kobe, ori e ti da ru. After all the bullshit you said in the "virginity" thread to me, PTB and others you now want to act like you are "civil" when it comes to discussions.


Dont make me crush you 

Btw darkman, I'm not the only one here who has commented "negatively" on Tanna's posts. besides im a woman which is why i can jump to a conclusion

They are the same reasons why a woman would take a second husband. Just that being in the world we are, they never do!

ThiefOfHearts:

kobe, ori e ti da ru. After all the bullshit you said in the "virginity" thread to me, PTB and others you now want to act like you are "civil" when it comes to discussions.

toh, anti mi gorimapa, why must you swear? mind you i'm unbelievably civil and mild-mannered. _{75% of the time}

Dont make me crush you

i'll break you.

Btw darkman, I'm not the only one here who has commented "negatively" on Tanna's posts. _{besides im a woman which is why i can jump to a conclusion}

being a woman grants you the free will to jump the gun? your head is polluted. you can't justify the conclusion you made in this circumstance, but it's your opinion , the rest of us know better.

You're so full of crap, you're constipated.

We shouldn't forget that some of these second and third and tenth wives (I use the term ,wife ,loosely) are poor,young and naive village girls pushed into these sort of bed sharing by 'destitute' parents.
Some are as young as 9,10 and 11 in some areas of your country and mine.
These ones know no better and would never have chosen this kind of "sleeping arrangement".

see osisi those ones I dont blame. Usually not their fault. In a way they are sold into it like a slave

Now the grown up ones who purposely decide to be part of that crap are mere imbeciles with no heart for the homes they destroy.

ThiefOfHearts:

see osisi those ones I don't blame. Usually not their fault. In a way they are sold into it like a slave

Now the grown up ones who purposely decide to be part of that crap are mere imbeciles with no heart for the homes they destroy.

I couldn't agree more.
If AIDS is not enough deterrent,I don't know what else

The human race will continue to be at conflict in one another for as long as they shamelessly deny their own nature.

It is in the nature of man to hold divergent views on any issue. Conflicts make the community what we sees today. Without conflicts, human race would never have advanced. Men of wisdom, the men who gave us the legacies we are so proud of, did not seek anhilation of fellow men just because they disagree on contentious issues. Only brutes among men do to the contrary.

A man who want to broaden his wider scope of wisdon, and widen his experiences do not go about condemning and abusing oppositions. He must be patience, tolerance and fully understand that men WILL ALWAYS DISAGREE. And that he would learn more from his adversaries than he does from his friends. Those who enshrined this fact in their creed will never fail to win the oppositions no matter how formidable to their view if they give it a try.

I am sorry for the majority of the opponents of polygamy that they have lost the essense of this important topic through intimadation of the few bold ones that spoke in favour of polygamy. Is a waste of time and energy to think that the best way to change an order is to attack it proponents or the system. It is sheer stupidity to expect anything productive from attacking people's beliefs and ideologies. It is no surprise that at global level, this stupidity had been the root cause of international terrorism and conflicts. Why can't we learn a simple logic, fellow nairalanders? Why must you denigrade yourself just to defend your personal conviction?

As for me, I remain as solid as ever and refused to bow to illogical reasonings. I would continues to maintain balance between the two extremes.

With your oppositions, what positive impact have you on the polygamists except encourage them more than ever?! If that is the case, then this thread as long as it is, is a waste!

The cardinal objective of this thread is not to debate men sexuality; it is neither to abuse and condemn the polygamists nor to expresse personal frustrations. It is to KNOW WHY MEN TAKES SECOND WIFE. If we want to know why, we would not repel those who know but rather listen to their logics and compare with what we know so well. We would rather look at the advantages and disadvantages without giving it gender or religion colouration. We would rather seek to reason with them an not look down on them as stupid, inferior, mentally deranged. Some even say they are poor, ignorance and what have you! Some went so low as to link longevity to monogamy.

Regardless of our views. The fact remains that polygamy is prevalence even among christains. So why waste time needlessly branding them names? Why not seek to give them reasons why they must join you?

My sister read this thread and was sorry for many unfortunate statement written about Tanna. She was shedding light on issues but people called her silly names. How could she continues in that circumstance? I told my sister, who is also a nairalander to contributu, but she refused flatly because of the foul languages used so far. And there are many willing participants that had been repelled in similar circumstance.

