So how many wives are you allowed?

Hobbes

Discussion was off the forum about wives. Joking at a meal someone mentioned he can finally afford 4 wives. At this point someone else mentioned you can get 10 but he said your only allowed 4. Another I have spoken to says you can't get 4 wives except under certain conditions.

Anyone want to field this question?

Wibbs

AFAIK You are allowed 4 wives, but there are special circumstances and rules governing this. I think you have to have the financial means for a start(one would be bad enough on the wallet ).
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.003
I also seem to remember that in many cases the extra wives were women taken into the household when their husbands died in battle. A way to protect widows and their kids kinda thing. I think the 10 wives thing was only because the Prophet had more than 4.

marco murphy

The prophet had ten as mentioned in the Qu'ran.

Hobbes

Ok he had ten but I believe he told everyone else could only have 4? Is there a reason for why he had 10?

Frank Grimes

Hobbes wrote:

Ok he had ten but I believe he told everyone else could only have 4? Is there a reason for why he had 10?

Wikipedia as usual has a good article on it, there's a couple of links near the end of the page under "Monogamy versus polygyny" to articles from a Muslim point of view. Basically most were political marriages or else to take care of widows. His first marriage was monogamous however.

padser

do ya not think just maybe the women might get a tad pissed off being wife number 2....or 3.....or 4?/?

come on ladies im surprised v been so quite on the issue

Frank Grimes

padser wrote:

do ya not think just maybe the women might get a tad pissed off being wife number 2....or 3.....or 4?/?

come on ladies im surprised v been so quite on the issue

If they are going to be pissed off about it they don't have to enter into a polygamous relationship. Why do you assume that they will be pissed off btw?
If a man takes another wife/wives without consulting the first wife then that's different, but that's something else altogether.

Blub2k4

padser wrote:

do ya not think just maybe the women might get a tad pissed off being wife number 2....or 3.....or 4?/?

come on ladies im surprised v been so quite on the issue

I think you possibly think that but only because you dont understand their culture.
There are very strict rules governing when the wives are visited and when they get their time with their husband.
If you go back to one of the original reasons being that the man takes a family under his wing who have lost a father and provider then I dont think that they could be pissed off that someone is getting them out of this hole.

magpie

most were political marriages or else to take care of widows

Yes, yes, of course. Nubile young widows.

Frank Grimes

magpie wrote:

Yes, yes, of course. Nubile young widows.

They weren't all young.

padser

Frank Grimes wrote:

. Why do you assume that they will be pissed off btw?
.

would just have thought that most self respecting women wouldnt accept being one of someones 'wives'. ....... but then iv never beeen much good at understanding women

Hobbes

padser wrote:

would just have thought that most self respecting women wouldnt accept being one of someones 'wives'. ....... but then iv never beeen much good at understanding women

From what I've read so far (from the links supplied) women are not forced to marry and any extra wife has to be agreed with all the other wives before the man is allowed marry them. There appears to be a limitation in that you have to prove you can maintain 4 wives too.

padser

Quick compleltely off topic post hobbes.......why does it say banned under your name??

As regards the rest of it...i guess i just think marrage should be.....for love ;........ AHHHH

Wibbs

True enough, but the possible consumation of a marriage to a 9 year old is a bit of a worry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha#Young_marriage_age_controversy

Frank Grimes

Wibbs wrote:

True enough, but the possible consumation of a marriage to a 9 year old is a bit of a worry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha#Young_marriage_age_controversy

From your own link it states that:
The usual response has been that Aisha was post-pubescent at nine and that such early marriages were an accepted practice in the Arabia of those days.
Why do you find that detail a worry?

Hobbes

wibbs wrote:

True enough, but the possible consumation of a marriage to a 9 year old is a bit of a worry.

Why? From what I have seen a lot of his marriages were to form alliances/truces or to look after those who had fallen in battle.

From what I have checked up she was married at age 6 under exceptional circumstances but didn't actually join his house until age 9 and would be based on her reaching puberty.

