• 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

Why Islam permits exactly four wives

Jul 17, 2014 12:05 pm By Raymond Ibrahim

Mohamamd Inaamulillah Bin Ashaari centre, Rohaiza Esa, Ummu Habibah Raihaw , Nurul Azwa Mohd Ani,  Ummu Ammarah AsmisDuring a recent Arabic program devoted to how religions view marriage, Islamic clerics endeavored to answer the host’s question, “Why does Islam permit exactly four wives, as opposed to only one or more than four?

One of these clerics responded by saying that, before Islam, there was no limit to how many wives an Arab man could have.    But when Koran 4:3 appeared, telling Muslim men to  “Marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four,” a man came to Islam’s prophet Muhammad saying, I have 19 wives, what do I do now?  Muhammad told him, keep four and divorce the rest.

The cleric then said that in another hadith, Muhammad said a woman should be married for one of four reasons: 1) her beauty, 2) her lineage, 3) her wealth, and 4) her piety.

However, argued the cleric, it is impossible to find all four traits in one woman.  That is why a Muslim man, who deserves the best that womanhood can offer, is permitted to have four wives—ideally, one that represents each of the four aforementioned traits sought after in women.

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: Sharia, women's rights in Islam


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. mariam rove says

    Jul 17, 2014 at 12:19 pm

    unreal. You can’t make this stuff up. M

    • Jay Boo says

      Jul 18, 2014 at 12:29 am

      Billie Holiday singing “Take all of Me” on the radio in the background as I am reading this.

      … Surreal

  2. Reality Check says

    Jul 17, 2014 at 12:38 pm

    I did not see “intelligence” among the reasons.

    • mariam rove says

      Jul 17, 2014 at 12:44 pm

      when someone makes an statement like this it show his lack of intelligence so there you have it!!!!!!!!!! M

    • thomas_h says

      Jul 17, 2014 at 1:26 pm

      Good one!

      • thomas_h says

        Jul 17, 2014 at 1:28 pm

        The above comment is a response to Reality Check

    • ebonystone says

      Jul 18, 2014 at 12:34 am

      “I did not see “intelligence” among the reasons.”

      Of course not. Mohammed didn’t think that women had any intelligence. And judging from the actions and statements from many Moslem women, he was right.
      But that’s not to say the Moslem men DO have any intelligence.

      • Jan Fourowls says

        Jul 18, 2014 at 3:42 am

        Societal Stockholm Syndrome (from which all Muslim females suffer without diagnosis, on a continuum depending on where they live) tends to put a damper on analytical abilities by unresolved PTSD alone.

        I am very sorry for all Muslims born to the horrible ideology in which they find themselves. However Islam = Evil so we keep speaking out.

        Interestingly, the last two U.S. presidential candidates (Obama and the just slightly lesser evil, Romney) had polygamists in their paternal family trees, one Muslim, one Mormon, each with multiple wives.

        Mormon enclaves over the U.S. border (and some holdouts in strange spaces near Arizona/Utah/Nevada) still practice polygamy. American TV idealized polygamy in the show inaptly named Big Love (as if pushing the idea on an unsuspecting public including porn-sick men).

        There’s probably more on sensationalist TV (but I don’t watch TV any more) to fuel evil desires for immoral misogyny like polygamy.

        Women would wisely take notice and start talking about the horror and heartache polygamy causes to women. Here’s a place to start: http://www.amazon.com/Shattered-Dreams-Life-Polygamists-Wife/dp/1400155940

        I’m not talking about the good guys of JW but —

        Perhaps why so few men of any religion or none do nothing to stop Islam is their hope for four wives.

        • Paul says

          Jul 20, 2014 at 8:31 pm

          Why is polygamy such an awful thing? Why do we allow the state (or any other institution, for that matter) to define how many licit relationships a person (of either sex) may have at once? Where is the sense in any of this? Why is it anyone else’s business if Jim wishes and is able to marry Judy, Jerri and Jodi? Or Jennifer would like to and can hook up with Johnny, James and Jeremiah?

          Just saying.

          And I’m not making a brief for Islam, which I detest in its many (but eerily similar) forms. And for what it’s worth, the Mormons owned the record for the largest religiously inspired massacre performed in North America on 9/11 from about 1857 until 2001.

  3. el-cid says

    Jul 17, 2014 at 12:49 pm

    What an enlightened society. Ah, to be a Rich, Male and Muslim. They have so much to teach the Western man about the proper place of women and other goods and chattel.

    No wonder the feminist movement supports Islamists!

    • TH says

      Jul 17, 2014 at 11:06 pm

      The riches, of course don’t come from hard work but from pillage just as Mahommad was a bandit, according to the official legend.

    • Jan Fourowls says

      Jul 18, 2014 at 4:17 am

      Islam being supernaturally evil — having no Christ, having no truth, having no salvific liberator — is actually taking a limited step forward for selected females with its journey, on behalf of some relatively privileged Muslim women, into secular feminism. E.g., http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_1_why_feminism.html

      For a Christian woman who really knows and understands (as I do) her Bible including nuances of the original Greek phrases, secular feminism is a both a big step backward from Jesus and a misdirection into refusing to see the good of both men and women as possible under the reign of the God of the Bible.