Though, my personal view remains unchanged, my positions on polygamy had not be intelligently faulted. Rather, respondents had been having a field day recycling their domestic frustrations for the forum consumption!

My position was guided by one of my convictions: ", therefore curse not every situations with which you disagree. Rather seek to ulter the conditions that make them possible.

"Behold the darkness, but curse it not. Be the light that so transform it. For your light can do more than illuminate your path. Your light can light the way for others."

olanajim:
Laudate,
I have been enjoying your arguments. I love to read them. But I disagree with your way of twisting facts to support your arguments.

What facts did I twist, and in what way were they twisted, please? Provide proof. We can't all agree on the same issue in the same way. The Almighty God created us different from one another. If he wanted blind assent, He would have created clones, not humans.

olanajim:
Your logic baffled me! Why would a man with low sex drive keep chains of women just to pose as socially responsible? Are the women under him so dumb they don't know their right from wrong? Why would any sane woman agree to that kind of union? I strongly disagree with your reasoning. At any rate, this is for women not men. Why would a sane woman agree to be used by men for whatever reason only to blame the menfolk afterward?

Polygamy starts from having as little as two wives. So if a man has two wives simultaneously, without divorcing one to take another, my brother. . .it is regarded as polygamy. So the issue of having chains of women is not a fully, accurate description of polygamy, since it can start from a man having as little as two wives.

Now why would he need these women in order to pose as being socially responsible? Because to some men, image is everything. 'Status' counts for a great deal in some segments of society, and what better way to show you have arrived, than by parading the best cars, best clothes and most sexy women on your arms? Oh, would you prefer the older man with the low sex drive to remain unmarried and childless, and endure the stigma of being tagged as an irresponsible eunuch, by everyone?

You asked if "the women under him so dumb they don't know their right from wrong. .?" I believed I answered this question in a previous post. They are not dumb. Far from it. Not in several parts of the Southern part of Nigeria, anyway. In the South-west especially, it is a different ball-game. Some of these women are not dumb, but mercenary and cash-inclined. Wealth has many fathers, while poverty is an orphan. Many of these women who end up being 2nd wives, flock around men with cash to throw around, and guys with more quid than common sense. Look at the late M.K.O Abiola's lifestyle, and you will see what I mean.

But like I said earlier, in the North the girls are often young, ignorant, barely educated little things who cannot fight for their rights, and may have been married off at a very young age, to men old enough to be their fathers. How many of them in such situations have access to justice, or can cough up enough quid to hire a lawyer? How many of them in such a state have enough guts to fight a culturally entrenched, male-dominated system that seeks to use religion to justify the man's right to multiple wives? Very few. A few attractive widows are also taken as second wives, because they are still attractive or good-looking enough to appeal to a man who wishes to get close enough to them, for whatever reason he can whip up to justify his polygamous instincts.

olanajim:
For the menopause women getting married, you are missing the point, my dear. Men don't marry menopaused women for fun, sex, whatever. If that is so, a randy man would not leave his wife of many years who had just attained menopause and go after young blood. Please do more research. When Nelson mandela, remarried, it was obviously not for sex. The woman he married was not a young lady.

Marriage is not about sex, children and living with a woman. A man marry for many reasons. My own point of choosing monogamy is predicated on my understanding of marriage itself. All these nuissance about sex is what I don't understand. During courtship, couples have sex, but something is missing. That is why it was not marriage. Since marriage is not about sex, it is logically right to guess that polygamy is also not about sex. We may just need to be fair and look deeper.

Don't use Nelson Mandela as an example of a man in a polygamous union. When he married Graca Machel, he did so because he needed companionship, and because he found her desirable. You cannot say for sure, that he didn't find her attractive enough to want to go to bed with her, despite her age. One man's meat is another man's poison. My point about menopause, is that it does not discourage women from having sex. It only puts an end to their child-bearing ability. Period. So a man can still marry a menopausal woman because he finds her attractive enough to bed her, or because she stirs up his libido, depsite her age.

Finally, you are right. Sex, may not be the sole reason why a monogamous or polygamous marriage is contracted. But it is one of the major reasons why it is done. Unless you want me to believe that a man can marry a woman he finds totally repulsive, in order to carry out a humanitarian deed.

Too many crybabies on this board.

wah wah "bad" words everywhere. whatever. To think 2 unnecessary sermons were written just to address that. tsk.

