Introduction:
Monogamy (Practice of being married to only one woman
at a time) is the most natural form of matrimony. The
spirit of exclusive relationship or individual and private
ownership prevails in it, though this ownership is
different from that of wealth or property. In this system
the husband and wife each regard the feelings, sentiments
and the sexual benefits of the other, as exclusively
belonging to him or to her.
The opposites of monogamy are polygamy (Custom of
having more than one wife at the same time) and sexual
communism. The latter, in a sense, may also be regarded as
a form of polygamy.
SEXUAL COMMUNISM
Sexual communism means no exclusiveness. According to
this theory, no man should exclusively belong to any
particular woman, nor should any woman belong to any
particular man. It amounts to complete negation of family
life. History and the theories related to pre-historical
times do not point to any period when man totally lacked
family life and when sexual communism prevailed. What is
claimed to have existed among certain barbarian tribes was
a midway state between exclusive family life and sexual
communism. It is said that among certain tribes it was the
usual practice that several brothers jointly married
several sisters, or several male members of a clan jointly
married several women of another clan.
Will Durant in his book, 'History of Culture', Vol 1,
writes that at certain places collective marriage was
popular in the sense that several male members of a clan
jointly married several female members of another clan.
For example, it has been customary in Tibet that several
brothers have an equal number of sisters as their wives.
Nobody knows which sister is the wife of which brother.
Every brother cohabits with any of the sisters he likes. A
sort of sexual communism exists there. A similar custom
existed in ancient England. The custom, which was
prevalent among the Jews and some other people of the past
and, according to which, after the death of a brother,
another brother married his widow, was a remnant of this
ancient custom.
BACK
PLATO'S VIEW
It appears that, while enunciating his theory of
'philosopher-rulers', Plato has suggested in his book,
"The Republic", a sort of family socialism for
this class. Several leaders of communism in the 19th
century also made a similar suggestion, but, as reported
by the author of the book, 'Freud and the Prohibition of
Consanguineous Marriage', after some bitter experiences,
several of the powerful communist countries officially
recognised the law of monogamy in 1938.
BACK
POLYANDRY
Another form of polygamy is polyandry, viz. a woman
having more than one husband at the same time. According
to Will Durant this custom is found among certain tribes
of Tibet etc.
Al-Bukhari, in his famous corpus of traditions, as-Sahih,
reports Ayesha as having said that among the pre-Islamic
Arabs there existed four kinds of conjugal relations. One
of them was the proper marriage that is still being
practised. In this form a man proposes to a girl through
her father and, after the fixation of dower, carries her.
There can be no controversy about the father of the
children born in such a wedlock. There was another kind of
marriage, which was called 'istibza To procure a
better progeny for himself, the husband selected a man and
asked his wife to allow him to have access to her for a
fixed period. He himself kept aloof till the pregnancy of
the woman. It was a marriage within a marriage and was
indulged in with a view to improving the breed. According
to another custom, a group of men consisting of less than
ten people, established a liaison with a particular woman.
On becoming pregnant, she called all of them, and, as the
custom of the day was, they had to respond to her call. At
this time she selected one man as the father of her child
out of those who were willing to take that responsibility.
The man, after being so chosen, could not decline to
accept the fatherhood of the child.
The fourth kind of conjugal relations was known as
prostitution. The prostitutes had a flag on the top of
their houses. It served as their distinguishing mark.
Anybody could have access to these women. If such a woman
gave birth to a child, she called all those who had
intimacy with her, and with the help of a physiognomist,
determined who was the father of the child. The man
concerned had to accept the decision of the physiognomist
and to own the child.
These were the forms of the conjugal relations which
prevailed in pre-Islamic Arabia. The Prophet abolished all
of them, except the one which is practised today.
This shows that the custom of polyandry existed among
the pre-Islamic Arabs also.
Montesquieu reports that the Arab globe-trotter, Abu
Zahir al-Hasan, found this custom in India and China
during his visit to these countries in the 9th century and
regarded it as a form of debauchery. He also writes:
"On the coast of Malabar there lives a tribe called
Nair. The male members of this tribe cannot have more than
one wife, but the women are allowed to choose several
husbands. Probably the reason is that the Nairs belong to
a martial race and their profession is fighting and
hunting. Just as we discourage the marriage of the
soldiers in Europe so that it may not interfere with their
profession of fighting, the Malabar tribes have also
decided that, as far as possible, the male members of the
Nair tribe should be excused from shouldering family
responsibilities. As, owing to the tropical climate of the
area, it is not possible to ban marriage totally, it has
been decided that several men should have only one wife,
so that they may not be heavily burdened with family
responsibilities and their professional efficiency may not
be affected".
BACK
DEFECTS OF POLYANDRY
The main and the basic defect of the system of
polyandry is that the paternity of the children
practically remains uncertain. In this system, the
relations between the child and the father are
undetermined and that is the reason why it has not been
successful. As sexual communism 1L1~ not
been able to take roots anywhere, this system also has not
been accepted by any society worthy of the name. As we
have said earlier, the family life, the building of a home
for the future generation and the definite connection
between the past and the future generations are some of
the demands of the human instinct. The exceptional cases
of the existence of plurality of husbands among certain
sections does not prove that the desire of the formation
of one's own family is not an instinct of man. Similarly,
perpetual celibacy or complete abstinence from conjugal
life, as practised by a number of men and women, is also a
sort of deviation. Polyandry is not only inconsistent with
man's monopolistic nature and his paternal love, but it is
opposed to the nature of woman also. Psychological
investigations have proved that woman wants monogamy more
than man.
BACK
POLYGAMY
Another form of polygamy is plurality of wives. It has
been more commonly and successfully practised than
polyandry and sexual communism. It has not only existed
among the barbarian tribes, but has also been practised by
many civilised people. Apart from the Arabs, it has been
practised by the Jews, the Iranians of the Sasanian period
and several other people. Montesquieu says that in Malaya
it was permissible to have three wives. He also says that
the Roman Emperor, Valentinian II, had, by an edict,
allowed the subjects of the Empire to marry several wives,
but as this law was not suited to the climate of Europe,
it was repealed by other emperors like Theodore etc.
BACK
ISLAM AND POLYGAMY
In contrast to polyandry, Islam has not totally
abolished polygamy, but has restricted it. On the one
hand, it has fixed the maximum number of wives, which one
can have, at four, and, on the other, it has stipulated
certain conditions and has not allowed everyone to indulge
in having several wives. We shall discuss the conditions
stipulated by Islam later and will explain why Islam has
not banned polygamy.
It is surprising that during the Middle Ages, when anti
Islamic propaganda was at its highest, the opponents of
Islam used to say that it was the Prophet of Islam who,
for the first time, invented the custom of polygamy. They
claimed that this custom was the basis of Islam and the
rapid spread of Islam among the various people of the
world was due to it. At the same time, they claimed that
polygamy was the cause of the decline of the people of the
East.
Will Durant in his 'History of Culture'. Vol.1, says
that the ecclesiastics of the Middle Ages believed that
polygamy was an invention of the Prophet of Islam, whereas
this is not a fact. As we know, the matrimonial life in
most of the primitive societies proceeded according to
this system. There are many causes of its emergence. In
the primitive societies men were mostly busy in hunting
and fighting and the rate of mortality among them was
naturally high. As the number of women exceeded the number
of men. it became essential to adopt this system. It was
not possible to allow some women to remain unmarried, for
the rate of mortality being high in the primitive
societies, every woman was required to procreate children.
There is no doubt that this system suited those societies,
not only because of the excess of women over men, but also
because it strengthened them numerically. In modern times
the most strong and healthy men usually marry late in life
and beget only a few children. But in the olden days the
strong men could have the best wives and could procreate a
large number of children. That is why this practice
continued to exist for a very long time, not only among
the primitive people but even among the civilised ones. It
is only recently that it has gradually begun disappearing
from the countries of the East. Agriculture has stabilised
the life of men and reduced the hardships and perils of
the ancient times, with the result that the number of men
and women has almost equalised. Now polygamy, even in
primitive societies, has become a privilege of a small
wealthy minority and the masses have to be content with
only one wife and, as an additional enjoyment, they can
only indulge in adultery, whenever possible.
Gustav Leabeon in his book, 'History of Culture', says
that no Eastern custom is so infamous in Europe as
polygamy, nor has Europe misjudged any other custom to the
extent that it has misjudged this. The European writers
have believed polygamy to be the basis of Islam and the
main cause of its spread. They also hold this custom to be
mainly responsible for the decline of the Eastern people.
Other objections apart from these, showing sympathy with
the women of the East, are raised alleging that these
ill-fated women are detained within the four walls of
their houses, under the hard-hearted eunuchs. They further
say that the slightest action on their part, which may
displease the head of the household, renders them liable
to be put to death. Such notions have no basis at all.
'[he unbiased Europeans should know that it is the custom
of polygamy that has strengthened the family relations and
uplifted the moral spirit of those people among whom it is
prevalent. It is due to this custom that woman in the East
enjoys more respect than she does in Europe. Before
proving this point, we must make it clear that this custom
is in no way related to Islam. Even prior to Islam, it was
practised by all the people of the East, including the
Jews, the Iranians, the Arabs etc. The people who embraced
Islam in the East did not derive any benefit in this
respect. So far, no such mighty religion has appeared in
this world as could invent or abolish such a custom as
polygamy. It has not been first introduced by any
religion. It is the creation of the climatic and the
racial characteristics and other causes related to the way
of life in the East. Even in the West, where the climate
is not congenial to the existence of such a custom,
monogamy is a thing which is found in law books only. In
actual life there is no trace of it. It is not known how
and in what way the lawful polygamy found in the East is
inferior to the clandestine polygamy of the people of the
West. Apparently, the former is better and more dignified
than the latter. The people of the East, when they visit a
European country and are confronted with the European
criticism of their custom, are naturally bewildered and
feel offended.
It is a fact that Islam has not invented polygamy. It
has only restricted it. It has prescribed a maximum limit
for it. It has laid down strict conditions for it. This
custom already existed among most of the people who
accepted Islam. They were only compelled to comply with
the conditions laid down by Islam.
In his book, 'Iran During the Sassanian Period',
Christenson writes: "Polygamy was considered to be
the basis of the family. Practically, the number of wives,
which a man could have, depended on his means. The poor
people apparently could not afford to have more than one
wife as a general rule. The head of the family had special
rights as such. One of the wives was regarded as the
favourite wife and enjoyed full rights. Some other wives
were treated as servants only. Legal rights of these two
categories widely differed. The slave girls were included
among the servant wives. It is not known how many
favourite wives a single man could have. But there has
been a mention of two favourite wives in the course of
several legal discourses. Each of them was called the lady
of the house. Apparently they lived in separate houses.
The husband was bound to maintain the favourite wife so
long as she lived. Every son till he reached the age of
puberty, and every daughter till she was married, had the
same rights. But only the male children of the
servant-wives were admitted to the paternal family".
In the 'Social History of Iran from the fall of the
Sassanians to the fall of the Omayyads' the late Sa'id
Nafisi writes: "The number of women whom a man could
marry was unlimited and at times it is observed in the
Greek documents that one man had hundreds of women in his
house."
