The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Religious Debate Tournament: Islamic polygamist practices are flawed, ...

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/23/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,008 times Debate No: 34088
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (45)
Votes (1)




Full Resolution:
Islamic polygamist practices are flawed, and are paradoxical to their opposition to homosexuality.

Round 1 is for acceptance.


I thank my opponent for instigating this debate that I accept. and I allow myself to add definitions to the topic..

Polygamy: a marriage relationship between more than a husband and/or more than a wife, but we will limit the definition here to a marriage between a man and more than a wife simultaneously, which is in definition polygyny.

Homosexuality: a sexual relationship between two people of the same gender.

As Con, I will defend Islamic teachings regarding Polygamy and Homosexuality.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank Fruitytree for accepting this debate.

I accept the definition given for polygamy. Since this is restricted to Islamic polygamy I believe group marriage, and having more than one husband is expressly forbidden amongst most, if not all, Abrahamic based religions.

The definition for homosexuality is also acceptable, but I will include bisexuality as well since it includes homosexual relationships.

I will start off my argument by saying that there are scenarios where polygamy is rational, and acceptable. If the male to female population of an area is severely skewed polygamy may be necessary to correct the population ratio, and pacify sexual tension for a generation. It can also be practiced very poorly like in the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints Sect that casts out excess boys resulting in a “Lost Boys” phenomena[1].

I’ll now review how polygamy can work under Islamic practices.

In Islam a man is allowed to have up to four wives. Now, normally the male to female ratio is 105 males to 100 females at birth. Typically, because male mortality rate is higher, it slowly tilts to 50/50, and by 65 there are far more elderly women than elderly men. However, in Saudi Arabia, the ratio is closer to 124 males to 100 females[2]. I could speculate about why, but the fact it is tilted heavily towards males will only help my case.

Lets assume that only 10 percent of the male population practices polygamy, and each one gets four wives. I’ll use the 105 males per 100 females since the would be more fair on a world scale.

Males Females
Total 105 100
Polygamy 10 40
Monogamy 60 60
Single 35 0

As you can see we’re left with one out of every three males would be unable to marry in this scenario possible under practice of Islamic polygamy. Now this could be corrected with a divorce rate of 35 percent among women, which is a flawed solution. Group marriage, or allowing a woman to have more than one husband would fix it, but is forbidden under Islam.

The easier, less flawed, solution is just to admit that there is a portion of the population that is comfortable with having homosexual relationships because they are homosexual, or bisexual. Determining how much of a population is homosexual is difficult because of social stigmas. However, experts estimate almost 10 percent of the population, and the average american estimates closer to twenty percent are homosexual[3].

For bisexual women Islamic Polygamy could be seen as an ideal marriage solution. However, the tendency of islamic countries to execute homosexuals[4] makes this far from an ideal solution for homosexual males. It also wouldn’t be too hard to see that Islamic styled polygamy could be the very selective pressure needed to result in homosexuality as a form of social evolution[5].

Thank you for your time, and I await the response.




I thank My opponent for his argument, I will equally post my argument for this round, and will leave rebuttals for the remaining rounds.

1-Marriage in Islam:

Marriage is a sacred contract in Islam that officially unites a man and a woman. It has conditions and pillars, and both spouses have rights and obligations toward one another.

Marriage is also prophetic tradition that was accepted and regulated by the Islamic law.

The benefits of this religious contract are:

- Keep the offspring identity: as any child born from a marriage have a known father andmother.
- Save the honour of the wife: if a woman gets a child outside of marriage, she loses herhonour, but within the marriage, she is in all her honour.
- Ensure enough stability for child rearing.
- Ensure social fertility, while limiting health issues related to random sex relationships.

For more on benefits of male/female Marriage ingeneral:

2-Polygamy in Islam:

-A man has the right to marry up to four women (chasteMuslim or chaste Christian or Jew), if he is physically and financially able totake care for each of them, with the condition of him being equitable betweenhis wives in provision and in the number of nights he spends with each one ofthem.