P.S. Thanks for taking the thread back to it's original purpose, laudate and as usual I agree with you

I dont even get why Mandela is brought up in the first place. He divorced Winnie for the atrocities she participated in, then married another woman. ENTIRELY different from polygamy.

olanajim:

The cardinal objective of this thread is not to debate men sexuality; it is neither to abuse and condemn the polygamists nor to expresse personal frustrations. It is to KNOW WHY MEN TAKES SECOND WIFE. If we want to know why, we would not repel those who know but rather listen to their logics and compare with what we know so well. We would rather look at the advantages and disadvantages without giving it gender or religion colouration.

You cannot seperate male sexuality from polygamy or any other type of marriage. A discussion on marital behaviour cannot be complete without a look at sexuality. Or has sex, stopped being an integral part of marriage?

Laudate,

I single you out as one of the three worth reading on this thread. But for you, I would honestly have left the thread. Let me commend your maturity and intelligent. I am not one of those guys out there who argue for argument sake. I do so when I am sure it is necessary. I admit you are not among those echoing their personal life. You are a delight to hear and a wonder on this thread.

So, I hope from this point onward those who have grudge against polygamy and men folks would ldt focus on the main task. WHY MEN TAKES SECOND WIFE. We must do this respecting every oppositions. That I am a selfconfessed monogamy as fatty27 had pointed out mean that I must have reason for defending polygamy. It is like an Hausaman defending an Ibo against his fellow hausamen. He is not an Ibo. He is not against his own folks, he must know something worth hearing.

Now let go into the context.(don't forget, I won't take you as friend anymore, at least until this thread close!)

I would re-read your last two posts and reply shortly.

Thiefofheart, I feel you! Like a shadow lurking around, you keep announcing your presence, projecting your ideal. Keep growing. I wonder if you get tired at all! Maybe you would. Maybe not. Who knows? A marrathoner thou art. When the race reach the mark, thou shall get thy trophy. Just make sure you are on the winning side, Winners know how to conceed defeats. Losers knows nothing about managing victory, so they lose even as they wear the badge of their victory! I am watching; reading; and following your contributions to know where you belongs. Yeah, I AM USING MY MIRROR.

It's "Igbo" by the way and im not going to read your unnecessary lecture

Either you stick to responding the topic at hand or find someone else who cares about your lessons on "how to be nice in cyber space"

Laudate,
I said you twisted facts and I still by that. One, from the way you explained the quranic interpretation and your citation of the wikkipedia. I read fatty27 reply to it. I don't want to venture into religion, hence my reason for leaving you and ALFA to sort it out. I happen to have two english quran versions and two bible versions. So, anyone would be wasting his time if they try to drag me into religion. If I must comment, it would just be in general.

However, having cross-checked fatty27 ref. I went for yussuf Ali commentary to see if I could nail him. He was right and you were wrong in the interpretation. Please, try re-read his reply. I hope he is still around to take you up.

The other ref. can easily be pointed out from your last two posts.
1, you said men of low sexual drives takes to polygamy to boast their status. At another post, you said sexuality is important factors in polygamy though you agreed later that polygamy may not be driven by sex. These statements were true when applied independently. But then, a contradiction had been created. Going through extreme to support your view without MAKING EXCEPTION is to me, misleading and tantamount to twisting of facts. Read my posts very well, you would notice that I apply caution. I have never said polygamy is the best, just as I equally pointed out that monogamy can itself be afflicted with the same trouble that bedevilled polygamy. Let us be realistic and reason objectively.

One thing about you is that: like me, you have seen polygamy so I would not say you are ignorant. You are saying what you saw.

Mandella was brought to the picture to show that:
men, whether as a polygamy or monogamy don't MARRIED OLDER women for sex as you'd tried to assumed. (pls re-read your post). I was trying to use it as a case study that it is NOT EVERYONE that marry more than one wife, young or old that do it FOR SEX.
Two, I used mandella to show that marriage isn't just for sex. You said it rightly: COMPANIONSHIP.

Theifofheart,
I love it when you reply that way. Keep it up! Nobody bite you.

olanajim:

Laudate,
I said you twisted facts and I still by that. One, from the way you explained the quranic interpretation and your citation of the wikkipedia. I read fatty27 reply to it. I don't want to venture into religion, hence my reason for leaving you and ALFA to sort it out. I happen to have two english quran versions and two bible versions. So, anyone would be wasting his time if they try to drag me into religion. If I must comment, it would just be in general.

