Talk:Polyandry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

I linked this article to Gryllus bimaculatus to provide an example of polyandry in animals other than humans. Emiliaromagna1 (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


mormons did not practice polyandry[edit]

Removed:

The sourced magazine states in their conclusion: So, getting back to my title, “Joseph Smith’s Sexual Polyandry and the Emperor’s New Clothes: On Closer Inspection, What Do We Find?”

  1. Assumptions
  2. Can’t prove a negative
  3. No solid evidence
  4. Passionate convictions
  5. No accounting for Joseph Smith’s teachings on polyandry
  6. No accounting for contradictory evidence

Wholesomegood (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I recognize the arguments you are making (via the linked talk by Brian C. Hales). However, I think some sort of mention is warranted. Hales's arguments are one person's position within a larger debate over how to interpret the evidence, a debate that involves various historians for decades. Hales himself points this out. While Hales may have some strong points and is a leading authority on this subject, he isn't the sole authority on this subject. Other historians have disagreed, and I don't think there's a scholarly consensus. Any one of these scholars could bring their own biases and agendas to their research and interpretations, including Hales. And as your post mentioned, evidence is not conclusive. And the subject of Joseph Smith polyandry has been discussed in scholarly circles for quite some time now. I hope I'm not sounding too blunt here, but I'm just trying to show that something should be mentioned in this article, despite how strongly one historian feels it has been refuted. The subject itself is the subject of publication and controversy, and WP shouldn't remain silent about it. ——Rich jj (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: It just occurred to me that Hales didn't argue that these "polyandrous" marriages did not exist; He argued that they were not sexually polyandrous. In other words, the women did not have sexual access to both of their husbands, only the one married for "time". (Keep in mind my earlier comments that there is no scholarly consensus settling this issue.) Even if wives were sexual with both husbands, this unusual arrangement doesn't match the standard definition of polyandry, and I don't know if it has a technical name. Steven Peck (BYU biologist) says it's not really polyandry. That is also the position of Lawrence Foster (Georgia Tech historian of religion and sexuality), here (pp. 148-49) and here (pp. 163-66), and Andrew Ehat (BYU historian on Joseph Smith). Foster's phrase "proxy husband" may be related to these marriages. But I still think a mention is warranted here because the word "polyandry" is most often used (even by credible persons) when discussing this issue. Perhaps a sentence can describe Joseph Smith's practice, and another sentence can point out the dispute over the technical definition. ——Rich jj (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the wall of text above. My main points were: (1) JS was definitely sealed to wives who already had husbands, (2) it is debated whether these were sexual unions, (3) as a rule Mormons rejected polyandry. Whatever is added to this article should remain brief. Here are some sources that could be considered:
  • JS polyandry
Jana Riess, Religion News Service (2014)
Merina Smith, Revelation, Resistance, and Mormon Polygamy (2013)
D. Michael Quinn, "Evidence for the Sexual Side of Joseph Smith's Polygamy" (2012)
"Introduction to Journals: Volume 2", Joseph Smith Papers (2011)
Todd Compton, Truth, Honesty and Moderation in Mormon History (2001)
Todd Compton, In Sacred Lonliness (1997)
Richard Van Wagoner, Dialogue (1985) -- and chapter 4 in his Mormon Polygamy: A History (1989)
  • Against calling it polyandry
Samuel Morris Brown, In Heaven as It Is on Earth (2011)
Steven Peck, "I refuse to believe that polyandry was practiced in Nauvoo: Part I", By Common Consent (2009)
Lawrence Foster, Women, Family, and Utopia (1991)
Lawrence Foster, Religion and Sexuality (1981)
Andrew Ehat, "Pseudo-Polyandry: Explaining Mormon Polygyny’s Paradoxical Companion", Sunstone Symposium (1986)
"Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo" (2014), Gospel Topics, lds.org
  • Argued it was not sexual
Brian C. Hales, "Joseph Smith and Polyandry", josephsmithspolygamy.org
Brian C. Hales, "Joseph Smith’s Sexual Polyandry and the Emperor’s New Clothes", FairMormon Conference (2012)
Brian C. Hales, "Joseph Smith and the Puzzlement of Polyandry", The Persistence of Polygamy (2010)
Brian C. Hales, "The Joseph Smith-Sylvia Sessions Plural Sealing: Polyandry or Polygyny?", Mormon Historical Studies (2008)
  • Mormons rejected polyandry
B. Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant (1992)
  • Thoughts on eternal polyandry
Eugene England, "Fidelity, Polygamy, and Celestial Marriage", Multiply and Replenish (1994)
——Rich jj (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nymba[edit]

