Brian, you are not a Muslim so whatever I say may sound unintelligent to you. But if you asked a Muslim, they might agree with what I say. So it depends from which direction you are coming from.
If you start with the assumption that the Qu'ran is the word of God, anything that contradicts it can be ignored. However what you say is still not intelligent because it contradicts the facts.
For example you claimed that polygyny is justified by the excess of men over women. I linked to official statistics which unambiguously showed the basis of your claim was incorrect. There is no excess of women in the marriageable demographic.
You then repeated the same false claim which I again pointed out was incorrect. And your latest reply:
I am entitled to my views much as you dislike it.
You are entitled to your view even though it contradicts the observed facts. I also believe I am entitled to consider that you are, quite objectively, stupid and ignorant to hold this view since it is contrary to the facts.
As has been repeatedly pointed out, a religious faith is an irrational point of view which, far from being the basis of an good way to live, is actually nothing more than institutionalised ignorance and bigotry.
The subject of modesty is not rocket science. It is clear with all societies that certain norms of decencies are required and is not a subject that should be difficult to understand. When I said that a woman has more to cover this was natural. After all a woman could not walk about as a man would if he was bare chested. Hence the question of modesty for a woman is more than for a man.
Your presumption that it is "natural" for a women to cover more, particularly "head to foot" is a fallacy. Both men and women in many cultures in Africa, North and South America, Australia, New Guinea and the Pacific Islands lived almost naked and in some places they still do. Bare breasted women is quite natural.
The only basis for your position is your book from which you will no doubt again copiously quote in what you consider is a "response".
During the Days of Ignorance 14 centuries ago, women used to show their cleavage and would be pestered by men.
So Mohammed and his like decided in their "wisdom" that the problem is the woman (as usual). In an intelligent society with a reasoned morality we realise that the problem is not with the women but the attitude of the men.
Unfortunately adherents to the primitive misogynist idology of the Abrahamic religions, have elevated this prejudice to a point where they are more than happy to oblige with proof that women who are not completely covered are vulnerable to sexual assault. Then they and others blame the woman for displeasing Allah.
In fact the psychopathic attitude to women and sexuality displayed by the authors of the holy books underpins the dysfunction observed in men in the societies inhabited by the followers of this twisted philosophy.
God asked the believing women to cover themselves up so as to distinguish them from the unbelievers.
As I keep telling you, it is obvious that not a God but ancient, ignorant, misogynist men wrote those books. However your sentence does allude to the real reason these men included that direction. Women not dressed to their satisfaction were considered to be of the enemy and were hence fair game for ra** as a reward in battle.
You continue to reveal the extraordinary depth of your bigotry and arrogance when you respond to my posting that the financial business of a couple is their own private business.
There is no couple as you put it. A man can only marry when he has the means. Only then you can refer to them as a couple, not before.