Certainly offensive under current western standards, but going back 5-6 generations the west wasn't that far off with the same standards. I do know the taliban took this as literal meaning to marry off girls at a young age but I don't think this is the general consenus of modern day muslims.

Hagar

There seems to be no justice or equality for women if a man can have 4 wives. It demeans women to the status of chattle.

I un-reservedly retract that if women are allowed 4 husbands.

Slightly off topic.

Nearly everything I see quoted as as reference on these forums is Wiki.
Has Wiki become the new yardstick for truth and knowledge.?
I mean, if anyone controls Wiki they would control what people believe to be true. Sorta like a religion? Is Wiki a new god?

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

Why? From what I have seen a lot of his marriages were to form alliances/truces or to look after those who had fallen in battle.

Well he had enough men around him short of the 4 wives rule. Why not encourage them to take in the women of those of his own who fell in battle. They didn't have much of a problem taking the wives of enemies who died in battle.

From what I have checked up she was married at age 6 under exceptional circumstances but didn't actually join his house until age 9 and would be based on her reaching puberty.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/058.sbt.html#005.058.234
Where are the exceptional circumstances? It seems he saw her in a dream and decided on the basis of that.

Certainly offensive under current western standards, but going back 5-6 generations the west wasn't that far off with the same standards. I do know the taliban took this as literal meaning to marry off girls at a young age but I don't think this is the general consenus of modern day muslims.

The idea that child marriages were allowed in our own culture not so long ago is not the greatest argument. Many things went on "not too long ago" that are rightly considered beyond the pale today and were considered morally dubious at the time. Slavery anyone? No one can suggest that it was ever morally correct to marry a middle aged man to a 6 yr old and for that same man to have sexual relations with the same girl at 9. Especially if that man claimed to be a messenger of God.

Frank Grimes wrote:

From your own link it states that:
The usual response has been that Aisha was post-pubescent at nine and that such early marriages were an accepted practice in the Arabia of those days.
Why do you find that detail a worry?

The worry is that while we may choose not to condemn a person who does something morally dubious because of their culture, we can certainly condemn the culture that holds this as the norm.

It is more of a concern when it is someone like Muhammad who is held up as a messenger of God. Someone who is supposed to have heard the greatest revelation of Allah. Someone who is held in the greatest esteem by billions and considered to be divinely guided. Surely if that is the case, should he have not set the moral example? A moral example that would be timeless? Surely a divinely guided person would do this, regardless of the culture they found themselves in?

Frank Grimes

Wibbs wrote:

No one can suggest that it was ever morally correct to marry a middle aged man to a 6 yr old and for that same man to have sexual relations with the same girl at 9. Especially if that man claimed to be a messenger of God

You are judging 7th century Arabia by 21st century Western European standards, are you doing this deliberately?

Surely if that is the case, should he have not set the moral example? A moral example that would be timeless? Surely a divinely guided person would do this, regardless of the culture they found themselves in?

Again, you're basing this on our idea (in the 21st Century) of what is morally correct or not.
Is the point of your argument, it's not how we do it therefore it's wrong?

Hobbes

Hagar wrote:

There seems to be no justice or equality for women if a man can have 4 wives. It demeans women to the status of chattle.

As pointed out as far as I know women cannot be forced into marriage.

Nearly everything I see quoted as as reference on these forums is Wiki.

Its a two edged sword. On the one hand anyone can change what is posted to wikipedia. On the other those who take an avid interest in that particular subject ensure that is factually correct as possible and maintains a NPOV. I certainly use wikipedia as a jump point to find more information, sometimes the discussion part gives more information.

As for anyone controls wiki, everyone controls wiki. Even incorrect entries never really vanish (you can view them).

The idea that child marriages were allowed in our own culture not so long ago is not the greatest argument. Many things went on "not too long ago" that are rightly considered beyond the pale today and were considered morally dubious at the time

So your basically agreeing with me then that this is a non-issue?