Montesquieu, quoting a Roman historian, says that
several Roman philosophers, who were being tortured by the
Christians because they refused to embrace Christianity,
fled from Rome and took refuge in the court of the Iranian
King, Khusro Parviz. They were astonished to see that not
only polygamy was legal there, but the Persian men had
intimacy with the wives of others also.
It may be pointed out here that the Roman philosophers
took refuge in the court of the Persian king, Anushirwan,
and not in the court of Khusro Parviz. Montesquieu has
mentioned the name of the latter owing to some
misunderstanding.
During the pre-Islamic period, the Arabs could have an
unlimited number of wives. It was Islam that prescribed a
maximum limit. This naturally created a problem for those
who had more than four wives. In exceptional
circumstances, some had even ten. They had to part with
six of them.
From the above it is evident that polygamy is not an
invention of Islam. Islam only restricted it. Anyhow, it
did not abolish it totally. In the following chapters we
shall discuss the causes which gave rise to this custom
and shall explain why Islam did not do away with it. We
shall also discuss the reasons which in modern times have
impelled both men and women to rise against this custom.
BACK
HISTORICAL CAUSES OF POLYGAMY (I)
What are the historical and social causes of polygamy?
Why have many nations of the world, especially the Eastern
nations, accepted this custom, and why have other nations,
such as the Western nations, never practised it? How is it
that out of the three forms of polygamy only plurality of
wives could gain considerable popularity? Polyandry and
sexual communism either have never been practised or have
been practised rarely, and only in exceptional cases.
Unless we look into these questions, we cannot discuss
the question of polygamy from the point of view of Islam,
nor can we study it from the viewpoint of modern human
requirements.
If we do not take into consideration the ample social
and psychological studies made in this respect, we, too,
may, like many superficial writers, harp on the old tune
and say that the causes of polygamy are obvious. That is,
this custom has come into existence as a result of the
high-handedness and the domination of man and the
subjugation of woman. It is an outcome of the patriarchal
system. As man has dominated woman and has ruled over her,
he has given the laws and the customs a turn to his own
benefit. That is how he enforced this custom which is
beneficial to him and harmful to woman, and has been
practising it for centuries. As woman was suppressed, she
could not put polyandry into practice. As now the age of
the high-handedness of man is over, the privilege of
polygamy should, like many other false privileges, make
room for equal and reciprocal rights of man and woman.
This way of thinking is very superficial and puerile.
Neither the cause of polygamy is the oppression of man nor
that of the failure of the polyandry the suppression of
woman. If the custom of polyandry has practically come to
an end, that is not because the age of man's
high-handedness is over. Man has lost no privilege; he has
actually gained an advantage over woman.
We do not deny the factor of oppression as one of the
factors which give a particular turn to history. We also
do not deny that man has, throughout history, misused his
domination over woman. But we believe that it is sheer
short-sightedness to explain family relations on the basis
of the oppression factor only.
If we admit this view, we must also admit that during
the period when polyandry was popular among the
pre-Islamic Arabs or, as reported by Montesquieu, among
the Nairs on the Malabar coast, woman had got an
opportunity to dominate over man and impose polyandry over
him. It also must be admitted that that period was the
golden period of woman. But we know for definite that the
pre-Islamic period of Arabia was one of the darkest
periods in the life of woman. Earlier we have quoted
Montesquieu as saying that the custom of polyandry among
the Nairs was not due to the domination or respect of
woman, but was the result of the decision of society to
keep the soldiers free from the burden of family
responsibilities.
Further, if patriarchy is responsible for polygamy, how
is it that this system did not gain popularity in the
West? After all, the patriarchal system is not confined to
the East. Have the people of the West been, from the
beginning, pious Christians believing in the quality and
reciprocity between man and woman? Has the factor of
domination worked to the benefit of man in the East and
for the promotion of justice in the West?
Till half a century ago, the Western woman was among
the most unlucky of the world. Even her own property was
controlled by her husband. The Europeans themselves admit
that during the Middle Ages the position of the Eastern
woman was far better than that of her counterpart in the
West. Gustav Leabeon says that Islam, in its early days,
gave the woman exactly that position, which the European
woman could get after a very long time; that is, after the
chivalry of the Arabs of Andolusia was transmitted to
Europe. Courteous behaviour towards woman is the main part
of the chivalry which the Europeans learnt from the
Muslims. It was Islam, and not the religion of Christ, as
is believed by the common people, that enhanced the
position of woman. During the Middle Ages the chiefs and
barons, though Christians, never held woman in respect. A
study of ancient history leaves no doubt that the
behaviour of the dukes and barons of Europe towards woman
was most barbaric.
Other European authors have also given a more or less
similar description of the position of women during the
Middle Ages. Though patriarchy prevailed in Europe during
that period, polygamy could not become customary.
The fact is that neither polyandry (wherever it was
practised) was ever due to the power and domination of
woman, nor was its ultimate failure due to her weakness
and suppression. Similarly, polygamy in the East is
neither due to the oppression and high-handedness of man,
nor is it unpopular in the West owing to the existence of
equality between man and woman.
BACK
CAUSES OF THE FAILURE OF POLYANDRY
The main cause of the failure of polyandry is that it
neither suits man's nature nor woman's. It does not suit
man's nature, because firstly, it does not conform to his
monopolistic spirit and, secondly, because it is not in
agreement with the principle that a father should be
confident of his paternity. It is human nature to have an
attachment with one's children. Every human being is, by
nature, keen to beget children and wants that his
relationship with his past and future generations should
be definite and satisfactory. He wants to know whose son
and whose father he is. Polyandry does not agree with this
instinct of man. On the other hand polygamy creates no
such problem, neither in the case of man nor in that of
woman. It is reported that once, about forty women came to
Imam Ali (P) and asked him why Islam had allowed men to
have several wives, but had not allowed women to have
several husbands. They asked whether it was not a case of
undue discrimination.
Imam Ali (P) ordered some cups of water to be brought
in and gave one cup to each women. Then he ordered them to
pour all the water into a big utensil, which was placed in
the middle of the room. When the order had been carried
out, he asked them to fill their cups again, but only with
the water which they originally contained. The women said
that it was not possible as the whole water had mixed.
Imam Ali (P) said that if a woman had several husbands,
they would naturally have sexual connections with her. If
she became pregnant and gave birth to a child, it would
not be possible to determine as to who was the father of
that child.
As far as woman is concerned, polyandry is neither in
her interest nor does it conform to her nature. Woman does
not want a husband to satisfy her sexual instinct only.
Had it been so, it could be said: 'the more, the better'.
Woman wants a man whose heart she may control, who may be
her protector and defender, who may make sacrifices for
her and who may work hard and bring money for her. The
money which a woman earns through her own work and labour
neither meets her requirements, nor has the same value as
that which is given to her by the man who loves her. A
husband meets the financial needs of his wife with the
spirit of sacrifice. The wife and the children are the
best and the strongest incentive for man to work.
In the case of polyandry woman cannot claim the love,
devotion and sacrifice of any man. That is why, like
prostitution, it has always been abominable to woman.
Hence, polyandry neither conforms to the wants and the
leanings of man, nor to those of woman.
BACK
FAILURE OF SEXUAL COMMUNISM
In the case of sexual communism, neither a man can
align himself with any particular woman, nor can a woman
with any particular man, and that is the reason why it
could never become popular. It was proposed by Plato who
limited its scope to the ruling class or the
'philosopher-rulers'. But his suggestion was not liked by
others, and he himself had to revise his opinion.
During the past century, Frederick Engels, the second
father of communism, put forward this idea and strongly
advocated it. But it was not accepted by the communist
world. It is said that the Soviet Union tried to implement
the family theory of Engels, but following some bitter
experience had ultimately to recognise monogamy as the
official policy.
Polygamy may be regarded as a matter of pride for man,
but polyandry has never been and will never be a matter of
pride for woman. The reason is that man wants the body of
woman and woman wants the heart of man. So long as man
controls the body of woman, it is immaterial for him if he
loses her heart. That is why man attaches no importance to
the fact that, in the case of polygamy, he is deprived of
the love and devotional sentiments of woman, But for woman
the main and the most important thing is man's heart and
his sentiments. If she loses them, she loses everything.
In other words, there are two important elements of
matrimonial life, one material and the other sentimental.
The material element of matrimony is its sexual aspect,
which is at its height during youth and gradually declines
afterwards. The sentimental element consists of mutual
tender feelings and earnest devotion. It grows and becomes
stronger with the passage of time. The nature of woman
being different from that of man, she attaches more
importance to the sentimental aspect of matrimony. But for
man either the material aspect is more important or, at
least, both the aspects are of equal importance.
We quoted earlier a lady psychologist who is of the
view that woman has a mental disposition of her own. The
child develops and grows in her womb and is nursed on her
lap. She badly needs the devotion and attachment of her
husband in the capacity of the child's father. Even the
amount of her own affection and love for her children is
directly in proportion to the amount of the love shown to
her by their father, Only monogamy can meet this
requirement.
It is a grave mistake to compare polyandry with
polygamy and to say that there is no difference between
them. It is also wrong to say that polygamy became popular
in certain parts of the world, because man belonged to the
stronger sex, and polyandry could not do so, because woman
belonged to the weaker sex.
A contemporary writer, who happens to be a woman, says:
"We can say that as man can have four wives, woman
also should have a similar right, for both are human
beings. This logical conclusion is most appalling to men.
They are enraged on hearing such an argument and shout:
"How can a woman have more than one husband?" In
reply we quietly say: "How can a man have more than
one wife?"
She further says: "We do not want to promote
immorality or to belittle the importance of chastity. We
only want to make men understand that the views held by
them, about women, are not based on any solid ground. Man
and woman are equal as human beings. If man has the right
to have four wives, woman also must have the same right.
Even if it is granted that woman is not intellectually
superior to man, it is certain that spiritually and
mentally she is not weaker than he is."
As you might have observed, the above statement makes
no distinction between polyandry and polygamy, except that
man being the stronger sex has adopted polygamy to his own
advantage, and woman being the weaker sex could not do so.
The above writer further says that man regards woman as
his property, and that is why he wants to have several
wives. In other words, he thus wants to acquire as much
property as practicable. Woman, being in the position of a
slave, cannot have more than one master.
Contrary to the views of this writer, the fact that the
system of polyandry has never been accepted by any large
section of people proves that man does not regard his wife
as his property, for, as far as property is concerned, it
is a common practice all over the world to own it jointly
and to be benefited by it jointly. Had man considered
woman to be his property, he certainly would have had no
objection to sharing it with others. There is no law in
the world, restricting the ownership of a property to one
owner only.
It is said that the husband is one individual and the
wife is another individual. They should have equal rights.
Why should the husband have the right of enjoying polygamy
and why should the wife not have the right of enjoying
polyandry?"
We say, here lies the mistake. You presume that
polygamy is a part of the rights of the husband and
polyandry a part of the rights of the wife. The fact is
that polygamy is a part of woman's rights and polyandry is
neither a part of man's rights nor of woman's rights. It
is against the interests of man and woman both. We shall
prove later that the system of polygamy has been laid down
by Islam with a view to safeguarding the interests of
woman. Had the intention been to be partial to man, Islam
could have allowed the husband to have extra-marital
affairs with a woman other than his wife and would have
laid no responsibility on him with regard to his legal
wife and legal children.