-Then polygamy is basically a man having a marriagecontract with each wife he has, there is no relationship between the wivesother than their kids being brothers. They even are not supposed to livetogether in one house for obvious reasons.

-Islamic Polygamy also allows extending thebenefits of marriage on more than a female, with reducing the responsibility ofeach woman over her Husband, as she now shares marital duties with anotherwoman.

-The man is still responsible to provide for eachwife he has, and each child they bare him.

-Islam limited the number of wives for one man, tooptimise fertility, and make the marriage the most productive possible.

This is an article about birds, but can be appliedon humans to give an idea that there s an optimal number after which polygamymay not be as beneficial for the male or for the females or for reproduction.

3-Homosexuality and Islam

-Firstly, sex is not allowed outside Islamic marriagefor any Muslim dude. It includes heterosexual and homosexual sex relationships.

-Homosexuality is highly prohibited, and Gay relationshipsentence is death. (sexual relationship that is).

-there is no marriage for homosexual people for thesimple reason that there is no hope their relationship can result in offspring!!and marriage is established in the first place to protect the children identity,protect the woman honour and to make heterosexual intercourse lawful. And childrencan only come from a man and woman relationship!! So basically there is no needfor people of the same gender to call their sinful relationship “Marriage”!!

Here an interesting article about this new social threat:

4- Human Sexual Lust and Islam:

Islam as a Merciful and realistic religion, doesn’tintend to make people’s life miserable, It did not prohibit sex in all itsforms, but has set boundaries not to pass, in order for society to be morallyproductive, but as the human being is also a sexual being and may be in thesituation where he doesn’t find a lawful way to pass his lust, for being pooras an example, and not able to get a wife, He is encouraged to fast in order toweaken his sexual energy , until he gets enough wealth to pretend to a bride.

Abdullah (b. Mas'ud) (Allah bepleased with him) reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to us: 0young men, those among you who can support a wife should marry, for itrestrains eyes (from casting evil glances) and preserves one from immorality;but he who cannot afford It should observe fast for it is a means ofcontrolling the sexual desire. (Sahih Muslim)

In conclusion

Islam has the best set of laws for a moral and optimally productive society.

No I send it back to Pro to start the rebuttals..
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you for your argument.

It’s interesting that you would say that one of the advantages to marriage is the health benefit in avoiding random sexual relationships. It implies that men, and women, left without marriage would tend to be promiscuous. This would actually be a good justification for Homosexual marriage. Even if they couldn’t have children of their own they would be able to avoid the pitfalls of promiscuity. Clearly, using the reduced risk of sexually transmitted diseases shows that procreation is not the sole reason for marriage. After all, not all heterosexual couples are capable of having children.

As for bisexual women in an Islamic Polygamist marriage. There are plenty of men who wouldn’t complain if they had two bisexual wives, and would be reluctant to turn them in. Not impossible, but unlikely. It is far easier to find, and kill a homosexual male in Islamic society because they have no real place to hide.

I found the study you cited about polygamy amongst birds to be very interesting. Even though it did state that the smaller harem sizes were more optimized there is a problem with your interpretation. What is the smallest harem a man can have? It depends on how you define harem, but it is either a harem of one, or two. That would be smaller than what Islamic polygamy allows, and make Islamic polygamy look quite large. What the study said was that the advantage of a large harem was proportional to the life span of species. A bird with a lifespan of a few years favored monogamy, and with longevity harem size could increase to gain even more of an advantage. One of these birds, the Penduline tit, only has a lifespan of 6.7 years[1][2]. It would be safe to say that a human lifespan of 75 years could support much larger harems then you’d see in birds. Assuming your source is correct in their study.

However, the issue with practicing polygamy is that it will always leave a significant portion of males unable to find a wife. This is irrelevant to their capacity to support a wife. I have no doubt Islamic countries are capable of supporting a healthy middle class. I see no reason 99% of Islamic men wouldn’t be able to support at least one wife. Only if you objectify women to the point where they are bought and sold like cattle would a man not be able to afford a wife.