Under Polyandry#Known cases a paragraph begins with

It also occurs or has occurred in Nigeria, the Nymba ...

The reference makes no mention of the Nymba, which seems from the sentence structure to be the name of a region. It might be the Nyimba District of Zambia; it might be related to this documentary, "Nymba Ntobhu - Women Marrying Women" (YouTube 27:55) from the Mgongowazi project 2004, in Kiagata village, Musoma, Tanzania (I found it with a Google search but haven't watched it), or something else. Thnidu (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers don't add up[edit]

Consider this paragraph:

Of the 1,231 societies listed in the 1980 Ethnographic Atlas, 186 were found to be monogamous; 453 had occasional polygyny; 588 had more frequent polygyny; and 4 had polyandry.[1] Polyandry is less rare than this figure which listed only those examples found in the Himalayan mountains (28 societies). More recent studies have found more than 50 other societies practicing polyandry.[2]

As it stands, "this figure" can refer only to the number 4 in the previous sentence, which the rest of the sentence equates to 28. Obviously, this doesn't work out. Something must be missing. --Thnidu (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polyandry is polygamy[edit]

@Good Olfactory: You should not have removed the category Polygamy from this article. The term polygamy includes polyandry, polygyny, and group marriage. Please restore the categorization. --Thnidu (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Good Olfactory: Never mind. I see that it's in Category: Polyandry, which is a subcategory of Polygamy. Sorry to have bothered you. --Thnidu (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Polyandry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Polyandry among the Maasai[edit]

Strictly speaking, Maasai are polygamous. That is A man may have multiple wives. However, Husbands may entertain a guest by allowing the guest have access to one of his wives as a gesture of honor. This is not permanent. Hence in my learned opinion, the notion that Maasai are polyandrous is to me a misplaced one. Suggesting more references... Shadychiri (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

polyandry or polygyny[edit]

The article is about polyandry while map is about polygyny. It does not make sense. Kindly remove map of polygyny and add map of polyandry.Smatrah (talk) 04:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple problems in Islam section of Polyandry[edit]

Hello, I've identified multiple problems with Polyandry#Islam. First is the most glaring is self-initiated connection of sex with another man to polyandry. This article is about having more than one husband. Sex with another man while married doesn't classify as such. This is OR unless it can be proved that the enslaved women who have sex are considered equal to wives and is considered a polyandrous relation. Obviously it seems secondary sources and opinion of Islamic scholars are required as we cannot compare it by ourselves. No source in the article however seems to call or consider sex with married female slaves a polyandrous relation. One, Islamweb, is also saying a slave cannot be a wife of the owner [2]. Another doesn't even completely identify itself. No title is mentioned in this source, what is the name of the book or work which is cited? "Slave—girls are sexual property for their male owners. 4:24 “And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands ” (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 319)" This quote of the source also isn't talking about annulment of previous marriage contracts of those enslaved, the thing it is cited against. These things need to be corrected and addressed. Thank you. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 07:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me all these problems could be easily and correctly solved if the text from last year was reestablished. 83.223.29.23 (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to give some time. Reliable secondary sources about views of Islamic scriptures or views of reliable and notable scholars or academicians must be published about marriage with another man or considering slaves as equal to wife. This isn't about sexual relations. As already said these are self-initiated connection of sex with another man to polyandry. One should avoid any OR. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The passage from the Quran in the source is not about sexual relations, it's about giving permission to muslim men to marry women who are already married, if they own them. Simple as that. So I'd say it's a good suggestions to simply revert back to the correct text that has a source, as already stated above. 83.223.29.23 (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot use primary sources and our own interpretation. The passage, Quran 4:24 is not being used here about marriage even though it might be about it, but along with statements from Tafsir al-Baghawi about slaves being sexual property, it says: Slave—girls are sexual property for their male owners. 4:24 “And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands" (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 319).
I don't know if it is Madudi saying it or the editor himself added it, because the title of the work isn't given and Maududi isn't the author of the Tafsir. Sexual relations cannot be here. However, if we can find secondary reliable sources or Islamic scholars who talk about polyandry being allowed in Quranic verses/passage and Islam, then it can be added. But this article is not about sexual relations. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't any, see the Ayat provided under, has context added to it (from an author). The actual literal translation isn't as explicit. The Quran stylistic language prevents it to go much into details about era specific events. The authors who add comments do so out of knowledge from other literatures. While those might be accurate, they could have been decisions taken out of necessity during the given era (that's why they weren't included directly in the Quran to begin with, they're always implied by other authors). To be coherent (and compatible), the woman who is taken as slave could not be having physical intercourse with her first husband. I don't know if this could still be considered as Polyandry. Under a patriarchal system, a male ensure his progenity by his family name... who's name the child or the wife will be wearing? Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The section that was removed saying that it was not from the source was exactly as stated in the source "(Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess.) The Ayah means, you are prohibited from marrying women who are already married,