      Jesus Christ was the ultimate and only savior, redeemer and liberator of women as well as men, and the entirety of the bible in its complete context (historical and spiritual) gives a man and a woman equal standing in Christ before God. Unfortunately most women do not understand their worth by the Bible because there’s a lot of stubbornly bad teaching out there based in poor scholarship, not to mention hypocrisy and corruption among church people of both sexes. Jesus, however, is righteous and trustworthy, fully human and fully divine, beautifully born to our world as the baby of a woman.

      Sojourner Truth as a strong Christian knew it, too. Called by God to escape her life as a slave, she rocked the crowd in opposing oppression with her 1851 “Ain’t I a Woman” speech, and did the seemingly miraculous in helping to end African-American slavery. She’s the kind of woman who can be a beacon of freedom to her sisters and her brothers alike. Her words still rock across the ages: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/sojtruth-woman.asp

  4. Buraq says

    Jul 17, 2014 at 1:06 pm

    Fascinating explanation. And I thought it was because most Muslim men could only count up to four!

    Clowns!

    • Jean says

      Jul 18, 2014 at 2:59 am

      Obviously that’s what he brings to the table. 🙁

  5. jewdog says

    Jul 17, 2014 at 1:26 pm

    Four wives mean four mothers-in-laws. Well, it’s not all gravy, is it?

    • PRCS says

      Jul 17, 2014 at 3:34 pm

      Funny!

    • dumbledoresarmy says

      Jul 23, 2014 at 8:47 am

      But if the wives are the daughters of his father’s sisters, or of his mother’s sisters, then his mothers-in-law are already his *aunts*.

  6. Wellington says

    Jul 17, 2014 at 1:31 pm

    Talk about an excuse masquerading as an argument. Oh yeah, this one’s a winner.

  7. bettina says

    Jul 17, 2014 at 1:38 pm

    “That is why a Muslim man, who deserves the best that womanhood can offer…” Yep, I see now the origin of their sense of entitlement, starting with camels and women — in that order, if you please…
    Now, of course, they’re also entitled to rule the world… bunch of blood-thirsty savages that they are.
    And here’s to you, cretinous muzzie trolls — come one, come all, and smell the vomit that your death cult leaves behind.

    • Beagle says

      Jul 17, 2014 at 4:59 pm

      They have camel beauty contests and keep their women in sacks. So yes, camels are a cut above in their heirarchy.

      • Jan Fourowls says

        Jul 18, 2014 at 4:30 am

        Now I’m laughing even more! Mothers-in-law comment above was funny, too.

        But in reality the Muslim life, for any males who can afford a cut above poverty, is like a dudes enclave with the females cloistered elsewhere.

        I repeat my concern that for many non-Muslim men who aren’t strongly and sincerely Christian or Jewish with the corollary character reformation away from sin (or maybe Buddhist, Hindu or some other relatively benign religion with a moral code), parts of Islam’s exaggerated male supremacy and control of women could look desirable.

        Just because Islam is evil doesn’t mean there aren’t other evils in the world willing to attach themselves to Islam like velcro vileness.

        • Jan Fourowls says

          Jul 18, 2014 at 4:31 am

          And yes of course there can be atheists and agnostics with a moral code!

  8. Tallulah says

    Jul 17, 2014 at 1:57 pm

    So if a man *does* find a woman that embodies all of those traits, should he then limit himself to just the one wife? If one wife embodies two or three traits, then is the man limited to one more wife embodying the remaining trait?

    • Reality Check says

      Jul 17, 2014 at 2:19 pm

      Methinks you credit Muslims with too much thinking. 🙂

      • Tallulah says

        Jul 17, 2014 at 3:05 pm

        Not really. 🙂

        I suspect the Islamic answer to my questions is: blank out. But the question should be asked.

  9. Diane Harvey says

    Jul 17, 2014 at 2:05 pm

    In the photo there are 5 people.

    Only the middle one looks pregnant.

    • Jan Fourowls says

      Jul 18, 2014 at 4:32 am

      LOL!

  10. Walter Sieruk says

    Jul 17, 2014 at 3:05 pm

    Islam may teach that a man may have four wives but the Bible teaches that a man should had just one wife. For example,God gave Adam one wife. In the New Testament Jesus had taught “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife…” Matthew 19:5 . [K.J.V.] Jesus said “wife” not wives. Moreover there are some people who act as apologists for polygamy by saying that King David and then King Solomon did practice it. Such people aren’t taken into account that the only reason that God did tolerate this tradition was not because it was right or that He approved of it. It was because this practice of having many wives was such an entrenched custom in the ancient Middle East that God allowed it for the above mentioned Kings of Israel. This does not mean that this custom was to keep on going in time.

    • Brian Hoff says

      Jul 18, 2014 at 3:54 am

      Abraham have three wifes at the same time.

      • Reality Check says

        Jul 18, 2014 at 4:17 am

        Abraham had three wives more than a thousands years ago.

        Polygamy has been outlawed in the Judaeo – Christian culture for centuries and is considered a serious crime outside “Dar-Al-Islam”.

        Muslims, on the other hand, are still allowed to marry multiple wives and Islam gives divine sanction to polygamy.

        Your argument is lame, to say the least, but then what could you expect from a desperate Muzzle who knows that he can’t defend the indefencible?