One consequence of practicing polygamy, in this way, is that social evolution has to address the excess population of men. Society can only support so much of the social drama caused by unmarried men in their pursuit for a wife they can never find. Eventually these men would commit far more serious crimes. For example, in India the male to female ratio is tilted because of infanticide, but the result is the same, men unable to function in society. The ratio there is nearly 120 to 100, men to women, and is cited as one of the primary factors for the high levels rate of rape[3]. That’s clearly because the heterosexual population is imbalanced. I have no doubt if the imbalance persists that over time more of their male population would be homosexual.

As much as Islam might want to be merciful it is making some people miserable with its practices.




Thank you Pro.

Does Islamic Polygamy really threaten genders balance?

In contrast with your above example about KSA population, please take a look on married
women statistics in KSA for the year of 2007:

As you can see there is absolutely no age where all the women or girls are married. Moreover,
there have never been reported, historically, that polygamy has caused any imbalance
to any Muslim society or Nation.

Please take note that it is common that men who practice polygamy in KSA, would take the
second wife from another Arab country like Egypt or Morocco, rarely do you find
a Muslim polygamist having 4 wives.

The average age for first marriage for women has increased in all Muslim countries; please
take a look on statistics for single women in KSA according to age range, for
the period of 2007:

Please to compare it with the statistics for 2004:

It is clear that the tendencies have changed, and there is now a new problem arising that
would be certainly solved if Polygamy was practiced more than it actually is,
amongst Muslims.

You can also check to see the statistics for male single in KSA as of 2007:

So far no issues, males are not suffering from lack of females, but assuming your
suggestion may happen in the future, it can simply be corrected by making polygamy
conditions more strict by the ruler according to what benefits the nation.

Optimal Harem Size for both male and females:

There is no study that I found for Humans that would indicate the optimal harem size.

But there is something that I remember we’ve seen in High school or earlier, that one Male sex cell
gives 4 different spermatozoids when one female sex cell would give only one
egg, as shown in the following figure:

Therefore limiting the Polygamy to 4 wives would be the optimal limitation, especially if
you compare with the ancient tribes practices who would have large harems that
would cause damage to the females involved in such a marriages.

Is female Bisexuality supported By Islamic Polygamy?

Not that it was reported that 'Abd al-Rahman, the son of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri,
reported from his father: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said:
A man should not see the private parts of another man, and a woman should not
see the private parts of another woman, and a man should not lie with another
man under one covering, and a woman should not lie with another woman under one

Sahih Muslim.

So even, the premises that can lead to homosexuality are forbidden.

And the marriage contracts in polygamy are between the man and each wife,
not between the women!!

-The Gay punishment was made tougher because there is a sort of intercourse
that could suffice men from marrying women, thus the punishment is radical.

-India is not a Muslim country, and the imbalance isn’t due to polygamy, so
this example you gave is not applicable.

So basically the problem you are pointing out is not real, males in Muslim
countries are finding females from all ages, and Islamic polygamy never caused
any sort of imbalance to Islamic society in the past.

Debate Round No. 3


I would like to thank the Con for her response.

When you reduce populations to a percentage it become difficult to do a comparison that all readers will understand. As an example, if I say that, in a given population, 50% of the women are married and 50% of the men are married people naturally assume that the populations are equal. However, you could easily have a population of 100 women and 10 men with only half of each being married if each married man had 10 wives. This is why I cited the actual ratio for Saudi Arabia in Round 2 which has been over 120 men per 100 women since 1985, and the closest ratio was 101 in 1960. Even Iran has had a slight, but consistent, over population of men compared to women, and that’s even with the Iran-Iraq war in the 80’s reducing their male population a bit[1].

You should never expect to see a 100% of the male or female population married regardless of the population balance. As long as you have a consistent birth rate, and a portion of individual putting marriage off you’ll never see it hit 100%. That doesn’t mean that there is plenty of available women for marriage. A simple comparison of population size reveals if there is a sufficient number of men or women.

Even though most people associate India with Hindus there is a significant portion of the population that is Muslim. Even though polygamy is outlawed in India under The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937 polygamy is still legal for Muslims in India[2]. Even with the clear gender imbalance Muslims insist on preserving polygamy in India.