﴿إِلاَّ مَا مَلَكْتَ أَيْمَـنُكُمْ﴾

(except those whom your right hands possess)" with the arabic excluded. Do not remove facts with sources. If you want to give nuance to the text, add valid sorces. Do not remove sources and facts. You have given NO sources whatsoever for any of your removals or other claims. Please refrain from any more such edits. Gammalflamma (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic polyandry[edit]

The section of Islam contains original research based on primary and unreliable sources. There is no reliable secondary source to support most of the content. So I have removed WP:OR Smatrah (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have rephrased and entered a valid secondary source. Gammalflamma (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gammaflamma source does not say what you are quoting. Policy says we cannot change the words of any source according to our own interpretation. Hope you understand. Thank you Smatrah (talk) 10:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the source, used the exact words as suggested and added a source. Hope this can be respected. Idunius (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source does state that after ensuring that they are not pregnant. But as the definition of polyandry is that marrying more than one man at the same time. Source does not state that a woman can marry more than one husband at the same time. Does it? Smatrah (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. And it is quoted now, not rephrased. Idunius (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
However, there is an exception regarding married women who have become the property of a man. (Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess.) The Ayah means, you are prohibited from marrying women who are already married except those whom your right hands possess [1] Those whom your right hands possess is an expression defined as a slave, a person who has become the property of another. [2]

Material along with source is given above. Please help if any editor finds the claimed material of Idunius. Please explain and refer any section which contains claimed material.Smatrah (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I do not understand the above statement. I have undone your removal of fact with source. As the claim is now stated, it reflects the source. This is not about being bold, it's about a statement and sources. Do you have any verifiable claim that the source used is not reliable? Idunius (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Quran and interpretation
  2. ^ https://islamqa.info/en/12562 Islamqa