      • gravenimage says

        Jul 19, 2014 at 12:23 am

        “Brian Hoff” wrote:

        Abraham have (sic) three wifes (sic) at the same time.
        ………………………………

        Certainly not based on the Old Testament (the Torah)—the original texts. He was married to his beloved wife Sarai (Sarah) for decades. When it appeared that she would be unable to bear children, there was an arrangement where Abraham conceived a child with Sarai’s maidservant, Hagar. (Later, of course, Sarah was able to conceive and gave birth to Isaac).

        After Sarah’s death, Abraham married a concubine named Keturah.

        At no time is he recorded to have engaged in polygamy.

        Even in Islam, it is only believed that he was married to tow women at the same time—Sarai and Hagar (this is render Ismail legitimate).

        But not even Islamic texts claim that he was married to three women at the same time.

        Who knew that “DefenderofIslam’s” scholarship would be so poor? sarc/off

    • Jan Fourowls says

      Jul 18, 2014 at 4:38 am

      Yes, good one, Walter. Thank you. God kept working with fallen people as He found them earlier in the Bible until by the time of Jesus the clear teaching for their cultural evolution was one man and one woman for marriage. “From the beginning of creation …” I always loved Jesus even more for never engaging the “Eve did it” second version of the Genesis story but focusing on the first when he talked about marriage. Paul has his own reasons because of corrupted goddess/temple prostitute female primacy heresies where he was seeding churches, but to go there here would be, well, so off point, even for me!

  11. Jaladhi says

    Jul 17, 2014 at 3:23 pm

    What gobbledygook Quran is and Muslims follow it without questioning it!!! Brain dfead morons!!

  12. gravenimage says

    Jul 17, 2014 at 6:42 pm

    Why Islam permits exactly four wives
    ……………………………..

    And don’t forget: and unlimited number of “what the right hand possesses”—sex slaves.

    Oh—and the “Prophet” himself was exempt from that limit…

    More:

    The cleric then said that in another hadith, Muhammad said a woman should be married for one of four reasons: 1) her beauty, 2) her lineage, 3) her wealth, and 4) her piety.
    ……………………………..

    Notice there is no mention whatsoever of *love*. And why should there be? Love is un-Islamic.

    Nor, of course, is there the least mention of why the *woman* should marry. Chattel that she is, she really has no say in the matter…

    God, I hate islam.

  13. Ryan Muhammad says

    Jul 17, 2014 at 8:18 pm

    Islam is idiotic. To address this pious Muslim’s conclusion:

    1) Muhammad also said that the best wife was the one with the prettiest face and the cheapest dowry. Again, no mention of loving her. And why would there be any mention of love? With all the disgusting, derogatory things Islam says about females, where is there room for love? Muhammad is basically saying to go after girls based on their looks and who one can get into their pants for the cheapest price. Muslim “marriage”, after all, is nothing more than a transaction to buy a female’s vagina.

    2) In terms of the maximum of 4 wives, it was explained to me by an Arabic speaker that the word used between two – three – four is “and”. This would explain why some Muslims say 9 wives is the limit (2 + 3 + 4) and at least the hadith which report Muhammad having 9 wives at one time would not make him violate Sura 4:3. Of course they still have to deal with the hadith which state he had 11 at one time.

    3) Look at the callousness of Muhammad in the hadith this Muslim cited. Divorce 15 and keep 4. What happens to the 15? Who would want to marry them? Muslims men are to desire little girls, virgins. Did the 15 do anything wrong? On what basis is the Muslim man to choose who goes and stays?

    This whole Islam nonsense makes my skin crawl. Worse yet, non-Muslims who parrot the lie that Islam respects females!

    • Vapourking says

      Jul 18, 2014 at 12:20 am

      No there isn’t any love in Islam. Most marry within family i:e 1st cousin, most marry someone they’ve only met a couple of times, the consequence of gender separation in Islam results in countless unhappy marriages, which is why when you look into Muslims eyes they appear empty, soulless, they’re more or less dead inside.
      Muslims are burdened their whole life by the constraints of Islam, constantly tormented with the thought of hellfire, every action, deed or thought is controlled by their religious texts. Mental illness through depression is rampant, no music, no fun, no love, no alcohol, nothing just an empty existence.
      It’s inhumane to allow any person to be subjected to Islam.

    • Reality Check says

      Jul 18, 2014 at 4:43 am

      “Muhammad also said that the best wife was the one with the prettiest face and the cheapest dowry.”

      Today’s Muslims in the Persian Gulf still seem to share that belief, though they’ll never say that openly lest they scare a prospective wife of Western origin away. Most of the time they try to marry a foreign white woman working in their world because:

      1) She is white and white is always more beautiful than brown. Arabs and Muslims are crazy about white skin in women and can marry even the ugliest Western hag as long as she is white. I don’t care if that sounds racist to the PC/MC souls out there – it is a fact and facts are the strongest thing in life.

      2) She is way prettier than all the Arab women who are usually plain at best and dog-ugly at worst;

      3) She does not need any dowry from the Muslim man because she is not a Muslim woman (in Islam, it is the man who pays a dowry to the woman, not the other way round). So the starry-eyed fool who thought that she met a man whose feelings transcended all cultural and romantic boundaries – which, in her eyes, is a confirmation of her specialness and greatness – has actually been taken for a ride because she is nothing but a cheaper marriage option in his eyes.

      4) Add the benefit of an EU, US, Canadian or Australian passport he may get through the stupid bitch and you have the basis of Arab Muslim romance these days.

      That’s all about it and you’ll find nothing else.