Polyandry has never been in the interests of woman. It
is not a right of which she has been deprived.
The writer whose views we have quoted has said:
"We want to make men understand that the views held
by them about women are not based on any solid
ground".
Coincidentally, that is what we also want to do. In the
following chapters we propose to explain the basis of the
Islamic views regarding polygamy.
We invite all thinking people to look into it and see
if the Islamic views are, or are not, based on any solid
ground. We give our word of honour that we shall withdraw
all what we have said, if it is proved by anybody that the
basis of the Islamic viewpoint is defective.
BACK
HISTORICAL CAUSES OF POLYGAMY (II)
Man's lust for indulgence in sensual pleasure and his
unrestricted domination alone are not a sufficient cause
for the emergence of polygamy. There must be some other
contributory causes also for a licentious man to satisfy
his taste for variety. It is easier and less cumbersome to
indulge in free love instead of having a woman of his
choice as his legal wife and shouldering the
responsibility of the maintenance of her possible future
children. Plurality of wives gains popularity only in the
societies where there are moral and social restrictions on
free love and a voluptuary has to pay the price of seeking
variety by accepting the woman concerned as his legal wife
and by shouldering the responsibility of fatherhood of her
children.
Now let us see whether there is any contribution of
geographical, economic or social factors in this respect.
BACK
GEOGRAPHICAL FACTORS
Montesquieu and Gustav Leobeon insist that climatic
conditions are the main cause of the development of
polygamy. These intellectuals believe that the climate of
the East is such that this custom is inevitable there. In
the Eastern countries puberty and old age in females
commence earlier and, therefore, a man requires a second
and a third wife. Moreover, they think that one woman
cannot satisfy the sexual needs of a man brought up in the
Eastern climate.
Gustav Leobeon in his book, History of Islamic and Arab
culture says: "The custom of polygamy was not
introduced by religion. It is an outcome of the climatic
conditions, the racial characteristics and other causes
related to life in the East. It needs not be emphasised
that these are very strong and effective factors.
Furthermore, their physical and temperamental traits,
their nursing of children and their ailments and diseases
often
force the women of the East to keep themselves aloof
from their husbands. As the climatic conditions and the
national characteristics of men in the East are such that
they cannot bear even temporary separation, polygamy has
become customary".
Montesquieu in his book, the Spirit of Law says: 'In
tropical countries women attain puberty at the age of
eight, nine or ten years and after being married, soon
become pregnant. It may be said that in tropical
countries, pregnancy immediately follows marriage".
Predo, giving an account of the life of the Prophet of
Islam, states that he married Khadijah, at the age of five
and consummated the marriage at the age of eight. Because
of a very early marriage, women in the tropics become old
at the age of twenty. He says that before they become
mature, they are already old. In the countries having a
temperate climate women retain their charm and beauty for
a long time. They attain puberty at a later age and they
are more mature and experienced at the time of their
marriage. They have children at a comparatively advanced
age and the husband and the wife become old almost at the
same time. That is how equality between man and woman is
established and men do not need to have more than one
wife.
Thus it is because of the climatic conditions that the
law prohibits polygamy in Europe and allows it in Asia.
The above explanation is in no way correct. The custom
of polygamy is not confined to tropical regions in the
East. During the pre-Islamic period this custom was common
in Iran, where the climate is temperate. It is purely
fictitious to say that in the tropics, women get old at
the age of twenty, as alleged by Montesquieu. It is even
more fantastic to say that the Prophet of Islam, married
Khadijah at the age of five and consummated it at the age
of eight. Everyone knows that at the time of their
marriage Khadijah was forty and the Prophet was twenty
-five.
Secondly, if it is accepted that the early onset of old
age in women and the intense virility in men are the
causes of this custom, why did the people of the East not
adopt the practice of free love and debauchery, as the
people of the West did both during the Middle Ages and in
the modern times. In the West, as Gustav Leabeon has
pointed out, monogamy is found only in the legal books and
there is no trace of it in daily life.
Again, in the East polygamy exists in its legal form.
The man has to accept the woman as his legal wife and has
to bear the responsibility of her children. In the West,
it exists in an illegal and clandestine form. Man indulges
in free love and escapes all matrimonial responsibility.
BACK
POLYGAMY IN THE WEST
We deem it necessary to give a brief account of
polygamy in Europe during the Middle Ages, as described by
an eminent Western historian. This account should convince
those who criticise the East for polygamy that in spite of
all its defects it is much more dignified than what
existed in Europe.
Will Durant in his book, History of Civilization,
vol.17, gives an interesting account of the state of
morality in Italy during the renaissance. We give below a
summary of what he has said under the heading 'Morals in
Sexual Relations'.
In the course of his brief introduction he says that
before describing the morals of the laity it may be
pointed out that by nature man is polygamous. Only strict
moral restrictions, an adequate amount of hard work and
poverty, and a continuous vigilance of the wife can compel
him to maintain monogamy.
Then he says that adultery was not uncommon during the
Middle Ages, prior to the Renaissance. As during the
Middle Ages the guilt of adultery was extenuated by
chivalry, similarly, during the Renaissance period, it was
watered down among the educated classes by the craving for
the polished manners and the refined spirit of the
females. Girls belonging to respectable families were, to
a certain extent, kept segregated from the males not
connected with their own family and were taught the merits
of pre -marital chastity. Sometimes these instructions
were exceptionally effective. It is reported that a young
woman, after being assaulted, drowned herself. That must
have been an exceptional case, because a bishop took the
trouble of installing her statue after her death to
commemorate her chastity.
The number of pre-marital affairs must have been
considerable, because there were innumerable children born
of illegitimate relations in every town of Italy. It was a
matter of pride not to have an illegitimate child, but to
have one was not a matter of shame. Usually a husband
persuaded his wife at the time of the marriage to bring
her illegitimate child with her, to be brought up along
with his children. Illegitimacy was not a slur on the
reputation of anyone. Furthermore, a certificate of
legitimacy could easily be obtained by bribing a
clergyman. In the absence of other lawful or eligible
heirs, an illegitimate son could inherit property and even
a crown, as Frante-I, succeeded Alfonso-I, King of Naples.
When in 1459 Pius-II came to Bavaria, he was received by
seven princes, all of whom were illegitimate. Rivalry
between the legitimate and illegitimate sons was an
important cause of a long series of commotions during the
Renaissance period. As far as homosexuality is concerned,
it was only a revival of the ancient Greek tradition.
San Bernardino found this sort of perversion so common
in Naples that he thought it to be threatened with the
fate of Sodom. Artino found the perversion equally
prevalent in Rome. The same thing can be said about
prostitution. In 1490, out of a total population of
90,000, there were 6,800 registered prostitutes in Rome.
Of course, this figure does not include clandestine and
unofficial prostitutes. According to the statistics of
1509, out of a population of 300,000 of that city, there
were 11,654 prostitutes. In the 15th century, a girl who
had reached the age of 15 without having a husband, was
regarded as a slur on the fair name of her family. In the
16th century, the 'age of disgrace' was extended up to 17
years, to enable the girls to receive higher education.
Men, who enjoyed all the facilities provided by widespread
prostitution, were attracted to marriage only if the woman
concerned promised to bring a considerable dowry.
According to the system of the Middle Ages, husband and
wife were expected to love each other and share each
other's joy and grief. Apparently in many cases this
expectation came true, but still adultery was rampant.
Most of the marriages of the upper classes were diplomatic
unions contracted for political and economic gains. Many
husbands regarded it as their right to have a mistress.
The wife might feel dejected, but usually connived at the
situation.
Among the middle classes, some people thought that
adultery was a lawful pastime. Machiavelli and his friends
apparently did not feel uneasy about the stories of their
unfaithfulness which they exchanged with each other. When
in such cases, the wife followed the example of her
husband to wreak vengeance upon him, he usually connived
at her behaviour and did not feel jealous or perturbed.
This was a specimen of the life of the people who
regard polygamy as an unpardonable crime of the East and
have occasionally blamed its climate for this supposedly
inhuman custom. As far as their own climate is concerned,
it does not allow them to be unfaithful to the wives and
to exceed the limits of monogamy!
By the way, it should be remembered that the absence of
lawful polygamy among the Europeans, whether good or bad,
has nothing to do with the religion of Christ, who never
prohibited it. On the other hand, it confirms the rules of
the old Testament, which expressly recognise polygamy.
Thus we can say that, in fact, the religion of Christ
allows polygamy, and the ancient Christians have actually
practised it. Hence, the legal abstinence of the Europeans
from it must have some other reason or reasons.
BACK
MENSES
Some others attribute polygamy to woman's menstrual
periods and her aversion to sex during that time as well
as to her exhaustion after child-birth and her desire to
avoid sexual intercourse during the nursing period.
Will Durant says that in the primitive societies women
grow old quickly. That is why, in order to be able to
nurse their children for a longer period, to lengthen the
interval between their own pregnancies, without
interrupting the husband's desire to have children, and to
enable him to satisfy his sexual urge, they encourage
their husbands to have a new wife. It has been often
observed that the first wife, with a view to making her
own burden lighter, has persuaded her husband to contract
another marriage in order to have more children and to
acquire more wealth.
There is no doubt that woman's menstrual periods and
her exhaustion as the result of child-bearing place man
and woman, sexually, in dissimilar positions.
These reasons often make men turn to another woman, but
they alone cannot be a sufficient cause of polygamy,
unless there exists some social or moral impediment
preventing man from indulging in free love. The above
factors can be effective only when man is not free in the
pursuit of his sexual desires.
BACK
LIMITATION OF THE PERIOD OF FECUNDITY IN FEMALES
Some believe that the limitation of the period of
fecundity of a woman and her menopause, are one of the
causes which gave rise to polygamy, for it may happen that
a woman reaches this age without being able to bear enough
number of children. It is also possible that her children
may have died.
In such cases, if the husband does not like to divorce
his first wife and at the same time wants to have more
children, he has no alternative but to have a second, or
sometimes even a third wife. Similarly, the sterility of
the first wife may be another reason for the husband in
contracting a second marriage.
BACK
ECONOMIC FACTORS
Some economic factors have also been mentioned as the
cause of polygamy. It is said that in ancient times,
several wives and a large number of children were regarded
as an economic asset. Man extracted work from his wife and
children and treated them like slaves. Sometimes he even
sold them out. Most of the slaves were not captured in
battles, but were sold by their fathers.
This may be a cause of polygamy, because man can have
children only by accepting the woman as his legal wife.
Free love cannot ensure this advantage. Anyhow, this cause
cannot explain all the cases of polygamy.
Some primitive people had several wives with this idea.
But that was not the case with all the people. In the
ancient world polygamy was customary among the classes
which lived with dignity and decorum. The kings, the
princes, the chiefs, the divines and the merchants had
several wives.
As we know, these classes never exploited economically
their wives and children.
BACK
NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF A FAMILY
Interest in the numerical increase of the children and
the expansion of the family has been another cause of
polygamy. The position of a man and a woman with regard to
the number of children each of them can have is different.
