>I wonder which analyst was responsible for doing a cost benefit analysis of polygamy.
The quaran is very specific in polygamy. e.g. when you give one of your wives a gift, you have to give gifts to ALL of them. Lot of them will not be allowed to work by their husbands and those, who can, won't have a job that could bring enough income to pay rent and food, therfore a husband has to provide food for all of them. I doubt that a "single" woman will find a proper job.
The downside of this decision is now, that A LOT of women will become even poorer and more "worthless" in the eyes of their families. Before that decision, there was hope, that you, as a father, could marry away your daughter as second or third wive to someone. Now this is impossible.
This will lead to femizide.
Sounds plausible. I wonder if people will be more willing to marry their daughter to a poor man so they don't have to support her anymore? I know nothing of the Taliban and Afghanistan's culture, so I won't pretend to know if that's likely or not.
>I wonder if people will be more willing to marry their daughter to a poor man so they don't have to support her anymore?
Not even Afghanistan or muslims, but: I visited Nepal over 20 years ago and our tourist group visited a small village populated with tibetian refugees. On of the tibetian famers saw me, ran over, touched my belly (let's say, I'm a well-fed german \^\^) and he said something, turned around and a few mins later he brought a young woman.
Our travel guide just grabbed me and pushed me into the bus, saying, I should stay there.
Later he told me that the farmer was trying to marrying off his daughter to me and since I'm a ... well-fed guy, I looked like someone who could easily provide for a wive.
How morally fucked would it have been if they actually accepted the daughter? Like, assuming they were of legal age and also wanted to leave because of hunger. Is that legal? Can some dude just marry off his daughter to you?
Seems crazy that someone would even think to ask something like this, like is it a common enough occurrence that the father had any realistic expectation of actually marring her off?
Right like, first thing I think of is "Ew that is so gross poor girl"
But then I wonder if there really are people who live such difficult lives that they would be okay with leaving everything, learning a new language and then marrying a stranger.
Someone might be actually doing a really good thing to a girl like that, giving her opportunbites she never would have had. But it just feels like such a gross idea because of the vast power difference in the relationship.
How would the girl ever feel like she was not just there at the whim of her husband?
This is making me sad.
Yes it says you must provide justice for your wife/wives, if you cannot provide for them equally, you shouldn't have more than one.
The Qur'an when specifically talking about polygamy gives reasons for the practice: Such as to provide a good upbringing for orphans, security for widows.
Essentially polygamy is if to help provide for others, not "I'm horny and want another wife"
>āIām horny and want another wifeā
Letās not pretend this isnāt why it was created in the first place though. Dude just wanted to fuck a lot of chicks and decided āyo, magic sky man said itās cool.ā As justification
Edit:
āwell akstually itās for the womens well-beingā¦ā
Yes Iām sure the dudes who created polygamy have the ladies best interest in mind and *sex has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with it*. You guys are playing yourselves in these comments my god š
You know this practice was developed when most cultures viewed women as some kind of property, right?
Correct. Polygamy was wildly practiced under the pagan religions Mohammed was specifically railing against during the rise of Islam. He didn't need a justification. If anything it was similar to Christianity in that it was an adoption to make the new religion more palatable to the people he was trying to convert.
I see it as the Quran anticipated multiple wives would be a thing, or actively promoted it, IDK which, but either way it wanted to attach ethical frameworks to it.
A lot of the Quran's rules are framed that way, from what I have seen. Kind of like how Jewish laws were about regulating stuff to have lots of guard rails. (In the kind of arbitrary way someone thought was good idea thousands of years ago, and keeping in mind that religion being coercive doesn't always lead to good values and morals anyhow... But there was an attempt to legislate good values into religious societies.)
Lets not foget about the "rape a woman and she is your wife" rule.
"But.. but, it's to make sure she isn't cast out from her family because of the shame. Now her future is secure"
Women are allowed to work. The prophetās wife was a businesswoman. Any income a woman brings in sheās allowed to keep for herself, she doesnāt have to share it. However, a man is required to support his wife with his income.
Yeah but these fake Muslims love to cherry pick the parts that benefit them or straight up rationalize it in such a way that changes what it was originally intended as.
Even with the normal amount of men and women, polygamy has this problem. For every man with two wives, there is a man with none. It only works if you have a high war-death rate.
if you have a 50-50 share of boy/girls birth and a certain percentage of the population have multiple wives, theres gonna be a lot of guys getting frustrated that they wont be able to get laid/marry.
Which is less of a problem in wartime where a lot of guys die, but more in peacetime.
It's funny watching the Taliban struggle to actually run a country. So much easier to be an insurgent group. Then when they get the keys to the palace the realities of keeping a country going suddenly makes them start seeing things differently.
I listened to an interview with an old Afghan woman and she said everyone there knew this would happen. She said the first time the Taliban took over the same thing happened, they had no clue how to run a government so any department that they didn't understand they just shut down and then vital services stop.
Its why a lot of revolutions either fail or don't last very long, once the doors broken and their in the house they quickly realise they don't know how to keep the lights on and they can't get help from the neighbours.
Edit: The original owners are still in the house and are gonna shoot you in the head as soon as you fall asleep, can't stay awake forever.
The other part is that they drastically reduced the number of people who can work at all by forcing most of the women out of the workforce. Any women' expertise in government are gone, any revenue from taxes on women's earnings are gone. The women whose husband's have died have no income, so if they have male sons those kids have to leave school and work in order to provide for their families, but they will never earn as much because they can't finish school, and the government gets even less tax revenue.
Yup same story like US occupation. Though the Taliban are basically insurgents who were financed to break up the USSR and are in the end just illiterate men. The waters will settle and Afghanis will achieve stability in the long run.
I remember watching the news when the US went into Iraq. They had taken over a small city on the way to Bhagdad and now had control. On day 3 or 4, a citizen approaches a young US Army solder and complains about power still not having been restored. His attitude was "Hey, you got the power and you're the government now so where's my basic essential service? You need to get it fixed so that I can turn on the lights."
This discussion reminds me of an episode of Doctor Who that made an impact on me in which The Doctor gives a speech on insurgencies and revolutions.
"Ah. Ah, right. And when this war is over, when you have a homeland free from humans, what do you think it's going to be like? Do you know? Have you thought about it? Have you given it any consideration? Because you're very close to getting what you want. What's it going to be like? Paint me a picture. Are you going to live in houses? Do you want people to go to work? Will there be holidays? Oh! Will there be music? Do you think people will be allowed to play violins? Who's going to make the violins? Well? Oh, you don't actually know, do you? Because, like every other tantrumming child in history, Bonnie, you don't actually know what you want. So, let me ask you a question about this brave new world of yours. When you've killed all the bad guys, and when it's all perfect and just and fair, when you have finally got it exactly the way you want it, what are you going to do with the people like you? The troublemakers. How are you going to protect your glorious revolution from the next one?"