I have read my previous posts and I still can't see what you meant by saying I 'twisted facts'. Again, I must ask you. . .how did I twist the facts? In my previous post no[i]. « #135 on: August 17, 2007, 05:47 PM », [/i] I said :

laudate:
No matter how much a man may try to deny it, he cannot love two wives equally, not to talk of three. And the Muslim men who rely on the Q'uaran to practise polygamy, will often tell you that their own scriptures say a man is entitled to 4 wives, but he must love them equally and do justice to them, equally. Tell me, in all honesty, how many men can do that? Even among parents, many of them do not love all their children equally, not to now talk of those who are not even related, but are merely husband & wife. 

Ask your mentor again. I believe he is being economical with the truth. In Islam, when a man marries a widow or takes a 2nd wife, they do so because they can use religion to cover up their excesses, and because they want a new variety. Sometimes, they also do it because their first wife cannot give them kids, or because they have had girls and are searching for a boy. Hardly, would they cite humanitarian reasons as an excuse to indulge in a clandestine affair, and make it legit by taking on the other woman as a 2nd wife. Are they a refugee centre?

Here I clearly listed the reasons which I felt made men to dabble into polygamy:

a). They want a new variety.
b). They need kids, which the first wife has been unable to give.
c). They probably want a boy to perpetuate the family name, after they have had girls.

My interpretation of the Qu'aran was buttressed by the quote I highlighted from Wikipedia in my previous post « #156 on: August 20, 2007, 03:09 PM » which stated that:

laudate:
Quote from: wikipedia
In Islam, polygyny (i.e. polygamy) is allowed, with the specific limitation that men can only have up to four wives at any one time. However, the Qur'an specifically states that men who choose this route must deal with their wives as fairly as possible, doing everything that they can to spend equal amounts of time, money on each one of them. Although many Muslim countries still retain traditional Islamic law which permits polygyny, certain elements within Islam challenge its acceptability.

How does this statement above, contradict what is in the Qu'aran? And how does this conflict with what I said earlier, in that post? The issue of a man giving 'equal treatment' to all his wives, was examined from the perspective of a man showing love equally to all the wives. If equal treatment is examined from a holistic perspective, you cannot exclude romantic treatment or any kind of action (including love) that a man shows to his wives, from the word called 'treatment.' So what is wrong in that?

olanajim:

However, having cross-checked fatty27 ref. I went for yussuf Ali commentary to see if I could nail him. He was right and you were wrong in the interpretation. Please, try re-read his reply. I hope he is still around to take you up.

Fatty27 made the comment that the phrase 'equal treatment' as used by Islamic scholars and cited in the Qu'aran, refers to rights. I merely found it hard to accept that kind of narrow definition from fatty27. 'Equal treatment' as used in the Qu'ran should encompass all kinds of actions or any treatment a man shows to a woman, including romantic love. So from that perspective, would it be easy for a man to show an equal kind of romantic love in equal measure, to each wife, in a polygamous household? I think not. Even the Qu'aran is clear on this issue.

Yes, the Qu'aran also talks about spending equal time with each wife. Did I deny that in any of my previous posts? Ali's comments were merely cited by Fatty27, in her post. And I believe my explanation up there, clearly portrays my stand on that issue. So in what way was Yusuf Ali right, and Laudate wrong? Kindly state it clearly. Or is there another post made by Yusuf Ali which I am not aware of, that I have failed to address?

Do you feel I should have agreed with Fatty27 and Ali, that the Quaran's definition of equal treatment, should be restricted to rights alone? Alright, what if we agree to that interpretation, and one of the wives who feels unloved by her husband, claims that her husband's failure to show romantic love or share sexual intimacy with her, is a denial of her marital rights to enjoy her husband's affection?  What would you say? Some American lawyers say that there is something called 'alienation of affection', in family law. Can it be used to make a case for a wife who feels neglected by her husband, or one who hasn't recieved enough sexual attention from her husband, in comparison to what other wives have received?

olanajim:

The other ref. can easily be pointed out from your last two posts.
1, you said men of low sexual drives takes to polygamy to boast their status. At another post, you said sexuality is important factors in polygamy though you agreed later that polygamy may not be driven by sex. These statements were true when applied independently. But then, a contradiction had been created. Going through extreme to support your view without MAKING EXCEPTION is to me, misleading and tantamount to twisting of facts.