The number of children a woman can bear is very limited,
whether she has one husband or several husbands. But the
number of children which a man can beget depends on the
number of women he has at his disposal. It is
theoretically possible that a man may have thousands of
children by hundreds of wives. Unlike the modern world, in
the ancient world the number of family members was counted
as an important social factor. The tribes and the clans
did all they could to increase their numbers It was a
matter of pride for the ancient people to have a large
tribe. It is obvious that polygamy was the only means of
achieving that end.
BACK
NUMERICAL SUPERIORITY
The last and the most important factor, which has
contributed to the emergence of the custom of polygamy, is
that women have always outnumbered men. It is not that the
birth-rate of females is greater than that of males. If
occasionally in certain places more females are born, in
other places more males are born. But still the number of
the women eligible for marriage is always higher than the
number of men so eligible. The reason is that the
mortality rate among men has always been higher. It is
possible that, in case monogamy is enforced strictly, a
large number of women will go without having legal
husbands, legal children and a household life.
There can be no doubt that at least in the primitive
societies this was the position. We have already quoted
Will Durant, who says that in primitive societies the life
of man was constantly in danger because he was always busy
with hunting and fighting, and that is why the rate of
mortality among men was higher than among women. As the
number of women increased, there were only two
alternatives: either to adopt polygamy or to force a large
number of women to pass their entire life as spinsters.
BACK
RECAPITULATION
We have described above all the causes which can be
presumed to be the source of polygamy. As you must have
observed, some of these causes such as climate are
actually no causes at all. Hence we ignore them. Other
causes can be classified into three categories. The first
category includes those causes which might have been
effective in persuading man to adopt polygamy, but they
provide no justification for his action. They have an
aspect of oppression, high-handedness and cruelty. The
economic causes come under this category.
It is evident that the sale of children is one of the
most cruel and barbaric human acts. To resort to polygamy
for this purpose is as unlawful as this act itself.
The second category includes those causes which may be
regarded as a justification as far as the husband or
society is concerned. Sterility of the first wife, her
reaching the age of menopause while the husband still
requires a child or the need of a large body of people by
the tribe or the country, are such causes. As a general
rule, all causes, which emanate from the dissimilarity
between husband and wife as regards their sexual needs or
procreation power, have a justifying aspect.
The third category consists of a cause which, if it is
admitted that it ever existed or still exists, not only
provides a justification for polygamy, but also makes it
obligatory. In this case, polygamy is a woman's right
which man and the society must discharge. This cause is
the numerical superiority of women over men. In case the
number of women eligible for marriage is larger than the
number of such men, polygamy becomes an obligation of men
and a right of woman, for, in the case of legally enforced
monogamy, a number of women are bound to be deprived of
their right of family life.
The right of marriage is a basic human right and no one
can be deprived of it under any pretext. Society cannot
take any action which may deprive a section of the people
of this right.
The right of marriage is as natural a right as the
right of freedom, the right to work and the right to get
food, shelter and education. Hence, the law of monogamy is
repugnant to the natural human rights in the case of the
existence of a larger number of women eligible for
marriage than the number of available men.
This, at least, has been the case in the past. In the
next chapter we shall see whether there still exist
circumstances which not only justify polygamy, but also
create a woman's right to it. And if such circumstances do
exist what is the position of this right vis-a-vis the
right of the first wife?
BACK
RIGHT OF WOMAN IN "MORE-THAN-ONE" MARRIAGE
We have explained the causes of the failure of
polyandry and the prevailing of polygamy and have shown
that multifarious causes have contributed to the origin of
the latter custom. Some of the causes originated from the
man's spirit of oppression and domination and others from
the disparity between man and woman as regards the
duration of their power or procreation and the number of
children which each of them can beget. The latter type of
causes can be regarded as a justification for polygamy.
But its main cause, throughout history has been the
numerical superiority of women eligible for marriage over
such men. This cause leads to the creation of a right of
woman and an obligation of man.
To avoid a lengthy discussion, we skip over those
causes which can be regarded merely as a justification for
polygamy and confine our attention to its main cause
which, when in existence, turns it into a right of the
fair sex.
To prove the case two preliminary points have to be
established. First it is to be proved that according to
the reliable statistics the women eligible for marriage
actually outnumber such men. The second point to be proved
is that the actual existence of circumstances creates a
right which married men and women owe to the women who
have been deprived of marriage.
As for the first point, fortunately almost authentic
statistics exist in the modern world. A census is taken in
every country periodically. In the advanced countries not
only are the total figures of males and females collected,
but the number of men and women in various age groups is
also shown. These figures are regularly published by the
United Nations in its annual reports on world
population.(We have before us the 1964 report, republished
in 1965.)
It may be pointed out that for our purpose it is not
enough to know the total number of males and females in
any given country. Simultaneously, we should also know the
ratio between the number of men and the number of women
eligible for marriage. In most cases this ratio is
different from that which exists between the total
population of males and the total population of females.
There are two reasons for this difference. One is that the
onset of puberty in females is earlier. That is why in
most countries the legal age of consent in the case of
girls is lower than in the case of boys. Practically in
most of the countries of the world the husband is on an
average five years older than the wife.
The other and the more important reason is that the
mortality rate among the boys is higher than among the
girls, with the result that during the marriageable age
the balance between them is upset. Sometimes the disparity
becomes very marked. It may be that the total number of
males and females in a country is almost equal, or even
the number of males is higher, but still the girls of
marriageable age far exceed the boys of the corresponding
age group.
The United Nations Population Report for the year 1964
bears witness to this fact.
For instance, according to this report, the total
population of the Republic of Korea is 26,277,635 people.
Out of this total 13,145,289 are males and 13,132,346 are
females. Thus the number of males is 12,943 more than that
of females. This ratio is maintained in the children of
less than one year, of 1 to 4 years, of 5 to 9 years, of
12 to 14 years and of 15 to 19 years.
Statistics show that in all these age groups the number
of males is larger than that of females. But in the age
group of 20 to 24, the ratio changes. In this age group
the total number of males is 1,083,364 and the total
number of females is 1,110,051. In all the higher age
groups, which are the groups of marriageable age, the
number of females is greater.
Still the case of the Republic of Korea, where the
total number of males is greater than females, is
exceptional. In almost all other countries, not only in
marriageable age groups but also in the total population,
the females outnumber the males. For instance, the total
population of the Soviet Union, is 216,101,000 and out of
this total 97,840,000 are males and 118,261,000 are
females. This disparity is maintained throughout all age
groups, pre-marriageable as well as marriageable, that is
from 20 years to 24 years, from 25 years to 29 years, from
30 years to 34 years and even from 80 years to 84 years.
The same is the case with other countries, such as
England, France, West Germany, East Germany,
Czechoslovakia, Poland, Rumania, Hungary, U.S.A., Japan
etc. Of course at certain places, such as West Berlin and
East Berlin, the disparity between the number of males and
the number of females is abnormally large.
In India, in the marriageable age group the number of
men exceeds the number of women. Only in the age group of
50 and above, the number of women is greater. Apparently
the supposed paucity of women is due to the fact that many
people in that country do not like to mention the names of
their young wives and young daughters at the time of
census.
According to the figures of the last census, Iran is
one of the exceptional countries, where the number of
males exceeds the number of females.
It is surprising that some critics insist that the law
allowing polygamy should be abolished at least in those
countries where the number of men exceeds the number of
women. In the first instance, this law is universal. It is
not meant for any particular country. Secondly it is not
enough to know the ratio of males and females in the total
population. We have seen that in the Republic of Korea,
though the number of males is greater in the total
population, there are more females in the marriageable age
group. Furthermore, the census figures are not very
reliable in many countries. For example, we know for
definite that though polygamy has been customary in Iran,
both in the urban and the rural areas, yet never has a
shortage of would-be brides been felt there. This fact
speaks better than the census figures.
Ashley Montague, in his book, 'Woman the Superior Sex',
admits that throughout the world the number of women in
the marriageable age exceeds the number of men.
The statistics of 1950 show that the number of women of
marriageable age in America exceeded the number of men by
about one million four hundred and thirty thousand.
Bertrand Russell in his book, 'Marriage and Morality'
says that, in the present day England, more than two
million women exceed men. According to the custom they
should forever remain childless, which is a big privation
for them.
Some years ago a news item appeared in the press. It
said that following much pressure by those German women,
who were unable to get husbands and family life, because
of the huge German casualties in the Second World War, the
German Government had approached Al-Azhar University to
provide it with the formula of polygamy. Later it was
learnt that following serious opposition by the Church the
proposal had to be dropped. The Church preferred the
privation of women and the spread of licentiousness to the
system of polygamy, because this system is Eastern and
Islamic.
BACK
WHY ARE THERE MORE WOMEN OF MARRIAGEABLE AGE THAN
MEN?
Though the birth rate of girls is not higher than that
of boys, yet there are more women of marriageable age than
men. The reason is clear. The mortality rate of men is
higher. Deaths usually occur at the age when man should
normally be the head of a family. If we take into
consideration the deaths which occur following accidents
such as, wars, drowning, falls, motor collisions etc. we
shall find that most of the victims are men.
It is seldom found that woman is among the victims.
Whether it is a case of a clash between human beings or
between man and nature, most of the victims are male
adults To know why the balance between men and women of
marriageable age is upset it is enough to realise that
since the beginning of human history there has not been a
single day when wars have not been waged and men have not
perished.
The casualties resulting from wars in the industrial
age are a hundred times more than those which occurred in
the hunting age or in the age of agriculture. During the
last World War, the casualties numbered about seven
million. You will agree with us if you calculate the
casualties of the regional wars in the Far East, the
Middle East and Africa during the past decade only.
Will Durant says that several factors have contributed
to the decline of this custom (polygamy). Stable
agricultural life has lessened the hardships and perils of
the life of men, with the result that the number of men
and women has almost equalised.
What Will Durant has said is quite amazing. Had the
losses of human life been confined to the struggle of men
against nature, there would have been a difference between
the hunting age and the agricultural age. But the wars
have taken a greater toll of men's lives and the number of
war casualties has not gone down in any age. Further, the
main reason why women have suffered less casualties is
that men have always protected them and have themselves
shouldered the most dangerous jobs. Thus like the hunting
age disequilibrium has continued during the agricultural
age also.
Will Durant has not uttered a word about the industrial
age, though this is the period which has witnessed the
greatest killings of men and during which the balance has
been badly upset.
BACK
WOMAN HAS A GREATER POWER OF RESISTANCE AGAINST
DISEASES
It has been lately discovered that man possesses lesser
power of resistance against disease than women. This is
another reason why the mortality rate among men is higher.
Some years ago, the French Bureau of Statistics
reported that in France, 105 boys were born against every
100 girls and the number of women exceeded the number of
men by one million, seven hundred and fifty-eight
thousand. It attributed the difference to the female power
of resistance against disease.
Not long ago an article was published in the
illustrated UNESCO magazine, Courier. According to this
article, woman is intellectually superior to man. Her
average longevity is more. Usually she is healthier than
man and has a greater power of resistance against disease.
She is cured earlier. Against one stammering woman there
are five stammering men. Against one colour-blind woman
there are 16 colour-blind men. Haemorrhage is almost
confined to men. Women are more immune against accidents.