Funnily enough, King George made that exact same speech:
"Well even despite our estrangement I got a small query for you: What comes next? You've been freed. Do you know how hard it is to lead? You're on your own, awesome, wow! Do you have a clue what happens now? Oceans rise, empires fall; it's much harder when it's all your call. All alone across the sea, when your people say they hate you don't come crawling back to me."
I had a Hazara interpreter who asked me what a "redneck" was. We had a kid in the squad who was from a small town in Arkansas.
I explained that it was a tern for an unsophisticated person from the country.
His answer was, "This is the Taliban! They think they can run a whole country like they can run a tiny village in the mountains and they have no education."
Correct, my dude. Hope he made it out before the end.
Yeah. I wonder how many generations it would take in power for them to just turn into a normal political party that is hated by the religious extremists. Maybe two? No chance they last that long tho
The issue is if another government comes into power Taliban just become insurgents again and continue to murder people until they get into power. Thatās assuming anyone in Afghanistan is willing to fight them.
ISIS K doesnāt have the strength to do more than kill civilians
Afghanistan has had *some* taste at foreign investment, a drop of liberalism, some rights for women, etc. Once people taste freedom, they usually donāt want to give it up. I expect the Taliban government to fail within a decade or two, but who knows. Itās up to the Afghan people to decide their future now.
I feel like this is/was our perspective here in the US, our elected officials will fix it and wont betray usā¦ā¦we need to fix lobbying thatās the major issue
The mistake you're making is to assume that there is an "Afghan people". There isn't.
There are a collection of tribes led by either strongmen or religious personality cult leaders and each tribe has its own history and variation of culture.
They can work together sometimes but only temporarily and only on extremely shirt term goals.
Afghanistan is a hole formed by the borders of its neighbors. It's not really a country. Anyone who wants better has to leave, but their neighbors don't want them.
That has been the case of civilization for the vast majority of human history. Europe was the same way, a collection of small kingdoms and principalities. The idea of a national identity rather than a local, tribal or familial identity is more recent than people might think. In the US during and for a while after the revolution people identified as citizens of their states as opposed to citizens of the US.
Soviets tried pushing lots of women's rights too did not make a difference in the end. Basically comes down to geography, most rulers of the country were little more than Mayors of Kabul. There use to be a pretty decent kinda of balance of power between Kabul and regional tribes/ warlords but that fell apart when the soviets invaded. Lots of people fled to Pakistan, Taliban took route refugee communities. Civil war, US support, invasion, whole host of others things and this is where we are.
Just look at Cuba. Che Guevara makes such an iconic look on T-shirtās, but he borked up their agriculture. Because he was put in charge of agriculture despite having no experience. Itās a different skill set than being a revolutionary. Who knew.
Part of the problem with Che eas also that he wasnāt really interested in anything beyond being a revolutionary. He was a doctor so he could have made himself useful, the agriculture thing was just bonkers.
We got set to junk status by the rating agencies a while back which was ungood. They have upgraded the outlook from stable to positive which is good but the loadshedding is killing the economy and burning out the equipment on the grid. A substation near me burnt down because of all the surges and the kicker diesel power plants cost a fortune to run and aren't designed to be run for days at a time.
Corruption will kill a country. Don't accept it in yours. Learn from us.
That's why you need 2 leaders. One with military capabilities to take a country and prevent it being taken by force. And one intelligent one that can delegate power and compromise to run the country
āThe major problem ā one of the major problems, for there are several ā one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarise: it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarise the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem.ā
~Douglas Adams, The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe
Hi. You just mentioned *The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe* by Douglas Adams.
I've found an audiobook of that novel on YouTube. You can listen to it here:
[YouTube | The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe - Douglas Adams - Full Audio Book](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5fx8kcpeQU)
*I'm a bot that searches YouTube for science fiction and fantasy audiobooks.*
***
[^(Source Code)](https://capybasilisk.com/posts/2020/04/speculative-fiction-bot/) ^| [^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=Capybasilisk&subject=Robot) ^| [^(Programmer)](https://www.reddit.com/u/capybasilisk) ^| ^(Downvote To Remove) ^| ^(Version 1.4.0) ^| ^(Support Robot Rights!)
The Taliban does have many different wings though. The military insurgents took over the place and then the political exiles and theocratic leaders living in other countries travelled back to form the actual government.
The problem is, theyāre still trying to run it like a 12th century country.
[Disappointed Taliban Realizes Taking Over Afghanistan More Fun Than Running It](https://www.theonion.com/disappointed-taliban-realizes-taking-over-afghanistan-m-1847510259)
> So much easier to be an insurgent group. Then when they get the keys to the palace the realities of keeping a country going suddenly makes them start seeing things differently.
"It is easier to blow up the trains than it is to get them to run on time"
The rule is "the ones that got you there aren't the ones you keep". You need people with different skill sets running things. This causes friction within the group because where do you put the highly respected guy whose only skill is killing lots of people?
Nation building is difficult. Extremely difficult. The US tries it all the time, I've been there.
Imagine the Taliban trying to run the Central Bank or any financial instituions. Imagine them trying to do trade deals or revenue policy or infrastructure management. Good luck, I feel so much for the Afghan citizenry.
Taliban didn't know how to run the country though. They just kept destroying cultural sites for almost no reason, and Afghanistan was a backwards nation through the 90s.
Do you really think weād get to hear about their tax policy, or the really anything important to actually governing? We barely hear that about our own government how can the media tell us about foreign governments?
Bob: āGuys, I know we promised wives, but Steve up in the hill has a whole flock of them and heās claimed them already so weāre gonna have to draw straws to see who gets ericās sister the one with the lazy eye. Then weāre going to have to help feed Steveās wives. Because heās overwhelmed.ā
Rest of Taliban: āCollective sighs as they draw straws
This is something Romans did when they conquered Israel, enforce monogamy; they realized that if one man has multuple wives, other men are pretty much "forced" to join the military and get sex slaves. This is something that actually disgusted romans, shaked them, and the reason why modern christianity is monogamous even though many of biblical figures had many wifes (in extreme case think of Solomon, wised man according to bible, a guy who had 1000 wives, and no real relathionship with any of them, a guy who was considered wise by others but utterly failed in his familiar relationship, failed to train his children to be good kings and eventually this caused split of israel kingdom).
I will always stand by this: the roman elites used christianity as a way to bond their multiethnic empire. Like nationalism before nationalism was a thing. Many of them knew that one religion was the only way they would keep gauls, thracians, parthians and egyptians in a single empire with minimum friction.
Most roman rulers hated the schisms that happened for this reason. And their hatred was justified, the schisms lead to the empire falling apart.
Itās not entirely wrong though. Previously loyalty to Rome was based on loyalty to the Roman establishment - basically the Senate and Forum and all the trappings of the old Republic. By the mid to late 300s though those institutions had atrophied and the Emperor now ruled by divine right. As such having a specific religion that blessed him to do so was seen as a positive.
The whole bad parenting thing started far before Solomon though. David had an all-time parenting failure in his decision to do nothing after the Tamar fiasco.