Increasing the practice of polygamy would only make the problem I’ve described worse not better. The reason why, in spite of an overpopulation of men, Islamic countries haven't reported an issue with men being unable to find wives is that a significant portion of the population is homosexual. They have no need to complain because there are plenty of men to choose from. The prospect of a monogamous male having a relationship with another man poses no risk or danger to Islamic polygamist. In fact, having a sibling who is homosexual could be an advantage. Since they’d be unlikely to have children of their own, and in the event of an unexpected demise they could take over your responsibilities.

I will leave Cons argument regarding sperm count and optimal number of wives mostly unchallenged. It’s a red herring, and irrelevant. I could easily twist that to say that each woman should have four husbands.

I have a family emergency that I need to address this weekend. I don’t have the time I’d like to address bisexual women as clearly as I would like. I will leave it up to the rebuttal if it’s needed, and to the voters to decide if a man would be like or unlikely to “report” two bisexual wives. I also apologize for any grammar mistakes since I haven’t had time to proof this as much as I would have liked.




Thank you again Medv.

As you complain about the usage of percentage, I get you the true
numbers from Saudi government website that you can contemplate here:

Table that I got from here:

Islamic year 1428 being equivalent to 2007 CE.

The previous percentage of male Saudi singles can also be compared to
Switzerland Saudi singles here :

So as a male, whether you are monogamous or polygamous, you’ll have a
greater chance being married in KSA than in Europe!

About India, you can check this link to see how Muslim population in
India are above the national average ration , all with being the fastest
growing community according to a 2011 census .

Please to keep in mind that usually females are ready for marriage
sooner than males are, and ratios don’t take this data in consideration, so a
14 year old female may get married but wouldn’t be even considered in the statistics!

Also Muslim males do marry Christian chaste women as well as Jews, which
increases possibilities for Muslim communities.


Polygamy is nothing but a man tied with more than one marriage contract. And who says
contract says rights and responsibility.

-In Islam a woman can choose to accept or refuse a marriage proposal and nobody can force
her, even if she is young and never got married.

-In Islam again a woman can choose to end the marriage relationship if her rights are not
met, or if she can no longer stick to her marital obligations.

This allows women to make pressure on men, so a wise man wouldn’t go to the polygamy
adventure if he can’t afford it, otherwise he would lose more than he may gain.

Now you try to show that polygamy can eventually hide lesbianism or female bisexuality!
you have to admit this is easier in phantasms than in a Muslim society, and if
it ever does exist, I can’t see in what way would this show Islamic polygamy is
flawed, as homosexuality remains a sin, and the women involved in such a practice are married to a
man, which still ensures social fertility!

Debate Round No. 4


I would like to thank Fruitytree, and would ask that voters consider giving her conduct points. She was respectful in regards to my family emergency, and I appreciate that.

It’s unfortunate that I don’t speak, or read Arabic. The 1428 report Con linked is interested with just the table data. From what little I can read, I believe, table 3 is reflective of my point. I believe this is a report of the population of Saudi Arabia, and the table indicates that only when the population is over the age of 80 does the population of women start to exceed the population of men. Even table 17 which shows the population that is never married shows that the Never Married male population is larger than the female up until the age of 65. It is safe to say that after the age of 65 that most of the population shift is due to the male life expectancy being slightly lower than the female life expectancy.

In my view Muslim Polygamy is by far one of the most fair versions of polygamy practice. However, it is not without its faults. If you see my position that it exasperates a gender imbalance as being a cause of social evolutionary pressure to reduce the social strife caused when too many men are pursuing too few women then you should vote Pro, or If Muslim countries were not openly hostile to homosexuality then I would have no argument.



Thank you Medv.

You have pointed out the only issue that can be agravated by polygamy, that is gender ratio imbalance.

We have seen the example of KSA where the Female/Male ratio is initially not balanced, and where polygamy is still practiced with full support of islamic law, but still the imbalace isn't agravated by polygamy, for the following reasons:

-KSA Polygamists usually take at least one of the wives from other countries.