How was that different than a jus primae noctis also said to have been practiced in Europe (note that I am not confirming the quote, but using your own rational)? Claiming jus primae noctis is polyandry is a case of construct validity problem. I don't think the word was meant to be applied in that context. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is different completely sins jus primae noctis is not in any way a matter of marriage to a married woman. This is an issue of marriage, specifically being allowed to marry a woman who is already married. Do you have any source saying that islam has not allowed marriage to slave-women, even if they are married before? There is a source to the fact now. I would pelase ask that the fact and source not be removed unless there is a valid source proving that it has not been allowed in islam to marry a woman who has become your slave, even if she is already married. Gammalflamma (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have really a hard time understanding the rational of your reply. Even taking that commentary added to a text from the Quran, you have yet to provide evidences that she could still keep her first husband while marrying that person. Who's name would that woman (or child) be taking? The first husband or the second? Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have given no rationale at all for the strange comparison to jus primae noctis. And you have given no valid source for your own interpretation in prior statements. You keep removing facts with valid sources, giving no other reason than your own opinions. Hence, Wikipedia guidelines say that you must give valid sources for your alterations, and you can't simply remove facts ans sources that aren't to your own personal liking. If you want to give further nuance to the passage, please do so and add valid sources. But please refrain from removing facts and sources. As to your questin it is a priori from the interpretation of the scholar in the source. No permission would be needed especially, if she wasn't still married. Gammalflamma (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Friend, what interpretation you're even talking about? There are sure plenty of example where Muslim men took already married women as wives. Ottoman Empire for Western academics if you want sources. But how many can you provide where the wives still kept the first husband after marrying the second? In fact the quote you provide, the context added by that person doesn't even speak of a second marriage to begin with. The comparaison with jus primae noctis is valid, because if you take the time to read what you have added, you will see that it's about intercourse not necessarily marriage (and the reason why both were mixed up here, is because usually (at least officially) in those societies one can not happen without the other). Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. If you read the paragraph in full context you will see that the entire text is about whom you may or may not marry. Explicitly. I can not find any sources saying anything else, and I can't see that you have provided any either. Kind regards, Gammalflamma (talk) 09:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Like I have stated, that they could marry a married woman isn't the point here; that they could still keep the first husband is.Polyandry is incompatible with a patriarchy and I already raised why. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear from the source that man can marry after ensuring she is not pregnant, if you see the source. It does not say that some one can have more than one husband at the same time. Furthermore theses are those Muslim women who fled from their non-Muslim husbands-who does not divorce her nor she can repay his due wedding gifts to get judicial khula. In this she can remarry after ensuring that she is not pregnant. It is completely different from jus primae noctis where a man have sex with a married women while she is still married. As for paternity of child it is clear from the qtafsir that marriage is permitted only after ensuring that she is not pregnant, not with already pregnant women. So I think polyandry is alien to Islam. Polyandry means marrying more than husband at a time. While your given source clearly contradict this by saying that after ensuring that she is not pregnant she can marry but does not say that her previous marriage continues. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smatrah (talk • contribs) 12:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well the link he provided (from where the source come from), does say: "We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed
Reason it was interpreted as marriage by the author is because in those cultures sexual relations at least officially isn't really accepted without marriage. But I agree with you that the section should be removed... because neither of the two possible interpretation supports the claim of Polyandry. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an interpretation - it is an exact quote. "(Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess.) The Ayah means, you are prohibited from marrying women who are already married,