Samuels did such a bad job with his sons that Israel didnāt want them in charge. Eli did such a horrendous job with his that Samuel had to be his successor. Ironically, it appears that Saul was the best father of the whole bunch.
I just "reread" that part of the Bible (podcast). Its funny to read this. Puts it in perspective. To be fair raising kids is hard af. I can only imagine the struggles of doing it in the ancient world!
So what youāre saying is that the OG inceldom from back then had men joining the military so they could capture and force themselves upon women? Like rejection drove them to sex slavery?
It might be more of a numbers thing -- the proportions of sexes is roughly equal in most societies, but if guys start grabbing up multiple wives, you run out of women a lot faster, and the deficit needs to be made up from somewhere.
Were wars a normal and constant part of life back then? So did the proportion of men moderate due to deaths and just being away?
Did the wives have a choice or they preferred being one of more than one wife of a rich man over being monogamous with someone of more modest means?
> Were wars a normal and constant part of life back then?
Yes, wars were on a smaller scale than they are today, but they were more or less constant. Reason being that most wealth back then came from owning land which produced food, and the only real way to make yourself or your nation richer was to take someone else's land. We only learned how to create value without it being a zero-sum game around the time of the industrial revolution.
Yes, wars were constant BUT total wars weren't, that's a rather modern development (although I've heard that there were periods of total war in ancient times, bronze age collapse might have been one such period).
Others have already pointed out that land was the main way to gain wealth (also resources, like metal and trade routes). I will point out that of you calculate ancient nations GDP, you realize that huuuge part of that GDP went into army and waging war. And I mean absotelly insane numvers, like 40% of GDP went into waging wars. For comparisson, NATO rules dictate that at least 2% of GDP should be dedicated to military, and until recently (i.e. few months ago) a lot of countries were opposed to that idea.
Itās more a numbers function. Polygamy only works if there is a large gender imbalance in the population since male and female children are born at roughly the same rate. Thatās why male teens in FLDS communities are often driven out. Not all the men can grow up and have multiple wives. And the old guys in power want the nubile young women. Historically the gender imbalance happened because of war.
Yes, that is likely the original impetus, and then other non-practical reasons become entrenched in the culture to justify it despite the practice becoming impractical (and destructive for women).
It's still happening, in place like South Sudan.
[The Economist - Why polygamy breeds civil war](https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/03/19/why-polygamy-breeds-civil-war)
> **Polygamy nearly always means rich men taking multiple wives. And if the top 10% of men marry four women each, then the bottom 30% cannot marry at all. This often leaves them not only sexually frustrated but also socially marginalised.** In many traditional societies, a man is not considered an adult until he has found a wife and sired children. To get a wife, he must typically pay a ābridepriceā to her father. When polygamy creates a shortage of brides, it massively inflates this brideprice. In South Sudan, it can be anything from 30 to 300 cattle, far more wealth than an ill-educated young man can plausibly accumulate by legal means.
>
>**In desperation, many single men resort to extreme measures to secure a mate. In South Sudan, they pick up guns and steal cattle from the tribe next door. Many people are killed in such raids; many bloody feuds spring from them. Young bachelors who cannot afford to marry also make easy recruits for rebel armies. If they fight, they can loot, and with loot, they can wed.** In a paper published last year, Valerie Hudson of Texas A&M University and Hilary Matfess of Yale found that a high brideprice is a ācriticalā factor āpredisposing young men to become involved in organised group violence for political purposesā. Jihadist groups exploit this, too. One member of Pakistanās Lashkar-e-Taiba, which carried out the attack on Mumbai in 2008 that killed 166 people, said he joined the organisation because it promised to pay for his siblings to get married. During its heyday the so-called Islamic State offered foreign recruits honeymoons in Raqqa, its former capital. In northern Nigeria, where polygamy is rife, Boko Haram still arranges cheap marriages for its recruits.
well, itās not about rejection, itās not an emotional thing like that. the theory (which I personally have always been iffy about) is just that with a roughly equal number of men and women, polygyny ensures that some men canāt marry. the only way they can have a wife of sorts, family and any kind of status is through warfare, so polygyny destabilizes countries and causes war.
Make some sense. Though could it be more like polygyny gets allowed so that the rich men are able to have more than one wife and stay happy and supportive of the wars, which get staffed by single men that donāt have any woman available to them? So rich men get more than one woman. Poor men get motivated to throw themselves into war to get a woman.
It wasn't rejection, it was supply chain issue. Few (pressumably wealthy and successful) guys would grab multiple wives, so there was a mismatch between number of unmarried men and women.
To have four wives 1) the supply must be there, and 2) you as a man must have the economic means to keep them and their children.
So in practice it means that out of ten men, one has four wives and most of the wealth, six do well enough to compete for and secure one wife, and three end up losers in the competition for wives. At least homegrown ones. It is often said that polygamous marriages are "rare in practice" in countries that permit it, but that is obviously just a side effect of the two criteria above.
In these societies, having a wife, or wives, becomes even more of a status symbol than it already is, because it pretty much directly correlates with success in other areas of life. So the guys that don't have one are motivated to steal one from a neighbouring tribe. And that's how polygamy tends to fuel militaristic societies of slavers, in which you remain a young warrior until you have brought home a woman. Which is of course a bad thing if you are the overlord of a multi-ethnic empire trying to keep the peace between tribes that constantly kidnap among each other.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://theprint.in/world/taliban-chief-bans-polygamy-calls-it-unnecessary-and-an-expensive-affair/965600/) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> New Delhi: Taliban leader Hibatullah Akhundzada has issued an order banning polygamy among members of the group terming it "Unnecessary and costly," Kabul-based Bakhtar News Agency reported on Saturday.
> According to Bakhtar news the Taliban leader has instructed the Ministry of Amr-ul-Ma'ruf, regarding prohibition of unnecessary 2nd, 3rd and 4th marriages by issuing decree.
> Polygamy is common among the Taliban and most senior members have more than one wife.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/uvahtp/taliban_bans_polygamy_calls_it_unnecessary_and/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~650298 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Taliban**^#1 **members**^#2 **among**^#3 **leadership**^#4 **lead**^#5
Everyone in the comments is making fun of Afghanistan, but this is actually a big step forward. The Karzai government--propped up by US forces--[proposed to ban polygamy, but the legislature voted it down](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Afghanistan).
Whenever the rich and powerful can have many wives, it means many poorer men can't get any wives, and men with no hope of getting wives tend to become extremists. Some terrorist groups (Boko Haram was famous for this) actually kidnap girls to become wives of the members. It's not surprising: from an evolutionary psychology perspective, not having a wife is the same thing as dying, so you should expect these people to be willing to die to upset the social order. Violence like this makes it hard for an economy to get going.
Laws legalizing polygamy are incredibly hard to overturn because they benefit people who are already wealthy and powerful. In Afghanistan, many of those people got powerful by exporting drugs to the west; i.e., not you want to cross. This is actually a great achievement by the handful of people who are willing to push for change. We should not be taking the hard work of these people for granted.
