Polygamy is a detriment to a society. I'll start with the feminist objection, even though I know that most people like to shrug at that, in that when you set women at the level of objects, where a rich or successful man can have many, and collect them like fine cars... well, that puts women at subhuman status, and in this day and age, I find that unacceptable. But let's ignore that if you'd like, and focus on war and social unrest. Do you know what most of the most violent areas of the world have in common? Polygamy. Do you think it's coincidence that in areas where a minority of people have "snatched up" most of the women, leaving a good portion of the rest of the men without wives, that huge groups of these wifeless men band together and through war, acquire and rape women? I don't think it is coincidence at all. My last objection is that while Muslim doctrine says that a man should not marry more women than he can afford, it fails to specify. Afford what? To feed and clothe? That's a very different level of wealth than "afford to educate". So then you've got men that are successful enough to keep food in the belly of their family, but they've got 25 children, and not a single one can go to school on daddy's income. What's a good way to keep a perpetual war going? How about uneducated children growing up in poverty because of a lack of education, and then due to poverty, being not only unable to support themselves, but unable to get a wife, because the rich dude down the road has most of the women, and to top it off, there are actual passages in the holy book that say you can't have sex unless you're married.... UNLESS you acquire these women through holy war... in which case, force them to be your wives (aka: rape them). Long story short: Polygamy is the reason for much of the violence in the world today. I definitely think any intelligent, developed nation would be wise to not allow it.
-
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!
Should Muslims be forbidden from practicing polygamy?
- Thread starter Spiderman
- Start date
Pastek
Sunni muslim
That the principle of a debate.
Pastek
Sunni muslim
In fact you don't make a distinction between the reason why it's acceptable/good and the people's desire.
If you look at it as a way for some women (especially in the past) to have a protector/husband, to not live in misery sometimes with children etc the it's a good alternative.
Also it's better to legalize this kind of relation instead of having mistresses and hidden children, it gives a statut for the wives and children and a possibility to have a part in an inheritance.
Don't forget that people before used to prefere young women to have children or because more beautiful or because a divorce women was a "shame" etc
I agree that nowaday women work, they have social help (well not everywhere), and have less problem to remarry.
Today a man, let be honest won't marry widows and take the charge of their children.
Most of time he will marry young women.
True, sometimes they do things they shouldn't.
Also sometimes they don't have time for the children/wife if one part of the familly lives abroad.
But polygamy is not an obligation, it's just that some people take avantages when they want.
For exemple adopting children is authorized, even the Prophet had an adopted son and he was himself an orphane. Yet they don't rush to adopt children.
I don't think that this issue happened before.
Polygamy in Islam is required in some cases,where a women are over rate (percentage) the men.
Same situation could be in West,if a rich men own many girlfriends by money,what's poor men supposed to do ?
Hinduism,Islam ...etc
Bible don't forbid polygamy,the church did.
So I can say it's just disagreement issue between Christians.
Imagine rich folks, with an army of wives, then an army of kids. Those kids would eventually be in power. The rich would become even more powerful than they are now controlling more and more resources. Survival would pretty much require that you marry into a rich powerful family.
I suppose it'd eventually work out. The poor would simply die out. Just a relative few family clans controlling all of the resources. I suspect it'd be messy getting there though.
Monogamy is a way to limit the power of rich folks.
Limo
Active Member
Justification is different from stating benefits
The only Justification we've it's Halal in Islam.
We should tell it with proudly and honor.
Then we discuss benefits if we know.
We're not sure about benefits unless it's in Quran or Hadeeth.
In most cases it's inconvenient for non-Muslims who are driven by prejudgement and stereotype
Pastek
Sunni muslim
Because you saw someone ashamed here ?
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
So you agree that it could exacerbate the problem of bachelorism?
So not 'most' religions - only two.
Based on certain verses in the New Testament which allude to a monogamous view of marriage.
Really? Tell me more.
yes it's solution when bachelorism of women is notice.
I don't recall which religion is forbid it, but I know most don't forbid
Whatever NT don't forbid it as clear.
OT is clearlly allowed it.
