The same Muslim clerics who are the first to vehemently slam Israel for allegedly "violating human rights" toward the Palestinians, are now angry at the exposure of their own barbaric oppression and objectification of their own women. I wonder where is the voice of B'tselem, Amnesty, BBC, The Guardian, etc. on this matter?

isn't it more properly called polyandry? And I think it is much more natural for women to have multiple partners than for men. So finally a Muslim who got something right. Poor clerics having their gratification threatened.

backward and stupid like our husbands!" Why are they such morons?

Learn to read better. This article was written cynically, not to really promote polygamy for women but as mentioned - to expose readers to the suffering of Muslim women by their husbands.

One cleric characterized it that way. The author simply suggested that polygamy be available to women.

...did YOU actually read the article, and I mean the original author's article, before shooting YOUR mouth off?

seems to allow multi-husbands. Not just the Muslims. Think of other cultures around the world that favor - allow - multi-wives - they do not allow multi-husbands. Never did.

Polyandry also makes things much easier for the many Arab Men who are gay.

The cleric who defended the journalist with her article understands what it is all about.

he must beat them ALL. If he marries a real F... up, they all get beaten every day until he divorces her. Every time a muslum man marries more than one woman, he creates another daily masturbater as men and women are born in roughly equal numbers. moohamud didn't think that one out very well when he dreamed up the laws of islum.

they were nothing underneeth mmm good cause to be active :P

As a Frenchman said "there is little difference between men & women, but, vivala difference". Women are not permitted mulitiple husbands for need keep the family in tact. Only women can have childern

I can read thank you. And I still maintain that the original article was written cynically and ironically - she did not really mean she wanted to marry more than one husband, as this is absurd and impractical. She just wanted to show them how it feels from the other side. That cleric who defended this article, probably has a sharper perception than the two of you.

Wrong. Polyandry is still extant in some small parts of Nepal, India, China. Somewhere there where these countries meet.

Christian Wedlock. QUESTION: Can a woman have more than two husbands? ANSWER: No, a woman cannot have more than two living husbands. A man has no choice, as he must be in wedlock with one wife. But a woman has three choices. Firstly, no wedlock with a husband. Secondly, wedlock with one husband. Or thirdly, wedlock with two husbands. That’s it, there are no further choices for a woman, and there is no choice at all for a man. 1 Corinthians 7:2 King James 1611. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Yr. 1783. 10th George Prince of Wales Own Hussars. (King George III). Yr. 1898. 19th Alexandra Princess of Wales Own Hussars. (Queen Victoria). Therefore two women can own a regiment of cavalry, and two men can own a regiment of cavalry. 1 Corinthians 6:16 King James 1611. What! know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. Therefore in the New Testament a man and woman lying together are one flesh, as follows: A husband and wife who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh. A fornicator and fornicatress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh. A man and common courtesan or common prostitute who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh. (A common prostitute is a woman who commonly offers her body for acts of lewdness for payment. An act of lewdness can never be an act of carnal copulation, as it is blasphemy to state that the Angel Gabriel and Mary committed a lewd act. The common law of england states that it is impossible for any woman to be a prostitute under any circumstances, but that a woman may continue on to be a common prostitute.). A fornicator/fornicatress and adulterer/adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh. An adulterer and adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh. Clearly the New Testament lays down that a man must be in wedlock with his own wife, and a woman must be in wedlock with her own husband. Furthermore the New Testament specifically limits the number of wives that a man can have to only one, but sets no limit to the number of husbands a woman can have. But there must be some limit for a woman, or one woman could be in wedlock with thousands of men. Rationally, if one woman can satisfy the bodily lust of one man every day, and forty men can satisfy the bodily lust of one woman every day, then is one wife for every man and forty husbands for every woman what the New Testament requires? No, because the New Testament is a document of truth, not a document of reason.