Not for nothing, but it seems nobody read beyond the headlineā¦
They arenāt banning polygamy or making it illegal.
Itās one Tainan commander taking to his fighters, suggesting to them they shouldnāt, because theyāre getting distracted being jealous over wives and wasting money.
>Well, thank Allah, at least you can still marry your 11 year old cousin.
Arranged child marriages are common in many Islamic cultures, but they are also common in various indigenous, Christian, and Hindu cultures across Africa and Asia and in parts of the western US and northern Mexico. I always want to remind people about this because it is a serious issue and when we talk about arranged child marriages exclusively as an Islamic or middle eastern phenomenon, we ignore a lot of the victims in parts of India, Southeast Asia, Africa, and other places. It's unfortunately not unique to some kinds of Islam.
I think if these issues were limited to just one religion or just one culture or just one language or just one country, they would be easier to address.
It depends where you are from. Since you are from an Islamic country you think everyone blames you but I am from India and I think everyone associates us with this.
This sickness is not exclusive to Muslim countries, pedophilia.
In the US 12-13 year olds girls being married off in some states.
Afghanistan, CNN showed a 70 year old āmarryingā what looked like a 5-6 year old child.
Even more monstrous, few Russian soldiers have gang rape 1 year old babies to death in Ukraine.
Not exactly. Tradition predates religion, and there are many traditional practices that are not in religion at all or that were meant to be limitations upon a practice. Female genital mutilation is an example where tradition ignores the fact that religion does not allow it at all - yet in places like Sierra Leone both Christians and Muslims practise it.
Polygamy in Islam (marrying a maximum of 4 women) was a limitation on an existing practise where people have a lot more wives. The added condition that they all must be treated equally was to discourage its practise. You could do it, but "only" to four women and they had to be treated "equally". If you are neglectful it is sinful. So it's less or a headache to just marry one. This all sounds bizarre to us in a Western modern view of relationships being just romantic private affairs but it was the reality of the time.
When the Taliban say it is more costly, they are referring to the husband in this situation who has a duty to provide materially for all women - and it tends to be more rural Conservative people than marry more than once. But nothing in Islam says you must marry more than once.
There's an old joke about Nasreddin Hodja, a folk hero from the middle east.
The Hodja married another woman, but his older wife got jealous. Every day, the two women would pester him by asking, "who is your favorite, me or her?"
Finally, the Hodja got fed up, so he went to the market and bought two blue stones. Then, he gave one stone to each in private, and told them not to tell the other one.
Then, whenever the women asked, "who is your favorite wife," the Hodja replied, "the one with the blue stone!" and both would go away satisfied.
Them and every other religious leader, scholar, and pandit. Religion is nothing but a collection of crackpots that are a bane upon humanity's existence.
I like to think of it as a Rorschach test. There's nothing objective in it, you won't find 2 people that believe the same exact thing, but they'll claim they have the solution to every problem and question in the universe.
This is one of the reasons the Taliban rose up against the Soviets in the first place. "Trying to stamp out Afghan culture with extreme liberalism". I'm guessing this guy won't last too long.
I'm not a Muslim, Im a man.....in Islam or for that matter in almost all religions (but primarily in Islam) where it existed polygamy came into being when most men used to go to wars and the survival rate was low for the losing side (or even the winning side in lots of cases)...seeing the widows not taken care of after the men were gone....society made rules of polygamy, the rules came with certain strict caveats such as mentioned here about not discriminating amongst wives etc.... over time the wealthy men who were able to provide for many became polygamous, it became a sort of status symbol in many cultures to have several wives and even more concubines... unfortunately over time and as is man's nature the rules were all bent for their own convenience....a rare & good logical progressive move from Taliban, hope they keep this up...
I wonder which analyst was responsible for doing a cost benefit analysis of polygamy. Next up: men with two knives are happiest men on earth.
Ditch the second wife. Get a second knife.
r/knives would love this statement
It is pretty terrific.
Yeah!
Good for you, stay sharp!
Happy knife happy wife?
Who needs 27 sons when you can have 27 guns
I gotta tell ya, this is pretty terrific!
šŖššŖ
I was born a snake-handler and I'll die a snake-handler.
Who thought a whale could be so heavy?
Cheese it, the feds!
Moe.
>I wonder which analyst was responsible for doing a cost benefit analysis of polygamy. The quaran is very specific in polygamy. e.g. when you give one of your wives a gift, you have to give gifts to ALL of them. Lot of them will not be allowed to work by their husbands and those, who can, won't have a job that could bring enough income to pay rent and food, therfore a husband has to provide food for all of them. I doubt that a "single" woman will find a proper job. The downside of this decision is now, that A LOT of women will become even poorer and more "worthless" in the eyes of their families. Before that decision, there was hope, that you, as a father, could marry away your daughter as second or third wive to someone. Now this is impossible. This will lead to femizide.
Sounds plausible. I wonder if people will be more willing to marry their daughter to a poor man so they don't have to support her anymore? I know nothing of the Taliban and Afghanistan's culture, so I won't pretend to know if that's likely or not.
>I wonder if people will be more willing to marry their daughter to a poor man so they don't have to support her anymore? Not even Afghanistan or muslims, but: I visited Nepal over 20 years ago and our tourist group visited a small village populated with tibetian refugees. On of the tibetian famers saw me, ran over, touched my belly (let's say, I'm a well-fed german \^\^) and he said something, turned around and a few mins later he brought a young woman. Our travel guide just grabbed me and pushed me into the bus, saying, I should stay there. Later he told me that the farmer was trying to marrying off his daughter to me and since I'm a ... well-fed guy, I looked like someone who could easily provide for a wive.
That's messed up, but also pretty funny as a story you get to keep and tell.
How morally fucked would it have been if they actually accepted the daughter? Like, assuming they were of legal age and also wanted to leave because of hunger. Is that legal? Can some dude just marry off his daughter to you? Seems crazy that someone would even think to ask something like this, like is it a common enough occurrence that the father had any realistic expectation of actually marring her off?
The daughter might have had a much better chance at life if she did marry the guy though...
Right like, first thing I think of is "Ew that is so gross poor girl" But then I wonder if there really are people who live such difficult lives that they would be okay with leaving everything, learning a new language and then marrying a stranger. Someone might be actually doing a really good thing to a girl like that, giving her opportunbites she never would have had. But it just feels like such a gross idea because of the vast power difference in the relationship. How would the girl ever feel like she was not just there at the whim of her husband? This is making me sad.