﴿إِلاَّ مَا مَلَكْتَ أَيْمَـنُكُمْ﴾

(except those whom your right hands possess)" with the arabic excluded. Please do not remove valid sources with quotes. Gammalflamma (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no point in continuing this discussion any further unless you answer this [3]. I already said that there are plenty of sources for that quote (I cited Ottoman Empire),... but that this means also keeping the first husband while getting another one is your interpretation. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph as now is, is not an interpretation so the issue of interpretation is not relevant - it is an exact quote, except the Arabic was left out. There is no need for sources showing examples of slave women living with two husbands, since the paragraph simply states that according to some scholars the ayah means that it is allowed to marry a woman who is already married. QED. I you believe there are other interpretations I would please ask you to follow the basic guidelines and in stead of removing facts with valid source, if you believe there are other viewpoints here if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add.. Gammalflamma (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, here is a simple way to settle the issue. Because obviously this has become a circular discussion.
    • Would you add in any BLP article where you see more than one marriage that it's a case of Polyandry?
      • Assuming that you find no reference of their divorce in the same given source which writes about the second marriage.
        • Would you claim that in the West, by law, one has to divorce with the first husband?
          • Because Islam necessarily involving patriarchy, it's required for women. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I would certainly not claim that it is polyandry if the woman had divorced her husband or if he had died. But as the scholar explains the ayah here, it is about marrying a woman who has neither been divorced or widowed. That is the rub.I must admit, I do not understand your question about the West. Could you please clarify? Nor do I understand what you mean by question 2. I have now added a source, clarifying that the ayah is about marriage, not about sexual intercource. Gammalflamma (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer the above. You're assuming that she divorced because you know by law that more than one husband isn't allowed in the West. Even though in a given source when they write she married a second time they might not include anything about her divorce. What you are implying is that a slave (from your own argument) who is taken as wife (or be it for sex) is allowed to keep her initial husband. See that's what you are heading for. That your argument doesn't stand seems self evident to me. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say it's allowed to marry divorced women, it says it's allowed to marry married women . in this one specific case. I simply don't understand what you are trying to say? And "what the right hand possesses" to be interpreted as "slave" is not my claim, there is a source given, and many more can be added. Anyway, if you check the discussion mentioned below, you can see I have added another source, clearly supporting the paragraph. Gammalflamma (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
lol, friend I know, I'm talking about the example I gave in the above situation with BLP... in such a case it would be implied that there was a divorce before a second marriage even if in a given source divorce isn't explicitly mentioned. In this particular case, that the prior husband of the slave couldn't continue having any sort of relationship with her is obvious. This can be observed everywhere currently (no need to quote from a source most ignored). Do you imagine a married religious Muslim man allowing her wife to have a sexual relationship with a man from a prior marriage? See what sort of discussion you're engaged in? For the outsider that read this discussion, he will wonder how you can even still keep this argument. You can not just quote stuff textually by removing them from their context and meaning. That's abuse of process. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added to the discussion since I was mentioned, as per below. Idunius (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

note: This issue is also being discussed at the original research noticeboard Nblund talk 00:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source added that verifies source. There is no original research involved. The original source is not cited here, only the interpretation by the scholar. Hence, no original research. Gammalflamma (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Discussion continued from original research noticeboard.) As to the definition of polyandry we have agreed that in its broadest sense it can involve not only marriage but intimacy with more than one. It is clear now from the sources that the ayah is indeed about marrying women who are already married, which was contended. It is also clear now that there is scholarly disagreement on whether these women were separated from their first husbands or not. The claim that there is agreement that a woman's first marriage was nullified when she was taken captive is proven wrong by that. Any other interpretation is hence only that, an interpretation. The issue now should therefor be how these facts can be presented in a nuanced way, based on sources not interpretations, and in a way that does not give improper weight to the issue. It is in keeping with NPOV to start out by saying that Islam prohibits polyandry. Reasons for this could be added, giving due weight to the main issue. I have rewritten the passage respecting NPOV, the discussion, the sources and due weight. Idunius (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source states

and also already married women except those who have fallen in your hands. The ayah means that you are prohibited from marrying already married women except whom,.., for you are allowed after ensuring they are not pregnant.

Dear source does not clearly state that polyandry is alloewed. Policy says we cannot add personal interpretions of source in this case that which you have interpreted which is not recognised by any reputed scholar.thank you. Smatrah (talk) 09:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not start an edit war. The discussion has been extensive. Sources have been added and nuances and depth. The sources have been quoted accurately, and the claim you now make has already been discussed. I will reinstate the new text and would please ask new suggestions be discussed before anything is removed that has been discussed and verified. Please add and improve. Idunius (talk) 11:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Idunius, have you seen above the example I gave (with BLP)? Those are just details, you don't see it, but from the outsider it might seem obvious. Again, Islam as a religion is grounded on Patriarchy, this has nothing to do with sides. Every strongly patriarchal religions will have system of values which will be against any form of polyandry. If there is a Mosque nearby you, just ask an Imam if it is allowed. Obviously, he is in this particular case the best available source to provide meaning to the given sentence, even from its original language. Because in this particular case, that polyandry is allowed or not doesn't make a Muslim look better or worst. In the contrary, some will see a form of balance to the allowed polygamy by Islam. Don't you see it? Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have disengaged from this discussion, because it revolves around the meaning of a sentence. Like I said to Idunius in his talkpage, his English is better than mine. So I guess in this situation, the sentence provided should be interpreted by those who have the required language skills. But I still believe an Imam should be consulted, they're probably those who are in the position to assess this. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The latest version is an acceptable comprimise. However, I wonder if there is a slight mistake in the sentence "Early Islamic jurists agreed that the marriages of women who were taken alone as prisoners of war could remarry"? Shouldn't it be "Early Islamic jurists agreed that women who were taken alone as prisoners of war could remarry"? Since there should be no questionable editing in this situation I won't change it myself, even though it's just a matter of grammar. Idunius (talk) 07:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar fixed. I think this is an improvement to the status quo, but it is still original research - it looks quite close to the example at WP:SYN. So, if someone else removes it, I will support that. Nblund talk 18:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism[edit]

