Talk:Polygamy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Map Accuracy?[edit]

The map notes say "India, Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia and Sri Lanka:legal for Muslims only," but those countries represent 3/4 colors from the key. At the very least, Sri Lanka's dark blue color contradicts that statement (and Eritrea's contradicts note 2), and it brings into question the accuracy of the map as a whole.

Polygamy is illegal in Myanmar since 2015 . M P Htoo (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Polygamy not illegal in India[edit]

Some people have misinterpreted Supreme Court's judgement in 2015 about Polygamy for Indian Muslims based on incorrect information provided by this IBTimes news article http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/india-bans-polygamy-muslims-not-fundamental-right-islam-1487356. However the Supreme Court never banned polygamy, it only stated that it's not a fundantal part of Islam. I have read about this earlier also. Not only that as of October 2015, the Supreme Court was still considering banning polygamy http://indiatoday.intoday.in/education/story/banning-polygamy/1/511127.html. Hence the assumption of some people that polygamy has been completely banned in India is wrong. Therefore, I ask India to be given green colour to present polygamy is legal for Muslims. I can't understand how to change the colour myself. Thank you in advance. Lakhbir87 (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lakhbir87: Yeah, you're right about that. I've just read both of the sources you gave and even searched about polygamy online. It turns out it never was banned, the court only stated that it was not a fundamental part of Islam. KahnJohn27 (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Fixed the map. --92slim (talk) 02:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

"Muslims only" in the map[edit]

Is this distinction helpful? In most Islamic countries there is no civil marriage. And since most of these countries recognize, besides Islam, only Christianity and Judaism, this effectively means that polygamy is legal for Muslims only. So this would be true for almost all countries, or at least many of those that are now black. I think any country that allows polygamy for at least some group of the population should be black. The rest is more confusing than helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.142.107 (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

So this would be true for almost all countries Definitely not. Polygamy is illegal in most countries, both for Muslims and for non-Muslims. Although you have a point about the fact that most countries that allow polygamy are Muslim majority countries, the reason for the "only for Muslims" distinction in the map is because in fact, because those specific countries in detailed in green (Eritrea, Philippines, Singapore, and Sri Lanka) are not Muslim-majority countries. Pd. Colour code black is used to imply illegality, not legality. 92slim (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Polygamy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Johnbod[edit]

@Johnbod:

The image is not obscure. Jacob is a notable biblical figure, and every Christian, Jew, and Muslim who reads their Scriptures know about him.Setabepiw3547747 (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Not only that, rabbis, priests, and imams talk about him in churches, synagogues and mosques, where every member of the Abrahamic religions can hear them. Setabepiw3547747 (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@Johnbod:, could you care to reply to this talk page please?Setabepiw3547747 (talk) 05:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
You're just wrong; the incident, and its relevance to polygamy, will be very obscure to most readers. UI notice a lot of your bold postings of images are running into trouble, and not just from me. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, since Wikipedia is meant for the intelligent layman, most Abrahamic readers would be knowedgeable enough about Jacob. The nation Israel even gets its name from him. Strong point about the relevance to polygamy though. Thanks for the commentary!Setabepiw3547747 (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Wait, now that I think about it, obscurity is not even an argument, since the purpose of WIkipedia is to inform! What do you have to say about this?Setabepiw3547747 (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)