During the last World War it was proved that, in similar
circumstances, woman could bear the hardships of
blockades, prisons and concentration camps better than
man. Almost in all countries the cases of suicide by men
are three times those by women.
Ashley Montague has mentioned his theory of woman's
greater power of resistance against disease in his book,
'Woman - the Superior Sex'.
If by chance one day man decides to wreak his vengeance
upon woman and succeeds in plunging her into the most
dangerous and fatal jobs or pushes her into the
battlefield to face the guns and the bombs, even then the
balance between men and women will not be restored,
because she has a greater power of resistance against
disease.
This much is about the first point viz. numerical
superiority of the women of marriageable age over the men
of marriageable age. We know that this superiority is an
actual fact. We also know its causes. And its cause or
causes from the beginning of the human history do exist
even now.
BACK
RIGHT OF WOMAN IN POLYGAMY
The second point is that the numerical majority of
women of marriageable age not only creates a right for
them but also an obligation for men and married women.
There is no denying the fact that marriage is one of
the most natural and most basic rights of human beings.
Everybody, whether man or woman, has the right to lead a
family life and have children. This right is similar to
that of doing work, having a house, receiving education,
utilising the health services and enjoying freedom and
security.
It is the duty of the society not to place any
obstacles in the way of the enjoyment of this right. On
the other hand, it should provide all possible facilities
for this purpose.
In our opinion it is a big drawback of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights that it has not paid any
attention to this right. It has recognised the right of
liberty and security, the right of approaching competent
national tribunals, the right of having a nationality and
changing it, the right to marry without any limitation of
race or religion, the right to own property, the right to
form an assembly, and the right of rest and leisure, but
it does not mention the right of leading a legal family
life.
For a woman this right is of utmost importance, for she
needs a family life more than a man. As we have already
said, to a man the material aspect of marriage is more
important and to a woman its spiritual and sentimental
aspect. If man has no family, he can at least partially
fulfil his needs by indulging in free love and debauchery.
But to a woman a family has a greater importance.
Debauchery cannot even partially fulfil her material and
sentimental needs.
To a man the right of having a family means the right
to satisfy his lust, the right to have a partner in life
and the right to have legal children. But to a woman it
also means the right to have a protector and patron and
the one from whom she may draw moral support.
After the establishment of the two premises, viz. the
number of women eligible for marriage is larger than the
number of men and it is a natural human right to have a
family life, it is easy to draw the conclusion that if
monogamy is regarded as the only legal form of marriage, a
large number of women are bound to be deprived of their
natural right, and it is only polygamy, which of course
with specific conditions, can restore it.
It is the duty of liberal-minded Muslim women that
they, in the name of defending the just rights of women at
large, in the name of protecting morality and in the name
of protecting the human race, call upon the U.N.
Commission for Human Rights to recognise officially the
Islamic system of plurality of wives as a human right, and
thus render a great service to the fair sex and to
morality. The fact that a formula has come from the East
and the West has to follow it, should not be regarded as a
sin.
BACK
RUSSELL'S THEORY
As pointed out earlier, Bertrand Russell was conscious
of the fact that in the case of monogamy being the sole
form of marriage, a large number of women are to be
deprived of their right. He has suggested a very simple
solution to the problem. He wanted women to be allowed to
entice men and bear father-less children. As the father
usually supports the children, the government should take
his place and give a subsidy to the unmarried mothers.
Russell says that at present, in Britain, there are
more than two million surplus women who cannot ever hope
to have children because of the law of monogamy. This is a
big privation. He says that the system of monogamy is
based on the presumption of approximate numerical equality
between men and women, but where no such equality exists
it gives a raw deal to those women who, in accordance with
mathematical law, are doomed to remain unmarried. Anyhow,
if it is desired to increase the population, such a raw
deal is not even in the public interest, let alone in the
private interest.
This is the solution of this social problem, as
suggested by a great philosopher of the 20th century. But,
according to Islam, the whole problem is solved if an
adequate number of men having the necessary financial,
moral and physical qualifications agree to bear the
responsibility of more than one legal wife showing no
distinction between her and his first wife and between the
children by both of them. The first wife should accept the
second one cheerfully with the spirit of doing a social
duty, which is most necessary and the best form of
morality.
Contrary to the Islamic mode of thinking, this
philosopher advises the deprived women to steal the
husbands of other women and call upon the government to
support the children born of such illicit connections.
It appears that this philosopher of the 20th century
maintains that woman needs marriage only for three
reasons:
to satisfy her sexual needs, to get children and to
meet her economic requirements. The first two needs can be
met on the sly. As for the third one, it should be looked
after by the government. He forgets that woman also has
some sentimental needs. She wants that she should be under
the protection of a loving husband and that her contact
with him should not be merely of a sexual nature. Another
point to which this philosopher attaches no importance, is
the position of the children born of illicit connections.
Every child needs well-recognised parents and their
sincere love and affection. Experience has shown that the
mother seldom shows affection to that child of hers whose
father is not known. How can the lack of this love be
compensated? Can the government do anything in this
respect?
Lord Russell regrets that a large number of women will
have to remain childless unless his proposal is given a
legal form. But he should have known that the British
women cannot wait for any law. They themselves have
already solved the problem of maidenhood and the
fatherless child.
In the annual report for 1958, prepared by Dr. Z.A.
Scott, head of the Medical Department of the London
Council, it was pointed out that out of every ten children
born in the previous year one was illegitimate. The report
further said that illegitimate births were constantly on
the increase. The figures of illegitimate births shot up
from 33,838 in 1957 to 53,433 in the following year.
It appears that the British people have solved their
problem without waiting for the enactment of Lord
Russell's suggestion.
BACK
POLYGAMY PROHIBITED, HOMOSEXUALITY PERMITTED
The British Government instead of acting upon the
advice of Lord Russell and solving the problem of
unmarried woman has taken a step in the opposite
direction. It has more than ever deprived woman of the
male sex by legalising homosexuality. At present polygamy
is prohibited in Britain, but homosexuality is lawful.
In the eyes of the British people it is inhuman to have
a woman as a second wife. But if the second
"wife" happens to be a male, then there is no
harm. They regard homosexuality to be a dignified act in
conformity with the requirements of the 20th century.
According to the verdict of the British authorities,
plurality of wives is not objectionable provided the wives
other than the first one have whiskers. It is said that
the Western world has solved the sexual and family
problems, and we should follow its example. This is how it
has solved them.
This Western action is not surprising in the least, for
it is a logical outcome of the way the West is going.
What is surprising is that our people, especially the
educated young men, have lost their power of independent
thinking and analysing problems. They have lost their
personalities. They are too credulous. If they have a
diamond in their hand and the people from the other side
of the world say it is a walnut, they throw it away. But
if they see a walnut in the hand of an alien and are told
that it is diamond, they readily believe that.
BACK
IS MAN POLYGAMOUS BY NATURE?
You will be surprised if you are told that the
psychologists and the social philosophers in the West
believe that man is born polygamous and monogamy is
against his nature.
Will Durant, explaining the present day moral chaos,
says that much of it is due to our incurable interest in
variety. Man by nature cannot be content with one woman.
He says that by nature man is polygamous. Only the
strongest moral restrictions and an appropriate amount of
poverty and hard work, along with the external vigilance
of the wife, can impose monogamy on him.
The German professor, Schmidt, says that throughout
history man has been unfaithful to his wife. There are
indications that even during the Middle Ages the young men
changed their sweet-hearts again and again, and 50% of the
married men were unfaithful to their wives. Robert Kinsey
in his report, known as the Kinsey Report, says that
American men and women surpass all other nations in
unfaithfulness. In another section of the report he says
that, unlike man, woman dislikes diversity and that is why
she often does not submit to his overtures, but man
regards diversity as an adventure. What is more important
is that he is more interested in physical pleasure than in
spiritual and sentimental pleasure. Man pretends to have a
purely sentimental and spiritual relation only so long as
he does not get an opportunity to have physical contact. A
famous physician told Kinsey that obviously man was
polygamous and woman monogamous, because millions of sperm
developed in man while one ovum was produced in the ovary
of woman during each period of fecundity. Apart from the
theory of Kinsey, it will not be a bad idea if we ask
ourselves whether it is difficult for a man to be
faithful.
A French sociologist answering this question says that
for a man to be faithful is not merely difficult but it is
impossible. One woman is born for one man, but one man is
born for all women, If a man is unfaithful and betrays his
wife, he is not to blame. It is the fault of nature, which
has put all the forces of unfaithfulness in him.
A French magazine under the heading, "French way
of Love and Marriage", writes that French couples
have solved this problem. They know the rules of the game.
So long as the husband does not exceed the limits, his
occasional affairs with other women are of little
importance. As a rule a husband can in no case remain
faithful after two years of married life. It is somewhat
different in the case of women and fortunately they are
aware of this difference. In France, a wife does not feel
offended if her husband commits adultery
She consoles herself by saying that he might have taken
his body to another woman, but his soul and sentiments
continue to be her own.
Some years ago there was a controversy on the views
expressed by a biologist named Dr. Russell Lee. He was of
the view that a man's contentment with one wife weakened
his progeny and hence this action amounted to an act of
treachery against the human race. He thought that the
system of multi-relations made the children healthy and
strong.
We believe that the above description of the nature of
man is not correct at all. These thinkers appear to have
been inspired by the particular atmosphere prevailing in
their own part of the world.
Anyhow, we believe that both biologically and
psychologically man and woman are dissimilar to each other
and nature has purposely made them so. Therefore, the
equality of their rights should not be used as a pretext
for the uniformity of their rights. Even from the
viewpoint of those who support monogamy, the spirit of
woman is different from that of man. Woman is monogamous
by nature. Polyandry is against her spirit and does not
conform to what she expects of her husband. But man is not
monogamous by nature in the sense that polygamy is not
against his spirit and is not inconsistent with what he
expects of his wife.
But we do not agree with the view that the spirit of
man does not conform to monogamy. It is absolutely
incorrect to say that his passion for diversity is
incurable. We also do not believe that man cannot be
faithful, or that one woman is born for one man and one
man is born for all women.
To our belief the causes of man's unfaithfulness are
related to the social atmosphere and man's nature is not
responsible for it. Factors causing unfaithfulness stem
from that atmosphere which, on the one hand, encourages
woman to employ all sorts of temptations and seductions to
lead a stranger astray and, on the other hand, deprives
millions of women of their right of marriage by enforcing
the law of monogamy.
In the Muslim East, prior to the introduction of
Western ways and manners, 90% of the men adhered to
monogamy in the real sense. They neither had more than one
legal wife nor did they indulge in concubinage.
BACK
POLYGAMY AS THE FACTOR SAVING MONOGAMY
You will be surprised if we say that polygamy was the
most important factor which served monogamy in the East.
Its legality is really the biggest saving factor, in case
the number of women requiring marriage exceeds the number
of men eligible for it, because if the right of the
surplus women to marriage is not recognised and the
morally, financially and physically well-qualified men are
not allowed to have more than one wife, free love and
concubinage are bound to become rampant, destroying the
very basis of real monogamy.
