Hi ALpha,
I agree with you that Polygamy isn't favored for God, but we can't deny that he allowed it in the Jewish law.
Deuteronomy 21:15-16
If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love.
Leviticus
18 v 18 The law prevents a man from taking his wife's sister to be her "rival wife" while she was still living.
20 v 14 The law prevents a man from marrying a woman as well as her mother.
Numbers
3 vv 40-43 records that there were 22,273 firstborn sons.
This means that there were 22,273 families (since a family cannot have more than one firstborn son). But as Ch 1 v 46 records that there were a total of 603,550 fighting men, we have to distribute them among 22,273 families, or an average of 27 men per family. Unless you believe that the average Israelite woman gave birth to 27 children (unlikely!) who were all male (also unlikely) then you must accept that the average Israelite man had enough wives to give birth to 27 boys and whatever number of girls came inbetween. Consequently, polygamy was not rare in ancient Israel, it was in fact extrememly widespread
Deuteronomy
23 v 2 Illegitimate offspring were not able to enter the congregation of Israel for ten generations.
If polygamy was sinful, and the children therefore illegitimate, then the entire congregation of Israel would not have been able to enter the congregation of Israel, as Jacob was a polygamist and his children from whom all the twelve tribes come, were the fruit of polygamous relationships. Also, David had at least 6 or 7 wives before Bathsheba, and she was Solomon's mother - so if polygamy was wrong, then Solomon, King of Israel and ancestor of Jesus, couldn't be part of the congregation of Israel. These difficulties can easily be avoided by acknowledging that polygamy is not wrong after all.
Deuteronomy
25 vv 5-10 The Levirate
The law provides security for widows without children by requiring the dead man's brother to marry the woman and raise up children. The text does not limit the rule only to men who are single. Scholars accept that married men would be required to be polygamous by this command of God. It is important that it applies to those already married, for the story of the kinsman-redeemer in Ruth establishes the biblical idea of redemption. Christ can redeem a sinner's debt, and this involves union with Christ, even though he has already redeemed someone else's debt and been united to them.
A failure to marry the widow of a brother without children appears to have been tantamount to a breach of contract. It is presented as a duty which has not been honoured, and the man who will not perform the levirate has one of his sandals removed and the widow spits in his face, saying 'This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother's family line.' (See Deut. 25 vv 5-10). This may seem odd, but Ruth 4 vv 7-12 shows that contracts where property was exchanged were finalised by the exchange of sandals. For the brother who would not perform the levirate, this meant he was stigmatised as someone who did not do his duty or keep his side of the bargain.
The Levirate provided a man with a choice between polygamy and a social stigma ordained by God. The levirate therefore appears to promote polygamy - this was not simply an example of God not liking polygamy but tolerating it - he was encouraging it.
As you can see from all these examples, it was allowed By God, but I agree, it is not favored.
Same thing goes with the Quran, it is allowed but not favored and should only be done under certain situations such as war, desease.
Come to think of it, in order for the Qu'ran to justify itself, it has to confirm the Bible:
Well, the Quran doesn't need to justify itself from the bible since they are the same God and I am sure God does not change.
ye unto whom the Scripture hath been given! Believe in what We have revealed,
confirming that which ye possess. (4:47 Pickthall)
As we can see, the Qu'ran does not confirm the Holy Bible. Therefore, the Qu'ran is not the Word of God, and Muhammed (as far as the Qu'ran is concerned) is not a prophet of God.
I love how you misquote the Quran. Let's go over it again and see what it's talking about:
[4] Have you noted those who received a portion of the scripture, and how they choose to stray, and wish that you stray from the path?
[4] GOD knows best who your enemies are. GOD is the only Lord and Master. GOD is the only Supporter
4:46] Among those who are Jewish, some distort the words beyond the truth, and they say, "We hear, but we disobey," and "Your words are falling on deaf ears," and "Raa'ena (be our shepherd)," as they twist their tongues to mock the religion. Had they said, "We hear, and we obey," and "We hear you," and "Unzurna (watch over us)," it would have been better for them, and more righteous. Instead, they have incurred condemnation from GOD due to their disbelief. Consequently, the majority of them cannot believe
[4] O you who received the scripture, you shall believe in what we reveal herein, confirming what you have, before we banish certain faces to exile, or condemn them as we condemned those who desecrated the Sabbath. GOD's command is done.
[4] GOD does not forgive idolatry, but He forgives lesser offenses for whomever He wills. Anyone who sets up idols beside GOD, has forged a horrendous offense.
SO make sure you don't take things out of context next time.
The Quran does indeed confirm that Muhammad is a prophet.