      Feel free to forward my insights to any woman considering a marriage to an Arab Muslim, though I’m not sure it will work with all.

      • Mrs. Pharaoh says

        Jul 18, 2014 at 9:12 am

        Reality Check, you are absolutely correct. Being married to a Coptic Christian Egyptian he has confirmed Middle Eastern men always prefer WHITE women, it is a status symbol. Within the family I have heard intersting comments if someone marries a darker skinned person. The difference is however, their choice of mate is respected, the marriages are for life, and LOVE and respect for one another is the norm.

      • Wellington says

        Jul 18, 2014 at 1:07 pm

        Thanks for that insightful assessment, Reality Check.

      • Reality Check says

        Jul 18, 2014 at 2:06 pm

        Thank you, folks, but I need to make a correction:

        “So the starry-eyed fool who thought that she met a man whose feelings transcended all cultural and romantic boundaries …”

        should read

        “So the starry-eyed fool who thought that she met a man whose feelings transcended all cultural and RELIGIOUS boundaries …”

        That’s what happens when you type with one finger from your tablet. 🙂

        RC

      • gravenimage says

        Jul 19, 2014 at 12:45 am

        Good post, Reality Check.

        Just one small point—you wrote:

        (in Islam, it is the man who pays a dowry to the woman, not the other way round)
        …………………….

        Actually, in most cases, the dowry is *not* paid to the woman—instead, it is paid to the woman’s *owners*. In other words, to her family, most often her father.

        Generally, this is the prospective husband buying the lawful right to f*ck (Nikah) the “Awra” (vagina) from whoever its current Mehram (“guardian”—basically, *owner*) is.

        Unlike in a Western marriage—indeed, most Infidel marriages—the contract is *not* between the prospective man and wife, but between the man and the woman’s owner. *Ugh*.

    • Jan Fourowls says

      Jul 18, 2014 at 4:44 am

      Thanks for the moral outrage — I join in! But maybe think about changing your last name [Muhammad] if it’s not a JW joke.

      Here’s comprehensive rebuttal to the lie that Islam does anything but hate females:

      http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch9.html [Comprehensive rebuttal to the myth that Muslim women are respected and equal, including “Muslim Women in the West – The Whitewash.”]

  14. mortimer says

    Jul 17, 2014 at 9:39 pm

    Islam’s twisted ethics contradict the human conscience. Muslims accept depravity and cruelty as normal.

  15. Daphne Donges says

    Jul 17, 2014 at 10:00 pm

    What amazes me about Islam is that there inability to add up. There are approximately 50% male to female ratio of people on the planet. Yet Muslims can have up to 4 wives. Of course they can have sex slaves as well!
    I wonder what the other at least 75% of Muslims will do without wives? That is, of course if they could make a world wide caliphate. Perhaps farmers will have to hire out their goats and sheep for ‘marriages’

    • Jan Fourowls says

      Jul 18, 2014 at 4:50 am

      More laughter (good to laugh to keep from crying about Islam) … thanks Daphne!

    • gravenimage says

      Jul 19, 2014 at 12:49 am

      Part of the way they deal with this disparity, Daphne, is to kidnap and rape Infidel women.

  16. pumbar says

    Jul 17, 2014 at 11:08 pm

    God, imagine seeing that lot walking towards you.

  17. JIMJFOX says

    Jul 18, 2014 at 12:11 am

    [img]http://www.patcondell.net/files/page1_8.jpg, http://www.patcondell.net[/img%5D

  18. ebonystone says

    Jul 18, 2014 at 12:39 am

    I prefer the answer given by the Sudanese soldier in “Sahara” (starring Humphrey Bogart). When asked about this by one of the American soldiers, he answered: “If a man has only one wife, she gets lonely when he is away; if he has two, they fight all the time; if he has three, two of them will gang up on the third; but with four, everything balances out.”

  19. E.O. Wilson says

    Jul 18, 2014 at 3:28 am

    The trump card held by any religion/culture is the degree to which it populates the world with its offspring/culture. Reproductive viability in the Muslim world is vastly superior to the Progressive West. In other words, while Muslim women are having 7 children, American women are NOT having children at all. This means that it is only matter of time that Anglo women and their culture (one wife) will necessarily die out, period. It is not even arguable. The most popular name for a boy in London as of 2011 was Muhammed. Get it? You may be snide and criticize the 4 wife custom, but who is the real biological loser? Think about it

    • PJG says

      Jul 18, 2014 at 5:42 am

      You’re right. As my mum (mother of five) says, “The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.” But she is only a grandmother of thirteen, where a Muslim grandmother can be a grandmother of forty to fifty “souls”.

      • dumbledoresarmy says

        Jul 18, 2014 at 8:44 pm

        Yeah. She gets to be a grandmother…IF she manages to avoid being “honor-murdered” during her reproductive years. And she gets the sh*t beaten out of her by her husband. I guess she can beat up on him, if she manages to survive till he’s old and weak (and if she manages to avoid being “honor” murdered by her *sons* – cases like that have come up here at jihadwatch from time to time).

        Wonderful. In the meantime, she can plot against and even maybe murder her co-wives and her husband’s wretched sex-slaves and torment her non-Muslim maids and abuse her daughters-in-law and treat them like sh*t and boss them around and turn them against her sons and her sons against them….What’s not to like? Gain the whole world at the cost of your *soul*?

        So, why aren’t *you* saying the Shahada, too?