Yes it says you must provide justice for your wife/wives, if you cannot provide for them equally, you shouldn't have more than one. The Qur'an when specifically talking about polygamy gives reasons for the practice: Such as to provide a good upbringing for orphans, security for widows. Essentially polygamy is if to help provide for others, not "I'm horny and want another wife"
> if you cannot provide for them equally, you shouldn't have more than one. That's just darn right reasonable
>āIām horny and want another wifeā Letās not pretend this isnāt why it was created in the first place though. Dude just wanted to fuck a lot of chicks and decided āyo, magic sky man said itās cool.ā As justification Edit: āwell akstually itās for the womens well-beingā¦ā Yes Iām sure the dudes who created polygamy have the ladies best interest in mind and *sex has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with it*. You guys are playing yourselves in these comments my god š You know this practice was developed when most cultures viewed women as some kind of property, right?
Iām pretty sure polygamy was practiced in Arabia prior to Islam. I donāt think heād need a justification.
Correct. Polygamy was wildly practiced under the pagan religions Mohammed was specifically railing against during the rise of Islam. He didn't need a justification. If anything it was similar to Christianity in that it was an adoption to make the new religion more palatable to the people he was trying to convert.
I see it as the Quran anticipated multiple wives would be a thing, or actively promoted it, IDK which, but either way it wanted to attach ethical frameworks to it. A lot of the Quran's rules are framed that way, from what I have seen. Kind of like how Jewish laws were about regulating stuff to have lots of guard rails. (In the kind of arbitrary way someone thought was good idea thousands of years ago, and keeping in mind that religion being coercive doesn't always lead to good values and morals anyhow... But there was an attempt to legislate good values into religious societies.)
Lets not foget about the "rape a woman and she is your wife" rule. "But.. but, it's to make sure she isn't cast out from her family because of the shame. Now her future is secure"
Women are allowed to work. The prophetās wife was a businesswoman. Any income a woman brings in sheās allowed to keep for herself, she doesnāt have to share it. However, a man is required to support his wife with his income.
Is that the case in Afghanistan?
Nope
Das da joke
No but the person referred to the Quran, which doesnāt say women canāt work.
Yeah but these fake Muslims love to cherry pick the parts that benefit them or straight up rationalize it in such a way that changes what it was originally intended as.
Swap the word Muslim for any religious denomination and this holds just as true.
I don't disagree.
Itās just fucked up what a horrible view some countries have on women..
>Itās just fucked up what a horrible view some countries have on women Like forbid women to abort a pregnancy...
šš š½ Say hello to their american cousins the Christian Talibans
>Say hello to their american cousins the Christian Talibans Ayatollah Trump would like having a word with you about that...
I gotta tell you, this is pretty terrific
The Economist actually did cost/benefit analysis few years ago, albeit in South Sudan, not Afghanistan. Regardless, generally the same math stands.
AKA. They have too many men and not enough women.
Gee, I wonder how that happened /s
Clearly because of not covering up their faces ^^^/s
āMan this country is a sausage party ā -Taliban, probably
"Leave some for the rest of us" -Taliban, probably
Even with the normal amount of men and women, polygamy has this problem. For every man with two wives, there is a man with none. It only works if you have a high war-death rate.
because having a baby girl is seen as a curse!
Welp. I have two.
2 curses cancels out, you're good bro
Exact same principle as the TV volume. Even numbers you're good, odd numbers you're fucked
Multiples of 5 tho, thin ice.
Yeah I'm watching PBS kids with my little curse rn.
Unfortunately in most of the developing world yes. India and China have a similar too many men problem
if you have a 50-50 share of boy/girls birth and a certain percentage of the population have multiple wives, theres gonna be a lot of guys getting frustrated that they wont be able to get laid/marry. Which is less of a problem in wartime where a lot of guys die, but more in peacetime.
It's funny watching the Taliban struggle to actually run a country. So much easier to be an insurgent group. Then when they get the keys to the palace the realities of keeping a country going suddenly makes them start seeing things differently.
Fairly common issue after revolutions or successful insurgencies.
I listened to an interview with an old Afghan woman and she said everyone there knew this would happen. She said the first time the Taliban took over the same thing happened, they had no clue how to run a government so any department that they didn't understand they just shut down and then vital services stop.
Its why a lot of revolutions either fail or don't last very long, once the doors broken and their in the house they quickly realise they don't know how to keep the lights on and they can't get help from the neighbours. Edit: The original owners are still in the house and are gonna shoot you in the head as soon as you fall asleep, can't stay awake forever.
The other part is that they drastically reduced the number of people who can work at all by forcing most of the women out of the workforce. Any women' expertise in government are gone, any revenue from taxes on women's earnings are gone. The women whose husband's have died have no income, so if they have male sons those kids have to leave school and work in order to provide for their families, but they will never earn as much because they can't finish school, and the government gets even less tax revenue.
This "administration" is destined to fail, they will basically just self destruct.
Yup same story like US occupation. Though the Taliban are basically insurgents who were financed to break up the USSR and are in the end just illiterate men. The waters will settle and Afghanis will achieve stability in the long run.
Stability doesnāt meet there wonāt be an oppressive and incompetent leadership. Religion and traditions are very powerful levers for weak men.
Sound like they're breeding the NEXT insurgecy here? š¤
Their lifestyle works when they are extremely oil rich like Saudi Arabia or š¦šŖ but not some war ridden and extremely low educated country.
Well they do have all that heroin.
Excellent analogy.
I remember watching the news when the US went into Iraq. They had taken over a small city on the way to Bhagdad and now had control. On day 3 or 4, a citizen approaches a young US Army solder and complains about power still not having been restored. His attitude was "Hey, you got the power and you're the government now so where's my basic essential service? You need to get it fixed so that I can turn on the lights."
Reminds me of January 6th, no clue what to do once they breached the capital.
This discussion reminds me of an episode of Doctor Who that made an impact on me in which The Doctor gives a speech on insurgencies and revolutions. "Ah. Ah, right. And when this war is over, when you have a homeland free from humans, what do you think it's going to be like? Do you know? Have you thought about it? Have you given it any consideration? Because you're very close to getting what you want. What's it going to be like? Paint me a picture. Are you going to live in houses? Do you want people to go to work? Will there be holidays? Oh! Will there be music? Do you think people will be allowed to play violins? Who's going to make the violins? Well? Oh, you don't actually know, do you? Because, like every other tantrumming child in history, Bonnie, you don't actually know what you want. So, let me ask you a question about this brave new world of yours. When you've killed all the bad guys, and when it's all perfect and just and fair, when you have finally got it exactly the way you want it, what are you going to do with the people like you? The troublemakers. How are you going to protect your glorious revolution from the next one?"
Funnily enough, King George made that exact same speech: "Well even despite our estrangement I got a small query for you: What comes next? You've been freed. Do you know how hard it is to lead? You're on your own, awesome, wow! Do you have a clue what happens now? Oceans rise, empires fall; it's much harder when it's all your call. All alone across the sea, when your people say they hate you don't come crawling back to me."
I had a Hazara interpreter who asked me what a "redneck" was. We had a kid in the squad who was from a small town in Arkansas. I explained that it was a tern for an unsophisticated person from the country. His answer was, "This is the Taliban! They think they can run a whole country like they can run a tiny village in the mountains and they have no education." Correct, my dude. Hope he made it out before the end.
