• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Kenya legalizes polygamy without wife’s consent

Mar 21, 2014 4:20 pm By Robert Spencer

Women in Kenya“Parliamentary majority leader Aden Duale, a Muslim, said that men marrying more than one woman was part of the Islamic faith, but also highlighted Biblical stories to justify Christians not asking their wife before taking another.” Yes, but nonetheless, monogamy has always been the teaching of virtually all Christian sects; this move is a clear step toward the Islamization of Kenya, and was spearheaded by forces who want to see the full introduction of Sharia there.

“Kenya legalises polygamy without wife’s consent,” by Peter Martell for AFP, March 21 (thanks to Mike):

Nairobi (AFP) – Kenya’s parliament has passed a bill allowing men to marry as many women as they want, prompting a furious backlash from female lawmakers who stormed out, reports said Friday.

The bill, which amended existing marriage legislation, was passed late on Thursday to formalise customary law about marrying more than one person.

The proposed bill had initially given a wife the right to veto the husband’s choice, but male members of parliament overcame party divisions to push through a text that dropped this clause.

“When you marry an African woman, she must know the second one is on the way, and a third wife… this is Africa,” MP Junet Mohammed told the house, according to Nairobi’s Capital FM.

As in many parts of Africa, polygamy is common among traditional communities in Kenya, as well as among the country’s Muslim community, which accounts for up to a fifth of the population.

“Any time a man comes home with a woman, that would be assumed to be a second or third wife,” said Samuel Chepkong’a, chairman of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee, the Daily Nation newspaper reported.

“Under customary law, women or wives you have married do not need to be told when you’re coming home with a second or third wife. Any lady you bring home is your wife,” he added.

– Men fear ‘women’s tongues’ –

Female MPs stormed out of the late-night session in fury after a heated debate.

“We know that men are afraid of women’s tongues more than anything else,” female legislator Soipan Tuya told fellow MPs, according to Capital FM.

“But at the end of the day, if you are the man of the house, and you choose to bring on another party — and they may be two or three — I think it behoves you to be man enough to agree that your wife and family should know,” she added.

A clause in which a partner who had promised marriage but then backed out of the wedding could face financial damages was also dropped, as male MPs argued it could have been used to extort cash.

They also argued that marriage should be based on love, and not have a financial cost placed upon it.

Parliamentary majority leader Aden Duale, a Muslim, said that men marrying more than one woman was part of the Islamic faith, but also highlighted Biblical stories to justify Christians not asking their wife before taking another.

“I want my Christian brothers to read the Old Testament — King David and King Solomon never consulted anybody to marry a second wife,” Duale told the house.

Women are not allowed to marry more than one man in Kenya.

The bill must now pass before the president to be signed before becoming law.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: Kenya, Sharia, women's rights in Islam Tagged With: featured


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Islamisdeath says

    Mar 21, 2014 at 4:50 pm

    Biden helped obamas Muslim cousin get elected in this previously Christian country. Islam is satanic

    • robert4 says

      Mar 21, 2014 at 5:47 pm

      That is a lie. Sorry.

      • Daphdong says

        Mar 21, 2014 at 7:45 pm

        Inthe beginning God made man and woman. 1 Woman. This pair were to populate the entire earth. Knowing the size of the earth, it is God who gave Adam only one wife, Eve, not Eve, Sahari, Aisha and Jane. Jesus also gave ua Matthew 19:4 – 6. ” Haven’t you read,”, He replied, “that at the beginning the Creator “made them male and female”, and said, “for this reason a man will leave his mfather and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh”? “So they are no longer two but one, Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” Notice that He said the two, not three, four or five.

        • citycat says

          Mar 21, 2014 at 9:20 pm

          so with whom

          did their sons

          become one?

      • Islamisdeath says

        Mar 22, 2014 at 11:48 am

        No it’s not.

  2. Islamisdeath says

    Mar 21, 2014 at 4:53 pm

    In the New Testament it is very clear one man, one woman in a marriage. This reduces women to chattel. Imam Obama must be beaming!

    • robert4 says

      Mar 21, 2014 at 5:48 pm

      Chapter and verse, please?

      • cranky.white.woman says

        Mar 21, 2014 at 6:33 pm

        Here you go:
        http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/monogamy/

      • cranky.white.woman says

        Mar 21, 2014 at 6:34 pm

        Here you go:
        http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/monogamy/

        If God had meant for men to take more than one wife, He would make sure the ratio of female births to male births would be four girls to one boy, rather than roughly one to one.