Please re-read my post again. By saying that some men take wives to boost their status, it does not mean they cannot also take wives to re-ignite an ailing sex drive. I didn't want to repeat this again, because I had already made it clear that men take additional wives for libidinous reasons, in my very first post on this topic.

There is no contradiction. I merely listed the reasons which I felt fuelled a man's decision to engage in polygamy. Sex or sexual attraction is a primary reason, status is a secondary one, so is the desire for a new variety of women, a need for children, (which the first wife may have been unable to give), as well as a desire for a male heir. All these were listed in my previous posts. It doesn't matter if the reason for taking a second wife is status, barreness, search for a male heir, variety etc. the truth still remains that a man would not take an additional wife to provide him with these things, if he wasn't sexually attracted to that other woman in the first place. As a man, would you marry a woman you hate, dislike, or leaves you cold as a second wife, or would you pick one that repulses you instead of one that attracts you, simply because of humanitarian reasons? So where is the contradiction in my posts? At the heart of the selection of a 2nd wife, is the desire to engage in romantic encounters or to fulfil a lustful need, regardless of other extraneous factors that may be cited to justify such a move.

olanajim:

Mandella was brought to the picture to show that:
men, whether as a polygamy or monogamy don't MARRIED OLDER women for sex as you'd tried to assumed. (please re-read your post). I was trying to use it as a case study that it is NOT EVERYONE that marry more than one wife, young or old that do it FOR SEX.
Two, I used mandella to show that marriage isn't just for sex. You said it rightly: COMPANIONSHIP.

Trust me, if Mandela hadn't thought about sex with Graca Machel, he would have chosen to remain celibate for the rest of his life. Afterall, he was over 60, when he came out of prison. Companionship, is an euphemism that older people often use, when they want to want to engage in discreet liasions with members of the opposite sex.

em, who has time to be reading long tori o?

not me.
If its more than 10 short lines,I'm skipping it.i
I don't have the patience to read another man's dissertation

abi o. this research paper long no be small. i give am B for effort sha.

Laudate,
for upteenth time, I would restate my unwillingness to go into religion. You can see I am not ignorant of religion both Xtain and Islam, else I would have taken every drop you wrote above.

Mandela didn't marry for sex. He married for power. Please try and verify, you are good at that. Saying that he must have been sexually attracted to her is ok. But that sexual attraction may not be the reason for his marriage.

For sane men, sexual attraction is not the sole reason for marrying women. If this were the case, a man would seek to marry every woman he feel attracted to even prostitutes. You and I know this is stupid. We also know that a man dating two ladies at a time may not, as it happen so often, choose to marry every girls that he sleeps with. Men don't need to marry every ladies they have sex with. Infact, the problem of a cheating partner is everywhere. Therefore that argument of sexual attraction PRIMARY cause for marriage is a fallacy. Maybe it happens around you so often that it had been the norm. I wouldn't dispute that. But here, I have seen guys refusing to marry ladies that are sexually attractive but settle for moral, culture, religion even wealth as their PRIMARY consideration. While I did not dispute that sex can also be used by some people. Good guys don't use sex as their primary consideration. My grouse with you as stated earlier is that you do so without MAKING EXCEPTION. That is where facts are twisted. In Logical reasoning. To say, for example, "THERE ARE PEOPLE IN NIGERIA, THERE ARE 419 IN NIGERIA; THEREFORE PEOPLE IN NIGERIA ARE 419" . The statement is FALSE. Logic won't accept that kind of generalisation. Though it is true that there are 419 in Nigeria. The whole statement would be rejected.
Now look at it this way:" THERE ARE PEOPLE IN NIGERIA, THERE ARE 419 IN NIGERIA. THEREFORE SOME NIGERIANS ARE 419". This statement is TRUE and validated by logic. Your statement on sex attraction as reason for marriage FAILED Logical reasoning.

On where you misquoted quran: fatty cited Qoradawi book as his ref. Al qoradawi work LAWFUL AND PROHIBTED IN ISLAM was indisputable. I have heard of the book and would infact add it to my library soon. Lawyers in America are not qualify to interprete shariah unless they specialize in shariah. On the accuracy of Yusuf Ali, and your explanation of quran. I will NEVER accept your explanation over Yusuf Ali even if you are Alfa. Little wonder why muslims, except fatty didn't comment on your wikkipedia and others. I know they won't unless you provoke them. I hope you would not do that.

