Even back in the days when all men were able to/practiced polygamy, no portion of the population was affected by a lack of a certain gender. Nowadays, only few men can afford it, so it has virtually zero affect on making an uneven population amongst the genders.
This is not an argument on why it is good for women that men should practice polygamy.
Your argument seems to stand that – well many men couldn’t practice polygamy ergo it’s good.
??
You do agree that if it were practiced by every men there’d soon be too few women?
If anything to me you are arguing against polygamy. At least by the average Muslim man. Taking your point of view it seems that only the rich and the powerful should have many wives.
Is this correct?
Purpose of marriage is to have kids. One man for four women can have four kids. One woman with four men cannot get them all to have children. This is why.
Firstly I disagree that the purpose of marriage is to have kids. Using this argument a barren man or woman should never marry. Is this your position?
The purpose of marriage in my mind is to spend the rest of your life with the one person you love.
But, if it is just to have kids, and using your first argument that most Muslim men couldn’t afford to have more than one wife. Why limit it to 4 – Hell, go for 1000 women and have sex with two or three each day. Really get the kids pumping out there.
Why four wives? Well then, why not? Four is a pretty sturdy number.
In short – because a book told me so.
Oh come on, just admit it – there is no rational reason for 4.
I have posted the whole argument, and if you don't find it convincing, then too bad. I did my part. I'm still waiting for you to dissect it and say what's wrong. I already told you that all of his wives had a huge impact socially, morally, and legislatively.
The Communist were able to eliminate slavery and give women equality under the law in a shorter tome period and did so without taking a harem of women. One would logically conclude that Mohammad, having God on side, could have done at least as good?
Thus in reality we go back to your main reason for marriage - which is to have kids. This stuff about having a huge impact socially, morally, and legislatively is a red herring. Women can have a huge impact socially, morally, and legislatively without being married.
On average, a healthy man/woman 1400 years ago in Arabia would be happy to reach sixty years of living. Nowadays, we're up to 75 years for healthy men/women (80+ in countries like Japan). If you think a woman marrying at the age of 22 (will have finished an average college by then), then there is a 13 year difference in her and Aisha. However, on average, Aisha is to die 16 years earlier than today's woman. If you die 'X' years earlier, then it's only reasonable (and unbelievably common in those days) to marry 'X' years earlier.
Also, marriages 1400 years ago often had a primary political purpose. You could marry to strengthen bonds with the woman's father, you know, things of that sort.
Finally, Muhammad had his share of critics 1400 years ago. They criticized Muhamad's beliefs/actions on a numerous amount of things. However, they never criticized him for marrying Aisha. It was considered perfectly normal.
It may have been normal in Arabia but then again so was polytheism. If Mohammad wanted to set a good precedent he could have adopted her and cared for her as his granddaughter. He could have arranged for her to marry a good man that was closer to her age. I fail to see how marrying her over adopting her promoted female dignity and equality.
How does it?