No problem, from wiki
Hinduism[edit]
The Rig Veda mentions that during the Vedic period, a man could have more than one wife.[23] The practice is attested in epics like Ramayana and Mahabharata. The Dharmashastras permit a man to marry women of lower castes provided that the first wife was of equal caste. Despite its existence, it was most usually practiced by men of higher castes and higher status. Common people were only allowed a second marriage if the first wife could not bear a son.[24]
According to Vishnu Smriti, the number of wives is linked to the caste system:
Now a Brāhmaṇa may take four wives in the direct order of the (four) castes;
A Kshatriya, three;.
A Vaishya, two
A Shudra, one only[25]
This verse is EXACTLY why the previous assertion is so dumb- that the wife, if she doesn't like her husband marrying another woman, can divorce him.
It sounds like she has a choice, but it's nothing more than an illusion, for she, and everybody else, knows that if she were to divorce her husband she would:
1) Be very unlikely to find another man to marry her.
2) Be forced out of her home, forced to take care of herself and likely her children as well, without income
3) Be socially and financially crippled, as in many areas where Muslim polygamy is practiced, she can't even leave the house without a male relative, let alone work at the diner down the street and be a strong, independent Muslim woman...
It's basically the equivalent of being on a boat in the middle of the ocean, surrounded by sharks, and if you get into the boat you will be punched in the face, but hey, nobody is forcing you to stay in the boat, right? That is how Muslim feminism works.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I don't see why polygamy is illegal in the first place. As long as it goes both ways, wives/husbands/both, and consent is had by all, why should the government step in to stop consenting adults?
dust1n
Zindīq
I generally agree. I'm under the impression, that generally revered figures in religious pasts generally get passes from behaviors that at the time were simply just commonplace. Not that matters. Islam never assimilated through a monogamous society-- so polygamy by itself is pretty viewed as morally neutral, I would imagine.
I disagree the NT clearly assumes monogamy. Polygamy is really only forbidden for church leaders, explicitly, and even some debate the translation of meanings there. Jesus does make a case for it though. Christians still practice polygamy for time afterward. Meanwhile, in Rome, monogamy was already law. It's likely in mind that a lot of those polygamous practices were lost when Jews were worshiping Jesus less but suddenly Roman subjects were, and Rome pretty much ended up with monopoly of Christian faith in the Western World.
No problem, from wiki
Hinduism[edit]
The Rig Veda mentions that during the Vedic period, a man could have more than one wife.[23] The practice is attested in epics like Ramayana and Mahabharata. The Dharmashastras permit a man to marry women of lower castes provided that the first wife was of equal caste. Despite its existence, it was most usually practiced by men of higher castes and higher status. Common people were only allowed a second marriage if the first wife could not bear a son.[24]
According to Vishnu Smriti, the number of wives is linked to the caste system:
Now a Brāhmaṇa may take four wives in the direct order of the (four) castes;
A Kshatriya, three;.
A Vaishya, two
A Shudra, one only[25]
Fortunately, Wikipedia is not scripture. That kind of casteism is widely discarded anyway. Polygamy spread in India among ruling classes a lot following influences from the Muslim world of course.
But personally I see no problem with mutually consenting polygamy and polyamory, regardless of the combinations.
Overpopulation is, too. Polygamy contributes to that. It also contributes to war and social unrest as wealthy men horde women and younger, poorer men are left without prospects for marriage and social advancements. Women and girls are also treated like chattel in polygamous societies, who are just to pump out babies. We'd all be better off with practicing mindful monogamy or celibacy.
Silly me..and I thought that the effects of climate change was a danger to the planet.
One reason is that it would throw our legal system into chaos, unlike gay marriage which is simple to integrate, since marriage and family laws in the West are built around monogamous marriages. This goes back to Ancient Rome. There's also the potential for social fallout, as has been mentioned, since most people who would want polygamy aren't the polyamorous liberal types (I guess because their relationships are often too chaotic and transient to merit that sort of commitment, from what I've observed of them). (I'm not a fan of polyamory, either, as you can guess.)
Last edited:
No. What makes you think all those women are attracted to men or want to be married?