In the Muslim East, on the one hand polygamy was
permissible and, on the other, temptations and
provocations to immorality did not exist. Therefore, true
monogamy prevailed in most of the families. Concubinage
never developed to the extent that gradually a philosophy
had been invented to justify it. In the East, it was
never claimed that man was born polygamous and could not
at all adhere to monogamy.
It may be asked what alternative a man has when
polygamy is legally prohibited and, as the intellectuals
say, man is polygamous by nature.
According to the thinking of these gentlemen the answer
is quite clear. Man should be legally monogamous and
practically polygamous. He should not have more than one
legal wife, but he can cohabit with any number of women he
likes. Concubinage is the natural right of man. It is
unchivalrous to restrict him to one woman.
We believe that the time has come when the readers
should have a clear idea of the problem and should know
what the question really is. It is not the question
whether polygamy is better or monogamy. There is no
doubt that monogamy is preferable, for monogamy means an
exclusive family life. In this system the body and the
soul of each of the husband and the wife exclusively
belong to the other. It is obvious that the spirit of
marriage is the union of hearts which manifests itself
better in an exclusive marriage. Humanity does not
have to choose between monogamy and polygamy.
The only problem is that absolute monogamy is not
practical in certain social circumstances, especially when
the number of women in need of marriage is greater than
the number of eligible men. Absolute monogamy pervading
every family is only a fiction. There are only two
alternatives: either to officially recognise polygamy or
to encourage unrestricted concubinage. In the case of the
first alternative only a small percentage of married men,
in no case more than 10% will have more than one wife and
all women in need of a husband will be able to secure a
home and family life. In the case of the second
alter-native every woman having no legal husband will have
sexual relations with several men, and thus almost all
married men will become practically polygamous.
This is the correct picture of polygamy. But the
partisans of the European way of life are not prepared to
present the true picture of the problem. They do not want
to tell the truth openly. In reality they defend
concubinage. They regard the legal wife as a burden and a
stumbling-block in their way. T() them even one wife is
too much, let alone two, three or four. They pretend to be
the supporters of monogamy, but, in fact, complete freedom
from matrimonial restrictions is what they would like to
have.
BACK
WILES OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY MAN
The 20th century man has succeeded in befooling woman
on many questions related to family rights. He uses the
high-sounding words of equality and liberty to reduce his
own commitments and to add to his opportunities of
enjoyment. But there are few questions in respect of which
he has been so successful as in disparaging polygamy.
Occasionally we come across writings that make us
wonder whether their authors are simpletons or rogues. One
writer says: At present, in the advanced countries
relations between husband and wife are based on a system
of reciprocal rights and obligations, and for that reason
it is as difficult for a woman to recognise polygamy in
any form, as for a man to bear the existence of rivals in
the field of his conjugal relations.
We do not know whether that is their conception of the
problem, or they really do not know that polygamy has
resulted from a social problem, which puts a heavy
responsibility on the shoulders of married men and women
and of which, so far, no solution other than polygamy has
been discovered. Shutting the eyes to the real problem and
raising the slogans 'long live monogamy' and 'down with
polygamy' can serve no purpose.
Do they not know that polyandry is neither a part of
woman's rights nor a part of man's rights. It has nothing
to do with their reciprocal rights.
It is ridiculous to say that it is as difficult for
woman to agree to polygamy as it is for a man to tolerate
the existence of rivals in the matter of conjugal
relations. Apart from the fact that such a comparison is
wrong, it appears that these gentlemen do not know that
the present-day Western world, by the glitter of which
they are so greatly dazzled, actually requires the husband
to respect the love-affairs of his wife and tolerate the
existence of rivals. It deprecates any interference on the
part of the husband as jealousy and fanaticism. We wish
that our young men had a deeper knowledge of what is going
on in the West.
As polygamy is the outcome of a social problem and is
not man's instinct, it is obvious that in a society where
women are not in a numerical majority, it should
automatically disappear or at least its incidence should
be minimised. But it will not be proper to ban it even in
such circumstances, if such circumstances exist at all.
Legal prohibition of polygamy is neither sufficient nor
something correct. There are certain prerequisites to
achieve this end. First of all, social justice should be
ensured and adequate opportunities of suitable employment
made available for every man, so that everyone eligible
for marriage should be in a position to have a family
life. The second condition is that every woman should be
free to choose her husband and should be under no
compulsion by her guardians or anyone else to marry any
particular person of their choice. It is obvious that a
woman who has a chance to marry a bachelor will never like
to marry a man who has a wife. It is only their guardians
who sell women for the sake of money and give them in
marriage to the moneyed people.
The third condition is that there should not exist too
many temptations that seduce even women having husbands
not to mention women having no husbands.
Should society be earnestly interested in reformation
and in enforcing true monogamy, it should endeavour for
the fulfilment of the above three conditions. Otherwise, a
legal ban on polygamy will only lead to moral depravation.
BACK
CRISIS RESULTING FROM THE PRIVATION OF THE WOMEN
HAVING NO HUSBANDS
If the women in need of marriage outnumber such men
(bachelors), the prohibition of polygamy is a treachery to
humanity. It is not merely a question of suppressing
the rights of some women only. Had it been so, it could
have been tolerated to a certain extent. The crisis which
society faces as a result of legally enforced monogamy
possess a bigger danger than any other crisis, for the
family organisation is more sacred than any other
organisation.
A woman who is deprived of her natural right is a
living being prone to all the reactions of a living being
such as in the case of privation. She is a human being who
is susceptible to psychic disorders and complexes. She is
an Eve armed with the weapons for seducing men.
She is not wheat or barley, the surplus stock of which
can be dumped into the sea or stored for any future
emergency. She is not a house or a room which, if not
acquired immediately, can be locked. She is a living
person. She is a human being. She is a woman. She has
marvellous potentialities. If she is frustrated she can
ruin the society. She cannot be an idle onlooker while
others enjoy life. Her privation will give rise to
complexes and malice. If malice and instinct join hands
together, the consequences can only be catastrophic.
The women deprived of family life will do their utmost
to seduce men and to exploit their weakness in this
respect. Even then the matter will not end. The wives who
will find their husbands to be unfaithful, will think of
taking revenge upon them and thus will themselves become
unfaithful. About the final result the less said the
better.
This final result has been summarised in the well-known
Kinsey Report in one sentence: "The men and women of
America have surpassed all other nations in
unfaithfulness."
It is to be noted that the matter does not end with the
corruption and perversion of men. The conflagration in the
end also engulfs the women having husbands and families.
BACK
VARIOUS REACTIONS ABOUT THE EXCESS OF WOMEN
The phenomenon of the comparative super-abundance of
women has always existed in human history, but the
reactions to this phenomenon, which create difficulties
for the society, have not been the same in all societies.
The people who were more attached to the spirit of piety
and chastity and were guided by the teachings of the great
heavenly religions, solved the problem by adopting the
system of polygamy. Other people who were not so greatly
attached to this spirit used the phenomenon as a means of
indulging in debauchery.
Neither was polygamy in the East introduced by Islam,
nor its prohibition in the West in any way related to the
religion of Christ. This custom existed in the East before
the inception of Islam and was sanctioned by the Eastern
religions. Even in the Bible, it has not been prohibited
expressly.
A greater blow has been given to monogamy by the
nations, which have taken to debauchery, than by those
which have adopted polygamy.
Dr. Muhammad Husayn Haikal, author of the book, 'Life
of Muhammad' after quoting several verses of the Holy
Qur'an on the question of polygamy, says: These verses
favour adherence to monogamy. They say that if you fear
that you will not be able to do justice to more than one
wife, then have only one. Incidentally, they emphasise
that absolute justice is not possible. Anyhow in view of
the fact that there may be occasions when polygamy is
unavoidable, they allow it conditionally. The Holy Prophet
himself contracted several marriages, when a large number
of Muslim women lost their husbands during the early
battles of Islam. Is it possible to say that following
wars, epidemics and disturbances which take a toll of
thousands and sometimes millions of people, it is still
preferable to adhere to monogamy rather than to adopt
polygamy as an exceptional case and with the condition of
doing justice to their wife or wives? Can the people of
the West claim that after the World War the law of
monogamy has been enforced in the same way in which it now
exists in name?
BACK
DRAWBACKS AND DEFECTS OF POLYGAMY
A happy married life depends on sincerity, tolerance,
sacrifice and unity. All these things are endangered in
the case of polygamy. Apart from the unenviable position
of the wives and the children in a plural marriage, the
responsibilities of the husband himself are so heavy and
crushing that it is no fun to shoulder them -Most of the
men, who are happy and satisfied with polygamy, are those
who practically evade their legal and moral
responsibilities. They turn all their attention to one
wife and ignore the other, whom they leave, in the words
of the Holy Qur'an, 'hanging', What is called
polygamy by such people is in reality a sort of monogamy
coupled with high-handedness, tyranny and criminal
injustice. There is a proverb current among the common
people which says: 'One God, One Wife'.
That has been and is the belief of most of the people
and, if we measure the problem by the standard of
individual happiness, it is correct. The rule of monogamy,
if not applicable to all men, is certainly applicable to
most of them.
If someone thinks that polygamy, with all the legal and
moral responsibilities it entails, is a bed of roses, he
is sadly mistaken. From the angle of personal comfort and
happiness, monogamy is definitely preferable.
BACK
CORRECT APPRAISAL
Anyhow, a correct appraisal of the system of polygamy,
which emanates from personal and social needs, cannot be
made by comparing it with monogamy. The right way of
evaluating such a system is to give consideration to the
causes which give rise to it, to see what evil
consequences will follow, if those causes are overlooked,
and at the same time to give a thought to the defects and
drawbacks of the system itself. It is only after fully
weighing all the pros and cons of a system that we can
arrive at the right conclusion. To illustrate the point we
give an example. If we look at the system of conscription
only from the angle of the interests and inclinations of a
family, to which a recruit belongs, there can be no doubt
that the law of conscription is not a good law. It would
have been much better if there had been no such law, and
no darling of a family had been snatched from his family
and, occasionally, sent to the warfront.
But this is not a correct evaluation of the question.
Along with the separation of a son from his family, we
should also take into consideration the defence
requirements of the country. If we do that, it will appear
perfectly reasonable and logical that an adequate number
of citizens should always be kept ready for the defence of
the country and their families should willingly put up
with the inconveniences caused by the compulsory military
service.
Earlier we referred to some individual and collective
needs which sometimes justify polygamy. Now, to prepare
the ground for an overall judgement, let us discuss the
defects and drawbacks of this system. We admit that it has
certain demerits, but we do not believe that all that is
said against it is valid. Anyway, we propose to discuss
its defects from various angles.
BACK
FROM THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ANGLE
The conjugal relations are not confined to such
material and physical matters as bodily contact and
financial support. If they had been so confined, it would
have been easy to justify polygamy, for material and
physical matters are divisible between several people,
each having a share.
The basis of conjugal relations is emotional and
psychological. They are based on such things as love,
emotions and feelings. Married life means the union of
hearts. Like all metaphysical things, love and feelings
are not divisible. They cannot be rationed among several
people nor can a definite quota thereof be allotted to any
one. A heart cannot be divided between two people. Love
and worship are concomitant. They do not admit a rival.
Love cannot be measured and distributed like wheat and
barley. Furthermore, feelings cannot be controlled.
