Talk:Polyandry

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Yes it does. And it is quoted now, not rephrased. Idunius (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• There is no point in continuing this discussion any further unless you answer this . 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I have added to the discussion since I was mentioned, as per below. Idunius (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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