        • robert4 says

          Mar 21, 2014 at 7:21 pm

          Good point. I’m glad men don’t fight and die in wars at the prime of their lives. (This is one of the historical explanations for Islamic polygamy.)

        • gravenimage says

          Mar 22, 2014 at 12:08 am

          robert4 wrote:

          Good point. I’m glad men don’t fight and die in wars at the prime of their lives. (This is one of the historical explanations for Islamic polygamy.)
          ……………………..

          I’m sure robert4 could go off to wage Jihad anytime he wishes. I doubt he would be much missed…

      • Stephen David says

        Mar 22, 2014 at 12:03 pm

        > Chapter and verse, please?
        Mathew 19:4-6 (see my comment, below)

        Also, Paul deals with the issue of polygamy in his letter to Timothy (1 Timothy 3). The church was seeing a large influx of former pagan gentiles who sometimes already were in polygamous marriages before coming to faith.

        But Paul emphasizes that this was not holy. He charged that those chosen for leadership positions (e.g. Deacons and Overseers) should especially be “the husband of one wife.” (e.g. 1 Timothy 3:2, 12) As all Christians should be prepared to serve in any capacity they are called for, all Christians should be monogamous.

        It is clear that Paul considered monogamy to be normative among Christians, and that polygamy was not considered a holy state of matrimony. And this has been the position of the Church from earliest days. (see the writings of the Early Church Fathers, e.g. Tertullian “On Monogamy”)

        • Daniel says

          Mar 26, 2014 at 7:48 am

          Paul is very clear that marriage is monogamous in 1 Cor. 7:2, where he uses the words “each” and “own” for both husband and wife. Polyandry prevents a husband from having his own wife, he has to share. Polygyny in the same way prevents a wife from having her own husband. She may belong to him, but he does not belong to her. “Each” and “own” mean exclusivity on both sides.

          Also even in the Old Testament, God discouraged polygamy. The least followed law for kings was Deut. 17:17 which forbade polygamy for the king.

    • someone says

      Mar 21, 2014 at 10:23 pm

      POLYGAMY DEBUNKED:
      15-64 years: 65.2% (male 2,152,066,888/female 2,100,334,722)
      51,732,100 extra males in the world at marriageable age.
      https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/xx.html#People

      Even the worst war in history did not “increase” enough males to make polygamy justified;

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WW2_casualties
      In WWII, 24 million “military” died, leaving still another 26 million spare men!

      GENERAL POPULATION: women and men casualties; 1,986,370,000 (probably mostly women)
      Military casualties 24,456,700

      Furthermore; Allah already creates waaaay more males

      The ratio of births is 105 males to 100 females. So, if Allah intends the polygamous marriages for war, then why is Allah putting so many extra males in the world that even the worst war in history didn’t unbalance the other way?

      Point 3: Men are better of married

      Using the same Islamic reasoning, it should be that some women marry an extra man. Science has even proven that single men suffer more health and emotional problems than do single women. Men find it hard to live without a woman.

      Point 4: Men die younger and leave more females in old age

      If polygamy was an institution that really did have the women’s best interests in mind, then when a man with 4 wives dies, he leaves 4 elderly single women – then what? THEN there are more females, ie because males have died off; 65 years and over: 7.4% (male 213,160,216/female 270,146,721) but I doubt these “noble” altruistic men are going to marry a 70 year old!

      Point 5: Male domination is bad all round: Proof

      This is the latest research study of women’s oppression and overall quality of life of the family;

      This is the 2006 report. Note that Islamic paradises are doing the worst;

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/11_12_06SOWC2007.pdf

      • enwhitenment says

        Mar 22, 2014 at 12:33 am

        Islam is not about “counting or math” it is about killing.
        They realise they lack the female resource’s required.
        That is why they are desperate to take over new areas .
        That is what moped told them to ” kill & steal” to get your reward
        their first lessons are that lying is as natural as child rape & keeping a wife as a slave.
        If the young girls are not married off at birth they fear they will have no women to marry,
        They are not only disgusting they are stupid as well. stupid enough to die for nothing.