Wibbs

Frank Grimes wrote:

You are judging 7th century Arabia by 21st century Western European standards, are you doing this deliberately?

Partially yes. I would argue that some cultures do have the higher moral ground throughout history. Islam itself had when compared to many facets of Christianity in the past(rule of law etc).

Again, you're basing this on our idea (in the 21st Century) of what is morally correct or not.
Is the point of your argument, it's not how we do it therefore it's wrong?

Not quite. No one can argue that it's medically unhealthy for a 9 yr old to have sexual relations with a grown man. It's medically unhealthy for the same 9 yr old if a pregnancy results. Regardless of morallity changes over time this would be a constant. This would suggest that it's both ethically and morally dubious as well, regardless of the passage of time. If a divinely instructed moral guardian doesn't see this, how much else can we take as morally just from the same source?

In any case, if we take the view that we can't judge the morality of the 7th century when looking at this matter, why would we take the other morallity of the same 7th century as being valid. If we judge this piecemeal, then how can one justify Islam(or indeed any other faith) as a valid whole, which it claims to be. In fact to claim otherwise would be considered against Islam.

Hobbes wrote:

As pointed out as far as I know women cannot be forced into marriage.

Technically no, but when the very status of women is considered lesser than men in a culture/faith, abuses can and do occur. Hagar's point that this 4 spouses rule only applies to women is a good example. If they are truely equal in the sight of Allah, why is this the case?

Hobbes wrote:

So your basically agreeing with me then that this is a non-issue?

Not by a long way. As I pointed out, many things in the past were considered OK and morally dubious at the same time. When such things are enshrined in a faith it is considerably more difficult to change them by the rule of law, especially if the judicary are staunch members of the same faith.

Agree with you re: Wikipedia. Very well self governed.

Frank Grimes

Wibbs wrote:

In any case, if we take the view that we can't judge the morality of the 7th century when looking at this matter, why would we take the other morallity of the same 7th century as being valid. If we judge this piecemeal, then how can one justify Islam(or indeed any other faith) as a valid whole, which it claims to be.

Is there an Islamic (specifically Qur'anic) teaching/injunction that people should marry at X, Y or Z years of age? Or are you taking the same sort of stance again that the hardline/extremist/whatever you want to call them Muslims take? i.e. The Qur'an has to be followed exactly to the letter without any sort of interpretation and following the Sunnah means mimicking Muhammad and life in early Medina in every way, shape and form?

In my opinion, the age of a spouse and the general norms regarding the average ages at the time of marriage are very much tied into periods in time and the particular culture, so if you believe in the possibility of a divinely revealed law then I don't think you can expect an absolute ruling on something of this nature.
To me, and others it seems, it is relative to the time and culture, you are working off the assumption that this is something that can be absolutely/eternally defined. All you seem to be doing is judging the standards of one period in time by another period's standards and then criticising it for failing.

Hobbes

Wibbs wrote:

Partially yes. I would argue that some cultures do have the higher moral ground throughout history.

o_O No culture can claim moral highground if you base that culture throughout history. Also don't confuse culture with religon.

Islam itself had when compared to many facets of Christianity in the past(rule of law etc).

(various times in history)
- Crusades?
- Spanish inquisition?
- Witchhunts
- Bribes to enter heaven? (forget the actual term for it).
- Protection of child abusers in the faith? (modern day)
- Treatment of jews in world war II.
- Status of women ignored.

Your dancing on dangerous ground when you try to equate something as morally superior to another.

Your argument has no basis if you are going to pick something out that was considered normal a long time ago and equate it to modern day.

Now I have seen references of children being married off at a young age in regards to the Taliban but I haven't seen that it is the de facto norm among muslims and you have yet to show that.

No one can argue that it's medically unhealthy for a 9 yr old to have sexual relations with a grown man.

I am sure back in the 7th century this wasn't the case.

In any case, if we take the view that we can't judge the morality of the 7th century when looking at this matter, why would we take the other morallity of the same 7th century as being valid.