        I thought you were a Christian.

        So why all this defeatism?

        • dumbledoresarmy says

          Jul 18, 2014 at 8:51 pm

          Forgot to add that in Egypt and Somalia and elsewhere she gets to plan and then watch or actually herself engage in the ultimate sadistic thrill of savagely mutilating the genitals of her own daughters and granddaughters, as they scream in agony and the blood spurts everywhere.

          Inflicting on her own daughters and granddaughters the same terror and agony that was inflicted on *her* by *her* female kin.

          Wonderful! what’s not to like? Total sadism-masochism in one nasty parcel.

          And she *then* gets to hand those same girls over to be sadistically raped by much older men, exactly as *she* was raped. Maybe she even holds them down for it.

          Islam: paradise for S & M enthusiastis, feeding the basest desires of the human heart, the desire to inflict PAIN on and dominate and even destroy other human beings.

          I hear people here from time to time who openly express admiration of the perceived power of the ummah, or the power of the sadistic mohammedan grandmama reigning over her terrorised daughters and daughters-in-law and maids, and I hear people being seduced by the formula of Milton’s Satan: “Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven”.

          Losing your soul in order to gain the “world” (temporal power)??

        • dumbledoresarmy says

          Jul 18, 2014 at 8:54 pm

          Oh yes, and if her daughters or granddaughters step out of line she can join her husband and everyone else in the thrill of planning their ritual human sacrifice aka “honor” murder. Maybe she’s the one who makes the phone call that lures that erring daughter home to be torture-murdered.

          Power!! Thrills!

    • dumbledoresarmy says

      Jul 18, 2014 at 8:32 pm

      So?

      So if you think Islam is right “biologically” and polygyny is A-OK and force-breeding of women and girls from age 10 on up to menopause is the way to go, why aren’t you reciting the shahada ?

      Ever thought about the very obvious downside of polygyny?

      Loss of genetic diversity. Because among humans, four girls are not born for every boy that is born.

      So in each generation, for every male that corners four women (and more, via sex slaves), three other male genetic lines are *lost*. And then in the next generation, more. And so on. Generation after generation. If such a population cannot “steal” or “poach” new genetic material from saner “outbreeding” populations (which is essentially how the parasitical Ummah has survived up till now) what happens?

      If the whole world went Muslim the human species would descend into the self-destructive abyss of super-inbreeding (marrying your first cousins generation after generation after generation) that is already manifest in places like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen. With ghastly results, because the human genome is pretty homogenous already, compared to that of most other species; we can’t *afford* to repeatedly inbreed.

      In the end, it *isn’t* “with” “nature”. In the long, long, long run, you will end up with horribly inbred creatures that are either mostly infertile (higher rates of miscarriage among cousin marriages, even in the West where cousins who marry are not *descended* from multiple levels of cousin marriage) or else…monsters.

      • dumbledoresarmy says

        Jul 18, 2014 at 8:37 pm

        The deadly socio-political fruits of polygyny.

        Polygyny is a recipe for longterm sociological and economic disaster.

        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.

        {To ‘Wilson” above – still think Muslim polygyny looks so great? – 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.

        T’he 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 will allow you to view the *whole* thing in its original scholarly form, footnotes and all.

      • Mazo says

        Jul 19, 2014 at 12:59 am

        Voldemort’s army spouting out shit again. Cousin marriage is allowed but not mandatory in Islam.

        Chechens and Circassians forbid cousin marriage up to someone related by the 7th generation of ancestry, and keep this in their adat (tradition). Even when they live in Arab countries like Jordan and Syria, they follow their own marriage customs and forbid cousin marriage while their Arab neighbors marry cousins.

        Newsflash- the majority of men in the whole world mostly share only a handful of distinctive Y chromosome lineages. Tens of Millions of western European men have R1a or R1b. All men are descended from the same original Y chromosome ancestor.

        Also Voldemort’s army forgets to mention that the vast majority of ordinary men will not be practicing polygamy, only a small amount of the total population (upper class + upper middle class) will be inclined to practice it, and even at that, many men who do practice polygamy just take two wives, they don’t randomly take several women at a time becaue they feel like it even though there is no limit.

        http://www.christianpost.com/news/indian-doctors-feeding-aborted-female-fetuses-to-dogs-ngo-claims-75513/

        http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/16/gendercide-in-india/

        http://c-fam.org/en/issues/global-health/7528-u-s-congressional-hearing-examines-gendercide-in-india

        http://www.prolife.ie/prolife/baby-girls-fed-dogs-india

        Jung Chang and John Halliday originally wrote Madame Sun Yat-Sen: Soong Ching-Ling in 1986 which was a hagiography glorifying pro-communist Soong Ching-ling, and numerous times in the book they praise the Communist party and bash their opponents, noting that anti-Communist Chiang-Kaishek ordered five writers ( Li Weisen, Hu Yepin, Rou Shi, Yin Fu, and Feng Keng) to be buried alive for what they wrote during the White Terror in Shanghai, and then suddenly this book of theirs is no longer mentioned or promoted, because they had to cover their asses in humiliation after coming up with self contradictory bullshit, like claiming Soong Ching-ling was a [Soviet] “Russian spy” in their later book on Mao.

        • gravenimage says

          Jul 19, 2014 at 4:15 pm

          Mazo wrote:

          Voldemort’s army spouting out shit again. Cousin marriage is allowed but not mandatory in Islam.

