hatred, everything stays together, and that everybody can await better times, when at least some kind of mutual understanding will return.

The underlying transaction in marriage, is not the exchange of love, which is only a tool, an instrument, to facilitate the real transaction, which is to collaborate on generational reproduction. If all there was to it, were love, then we would not even waste our time on it, or expend so many resources for that. Sexual desire and the need for love are only tools enlisted by the laws of nature to urge you to reproduce, before your own time is up, because if living beings forget to do that, live would simply cease. Seriously, these sexual desires and the need for love are not goals in themselves. They are just instruments.

In that sense, the use of force, is also just a tool. The laws of nature will exhort men to draw blunt axes and eliminate any impediment to generational survival, in order to protect the system of life. Seen from that perspective, it is entirely understandable that a man does not think much of unceremoniously killing another man. It was simply wanted that way. In the end, we are all just tools to carry out the will of the singular God.