  3. mariam rove says

    Mar 21, 2014 at 4:56 pm

    As I said many times before Islam is designed purely for men. M

    • robert4 says

      Mar 21, 2014 at 5:49 pm

      Nope. If it’s, “a bill allowing men to marry as many women as they want”, then it contradicts Islamic marriage rules.

      • tatter says

        Mar 21, 2014 at 6:44 pm

        What happens when the man of the house brings home
        a young boy to be his temporary wife?

        • Defcon 4 says

          Mar 22, 2014 at 12:16 am

          Robert4 probably wouldn’t mind — as long as the young boy’s dancing skills are up to par.

        • boakai ngombu says

          Mar 22, 2014 at 9:14 am

          or, when he brings a young man home?

          “women business”

          encourages the young man to enjoy himself … eventually leads to the bed us younger wives … they get caught and are brought before the old man … threats and demands: pay the “fee” or we’ll go after your family and extract the fee and more …

          big business in some chiefdoms

      • Angemon says

        Mar 21, 2014 at 7:04 pm

        “Nope. If it’s, “a bill allowing men to marry as many women as they want”, then it contradicts Islamic marriage rules.”

        Really? Where in islamic marriage rules is the maximum number of women a muslim man is allowed to marry? No, nuslim men can marry with as many women as they want. There’s a limit for the number of women they can be simultaneously married at the same time though, hence why they’re allowed to divorce simply by repudiating a wife 3 times (yes, i know, women are also allowed to divorce, but they need to get the approval of an islamic judge/commission, in practice it’s very difficult for women to get a divorce).

        • Stephen David says

          Mar 22, 2014 at 12:29 pm

          What I always find interesting about this is that, like all dangerous cult leaders, Mohammad (ptooeey!) gave himself special dispensation to violate his own rules.

          Qur’an, Sura 4 says a Muslim can have up to 4 wives, which then became the limit for the average Muslim male. On the other hand, according to some Muslim sources Mohammad (ptooeey!) allowed himself 11 wives, while other sources claim the number was 13.

          But then, his favorite wife Aisha (who he married at 6 years old and had sex with at 9 years old) claimed that Mohammad (ptooeey!) received special revelations from Allah whenever there was something he, Mohammad (ptoeey!), desired.

          If he had 4 wives and desired many more — Allah suddenly said he alone could have as many as he wanted up to 11/13. And, if he had lived longer, I am sure sooner or later Allah would have granted him 14 or more wives!

          And this doesn’t even count all the slaves and “female war booty” he raped whenever he desired.

          LOL!

  4. ibn Muslim says

    Mar 21, 2014 at 6:38 pm

    King David had 8 wifes! The more sex you have, more close to God you get.

    And the more wifes you have, the more likely it is that you will not grow tired of having sex.

    • Angemon says

      Mar 21, 2014 at 6:56 pm

      “King David had 8 wifes! The more sex you have, more close to God you get.”

      Really? Is that why David was punished by god for indulging in material pleasures?

      • ibn Muslim says

        Mar 21, 2014 at 8:08 pm

        Where does it say that? Adam and Eve were sent from heaven to earth to make corporal love. And out of sex came children. Adam as father of nations had to have a lot of wifes and a lot of sex.

        • Angemon says

          Mar 22, 2014 at 5:10 am

          “Where does it say that?”
          Go read the OT. I believe King David’s story starts somewhere on Samuel and ends on somewhere on Kings. You might also want to read dumbledoresarmy’s post explaining why David is a cautionary tale and not an example to follow.

          “Adam and Eve were sent from heaven to earth to make corporal love. And out of sex came children. Adam as father of nations had to have a lot of wifes and a lot of sex.”
          What is it with petty trolls that makes them flaunt their ignorance around? Where does it say that Adam had sex with a lot of wives? And where does it say that Adam and Eve were sent from heaven to earth to make corporal love?

        • Stephen David says

          Mar 22, 2014 at 10:54 am

          > Adam and Eve were sent from heaven to earth to make corporal love.

          Adam and Eve were not “sent from heaven” — which would imply they existed in heaven before coming to earth.

          Adam was created by God from the dust of the earth (Gen. 2:7) and then created Eve from Adam’s rib (Gen 2:21); Eve became the “mother of all living beings.” (Gen. 3:20).