- rarely do you see a polygamist having 4 wives.

-Women have the choice to stay or leave.

-Men usually marry later then women do, which creates a sort of delay and corrects ratios virtually.

It is also important to note that there have never been any imbalace issue due to Islamic polygamy, but if it was to happen in the future, it can be self corrected by islam itself, that allows the ruller to rule whatever can benefit the Muslim nation or avoid the harm on them. implying allowing homosexuality isn't required to solve such an issue.

For all these reasons, Islamic rullings regarding Polygamy and Homosexuality are coherent and consistent.

Note: here the link about Indis statistics that I missed to post on round 4:
Debate Round No. 5
45 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Fruitytree 3 years ago

"--Violent protests
--praying in the middle of the streets, blocking houses
--raping unveiled women in Sweden
--setting embassies on fire with people in them
--creating disgusting governments like the Iranian and saudi Arabian and Iraqi governments.
--killing christians in egypt
--not allowing for churches or mosques to be built in the middle east
--vurbally abusing non muslims"

Unfortunately, all these are forbidden in Islam, and you are right to be furious, and this doesn't prevent Muslims from doing them, most of the time out of ignorance! it is just sad.
Posted by Fruitytree 3 years ago

I understand now where the differing comes from, if you think Quran is the only scripture, then you don't believe in the Quran itself, nor in the Prophet! basically there are a lot of subjects we need to debate about in sha Allah. Just allow me some time cause I'm a bit busy these days with work, then I'll agree with you on the subjects we need to debate.
Posted by medv4380 3 years ago
@ IslamAhmadiyya
Actually, we base the Constitution off of what the Supreme Court says. You should certainly judge the United States off of who we elect and who's been appointed to run the country. Doing otherwise is lunacy.
Posted by IslamAhmadiyya 3 years ago

I have constantly been repeating myself, there are two ways to find Authentic Ahadith.

1) See if it contradicts with Qur'an
2) Research everything regarding the Hadith, from the history of it to the narrations.

If there are doubts, you simply leave it alone.


By the way, the Iranian government, or ANY government of any nation does not represent Islam, as I said earlier, Islam is based off the Qur'an and Sunnah, this is self proclaimed...I don't care how many leaders today think they represent Islam, they can never. Islam is a religion, not a group of people.


All those things you have mentioned have nothing to do with Islam, those things are not even restricted to Islam, anyone living in any nation with whatever religious background can have a violent protest or rape women, this happens everywhere in the world.

These are actions of PEOPLE (in this example, Muslims), NOT a sanction of a RELIGION.

You have not yet even proven to me from Qur'anic scripture or Sunnah that Islam promotes injustice or violence. You are constantly bringing in actions of angry Muslims, I can do the same with any other religion, but you don't see me pointing fingers.

I also love how you're making opinions about me now, it shows your childish attitude.

I don't hate anyone, my religion forbids me to hate anybody, apparently, you hate Islam, guess that is a -1 for you.
Posted by IslamAhmadiyya 3 years ago

I am not sanctioning that whatever act the Pope commits, Catholicism or Christianity is to be represented.

Islam is based ONLY off the Qur'an and the traditions of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw), [Sunnah and Authentic Ahadith]. That is IT.

Not a single leader today or 500 years ago can represent the RELIGION of Islam.

George Bush used to be the President of the United States of America, should we base the Constitution off of the actions of Bush?

No, we base the Constitution off what the Constitution says, we base the Bill of Rights off what the BOR says.

We base Islam, a religion, based off what its own scripture says, not what a so called Islamic leader sanctions.

There is no flaw with my ideology, but you need to correct your understanding.
Posted by sorar3 3 years ago
and don't forget there are 2 verses in the quran which call for either the chopping off of feet or hands. Knowing that, can you honestly sit here and tell me islam is a fine religion to practice?
Posted by sorar3 3 years ago
Yes the top ranking iranian politicians proclaim themselves to be islamic leaders. They represent Islam.

