Talk:Polygyny in Islam

message: This "article" shouldn't even exist, there isn't one important note on this entire paper on Polygyny in Islam.  Nothing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.20.106 (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The article states that a man may have up to four wives under Islamic law.  It would be good to see some citations here, and the Quranic basis for this law.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Basis?

message: What is this word 'polygyny'? If you mean polygamy, say polygamy!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.254.201.36 (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That's like saying "What is this word, 'wife'? If you mean spouse, say spouse!" Largoplazo (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Polygyny?

message: Recently, a Muslim woman has told me that while men in her faith may have up to 4 wives, Muslim women may have up to 2 husbands. Does anybody know if this is true.--Splashen (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslim Women With More Than One Husband 

message: Hello Wikipedia Community!!
We are a group of students at Colgate University and we will be editing this page as a final project for our Islamic Jurisprudence class. We will be cleaning up the article, restructuring it, and adding some more information about the pre-Islamic history, the textual basis, and the general practice today.  Mdavidson13 (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colgate University Wikipedia Edit Page, Spring 2013 

message: The section on Islamic feminism contains this sentence:
As a student of history, this statement puzzles me greatly. Europeans have been "in contact with the Muslim world" since the very beginning. For a start, the Byzantine Empire was at war with a succession of Muslim states, beginning with the Rashidun conquest of the Levant and Egypt, for 800 years until they were destroyed by the Ottomans in 1453. Then there is the Umayyad conquest of Visigothic Spain in the eighth century, followed by the Reconquista which again lasted about 700 years. Then the Crusades of the twelfth century onwards and the European struggle to keep the Ottoman Empire out from the 15th to 18th centuries... this sentence betrays its author's utter ignorance. Hairy Dude (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "First contact" 

message: The following statement should not be allowed on an encyclopedia, in my opinion.  Hopefully others will agree.
"However, it is important to understand the verse in context of both the Qur'an as well as the historical context when it was revealed."
Specifically, the "it is important to understand" part.  Encyclopedias should not contain opinions disguised as facts.  I do believe the information about the origins and the historical context are valid information; creating a new sub section of the article without the bias should suffice.  Facts get muddle by an agenda/bias when the reader is told to agree with it in an underhanded way.  Let people make up their own minds by reading the referenced source.
This is yet another variation on saying "You have to understand..." before making some point of view known.  It is simply a way to subtly influence others.  It is also a ridiculously common argument among religious scholars to try and make the literal words seems more palatable to a modern audience.  Instead of saying the words and commands in a religious text are outdated or irrelevant to a modern sense of morals, it is instead excused as needing "historical context."  If that context is required, then the words and commands only apply within that context, which means they simply do not apply in any other circumstance and should be noted as such at all times.  No matter what you believe, it is an opinion.  This last paragraph I just wrote is also an opinion, and is exactly why it isn't on the actual article.  Neither should any other opinion.
162.207.200.246 (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "it is important to understand" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Polygyny in Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081209050936/http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1885&CATE=10 to http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1885&CATE=10
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "One way that polygyny is still legally practiced in Iran today is through the practice of mut'a, a temporary contractual relationship based on the mutual consent of a man and a woman. Throughout the contracted time, the woman must remain exclusively faithful to the man, and in return he must provide for her financially. Although this practice is technically legal, it is very highly disputed."
This part talking about Nikkah al-mot'aa is claiming that is legal , in Islamic law it is not and this is pure adultery , it was allowed at a time but a revelation forbid it permanently.
Islam encourage for last long marital relations ,not temporary based on forbidden desires and lust.
The author , or the contributors of this wikipedia article have to be objective and more clear about word they are using not confusing people , a non-Muslim reader with no background knowledge on the topic will think that is an allowed practice within Islam , while the person who wrote the article refer to the secular law of iran.
Additionally , iran should not be recognized as Islamic country , they are deviant from original Islam teaching , and Allah knows best. 197.240.159.11 (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  iran plogyny is not legal it is fornication.