          [As an aside, there are a lot of puns in the original Hebrew that don’t come across in translation. My Hebrew teacher (the great OT Scholar Douglas Stuart) says that a more literal translation of their names would be “Dusty” (Adam=”dust”) and “Livia” (Eve=Chava which comes from the root word Chai=”life”) ]

          > Adam as father of nations had to have a lot of wifes and a lot of sex.

          This does not follow. Anyone having lots of children, lots of grandchildren… or lots of any future generation could be a “father of nations.” Even one or two children can lead to a few more grandchildren, and that compounds through time to many “nations.” Polygamy isn’t needed for this to occur. And scripture does not record Adam as having any other wife. Jewish folklore (referenced in the Babylonian Talmud circa 400 AD/CE) refers to a previous demonic wife “Lilith”. But that is folklore not Scripture, and was not referring to polygamous relations.

    • gravenimage says

      Mar 21, 2014 at 11:53 pm

      “ibn Muslim”

      King David had 8 wifes! The more sex you have, more close to God you get.
      ……………………………….

      Really? Does that include sex with goats, sex with sex slaves, sex with nine-year-old girls, sex with “pearly boys”?

      Does it include rape?

      Of course it does. Damn Mohammedan barbarian.

      More:

      And the more wifes you have, the more likely it is that you will not grow tired of having sex.
      ……………………………….

      Notice this pious Muslim does not spare one thought for the poor “wifes”. And why would he? Women have almost no value in Islam, except as f*ck dolls and brood sows. *Ugh*.

      • EYESOPEN says

        Mar 22, 2014 at 12:10 am

        Absolutely Graven! NOW I know why there was never any scientific or social improvements under islam. Their men live their lives between their legs and think with the wrong “head”.

        • gravenimage says

          Mar 23, 2014 at 3:49 pm

          True, EYESOPEN.

    • Salah says

      Mar 22, 2014 at 12:56 am

      “The more sex you have, more close to God you get.”

      So that’s the reason why Muhammad was soooo far away from God!!!

      Aisha said:
      “Magic was worked on Allah’s Apostle so that he used to THINK that he had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not” Bukhari 7.71.660

      http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2011/10/muhammad-and-satan_24.html

    • eib says

      Mar 22, 2014 at 10:18 am

      Islam is profane.
      Different day, more proof.

  5. mortimer says

    Mar 21, 2014 at 7:04 pm

    Nonsense. Judaism and Christianity both interpret the creation of Adam and Eve as a sign of normative monogamy. Polygamy was an abuse that was tolerated but never approved. It has always been compulsory for the Jewish priestly orders and Christian clergy.

    Monogamy is one of the greatest of all gifts to women.

    • ibn Muslim says

      Mar 21, 2014 at 8:19 pm

      Sure, Adam had Eve. But then daughters were born 🙂

      Do you think that Eve objected that Adam had sex with other women? She encouraged him to have as many women as he could humanly make happy.

      A sign of a great prophet is his sexual strength! Why do you think Jesus had so many woman friends?

      The stories about virgin births are all false. Monks, nuns and celibate priests worship the Evil one! They torture themselves into virginity! Do not they know that God is Love? And Love without a wet pussy is no Love at all!

      • gravenimage says

        Mar 22, 2014 at 12:03 am

        The absurd “ibn Muslim” wrote:

        Do you think that Eve objected that Adam had sex with other women? She encouraged him to have as many women as he could humanly make happy.

        A sign of a great prophet is his sexual strength! Why do you think Jesus had so many woman friends?
        ………………………….

        Not only is this ugly hogwash not in Jewish and Christian texts, it isn’t even in the Qur’an or Hadith.

        But why should a meretricious Mohammedan care? He’ll use whatever Taqiyya he thinks might fly with the credulous Kuffar.

        Too bad most of the good Infidels here are quite well versed in the ugliness of Islam.

        • Jan says

          Mar 22, 2014 at 7:09 am

          ‘Ibn muslim’ sounds a lot like the repulsive and ridiculous ‘rezali’ … 🙂

          Goodness, we’re getting an awful lot of inept trolls lately !