Does someone oppose the removal of this sentence? However, in the same epic, when questioned by Kunti to give an example of polyandry, Yudhishthira cites Gautam-clan Jatila (married to seven Saptarishis) and Hiranyaksha's sister Pracheti (married to ten brothers), thereby implying a more open attitude toward polyandry in Vedic society.

I don't know if it is really relevant, seven Saptarishis (for the wisdom of the seven corners of the world) are all symbolic and iconic representations (they always come as siblings, to represent the different angles of the same person-name (like the Saptarishis)). Sailing in the same boats, or acting at once. I fail to see how those iconic representations are meant to represent Polyandry in Hinduism. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 03:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the confusion here seems to be that the way the article is written does not separate polyandry in religious texts and figures and polyandry by the adherents of the religions.
Those are current religions, they're not like we're talking about Greek Mythology... if we are to include Polyandry in Hinduism, we should therefor clearly separate adherents from figures. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on polyandry in Islam[edit]

Clear consensus to remove the text until reliable sources are found. AdA&D 22:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The text below is from the section on Polyandry and Islam. Some editors have argued that it is original research/synthesis. Should the text below be kept or removed? Nblund talk 17:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Early Islamic jurists agreed that married women who were taken alone as prisoners of war could remarry, because their previous marriages were nullified.[citations] Abu Hanifah and Abd al-Rahman al-Awza'i believed that previous marriages were not dissolved if women were taken together with their husbands. [citation] Marrying a married woman could technically constitute a form of polyandry or bigamy. [citation]

Link to previous talk page discussion

Link to Original Research Noticeboard post — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nblund (talk • contribs) 17:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responses[edit]