On sex attraction, I have given you a case study of someone who is sexually unattractive, poor, uneducated. Ofcourse, I would have disputed the same too if I had not seen it. Here I am! If you don't believe it is possible that doesn't take away the reality. We have the right to exercise our power anyhow.

Sex attraction as the PRIMARY reason, and STATUS as the secondary may be true but NOT universally correct. You have forgotten to put RELIGION and CULTURE where they belong. I am a student of Logic. That is why I don't accept every propositions hook, line and sinker without subjecting them to Logic. That explains why I don't generalizes. On the above assumption, my dad didn't qualify. His primary motive was CULTURE AND DESIRE TO HAVE MANY CHILDREN. He had already made it clear to my mum that he would have more than one wife. I heard some of the arguments as a kid. I wasn't surprise when years later he took a second wife. He did so with mama in the know and not a CLANDESTINE affair. The first woman was rejected by mama.(i don't know why) but she accepted the second! As for STATUS, I would be deceiving you if I said my dad is highly placed. My mentor had that anyway maybe that is why he can afford to do what he did.

I agrees that men takes second wife for reasons outlined:. In fact I know those are what we ought to tackle. Let just focus on that instead of hovering around religion.

olanajim:

On where you misquoted quran: fatty cited Qoradawi book as his ref. Al qoradawi work LAWFUL AND PROHIBTED IN ISLAM was indisputable. I have heard of the book and would infact add it to my library soon. Lawyers in America are not qualify to interprete shariah unless they specialize in shariah. On the accuracy of Yusuf Ali, and your explanation of quran. I will NEVER accept your explanation over Yusuf Ali even if you are Alfa. Little wonder why muslims, except fatty didn't comment on your wikkipedia and others. I know they won't unless you provoke them. I hope you would not do that.

Al Quradawi's work may be indisputable to you, but it is not to me. You are free to accept, reject or discard whatever suits your fancy. Just like I also reserve the right, to do the same. That is why God in his infinite wisdom, created us differently instead of making us clones. Am sure if you conducted an in-depth study, you would probably find other scholars disagreeing with Al Quradawi's work or interpreting it differently.

Secondly, I never said American lawyers could interprete Sharia. I merely stated that alienation of affection is a term that may be cited by a woman, if she feels denied of her marital rights to her husband's affection. So please free your mind.

Thirdly, I have never attacked Islam anywhere on this forum. I may choose to disagree with some principles, especially where I feel it infringes on the rights of non-muslims, but to attack the religion? No. You can cross-check my previous posts. Please don't confuse me with someone else.

olanajim:

On sex attraction, I have given you a case study of someone who is sexually unattractive, poor, uneducated. Ofcourse, I would have disputed the same too if I had not seen it. Here I am! If you don't believe it is possible that doesn't take away the reality. We have the right to exercise our power anyhow.

Yeah. . . .it doesn't take away the reality. One man's meat like I said before, is another man's poison. You may not have seen the woman as attractive, but your mentor could have found her appealing. Different strokes exist, for different folks. Beauty, as they say is in the eye of the beholder.

olanajim:
Sex attraction as the PRIMARY reason, and STATUS as the secondary may be true but NOT universally correct. You have forgotten to put RELIGION and CULTURE where they belong. I am a student of Logic. That is why I don't accept every propositions hook, line and sinker without subjecting them to Logic. That explains why I don't generalizes.

People have used religion and culture throughout the ages to justify or rationalise their libidinous urges. Culture is not static. It is dynamic. And it can be manipulated to suit human whims, vices and caprices. In addition to being a good student of logic, may I suggest that you should also be a good student of history. It would broaden your perspective.

olanajim:
His primary motive was CULTURE AND DESIRE TO HAVE MANY CHILDREN. He had already made it clear to my mum that he would have more than one wife. I heard some of the arguments as a kid. I wasn't surprise when years later he took a second wife. He did so with mama in the know and not a CLANDESTINE affair. The first woman was rejected by mama.(i don't know why) but she accepted the second! As for STATUS, I would be deceiving you if I said my dad is highly placed. My mentor had that anyway maybe that is why he can afford to do what he did.

I cannot pass any comment on what your dad did, since I do not know him as a person. Let me just say, that your mum must be a rare breed to have agreed to his wishes.