        • gravenimage says

          Mar 23, 2014 at 3:52 pm

          This is very true, Jan—the trolls have been coming out of the woodwork the last couple of weeks here at JW. Bleah…

      • EYESOPEN says

        Mar 22, 2014 at 12:25 am

        No, fool! Monks, nuns and celibate priests do NOT worship the evil one! Anyone whose carnal lusts run their lives are those who worship the evil one. The pattern never fails: mo-ham-head, the “Rev.” Jim Jones, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Gordon Hinckley, Warren Jeffs, David Koresh, “Swami”, Muktananda, Rajneesh. ALL of them. The pattern is oh so familiar. They start out as so-called “prophets” of God, then the first thing they turn to when they get power is satisfaction of their carnal lusts. They are evil, and are (or will be) reaping the rotten “fruits” of their evil – in hell.

      • Stephen David says

        Mar 22, 2014 at 9:24 am

        > Sure, Adam had Eve. But then daughters were born

        So you are implying Adam had sex with his daughters? So you support incest? I guess that’s likely, as Muslims tend to be rapists and pedophiles, like their prophet (ptooey). It is just a small step to include incest.

        > Why do you think Jesus had so many woman friends?

        Jesus had both male and female followers and friends. All of His closest disciples (His “inner circle” of 12) were male. The fact that some of his followers were female in no way suggests that He had sex with any of them.

        On the contrary, Jesus taught and practiced chastity and celibacy outside of marriage. His mission on earth was to preach the Gospel and die on the cross for the sins of the world. He had no time nor interest in marriage. His focus was strictly on accomplishing the task set before Him.

  6. Stephen David says

    Mar 21, 2014 at 7:11 pm

    We know from ancient near-eastern studies and archaeological research that polygamy was common in Old Testament days among kings and tribal leaders, not necessarily amont the common folk.

    Marriage was used to consolidate power among tribes and seal alliances between kings. That is why Solomon fell from favor with God and turned towards false foreign gods, for “King Solomon loved many foreign women along with the daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, from the nations concerning which the Lord had said to the sons of Israel, ‘You shall not associate with them, nor shall they associate with you, for they will surely turn your heart away after their gods.’ ” (1 Kings 11:1-2)

    Jesus stressed the monogamous relationship when he discussed divorce:

    “And He answered and said, ‘Have you not read that He who created 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 flesh? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.’ ”(Mathew 19:4-5)

    Although He is answering the question regarding Divorce here, the obvious implication is that there is exactly one husband and one wife (‘from the beginning made them male and female’). Can one male and two or three females become “one flesh” ? It has been the common understanding of the Church throughout the centuries that this is not possible.

    • Stephen David says

      Mar 21, 2014 at 7:14 pm

      That should have read: “(Mathew 19:4-6)” … It’s been a long day!

    • robert4 says

      Mar 21, 2014 at 7:32 pm

      Without polygamy, there would be no Jesus. (Matthew 1:6)

      • Medina says

        Mar 21, 2014 at 11:27 pm

        Sorry Muzzo. Try again. How about, “Without Satan, there’d be no Islam.”

        • EYESOPEN says

          Mar 22, 2014 at 12:29 am

          Now that was short, sweet and to the point – and true!

      • EYESOPEN says

        Mar 22, 2014 at 12:27 am

        Liar! And just how do you support that proposition?

      • Stephen David says

        Mar 22, 2014 at 9:03 am

        It is odd that you would go straight for Solomon (verse 6). The first occurrence of polygamy in the genealogy list of Matthew 1 is in the second verse: that of Jacob (Yaacov) who married the sisters Leah and Rachel. That polygamous marriage reveals one serious problem with such relationships, as the two women ended up competing contentiously with each other, causing continuous strife and grieving Jacob.

        Your “point” (that Jesus was of the lineage of Solomon’s polygamous marriage with Bathsheba) ignores an equally large problem of that relationship: that their marriage was based on adultery.

        So are you supporting adultery here? That would be the implication. Since Jesus was a product, ultimately through his genealogy, of both polygamy and adultery. You can’t just try to support one without the other.

        But if you are basing support for polygamy on the fact that Jesus had polygamous fore-fathers, you not only run into problems with the reasoning leading you to accept adultery, but other significant sins as well. For some examples, Jesus’ genealogy also includes :

        — The prostitute Rehab (verse 5).
        — King Uzziah/Azarih (verse 8) who desecrated the temple for which he was punished by God with leprosy.
        — King Manassah (verse 10) who was an idolater and murderer.

        So, if you think that a defense for polygamy can be made by implication based on the sins of Jesus’ fore-fathers, then by the same reasoning you could support adultery, prostitution, desecration/blasphemy, idolatry, and MURDER!