  • Remove The text of this section is strikingly close to the example of original synthesis given WP:SYN. I can find no reliable source that supports the claim that this passage endorses anything resembling polyandry, and multiple sources unambiguously state that Islam prohibits polyandry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nblund (talk • contribs) 17:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The text as it stands is the result of extensive discussions and alterations after reviews of the sources and is supported by the sources given. The repeated moves by the same couple of users to remove any mention of this fact that is supported by sources is strikingly close to a breech of NPOV. It must be noted that the article is on polyandry, not on religious approval of polyandry. The sources say that there is a set of circumstances under which islam allows for a woman who is already married to marry again without a divorce and without being a widow. Hence, the woman technically will be married to more than one man. The text does not say that islam condones a woman living a polyandrous lifestyle nor that islam will recognize her earlier marriage, that is not what the article or the text claims (actually, the opposite is stated) which renders the argument to remove given above irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gammalflamma (talk • contribs) 18:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Beyond being SYN, the women's original husband was not able to fornicate with her rendering the legalities here rather moot.Icewhiz (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
now that last statement is really SYNTH, and unclear, unless the original husband was known to be dead, because this is discussing the legality of the relationship, not the possibility. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The last SYNTHY stmt is what supposedly merits inclusion. Treating a prize of war's previous marriage as polyandry is really stretching a technicality.Icewhiz (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Unless someone finds a source that describes this as polyandry (a very good source), then this practice shouldn't be mentioned in this article at all. Right now the only connection being made is some editors' logical deduction, without any source backing up that connection. We can't just call something polyandry just because we think that's what it is. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove The conclusion of the whole section is that polyandry is not permitted in Islam, so including a discussion of Islamic practice here is extraneous to the discussion of polyandry and taxing on readers who need to carefully read the whole section to find this out. If Islamic jurists declare that the previous marriage is dissolved then it is similar, though not identical, to the annulment process in the Catholic church where Catholic jurists have laid down conditions for a previous marriage to be declared null and void. Given the juridical status in both cases, neither the Islamic nor the Catholic case justifies the charge of polyandry. Jzsj (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove seems to violate WP:SYN.
  • Remove The last sentence is clearly OR and citations don't seem to support the conclusion. Seanbonner (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • remove (Summoned by bot) needs more citations. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per WP:SYN, and Red Rock. I read through all the previous argumentation before the Rfc and in the Rfc, followed Sura 4:24, and read some analysis as well, such as for example, Towards Understanding the Quran, Surah An-Nisa 4:23-25, and a couple of things are clear to me in this discussion: those in favor of keeping the paragraph are analyzing the Quran themselves or using interpretations by analysts that talk about very specific situations, and then interpreting their interpretations, using their own logic, and wit, and their understanding of the word polyandry in English to conclude that polyandry, at least in some circumstances, is permitted in Islam. But this is the very definition of synthesis and we cannot do it. If polyandry were truly permitted in Islam, then why is it so difficult to find ten or twenty or a hundred Islamic scholars in the last 1,386 years to say, simply, "polyandry is permitted in Islam under these rare circumstances:..." or similar? Finally, one must remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and in that sense, it is not about Truth, it is about what reliable sources say. If you cannot find numerous solid, secondary, reliable, sources that say that polyandry is allowed in Islam, then we cannot say so in Wikipedia's voice. At best, you could say something like "Analyst So-and-so opines that polyandry is permitted in Islam" but even then, he better have said something very close to that, because you can't use WP:SYNTH to attribute something to a scholar, either. Mathglot (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Discussion[edit]

Is the section only relevant if islamic scholars would call it polyandry? In that case we could lose it instantly since of course in patriarchal religions that would be impossible. Or is the section relevant if others, scholars and/or critics, could call it bigamy or polyandry? (Not to mention the married women who are taken slaves and married by force to their masters... )In that case we should keep the section since sources are provided that show the occurrence of technical bigamy. It seems to me this question is at the heart of the entire discussion that has been entertained until now. Those who want to remove are of the first opinion, those who want to keep are of the second. So, do we want a critical text or do we want a text stating an islamic point of view? Could the text be rephrased to be clear on the difference? 94.234.55.174 (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The women who are taken as captive (or slaves as may be) and, possibly forcefully, married are not in a polyandrous relationship - they are expected to be faithful to their new husbands. As I see it - Islamic jurisprudence had some questions on the issues - some viewed this initially as an annulment of the initial marriage whereas those objecting to the practice asserted that the original marriage was not annulled - either way, the captive woman was not sleeping with her original husband.Icewhiz (talk) 12:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with with your statement "Islamic jurisprudence had some questions on the issues - some viewed this initially as an annulment of the initial marriage whereas those objecting to the practice asserted that the original marriage was not annulled", this is exactly what the sources given hold. However, then you go on to involve sexual relationships in the discussion. Sexual intercourse is not a requisite for marriage. In islam there is proof of this in the fact that Muhammad remained married to a wife who explicitly gave up all rights to sexual relations with him. So the statement you make actually makes it clear why one of the arguments to remove the section is invalid. Anyway, the question I ask remains unanswered. 94.234.55.174 (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you find an Islamic text (or much better critique thereof) supporting the practice that also treats the relationship as polyandry explicitly (non-annulled marriage) - that would be a much stronger case for inclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have found such sources! In The Perplexity of a Muslim Woman: Over Inheritance, Marriage, and Homosexuality by Olfa Youssef (pp 77-79)the author states that Muslim scholars themselves were perplexed by this passage in the Quran because it allows marriage to married women, Mujahid even saying that "If I knew anyone knowing its meaning I would slaughter a camel"."One's goal behind this observation is not to assert the possibility that a woman could be married to more than one spouse, but to demonstrate that what allows this assertion is not an absolute text but a prevalent custom".He goes on to say that the ban on polyandry hence is traditional. He points to the fact that polyandry in Tunisia is not forbidden by law, only polygamy, from the same argument. So here's a secondary source clearly holding what is now stated in the section, even stating that islamic scholars have been baffled by this allowance to marry married women! Furthermore, I have found a secondary source which also connects this issue with the "ownership" of orphans in early islam, Companion to the Qur'an: Based on the Arberry Translation by W.M. Watt. First he describes how there were still many traces of polyandry and similar practices in early islamic society, the rules concerning orphans allowing one such practice, then he further states: "Marry two...three...four, the point is presumably that if each Muslim marries several wives, no girl orphans need be left in the inferior polyandrous condition, it is to be noted that this verse, on which the permission for a muslim to have four wives is based, does not restrict a previous unlimited polyandry." Here, polyandry is described as inferior in the view of early islam, not banned. So now the request for strong secondary sources has been fulfilled. Maybe the section should be extended, not removed? Gammalflamma (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Olfa Yousseff makes the perplexity of understanding what the Quran actually states and what scholars have interpreted even clearer by saying that the same contradiction which is found between the Quran allowing marrying married men while scholars ban polyandry, is to be found in the interpretation of the Quran allowing everybody to have sex with what their right hands possess, while scholars have interpreted this to exclude women. The fact that the text says one thing and scholars another is corroborated by sources saying that women in early islam acted on the allowance to have sex with their male slaves. It may be taxing to readers, as Jzsj states above, but with these sources there is ample proof that this is not a case of Wp:SYN nor OR. Gammalflamma (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Watt is discussing pre-Islamic practices that are already mentioned in the entry. The S.B. Zaki citation also only discusses polyandry as a pre-Islamic practice that was banned by Islam. The Youssef source seems helpful. But she doesn't appear to claim that any Islamic scholar ever endorsed that interpretation, nor does she appear to claim anyone ever actually practiced polyandry on the basis of this passage. I think citing Youssef in-text would probably help the OR issue, but it might still raise issues of relevance and due weight. Nblund talk 18:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sri Lanka[edit]

