h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"We believe in modesty and self restraignt,............. safe and respocible sex by only having one partner (or four in very rare case's, if you want an explantion I will tell you)."

I've always wondered why polygamy was allowed in Islam - can you explain it to me please Muzaakboy?

As salaamu alaikum,

No problem at all. I will try to explain why men are allowed to marry up to four women in Islam.

I do not want to cause offence, so please do not take this the wrong way, this is only the way I see it, and as for the Islamic stuff that is the Qur’anic perspective.

As in most cases with Qur’anic text, you can get an idea of what is being said from a ayah in the Qur’an, but it also helps to understand the back ground and context implied upon such a ayah from the Qur’an to get the full benefit.
Especially when using translations in to other languages so here goes.

In the Qur’an (with added commentary afterwards) we are told in Sura 4 An Nisa (the woman) ayah 3:

“If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, two or three of four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with them, then marry only one, or a captive that your right hand possesses. That will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.”

Notice the conditional clause about orphans, introducing the rules about Islam. This reminds Muslims that of the immediate occasion of the promulgation of this ayah. It was after the battle of Uhud, when the Muslim community was left with many orphans and widows and some captives of war. Their treatment was to be governed by principles of the greatest humanity and equity. The occasion is past, but the principles remain. Marry the orphans/widows if you are quite sure that you will in that way protect their interests and their property, with perfect justice to them and to your own dependants if you have any. If not make other arrangements for the orphans.

The unrestricted number of wives of the “time of Ignorance” was now strictly limited to a maximum of four, provided you could treat them with perfect equality, in material things as well as in affection and immaterial things. As this condition is most difficult to fulfil, Muslims understand the recommendation to be towards monogamy.

The part that talks about whom the right hand possesses is talking about slaves. Before Islam people kept slaves and used them for what ever they willed. Islam its self does not allow slavery, but it acknowledges those whom have slaves and become Muslim afterwards. It is saying to them that if you wish you can marry one of your slaves if she wishes to be married to you, especially if it will help you to look after orphans etc.
Thankfully the whole barbaric practice of slavery has been abolished and so this no longer applies to anyone.

Getting back on to the subject at hand though, we can see that the Qur’an only permits marrying more than one wife if you can deal justice between them and also if it is for the good of the community. Also according to the Hadith and the Qur’an a man has to have his first wife’s permission to have another wife.

In America there are 2 million more women than men, so if every man got married who will the surplus 2 million women marry. As of yet societies answer to that is to allow out of marriage sex to get rid of there sexual temptations, but has not been able to answer the actual companionship side of marriage for these women.
Islam though says that if the women wish they can marry a man whom is already married if he and his wife are willing and also if he can treat you equally.

In nearly every country there is more women than men, and so we Muslims can say we have a solution to that problem, it might not be a solution some like, but at least we have a solution.

Another factor to bear is that it quite clearly says “if you fear you can not deal justly with them, then marry only one”. The Qur’an is actually the only holy book on the planet that says marry only, all the others do not speak about how many people can marry, and also if you look you will see that all there own prophets, like Muhammad, married more than one woman.

As to why only men can only have four wives:

Firstly there are more women than men and not vice versa, Also if a man has sex with four women who get pregnant and they only have one partner, every one knows who is the parent. But if a woman has sex with four men, no one knows who the farther is amongst that four.

In Islam the first right you give to your child, before it is even born, is the right to know who its parents are.

As I said before I mean no offence to no one with this, I am just trying to answer the question in the best way I can.
Also it may not be an answer you like, but it is the answer found in the Qur’an.
Any more questions just ask.

Adib

Having been married to one woman for almost 53 years I cannot conceive of any man wishing to have more than one wife!!!!
jazz

Now, Jazzme. I imagine that's one of the reasons it has appealed to men throughout the ages. When they tire of the wife they have, they go find a younger one.

I think the only Christian sect that practices polygamy is the Mormons. And it is officially outlawed by them. They receive bad publicity over it. Some of these men are abusive and make their wives and children little more than prisoners. Since it is illegal they go off into compounds and keep pretty much to themselves.

Your explanation was very clear, Muzaakboy. And certainly makes sense when viewed in a narrow historical context. But the problem with trying to initiate laws to meet specific circumstances is that they then become entrenched and outlast their intended purposes. Like income taxes.

In America, at least, the income tax was created to pay for the Mexican War. Last time I checked, it was over.

Well a I already said before, the husband has to have his wifes permission to marry a second wife, he has to have both of there permission to marry a third and you have to have all three's permission to marry four.