Most women would not easily buy into the 'religion and culture' aspect, as an excuse for a man to run a polygamous home. Kindly do a survey to find out what they feel, before you start propagating your 'logical' reasons, for polygamy. I grew up in the midst of women. So I doubt if any woman would willingly share her husband's loins with another woman, in the guise of supporting a man's cultural and religious inclinations. I rest my case.

I am a student of history. You should have know from my contributions here and elsewhere that I occationally cited other people's story when there is need. Fortunately I read history not for history sake. I do so to learn from people's experience.

You are right about my mum. She is a rare. Honestly I could create another sub-topic here if I mention much about her. The goodnews is that I am not faceless like some people. You can befriend with me and use her for your "research". I am sure she would welcome you with open hands. Afterall in her business, she had not less than 15 young ladies around her. Do not hesistate to make your request.

You have not been attacking Islam as such. But muslims view any attack on their doctrine as an attack on Islam especially if it emanates from non muslim. Your knowledge of Islam and history should have helped you grasp that message.

Scholars can disagree with Qoradawi but in the way you thought. I have sent my boy to go look for English version of Qoradawi book. I gave him #2500 this morning to locate it at all cost. I must read it! Why not do the same instead of arguing needlessly.

I am not propagating polygamy. I am telling you why people practice it. I had never hid my preference if you read it well. I just have to prevent people dragging me to sentiment in the name of argument. When I see good in my enemy, I tell him what I saw was good.

Now let get into business. You have cited some of the reasons men take second wife. Let do justice to them, laudet. Let open them. You see when people use RELIGION, especially Islam, as excuse for polygamy we need to know if they have FAITH in the religion. Are these people. You must realise that Islam didn't prevent people from practising their CULTURES so long it does not infringe on the foundamental principles. That is why there is variation. Saudis, would difer from Hausas, culturally, just as Iranians and Yorubas.Their culture reflect alot in the manner they practice Islam. E.g.

Some hausas, can give out their daughters as a gift in marriage while yorubas don'p practice it as such. It is rare nowaday among Yorubas if any. Some Arabs nations allow temporary marriage while in Nigeria such practice is strange. Hausa muslims have the habit of withdrawing their daughters from schools for marriage while some muslim community even in Arabia frowns at it. Iran for instance had women as her major workforce and therefore takes interest in their education.

We know that marriage traditions had already been enshrined in every cultures even before Islam and christainity.

The point of this examples is to show that cultural variation has influence on people's attitute to polygamy. When they quote religion, we must also look at their cultural background before we decide on religion. This would aid our understanding of their real motivation. Islam is just being used unfairly to support polygamy, we must always realise that it had rules guiding it and that it is not the basic reason men go for the polygamy.

The cultural factor is the culprit. And this can be a bit complicated when we note that culture keeps responding to technology and civilisation. Some people just refused to move with changing times while others stick to religion. Yet we have others driven by personal ideology, ego, lust etc .

One thing I can say for sure is that polygamy is a function of individualism. No culture, tradition, religion had ever force a man to polygamy. Men go into it willing base on circumstance they find themselve and then invoke religo-cultural anthem to back their action.

Yes, tradition forces some pple. What about the obas.

Your guess is as anyone. Obas are the custodian of tradition. A randy oba may go for 50. I can't speak for them. I do know that mordern Obas are reducing the numbers of their wifes. I can mention up to five and more Obas that have just one wife. It is not something to generalise.

olanajim:

You have not been attacking Islam as such. But muslims view any attack on their doctrine as an attack on Islam especially if it emanates from non muslim. Your knowledge of Islam and history should have helped you grasp that message.

Where and when did I attack their doctrine? Did you really understand what I wrote in my previous posts? Or did you just read those comments with a biased mind?

olanajim:

The cultural factor is the culprit. And this can be a bit complicated when we note that culture keeps responding to technology and civilisation. Some people just refused to move with changing times while others stick to religion. Yet we have others driven by personal ideology, ego, lust etc .

One thing I can say for sure is that polygamy is a function of individualism. No culture, tradition, religion had ever force a man to polygamy. Men go into it willing base on circumstance they find themselve and then invoke religo-cultural anthem to back their action.

Anyway, like I said before. . . .I rest my case. You are free to have the floor, and continue your flawed argument about how culture is the major culprit, that makes men take on additional wives. Try not to contradict yourself too much, while you are at it.

laudate, you tried.

sheesh, i feel like i'm back in school being forced to listen to/read another boring lecture! pls guys, keep ur posts short now, biko.

u ait rit

_{trying to comprehend the post above}