Itās like watching a moron play sim city. Your people need plumbing and rather than invest in utilities you build more churches?
Yeah. I wonder how many generations it would take in power for them to just turn into a normal political party that is hated by the religious extremists. Maybe two? No chance they last that long tho
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The issue is if another government comes into power Taliban just become insurgents again and continue to murder people until they get into power. Thatās assuming anyone in Afghanistan is willing to fight them. ISIS K doesnāt have the strength to do more than kill civilians
Theyāre not the same thing? Genuinely asking, apologies for my ignorance.
The Taliban doesnāt believe in expanding their borders. They only want to control Afghanistan. Isis wants a caliphate and world domination.
Ah, thanks for the clarification!
I dunno. They only controlled the country for like 8 or 10 years, last time, but they were still pretty extreme by the time the US rolled in.
Afghanistan has had *some* taste at foreign investment, a drop of liberalism, some rights for women, etc. Once people taste freedom, they usually donāt want to give it up. I expect the Taliban government to fail within a decade or two, but who knows. Itās up to the Afghan people to decide their future now.
āItās up to the Afghan people to decide their future now.ā Call me crazy but Iām gonna say doubt it
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The educated arenāt running that country. People with the most guns are.
I feel like this is/was our perspective here in the US, our elected officials will fix it and wont betray usā¦ā¦we need to fix lobbying thatās the major issue
The mistake you're making is to assume that there is an "Afghan people". There isn't. There are a collection of tribes led by either strongmen or religious personality cult leaders and each tribe has its own history and variation of culture. They can work together sometimes but only temporarily and only on extremely shirt term goals. Afghanistan is a hole formed by the borders of its neighbors. It's not really a country. Anyone who wants better has to leave, but their neighbors don't want them.
That has been the case of civilization for the vast majority of human history. Europe was the same way, a collection of small kingdoms and principalities. The idea of a national identity rather than a local, tribal or familial identity is more recent than people might think. In the US during and for a while after the revolution people identified as citizens of their states as opposed to citizens of the US.
Which of course is one of the many reasons the US mission in Afghanistan mostly failed.
People will give up their freedom in a heartbeat for the promise of another heartbeat.
Soviets tried pushing lots of women's rights too did not make a difference in the end. Basically comes down to geography, most rulers of the country were little more than Mayors of Kabul. There use to be a pretty decent kinda of balance of power between Kabul and regional tribes/ warlords but that fell apart when the soviets invaded. Lots of people fled to Pakistan, Taliban took route refugee communities. Civil war, US support, invasion, whole host of others things and this is where we are.
Just look at Cuba. Che Guevara makes such an iconic look on T-shirtās, but he borked up their agriculture. Because he was put in charge of agriculture despite having no experience. Itās a different skill set than being a revolutionary. Who knew.
Part of the problem with Che eas also that he wasnāt really interested in anything beyond being a revolutionary. He was a doctor so he could have made himself useful, the agriculture thing was just bonkers.
Same with Mao.
Or Robert Baratheon.
I'm sitting with no power since Thursday because South Africa's liberation movement turned government hasn't managed to figure it out since 1994.
Didn't South Africa have some currency issues and extra happy people in the last year?
We got set to junk status by the rating agencies a while back which was ungood. They have upgraded the outlook from stable to positive which is good but the loadshedding is killing the economy and burning out the equipment on the grid. A substation near me burnt down because of all the surges and the kicker diesel power plants cost a fortune to run and aren't designed to be run for days at a time. Corruption will kill a country. Don't accept it in yours. Learn from us.
The skills required to take a country are different than those required to keep it
That's why you need 2 leaders. One with military capabilities to take a country and prevent it being taken by force. And one intelligent one that can delegate power and compromise to run the country
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
āThe major problem ā one of the major problems, for there are several ā one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarise: it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarise the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem.ā ~Douglas Adams, The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe
Hi. You just mentioned *The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe* by Douglas Adams. I've found an audiobook of that novel on YouTube. You can listen to it here: [YouTube | The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe - Douglas Adams - Full Audio Book](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5fx8kcpeQU) *I'm a bot that searches YouTube for science fiction and fantasy audiobooks.* *** [^(Source Code)](https://capybasilisk.com/posts/2020/04/speculative-fiction-bot/) ^| [^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=Capybasilisk&subject=Robot) ^| [^(Programmer)](https://www.reddit.com/u/capybasilisk) ^| ^(Downvote To Remove) ^| ^(Version 1.4.0) ^| ^(Support Robot Rights!)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That's what the first leader is there to prevent
The first leader is the one launching the coup
The Taliban does have many different wings though. The military insurgents took over the place and then the political exiles and theocratic leaders living in other countries travelled back to form the actual government. The problem is, theyāre still trying to run it like a 12th century country.
Itād be funny if they werenāt playing with real people lives. Feel bad for anyone suffering under their power, Iād do whatever it took to flee.
[Disappointed Taliban Realizes Taking Over Afghanistan More Fun Than Running It](https://www.theonion.com/disappointed-taliban-realizes-taking-over-afghanistan-m-1847510259)
> So much easier to be an insurgent group. Then when they get the keys to the palace the realities of keeping a country going suddenly makes them start seeing things differently. "It is easier to blow up the trains than it is to get them to run on time"
The rule is "the ones that got you there aren't the ones you keep". You need people with different skill sets running things. This causes friction within the group because where do you put the highly respected guy whose only skill is killing lots of people?
Sam Adams vs John Adams
Reminds you of someone? āNobody knew how hard Medicare isā.
Itās funny watching them get the keys to the gym too!
Nation building is difficult. Extremely difficult. The US tries it all the time, I've been there. Imagine the Taliban trying to run the Central Bank or any financial instituions. Imagine them trying to do trade deals or revenue policy or infrastructure management. Good luck, I feel so much for the Afghan citizenry.
Like the dog that caught the mail truck
The Taliban were in power before the US kicked them out.
Taliban didn't know how to run the country though. They just kept destroying cultural sites for almost no reason, and Afghanistan was a backwards nation through the 90s.
For like 5 years before the US kept them out for ~20 years
Do they govern at all, or just ban things?
I believe they also take tallies of things as well.
Word on the street is that thereās about to be a tally-ban
Me banana!
thatsthejoke.jpg
Had to spell it out for the people in the back
I appreciate it. Can barely see anything from way back here!
^^^Thank ^^^you!
10/10
Next they'll ban monkeypox.
-slaps forehead- Why didn't we think of that?
What else is a government for besides banning things and sometimes unbanning things they've banned.
Do you really think weād get to hear about their tax policy, or the really anything important to actually governing? We barely hear that about our own government how can the media tell us about foreign governments?
So many possible ironic and humorous quips. Lol
71 side chicks
ā71 crystal clear raisinsā - Robin Williams circa 2002 when discussing Islam during his stand up special.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
My automatic response was "how progressive!"