Secondly, you can not be abusive to your wife/wives in Islam and you have to treat them all equally. i.e.

If you by one a holiday to some where, you have to by the others a holiday to, for the same value as the other one.

If you can't love them equally, i.e. if you only want to talk to one, and not the other, then you can not mary.

If it is for your own greed you can only marry one.

The thing is open to abuse along with all laws be that, from god or man, but at the end of the day in Islam it is about intention, If your intention is to marry more than one to help other people, then it is fine, If your intention is just because you want a fresh wife to be with, then that is wrong.

Muslims are ment to be fearfull to Allah and so the second option in the above should not happen. As Allah judges people for thee intention behind the actions and not just the actions them selves.

But looking at it from another point of view.

Western society has a massive number of people who cheat on there partners, of which 90% or more are men cheating on wives or loved ones.
Why do they cheat, because they want some thing different or that they love both women very much. I'm not saying this does not happen in Islam, and I am not critising the west.

In western society there is only a few options. Have a affair, which could lead to the break up of your marriage, could lead to children being born out side of marriage to a man who can not fullfil his obligations as a farther as he also has that commitment with his wife.

He could leave his wife and move with the other girl, which not only destroys the womans life but 9 out of ten times will lead in the seperation of the cheating pair to, as every argument will end up with him saying I left my wife for you. This will destroy there relationship.

Or he can not have the affair, but if he truley loves the second woman, it could make him up set or depressed leading to complications in marriage.

So in Islam if this is happening where a married man, has fallen for another wife, he has another option, which is speak to his first wife about this and if she is willing and the other woman is willing then the man can marry both of them.

Of course this can lead to break up, but if he is honest from the start to his first wife and loyal to his bonds of marriage then the first wife is goig to be less hurt than if her husband walked out on her, or she finds out later that her husband is commiting.

Again this is an answer people may not like, but again at least it is a answer.
The point is for the vast majority of Muslims one wife is more than enough and they are happy together, but some times in rare sircumstances this sort of thing can occur and so Muslims have rules in place that will hopefully please both sides more than it will do harm.

Of course not all Muslims foolow this, and they are violent, or do have affairs but these people do not read the Qur'an and Sunnah and under stand it, and so they do these things not knowing it is not allowed in Islam, or choosing to ignore it, which shows kufr tendancies.

Kufr simpally means one who does not believe in the consep of God at all.

Adib

Woops forgot to add this as well.

The Qur'an was sent to us to lead us till the day of judgement, and so must cover all things.

The ayaah about marrying more than one wife is still applicable because it is mainly dealing with the issue of widows and orphans after a war.

As war still happens and the majority of fighters are men, then there is still going to be many widows, look at Afganistan and Iraq for instance.

Adib

Do the wives live in separate houses with their children or does everyone live together as one hugh family unit? And are the wives equals or is the first wife given preferential status?

I will admit that I wouldn't like an arrangement like that at all.

This has really drifted off topic. To head back in that direction, I'd like to offer the opinion that religions seem more interested in controlling us and telling us what to believe than in encouraging us to be seekers or to develope a spiritual nature.

H

I'm with you there Hypatia,

Control, power, money - the established religions are all after these things. Just as much as the large corporations and governments. The concepts are there but it's the humans at the top who seek the secular controls.

Jazz

Well firstly, it is best that all the wives have there own homes, but the leaset is to have there own rooms in a house, where they can have there own privacy if they want some.

Also All the wives are equal, you can't have preference for the first, as thats not equal. If you can't traet them exactly the same then you can't marry.

Plus look at how many people marry more than one person. about 1% does, and that is because of the restrictions and that the husbands and wives only want to have one partner for the husband.

But if you have a wife who does not mind sharing her husbadn, plus the husband has the means and mentality to treat them both equal then he can if he wishes.

As I said before though, the Qur'an is the only actual religious book that says quite clearly marry only one if you can't or don't think that you can treat more than one equally.

As for the control, power money thing. Where does that apply to Islam exactly?

Islam teaches that money is nothing, at the end of the day it can't help you when your dead. But it also says that if you have moey then do not squander it, use it to do rightthings with.
Thats one of the reasons for Zakat as it is seen as away to keep the money you have pure.
Plus we are told that if someone owes you money, they only pay back what they owe and nothing can be added to it if it is a late payment.
If they have trouble to pay you back, not to threaten them but come to agreement and if you can say don't worry about the money and tell them they don't have to pay it back then that is best.

What power do you mean and what control?

