1st Question asked about islam |
Post Reply | Page <1234 6> |
Author | |||||
Chrysalis
Senior Member Joined: 25 November 2007 Status: Offline Points: 2033 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Nobody said that propogation of society is the only purpose of marriage. This was in response to the hypothetical scenario of mass destruction in the society and the need to increase the population. EVEN if only the female population is the one that decreased . . . the solution AGAIN would be to repopulate. With the natural birth balance which causes more females to be born as compared to males. . . natural propogation (polygyny would help the process) will STILL result in more females being born. . .
It is of utmost importance to the child and society to know BOTH the parents of a child. There is no difficulty in knowing the identity of the mother, even in Polygyny. It is usually Fatherhood that is difficult to foretell under unordinary circumstances.
For the child's stability, emotional wellbieng, sense of security and what-not, the Child should be aware of his parent's presence. You will perhaps agree that a lot of psychological disorders take root from childhood. Growing up with 2/3 fathers, and not knowing which is not exactly going to effect the child positivley.
Then there is the question of the Father's themselves. There is no such thing as a natural 'fathering' instinct as opposed to a natural maternal instinct. To a large extent, the feelings a father develops has something to do with genes and biology. Are u going to say that 3 (or less) men are going to have NO issues whatsoever raising a child and loving it wholeheartedly, whilst knowing that there is a huge chance the child isnt even his? and his rival's? I think there are difinitley going to be issues.
Psychology aside . . . Medical issues. In case of ill-health . . . knowing the paternity can determine cures. Bone Marrow, Blood-types, etc etc. The doctor will need to know who the father is, it not anyone else. I'm sure this particular area can be talked about in detail itself.
We're talking of natural means to intimate relations. And I'm sorry, this is nothing cultural, its a scientific fact. In the MAJORITY of cases (I'm not saying 100%) Males DO have a higher libido. You will find that the biological reason for this is the presence of Testosterone. Testosterone effects the libido in BOTH men & women. And since its a widley known fact that Males have MORE testosterone compared to thier female counterparts . . .hence they have a higher libido. I'm afraid what YOU are saying is a cultural phenomenon, post-women's lib . . .which considers males and females the same. I'm all for female rights, but we need to differentiate facts from fiction.
Unfortunatley, just like Homosexuals are more likely to catch STDs than Heteros . . . Females are more likley to catch STDs than males. One can argue that nature is biased against Homo's and Females. . . but thats the way things are. It has something to with the anatomy of both genders. Thus females with multiple partners are more likley to catch STDs than those with a single partner.
Again, this myth was propgated post-women's lib. I KNOW that NOT ALL females lose interest as they mature. I am talking about a significant if not majority number. This again is a blatant scientific fact. Refer to the causes/symptoms of menopause. The DECREASE in hormones such as Testosterone, Estrogen and Progestrone has everything to do with decreased interest. You may want to refer to http://www.epigee.org/menopause/sexdrive.html It also explains OTHER anatomical reasons for lower libido . . .that I dont wish to go into the details of.
Thus its not a cultural presumption.
I agree with Israfil here, this has boiled down to sex . . .but unfortunatley, the EMOTIONAL aspects of it cannot be proven as scientifically. Which is why the discussion boiled down to what it did.
Just a quick survey of uninhibited societies of the world will show you that men are more naturally inclined to be keeping multiple partners at the same time compared to women. Which I think proves that women are not naturally, emotionally and physically inclined to be keeping multiple partners. And they do so out of choice.
|
|||||
Israfil
Senior Member Joined: 08 September 2003 Status: Offline Points: 3984 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Curious when we think of polygamy we think of sex.
|
|||||
Ron Webb
Senior Member Male atheist Joined: 30 January 2008 Location: Ottawa, Canada Status: Offline Points: 2467 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Hi Chrysalis, That's quite an essay. I'm not sure I can reply to all of it, but let's see what happens: 1 and 2. I agree that what I described is unlikely, but not impossible. After all, we already have a disease (AIDS) that seems to target men based on their behaviour, so there's no reason a disease could not disproportionately affect women. Childbirth is the single most dangerous event in most women's lives, and it wouldn't take much to make it deadly on a regular basis. But let's leave that aside. Neither scenario (more women or more men) is especially likely at present, so either way we're talking about a hypothetical situation. 3. If the only purpose of marriage is to propagate society, then I agree, but in my opinion that is a very narrow view of it. If there were a shortage of women, the surplus men would still want a chance to be part of a family, for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with propagating society. 4. It should be of no importance to know which man fathered the child. The parents are responsible for raising the children -- and that means all the parents, not just the biological father. 5 and 6. In terms of sexual relations, one woman is more capable of satisfying multiple men than the other way around. As for men having an innately higher sex drive, I believe that is a cultural presumption, not a physical fact. 7. Sexually transmitted diseases are spread via promiscuity, regardless of gender. Neither gender is safe if they have sex outside of marriage, and both genders are equally safe if they stay within the marriage. 8. See 5 and 6. Even allowing for a few days each month when women are not sexually available, a woman is far more capable of satisfying multiple men than vice versa. 9. Again, I think that is a cultural presumption, not a physical fact. Women may no longer be capable of having children, but they are no more likely than men to lose their interest in sex. Edited by Ron Webb - 08 June 2008 at 6:18pm |
|||||
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.
|
|||||
Chrysalis
Senior Member Joined: 25 November 2007 Status: Offline Points: 2033 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
There are several loopholes in Polyandry . . . and it is unnatural, which is why Islam does not allow it:
1. First of all, the situation you have outlined is highly unlikely. True, as technology advances, only men will not get killed. . . rather, BOTH genders will get killed i.e mass destruction. In this case, the solution is Polygamy to repopulate the society.