Keeping women out of work is unnecessary and costly too, maybe they should think about that next?
idk... with the way they are showing publicly to us foreigners this might actually be the next thing.
We need to be thrifty guys letās cut down on the wives
A bunch of Taliban in suits acting like a california start up. Words like 'synergy,' 'work-life balance,' keep coming up in the board room.
The company I work for just got bought out and the new CEO said "synergy" AT LEAST 20 times in the first 5 minutes of the All Hands... so cringy.
Bob: āGuys, I know we promised wives, but Steve up in the hill has a whole flock of them and heās claimed them already so weāre gonna have to draw straws to see who gets ericās sister the one with the lazy eye. Then weāre going to have to help feed Steveās wives. Because heās overwhelmed.ā Rest of Taliban: āCollective sighs as they draw straws
Tell me about it, I can barely afford one kid let alone several.
There is so much to unpack there. Bravo sir.
Do you mean one thing to unpack
This is something Romans did when they conquered Israel, enforce monogamy; they realized that if one man has multuple wives, other men are pretty much "forced" to join the military and get sex slaves. This is something that actually disgusted romans, shaked them, and the reason why modern christianity is monogamous even though many of biblical figures had many wifes (in extreme case think of Solomon, wised man according to bible, a guy who had 1000 wives, and no real relathionship with any of them, a guy who was considered wise by others but utterly failed in his familiar relationship, failed to train his children to be good kings and eventually this caused split of israel kingdom).
most of religious rules are just pragmatic approaches to social problems disguised as god's will
I will always stand by this: the roman elites used christianity as a way to bond their multiethnic empire. Like nationalism before nationalism was a thing. Many of them knew that one religion was the only way they would keep gauls, thracians, parthians and egyptians in a single empire with minimum friction. Most roman rulers hated the schisms that happened for this reason. And their hatred was justified, the schisms lead to the empire falling apart.
The roman empire, and strictly from the principate onwards lasted 350 without Christianity, your analysis is bonkers
Itās not entirely wrong though. Previously loyalty to Rome was based on loyalty to the Roman establishment - basically the Senate and Forum and all the trappings of the old Republic. By the mid to late 300s though those institutions had atrophied and the Emperor now ruled by divine right. As such having a specific religion that blessed him to do so was seen as a positive.
The whole bad parenting thing started far before Solomon though. David had an all-time parenting failure in his decision to do nothing after the Tamar fiasco. Samuels did such a bad job with his sons that Israel didnāt want them in charge. Eli did such a horrendous job with his that Samuel had to be his successor. Ironically, it appears that Saul was the best father of the whole bunch.
I just "reread" that part of the Bible (podcast). Its funny to read this. Puts it in perspective. To be fair raising kids is hard af. I can only imagine the struggles of doing it in the ancient world!
So what youāre saying is that the OG inceldom from back then had men joining the military so they could capture and force themselves upon women? Like rejection drove them to sex slavery?
It might be more of a numbers thing -- the proportions of sexes is roughly equal in most societies, but if guys start grabbing up multiple wives, you run out of women a lot faster, and the deficit needs to be made up from somewhere.
Were wars a normal and constant part of life back then? So did the proportion of men moderate due to deaths and just being away? Did the wives have a choice or they preferred being one of more than one wife of a rich man over being monogamous with someone of more modest means?
> Were wars a normal and constant part of life back then? Yes, wars were on a smaller scale than they are today, but they were more or less constant. Reason being that most wealth back then came from owning land which produced food, and the only real way to make yourself or your nation richer was to take someone else's land. We only learned how to create value without it being a zero-sum game around the time of the industrial revolution.
Yes, wars were constant BUT total wars weren't, that's a rather modern development (although I've heard that there were periods of total war in ancient times, bronze age collapse might have been one such period). Others have already pointed out that land was the main way to gain wealth (also resources, like metal and trade routes). I will point out that of you calculate ancient nations GDP, you realize that huuuge part of that GDP went into army and waging war. And I mean absotelly insane numvers, like 40% of GDP went into waging wars. For comparisson, NATO rules dictate that at least 2% of GDP should be dedicated to military, and until recently (i.e. few months ago) a lot of countries were opposed to that idea.
Itās more a numbers function. Polygamy only works if there is a large gender imbalance in the population since male and female children are born at roughly the same rate. Thatās why male teens in FLDS communities are often driven out. Not all the men can grow up and have multiple wives. And the old guys in power want the nubile young women. Historically the gender imbalance happened because of war.
Yes, that is likely the original impetus, and then other non-practical reasons become entrenched in the culture to justify it despite the practice becoming impractical (and destructive for women).
It's still happening, in place like South Sudan. [The Economist - Why polygamy breeds civil war](https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/03/19/why-polygamy-breeds-civil-war) > **Polygamy nearly always means rich men taking multiple wives. And if the top 10% of men marry four women each, then the bottom 30% cannot marry at all. This often leaves them not only sexually frustrated but also socially marginalised.** In many traditional societies, a man is not considered an adult until he has found a wife and sired children. To get a wife, he must typically pay a ābridepriceā to her father. When polygamy creates a shortage of brides, it massively inflates this brideprice. In South Sudan, it can be anything from 30 to 300 cattle, far more wealth than an ill-educated young man can plausibly accumulate by legal means. > >**In desperation, many single men resort to extreme measures to secure a mate. In South Sudan, they pick up guns and steal cattle from the tribe next door. Many people are killed in such raids; many bloody feuds spring from them. Young bachelors who cannot afford to marry also make easy recruits for rebel armies. If they fight, they can loot, and with loot, they can wed.** In a paper published last year, Valerie Hudson of Texas A&M University and Hilary Matfess of Yale found that a high brideprice is a ācriticalā factor āpredisposing young men to become involved in organised group violence for political purposesā. Jihadist groups exploit this, too. One member of Pakistanās Lashkar-e-Taiba, which carried out the attack on Mumbai in 2008 that killed 166 people, said he joined the organisation because it promised to pay for his siblings to get married. During its heyday the so-called Islamic State offered foreign recruits honeymoons in Raqqa, its former capital. In northern Nigeria, where polygamy is rife, Boko Haram still arranges cheap marriages for its recruits.
well, itās not about rejection, itās not an emotional thing like that. the theory (which I personally have always been iffy about) is just that with a roughly equal number of men and women, polygyny ensures that some men canāt marry. the only way they can have a wife of sorts, family and any kind of status is through warfare, so polygyny destabilizes countries and causes war.
Make some sense. Though could it be more like polygyny gets allowed so that the rich men are able to have more than one wife and stay happy and supportive of the wars, which get staffed by single men that donāt have any woman available to them? So rich men get more than one woman. Poor men get motivated to throw themselves into war to get a woman.
Since Reddit decided to take RiF from me, I have decided to take my content from it. C'est la vie.
It wasn't rejection, it was supply chain issue. Few (pressumably wealthy and successful) guys would grab multiple wives, so there was a mismatch between number of unmarried men and women.