No one can force you to do some thing in Islam, it is put on the person them selves to look after them selves and to lead there life by the Qur'an and Ahadith. But if you choose not to then, that is your choice and no one can make you.

I think what you mean, is that people rise up who see religion as away to control people and use it for there own ideals by distroting the faith etc.

And its the same for all things in life, all it takes is one greedy person to twist and distort and suddenley the whole thing gets a bad name.

Adib
Adib

Adib,

I meant the church which seeks money and power.

Money to build and maintain their buildings, pay their clergy, run their Sunday schools to gain control over the minds of children to keep them n their own particular faith.

The power struggle between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England - two christian sects is a real example. It occupied much time energy and loss of life in late medaeval England. The Church of England is one of the largest land owners in our country (money !) and they have huge influence over our Royal Family, and the government of the country. (Power!) It was responsible for the abdication of our king only 80 years ago (control !)

There has to be some ruling body (or bodies) in Islam ? Is the Sheite problem in Iraq not down to some ruling faction? They are seeking the right to rule that country - Power, control.

Most people all over the world just want to live their lives in peace without being oppressed by power-hungry control freaks.

Ok I understand what you mean now.

Firstly in Islam there is no counrty system, which there is to day unfortunatly.
All there is, is an Islamic state. For instance if the leaders of the Muslim world actually decided to be proper uslim rulers then every Muslim country would become one large Islamic state, stretching from Morroco to Pakistan and Malaysia.

At the head of this state would be someone called a Caliph whom is responcible for the Islamic state. It is his duty to make sure that the Islamic rules are being followed and are inplace in the whole state.

But at the same time of this, he him self can only act with in the guidelines given to him in the Qur'an and Sunnah.

An example of this was when Muhammed died one of the later caliphs said that from now on there was going to be a set maxium limit to a dowry. A dowry is some thing a man gives to his future wife that is hers alone and no one has any right to it.
Lots of people used to and still do give money as a dowry.
Please note that this dowry is not all the money they have, it is still the husbands duty to provide her with clothes, shelter, food and money etc, it is just that the dowry is a symbol that you will look after your wife etc.

Anyway back to the point, the Caliph had a large meeting with the public where he said he was goin to set a upper limit on the amount of money, or value of a item, a man can give his future wife as a dowry.
But a woman then spoke out and said that the prophet Muhammad in a Hadith said that a man can give as much as he likes as long as he has the means to afford to give that much as a dowry.

To which the Caliph said, I am wrong and the women is right.

But the caliph is not just the leader, as he has to be just as well, and to make sure he does not make a mistake, he is supported by many scholars on Islamic law etc.

It is the Islamic states duty to make sure that all people have access to water, food, medication, shelter and education.
And that is what Zakat is for. People whom are poor and can not afford food etc, are given what they need by the state from the zakat tax that all Muslims pay to help those in need.

As for non Muslims living in Islamic countries, at the time of the prophet they had to pay a one durham tax. In those days one durham was nothing, it would be like saying you have to pay one pence tax.
This Tax was only made payable to those whom where not Muslims and did not wish to fight along side the Islamic army.
This Tax was paid as a symbolic gesture that they will do nothing to try and course trouble and that if they have any problems the Islamic state will help them, and protet them from harm and they do not have to help the army if the state is attacked.
It was only made payable to men whom where at the age where they could join the army, and had no disabilities etc.
So a 26 year old guy who had one leg, would not have to fight or pay the tax.
Any women would not have to pay it.
Only fit and healthy men of sound mind and between around the age of 18 - 50 would have to pay it if they did not wish to help the army in times of need.

Also if a non muslim commited a crime then he would be taken and judged by peple of what ever faith he belongs to.
Example if a christian robbed some one he would be handed over to the leader of the church in which ever city he is in, and they will trial him and punish him.

In a proper Islamic state churches and syniques and other houses of worship are allowed in the state except for the city of Mekkah.
All people living there can follow what ever faith they wish, and will only be in trouble if a group of them tries to cause trouble against the state.

As for the Shiete thing well what happened (very basicly) was shortly after Muhammads death it had to be decided who should be the first Caliph and what happened was one group said one person should be Caliph and another group said someone else should. The majority won, which is whatthe Sunni branch is, as they followed whom uhammad wante, while the other group over the years formed a seperate group of Muslims which became the Shiete.

The problem with Shiete Muslim's is that though they believe in the same thing and it all comes down to a different interpretation of the sharia law, they started to move away from Islam.
For example there are groups of Shiete who go around flogging them selves which is strickly forbidden in Islam.
But not all Shiete are bad some are very close to Sunni teachings and there are some Sunni's that are very non Sunni like and cause trouble.