          Chechens and Circassians forbid cousin marriage…
          …………………………………

          The repulsive Mazo can insult the erudite Dumbledore’s Army all he likes, but the fact is that inbreeding is *rife* in the Muslim world. And generally speaking, the more Islamic the society, the least leavened by the presence of Infidels or non-Islamic cultural influences, the worse it is.

          The much-higher-than-average instance of birth defects and learning disabilities in the Muslim world has been amply chronicled.

          And now, Western societies have to deal with the fallout from their unhealthy, inbred Muslim populations—in hospital stays, medical costs, and the necessity of providing “special needs” education.

          More:

          Newsflash- the majority of men in the whole world mostly share only a handful of distinctive Y chromosome lineages. Tens of Millions of western European men have R1a or R1b. All men are descended from the same original Y chromosome ancestor.
          ………………………………….

          This is true—but is not indicative of inbreeding. Some few isolated societies in the West do suffer from diseases that target small communities—but this is quite rare. For the most part, Europeans do not suffer from inbreeding—and still less Americans, Canadians, or Australians.

          More:

          Also Voldemort’s army forgets to mention that the vast majority of ordinary men will not be practicing polygamy, only a small amount of the total population (upper class + upper middle class) will be inclined to practice it, and even at that, many men who do practice polygamy just take two wives, they don’t randomly take several women at a time becaue they feel like it even though there is no limit.
          ………………………………….

          Much of this is due to Western influence. In the early days of Islam and during Muslim expansion, polygamy was very much the norm among “the faithful”.

          In fact, the abduction and rape of infidel girls and women is one of the few counterpoints to Muslim inbreeding. *Ugh*.

          More:

          JungChang and John Halliday originally wrote Madame Sun Yat-Sen: Soong Ching-Ling in 1986 which was a hagiography glorifying pro-communist Soong Ching-ling, and numerous times in the book they praise the Communist party and bash their opponents…
          ………………………………….

          More general crap from Mazo. One need not admire the Chinese Communists to applaud the suppression of some hideous traditional customs in old China, like polygamy and foot-binding.

          And the fact is that both customs were significantly waning *before* Mao ever came to power.

          More “sand throwing” from the repellant Muslim apologist Mazo.

        • Mazo says

          Jul 20, 2014 at 4:05 pm

          Cravenmirage has not provided and proof of so called “western influence”, and just continues to spew shit.

        • gravenimage says

          Jul 21, 2014 at 4:18 pm

          Mazo wrote:

          Cravenmirage has not provided and proof of so called “western influence”, and just continues to spew shit.
          …………………………

          Just the barest glance at history shows that the West had at least temporary influence in checking some of the greatest horrors of Islam from the early 19th century through about the middle of the 20th century—this civilized influence, though waning, still has some residual influence.

          The West, firstly, was able to check and even roll back the incursions of Muslim hordes—especially in the West itself. Hence, it was more difficult for Muslims to take sex slaves.

          Then there was direct pressure—the *only* reason Saudi Arabia, for instance, reluctantly abolished slavery (on paper, at least) in 1962 was due to Western pressure.

          And then there was the even more direct influence of colonialism. Places like Indonesia, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Egypt would be even more savage were it not for the lingering influence of Western law.

          Western influence was, of course, *never* able to actually civilize any part of Dar-al-Islam—but it was able to blunt some of Islam’s worst barbarism.

        • Mazo says

          Jul 21, 2014 at 8:37 pm

          Cravenmirage still spewing shit on topics she knows nothing about.

          Many Malay Sultanates in southeast asia used Malay Adat (non-Islamic Malay tradition) in their penal code along with Sharia. That means thieves could pay a fine (the punishment according to Adat) instead of facing amputation.

          Many ordinary (lower class and middle class) men in polygamous societies would either take one or two wives at maximum, for the majority of the population. It has nothing to do with so called “western influence”.

          If your pinball sized brain hasn’t terminally truncated, you would be able to figure out why- the man has to PAY MONEY to maintain his wives lifestyle, feeding them, their perfume, beauty products, or whatever they are going to need if they are middle class people and want to show off. The man also has to deal with constant nagging and fights with not only one but several wives, and a multitude of other problems.

          Mostly wealthy people would take more than two or three wives.

          The vast majority of people in the polygamous non-western world for most of history would not be taking any number of wives just because they feel like it, most take one or two at maximum, because they don’t want or can’t afford to deal with this kind of crap. They don’t get money out of nowhere.

        • Mazo says

          Jul 22, 2014 at 9:58 am

          I forgot to mention the crimes committed by the savage Dutch colonials in Indonesia.

          Their massacre of all animist men on the Banda islands in the 17th century.

          Their massacre of Chinese in 1740 (The Chinese and Javanese Muslims then launched a joint uprising against Dutch rule in 1741 in response to the massacre).

          Their conquest and masacres of Hindus on Bali.

          Their transmigration program, dumping Madurese settlers on Dayak and Malay land.

          And many more that I did not list here.

          The Malay Sultanates used Adat as their law code, before Britain replaced Adat with Civil law. They did not chop people’s hands off for stealing unlike what cravenmirage wants to insinuate.