This can certainly be applied to other religons.

Not by a long way. As I pointed out, many things in the past were considered OK and morally dubious at the same time. When such things are enshrined in a faith it is considerably more difficult to change them by the rule of law, especially if the judicary are staunch members of the same faith.

So what are your views on the catholic church protecting Priests who abuse children? Considering you have said earlier that it is morally superior.


I Also want to add you can't take a snapshot and use that as a basis for argument. Again if you studied the Catholic Church for example you would find that it has been forever evolving. Papal infallibility for example never existed until the 1800's.

Wibbs

Or are you taking the same sort of stance again that the hardline/extremist/whatever you want to call them Muslims take? i.e. The Qur'an has to be followed exactly to the letter without any sort of interpretation and following the Sunnah means mimicking Muhammad and life in early Medina in every way, shape and form?

Well most religious people would try to emulate the founders of their faith. Buddhists want to be like the Buddha, Christians would try to be like Christ, Hare Krisnas want to be like Krishna etc., so following the life and conduct of Muhammad would surely be a Muslim's goal?

In my opinion, the age of a spouse and the general norms regarding the average ages at the time of marriage are very much tied into periods in time and the particular culture, so if you believe in the possibility of a divinely revealed law then I don't think you can expect an absolute ruling on something of this nature.

Why not? Surely the whole point of divine revelation is that it's for all time and unchanging as the Quran it self states? In fact to change one word of the Quran is considered heresy of the greatest form.

All you seem to be doing is judging the standards of one period in time by another period's standards and then criticising it for failing.

If we don't judge standards between different times and cultures, how can we ever hope to grow and find standards that are universal?

Hobbes wrote:

o_O No culture can claim moral highground if you base that culture throughout history. Also don't confuse culture with religon.

Of course culture and religion are intertwined. Religion has vast influence on any culture that the majority follow. Was not the culture of the middle ages in Europe not defined in large part by the religion of the time. There can be little confusion if a faith has precepts for nearly every facet of life, as most have to a greater or lesser extent.

(various times in history)
- Crusades?
- Spanish inquisition?
- Witchhunts
- Bribes to enter heaven? (forget the actual term for it).
- Protection of child abusers in the faith? (modern day)
- Treatment of jews in world war II.
- Status of women ignored.

Your dancing on dangerous ground when you try to equate something as morally superior to another.

I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood or I wasn't being clear enough. I was saying that Islam was the superior one when compared to Christianity in many cases in the past(indulgences were the bribes to get into heaven, or out of purgatory or some crap like that anyway :rolleyes: ) In any event one can apply the same critique to Islam and find it equally wanting. Certainly with regard to womens rights, Islamic wars, opinion of the Jews, slavery, violent fatwas etc. Though I mention these only as a response to your points as I don't want to go off topic.

Your argument has no basis if you are going to pick something out that was considered normal a long time ago and equate it to modern day.

Why not? If it was considered normal for the Prophet, who after all would be considered among, if not the most revered Muslim.

Now I have seen references of children being married off at a young age in regards to the Taliban but I haven't seen that it is the de facto norm among muslims and you have yet to show that.

I never said it was the norm among Muslims. I merely pointed out that as far as the originator of the Islamic faith, it seems it was considered the norm.

I am sure back in the 7th century this wasn't the case.

Sorry Hobbes, maybe it's me who's missing the point now. What are you trying to say here? That it wasn't known back then or that barely pubescent girls were somehow different in the 7th century? If the former, I would argue that someone who had a direct line to God would surely be aware of this(especially given the claims of scientific miracles revealed in the Quran) and act accordingly, if the latter, I'm frankly surprised to find that you may think that reproductive biology has evolved so fast. In fact, one could argue from a purely biological point of view that it would be healthier today as girls start puberty earlier than they did in the past(mainly down to better nutrition).

All of this however, doesn't take into account the psychological impact such a union would have on the 9yr old girl. Regardless of viewpoint, a 50 yr old man has no comparative maturity to a 9 yr old, no matter how mature. That would be beyond what anybody would rationally believe to be an "age gap".