        And, any Christian or Jew who knows scripture could give you a much longer list of sinners in Jesus’ lineage, because many of the Kings of Judah (Jesus’ fore-fathers) were great sinners. And we know that if there were no such sinners among the Kings, Israel and Judah would never have been destroyed and carried off into exile.

        But the fact is that all humans sin (Romans 3:23) so it would be impossible for His lineage not to be filled with sinners. But that in no way supports the argument that such sins are acceptable to God.

        • Stephen David says

          Mar 22, 2014 at 12:56 pm

          CORRECTION:

          > Jesus was of the lineage of Solomon’s polygamous marriage with Bathsheba

          This was a misstatement. I meant to say that “Jesus was of the lineage of Solomon, who was the product of DAVID’s polygamous (and adulterous) marriage with Bathsheba” — NOT that Solomon had a polygamous relationship with his own mother!!!

        • gravenimage says

          Mar 23, 2014 at 3:56 pm

          Excellent post, Stephen.

    • Bill C. says

      Mar 24, 2014 at 1:25 am

      Thank you Stephen for well-written and non-emotional posts.

      I, for one, appreciate them very much after reading too much the opposite here where it does not belong.

      Invective has it’s place, but always, everywhere, all the time is just too much.

  7. gravenimage says

    Mar 21, 2014 at 11:44 pm

    this move is a clear step toward the Islamization of Kenya, and was spearheaded A clause in which a partner who had promised marriage but then backed out of the wedding could face financial damages was also dropped, as male MPs argued it could have been used to extort cash.

    They also argued that marriage should be based on love, and not have a financial cost placed upon it.
    ………………………………….

    Well, that’s just grimly hilarious—as if those pushing *polygamy* cared anything about love.

    More:

    by forces who want to see the full introduction of Sharia there.
    ………………………………….

    That’s *exactly* what this is. Despite Muslims’ ludicrous appeal to Christian men on the basis of the old testament, no Christians are asking for this.

  8. dumbledoresarmy says

    Mar 22, 2014 at 12:40 am

    Christianity – founded by a well-instructed *Jew, Yeshua of Nazareth – has *always* taught and encouraged monogamy.

    The polygynous practices of *some* figures in the TaNaKh are interpreted as historic but not normative; we Christians accept that they *happened* but we do not view these cases as examples to be imitated or even particularly admired. Indeed, the TaNaKh is ruthlessly honest in depicting the jealousies, rivalries and backstabbing that are dismally typical of polygynous “families”; so much so that the stories of, for example, Jacob and his squabbling wives and their squabbling sons, or of David and the murderous internecine strife among the sons of his various wives, are most naturally read as “cautionary tales”.

    There is also the fact that major figures in the TaNaKh *are* monogamous. Adam has his one and only wife, Eve; Noah has only one wife; Abraham has one wife, Sarah, and there is no suggestion that he was sleeping with Hagar *until* Sarah, unable to produce the longed-for heir, suggested a ‘surrogacy’ arrangement (and there’s no suggestion that Abraham went on sleeping with Hagar after she conceived Ishmael; in the end Hagar is sent away, and then *after* Sarah *dies*, the widowed Abraham takes a woman called Keturah as wife); Isaac has just one wife, Rebekah, who is plenty enough for him; Joseph has Asenath, and there is no hint he has any other wife, especially since he has just the two sons, Ephraim and Manesseh; and Moses has just one wife, Zipporah. When Boaz marries Ruth, there is not the hint of a suggestion that he had any other wives.

    By the time of Jesus, Jews appear to have been mostly monogamous in practice and to have remained so thereafter, though I understand that polygyny was not *formally* anathematised until the 12th century.

    Recently, some academics at the University of British Columbia, Canada, did a study: they looked at the broad social indicators of societies that permitted polygyny and societies that did not, both contemporary and historic, and also at the changes that had taken place in societies that had formerly permitted polygyny but had then banned it and enforced the ban (one can see the transition, for example, in China: just read Jung Chang’s Wild Swans; if China had continued to permit polygyny the result of their self-inflicted ‘girl drought’ would be ten times worse than it already is).