    • gravenimage says

      Jul 19, 2014 at 3:47 pm

      E.O. Wilson wrote:

      The trump card held by any religion/culture is the degree to which it populates the world with its offspring/culture. Reproductive viability in the Muslim world is vastly superior to the Progressive West. In other words, while Muslim women are having 7 children, American women are NOT having children at all. This means that it is only matter of time that Anglo women and their culture (one wife) will necessarily die out, period. It is not even arguable. The most popular name for a boy in London as of 2011 was Muhammed. Get it? You may be snide and criticize the 4 wife custom, but who is the real biological loser? Think about it
      …………………………………..

      I share Dumbledore’s Army’s outrage, and can add some of my own.

      When I was a child and young adult I often heard that the triumph of Communism was *inevitable*. I heard it from Communist supremacists *and* from those who lamented it, but thought we were doomed, and that there was nothing we could do about it.

      And why? Because Communists were more ruthless, more fanatical, because they wouldn’t stick at the niceties as would civilized Westerners—because they wouldn’t even blink at mass-murdering their enemies. In other words, because the were not “weak” like us.

      I heard it from time to time—from academics, from pundits, from ordinary people—right up until the moment the Berlin Wall fell, in fact.

      Haven’t heard as much about the inevitable triumph of Communism since then…

      And this is not the first time this happened. When I really started studying the period leading up to WWII, I found *exactly* the same arguments—that Fascism was stronger and more brutal and more “disciplined” than democracy. That the countries of the West were “nations of shopkeepers” and “mongrels”, and could not possibly stand against Fascism.

      And this was not just a military argument—the West was full of admirers of Fascism who thought that brutality equaled strength and that the policies of Mussolini and Hitler would soon be adopted in Britain and the United States.

      And now *this*. Even leaving psychological health and moral decency aside, the idea that the savage Muslim model is superior is *crap*.

      Until Muslim countries began benefitting from Western medicine, charity, and foreign aid in the 20th century, the Muslim world was *anything* but healthy.

      The Ottoman Empire, despite their exploitation of Infidels, could barely feed themselves. Vast stretches of the Levant—a fertile area—were virtually emptied out.

      Even with the benefit of Western aid, levels of child (and maternal) mortality in the Muslim world is *appalling*. And generally speaking, the more Islamic a society is, the worse the situation is. Just look at hell-holes like Afghanistan, Somalia, and Yemen.

      And what kind of children are brought forth? “Success” is not purely a numbers game. Statistically these offspring are far more likely to have birth defects and what we would call learning disabilities. Add to that the fact that Muslim societies despise learning and are chaotic and violent sh*t holes, and that this *does not* make for healthy societies.

      Moreover, your claim that American women are not having children at all is incorrect—the average American woman has two children, which is replacement rate. Fertility rates really are more of a concern among native Europeans, though.

      But looking even more broadly at the sweep of history, the idea that savagery just *inevitably* trumps civilization is just bs. Were that the case, there could have been no Renaissance, and there could have been no Enlightenment. Israel would have been impossible. Slavery would never have been abolished. The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights could never have been written, let alone applied.

      Muslim breeding levels *are* a genuine concern—along with the other violent, barbaric incursions of Islam—there is no doubt about it.

      But the idea that the practices of these brutal, Dark Ages barbarians are *superior* to the civilized West’s equal treatment of women is not just appalling, I also believe it is *false*.

      I have not seen you posting here before, and realize that you might have spoken in a moment of fear or of despair.

      But if this is how you *really feel*, then it is nothing less than a betrayal of mankind—one might as well just commit suicide or go over to the enemy and “revert”. Of course, it is also possible that you *are* a Mohammedan, and are trying to spread despair in the ranks.

      For myself, I *don’t* admire savagery—nor do I ultimately believe that it is “superior”, in *any way*, to civilization.

      What we need to do is commit to the defense of civilization against the Muslim hordes—not to waffle with admiration for practices that deserve none. history should have taught that much to anyone paying attention.

  20. John Magee says

    Jul 18, 2014 at 9:06 am

    “The cleric then said that in another hadith, Muhammad said a woman should be married for one of four reasons: 1) her beauty, 2) her lineage, 3) her wealth, and 4) her piety.” Where are the world’s feminist’s howling over this outrageous sexist concept and Isn’t it odd liberals aren’t pushing for polygamy in the West for Muslim men in the name of “marriage equality”?

  21. Tim says

    Jul 18, 2014 at 9:22 am

    Hmm… interesting. It again proves to me that the Koran is plagiarized and taken from bits and pieces of other religions by a megalomaniac Arab desert dweller who used religion as a tool to control people and amass wealth and power.

    The description fits with the old Hindu story about Draupadi (from the Mahabaratha) who married 4 men. It is said she had prayed to Shiva for a husband who was righteous, wealthy, brave and moral. Not being able to find a single man on earth that fit her prayers Shiva granted her four husbands instead.

  22. voegelinian says

    Jul 18, 2014 at 2:57 pm

    Imagine if in the years ramping up to the American Civil War, and during the years of bloody secessionist warfare that ensued during that Civil War, some 98% of the black slaves enthusiastically supported the South in order to help try to perpetuate the South and to perpetuate their own slavery — and in the process, the black slaves in various ways (including physical fighting) helped the Rebel war effort.

    That is the strange but tragically all too accurate analogy to draw. And the strangeness of it only becomes grotesquely magnified by the sheer numbers of the tens of millions of Stockholm-Syndrome Muslimas involved, and their diaspora in nearly every country on Earth; not to mention their Stockholm-Syndrome collusion with their slave-masters for over 1300 years.

