 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
lurker
509 Posts |
 Posted - 22 Jul 2009 : 09:58:07
|
last night the beeb had an article about polygamy, which in the UK, is mainly practised by those of the muslim faith.
to those of you who are scholars of the islamic faith or happen just to know, can you please tell me the origins of the rationale for the practice of polygamy within the muslim faith. is it cultural or religious?
as an aside..a muslim lawyer who was reconciling the difficulties of this practice within a Uk society where bigamy is illegal, seemed to mention that the origins of this practice were to effectively constrain men's innate promiscuity to being within marriage. In other words, rather than have them go around fornicating with women , they would rather let them have a few legal wives so that their avaricious sexual needs were limited to being with women whom it was ok to have relations with within the law.
comments please.
good day
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jul 2009 : 10:33:25
|
Interesting topic. I am not an Islamic scholar but I will make an attempt. Others can provide details and better answers later:
1. polygamy seem to exist more in agrarian societies with extended family systems where livelihood is more directly connected to the land. This is also often accompanied by less freedoms and autonomy of women...
2. Because men are less 'tied down' by off-springs, more likely to possess power and resources, more procreation (even if symbolic by more sexual partners) appears to be an evolutionary coup for males. Therefore harems are invariably a male idea. Males of several species of animals are known to extablish a lush (plenty of food and other resources) territory and sire several females who either pass through or live with them there...
3. The origins of polygamy perhaps dates back to the early days of Islam when imbalance in male/female ratio was high due in part to various wars waged by early Muslims. It is perhaps because of this excess single women, widows (and their children) that Islam (Muhammad, pbuh) encouraged his men to take up more spouses...
In addition it is important to mention that there are many simple agrarian societies that are not polygamous, just as there are many -nonIslamic societies that are polygamous...
I hope others can clarify these issues better. Thanks. |
 |
|
|
lurker
509 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jul 2009 : 10:43:03
|
why would a man need to take up spouses to restore the imbalance of the genders.? he could just as easily have a harem of child-producing females to none of whom is he married?
the fact that marriage is involved seems to suggest a religious undertone to the practice.
an evolutionary coup? perhaps this reinforces the idea of some that monogamy is a cultural invention and that man is meant to propogate man by reproducing with as many as possible, like the vast majority of species?
or is this another aspect of men imposing their will and strength over women and using cultural or religious reasoning to justify it?
one of the appalling issues raised in the programme was that a whole load of these first wives never even knew that their husband had married one or more others so that he could a) have more sex legally or b) have more children or c) flaunt his wealth?????
|
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jul 2009 : 11:30:02
|
True, but in an (agrarian) society of limited laws, marriage preserves harmony. Religion, I think only came to add its voice to it, but it is not the inventor of it. At its basics, marriage is the 'chest thrusting'(grunting sound) of the gorrilas telling others to stay away from their territory, or the long term commitment practiced by some species of birds...
Males of many species wants to make sure that when they go out with females, the children they bear and raise are actually theirs, and the females want to ensure that the resources acquired remain theirs and their off-springs. Therefore marriage becomes a declaration of 'ownership' recognized by society. Both males and females benefit from this...
Polygamy is not natural to human beings. I think, like many anthropologists agree, humans invariably are 'serial monogamists'.
"Why would a man need to take up spouses to restore the imbalance of the genders?" (Lurker asks). May be that was Muhammad's (pbuh) way of responsibility to His fallen warriors (I guess kind of a veteran's welfare too  ), but I also think religious leaders are more concerned about societal harmony and legitimacy of children than we normally would in today's society ... |
Edited by - kayjatta on 22 Jul 2009 11:39:01 |
|
|
|
lurker
509 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jul 2009 : 12:01:43
|
i understand the need to replace the lost sons through war...my point was that marriage is an irrlevance to that until religion or culture makes it relevant. that need to replace men is biological, not based upon relgion or culture, so what has marriage got to do with it?
marriage is man-made.emphasis upon the "man" bit.
however, this ha not yet answered what i asked , however interesting it is.
i still wonder what the reasons for the granting of polygamy were?
is it scriptural or an addition to the scriptures from men of learning later on?
is it about restricting male promiscuity to the bounds of the marital home, as this lady implied? |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jul 2009 : 12:30:20
|
One last attempt, Lurker. I hope I get this straight now. I do not always think there is one answer to any given question, that is why I give broad answers. My sincere apologies if I am not being helpful here. I would like others to add their views to this topic though...
Here we go again:
1. marriage is not man-made. We, humans have added a human touch to it, but it is very widespread in the animal kingdom.
2. Polygamy may be granted because of the following:
a) to legitimize sexual promiscuity or restricting it within the family
b) 'veteran's welfare'
c) monopoly of power and resources (example land) by men
d)Islamic scripture has urged poygamy within a certain context... |
|
|
|
lurker
509 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jul 2009 : 13:22:22
|
the interesting theme throughout most of this is the aspect of man making rules for man, and women having to fit in and accept the male edicts that the men have made for themselves .
marriage as a status IS totally man-made. we invented it and adapted it according to culture and religion etc.
it seems that most of your points revolve around men "legitimizing" their own male behaviour - which is what this lady commentator seemed to be saying about polygamy- designed by men, for men.
one other point....
here we have men making up rules so that they can get as much sex as they want within socially accepted boundaries...and yet these same promiscuous men (some of them) would have their women sexually mutilated because they canot bear the thought of a supposedly promiscuous female....... |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jul 2009 : 13:43:37
|
| absolutely... |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12312 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jul 2009 : 13:53:20
|
In my mind there is no doubt what you have said here is correct,in days before "civilisation" man was the stronger of the sexes and he could take or make rules as he wished the female because she was not a hunter probably would have no food,so starve? no, do as she was told and live the best way she could and this has become ingrained in thinking even today,however the tables are turning and women are getting more and more into being their own person,assised by PC rubbish of course, so my input is that this stance has become the norm due to history,and the fact that during development of "civilisation" those who came to be in control did not want to be left with the burden of looking after lots of children,so marriage was adopted to take care of that problem,in other words father was still responsible for his children.
quote:
Originally posted by lurker
the interesting theme throughout most of this is the aspect of man making rules for man, and women having to fit in and accept the male edicts that the men have made for themselves .
marriage as a status IS totally man-made. we invented it and adapted it according to culture and religion etc.
it seems that most of your points revolve around men "legitimizing" their own male behaviour - which is what this lady commentator seemed to be saying about polygamy- designed by men, for men.
one other point....
here we have men making up rules so that they can get as much sex as they want within socially accepted boundaries...and yet these same promiscuous men (some of them) would have their women sexually mutilated because they canot bear the thought of a supposedly promiscuous female.......
|
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
|
njucks
Gambia
1131 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jul 2009 : 10:20:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by toubab1020
................man was the stronger of the sexes and he could take or make rules as he wished
that may be true but we can also be making a mistake by thinking that polygamy is just men marrying multiple women. in a modern sense yes. largely due to the spread of middle-eastern religions but there is evidence in many ancient cultures of women being the ''man-in-the -house'' and having multiple husbands.
also in many cultures, even today,inheritance is true the maternal line.
there is also the question as to whether the State should have any business in marriage or define what it is or should be? it seems currently the state is deeply influenced by religion in what is legal and what is not?
hence difference marriage laws in different states. |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12312 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jul 2009 : 10:32:42
|
As usual there are exceptions to every rule,personally I think the "State" has too large a hand in everything.Individuals cannot be trusted to do good things so have to be controlled for the benefit of all be it a government or a religion and their associated chains of command, all the same just different ways of utilising power.Women are underated in society generally,this should not be the case women are very very clever,EVERY man should realise that.
|
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
Edited by - toubab1020 on 23 Jul 2009 10:35:12 |
|
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2009 : 10:35:56
|
I think state should not interfare with marriages at all other than registering/common law and other than protecting minors, I don't see anything wrong with polygamy. I mean, one can have multiple women/men in reality but can't have them officially . Why not make it official. If there are who are willing, one man/woman should get marry with multiple men/women. If Islam support multiple marriage, the secular law should be flexible to allow it. Same with same-sex marriage. It should be allowed under.
|
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2009 : 10:53:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by njucks
quote:
Originally posted by toubab1020
................man was the stronger of the sexes and he could take or make rules as he wished
that may be true but we can also be making a mistake by thinking that polygamy is just men marrying multiple women. in a modern sense yes. largely due to the spread of middle-eastern religions but there is evidence in many ancient cultures of women being the ''man-in-the -house'' and having multiple husbands.
also in many cultures, even today,inheritance is true the maternal line.
there is also the question as to whether the State should have any business in marriage or define what it is or should be? it seems currently the state is deeply influenced by religion in what is legal and what is not?
hence difference marriage laws in different states.
Thanks Njucks for this post. In fact the reason my initial answers to this post were broadly based is that I am aware of many factors, exceptions and alternatives to polygamy, including the one you have just mentioned.
I think it all boils down to the way power and resources are controlled in the society.
There are still many cultures around the world where power and resources are controlled and inherited along the maternal blood line. In some of those matrilineal societies, polyandry (a woman marrying many husbands) are practiced...
So I do not think the idea of "male conspiracy" is sufficient to explain the whole story... |
Edited by - kayjatta on 24 Jul 2009 11:22:16 |
|
|
|
jambo
3300 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jul 2009 : 12:58:30
|
my problem with more than one wife, who supports them, if you marry it is on the understanding that you can support them, not so.
but in some places men are marrying a wife they cannot support, bringing them to countries where it is not recognised and looking for the that state to support them.
UK and France have plenty of examples of this, wifes have been dumped, divorced and left to the mercies of a state that does not recognise them. bigamy is illegal, accept it, only marry if you can support your wife. |
|
|
|
mansasulu
997 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jul 2009 : 16:05:57
|
Lurker,
Polygamy predates Islam. According to biblical references Abraham had at least three wives and King Solomom had 700 wives. So, a reasonable rationale for polygamy among muslims today is that we are following the footsteps of our father Abraham who incidentally, in islam is also called the Father of the Prophets.
I hope this gives some measure of answer to your question. |
"...Verily, in the remembrance of Allâh do hearts find rest..." Sura Al-Rad (Chapter 13, Verse 28)
...Gambian by birth, Muslim by the grace of Allah... |
|
|
|
mbay
Germany
1007 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2009 : 16:57:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by njucks
quote:
Originally posted by toubab1020
................man was the stronger of the sexes and he could take or make rules as he wished
that may be true but we can also be making a mistake by thinking that polygamy is just men marrying multiple women. in a modern sense yes. largely due to the spread of middle-eastern religions but there is evidence in many ancient cultures of women being the ''man-in-the -house'' and having multiple husbands.
also in many cultures, even today,inheritance is true the maternal line.
there is also the question as to whether the State should have any business in marriage or define what it is or should be? it seems currently the state is deeply influenced by religion in what is legal and what is not?
hence difference marriage laws in different states.
good ponit. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