The heart dominates man, man does not dominate the
heart. The spirit of marriage, that is, its human aspect,
which distinguishes the relations between two human beings
from the purely instinctive relations between two animals,
is neither divisible nor controllable. Hence, polygamy
should not be permitted.
To our belief the above statement is exaggerated. It is
true that emotions and feelings constitute the spirit of
marriage. It is also true that feelings are not
controllable. But it is pure fancy, rather a fallacy, to
say that feelings are not divisible.
It is not a question of dividing and distributing
feelings in the same way as a material object is divided
and distributed. It is a question of the mental capacity
of man, which is not too limited to accommodate relations
with two people. A father having ten sons loves all of
them to the extent of worship and makes sacrifices for
them.
Anyhow, one thing is definite. Love cannot be as
intense in the case of several wives as it can be in the
case of one. Intense love is not consistent with
plurality, but it is not consistent with reason too.
Russell in his book, 'Marriage and Morality'. says that
many people today regard love as a fair exchange of
feelings. This argument alone, irrespective of all other
arguments, is enough to condemn polygamy.
If it is only a question of fair exchange of feelings.
we wonder why the exchange should he monopolistic. A
father having several children loves them all and they all
reciprocally love him. Is not the exchange of feelings
between them fair? Incidentally even in the case of
several children, a father's love for each of them is
always greater than the love of each child for the father.
The most amazing part of the above statement is that it
has been made by a person who advises the husbands to
respect their wives' love-affairs with strangers and not
to interfere in them. He gives the same advice to the
wives also. Does he believe that the exchange of feelings
between a husband and a wife will still be fair?
BACK
FROM THE ANGLE OF BEHAVIOUR
In the case of polygamy the relations between co-wives
are proverbially notorious for incongruity. A woman
usually regards the co-wife as her worst enemy. Plurality
often induces wives to action against each other and
occasionally against the husband also. It creates malice
and turns the family atmosphere, expected to be an
atmosphere of sincerity and serenity, into a veritable
battlefield. Enmity and rivalry existing between the
mothers passes on to their children and two or more blocs
are formed. The family atmosphere, instead of being the
first school of moral training for the children, turns
into a school of dissensions and inhuman behaviour.
There is no doubt that polygamy has all these evil
effects. But one point must not be overlooked. We have to
see whether they are the natural effects of plurality or
the product of the unreasonable attitude of the husband
and the second wife. We believe that most of the evil
effects are not the direct result of plurality, but are
the consequences of its wrong implementation.
Suppose a husband and a wife live together and lead a
normal life. In the meantime the husband comes across
another woman and takes a fancy to her. After a secret
understanding between the two, the second woman raids the
house and takes undue advantage of the husband, and
challenges the authority of the first. It can be easily
imagined what the reaction of the first wife would be.
There is nothing more disturbing to a woman than the
impression that her husband despises her. To be unable to
retain the affection of her husband is the biggest failure
of a wife. When the husband takes to arrogance and
licentiousness and the second wife plays the role of a
freebooter, it is useless to expect the first wife to be
patient.
But the things will be different and the internal
conflict will be greatly reduced if the first wife knows
that her husband is justified in having a second wife and
that he is not fed up with her. The husband also must not
assume arrogance nor should he indulge in sensuality.
After having a second wife, he should more than ever be
kind to his first wife and should more than ever respect
her feelings. The second wife also should remember that
the first wife has certain rights which are to be
respected. In short, all the parties concerned should
remember that they have taken a step to solve a social
problem.
The law of polygamy is a progressive solution of a
social problem and is based on the broader interests of
the society. Those who execute it, should possess a
standard of high-thinking and should be well-trained in
the Islamic ways.
Experience has shown that if the husband is neither
licentious nor arrogant and the wife is convinced that he
needs a second wife, she herself volunteers to arrange the
second marriage of her husband. In such cases the
aforementioned troubles do not arise, as most of them
result from the misbehaviour of the husbands.
BACK
FROM THE MORAL ANGLE
It is said that polygamy means indulgence in
sensuality. Morality demands that the gratification of
sexual desire is minimised, for the nature of man is such
that the more he indulges in sex, the more intense his
yearning for it becomes.
Montague in his book, 'Spirit of Laws', while dealing
with the question of polygamy, says: "The King of
Morocco has, in his harem, women of all races including
white, yellow and black. Even if this man had twice as
many women as he has, he still would have craved for more.
Sensuality is like miserliness. The more it is practised,
the more intense it becomes. As the collection of more and
more gold and silver intensifies greed and avarice,
indulgence in polygamy promotes vicious and unnatural ways
of love-making, for in the field of sensuality every act
which exceeds the limit encourages perversion. When
disturbances broke out in Istanbul, not a single woman was
found in the harem of the ruler, because he indulged in
unnatural love-making (homosexuality).
This objection can be looked at from two angles.
Firstly, it has been claimed that sexual acts are
repugnant to pure morality and that sexual desire should
be controlled to the utmost extent. Secondly, it has been
asserted that human nature is such that the more a man
indulges in sex, the more intense his yearning for it
becomes.
As regards the first view, it may be said that
unfortunately it represents a wrong thinking. It has been
inspired by Christian, Hindu, Buddhist and Cynic ideas of
morality based on renunciation. From the Islamic point of
view, it is not correct to say that the less the
gratification of sexual desire, the more moral it is.
(Perhaps according to this theory perfect morality means
no gratification at all). It is only excessive indulgence
which is regarded by Islam as repugnant to morality.
To ascertain whether polygamy means excessive
indulgence let us see whether by nature man is or is not
monogamous. As stated earlier, now nobody believes that
man is purely monogamous or that polygamy is an act of
perversion. To the contrary many sociologists are of the
view that by nature man is polygamous and monogamy is as
unnatural as celibacy.
Though we do not believe that man is polygamous by
nature, we also do not believe that he is purely
monogamous and that polygamy is unnatural and a sort of
perversion like homosexuality.
Those who, like Montesquieu, regard polygamy tantamount
to licentiousness, have harems in their mind. They think
that Islam, by allowing plurality, wants to provide an
excuse for the harems of the Abbasid Caliphs and the
Ottoman Sultans. But in fact Islam is totally opposed to
such a thing. The terms and conditions laid down by Islam
in respect of plurality are such that the chances of
licentiousness are absolutely eliminated.
As for the second point: that the more the natural
desires are satisfied, the more they grow and the more
they are suppressed, the more they are pacified, it is
diametrically opposed to the current Freudian theory.
According to the Freudists, instinctive desires are
pacified if they are satiated, hut if they are suppressed,
they become violent. That is why the Freudists advocate
complete freedom and the violation of all traditional
restrictions and restraints in sexual matters. I wish that
Montesquieu had been alive today and had seen how his
theory is being ridiculed by the Freudists.
From the Islamic point of view both the theories are
false. Human nature has its own laws and limits which must
be recognised. It becomes passionate both as a result of
privation as well as unrestricted freedom.
Anyway, neither polygamy is immoral and disturbing to
spiritual peace, as Montesquieu and the like presume, nor
is it against human nature, to be content with one or more
legal wives as the Freudists claim.
BACK
FROM THE LEGAL ANGLE
By virtue of a marriage contract both the husband and
the wife belong to each other, and each of them has a
right to enjoy the other. As far as the marital benefits
are concerned, the marriage contract creates a sort of
proprietary right. In the case of polygamy it is the first
wife who has the first claim to the marital benefits, and
as such any transaction between the husband and another
wife is ultra vires, for the goods under transaction, as
marital benefits may be called, have already been sold to
the first wife. Hence no subsequent transaction can be
valid without her consent. As such, if polygamy is to be
allowed, its validity must depend upon the consent and
agreement of the first wife. She should have the right to
decide whether she can or cannot allow her husband to have
another wife.
This means that to have a second, third and fourth wife
is just as if a person had sold his property to a person
and then resold it to a second, third and fourth customer.
The validity of such a transaction will depend on the
consent of the first, second and third buyers
respectively. If the vendor actually delivers the property
to the subsequent buyers without such a consent, he is
liable to prosecution.
This objection is based on the presumption that the
legal nature of marriage is that of exchange of benefits,
and that each of the husband and the wife owns the marital
benefits accruing from the other. Though this presumption
is not sound, for the present we do not want to dispute
it. Let us presume the position to be actually so. But
this objection can be valid only in case the husband takes
another wife only for fun. Obviously if it is admitted
that the legal nature of marriage is that of exchange of
marital benefits, plurality of marriage is not justifiable
only so long as the wife can in every respect meet the
lawful needs of her husband. But if there exists any of
the justifying causes mentioned earlier, the objection
becomes void. For instance, if the wife is barren or has
attained the age of menopause and the husband is still in
need of a child, or the wife is sick and not fit for
cohabitation, the right of the wife will be no bar to
plurality of marriage.
This is the position in case polygamy is only a
personal requirement of the husband. But if it is a social
requirement, for example, if women outnumber men in a
society or the society needs a larger population, then the
case is quite different. In such cases, plurality is a
duty which is to be performed by an adequate number of
men. It is a duty to be carried out to save the society
from corruption and prostitution or to increase the
population of the community. When it is a question of
social duty, obviously the question of the consent and
permission of the wife does not arise. Suppose in a
society women outnumber men or the society needs a larger
population, then a social duty devolves on all married men
and women which should be carried out by an adequate
number of them in the spirit of self-sacrifice. This is
exactly like the case of conscription. The defence of the
country devolves a duty on all families to send
their dear ones to the front for the sake of the
society. In such cases there is no question of the consent
of the parties concerned.
They who maintain that justice demands that polygamy
must depend upon the consent of the existing wife, look at
the question from a narrow angle. They think that a
husband always wants to have more than one wife only for
pleasure and variety. They forget that there can be other
individual and social needs also. Basically plurality of
marriage should not be acceptable even with the consent of
the existing wife, if no individual or social need is
involved.
BACK
FROM THE PHILOSOPHICAL ANGLE
The law of polygamy is repugnant to the principle of
equality between man and woman as human beings. As man and
woman both have equal rights, either both of them should
be allowed to practise polygamy or neither of them. It is
a pure and simple discrimination to allow man to have
several wives and not to allow woman to have several
husbands. To allow man to have up to four wives means that
the value of a woman is only one-fourth that of man. This
position is derogatory to woman and is not even in keeping
with the Islamic view in respect of inheritance and
evidence. In respect of giving evidence, two women are
regarded as equal to one man.
This is the most flimsy objection. It seems that the
critics have paid no attention to the individual and the
social causes of polygamy. They think that it is only a
question of passion. Hence man and woman should be treated
equally. We have already discussed the cases in which
polygamy is justified. We have also pointed out the
circumstances in which a duty in respect of a husbandless
woman devolves on all married men and women. Hence, it is
not necessary to dwell on this question any more.
It is enough to say that if the teachings of Islam in
respect of polygamy, inheritance and evidence had been due
to any apathy to woman's rights, and had Islam
discriminated between man and woman as human beings, it
would have held a uniform view on all relevant questions.
In the case of inheritance it would not have allowed woman
only a half of the share of man in some cases and an equal
share in others. Similarly, in the case of evidence there
would not have been different rules in different cases.
