Religion of Peace and Polygamy

[ufo_investigations]

Question:

Does Islam really allow a man to take up to four wives?

Summary Answer:

Yes, a Muslim man can marry as many as four women, and have sexual relations with an unspecified number of slaves as well.  Muhammad had eleven wives at one time.

The Quran:

Quran (4:3) - "Marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only) or (the captives) that your right hands possess."  This verse clearly allows a man to have up to four wives (Allah conveniently granted Muhammad an exception... according to what Muhammad told his followers).  According to the Hadith, the "justice" spoken of merely refers to the dowry provided the bride, not the treatment accorded following the wedding.

Quran (4:129) - "Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women, even if it is your ardent desire"  Underscores that a man is not able to treat multiple wives fairly.  He would therefore be unable to acquire more than one wife if this were a requirement - which it is not.  In fact, Muhammad was not able to treat his own wives fairly (see Additional Notes).

Quran (66:5) - "Maybe, his Lord, if he divorce you, will give him in your place wives better than you, submissive, faithful, obedient, penitent, adorers, fasters, widows and virgins"  A disobedient wife can be replaced.  A man can only have up to four wives, but he can rotate as many women as he pleases in and out of the lineup.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/017-polygamy.htm

I wonder what women in the 21st century think about this?

[sineaterdoodah]

wow...just... wow.... SMH....d'omage,petit.....

[ruloinfovoter]

---

@4c4sale wrote:

---

@steppefjordwyfe10 wrote:

Yes, I may have seen it too.

Was it the one with the predatory narcisstic woman?  She was always on the look out for someone to help her?  Always ended up doing harm to the ones she was involved with, many times intentionally and sometimes unintentionally.  It was just how things went in her life, stagnant or down hill, one. I think it was a documentary.  I love those.

---

You may also see these types playing *support* roles in philosphical, religious, educational or moral institutions. (Sometimes marginal in nature and in their standards of accreditation, if any exist.) This puts them in a vantage spot to prey on the vulnerable while seeming to serve, but such types always put their own desires first, and betray this in ways large and small.

---

Boy does that sound interesting.  

I can't stand that when someone "preys on the vulnerable while seeming to serve".  I've seen that myself.  I know that type.  I've encountered it.  Really upsetting to me.  

And on another note, right, is that correct up there?  Astounding.

[the_great_she_elephant]

Is "completely natural" the catch-all, ill-defined standard by which we should live our lives?

No, but being rational beings we need to ask ourselves what is the reason for some acts being classified as criminal - and if we do, we may find hey are actually based on religious principles which over the centuries have become so entrenched that we accept them without even asking ourselves why.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, in the 1960s (in England at any rate) attempted suicide was a crime punishable by imprisonment. Sodomy (homosexuality) was not decriminalised in Tasmania until 1997. Both of these acts might be seen as 'sinful' or morally reprehensible, but in a secular society, what agrounds are there for considering them crimes?

The same argument could be applied to prostitution. I can see the need for regulation  - mainly to protect women who work as prostitutes - and I can see an argument for keeping it off the streets, but if a woman decides to accept money in return for sex - what rational grounds are there for sayng it's a crime?

Should the State be the guardian of people's morals?

[4c4sale]

---

@steppefjordwyfe10 wrote:

---

@4c4sale wrote:

Apart from cultural mandates, the polyamorous individuals I've known tended to be low in self-awareness and high in narcisssitic traits. They may be less likely to respect the boundaries others have chosen, and to possess a clumsy, predatory charm. The behavior may arise from troubled situtations in their family of origin, and while presented as a viable relationship alternative, may be a red flag suggesting a damaged individual best avoided.

Your results may vary, of course.

---

Beautifully said.

And I can imagine, yes, high in narcissitic traits, yup.  

---

This is the first, best giveaway.

[4c4sale]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

Is "completely natural" the catch-all, ill-defined standard by which we should live our lives?

No, but being rational beings we need to ask ourselves what is the reason for some acts being classified as criminal - and if we do, we may find hey are actually based on religious principles which over the centuries have become so entrenched that we accept them without even asking ourselves why.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, in the 1960s (in England at any rate) attempted suicide was a crime punishable by imprisonment. Sodomy (homosexuality) was not decriminalised in Tasmania until 1997. Both of these acts might be seen as 'sinful' or morally reprehensible, but in a secular society, what agrounds are there for considering them crimes?

The same argument could be applied to prostitution. I can see the need for regulation  - mainly to protect women who work as prostitutes - and I can see an argument for keeping it off the streets, but if a woman decides to accept money in return for sex - what rational grounds are there for sayng it's a crime?

Should the State be the guardian of people's morals?

---

Too broad a final question, as I assume you know.

In some cases yes, it must be, and in some cases, no.

I'm just discussing some of the polyamorous individuals I've encountered, not suggesting they be criminally charged.

[ruloinfovoter]

---

@4c4sale wrote:

---

@steppefjordwyfe10 wrote:

---

@4c4sale wrote:

Apart from cultural mandates, the polyamorous individuals I've known tended to be low in self-awareness and high in narcisssitic traits. They may be less likely to respect the boundaries others have chosen, and to possess a clumsy, predatory charm. The behavior may arise from troubled situtations in their family of origin, and while presented as a viable relationship alternative, may be a red flag suggesting a damaged individual best avoided.

Your results may vary, of course.

---

Beautifully said.

And I can imagine, yes, high in narcissitic traits, yup.  

---

This is the first, best giveaway.

---

And from what I've seen the lack of self-awareness is proportional to the narcissism, I'm guessing.  It seems like it would follow.  Like clueless.

[4c4sale]

---

@steppefjordwyfe10 wrote:

---

@4c4sale wrote:

---

@steppefjordwyfe10 wrote:

Yes, I may have seen it too.

Was it the one with the predatory narcisstic woman?  She was always on the look out for someone to help her?  Always ended up doing harm to the ones she was involved with, many times intentionally and sometimes unintentionally.  It was just how things went in her life, stagnant or down hill, one. I think it was a documentary.  I love those.

---

You may also see these types playing *support* roles in philosphical, religious, educational or moral institutions. (Sometimes marginal in nature and in their standards of accreditation, if any exist.) This puts them in a vantage spot to prey on the vulnerable while seeming to serve, but such types always put their own desires first, and betray this in ways large and small.

---

Boy does that sound interesting.  

I can't stand that when someone "preys on the vulnerable while seeming to serve".  I've seen that myself.  I know that type.  I've encountered it.  Really upsetting to me.  

And on another note, right, is that correct up there?  Astounding.

---

One of the best ways to validate one's predation is by wrapping it up in high-sounding purpose, whether calling it brave pioneering of new social territory or "freeing" others to do as they please.

I've learned to be wary of such false prophets.

[4c4sale]

---

@steppefjordwyfe10 wrote:

---

@4c4sale wrote:

---

@steppefjordwyfe10 wrote:

---

@4c4sale wrote:

Apart from cultural mandates, the polyamorous individuals I've known tended to be low in self-awareness and high in narcisssitic traits. They may be less likely to respect the boundaries others have chosen, and to possess a clumsy, predatory charm. The behavior may arise from troubled situtations in their family of origin, and while presented as a viable relationship alternative, may be a red flag suggesting a damaged individual best avoided.

Your results may vary, of course.

---

Beautifully said.

And I can imagine, yes, high in narcissitic traits, yup.  

---

This is the first, best giveaway.

---

And from what I've seen the lack of self-awareness is proportional to the narcissism, I'm guessing.  It seems like it would follow.  Like clueless.

---

Absolutely - well said!

[polksaladallie]

---

@sineaterdoodah wrote:

wow...just... wow.... SMH....d'omage,petit.....

---

   I had to look up SMH, it means something quite different in Australia.

[ruloinfovoter]

---

@4c4sale wrote:

---

@steppefjordwyfe10 wrote:

---

@4c4sale wrote:

---

@steppefjordwyfe10 wrote:

Yes, I may have seen it too.

Was it the one with the predatory narcisstic woman?  She was always on the look out for someone to help her?  Always ended up doing harm to the ones she was involved with, many times intentionally and sometimes unintentionally.  It was just how things went in her life, stagnant or down hill, one. I think it was a documentary.  I love those.

---

You may also see these types playing *support* roles in philosphical, religious, educational or moral institutions. (Sometimes marginal in nature and in their standards of accreditation, if any exist.) This puts them in a vantage spot to prey on the vulnerable while seeming to serve, but such types always put their own desires first, and betray this in ways large and small.

---

Boy does that sound interesting.  

I can't stand that when someone "preys on the vulnerable while seeming to serve".  I've seen that myself.  I know that type.  I've encountered it.  Really upsetting to me.  

And on another note, right, is that correct up there?  Astounding.

---

One of the best ways to validate one's predation is by wrapping it up in high-sounding purpose, whether calling it brave pioneering of new social territory or "freeing" others to do as they please.

I've learned to be wary of such false prophets.

---

Kind of chilling.  I see some things as evil and this kind of stuff reminds me of it, feels like it.  I won't go places where I feel it.