That article is factually wrong. Tunisia had outlawed polygamy and got Arab Spring. And how many suicide bombs did Iraq had before Gulf War? In Daesh countries (Iraq and Syria) polygamy wasn't that common.

>It's not necessarily a "correlation implies causation" fallacy when there is clear and detailed reasoning of how one thing causes the other.

If that reasoning is unproven, it's just as fallacious to assume that one thing is the result of the other. There are so many arguments that this doesn't work for that it's ridiculous. You can't just make something up and say it's the truth because it isn't illogical and you believe there's an inferred relationship between the two events.

The word "imply" is ambiguous. When people say "correlation doesn't imply causation" they mean that it is invalid logic to say because correlation, thus causation. But in everyday english, imply just means "to suggest", and correlation certainly does suggest causation even though that may not be the case. Correlation may equally suggest causation but in the reverse sense. Or a third cause of both things. I think you should always mentally enumerate those possibilities whenever someone is presenting a correlation.