The Prophet on Polygamy

My brothers, did I not tell you that “None of you becomes a true believer until he likes for his brother what he likes for himself” and that “Being a true Muslim is achieved by loving for people what you love for yourself”?

And what can you want more fervently for your brothers than that they have wives of their own? What is more despicable, more lecherous, and more an affront to god than to deny your brothers a wife by taking all the desirable young women for yourselves?

I weep when I see rich Muslims take 2, 3, 4, sometimes even 7 young wives for themselves whilst their impoverished brothers have none and are thus forced into extreme behaviour for their chance to be happy. This is not Islam, this is greed.

I weep when I hear rumours of the rich Gulf States offering deals to Muslim governments of poorer countries to have 14 to 21 year old Muslimas come and clean their houses on temporary visas without the accompaniment and protection of their families. Why not give the job to old widowed women? Have you not had your fill of Phillipinos by now? This is not Islam.

I weep as the mullahs, imams, ayatollahs, and the other powerful use my example as an excuse for their behaviour. I married widows and divorcees, in a situation where many men had died in war and were scarce. Now there are more than enough men. Is it not Sharia Law that polygamy should be the exception? As a wise judge recently said to a man who misguidedly claimed refuge in Sharia Law for his lecherous behaviour: polygamy should be the exception, such as when the first wife is infertile or “as a part of social duty and charitable motives or when it seeks to prevent destitution”. Hoarding women for status and sexual pleasure is not Islam.

So shame on you, King Abdullah-of-11-wives! Shame on you, Bin-Laden-of-4-wives! And shame on you, all those princes and wealthy men that have followed their examples and denied wives to others by having so many yourselves!

My fatwa is that all those who have married additional wives desirable to others that you should seek out new husbands for those wives and in each instance that you meet a suitable match, you should divide your wealth in as many parts as you have wives and offer the biggest share in dowry.

Your Prophet

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Disclaimer: the real author, Paul Frijters, doesn’t believe in supernatural directing beings, but does think religion can be useful]

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to The Prophet on Polygamy

  1. RexR says:

    Peace be upon you.

  2. Mel says:

    What’s depressing Paul is that many on your Left would think this article racist.

    You are almost undoubtedly in breach of RDA 18C but 18D should set you free provided you don’t get lumped with a judicial activist.

    • Paul frijters says:

      I don’t see where race comes into it, but if anyone wants to argue the opposite side of the points in the post, they are welcome to.

      • Mel says:

        I don’t see where race comes into either Paul, but then again I don’t believe everything I read in The Guardian:

        Your theology is of course woeful since the Koran expressly allows men to marry 4 women. Of course, an infinite number of war captives may be raped at leisure:

        4:24

        And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.

        The Islamic State pays homage to the prophet when it takes conquered women as slaves and rapes them.

        I think the moral of the story is that it is kind of silly to try to pretend that a religion confected by a ghoulish 7th century warlord with a penchant for pre-pubescent girls and hacking off people’s limbs is a style guide for modern life.

  3. conrad says:

    Whilst I agree that polygamy causes bad things to happen in many places (and gender selective abortion), I’m not fussed at polygamy in places where women have reasonable rights, which is none of the places you are talking about. The reason for this is that people can live in these types of relationships if they want anyway, and having some government recognition of them means that all parties at least get some protection under the law when family disputes come up. Apart from equity, this means that some broad agreements about how wealth division etc. should work given family break down can be worked out that are generally acceptable to the community. I imagine this is why the Australian government already recognizes polygamy in limited circumstances.

    • paul frijters says:

      I disagree with the idea that it is ok to have government recognition of fundamentally asymmetric gender relations, ie polygamy. It is true that many people live in weird and wonderful constructions with multiple males and females, something that wouldnt bother me much in may cases, but to have government say that it is ok to have multiple wives whilst government does not say it is ok to have multiple husbands? No, not ok! If one is going to be laisser-faire about what constitutes marriage, then at least it needs to be non-discriminatory regarding gender.

      • conrad says:

        I’m personally happy for the government to recognize polyandry too. At a guess, since it recognizes polygamy in restricted cases, I suspect possibly incorrectly that it would also do the same for polyandry even though officially sanctioned versions of it are much less common.

        Curiously, it doesn’t recognize gay marriage under any circumstances (even though at least in Aus, it is probably far more of a useful thing given the number of kids etc. attached to these relationships), so if that’s any guide the government favors polygamy/polyandry over homosexuality.

  4. Mel says:

    The obvious counter to my above point is that the sacred texts of all/most the old religions are barbaric but there are always sufficient contradictory platitudes and (often times barely) plausible uncertainties that they can be reformed and fashioned into pretty much anything. You can add to that the fundamentally emotional and irrational nature of religion.

    Jesus was probably likewise a nasty and manipulative little cretin not unlike Jim Jones or David Koresh:

    Luke 22:36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

    Matthew 10:34 Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

    etc etc …

    But most of the faithful ignore the ugly bits (or don’t know them, how many Xians read the bible these days?) and theologians have been inventive in putting lipstick on the pig.

    So I guess Paul is doing something useful by applying a nice coat of high gloss rouge L’Oreal on Mahmud’s porcine smackers. Let’s hope he is joined by others and a long overdue reformation ensues.

  5. Nicholas Gruen says:

    Mel,

    You can express yourself with more moderation without sacrificing any clarity. On a subject like this, please do so.

  6. rabee says:

    I’m not sure what this post is.

    But for the sake of the reader I’ll note that in Saudi Arabia the number of voluntarily unmarried women is very high, fertility rates are dropping, and education levels are skyrocketing.

  7. rabee says:

    I’m not sure what this post is.

    But for the sake of the reader I’ll note that in Saudi Arabia the number of voluntarily unmarried women is very high, fertility rates are dropping, and education levels are skyrocketing.

  8. Paul frijters says:

    Rabee,

    Your point is, what? Exchange a few unrelated stats on the Saudis?

    There are reportedly 2500 Saudi fighters on the side of Islamic State, people we Australians have just announced we are going to help kill. I am willing to bet the vast majority of these have no wives and the contention is that they would be less hot headed if they had.

Comments are closed.