    Conclusion: broadly speaking, if you want long-term social stability and wellbeing – especially of women and children – monogamy is the gold standard.
    http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/40214

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/9041460/Monogamy-safer-than-polygamy.html

    Wednesday, 25 January 2012
From The Philosophical Transactions Of The Royal Society
    Monogamy reduces major social problems of polygamist cultures
University of British Columbia | January 25, 2012
    Summary: “In cultures that permit men to take multiple wives, the intra-sexual competition that occurs causes greater levels of crime, violence, poverty and gender inequality than in societies that institutionalize and practice monogamous marriage.”…

    “Considered the most comprehensive study of polygamy and the institution of marriage, **the study finds significantly higher levels of rape, kidnapping, murder, assault, robbery and fraud in polygynous cultures.** {my emphasis – dda}.

    “According to Henrich and his research team, which included Profs. Robert Boyd (UCLA) and Peter Richerson (UC Davis), these crimes are caused primarily by pools of unmarried men, which result when other men take multiple wives.

    “The scarcity of marriageable women in polygamous cultures increases competition among men for the remaining unmarried women,” says Henrich, adding that polygamy was outlawed in 1963 in Nepal, 1955 in India (partially), 1953 in China and 1880 in Japan.

    “The greater competition increases the likelihood men in polygamous communities will resort to criminal behavior to gain resources and women, he says…’.
    And by way of contrast:

    ‘Monogamous marriage… results in significant improvements in child welfare, including lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death, homicide and intra-household conflict, the study finds.

    “These benefits result from greater levels of parental investment, smaller households and increased direct “blood relatedness” in monogamous family households, says Henrich, who served as an expert witness for British Columbia’s Supreme Court case involving the polygamous community of Bountiful, B.C.’

    Here’s the abstract:

    http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1589/657.abstract
    But there *is* a way you can read the whole thing.

    Go to this link:
    http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/2012/01/23/monogamy-reduces-major-social-problems-of-polygamist-cultures/

    When it opens, scroll down to the bottom where it says:
    “View the study, ‘the puzzle of monogamous marriage, at…”.
    and click on the link there provided
    which should allow you to view the *whole* thing in its original scholarly form, footnotes and all.
    I would advise you, if you’re interested, to print it off (which is what *I* have done); perhaps several copies, and keep up your sleeve, as it may come in handy.

  9. dumbledoresarmy says

    Mar 22, 2014 at 1:08 am

    I shall be expecting the Kenyan branch of the Mothers’ Union – an old and well-established Anglican womens’ organisation, with an *enormous*, feisty and extremely active African membership, and which has a *lot* of members in Kenya – to start raising holy hell over this one. I hope they make a lot of noise and do not shut up until they have got their husbands, their parish priests, their bishops and village chiefs on side, to campaign to get this iniquitous and abysmally stupid law thrown in the trash where it belongs. MU is committed to the classic, traditional Christian paradigm of marriage and family; there is no way they would support or accept polygyny.

    Here’s the link for MU Kenya.

    http://www.ackenya.org/provincial_office/mothers_union.html

    I think I might contact them (I being myself a member of MU Australia) and ask them what they think about this polygamy “law” that has just been passed.

    Any country in Africa that wishes to become more peaceful, socially stable and prosperous – in the long, long term – has one simple thing it can do right away, to start on that process: BAN POLYGYNY and ENFORCE THE BAN. No matter how much the Muslims and some among the animists scream and yell, it has to be done, if countries wish to make progress.

    Banning the practice of “bride price”, or reducing the amount to something that the average guy can reasonably afford, would also make a big difference: no cattle raids to steal cattle to trade for wives.

    Of course, keeping the Ummah out of any country where it is not already present, and strongly encouraging Muslims to *leave* any country where they are not the majority, would be a good way for any majority-non-Muslim African country to take a big step toward future peace and prosperity as well.

  10. enwhitenment says

    Mar 22, 2014 at 1:49 am

    Would it be naive to imagine that the next sexually transmitted virus that comes along will find the Islamic world as a perfect host ?
    With the talibans efforts to allow Polio to flourish I doubt they will listen when someone says “look out here comes a pandemic”
    It is highly likely brewing in Syria or north Africa or Pakistan as we speak.

    • Bill C. says

      Mar 24, 2014 at 1:34 am

      enwhitenment sez…

      “Would it be naive to imagine that the next sexually transmitted virus that comes along will find the Islamic world as a perfect host ?”

      One can only hope.