    • voegelinian says

      Jul 18, 2014 at 2:59 pm

      “all too accurate analogy” — i.e., the analogy between Muslim women’s support of Islam and the preposterous collusion of the black slaves with their own slave masters’ slaveholding system.

    • gravenimage says

      Jul 19, 2014 at 4:33 pm

      Of course, Voegelinian, there were some blacks and even slaves who *did* support the slave-holding South, and who even fought in the Confederate army.

      But the numbers were *very* small—and nothing like the numbers of Muslimahs supporting their own vile creed, despite its terrible misogyny.

      We’ve seen Muslimahs here on Jihad Watch, including the ubiquitous Rezali Mehil and the unlamented Naseem, defending wife-beating, polygamy, FGM, rape, pedophilia, and Honor Killings.

      “Stockholm Syndrome” writ large.

      Even Muslimahs who *don’t* support such horrors twist themselves into pretzels trying to prove that it is not Islam itself that mandates such abuse. *Ugh*.

  23. Ullas says

    Jul 19, 2014 at 6:46 am

    The prophet was a hypocrite. He told his son-in-law Ali “You should have only my daughter as your wife and dont marry any other woman, because I have no endurance to see the tears of my daughter”. He had no scruples to wed thirteen times, which included his own adopted son’s wife Zainab. How strange and bizzare!

  24. dumbledoresarmy says

    Jul 19, 2014 at 9:33 am

    Above, the apologist for Islam who claims to be a Chinese Mohammedan (though he seems to tag-team with another apologist for Islam/ disruptor who sometimes claims to be a British-born non-Muslim married to a Muslimah in Indonesia) screams and yells and spits his routine – and playground-level – insults at me. Does he really think that people will prefer his posts to mine, if he can twist my moniker?? That merely turning someone’s moniker disproves what they have to say?

    It doesn’t disprove what that Canadian study had to say about polygyny. Not in the least. He can argue with the authors of the study, not with me.

    As for my point about inbreeding: he can’t avoid the reality that the map that shows where cousin marriage is most commonly practised correlates very strongly with the map of the dar al Islam. And that cousin marriage is most prevalent in the most heavily and purely and longest-Islamised Muslim land of all, Saudi Arabia, the focal point of Islam, the place where it is all believed to have started, the place to which all mohammedans, even mohammedans from as far away as china, are supposed to make their pilgrimage to bow before the black stone at Mecca.

    If the Saudi Arabians are not “real” Muslims, they whose culture is the most thoroughly suffused with Islam of all, who is?? Our apologist is being ridiculous, to pretend that they aren’t, that it’s about “arab” culture as opposed to Islam.

    For Islam *is* Arab. Islam is a distillation of Arab culture: or, to be precise, of the demonic side of being-Arab, of the very worst and nastiest things. Sort of like Nazism was a distillation of what one might call the demonic aspect of being-German. It suppressed the good and unloosed – and exalted – the evil. Which is what Islam does with “Arab”. And then of course all the other non-Arab Muslims have to try as hard as they can to imitate the Arab Muslims…though they can never quite make the grade.

    An ideology that fills its adherents with suspicion and aggression – i.e. lack of trust – which Islam does, to the nth degree (Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Nonie Darwish, both of whom grew up in thoroughly-Muslim families, both testify to this) will tend to promote clannishness and cousin marriage. Just because some non-Arab muslims on the edges of the Islamic world practice inbreeding less than others, doesn’t disprove this.

    And any biologist can explain the ruinous effects of generation after generation of cousin marriage.

    • Mazo says

      Jul 20, 2014 at 4:01 pm

      Voldemort’s army keeps on lying again and spewing out shit.

      How about you show us where cousin marriage is mandatory in Islam?

      Cousin marriage is not banned in Europe. It is rife among American and Australian redneck white trash, who even breed between siblings, parents, and uncles.

      http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/12/australia-incest-case-shocks-country

      Arabs themselves do not even share the same way of life with each other. There are Bedouin Arab nomads who don’t bathe for days and live with camels, and there are sedentary farming or urban dwelling Arabs who bathe every day and live an entirely different way of life. Saudi Arabia itself is made out of many different regions- Hijaz, Najd, etc. and so are other Arab countries. They have different cuisines and different lifestyles.

      So how can voldemort’s army the shit spewing liar explain how people are supposed to imitate several different lifestyles at once?

      • gravenimage says

        Jul 21, 2014 at 4:49 pm

        The vicious crap from Mazo just never ends.

        It’s been amply proven that inbreeding is *far* more pronounced among Muslims than any other single group.

        In most Arab countries, well over half of all marriages are between first cousins—in Pakistan, the prevalence is *over 70%*.

        No large-scale Infidel population has figures anything like this.

        This, from Nicolai Sennels:

        “Muslim Inbreeding: Impacts on intelligence, sanity, health and society”

        http://europenews.dk/en/node/34368

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

  • Dude on Muslim cleric: ‘We welcomed the takeover of ISIS because they wanted to implement the Sharia’
  • Infidel on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with
  • Infidel on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with
  • Mojdeh on Audio: Robert Spencer on Muslim Brotherhood influence in a Biden/Harris administration
  • Henry Mansfield on Audio: Robert Spencer on Muslim Brotherhood influence in a Biden/Harris administration

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.