Hey Islamahmadiyya, what hadith are authentic? list all the authentic hadith right now. Go! do it.

God damn you muslims. Why would you mix all the authentic and unauthentic hadith in the same books, and then get mad at non muslims for not knowing which hadith are authentic.

I think what Islamahmadiyya thinks is that Judaism and christianity had evil in them so Islam is allowed to have evil in it too. WRONG. Jews don't practice the evil like polygamy and incest and rape torture murder which is in the torah, they are REFORMED. Christians no longer torture people in the vatican or peel their skin, or burn people alive, today they run a business and they help some people through depression.

Let me tell you all the things muslims do.

--Violent protests
--praying in the middle of the streets, blocking houses
--raping unveiled women in Sweden
--setting embassies on fire with people in them
--creating disgusting governments like the Iranian and saudi Arabian and Iraqi governments.
--killing christians in egypt
--not allowing for churches or mosques to be built in the middle east
--vurbally abusing non muslims

Need I go on? f*** islam
Posted by medv4380 3 years ago
As much as I can see your argument it has an obvious flaw. Iran is lead by the Ayatollah, and as a high ranking cleric represents Islam as it is practiced today. As a religious state the actions of Iran reflect on Islam at most, or a sect of Islam at least.

The deeds and actions of the Ayatollah reflect in the same way the Pope's actions reflect on Catholicism, or Christianity. The Ayatollah might not be Muhammad, but the Pope isn't Jesus, or Peter ether.
Posted by IslamAhmadiyya 3 years ago

I don't care what those government leaders are doing to homosexuals, they simply are not practicing Islamic Sharia when they kill homosexuals, or anyone else for that matter. If a driver crashes his car into a tree, the car is not at fault, the driver is.

If a Muslim commits a crime, the Muslim is at fault, NOT ISLAM.


I cannot believe you are defending this immoral and alien practice that doesn't even exist in Islam. Do you even know what Islam means?

And yes, the only scripture in Islam is the Qur'an, Islam is based off the Qur'an and we Muslims also use AUTHENTIC and non-contradictory Ahadith to support Qur'anic verses.

If Ahadith are unauthentic or contradictory, they are trashed.

By the way, God states in the Qur'an to obey the Messenger (saw), and also God mentions the 5 pillars of Islam in the Qur'an, the 2nd pillar is Salat, and we know how to do Salat because of the Sunnah, and the Muslims have been following Muhammad (saw) throughout their whole lives, they have been praying their whole lives, so no doubt that the prayers exist in Islam.

But killing homosexuals does not exist in Islam nor was it practiced by Muhammad (saw) or his true followers, it is not a Sunnah, and there is no authentic Ahadith regarding killing homosexuals, and regardless of all that, it would be contradictory to the teachings of the Qur'an.

A person is only worthy of death if they themselves have killed another person or if it is defensive war, that's it. If a person commits adultery/fornication, steals food, commits an immoral act, they CANNOT be killed, if the Prophet Muhammad (saw) were here, he would be the first to stop these corrupted so called Islamic leaders that participate in these acts of killing.

Your argument that people deserve death because of their immoral behavior is in ITSELF an immoral approach to solve a problem. What use is killing? Islam is here to solve problems, not create another one.
Posted by Fruitytree 3 years ago
Not just for being Gay, but for immoral behaviour.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by makhdoom5 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: obvious reason is that, pro is talking about Islamic polygamy and giving the example of population difference of whole world. which is not fair. indeed there is small portion of Muslim in non Islamic countries except India, where we have seen the abort when there is female child. con gave best justification for the application of polygamy in Islamic country even in Saudi Arabia. and it seems pro was not aware of Islamic polygamy requirement. there are strict rule to have polygamy. which con mentioned. it is against the freedom of will. if a women want to marry with some one who is already married than its her choice ( free will), or her own love. just like u are giving justification to homosexuality, because peoples want it, same is for polygamy if women want and men can do so whats wrong in it. which actually con mentioned in her own words. this is flaw argument to apply on whole population, polygamy. other is in comment section.