This can certainly be applied to other religons.

I'm sure it can. I never said it couldn't TBH. In fact I wouldn't argue that at all Hobbes, but we discussing a particular point in Islam.

So what are your views on the catholic church protecting Priests who abuse children? Considering you have said earlier that it is morally superior.

Well, as I pointed out, I didn't. Maybe you'd like me to think that but I honestly don't. I think the Catholic churche's handling of that whole sorry situation was and is reprehensible. They deserve all they get both in court and from the laity walking away in droves.

I Also want to add you can't take a snapshot and use that as a basis for argument. Again if you studied the Catholic Church for example you would find that it has been forever evolving. Papal infallibility for example never existed until the 1800's.

True. It evolved under the twin pressure of scientific enlightenment and secularism. It had to evolve. The political side of Christianity has by and large given way in many areas towards the more spiritual aspects. Every so often it gives a shudder and trys to exercise it's "moral" muscles(eg. the latest Catholic anti gay statements), but it's secular power is waning. Islam may prove a more tenacious faith when it comes to secularisation, however as it's political/legal/administrative side is more engrained. All that is a little away from the point child brides and marriage in Islam though.

Frank Grimes

Wibbs wrote:

so following the life and conduct of Muhammad would surely be a Muslim's goal?

So why do most Muslims not live in the desert and ride around on camels? I don't understand what you're trying to get at here exactly, in relation to the age of Aisha that is.

Why not? Surely the whole point of divine revelation is that it's for all time and unchanging as the Quran it self states? In fact to change one word of the Quran is considered heresy of the greatest form.

I've already asked you, does the Qur'an mention ages when it comes to marriage?

Hobbes

Wibbs wrote:

I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood or I wasn't being clear enough. I was saying that Islam was the superior one when compared to Christianity in many cases in the past

Yep sorry misunderstood you. However I wouldn't say any religon can claim moral highground over time.

Wibbs

Frank Grimes wrote:

So why do most Muslims not live in the desert and ride around on camels? I don't understand what you're trying to get at here exactly, in relation to the age of Aisha that is.

Well TBH the camels/desert analogy is missing the whole point and frankly is avoiding the issue. What's at issue is the morality of the person who promoted this faith in the first place. A man who among other things married a 9 yr old when he was middle aged. Surely the person who Allah revealed the ultimate truth to, must have been a highly moral man whose words and deeds should be above reproach. Having 10 wives when he himself said Allah only allowed 4 for "the believers at large" smacks of favouritism and do as I say not do as I do.
. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/033.qmt.html#033.050 From what is said here Muhammad is allowed more wives than any other. There are also many references beyond one's wives in the Quran to those "your right hands possess", slave girls or those captured in a battle. Sounds suspiciously like chattel to me. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.024

I've already asked you, does the Qur'an mention ages when it comes to marriage?

No, but it puts no limit on the youth of a bride and if you take the example of Hadeeth and the Prophet himself, then it's a very grey area indeed.

If you take the Quran alone, one would think that women are unequal in many things. If you take the hadeeth than the situation is even more on the side of men. Muhammad himself had more wives than what the Quran instructed(he got a special dispensation from Allah). He married a girl of 6 and consumated the marriage at 9, presumably based on the morality of the revelations from Allah he received. If not he would have been doing things against the faith he believed in and surely Allah would have sent him a revelation to clarify the matter? Clearly he didn't think he was or the marriage wouldn't have taken place. By that logic for Muslims it's technically OK to enter into such marriages. If the prophet did it how can it be any other way? Obviously 99.9% of Muslims don't think that way, but it confuses me and I'm not a Muslim.

Hobbes wrote:

Yep sorry misunderstood you. However I wouldn't say any religon can claim moral highground over time.

Reading back, I wasn't being overly clear TBH. Anyway I would better put my position by saying some religions/cultures can claim the moral high ground at certain times.