      Or perhaps the cannibal disease (the ISIS slaughterhouses…no joke…)

  11. Dorblu says

    Mar 22, 2014 at 6:05 pm

    The guy who referred to Old Testament to justify polygamy clearly is an ignoramus about his “Christian brother’s” faith, for if he knew even the first thing about Christianity he would know that jesus himself stated he came to bring a new law, rendering the “old” ones (old testament… Solomon etal)
    Rather obsolete or redundant, that is Matthew 22:37-40 KJV
    [37] Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. [38] This is the first and great commandment. [39] And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. [40] On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
    And furthermore jesus demonstrated his repudiation of blind adherence to the “old laws” when he said John 8:3-11 KJV
    [3] And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, [4] They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. [5] Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? [6] This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not . [7] So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. [8] And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. [9] And they which heard it , being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. [10] When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? [11] She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
    Clearly the lawmaker in Kenya is completely ignorant of the teachings of jesus of whom Christians are followers, thus referring to the Old Testament is only relevant for purposes of verifying the ultimate outcomes of prophecy. Christians look to jesus for teaching, not to Solomon or David . The final authority is jesus.

  12. Guest says

    Mar 22, 2014 at 6:36 pm

    I’m totally in support of Robert Spencer, but in Africa there are many forces towards polygamy, not all misogynistic or islamic. I have a Sudanese Christian friend whose mother was one of 17 (!) wives of a powerful village leader. My friend had very little education, because it was basically not safe to leave the walled village. According to her, the wives lived together supporting each other and glad to have a powerful husband. Not ideal, I’m sure, but maybe the best under the circumstances.

    Also recently saw a film based in Senegal, ‘Moolaade’, in which a woman who has suffered FGM (muslim) protects a group of girls who don’t want to suffer it. She hates any attention from her husband!! The time he basically rapes her (she has no choice), she has to sit in a bath afterwards just to ease the pain. She is one of several wives and is glad to share the terrible burden.

    So – it’s just not so simple in Africa.

    All that said: of course this is a terrible situation – either needing a powerful husband because the country is at war, or genitally mutilated so that you don’t even really want a husband! All horrible.

    • gravenimage says

      Mar 23, 2014 at 4:38 pm

      “Guest” wrote:

      She hates any attention from her husband!! The time he basically rapes her (she has no choice), she has to sit in a bath afterwards just to ease the pain. She is one of several wives and is glad to share the terrible burden.
      …………………………………..

      Has it ever occurred to you that one of the reasons this man treats his wives this way is because the same Islamic laws that sacralize marital rape also sacralize polygamy?

      The idea that the solution for wife beating and marital rape is simply spreading the misery around through multiple wife is a pretty strange apologia for polygamy.

      • gravenimage says

        Mar 23, 2014 at 4:40 pm

        “Multiple wife” should, of course, be “multiple wives”.

      • Guest says

        Mar 24, 2014 at 10:55 pm

        The Sudanese friend’s history is absolutely true. This has nothing to do with ‘tu quoque’, I’m just elaborating on the background of polygamy. I’m TOTALLY AGAINST IT, but we need to know the various situations, and that polygamy does have a foothold in Africa apart from is islam.

        “The idea that the solution for wife beating and marital rape is simply spreading the misery around through multiple wife is a pretty strange apologia for polygamy.” I’m just stating what the REALITIES for these women were. Just watch the film. It’s not a ‘solution’, but her, real, unfortunate situation.

        I’m being treated here like Robert when he holds up the mirror to islam: gets blamed for what islam does!

    • awake says

      Mar 24, 2014 at 9:37 am

      I call BS on “guest’s story. Even if it were true, the disposition of the “powerful village leader” left unelaborated was a weak attempt to offer a tu quoque argument to equivocate a particular hardship, (which may or may not be true), as opposed mainstream doctrinal Islam, in which polygamy is divinely sanctioned and irrefutably contained in the immutable text.

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • Shaman on Iranian Kurdistan: Muslim brothers behead their sister in honor killing over her romantic relationship
  • gravenimage on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
  • gravenimage on Chief Rabbi of UK Says It’s ‘Alarming’ That 44% of Muslims Are Anti-Semitic
  • Boycott Turkey on Iranian Kurdistan: Muslim brothers behead their sister in honor killing over her romantic relationship
  • gravenimage on India: Police make first arrest for ‘love jihad’ under new law

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.