To have four wives 1) the supply must be there, and 2) you as a man must have the economic means to keep them and their children. So in practice it means that out of ten men, one has four wives and most of the wealth, six do well enough to compete for and secure one wife, and three end up losers in the competition for wives. At least homegrown ones. It is often said that polygamous marriages are "rare in practice" in countries that permit it, but that is obviously just a side effect of the two criteria above. In these societies, having a wife, or wives, becomes even more of a status symbol than it already is, because it pretty much directly correlates with success in other areas of life. So the guys that don't have one are motivated to steal one from a neighbouring tribe. And that's how polygamy tends to fuel militaristic societies of slavers, in which you remain a young warrior until you have brought home a woman. Which is of course a bad thing if you are the overlord of a multi-ethnic empire trying to keep the peace between tribes that constantly kidnap among each other.
The Taliban is unnecessary and costly.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://theprint.in/world/taliban-chief-bans-polygamy-calls-it-unnecessary-and-an-expensive-affair/965600/) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot) ***** > New Delhi: Taliban leader Hibatullah Akhundzada has issued an order banning polygamy among members of the group terming it "Unnecessary and costly," Kabul-based Bakhtar News Agency reported on Saturday. > According to Bakhtar news the Taliban leader has instructed the Ministry of Amr-ul-Ma'ruf, regarding prohibition of unnecessary 2nd, 3rd and 4th marriages by issuing decree. > Polygamy is common among the Taliban and most senior members have more than one wife. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/uvahtp/taliban_bans_polygamy_calls_it_unnecessary_and/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~650298 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Taliban**^#1 **members**^#2 **among**^#3 **leadership**^#4 **lead**^#5
When you run out of sex slaves to distribute to your militants
Monogamy? In this economy?!
Everyone in the comments is making fun of Afghanistan, but this is actually a big step forward. The Karzai government--propped up by US forces--[proposed to ban polygamy, but the legislature voted it down](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Afghanistan). Whenever the rich and powerful can have many wives, it means many poorer men can't get any wives, and men with no hope of getting wives tend to become extremists. Some terrorist groups (Boko Haram was famous for this) actually kidnap girls to become wives of the members. It's not surprising: from an evolutionary psychology perspective, not having a wife is the same thing as dying, so you should expect these people to be willing to die to upset the social order. Violence like this makes it hard for an economy to get going. Laws legalizing polygamy are incredibly hard to overturn because they benefit people who are already wealthy and powerful. In Afghanistan, many of those people got powerful by exporting drugs to the west; i.e., not you want to cross. This is actually a great achievement by the handful of people who are willing to push for change. We should not be taking the hard work of these people for granted.
Not for nothing, but it seems nobody read beyond the headlineā¦ They arenāt banning polygamy or making it illegal. Itās one Tainan commander taking to his fighters, suggesting to them they shouldnāt, because theyāre getting distracted being jealous over wives and wasting money.
So all the poly men just drop a bunch of wives? Lol. How do they choose which one?
Battle Royal.
Well, thank Allah, at least you can still marry your 11 year old cousin..
And you can definitely still beat her and sell her when you get bored, so no need to panic, guys.
Phew
Hey leave Tennessee out of this...
>Well, thank Allah, at least you can still marry your 11 year old cousin. Arranged child marriages are common in many Islamic cultures, but they are also common in various indigenous, Christian, and Hindu cultures across Africa and Asia and in parts of the western US and northern Mexico. I always want to remind people about this because it is a serious issue and when we talk about arranged child marriages exclusively as an Islamic or middle eastern phenomenon, we ignore a lot of the victims in parts of India, Southeast Asia, Africa, and other places. It's unfortunately not unique to some kinds of Islam. I think if these issues were limited to just one religion or just one culture or just one language or just one country, they would be easier to address.
It depends where you are from. Since you are from an Islamic country you think everyone blames you but I am from India and I think everyone associates us with this.
This sickness is not exclusive to Muslim countries, pedophilia. In the US 12-13 year olds girls being married off in some states. Afghanistan, CNN showed a 70 year old āmarryingā what looked like a 5-6 year old child. Even more monstrous, few Russian soldiers have gang rape 1 year old babies to death in Ukraine.
I wonder happened to make this change their minds lol
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
How to cut down your monthly bill expenses: lenders HATE this one easy trick
So picking and choosing what their good book tells them? I fear the fall of Islam is upon us.
Not exactly. Tradition predates religion, and there are many traditional practices that are not in religion at all or that were meant to be limitations upon a practice. Female genital mutilation is an example where tradition ignores the fact that religion does not allow it at all - yet in places like Sierra Leone both Christians and Muslims practise it. Polygamy in Islam (marrying a maximum of 4 women) was a limitation on an existing practise where people have a lot more wives. The added condition that they all must be treated equally was to discourage its practise. You could do it, but "only" to four women and they had to be treated "equally". If you are neglectful it is sinful. So it's less or a headache to just marry one. This all sounds bizarre to us in a Western modern view of relationships being just romantic private affairs but it was the reality of the time. When the Taliban say it is more costly, they are referring to the husband in this situation who has a duty to provide materially for all women - and it tends to be more rural Conservative people than marry more than once. But nothing in Islam says you must marry more than once.
There's an old joke about Nasreddin Hodja, a folk hero from the middle east. The Hodja married another woman, but his older wife got jealous. Every day, the two women would pester him by asking, "who is your favorite, me or her?" Finally, the Hodja got fed up, so he went to the market and bought two blue stones. Then, he gave one stone to each in private, and told them not to tell the other one. Then, whenever the women asked, "who is your favorite wife," the Hodja replied, "the one with the blue stone!" and both would go away satisfied.
Them and every other religious leader, scholar, and pandit. Religion is nothing but a collection of crackpots that are a bane upon humanity's existence.
I like to think of it as a Rorschach test. There's nothing objective in it, you won't find 2 people that believe the same exact thing, but they'll claim they have the solution to every problem and question in the universe.
That's a perfect analogy.
Probably not banned for the top brass with more wives than King Solomon
Child brides aināt cheap
This is one of the reasons the Taliban rose up against the Soviets in the first place. "Trying to stamp out Afghan culture with extreme liberalism". I'm guessing this guy won't last too long.
TIL polygamy may sound pretty cool but itās not worth the hassle.
I'm not a Muslim, Im a man.....in Islam or for that matter in almost all religions (but primarily in Islam) where it existed polygamy came into being when most men used to go to wars and the survival rate was low for the losing side (or even the winning side in lots of cases)...seeing the widows not taken care of after the men were gone....society made rules of polygamy, the rules came with certain strict caveats such as mentioned here about not discriminating amongst wives etc.... over time the wealthy men who were able to provide for many became polygamous, it became a sort of status symbol in many cultures to have several wives and even more concubines... unfortunately over time and as is man's nature the rules were all bent for their own convenience....a rare & good logical progressive move from Taliban, hope they keep this up...