Zaph0d

Polygamy is surely a good thing. The wives must compete for the attention of their shared husband so we have an end to nagging and sexual apathy in one swoop. The successful man gets to spread his genes more widely and his many children will dilute the negative effects of inherited wealth.

In western society many men have secondary sexual partners who receive no rights or recognition for their roles.

Frank Grimes

Wibbs wrote:

Well TBH the camels/desert analogy is missing the whole point and frankly is avoiding the issue.

I'm not avoiding any issue, you're insistent that Muslims should blindly follow every aspect of Muhammad's life without any contextualisation so why is it not a valid question to ask?

What's at issue is the morality of the person who promoted this faith in the first place.

You've decided that what we see in this part of the world at this point in time as morally correct is a universal and absolute truth. This is just going to go around in circles because no matter what it said you are just going to dismiss it on these grounds.

He married a girl of 6 and consumated the marriage at 9, presumably based on the morality of the revelations from Allah he received.

You are deciding again why he did or didn't do certain things, there is nothing to suggest in Islam that it is divinely mandated for anyone to marry a 9 year old.

Obviously 99.9% of Muslims don't think that way, but it confuses me and I'm not a Muslim.

Out of interest, do you think those 99.9% just don't understand their religion properly?

Wibbs

Zaphod wrote:

Polygamy is surely a good thing. The wives must compete for the attention of their shared husband so we have an end to nagging and sexual apathy in one swoop. The successful man gets to spread his genes more widely and his many children will dilute the negative effects of inherited wealth.

Seems on the surface to be practical, but does it not smack a little of chauvinism? It assumes women exist in an unequal society.

Frank Grimes wrote:

I'm not avoiding any issue, you're insistent that Muslims should blindly follow every aspect of Muhammad's life without any contextualisation so why is it not a valid question to ask?

If you take that argument, then everything is up for grabs, because it's all down to context. In which case why have any rules in the first place? It's all right to kill, rape, steal if it's in context. Don't see how that works somehow. Seems a short jump from that to "do as you like", so long as it's in a religious context. In any case does not Islam mean submission. Submission to Allah and the teachings and behaviour of his messenger? Or is it just some of the teachings and behaviours?

Camels et al are historical artefacts not morals. If one is promoting a faith surely one deals in absolutes, especially in morals. Is the Quran, Hadeeth and Sharia not for all ages and all peoples as it claims to be. One can't have it both ways.

You've decided that what we see in this part of the world at this point in time as morally correct is a universal and absolute truth. This is just going to go around in circles because no matter what it said you are just going to dismiss it on these grounds.

No, I wouldn't claim that what we see in this part of the world is the universal truth, or anything like it. We're quite a ways from that. At least most in western secular societies would acknowledge that. We know we're not perfect. That's an important distinction when compared to the idea of the Islamic state. They would feel they were right. The most dangerous cultures are those that think they have a monopoly on being right(especially when they have faith to back it up).

As I pointed out, from the biological and psychological standpoint the marriage of a 9yr old to a 50 yr old is unsafe at best. That would be a truth that most cultures would see as a given. Why then did someone who claimed to recieve the highest truth not see that, or make a comment as to why it wasn't thus, if that was the case that it was damaging? Do you not think it's morally dubious? If not, why not?

You are deciding again why he did or didn't do certain things, there is nothing to suggest in Islam that it is divinely mandated for anyone to marry a 9 year old.

Yet the first and greatest Muslim did with apparently the blessings of Allah. As I've said, if it wasn't divinely mandated what were his reasons for doing it?

Out of interest, do you think those 99.9% just don't understand their religion properly?

No, but they may not be aware of some of these issues or chose to ignore many dubious aspects of it.

Hagar

Zaph0d wrote:

The wives must compete for the attention of their shared husband so we have an end to nagging and sexual apathy in one swoop.

That's a great religion you got there. If that's the official line sign me up.

On the downside 4 mothers-in-law would be hard to handle.
The prophet must have been truly saint-like to put up with 10.