2- The situation u mentioned above is only likely in a Hollywood movie. However, EVEN if that happens. . .too bad for the Men. Polyandry can have adverse affects which is why it is not permissable in Islam.
3- A man having multiple wives, can help propogate the society in terms of population . . . a Female having mutiple husbands (Polyandry) cannot do that. Which is one of the reasons Polyandry isnt ideal. I'm not saying that She cannot have kids . . .but in a population crisis, A polygamous marriage is more advantageous, compared to Monogamy. And Polyandry doesnt help the situation.
4- Of the several things wrong with Polyandry is the issue of the Fathering of the child. Which husband is responsible for the baby? We only have DNA tech NOW. Islam is for the past as well as the present. It would be unfair to disallow Polyandry in the past and allow it now just bcz we hav DNA tech. Besides, it will not be widley available for some time yet.
5- During Polygamy, if the woman is indisposed, sick, not feeling well, pregnant or not upto it, the other partner does not suffer. The husband can have relations with his other wife, and the indisposed wife can take time off guilt-free. In the case of Polyandry . . . If the Wife is indisposed . . .multiple ppl will suffer i.e ALL her husbands.
6. You may call life unfair or whatever, but this is the reality of things. Most males have a higher sex-drive compared to females... a female in a Polyandrous marriage will not be able to keep up with mutiple sexual partners on a normal basis. Atleast one of the partners will have to give up his 'turn' or right for the other. Women in Polygynous marriages however do not have to suffer sexually.
7. Again, you may call life unfair . . . but Women with multiple sex partners are more likley to catch veneral diseases compared to Men with multiple sex-partners. Thats how God made us. . .like it ir not, that is the reality.
8. Men may find it easier to cope with the emotional demands of more than one woman. But woman, who are prone to varying emotional needs due to the presence of Oestrogen have thier 'times' when they need space . . .and during these times cannot possibly cater to the emotional/whatver issues/needs of mutlple partners. During thier emotional times, they find one husband difficult enough to cope with :p Men howver, since do not go thru any hormonal surges, can find themselves emotionally available to care for thier wards/wives throughout the month/lifetime. Atleast more than when compared to women.
9. Men are sexually/reproductivley active throughout most of thier lives. That again, is a fact/reality. As they grow older, thier wives dont have to suffer sexually or otherwise (most of the times). That is not the case with Polyandry. Women go thru menopause and thier libido diminishes with age. What then becomes of the multiple male partners after menopause? Especially since they still have thier needs. I dont think all of them will be nice enough to stick around.
All that and more are the reasons Polyandry is impractical, unrealistic and just a fantasy.
|
|||||
Ron Webb
Senior Member Male atheist Joined: 30 January 2008 Location: Ottawa, Canada Status: Offline Points: 2467 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Gender imbalances can arise in many ways. You suggested that a shortage of men could arise in a society at war, because a great many (male) soldiers are killed. Let us suppose instead that the enemy is intent on exterminating the entire race, and specifically targets women of reproductive age (perhaps through some kind of biological weapon). So, the question remains: Do you think women should be allowed to have multiple husbands in such a circumstance? Would the men be as willing to share their woman, "giving hope to those who otherwise would have none"? |
|||||
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.
|
|||||
honeto
Senior Member Male Islam Joined: 20 March 2008 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 2487 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Ron,
the answer is simple, selective abortion is un-Islamic, so this sort of population imbalance would not happen in an Islamic soceity.
As far as the matter of a woman having more than one husband at a time, I don't have much knowledge about it. I will say however, that it seams impratical since man has a leadership role for his family in Islam and in Judeo-christian teachings. Thus, besides many other compilications, there cannot be two learders under one roof! I do not see such complications (though not easy probably) in case of a man having more than one wife in many examples not just in Islam, but in the Judeo-Christian practices according to the "Bible".
Hasan
|
|||||
The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62
|
|||||
Ron Webb
Senior Member Male atheist Joined: 30 January 2008 Location: Ottawa, Canada Status: Offline Points: 2467 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Sorry, minuteman, I don't understand. Why would there have been no Jews [or?] Christians?
|
|||||
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.
|
|||||
minuteman
Senior Member Joined: 25 March 2007 Status: Offline Points: 1642 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
That is right. Islam only regulated the matter, as in the case of slavery, Islam regulated the bad practice in such a way so that there would be no slaves in the end.
About polygamy, it was the practice in general without any limit or any rules. Islam regulated it to limit it to a maximum of four wives at a time and with many conditions of equal treatment etc. Also Islam advised that only one wife was better. That sentence is an important part of the quran. It is recommending that only one wife is better. What else could we need?
There are certain times when it is cruel to throw of a lady for any reason of her illness. The second marriage becomes necessary. otherwise the whole life becomes miserable. Wise wives allow such things and one of those wise wives was Hazrat Sarah, the wife of Hazrat Abraham a.s.
There is no need to argue and question the wisdom behind the Quranic injunctions. The Jews and the christians have to thank the Islamic system. Otherwise, if there was strict monogamy in practice then there would have been no Jews are christians. Edited by minuteman - 06 June 2008 at 3:31am |
|||||
Post Reply | Page <1234 6> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |