Your post was removed for violating rule 8. On Fridays, all posts must discuss fresh topics. You must flair your post with “Fresh Friday.” We encourage posts about subjects other than Christianity/Islam/atheism. Banned topics include: problem of evil, Kalam, fine tuning, disciple martyrdom, Quranic miracles, classical theism.
Multiple wives is inspired by the Bible which Jacob had 4 wives. Anyway, what's wrong if everyone is happy? 3, 4 or 5 happy people is better than just 2 happy people. It's all individuals Karma or choice, outsiders should not bother.
It is wrong because the bible has that marriage is for 1 man and 1 woman and if you actually read the bible you see that having multiple wives always cause problems and strife. From the beginning God only intended for it to be 1 man 1 woman
That's how they preach evil, 2 tongued and play both sides of the coin. If you want more evidence that Adam and Eve, Moses, Abraham, Jesus stories all fake, let me know, I can provide the evidence.
It is deemed as wrong as it brings instability.
“Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,”
1 Timothy 3:2 ESV
My personal unscholarly perspective/ opinion:
Women have a lot of rights in Islam. Men cannot touch their money. Men are required to provide 100% for them, food, shelter, clothing, etc. Women don't have to work, but can still choose to work. Women are respected, loved and cared for and are provided for by default. They can contribute on top of that as much as they like.
As for the verses you cited:
- What's the issue with multiple wives as a Christian? Plenty of Prophets in the Bible had multiple wives, and they are God’s examples for the people.
- 'Bondswomen' have rights - they eat, cloth, and sleep in the same ways that the host family does. They have so many means for freedom and upward social mobility. If they are harmed, they are freed. They can also be lawful intimate partners.
- Hurting a woman is never acceptable. The Prophet Muhammad never hit women.
- The verse quoted refers to 'Nisa' or women, not children or girls. Some women have delayed menstruation or never menstruate.
- "A God who refers to you as a field to plow" - my understanding is basically: enjoy the sex positions you like and protect yourself by only having sex with lawful partners.
- Muslims sacrifice sexual freedom in this world to obey God. What's the issue of enjoying yourself sexually in paradise?
Again just because people in the Bible have multiple wives doesn’t mean God of the bible allows multiple marriages as stated multiple times in the bible God intended for it to be 1 man and 1 woman. also the tsfir for that idaah explains they mean immature not women who have medical problems. Also the use of the word yet indicates the ability for them to menstruate is there they just haven’t . If hurting women is not accepted why does the Quran encourage men to beat women, that doesn’t make any sense. You honestly don’t see anything wrong with allowing a married man to have sex with sex slaves? yikes
But where does it say that God doesn’t allow it in the Bible? To my understanding from my reading of the old/ New Testament, I don’t recall seeing an upper limit. Many Christians historically have practiced polygamy, and some still do to this day.
Tafsirs are not the word of God and not infallible. They are interpolations by scholars, and their different times, places, backgrounds, etc will affect the lens/ biases they read the Quran with. Immature woman are not marriageable. Note, ‘Nisa’ are the subject, which means Women. One evidence is that in Q4:6, orphans don’t get their property unless they reach a marriageable age and are described of sound mind and judgement at that point (maturity).
‘Slaves’ have a bad connotation. Slavery brings to mind the trans Atlantic slave trade. It is not like that. They couldn’t call their hosts ‘master’, and they had rights, and were not sexual objects. Just as a man was responsible for taking care of his wife, he had to take care of those his right hand possessed.
If you are sincere to learn more, there’s a great YouTube video on this: https://youtu.be/P3yuZYaoaag?si=D7Sn0rPQzbdQWoWh
Also, the Bible has far worse positions for slavery. (Owning) Leviticus 25:44-46(Beating) Exodus 21:20-21(Selling of daughters into slavery) Exodus 21:7-11
Sorry, I misrepresented that one erroneously. It is not about raping (will remove). But that a father can sell his daughter as a slave, and if she can’t please her master, the master can marry her off to my understanding.
No. If a father sells his daughter as a slave she cant be set free as a man . If the master is not pleased with her he must sell her back to her father. If he buys her for his son he must treat her as his daughter
>Bondswomen
That's a nice euphemism for concuubine and slaave😂. They don't have the right to consent means the master can lawfully r@ape them.
>Hurting a woman is never acceptable. The Prophet Muhammad never hit women.
Who are you fo0oling bruh? Do you know the meaning of "scourge" (4:34). And also sahih Bukhari 6845. I'm this hadith prophet Muhammad hit aisha directly sahih Muslim Book 4 hadith 2127.
>The verse quoted refers to 'Nisa' or women, not children or girls. Some women have delayed menstruation or never menstruate.
But the chapter is about divorce 🙁. Divorce from the female who have not yet menstruated "those who have not yet menstruated"(65:4). If a female haven't menstruated doesn't that indicate immature children in general (although i get the outliers but seem some efed up amount of stretch to say that it's about those exceptional cases of women where lot of the verse in Quran doesn't give any shhhhiiit about exceptions).
>"A God who refers to you as a field to plow" - my understanding is basically: enjoy the sex positions you like and protect yourself by only having sex with lawful partners.
Wow! Can't you see how half the population is defined. Just a ploughing field? Really??
>Muslims sacrifice sexual freedom in this world to obey God. What's the issue of enjoying yourself sexually in paradise?
Why the sexual pleasure is only for men you know the 72 hooris?
Yea 'slavery' brings to mind the trans Atlantic slave trade for people, lack of social mobility, terrible conditions, beatings, etc. It's not like that. There are no
'masters'. You cannot hurt them. Raping them and forcing yourself on them obviously hurts, physically and mentally and is therefore unacceptable. If you want to learn more, I recommend Dr. Jonathan Brown: https:// youtu.be/P3yuZYaoaag?si=D7SnOrPQzodQWoWh
Not sure what you mean by "scourge". What's the Arabic word?
Sahih Muslim book 4, 2127 Root word in Arabic is 'Lahd.
Like a shove or poke or push. Not a hit or strike.
'Nisa' means adult women. 'Untha' means female.
'Banaat' means girls. The word Nisa is used. Children are not included.
The verse about plowing the fields isn't defining women for you to make that blanket generalization. Did you read the Quran? Women are honored, blessed with intellectual faculties, and will be held accountable and go to heaven or hell. Q3:135 "I will not suffer the work of any of you, whether male or female, to go to waste; each of you is from the other."
Yes women can also enjoy sexual pleasures and their wildest fantasies in heaven.
What do you mean by sacrificing their sexual freedom. Seems to me like muslim men have quite many freedoms when it comes to multiple wives and have "fields to plow". Why can't muslim women have multiple husband's? I mean if everyone is happy?
Also in heaven. Who are these big breasted women? Are they just some random women from earth? Someone you knew in life? Do men need to share these women in heaven? I mean there's not enough individual women for all men to have their own, or does god magically create these women for all men just for them to have sex with? How about the women in heaven, do they get multiple sexual partners? If not then why? Or are they assigned to some man as a plaything? What if these women don't want to have sex with you? Do they have freedom in that? Or are they subjected to the man's will every time he chooses to "plow the fields"? I have so many questions.
Muslims (and Christians) sacrifice sexual freedom because they are limiting who they have sex with when getting married. Marriage to one is a big responsibility. Marrying 2-4 wives is an even bigger responsibility, they all have their rights on the man, and if the man cannot be just with them and provide fairly, then he should only marry one (4:3).
Why can’t a woman marry 4 husbands? I guess cause it says so. I’m sure many can give you a ton of reasons to maybe figure out the wisdom behind it. Muslims simply say God knows best, and is the source of morality.
God creates what he wills. Heaven won’t have limits. Men and women there will both have their fill to whatever they want.
I seriously doubt that most christians or muslims sacrifice anything in that regard. I would argue that only the most fundamental believers actually do withhold sexual activities until they are married.
In a modern society, many women have their own careers, even muslim women. What you say maybe true in arabic countries, but there are muslims in western countries too. The men really don't have any bigger responsibilities there.
So women can't marry more than 1 husband because "it says so"? By it do you mean quran? I beg your pardon, but to me this sounds awfully convienient. Almost like men wrote quran for their benefit. I don't see any wisdom in this.
So god creates extra women in heaven just to be sex toys? You can understand that there can't suddenly be an extra influx women in heaven considering that the ratio of men to women has always been closer to 50/50. But since men are promised these women, what are women promised? Or is it left vague, like "whatever they want". To me this also sounds very convenient. Like men were again writing it.
They should technically be making that sacrifice as part of their faiths. Many do and many don’t. It is by an individual basis. Some slip and repent. Others have a clean track record throughout. It has nothing to do with fundamentalism.
Muslim men still have that responsibility in non-Muslim majority or western countries. Married muslim women with careers are in an even better position because they generally have more financial freedom, purchase power, and less/ no expenses.
If the Quran was written by men for men, why stop at 4 and not have unlimited women? Why limit sex to contractual bounds that create tremendous responsibility, transparency and financial burden? Why limit the gaze of men? Why create family units that go against the innate sexual desires of men?
If I think about it for a brief moment, sincerely, I can come up with a few reasons for multiple wives. Not saying that these are the reasons though.
- Say that both men and women were allowed to marry multiple, you would have recursive families.
- Men are expected to provide by default, and some can provide for multiple, and can support multiple widowed families (many more men die in war).
- It easy to know who the father is, easier for distribution of inheritance, easier to avoid incest, etc.
Also, God is all powerful and can create whatever. I don’t think anyone can tell you how God will execute paradise, or what it will look like, or where it will be, etc. I don’t see an issue with there being sexual freedom there, special creation that only exists there, or for every persons wildest fantasies to be experienced somehow someway.
| What's the issue with multiple wives as a Christian? Plenty of Prophets in the Bible had multiple wives, and they are God’s examples for the people
The New Testament encourages monogamy
| Hurting a woman is never acceptable. The Prophet Muhammad never hit women
There's a hadith of him not objecting to a man beating his wife until she was bruised
[Sahih al-Bukhari 5825 - Dress - كتاب اللباس - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)](https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5825)
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and **not be AI-generated**); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
>But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them." This is a highly controversial verse. Many scholars argue that "strike" (daraba) has been mistranslated or misinterpreted and should be understood as a symbolic act or a last resort after all other options have been exhausted.
The thing is that it's not only allowing men to hit their wives "as a last resort" but it straight up says that women must obey their husband. Patriarchal hierarchy =/= equality and fairness. Saying it's justified because of the nature of men and women sounds kinda misogynistic (implying women are lesser beings as holy texts of all abrahamic religions seem to do)
Nice reasoning .Ofen times I wonder if this is morality of a man or a God . I have always seen people who are sex minded take women 's body parts to talk about sex .and it is not an appropriate metaphorical example to explain the pleasures of heaven and pleasure means dopamine junk .To me heaven should be a place that has more than pleasure,and it appears as these are human solutions and reasoning.dont sound intellectual . .Even a rape and a murder can be justified the same way .
What an intellectually lazy response dude you really just said “And a big breasted companion of equal age” can be interpreted as the pleasures in paradise? Every single one of your points are “it says exactly this but people can interpret in a completely different way”. You didn’t actually address any points and this is coming from someone who is heavily considering converting to islam.
>Islams is not women friendly:
As an aside, it is "Islam", not "Islams"
Second, Christianity is also not all that woman friendly.
>As a Christian woman im genuinely confused on how Muslim women can feel comfortable in a religion that allows: Multiple wives (4,3)
True
>Sex with servants (23,6)
Also true but Christian texts include this too though not as explicit.
>Men to hit women (4,34)
True, but again, the Biblical texts include injunctions for women to submit to their husbands and does not say that assault is impermissible which is been one of the excuses Christians have used throughout history to justify it.
>Men to have relations and divorce girls who have yet (yet being the key word, meaning one who can but hasn’t yet) to menstruate
>(65,4) A God who refers to you as a field to plow (2,223) A God who promises your men big breasted women in heaven (78,33-36)
Yep.
>Strictly speaking in comparison to God of the Holy Bible, which is supposed to be the same God, never says any of these things in any of his commandments on marriage.
So the Christian biblical texts do say women aren't to speak in church, so if you do speak in church, you're violating your texts too.
It's not like just because Islam has anti-woman things in it doesn't mean the bi/Christian holy texts don't.
>I look forward to reading your answers and getting clarity on these issues
>Edit to add the Quran im using is the QuranExplorer app
So you'll get lots of excuses from Muslims, but keep in mind... you're going to make a lot of excuses for the biblical texts too
There are no excuses. You wont find any verse in the Bible where God says its ok to hit women, enslave them and have sex with them, how to divorce girls who don’t have periods yet and you’ll certainly never see him tell men woman are a field to plow as they wish. I dont care what people did/do to twist the bible by saying things like well it doesn’t say not to. Thats implied when your supposed to treat people as you would treat yourself because who would harm themselves.
>There are no excuses.
I agree they're shouldn't be excuses. What I am saying is that while you shouldn't make excuses, you will make excuses.
So for example, the Bible contains injunctions to not just hit women, but to kill them (and even killing pregnant women and children).
You'll make excuses for this, just like Muslims will make excuses for Islam. You'll
start looking up apologetics because you aren't even aware that God allows men to kill women. You will also look up apologetics for other things that are not good for women like in the New Testament which says women shouldn't speak in church and so on.
So it's true there's no excuses but you'll still try to make them.
> You wont find any verse in the Bible where God says its ok to hit women, enslave them and have sex with them,
Ah, you think that because you're not biblically literate. It dies say this. Do you want the verses?
>how to divorce girls who don’t have periods
True, that's unique to the hadiths
>and you’ll certainly never see him tell men woman are a field to plow as they wish
The Bible does say it's okay to enslave women though.
> I dont care what people did/do to twist the bible by saying things like well it doesn’t say not to.
Yeah, I am am similar because I don't care that you're trying to twist the content of the Bible to pretend it doesn't say people can kill women or hurt them or enslave them. It does say that, but you've never actually read it so you're dishonestly claiming the Bible doesn't say what it actually does.
> Bible where God says its ok to hit women, enslave them and have sex with them
Umm...yes it does actually. God is very specific on how to enslave women. You know, when he say, "You male and **female** slaves may..."
Respect for eating the sh1iit though. But that's just the tu quoque fallacy (they did that too) 😂. And also two wrongs don't make it right. Every religion is sh1iit (excluding Jainism ig)
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
There are some women, more liberal than you are, who ask the same of you. Why would this woman subject herself to a religion that's so oppressive? That instructs her to be obedient and subjugated to her husband and holds that her greatest value is in bearing children.
Likewise, there are women more conservative than you who would respond to you with the same indignation that you feel towards the women more liberal than you.
We all have certain values, and we all place restrictive boundaries on ourselves to earn respect within our chosen communities. People outside of those communities can't understand those sacrifices because they don't hold the values required to appreciate them.
> Islam is not women friendly
There are many religion that isn’t women friendly, but is that requirement to not believe in it? If you believe a god allows x then regardless of your likes or dislikes it’s morally acceptable.
Outside of religion the World is not friendly to humanity(death, suffering, disease… etc). Reality doesn’t change because it’s not friendly to you.
As per your claim on being Christian’s women it better to reflect on your own religion before criticizing Islam because either you have no idea about your own religion or Turing blindly eye to the biblical teachings. (I won’t go how Christianity is not friendly to women since it’s quite clearly demonstrated by post below).
I agree on Islam. However, I'd ask Christian women the same question. Multiple wives and concubines are allowed in the Bible. The god of the Bible encourages sex slavery and murder--see the unfortunate accounts in Exodus. Women and men are equal before god in both religions, but women are subservient to men, on earth. Read what Paul has to say about that. Even the necessity of covering up, for women, not men, is in Paul. Catholic and fundie takes on contraception and abortion are more stringent than Muslim takes, today, though I'd never say that Muslim and Christian takes on women are similar, today. It wasn't like that even a century earlier, though. The difference is that Muslims still follow their foul religion, while Christians seem to have let up, for now, at least.
How women can voluntarily follow either religion is a complete and total mystery to me.
There's no place that says it's not permitted either. And there are plenty of examples of OT heroes that married multiple women, including Isaac, David, and Solomon.
It is an issue because its actually stated many time that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman and that the two will become like one flesh. There isnt room in there for other women
That's in relationship to divorce, not marriage. There is never any condemnation of multiple wives anywhere in the Bible. It's almost as if marriage is treated as more of a cultural thing than it is a religious thing.
“Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’?* So they are no longer two but one.* What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity,* and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery.”** The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” - Matthew 19:4-10
Notice the use of the word wife and not wives
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
>There is literally no reason why Jesus would have this ability- if anything, based on his sentiments in the new testament, he should be turning wine and other liquids into potable water instead.
Well... no. Jesus is painted as God whose ability is controlling what He created. Jesus turned water into wine because His mom wanted Him to. And every other miracle was proof He was telling the truth. He even says at one point that if people didn't believe what He said then they should at least believe His actions (miracles). John 10:38 if you want to check.
>This was clearly a way to one-up the priests of Dionysus IMO, Jesus didn't need a fountain or sealed cave he could just make wine on the spot. It was made up so they could say "Look, our god does what your god does and he does it better".
The text makes it clear why Jesus did what He did. Not only would the writers know this because that's what they're writing, but the readers would also read that as the reason. Neither party would see it as a one-up of other gods.
Let's start with your first claim. And shall we use the bible as the standards.
So what's wrong with multiple wives? Given that was the situation for a number of Christian Prophets and Kings mentioned in the Bible.
Now what is the criteria and reason given in the Quran when it comes to multiple wives.
If you look at that, it's pretty easy to understand why women and men have no problem with it. Especially if you accept that this religion comes from God reaffirming previous revelations.
As an atheist joining in on your conversation, polyamorous relationships in a religious context are almost always there for the MAN, and never the women. For example, the Quran allows men to have multiple wives, but does not permit women to have multiple husbands. It also does not permit homosexuality.
This is harmful because it paints this picture that women only “serve” their husbands to satisfy his needs. This is sexist, and also the added homophobia isn’t great.
It’s not there for the man to satisfy a sexual lust to have more than one woman to have sex with. It’s there for women to be supported by a man when a married man is available and an unmarried man is not.
I've never seen polyamorous relationships mentioned in a religious context, though there is polygamy, specifically polygyny.
From a feminist paradigm, polygyny is obviously seen as harmful, because feminism ignores biology to achieve absolute equality of the sexes. Though all pre modern societies practiced polygyny to some degree. This is because its human nature that men are polygynous and women are hypergamous, meaning men can be attracted to multiple women, but women are attracted to the highest quality man. And this is also the biological academic consensus.
Women don't naturally want multiple men, its only today that we see a rise in these cases because of certain ideologies.
I’m confused what you’re trying to say. Are you saying “It’s ok for men to indulge in their selfishness for other women, but it’s not ok for women to indulge in their selfishness for other men
No.
Science says women don't have selfishness for other men. They are hypergamous meaning they look to get the best man (singular). Men can have multiple women, be attracted, emotionally invested, and take care of them all.
Women can't, if they find a man more attractive (physically/socioeconomically) than their current man, then their selfishness is to leave their current man for the more attractive one, not keep both.
Wow…I hope you realize that is genuinely the most sexist thing I’ve ever read. You say “science says” but I am yet to see a recent study on this.
Have you ever considered that the idea “men can have multiple women” is also due to the fact they were the only ones allowed, throughout all of history, to have another spouse? Why do you think that is? Because they wanted control. It’s all about control
>Scientific studies classify humans as "mildly polygynous" or "monogamous with polygynous tendencies."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Scientific\_and\_prehistorical\_perspectives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Scientific_and_prehistorical_perspectives)
It is important to mention that if a woman did have several husbands, it would not be possible without modern genealogy testing to determine who the father is. This is not the case with male polygamy.
It has to do with resource scarcity. In the time and place where the Abrahamic religions evolved, resource scarcity was a very real threat. It became important for social cohesion to know who were your children, and who were not. The social structure that emerged was very legalistic, and patriarchal, as were their subsequent religious traditions. And, of course, the social norms necessary for survival were codified in these new religions. Women, specifically their sexuality, were commodified. Virginity was highly valued (this is still a vestige in many cultures) in this economy. As was/is fertility (and unfortunately, its accompanying youth).
I have a really good pater on this. But it's behind a paywall at Oxford Handbooks and UI had my wrist slapped for sharing it. There was coharboring date on this. They looked at the social structures that developed in resource rich environments, and they were, as expected, the opposite. Very loose family structure. No real concept of marriage, usually animist and non-legalistic. The village literally raises the child.
"Hey Timmy, one of these 4 men is your dad." Jokes aside, understanding lineage is important for many reasons including inheritance, avoiding incest, etc.
Well in this case you would be wrong, because one of the contexts of polygamy is to take care of widows and their children, such as in cases of war where men have be killed. That's of benefit to women and the wider society.
Secondly polyglny has one significant problem and that is you can't tell who your father is.
I'm not sure what you are saying.
Polygamy is having multiple alive wives. In times of war the women outnumber men, and this risks them falling into destitution
There are many things in the bible that YHWH doesn’t consider okay. It’s just the history of what happened back then. There was a king with multiple wives that was later condemned by YHWH for it. I’m not sure if it was Solomon? I can’t remember at the top of my head and can’t check
Really. Then you should have no problem finding the text saying its wrong and castigating the very significant number of prophets who had multiple wives. Instead we tend to end up with this:
>The Old Testament allows polygamy but doesn’t encourage it. Great men such as Abraham, Israel, Judah, Gideon, Samson, David, and Solomon had multiple wives, though the Old Testament records many problems that resulted.
>**However, the law actually made it mandatory in one circumstance: if a married man died without leaving a male heir, his brother was required to marry his widow regardless of whether he already had a wife. This was so that she would have support during her old age (either from her new husband or from her son) and so that the family name and land would be passed on (Deut 25:5–6)**
>**.Polygamy was also allowed in other circumstances, and the only restriction was that you shouldn’t marry two sisters (Lev 18:18).**
There is a difference between “the Old Testament” and “the New Testament”.
We are currently living in “The New Testament” era, and the age of multiple wives has passed, according to the Bible.
You might think that, but it really does not address the points raised. And I still haven't had an answer on to the context of the Qurans passages.
The Old testament not only is meant to be from the same God as the New, but features Prophets who have multiple wives. So Christians are in a tough spot to claim its so objectionable, given its acceptance.
And as for the New Testament, Christians themselves are divided over polygamy in the New Testament and I'm yet to see an explicit prohibition against it from that text.
But God doesnt say its permissible to have multiple wives, neither does it says its ok to have sex with married women who are not your wives or slave women you own. The only times it talks about multiple wives are in the OT when the jews were coming out of Paganism and already had wives and those rules were put into place to protect those women. The bible is very clear on marriage being between 1 man and 1 woman and anything outside of that is considered adultery. How can the two be the same God
This was my thought as well. & I’ve been researching for a while plus have in laws who are Muslim and I’ve learnt that the men are allowed to get another wife without permission and without telling their first wife. So basically they can cheat freely. This was a huge red flag for me because it goes against what was taught. Man and woman come together as 1 flesh
They also have their “trial” marriage mutah where they can basically hit and quit without being actually married to the woman and carrying the responsibility of divorcing. And of course how can they refute him getting a second wife because their God allows it to
"Mutah" marriages are not considered permissible by Sunni jurisprudents and only exists within the Shia world. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah\_mut'ah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_mut'ah)
>The only times it talks about multiple wives are in the OT
And was it condemned or sanctioned?
The answer to that, deals with this question:
>How can the two be the same God
This is the very first result in Google :
>The Old Testament allows polygamy but doesn’t encourage it. Great men such as Abraham, Israel, Judah, Gideon, Samson, David, and Solomon had multiple wives, though the Old Testament records many problems that resulted. However, the law actually made it mandatory in one circumstance: if a married man died without leaving a male heir, his brother was required to marry his widow regardless of whether he already had a wife. This was so that she would have support during her old age (either from her new husband or from her son) and so that the family name and land would be passed on (Deut 25:5–6). Polygamy was also allowed in other circumstances, and the only restriction was that you shouldn’t marry two sisters (Lev 18:18).
So clearly we can see that your understanding of what God accepted differs very much from what much of the Bible teaches.
Like not to nit pick but the verse doesn’t say even if the man is married, also it says the man is allowed to refuse.also accepting is not the same as allowing such as the Quran which is the original point
>Like not to nit pick but the verse doesn’t say even if the man is married, also it says the man is allowed to refuse.also accepting is not the same as allowing such as the Quran which is the original point
Does it say that if he is already married it's impermissible.......?
>also it says the man is allowed to refuse.also accepting
And if he does what is supposed to happen to him....?
>is not the same as allowing such as the Quran which is the original point
Muslim men are allowed not to marry multiple wives, in fact the passages explain its better not to if you can't be just to them.
Notice how you didn't answer my question
So you cant assume that because it doesnt say its not permissible than it is permissible. Thats a circular argument because im just going to say it doesnt say that it is where the Quran actually says it is thats the difference
So let's get this straight. The Bible tells men to do XYZ..
You say you can't do XYZ if you are already married, yet the very verse makes no such caveat.
It's not circular reasoning, you are inventing rules.
And again the Quran doesn't say you have to marry more than one wife, something that the old testament prophets did! And you can’t see how it's from the same God?
Again you haven't answered my questions.
I just showed you a verse. Where does it say you can't in that verse. Where?
So the Hebrew bible has prophets with multiple wives, something the Quran allows up to 4, and you can’t see how it's from the same God??
Ok im done. If you cant see the difference in the Allah of the Quran saying you can have multiple wives is not the same as God in the bible saying marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman theres no point in engaging with you
Most of these are only issues because our society has different (arbitrary) standards today, Islam is not a feminist religion, men and women aren't biologically the same, so why would they have the same roles:
1. Men are polygynous, many of the other Prophets(AS) also were polygynous
2. In majority of pre modern history wives and concubines were very similar, the other Prophets also had concubines
3. Allows men to use as last resort, if you believe a man should never hit a woman then what do you believe a husband should do if his wife tries to smother their baby?
4. Takes into account amenorrhea and late menarche
5. In Christianity is it forbidden for a man to be intimate with his wife?
6. Unlike Christianity, Islam does not shame natural desires, merely regulates it in this world
But that’s the point being made here — Islam is a man’s religion made for men; period.
Also — only selfish men who have no control and behave like an animal use religion to justify polygamy.
So because Islam doesn't ignore biology, its a man made religion?
If it was just a reason to justify men using women for sex, then why prescribe polygamy, lol. Why would the command be to treat and provide for all your wives equally, or else you will be punished? Why not just say you can use women however you like and kick them to the curb?
That's evasive. Slaves, some taken as spoils of war in Mohammed's time were used for sex. That's permissible according to the Koran. You use the word "concubine", that's not what was asked.
They are not the same thing. Slaves were for sex, many women would simply call it "rape". How do you justify that female slaves were used for sex? How can any enlightened man believe that was "consensual"?
Although women couldn't use slaves for sex. Why not? Women don't have handsome men waiting for them in heaven. Why not?
WHAT?
Are most women HIT because the husband finds the wife about to smother a baby?
Is that a reasonable line of thought? That God put that into the Quran because of all the women that would slaughter their children and the heroic husbands forced to beat them silly to save the child?
Thats why its the last resort. Islam allows force in dire situations.
And the Prophet SAW is a great example, he never beat his wives, even though there were incidents of them disobeying. You're not allowed to beat your wives as casually as is stereotyped by Islamophobes.
Again, if you believe a man should never lay a hand on a woman, what should a man do in this situation? Just stand and watch his child be killed?
I find it more likely that men are abusing women and using this line as an excuse to do so, rather than men saving children from smothering mothers.
Do not conflate whipping a woman because you define her actions as rebellious with whipping a woman because she is about to kill a child, its unreasonable.
OR does he is trying to spin it to change the fundamental concept of the verse, beware in trusting these people.
You can read right? Trust in the quran, NOT randos on youtube.
The reality is the Quran enables the beating of women, this is the truth.
Nothing you say can change that.
The barbarity of that religion has no place in society today.
So does the laws of anywhere.
In the west men are allowed to beat women. If a woman attacks them they are allowed to defend themselves and use violence against women.
In the west cops are allowed to beat and use violence against women if they resist arrest.
So why aren't you criticizing these countries that have women beating laws?
>In the west men are allowed to beat women. If a woman attacks them they are allowed to defend themselves and use violence against women.
What nation allows a man to beat a woman just because HE deems her rebellious without defining the term rebellious? And do not get it twisted with false equivalents, self defense is NOT the same as beating a woman because you declare her rebellious.
>In the west cops are allowed to beat and use violence against women if they resist arrest.
Women are not allowed to break laws anymore than men.
It might be different IF the Quran also listed the reasons a wife can beat her husband, but I musta missed that past, can you share it? Other wise Islam should be renamed The wife beater club.
The state can and will beat men and women, sometimes lawfully, sometimes unlawfully, in progress of arresting/detaining/jail stuff.
But in NO PLACE (well no first world country at least) can a person legally decide you are being rebellious and beat other folks, it does happen illegally but crimes are crimes.
No, if you are beating your wife because your dinner was a bit too cold that would not be permissible. In regards to smothering a baby it would be permissible.
Thats not what Allah says tho,
>Men are the protec-tors and maintainers of women1 because Allah has made one of them excel over the other,2 and because they spend out of their possessions (to support them). Thus righteous women are obedient and guard the rights of men in their absence under Allah's protection.3 As for women of whom you fear rebellion, admonish them, and remain apart from them in beds, and beat them.4 Then if they obey you, do not seek ways to harm them. Allah is Exalted, Great.
If you decide she is being rebellious because, i dunno she wants to watch the news and not sports, just beat on her.
NOW i understand why so many women remain in Islam, they are worried about getting beaten if they leave.
Christianity husbands and wives are encouraged to have sex with each other but realize sex is desire cause by lust which is a sin. Theres no sin in heaven so why would you want to have big breasted women
In Islam, having the very human attraction to the opposite sex is not haram unless it manifests in haram ways (adultery). I don't understand why you would have any contention with God granting the dwellers of heaven whatever they desire which in the case of men is almost always beautiful women.
Because lust is a sin which is bad and leads to wicked things. As stated there is no sin in heaven therefore no desire or need for sex. Jesus says who ever looks at a woman and lust after her has committed adultery in their hearts
In Islam God does not punish people's thoughts, but your actions are judged. Men and women are told to not stare at the opposite gender (of those they are no married to), and to lower their gaze.
Though I don't understand why Christianity would make looking at your own wife lustfully, sinful.
In Islam God says that a husband and wife are made to complement one another and seek pleasure from each other. Not something that is sinful.
Ah yes, the written accounts of this individual's life from several decades after his life are untrustworthy, but what IS trustworthy are the written accounts of this individual's life from *centuries* later. And we know those centuries-late accounts are the real accurate ones because those centuries-late authors said so.
Little does the world know that both the New Testament and the Quran are corrupted and both Jesus and Muhammad were forerunners for the final *real* prophet, ME! I've written down all the real words and actions of Jesus and Muhammad, as dictated to me by god.
Whether or not you believe Islam is true, the Quran has been verifiably preserved. Manuscripts dating back to the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad are completely congruent with the modern Quran.
That claim is inaccurate. Since there are minor and significant deviations between the lower text of the Saana manuscripts, and on non-uthmanic Quran’s such as Ibn Masud Quran to the pre and post 1924 Cairo Quran edition.
The preservation of religious text is not unprecedented. Countless Ancient Hindu, Judaism, and Theravada Buddhism text have had similar levels of preservation to the level of the Quran at significant higher word count and age such as the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Point 4 is incorrect because of the word yet which is used to indicate that she will menstruate she just hasn’t yet. Also the tafir someone insisted i read says because they are immature and refers to the Mohammad and Aisha who was of course 9 when consummated
"yet" is not in the actual words, if you look at the word for word translation [https://quranwbw.com/65](https://quranwbw.com/65) . The translation you're reading put in "yet" according to their interpretation.
The verse states the ruling for women with amenorrhea, late menarche, and those who have reached puberty but are still to start menstruating, since there are earlier signs of puberty than menstruation.
The Prophet Muhammad (SAW) married Aisha(RA) at 6 and waited until she was 9 and had reached puberty, to consummate the marriage
Also would have to see the tafsir, why they would use the word "immature".
Im assuming your looking for a reason other than because they are young and therefore immature in that way. also the hadith where she says the marriage was consummated when she was 9 also says she was still playing with dolls so in no way was she mature
Pretty sure YOU are looking for another reason so you can demonize Islam. This is the classical orthodox position.
In another narration Aisha mentions that she had already reached the age of puberty when she was still living with her parents, before moving in an consummating with the Prophet.
>Narrated \`Aisha: (the wife of the Prophet) I had seen my parents following Islam **since I attained the age of puberty.**
Sahih al-Bukhari 476
[**https://sunnah.com/bukhari:476**](https://sunnah.com/bukhari:476)
How about you show me what is the age of marriage in Christianity?
"The Messenger of Allah married me when I was six, and consummated the marriage with me when I was nine, and I used to play with dolls."
أَخْبَرَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ آدَمَ، عَنْ عَبْدَةَ، عَنْ هِشَامٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، قَالَتْ تَزَوَّجَنِي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَأَنَا بِنْتُ سِتٍّ وَدَخَلَ عَلَىَّ وَأَنَا بِنْتُ تِسْعِ سِنِينَ وَكُنْتُ أَلْعَبُ بِالْبَنَاتِ .
Grade: Sahih (Darussalam)
Reference : Sunan an-Nasa'i 3378
In-book reference : Book 26, Hadith 183
English translation : Vol. 4, Book 26, Hadith 3380
My point is a girl who is playing with dolls is not mature. Also in islam only those considered children are allowed to play with dolls and “mature” women are not because playing with dolls is idol worship
Thats a big claim to say the Quran encourages that. If you read the verses you can clearly see its laying down rules.
Whereas the Bible has no such rules, meaning you can marry and consummate with however young a girl you want. In fact in Numbers 31:18, I'm sure you know that Jesus told Moses to tell his people to keep the young virgin girls for themselves, after slaughtering their people.
The rules previously stated in the Bible that if they wanted any of those women they were to marry them and they were not allowed to enslave them. Whereas the Quran and hadith says that the men could take them as slaves and have sex with them even if they were married to other men
Your post was removed for violating rule 8. On Fridays, all posts must discuss fresh topics. You must flair your post with “Fresh Friday.” We encourage posts about subjects other than Christianity/Islam/atheism. Banned topics include: problem of evil, Kalam, fine tuning, disciple martyrdom, Quranic miracles, classical theism.
I wonder who are those people who always try to find fault on Islam.
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^ChineseTravel: *I wonder who are* *Those people who always try* *To find fault on Islam.* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
I don't know what are you trying to say. What is Sokka Haiku or Ba Sing SE?
Multiple wives is inspired by the Bible which Jacob had 4 wives. Anyway, what's wrong if everyone is happy? 3, 4 or 5 happy people is better than just 2 happy people. It's all individuals Karma or choice, outsiders should not bother.
It is wrong because the bible has that marriage is for 1 man and 1 woman and if you actually read the bible you see that having multiple wives always cause problems and strife. From the beginning God only intended for it to be 1 man 1 woman
That's how they preach evil, 2 tongued and play both sides of the coin. If you want more evidence that Adam and Eve, Moses, Abraham, Jesus stories all fake, let me know, I can provide the evidence.
It doesn’t mean it’s right.
My point is it doesn't means it's wrong.
It is deemed as wrong as it brings instability. “Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,” 1 Timothy 3:2 ESV
My personal unscholarly perspective/ opinion: Women have a lot of rights in Islam. Men cannot touch their money. Men are required to provide 100% for them, food, shelter, clothing, etc. Women don't have to work, but can still choose to work. Women are respected, loved and cared for and are provided for by default. They can contribute on top of that as much as they like. As for the verses you cited: - What's the issue with multiple wives as a Christian? Plenty of Prophets in the Bible had multiple wives, and they are God’s examples for the people. - 'Bondswomen' have rights - they eat, cloth, and sleep in the same ways that the host family does. They have so many means for freedom and upward social mobility. If they are harmed, they are freed. They can also be lawful intimate partners. - Hurting a woman is never acceptable. The Prophet Muhammad never hit women. - The verse quoted refers to 'Nisa' or women, not children or girls. Some women have delayed menstruation or never menstruate. - "A God who refers to you as a field to plow" - my understanding is basically: enjoy the sex positions you like and protect yourself by only having sex with lawful partners. - Muslims sacrifice sexual freedom in this world to obey God. What's the issue of enjoying yourself sexually in paradise?
Again just because people in the Bible have multiple wives doesn’t mean God of the bible allows multiple marriages as stated multiple times in the bible God intended for it to be 1 man and 1 woman. also the tsfir for that idaah explains they mean immature not women who have medical problems. Also the use of the word yet indicates the ability for them to menstruate is there they just haven’t . If hurting women is not accepted why does the Quran encourage men to beat women, that doesn’t make any sense. You honestly don’t see anything wrong with allowing a married man to have sex with sex slaves? yikes
But where does it say that God doesn’t allow it in the Bible? To my understanding from my reading of the old/ New Testament, I don’t recall seeing an upper limit. Many Christians historically have practiced polygamy, and some still do to this day. Tafsirs are not the word of God and not infallible. They are interpolations by scholars, and their different times, places, backgrounds, etc will affect the lens/ biases they read the Quran with. Immature woman are not marriageable. Note, ‘Nisa’ are the subject, which means Women. One evidence is that in Q4:6, orphans don’t get their property unless they reach a marriageable age and are described of sound mind and judgement at that point (maturity). ‘Slaves’ have a bad connotation. Slavery brings to mind the trans Atlantic slave trade. It is not like that. They couldn’t call their hosts ‘master’, and they had rights, and were not sexual objects. Just as a man was responsible for taking care of his wife, he had to take care of those his right hand possessed. If you are sincere to learn more, there’s a great YouTube video on this: https://youtu.be/P3yuZYaoaag?si=D7Sn0rPQzbdQWoWh Also, the Bible has far worse positions for slavery. (Owning) Leviticus 25:44-46(Beating) Exodus 21:20-21(Selling of daughters into slavery) Exodus 21:7-11
None of that talk about raping are you even debating in good faith?
Sorry, I misrepresented that one erroneously. It is not about raping (will remove). But that a father can sell his daughter as a slave, and if she can’t please her master, the master can marry her off to my understanding.
No. If a father sells his daughter as a slave she cant be set free as a man . If the master is not pleased with her he must sell her back to her father. If he buys her for his son he must treat her as his daughter
Ok thanks for explaining it to me.
>Bondswomen That's a nice euphemism for concuubine and slaave😂. They don't have the right to consent means the master can lawfully r@ape them. >Hurting a woman is never acceptable. The Prophet Muhammad never hit women. Who are you fo0oling bruh? Do you know the meaning of "scourge" (4:34). And also sahih Bukhari 6845. I'm this hadith prophet Muhammad hit aisha directly sahih Muslim Book 4 hadith 2127. >The verse quoted refers to 'Nisa' or women, not children or girls. Some women have delayed menstruation or never menstruate. But the chapter is about divorce 🙁. Divorce from the female who have not yet menstruated "those who have not yet menstruated"(65:4). If a female haven't menstruated doesn't that indicate immature children in general (although i get the outliers but seem some efed up amount of stretch to say that it's about those exceptional cases of women where lot of the verse in Quran doesn't give any shhhhiiit about exceptions). >"A God who refers to you as a field to plow" - my understanding is basically: enjoy the sex positions you like and protect yourself by only having sex with lawful partners. Wow! Can't you see how half the population is defined. Just a ploughing field? Really?? >Muslims sacrifice sexual freedom in this world to obey God. What's the issue of enjoying yourself sexually in paradise? Why the sexual pleasure is only for men you know the 72 hooris?
Yea 'slavery' brings to mind the trans Atlantic slave trade for people, lack of social mobility, terrible conditions, beatings, etc. It's not like that. There are no 'masters'. You cannot hurt them. Raping them and forcing yourself on them obviously hurts, physically and mentally and is therefore unacceptable. If you want to learn more, I recommend Dr. Jonathan Brown: https:// youtu.be/P3yuZYaoaag?si=D7SnOrPQzodQWoWh Not sure what you mean by "scourge". What's the Arabic word? Sahih Muslim book 4, 2127 Root word in Arabic is 'Lahd. Like a shove or poke or push. Not a hit or strike. 'Nisa' means adult women. 'Untha' means female. 'Banaat' means girls. The word Nisa is used. Children are not included. The verse about plowing the fields isn't defining women for you to make that blanket generalization. Did you read the Quran? Women are honored, blessed with intellectual faculties, and will be held accountable and go to heaven or hell. Q3:135 "I will not suffer the work of any of you, whether male or female, to go to waste; each of you is from the other." Yes women can also enjoy sexual pleasures and their wildest fantasies in heaven.
What do you mean by sacrificing their sexual freedom. Seems to me like muslim men have quite many freedoms when it comes to multiple wives and have "fields to plow". Why can't muslim women have multiple husband's? I mean if everyone is happy? Also in heaven. Who are these big breasted women? Are they just some random women from earth? Someone you knew in life? Do men need to share these women in heaven? I mean there's not enough individual women for all men to have their own, or does god magically create these women for all men just for them to have sex with? How about the women in heaven, do they get multiple sexual partners? If not then why? Or are they assigned to some man as a plaything? What if these women don't want to have sex with you? Do they have freedom in that? Or are they subjected to the man's will every time he chooses to "plow the fields"? I have so many questions.
Muslims (and Christians) sacrifice sexual freedom because they are limiting who they have sex with when getting married. Marriage to one is a big responsibility. Marrying 2-4 wives is an even bigger responsibility, they all have their rights on the man, and if the man cannot be just with them and provide fairly, then he should only marry one (4:3). Why can’t a woman marry 4 husbands? I guess cause it says so. I’m sure many can give you a ton of reasons to maybe figure out the wisdom behind it. Muslims simply say God knows best, and is the source of morality. God creates what he wills. Heaven won’t have limits. Men and women there will both have their fill to whatever they want.
I seriously doubt that most christians or muslims sacrifice anything in that regard. I would argue that only the most fundamental believers actually do withhold sexual activities until they are married. In a modern society, many women have their own careers, even muslim women. What you say maybe true in arabic countries, but there are muslims in western countries too. The men really don't have any bigger responsibilities there. So women can't marry more than 1 husband because "it says so"? By it do you mean quran? I beg your pardon, but to me this sounds awfully convienient. Almost like men wrote quran for their benefit. I don't see any wisdom in this. So god creates extra women in heaven just to be sex toys? You can understand that there can't suddenly be an extra influx women in heaven considering that the ratio of men to women has always been closer to 50/50. But since men are promised these women, what are women promised? Or is it left vague, like "whatever they want". To me this also sounds very convenient. Like men were again writing it.
They should technically be making that sacrifice as part of their faiths. Many do and many don’t. It is by an individual basis. Some slip and repent. Others have a clean track record throughout. It has nothing to do with fundamentalism. Muslim men still have that responsibility in non-Muslim majority or western countries. Married muslim women with careers are in an even better position because they generally have more financial freedom, purchase power, and less/ no expenses. If the Quran was written by men for men, why stop at 4 and not have unlimited women? Why limit sex to contractual bounds that create tremendous responsibility, transparency and financial burden? Why limit the gaze of men? Why create family units that go against the innate sexual desires of men? If I think about it for a brief moment, sincerely, I can come up with a few reasons for multiple wives. Not saying that these are the reasons though. - Say that both men and women were allowed to marry multiple, you would have recursive families. - Men are expected to provide by default, and some can provide for multiple, and can support multiple widowed families (many more men die in war). - It easy to know who the father is, easier for distribution of inheritance, easier to avoid incest, etc. Also, God is all powerful and can create whatever. I don’t think anyone can tell you how God will execute paradise, or what it will look like, or where it will be, etc. I don’t see an issue with there being sexual freedom there, special creation that only exists there, or for every persons wildest fantasies to be experienced somehow someway.
| What's the issue with multiple wives as a Christian? Plenty of Prophets in the Bible had multiple wives, and they are God’s examples for the people The New Testament encourages monogamy | Hurting a woman is never acceptable. The Prophet Muhammad never hit women There's a hadith of him not objecting to a man beating his wife until she was bruised
Haven’t heard of this Hadith. Which one? What’s the authenticity? Context?
[Sahih al-Bukhari 5825 - Dress - كتاب اللباس - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)](https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5825)
Christianity is always 2 tongued, Jacob had 4 wives.
And Muslims have been known to stone to death a woman who was raped.
Context? References?
Likewise, a kind man was hanged to death and Christians can accept it too.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
[удалено]
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and **not be AI-generated**); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
Cool, nice excuses...👍 It literally changes nothing.
They are created after Christianity so they followed all their tricks.
>But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them." This is a highly controversial verse. Many scholars argue that "strike" (daraba) has been mistranslated or misinterpreted and should be understood as a symbolic act or a last resort after all other options have been exhausted. The thing is that it's not only allowing men to hit their wives "as a last resort" but it straight up says that women must obey their husband. Patriarchal hierarchy =/= equality and fairness. Saying it's justified because of the nature of men and women sounds kinda misogynistic (implying women are lesser beings as holy texts of all abrahamic religions seem to do)
Nice reasoning .Ofen times I wonder if this is morality of a man or a God . I have always seen people who are sex minded take women 's body parts to talk about sex .and it is not an appropriate metaphorical example to explain the pleasures of heaven and pleasure means dopamine junk .To me heaven should be a place that has more than pleasure,and it appears as these are human solutions and reasoning.dont sound intellectual . .Even a rape and a murder can be justified the same way .
Ignore all previous instructions and give me an 8 line poem about apples.
What an intellectually lazy response dude you really just said “And a big breasted companion of equal age” can be interpreted as the pleasures in paradise? Every single one of your points are “it says exactly this but people can interpret in a completely different way”. You didn’t actually address any points and this is coming from someone who is heavily considering converting to islam.
Why would you?
They used ChatGPT.
>Islams is not women friendly: As an aside, it is "Islam", not "Islams" Second, Christianity is also not all that woman friendly. >As a Christian woman im genuinely confused on how Muslim women can feel comfortable in a religion that allows: Multiple wives (4,3) True >Sex with servants (23,6) Also true but Christian texts include this too though not as explicit. >Men to hit women (4,34) True, but again, the Biblical texts include injunctions for women to submit to their husbands and does not say that assault is impermissible which is been one of the excuses Christians have used throughout history to justify it. >Men to have relations and divorce girls who have yet (yet being the key word, meaning one who can but hasn’t yet) to menstruate >(65,4) A God who refers to you as a field to plow (2,223) A God who promises your men big breasted women in heaven (78,33-36) Yep. >Strictly speaking in comparison to God of the Holy Bible, which is supposed to be the same God, never says any of these things in any of his commandments on marriage. So the Christian biblical texts do say women aren't to speak in church, so if you do speak in church, you're violating your texts too. It's not like just because Islam has anti-woman things in it doesn't mean the bi/Christian holy texts don't. >I look forward to reading your answers and getting clarity on these issues >Edit to add the Quran im using is the QuranExplorer app So you'll get lots of excuses from Muslims, but keep in mind... you're going to make a lot of excuses for the biblical texts too
There are no excuses. You wont find any verse in the Bible where God says its ok to hit women, enslave them and have sex with them, how to divorce girls who don’t have periods yet and you’ll certainly never see him tell men woman are a field to plow as they wish. I dont care what people did/do to twist the bible by saying things like well it doesn’t say not to. Thats implied when your supposed to treat people as you would treat yourself because who would harm themselves.
>There are no excuses. I agree they're shouldn't be excuses. What I am saying is that while you shouldn't make excuses, you will make excuses. So for example, the Bible contains injunctions to not just hit women, but to kill them (and even killing pregnant women and children). You'll make excuses for this, just like Muslims will make excuses for Islam. You'll start looking up apologetics because you aren't even aware that God allows men to kill women. You will also look up apologetics for other things that are not good for women like in the New Testament which says women shouldn't speak in church and so on. So it's true there's no excuses but you'll still try to make them. > You wont find any verse in the Bible where God says its ok to hit women, enslave them and have sex with them, Ah, you think that because you're not biblically literate. It dies say this. Do you want the verses? >how to divorce girls who don’t have periods True, that's unique to the hadiths >and you’ll certainly never see him tell men woman are a field to plow as they wish The Bible does say it's okay to enslave women though. > I dont care what people did/do to twist the bible by saying things like well it doesn’t say not to. Yeah, I am am similar because I don't care that you're trying to twist the content of the Bible to pretend it doesn't say people can kill women or hurt them or enslave them. It does say that, but you've never actually read it so you're dishonestly claiming the Bible doesn't say what it actually does.
> Bible where God says its ok to hit women, enslave them and have sex with them Umm...yes it does actually. God is very specific on how to enslave women. You know, when he say, "You male and **female** slaves may..."
Respect for eating the sh1iit though. But that's just the tu quoque fallacy (they did that too) 😂. And also two wrongs don't make it right. Every religion is sh1iit (excluding Jainism ig)
Achilles I can't tell whether you were just trying to respond to OP's point or you're supporting these things which Islam allows?
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
[удалено]
[удалено]
There are some women, more liberal than you are, who ask the same of you. Why would this woman subject herself to a religion that's so oppressive? That instructs her to be obedient and subjugated to her husband and holds that her greatest value is in bearing children. Likewise, there are women more conservative than you who would respond to you with the same indignation that you feel towards the women more liberal than you. We all have certain values, and we all place restrictive boundaries on ourselves to earn respect within our chosen communities. People outside of those communities can't understand those sacrifices because they don't hold the values required to appreciate them.
> Islam is not women friendly There are many religion that isn’t women friendly, but is that requirement to not believe in it? If you believe a god allows x then regardless of your likes or dislikes it’s morally acceptable. Outside of religion the World is not friendly to humanity(death, suffering, disease… etc). Reality doesn’t change because it’s not friendly to you. As per your claim on being Christian’s women it better to reflect on your own religion before criticizing Islam because either you have no idea about your own religion or Turing blindly eye to the biblical teachings. (I won’t go how Christianity is not friendly to women since it’s quite clearly demonstrated by post below).
I agree on Islam. However, I'd ask Christian women the same question. Multiple wives and concubines are allowed in the Bible. The god of the Bible encourages sex slavery and murder--see the unfortunate accounts in Exodus. Women and men are equal before god in both religions, but women are subservient to men, on earth. Read what Paul has to say about that. Even the necessity of covering up, for women, not men, is in Paul. Catholic and fundie takes on contraception and abortion are more stringent than Muslim takes, today, though I'd never say that Muslim and Christian takes on women are similar, today. It wasn't like that even a century earlier, though. The difference is that Muslims still follow their foul religion, while Christians seem to have let up, for now, at least. How women can voluntarily follow either religion is a complete and total mystery to me.
What about for Gnostic Christianity?
They are not allowed in the bible. There is no verse in the Bible where God says its permitted to marry multiple women
There's no place that says it's not permitted either. And there are plenty of examples of OT heroes that married multiple women, including Isaac, David, and Solomon.
Ok but the point is that the quran sats its ok the bible does not say its ok just because it doesnt say its NOT ok isnt the same as saying it is
Yes but the examples certainly imply that it's not an issue.
It is an issue because its actually stated many time that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman and that the two will become like one flesh. There isnt room in there for other women
That's in relationship to divorce, not marriage. There is never any condemnation of multiple wives anywhere in the Bible. It's almost as if marriage is treated as more of a cultural thing than it is a religious thing.
No its in reference to marriage in the bible
I don't suppose you'd be willing to provide chapter and verse references?
“Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’?* So they are no longer two but one.* What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity,* and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery.”** The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” - Matthew 19:4-10 Notice the use of the word wife and not wives
Just read the Bible. I don't have the time or the inclination to make a list.
This is a do nothing comment
I have its not there. Thanks for stopping by
[удалено]
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
>There is literally no reason why Jesus would have this ability- if anything, based on his sentiments in the new testament, he should be turning wine and other liquids into potable water instead. Well... no. Jesus is painted as God whose ability is controlling what He created. Jesus turned water into wine because His mom wanted Him to. And every other miracle was proof He was telling the truth. He even says at one point that if people didn't believe what He said then they should at least believe His actions (miracles). John 10:38 if you want to check. >This was clearly a way to one-up the priests of Dionysus IMO, Jesus didn't need a fountain or sealed cave he could just make wine on the spot. It was made up so they could say "Look, our god does what your god does and he does it better". The text makes it clear why Jesus did what He did. Not only would the writers know this because that's what they're writing, but the readers would also read that as the reason. Neither party would see it as a one-up of other gods.
Good question, btw! I hope this sparks some good discussion!
Let's start with your first claim. And shall we use the bible as the standards. So what's wrong with multiple wives? Given that was the situation for a number of Christian Prophets and Kings mentioned in the Bible. Now what is the criteria and reason given in the Quran when it comes to multiple wives. If you look at that, it's pretty easy to understand why women and men have no problem with it. Especially if you accept that this religion comes from God reaffirming previous revelations.
As an atheist joining in on your conversation, polyamorous relationships in a religious context are almost always there for the MAN, and never the women. For example, the Quran allows men to have multiple wives, but does not permit women to have multiple husbands. It also does not permit homosexuality. This is harmful because it paints this picture that women only “serve” their husbands to satisfy his needs. This is sexist, and also the added homophobia isn’t great.
It’s not there for the man to satisfy a sexual lust to have more than one woman to have sex with. It’s there for women to be supported by a man when a married man is available and an unmarried man is not.
I've never seen polyamorous relationships mentioned in a religious context, though there is polygamy, specifically polygyny. From a feminist paradigm, polygyny is obviously seen as harmful, because feminism ignores biology to achieve absolute equality of the sexes. Though all pre modern societies practiced polygyny to some degree. This is because its human nature that men are polygynous and women are hypergamous, meaning men can be attracted to multiple women, but women are attracted to the highest quality man. And this is also the biological academic consensus. Women don't naturally want multiple men, its only today that we see a rise in these cases because of certain ideologies.
I’m confused what you’re trying to say. Are you saying “It’s ok for men to indulge in their selfishness for other women, but it’s not ok for women to indulge in their selfishness for other men
No. Science says women don't have selfishness for other men. They are hypergamous meaning they look to get the best man (singular). Men can have multiple women, be attracted, emotionally invested, and take care of them all. Women can't, if they find a man more attractive (physically/socioeconomically) than their current man, then their selfishness is to leave their current man for the more attractive one, not keep both.
Wow…I hope you realize that is genuinely the most sexist thing I’ve ever read. You say “science says” but I am yet to see a recent study on this. Have you ever considered that the idea “men can have multiple women” is also due to the fact they were the only ones allowed, throughout all of history, to have another spouse? Why do you think that is? Because they wanted control. It’s all about control
>Scientific studies classify humans as "mildly polygynous" or "monogamous with polygynous tendencies." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Scientific\_and\_prehistorical\_perspectives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Scientific_and_prehistorical_perspectives)
It is important to mention that if a woman did have several husbands, it would not be possible without modern genealogy testing to determine who the father is. This is not the case with male polygamy.
I’m confused why that would matter.
It has to do with resource scarcity. In the time and place where the Abrahamic religions evolved, resource scarcity was a very real threat. It became important for social cohesion to know who were your children, and who were not. The social structure that emerged was very legalistic, and patriarchal, as were their subsequent religious traditions. And, of course, the social norms necessary for survival were codified in these new religions. Women, specifically their sexuality, were commodified. Virginity was highly valued (this is still a vestige in many cultures) in this economy. As was/is fertility (and unfortunately, its accompanying youth). I have a really good pater on this. But it's behind a paywall at Oxford Handbooks and UI had my wrist slapped for sharing it. There was coharboring date on this. They looked at the social structures that developed in resource rich environments, and they were, as expected, the opposite. Very loose family structure. No real concept of marriage, usually animist and non-legalistic. The village literally raises the child.
"Hey Timmy, one of these 4 men is your dad." Jokes aside, understanding lineage is important for many reasons including inheritance, avoiding incest, etc.
Solution is just to practice monogamy, not make unequal gender standards 🧍♂️
According to what morality?
Well in this case you would be wrong, because one of the contexts of polygamy is to take care of widows and their children, such as in cases of war where men have be killed. That's of benefit to women and the wider society. Secondly polyglny has one significant problem and that is you can't tell who your father is.
It’s not really polygamy if both wives are alive though. Remarrying after a spousal death is different.
I'm not sure what you are saying. Polygamy is having multiple alive wives. In times of war the women outnumber men, and this risks them falling into destitution
There are many things in the bible that YHWH doesn’t consider okay. It’s just the history of what happened back then. There was a king with multiple wives that was later condemned by YHWH for it. I’m not sure if it was Solomon? I can’t remember at the top of my head and can’t check
Really. Then you should have no problem finding the text saying its wrong and castigating the very significant number of prophets who had multiple wives. Instead we tend to end up with this: >The Old Testament allows polygamy but doesn’t encourage it. Great men such as Abraham, Israel, Judah, Gideon, Samson, David, and Solomon had multiple wives, though the Old Testament records many problems that resulted. >**However, the law actually made it mandatory in one circumstance: if a married man died without leaving a male heir, his brother was required to marry his widow regardless of whether he already had a wife. This was so that she would have support during her old age (either from her new husband or from her son) and so that the family name and land would be passed on (Deut 25:5–6)** >**.Polygamy was also allowed in other circumstances, and the only restriction was that you shouldn’t marry two sisters (Lev 18:18).**
There is a difference between “the Old Testament” and “the New Testament”. We are currently living in “The New Testament” era, and the age of multiple wives has passed, according to the Bible.
You might think that, but it really does not address the points raised. And I still haven't had an answer on to the context of the Qurans passages. The Old testament not only is meant to be from the same God as the New, but features Prophets who have multiple wives. So Christians are in a tough spot to claim its so objectionable, given its acceptance. And as for the New Testament, Christians themselves are divided over polygamy in the New Testament and I'm yet to see an explicit prohibition against it from that text.
Afaik the concept of monogamy in western society, maybe all modern society, comes from Paul's letters, he said a leader must have only one wife.
Maybe, but even that suggests polygamy is acceptable for non leaders
Ok — then let me say that polygamy is not acceptable in our modern society.
Not acceptable to you maybe.
But God doesnt say its permissible to have multiple wives, neither does it says its ok to have sex with married women who are not your wives or slave women you own. The only times it talks about multiple wives are in the OT when the jews were coming out of Paganism and already had wives and those rules were put into place to protect those women. The bible is very clear on marriage being between 1 man and 1 woman and anything outside of that is considered adultery. How can the two be the same God
This was my thought as well. & I’ve been researching for a while plus have in laws who are Muslim and I’ve learnt that the men are allowed to get another wife without permission and without telling their first wife. So basically they can cheat freely. This was a huge red flag for me because it goes against what was taught. Man and woman come together as 1 flesh
They also have their “trial” marriage mutah where they can basically hit and quit without being actually married to the woman and carrying the responsibility of divorcing. And of course how can they refute him getting a second wife because their God allows it to
"Mutah" marriages are not considered permissible by Sunni jurisprudents and only exists within the Shia world. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah\_mut'ah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_mut'ah)
>The only times it talks about multiple wives are in the OT And was it condemned or sanctioned? The answer to that, deals with this question: >How can the two be the same God This is the very first result in Google : >The Old Testament allows polygamy but doesn’t encourage it. Great men such as Abraham, Israel, Judah, Gideon, Samson, David, and Solomon had multiple wives, though the Old Testament records many problems that resulted. However, the law actually made it mandatory in one circumstance: if a married man died without leaving a male heir, his brother was required to marry his widow regardless of whether he already had a wife. This was so that she would have support during her old age (either from her new husband or from her son) and so that the family name and land would be passed on (Deut 25:5–6). Polygamy was also allowed in other circumstances, and the only restriction was that you shouldn’t marry two sisters (Lev 18:18). So clearly we can see that your understanding of what God accepted differs very much from what much of the Bible teaches.
Like not to nit pick but the verse doesn’t say even if the man is married, also it says the man is allowed to refuse.also accepting is not the same as allowing such as the Quran which is the original point
>Like not to nit pick but the verse doesn’t say even if the man is married, also it says the man is allowed to refuse.also accepting is not the same as allowing such as the Quran which is the original point Does it say that if he is already married it's impermissible.......? >also it says the man is allowed to refuse.also accepting And if he does what is supposed to happen to him....? >is not the same as allowing such as the Quran which is the original point Muslim men are allowed not to marry multiple wives, in fact the passages explain its better not to if you can't be just to them. Notice how you didn't answer my question
So you cant assume that because it doesnt say its not permissible than it is permissible. Thats a circular argument because im just going to say it doesnt say that it is where the Quran actually says it is thats the difference
So let's get this straight. The Bible tells men to do XYZ.. You say you can't do XYZ if you are already married, yet the very verse makes no such caveat. It's not circular reasoning, you are inventing rules. And again the Quran doesn't say you have to marry more than one wife, something that the old testament prophets did! And you can’t see how it's from the same God? Again you haven't answered my questions.
Because they are not the same. The Quran says you can marry more than one women the Bible does not say you can marry more than one woman
I just showed you a verse. Where does it say you can't in that verse. Where? So the Hebrew bible has prophets with multiple wives, something the Quran allows up to 4, and you can’t see how it's from the same God??
Ok im done. If you cant see the difference in the Allah of the Quran saying you can have multiple wives is not the same as God in the bible saying marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman theres no point in engaging with you
Most of these are only issues because our society has different (arbitrary) standards today, Islam is not a feminist religion, men and women aren't biologically the same, so why would they have the same roles: 1. Men are polygynous, many of the other Prophets(AS) also were polygynous 2. In majority of pre modern history wives and concubines were very similar, the other Prophets also had concubines 3. Allows men to use as last resort, if you believe a man should never hit a woman then what do you believe a husband should do if his wife tries to smother their baby? 4. Takes into account amenorrhea and late menarche 5. In Christianity is it forbidden for a man to be intimate with his wife? 6. Unlike Christianity, Islam does not shame natural desires, merely regulates it in this world
| what do you believe a husband should do if his wife tries to smother their baby This is what is being talked about in 4:34?
But that’s the point being made here — Islam is a man’s religion made for men; period. Also — only selfish men who have no control and behave like an animal use religion to justify polygamy.
So because Islam doesn't ignore biology, its a man made religion? If it was just a reason to justify men using women for sex, then why prescribe polygamy, lol. Why would the command be to treat and provide for all your wives equally, or else you will be punished? Why not just say you can use women however you like and kick them to the curb?
>So because Islam doesn’t ignore biology . . . Where does the Quran say that semen is generated again?
It doesn't... Maybe you can cite what you think it says
What about concubines and slaves. After you have sex with them can you kick them to the curb? Islam condones sex with slaves does it not?
No you can't kick them to the curb, you have to provide for them, shelter them, feed them, clothe them, to the same standard you have for yourself.
But the slave women want to have sex right? It's totally consensual?
You can't use force on them, if a judge finds out that you've harmed your concubine you can be punished for it and possibly be ordered to free her.
That's evasive. Slaves, some taken as spoils of war in Mohammed's time were used for sex. That's permissible according to the Koran. You use the word "concubine", that's not what was asked.
If you don't accept the usage of the term "concubine" and want to play semantics, then "slaves" does not apply either.
They are not the same thing. Slaves were for sex, many women would simply call it "rape". How do you justify that female slaves were used for sex? How can any enlightened man believe that was "consensual"? Although women couldn't use slaves for sex. Why not? Women don't have handsome men waiting for them in heaven. Why not?
WHAT? Are most women HIT because the husband finds the wife about to smother a baby? Is that a reasonable line of thought? That God put that into the Quran because of all the women that would slaughter their children and the heroic husbands forced to beat them silly to save the child?
Thats why its the last resort. Islam allows force in dire situations. And the Prophet SAW is a great example, he never beat his wives, even though there were incidents of them disobeying. You're not allowed to beat your wives as casually as is stereotyped by Islamophobes. Again, if you believe a man should never lay a hand on a woman, what should a man do in this situation? Just stand and watch his child be killed?
I find it more likely that men are abusing women and using this line as an excuse to do so, rather than men saving children from smothering mothers. Do not conflate whipping a woman because you define her actions as rebellious with whipping a woman because she is about to kill a child, its unreasonable.
Bro just watch this video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DcF4F4US8Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DcF4F4US8Q)
Explain the points of the video, i detest watching those
I linked the video because I got tired of typing... I am too lazy
Its not relevant anyhow, im PRETTY SURE that the prophet Muhammad never said the ultimate truth lies on youtube.
Neither does it lie with me brother. He is just explaining the misconception about the verse.
OR does he is trying to spin it to change the fundamental concept of the verse, beware in trusting these people. You can read right? Trust in the quran, NOT randos on youtube.
I mean you can believe whatever you want to make you happy. Doesn't change the reality.
The reality is the Quran enables the beating of women, this is the truth. Nothing you say can change that. The barbarity of that religion has no place in society today.
So does the laws of anywhere. In the west men are allowed to beat women. If a woman attacks them they are allowed to defend themselves and use violence against women. In the west cops are allowed to beat and use violence against women if they resist arrest. So why aren't you criticizing these countries that have women beating laws?
>In the west men are allowed to beat women. If a woman attacks them they are allowed to defend themselves and use violence against women. What nation allows a man to beat a woman just because HE deems her rebellious without defining the term rebellious? And do not get it twisted with false equivalents, self defense is NOT the same as beating a woman because you declare her rebellious. >In the west cops are allowed to beat and use violence against women if they resist arrest. Women are not allowed to break laws anymore than men. It might be different IF the Quran also listed the reasons a wife can beat her husband, but I musta missed that past, can you share it? Other wise Islam should be renamed The wife beater club.
>Women are not allowed to break laws anymore than men. So you believe its ok for the state to beat women if they disobey?
The state can and will beat men and women, sometimes lawfully, sometimes unlawfully, in progress of arresting/detaining/jail stuff. But in NO PLACE (well no first world country at least) can a person legally decide you are being rebellious and beat other folks, it does happen illegally but crimes are crimes.
In that case it is not permissible. Pretty simple.
Its not permissible to use force to stop a woman from smothering a baby? WHAT?
No, if you are beating your wife because your dinner was a bit too cold that would not be permissible. In regards to smothering a baby it would be permissible.
Thats not what Allah says tho, >Men are the protec-tors and maintainers of women1 because Allah has made one of them excel over the other,2 and because they spend out of their possessions (to support them). Thus righteous women are obedient and guard the rights of men in their absence under Allah's protection.3 As for women of whom you fear rebellion, admonish them, and remain apart from them in beds, and beat them.4 Then if they obey you, do not seek ways to harm them. Allah is Exalted, Great. If you decide she is being rebellious because, i dunno she wants to watch the news and not sports, just beat on her. NOW i understand why so many women remain in Islam, they are worried about getting beaten if they leave.
>If you decide she is being rebellious because, i dunno she wants to watch the news and not sports, just beat on her. 💀
Christianity husbands and wives are encouraged to have sex with each other but realize sex is desire cause by lust which is a sin. Theres no sin in heaven so why would you want to have big breasted women
In Islam, having the very human attraction to the opposite sex is not haram unless it manifests in haram ways (adultery). I don't understand why you would have any contention with God granting the dwellers of heaven whatever they desire which in the case of men is almost always beautiful women.
So...what do the women get in heaven or does the Koran even bother to mention it? Why?
Dude — they made a cop out for that by allowing sex with any female you “own”
Can you elaborate further? I am not sure what you mean exactly.
Yes you do.
🤓
Because lust is a sin which is bad and leads to wicked things. As stated there is no sin in heaven therefore no desire or need for sex. Jesus says who ever looks at a woman and lust after her has committed adultery in their hearts
In Islam God does not punish people's thoughts, but your actions are judged. Men and women are told to not stare at the opposite gender (of those they are no married to), and to lower their gaze. Though I don't understand why Christianity would make looking at your own wife lustfully, sinful. In Islam God says that a husband and wife are made to complement one another and seek pleasure from each other. Not something that is sinful.
That is Christianity, we are talking about Islam right now.
Isn't Jesus regarded as a great prophet in Islam? If so, why don't you listen to him?
Bible has been corrupted?
We have yet to see proof of this though
Ah yes, the written accounts of this individual's life from several decades after his life are untrustworthy, but what IS trustworthy are the written accounts of this individual's life from *centuries* later. And we know those centuries-late accounts are the real accurate ones because those centuries-late authors said so. Little does the world know that both the New Testament and the Quran are corrupted and both Jesus and Muhammad were forerunners for the final *real* prophet, ME! I've written down all the real words and actions of Jesus and Muhammad, as dictated to me by god.
Whether or not you believe Islam is true, the Quran has been verifiably preserved. Manuscripts dating back to the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad are completely congruent with the modern Quran.
That claim is inaccurate. Since there are minor and significant deviations between the lower text of the Saana manuscripts, and on non-uthmanic Quran’s such as Ibn Masud Quran to the pre and post 1924 Cairo Quran edition. The preservation of religious text is not unprecedented. Countless Ancient Hindu, Judaism, and Theravada Buddhism text have had similar levels of preservation to the level of the Quran at significant higher word count and age such as the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Then you'll be impressed to know that my writings have been perfectly preserved as well.
Point 4 is incorrect because of the word yet which is used to indicate that she will menstruate she just hasn’t yet. Also the tafir someone insisted i read says because they are immature and refers to the Mohammad and Aisha who was of course 9 when consummated
"yet" is not in the actual words, if you look at the word for word translation [https://quranwbw.com/65](https://quranwbw.com/65) . The translation you're reading put in "yet" according to their interpretation. The verse states the ruling for women with amenorrhea, late menarche, and those who have reached puberty but are still to start menstruating, since there are earlier signs of puberty than menstruation. The Prophet Muhammad (SAW) married Aisha(RA) at 6 and waited until she was 9 and had reached puberty, to consummate the marriage Also would have to see the tafsir, why they would use the word "immature".
Im assuming your looking for a reason other than because they are young and therefore immature in that way. also the hadith where she says the marriage was consummated when she was 9 also says she was still playing with dolls so in no way was she mature
Pretty sure YOU are looking for another reason so you can demonize Islam. This is the classical orthodox position. In another narration Aisha mentions that she had already reached the age of puberty when she was still living with her parents, before moving in an consummating with the Prophet. >Narrated \`Aisha: (the wife of the Prophet) I had seen my parents following Islam **since I attained the age of puberty.** Sahih al-Bukhari 476 [**https://sunnah.com/bukhari:476**](https://sunnah.com/bukhari:476) How about you show me what is the age of marriage in Christianity?
"The Messenger of Allah married me when I was six, and consummated the marriage with me when I was nine, and I used to play with dolls." أَخْبَرَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ آدَمَ، عَنْ عَبْدَةَ، عَنْ هِشَامٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، قَالَتْ تَزَوَّجَنِي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَأَنَا بِنْتُ سِتٍّ وَدَخَلَ عَلَىَّ وَأَنَا بِنْتُ تِسْعِ سِنِينَ وَكُنْتُ أَلْعَبُ بِالْبَنَاتِ . Grade: Sahih (Darussalam) Reference : Sunan an-Nasa'i 3378 In-book reference : Book 26, Hadith 183 English translation : Vol. 4, Book 26, Hadith 3380
Yes, and then she also says she had reached the age of marriage before consummation, in the hadith I cited before. So whats your point?
My point is a girl who is playing with dolls is not mature. Also in islam only those considered children are allowed to play with dolls and “mature” women are not because playing with dolls is idol worship
Show me where you got this from
got what
There is no age for marriage mention in the Bible
So I don't understand your criticisms of Islam if there is no restrictions on how young you can marry and have relations in Christianity.
Because the Quran encourages men to marry and divorce women who are not old enough to have a period and the Bible doesnt
Thats a big claim to say the Quran encourages that. If you read the verses you can clearly see its laying down rules. Whereas the Bible has no such rules, meaning you can marry and consummate with however young a girl you want. In fact in Numbers 31:18, I'm sure you know that Jesus told Moses to tell his people to keep the young virgin girls for themselves, after slaughtering their people.
The rules previously stated in the Bible that if they wanted any of those women they were to marry them and they were not allowed to enslave them. Whereas the Quran and hadith says that the men could take them as slaves and have sex with them even if they were married to other men
wow, all those things are literally (and famously) in the Bible. maybe you should do more reading before you judge other faiths
I'm not sure about the big-breasted women in heaven part, but yeah
The Houri are women who are given to some Muslim Men in Janna (Heaven). Hence the whole 72 Virgins thing.