Anyway the Shiete want to be in charge of Iraq but the majority of people living there are Sunni, and they want sunni rule. But niether that gets in to power is going to follow the Sharia which is the most inportant thing.

It is a shame that there is no proper Islamic country in the whole world, as all of them have corrupt peoples at there head, mostly thanks to the british and americans puttingthem there, no offence.

As for the power hungry people, well that is nota Islamic quality, and you will find it is these Muslims that never pray, or follow the Qur'an, and in such are not Muslims.

It is true all over the world, people get drawn to the idea of power and it corrupts them and they end up not being what they wanted to be when they started out, but not realising it.

Sorry about the length of my reply.

Adib

One point: Shia are actually the majority in Iraq. That is the issue at hand, as the Sunni minority has been oppressing the Shia for years. Now the Shia demand direct elections which would give them control over the government, while Sunni as well as the Kurds demand some sort of federal republic system which would allow minority groups to have reasonable representation in government.

Oh, and the Muslim nation today would have to include Indonesia, the nation in which the largest population of Muslims lives.

Salaam

Of course I include Indonesia, I was just giving a short example of countries.

Well I don't really know much about Iraq, and I presumed the sunni would be in the majority, sorry.

I would say that I don't think its fair to labe the Sunni minority as the oppressers though, as the oppresser was Saddam and his regieme which wasany thing but Islamic.

Anyway the point I was trying to get accross is that Islamiclly the country should be under the control of the caliph and not another form of goverment, as it is a Islamic country.

Adib

Thanks to both of you - it helps me to understand better what is going on - and more importantly what aught to be going on

Jazz

Hello again everybody!

I think religion is OK if it doesn't force itself onto people. I wouldn't mind living in an Islamic state if I was allowed to practise my own religion and if other people were also allowed to practise theirs.

I know Islam as well as Christianity are not inherently intolerant. Either *could be* intolerant, but it doesn't need to be that way. It has happened in the past that Muslims as well as Christians imposed their religions at sword-point ... but there have also been people who have imposed *irreligion* with violence.

There are various groups of people who think they *know better* than other people. I see it as a matter of ideology rather than religion. People can make wars over ideologies that aren't really religiously grounded. For instance, Capitalism doesn't come from any religious book and neither did Communism. Nevertheless it's true that there are communistic elements in the tenets of several religions ... that it's important to help the poor, share resources equitably and so on. Capitalism, of the all-out money-and-resources-grabbing kind, is in my view very contrary to the messages of most religions. But I can tell you now, there are people who are waging wars in the name of capitalism and the free market. These wars are not about christianity or islam ... it's about power and resources, and specifically, those people who have power, trying to gain even more power. The churches these days are no longer the super-powerful. These days the super-powerful are certain individuals, organisations and corporations, and no longer to be identified with a particular religion. There will continue to be wars and I think we must identify the right culprits, not the wrong ones. There have been religious wars in the past, but I think the wars we are going to be seeing from now on are not primarily religious in nature.

In fact I think that religions can point out the iniquity of this incessant warfare. Islam and Christianity and as far as I can tell most other religions proclaim that they are inherently about peace and love.

Have you read about what's happening in Iraq just now?
Or the jihad waged by Bin Laden and his outfit?
And arab versus jew in Palestine?
If these aren't religious struggles then what are they?

Jazz

Well firstly the Iraq thing.

As I already explained in my long posts, the thing in Iraq between sunni and Shia'te Muslims is politicle, it has nothing to do with faith. In Islam Muslm countries can only be run under a Islamic state with a caliph at the top and following the rules of the Qur'an and Sunnah.

Osmam bin laden uses people lack of knowledge about Islam to influence Muslims and use them to fullfill his own goals. See my entries 'Is Islam a religion of destruction?' and 'fundamentist Islam a misnomer' for full details.

The whole Arab Jew thing, well I don't really want to get in to it, but I gather your talking about Isreal and Palestine.
The Palestinian people are fighting to protect there homes and there land, Isreal is the one who gobbles up there land and keeps doing it.

The whole Isrealie state is not fair as it was created by Britain on the palestianian land with out there consent.

But that being said, the terrorist strikes are not Islamic, when you have a group of people being oppressed they lash out in what ever way they can. In Islam you are told to be patient but not every one can control them selves.

Suicide is forbidden in Islam, it is an act that says you do not believe in God and so we can just see how religious so called suicide bombers are.

I tell you what why don't you travel to Iraq and other countries which have been under Islamic rule for nearlt 1400 years. Because that way you will find thousands of churches dating back before Islam that are still intact and used today.

In Islam all religions are allowed to worship there god in a Islamic state. For instance Jerusalm was under arab rule for (I think) about 1000 years and in that whooe time all faiths lived together peacefully.

What we have today is people who say they are some thing to get people to follow them and do as they want.

Islam teaches that whom ever commits suicide is no longer considered a Muslim on the day of judgement and will be treated as if he was a non believer.

Islam also says that if you kill one person unjustly (i.e. murder etc) it is as if you have killed all of mankind, and if you save one person's life it is as if you have saved all of man kind in God's eyes.

Which is why so many Muslims want to be doctors, joke.

So do you think that a strict Muslim following the Qur'an and the Sunnah will fly a jet plane in to a heavily poppulated area and kill thousands of people.

Also about sept 11th it was reported that they where at a bar a couple of nights before dirnking and with women!

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Thats very Islamic isn't it.

Point is just because some one says Im this or Im that, does not mean they are. Thats why in Islam we are told to never follow blindly.

If someone says something then check it out.

That includes what I am saying.

Look at my entries and you will find that places in The Qur'an mentioned and so you can look it up your self.

Adib

Adib,

Thanks for your long epistle, none of which I would disagree with, my comments about the struggles currently taking place in the middle East were directed at our friend who calls himself 'pillowcase'

Look back at his entry - he prophesied that future wars would be non-religious !!! Yet we are in the middle of a Jihad - Holy War.

I agree this is nothing to do with the faith of the vast majority of believers in their respective religions, but this sort of war is still religious, however distorted the leaders of the separate factions might be. And how biggoted (brain-washed?) can you be to become a suicide bomber?

We've had years and years of turmoil between two 'christian' sects in Northern Ireland - it may have been political to start with but it is Catholic versus Protestant now - and that goes back to King Henry VIII because he wanted a new wife (wives) whilst his other wife (wives) were still alive. The Pope didn't take the Islamic point of view on polygamy.

Jazz

Jazz,

'Future wars would be non religious'

Pillowcase has a certain point there I think. Look at the America- British war on Afganistan and Iraq. They blamed the war on terrorism by Osama, yet they still have not relaesed proper evidence to support Osama was behind sept 11th, and they don't seem to be looking for him any more.

The war was more about oil than any thing, especially as straight after they attacked Iraq.

True Saddam had to removed but, Iraq wanted that to happen by other Muslim countries not by a western super power, that is only interested in the oil and making money.
One of the please Bush made was for People not to set fire to the oil fields etc.

There supposed links of Osama and Saddam are ridiculas as one is a dictator who does not follow the sharia while the other is trying to force the world to be under what he considers 'Islamic sharia' law, and so though both are evil men, they both want completley seperate things and more over hate each others guts. I bet Osama was laughing when they attacked Iraq as they just got rid of one of his enermies.

Besides which there is only one country who has used Nuclear and biological weapons in war, and thats America (Second world war, Vietnam).

As for the Jihad meaning Holy war thing, that is simply media making a misnomer.
Jihad means struggling or striving and applies to any effort exerted by anyone. Like a pupil at university will struggle to get his/her degree and has struggled to get as far as he/she has in education. In the West, "jihad" is generally translated as "holy war," a usage the media has popularised. According to Islamic teachings, it is UNHOLY to instigate or start war; however, some wars are inevitable and justifiable. If we translate the words "holy war" back into Arabic, we find "harbun muqaddasatu," or for "the holy war," "al-harbu al-muqaddasatu". If you search all the Qur’an and Ahadith you will never find the word Jihad meaning holy war.

As such Holy war does not exist in Islam, it is simple a media created image which now is used, by people like Osama, to influence Muslim youth, who do not know much about there faith to join his terrorist group.

"The Pope didn't take the Islamic point of view on polygamy" Laugh very good. Well polygamy is not actually banded as bad in the Bible, as all the prophets had several wives etc. Actually it does not dealve in to the question of how many people a person can marry at all. So I don't know why the pope did not allow it.

Though your point about Catholic versus Protestant is valid. I don't know much about that. Actually thanks for clearing it all up, I did not know what the differnce was or why they wanted to kill each other all the time.

But, this is what I think.

religion, its self is never the reason for war, morover it becomes the excuse for war for people who do not understand other people's ways or to suite there own goals.

If every one actually followed there faiths properly, there would be no violence in the world, apart from the non believers maybe. joke.

adib
Adib