The current version of the article says, Fraternal polyandry is permitted in Sri Lanka under Kandyan Marriage law, often described using the euphemism eka-ge-kama (literally "eating in one house").[1] However, the cited source says that it concerns "traditional" (which I take to imply "not necessarily either current or statutory") marriage laws. It also adds "and customs" and says that its content was "Culled from medieval Sinhalese, Kandyan and early British era literary sources". As I read section six of this source", neither polygyny nor polyandry are permitted under Kandyan law. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hussein, Asiff. "Traditional Sinhalese Marriage Laws and Customs". Retrieved 28 April 2012.

Etymology of subject[edit]

The word ανήρ doesn’t make sense because though it means man, it doesn’t explain the etymology so well as άνδρας. Hellenophile07 (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ανήρ is the nominative singular, while ανδρ- is the oblique and plural stem... AnonMoos (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why polyandy is frowned upon according to UN[edit]

There is virtually little amount of polyandry couples around the world Can you explain it. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:8000:1027:85F6:3510:36E:2A0A:6A5C (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the UN has to do with it, but you could read works by evolutionary psychologists. According to common sexual dimorphism criteria, it's likely that human hunter-gatherer societies were often moderately polygynous -- i.e. a few exceptional men were able to attract and keep more than one woman at a time... AnonMoos (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I despise anonymous edits, particularly when they're silly and ungrammatical. Candidate for deletion I think. A.T.S. in Texas (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason to remove 2404:8000:1027:85F6:3510:36E:2A0A:6A5C's comment above -- it's a legitimate question related to the article (though poorly phrased). AnonMoos (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia?[edit]

Why there is no mention of word indonesia in this article? 2404:8000:1027:85F6:A958:5DEB:3F43:D77B (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

polyandy is frowned upon according to UN[edit]

polyandy is frowned upon according to UN 2001:E68:5400:2AB3:A418:E846:B781:5F09 (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polyandry&oldid=1194043519"