All this shows that Islam has some other philosophy. We
have already explained the question of inheritance in a
preceding chapter. We have also pointed out elsewhere that
from the Islamic point of view the question of equality
between man and woman as human beings is a part of basic
human rights. Anyhow, while dealing with family rights,
Islam has taken into consideration certain other aspects
also which are more important than the question of mere
equality.
BACK
ROLE OF ISLAM IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF POLYGAMY
Islam neither invented polygamy (for it had been in
existence for centuries before the inception of Islam),
nor did it abolish it, for there existed no other solution
of certain social problems. Islam only reformed this
ancient custom.
BACK
LIMITATIONS
Before Islam, one could have an unlimited number of
wives and could form a harem. Islam prescribed a maximum
limit. It did not allow anyone to have more than four
wives. Those who had more than four wives at the time of
embracing Islam were required to release the extra wives.
We come across the names of several such people in the
early history of Islam. A man named Ghaylan bin Aslamah
had ten wives. Another man named Nawfal bin Mu'awiyah had
five. The Holy Prophet ordered them to part with their
extra wives.
The Shi'ah traditions report that during the days of
Imam Sadiq (P) a Zoroastrian embraced Islam. He had seven
wives. The Imam was asked as to what that man should do
with his wives. The Imam said that he must part with
three.
BACK
JUSTICE AND EQUAL TREATMENT
Another reform introduced by Islam was the condition of
giving equal treatment to all the wives. Islam does not
allow any discrimination between the wives or between
their children. The Holy Qur'an expressly says: "If you
[ear that you will not do justice (to them)
then have one only". (Surahan-Nisa,4:3)
The Pre-Islamic world observed equality neither between
the wives nor between their children. We have already
quoted Christenson and others who say that during the
Sassanian period polygamy was customary in Iran. One or
more wives were called favourite wives and they enjoyed
full rights and others known as servant-wives had lesser
legal rights. Only the male children of the servant-wives
were recognised to be the members of the paternal family.
Islam abolished all such customs and usages. It does
not allow any wife or her children to be regarded as
inferior to the other wife or children of her husband.
Will Durant in his book, History of Culture, Vol. I,
says:
"When a person accumulated wealth he feared that
if it would be divided among all his children, each one of
them would receive only as small portion of it. So he felt
anxious to make a distinction between his real and
favourite wife and other mistresses to enable the children
of the real wife only to inherit from him."
This shows that in the ancient world discrimination
between the wives and between their children was common.
Anyhow, surprisingly enough Will Durant adds: "Till
recently this continued to be the case in Asia. Gradually
the real wife took the position of the sole wife. Other
wives either disappeared or became clandestine
mistresses."
Will Durant did not take notice of the fact, or he did
not want to do so, that 14 centuries ago Islam abolished
discrimination between the children. To have one real wife
and several secret concubines is a European and not an
Asian custom. It has only lately infiltrated into Asia.
Anyhow, the second reform which Islam introduced in the
domain of polygamy was the abolition of discrimination
between the wives and between their children. No form of
favouritism with any particular wife is permissible.
Almost all jurists are unanimous on this point. Only a few
minor juristical schools have interpreted the rights of
women in a way that smacks of discrimination. But there is
no denying the fact that their view is in contradiction
with the correct interpretation of the Qur'anic passage.
The Holy Prophet is reported by both the Shi'ah and the
Sunnis to have said: "He who has two wives but does
not treat them equally and shows leaning towards one of
them, will be raised on the Day of Resurrection in such a
state that one side of his body will be dragging along the
ground. He will eventually go to Hell".
Justice is the greatest moral virtue. To prescribe the
condition of justice and equal treatment means that the
husband is required to be in possession of the highest
moral qualities. As the feelings of man in respect of all
his wives usually are not the same, observation of justice
and abstinence from unequal treatment is one of his most
onerous duties.
We all know that the Holy Prophet, during the last ten
years of his life, that is, during the period of his stay
in Madina, married several women. This was a period of
Islamic wars and at that time the number of women, who had
nobody to look after them, was quite large. Most of the
wives of the Prophet were widowed and aged. Several of
them had children by their former husbands.
The only maiden he married was Ayesha, who often
proudly said that she was the only woman whom no husband
other than the Prophet, had ever touched.
The Holy Prophet, always gave strict equal treatment to
all his wives and never discriminated between them. Urwah
bin Zubayr was a nephew (sister's son) of Ayesha. He
inquired of his aunt as to how the Holy Prophet treated
his wives. Ayesha said that he treated them with justice
and complete equality.
He never gave preference to anyone of them over anyone
else. Almost daily he called on every wife and inquired
after her health etc. He passed the night with one wife,
turn by turn. If by chance he wanted to pass a night with
another wife, he formally came to the wife whose turn it
was and took her permission. If the permission was given,
he would go, otherwise he would not. Ayesha said that she
personally declined to give permission as and when he
asked for it.
Even during his last illness which led to his death and
when he was too weak to move, the Holy Prophet
scrupulously adhered to the principle of equality in his
treatment with his wives. His bed was shifted from one
room to another daily. At last, one day he called all his
wives and asked them to permit him to stay in one room.
With their permission he stayed in the room of Ayesha.
At the time when he had two wives, Imam Ali (P) was so
particular that he performed even ablution before prayer (wuzu)
in the house of the wife whose turn was there.
Islam attaches so much importance to the principle of
justice and equality in treatment that it does not allow
the husband and the second wife to enter into an
stipulation at the time of their marriage, by which the
second wife agrees to live on unequal terms with the first
wife. This means that it is an obligatory duty of the
husband to treat each wife on terms of strict equality,
and that he cannot renounce this responsibility by
entering into a prior agreement with anyone of his wives.
All that the second wife can do is to forego some of her
rights for practical purposes. But no such condition can
be stipulated, nor is it possible that she should not have
equal rights. Similarly, the first wife also can
voluntarily forego some of her rights for practical
purposes, but she cannot formally renounce them.
Once Imam Baqir (P) was asked whether by mutual consent
it could be stipulated that the husband would visit one of
his wives only once a week or once a month, or that the
maintenance allowance of one wife would not be equal to
that of another wife. The Imam said that such stipulations
were not valid even with the consent of any wife. By
virtue of marriage, every wife was entitled to full
marital rights. All that she could do was to forego some
or all of her rights after marriage, either to please her
husband or for some other reason.
With all these strict moral conditions polygamy becomes
a duty instead of being a means of pursuit of pleasure.
Pursuit of pleasure and licentiousness are possible only
in an atmosphere of complete freedom to pursue one's
desires. But where there is a question of discipline,
justice and duty, there can be no room for lewdness.
Those who indulge in licentiousness under the pretext
of polygamy misuse an Islamic law and the society has
every right to call them to account and punish them.
BACK
APPREHENSION OF NOT DOING JUSTICE
To be fair, it must be admitted that the number of
those, who observe in letter and spirit all the conditions
laid down by Islam in respect of polygamy, is very small.
According to the Islamic law, if a man apprehends that the
use of water may be harmful to him he should not perform
ablution for prayers, and if he apprehends that fasting
may be harmful to him he should not keep fast. You come
across many people who inquire of you whether they should
or should not perform ablution, or whether they should or
should not keep fast, for they apprehend that performing
ablution or keeping fast might be harmful to them. Such
inquiries are in order. Such people should not perform
ablution and should not keep fast.
But the Holy Qur'an specifically says that if you fear
that you will not treat your wives equally, you must have
only one wife. Still you do not come across a single
person who may say that he apprehends that he might not be
able to treat two wives equally, and may inquire whether
in his circumstances he should or should not have a second
wife. It is evident that some people knowing well that
they will not be able to do justice, still have several
wives. They do so under the cloak of Islamic law. These
are the people who bring a bad name to Islam by their
unworthy action.
BACK
HAREMS
Another reason why Islam is criticised for polygamy is
the system of harems adopted by the former caliphs and
sultans. Some Christian writers and missionaries have
described polygamy in Islam as equivalent to the system of
harems with all its shameful and cruel aspects.
Unfortunately some of our own writers who, like a
parrot repeat the ideas expressed by the Europeans,
unnecessarily associate polygamy with harems. They are not
endowed with enough independence of thinking to be able to
distinguish between the two.
BACK
OTHER CONDITIONS
Besides the condition of justice and equality of
treatment, there are also other conditions which a husband
has to fulfil. We all know that a wife has a number of
financial and other rights which the husband has to
discharge. A husband has the right of having more than one
wife, provided his financial condition allows him to do
so. Financial soundness is a pre-requisite to monogamy
also. Anyhow, we skip over further discussion of this
question.
Physical and sexual potentialities are another
pre-requisite.
It is reported in Al-Kafi and Al-Wasail that Imam Sadiq
(P) has said that in case somebody collects several women,
while he is not fit to satisfy them all, he will bear full
responsibility if any of them takes to sin.
The historical accounts of the harems narrate many
stories of young women, who, forced by the pressure of
their sexual urges, had recourse to sin and occasionally
became the cause of crimes and murders.
By now our readers should have become aware of the
causes of polygamy and why Islam has not abolished this
system. They should also have become aware of the
conditions and limits prescribed by Islam in this respect.
Islam has not disparaged women by allowing this system,
but has rendered a great service to them. If polygamy is
not allowed even where women of marriageable age outnumber
men, women may become worthless toys in the hands of men.
They may be treated worse than slave-girls, for man
recognises the child of a salve-girl as his own, but he
makes no such commitment in respect of his mistresses and
concubines.
BACK
MODERN MAN AND POLYGAMY
Modern man is averse to polygamy, not because he wants
to be content with one wife, but because he wants to
satisfy his sense of variety by indulging in unlimited
adultery, for which ample facilities are available. Sin
and not fidelity has taken the place of polygamy. That is
why modern man is opposed to plurality of wives which
commits him to many duties and responsibilities, financial
and otherwise. In the past, even for a licentious man,
opportunities of sin were limited. That is why he had to
take recourse to polygamy and, in spite of evading many
duties, he still had to shoulder certain responsibilities
in respect of his wives and children. The modern man who
has ample opportunities of enjoyment does not see any
necessity of making the least commitment. Hence he is
averse to polygamy.
The modern man employs women as secretaries, typists
etc. for his enjoyment, and credits the expenses to the
account of the government, his firm or any other
organisation in which he may be working, without having to
pay a single penny from his own pocket.
The modern man changes his mistress after every few
days without undergoing any formalities of dower,
maintenance and divorce. M. Tshombe was vehemently opposed
to polygamy, but he always had a young, beautiful
secretary at his side whom he changed every year. With
such possibilities there is evidently no need to
countenance polygamy.
We read in the life account of Bertrand Russell, who
was a severe opponent of polygamy, that two women, besides
his grandmother, played an important role in his life. One
was his wife, Alice, and the other was his sweet-heart,
Morrel. Morrel who was one of the most prominent women of
that period, was on friendly terms with a number of the
writers of the early 20th century. Evidently such a man
could not support polygamy.
Apparently it was Russell's extra marital love which
put an end to his relations with Alice. He himself writes
that one afternoon, while he was going on a bicycle to a
summer resort in the suburbs, he suddenly felt that he no
longer loved Alice.
BACK
|
