|
POLYGAMY
IN THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN TRADITION, IN THE
WEST AND IN ISLAM
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.
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 civilized ones. It is
only recently that it has gradually
begun disappearing from the countries of
the East. Agriculture has stabilized 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 equalized. 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 practiced 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 favorite
wives a single man could have.
But there has been a mention of two favorite
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 favorite
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.
Polygamy
in the Judeo-Christian tradition
The
Bible did not condemn polygamy. To the
contrary, the Old Testament and Rabbinic
writings frequently attest to the
legality of polygamy. The Bible claims
that King Solomon had 700 wives and 300
concubines (1 Kings 11:3) Also, king
David is said to have had many wives and
concubines (2 Samuel 5:13). The Old
Testament does have some injunctions on
how to distribute the property of a man
among his sons from different wives
(Deut. 22:7). The only restriction
on polygamy is a ban on taking a wife’s
sister as a rival wife (Lev. 18:18). The
Talmud advises a maximum of four wives
[51]. European Jews continued to practice
polygamy until the sixteenth
century. Oriental Jews regularly practiced
polygamy until they arrived in
Israel where it is forbidden under civil
law. However, under religious law which
overrides civil law in such cases, it is
permissible.
What
about the New Testament? According to
Father Eugene Hillman in his insightful
book, Polygamy reconsidered, “Nowhere
in the New Testament is there any
explicit commandment that marriage
should be monogamous or any explicit
commandment forbidding polygamy.”
Moreover, Jesus has not spoken against
polygamy though it was practiced by the
Jews of his society. This means that
since Jesus came in the footnotes of
Moses in Shari‘a, he confirmed
polygamy. Father Hillman stresses the
fact that the Church in Rome banned
polygamy in order to conform to the
Greco-Roman culture (which prescribed
only one legal wife while tolerating
concubinage and prostitution). He cited
St. Augustine, “Now indeed in our
time, and in keeping with Roman custom,
it is no longer allowed to take another
wife.” African churches and African
Christians often remind their European
brothers that the Church’s ban on
polygamy is a cultural tradition and not
an authentic Christian injunction.
The
Quran, too, allowed polygamy, but not
without restrictions:
“If
you fear that you shall not be able
to deal justly with the orphans,
marry women of your choice, two or
three or four; but if you fear that
you shall not be able to deal justly
with them, then only one” (4:3).
The
Quran, contrary to the Bible, limited
the maximum number of wives to four
under the strict condition of treating
the wives equally and justly. It should
not be understood that the Quran is
exhorting the believers to practice polygamy, or that polygamy is considered
as an ideal. In other words, the Quran
has “tolerated” or “allowed”
polygamy, and no more, but why? Why
is polygamy permissible ? The answer is
simple: there are places and times in
which there are compelling social and
moral reasons for polygamy. As the
above Quranic verse indicates, the issue
of polygamy in Islam cannot be
understood apart from community
obligations towards orphans and widows. Islam
as a universal religion suitable for all
places and all times could not ignore
these compelling obligations.
In
most human societies, females outnumber
males. In the U.S. there are, at least,
eight million more women than men. In a
country like Guinea there are 122
females for every 100 males. In
Tanzania, there are 95.1 males per 100
females. What should a society do
towards such unbalanced sex ratios?
There are various solutions, some might
suggest celibacy, others would prefer
female infanticide (which does happen in
some societies in the world today!).
Others may think the only outlet is that
the society should tolerate all manners
of sexual permissiveness: prostitution,
sex out of wedlock, homosexuality, etc.
For
other societies, like most African
societies today, the most honorable
outlet is to allow polygamous marriage
as a culturally accepted and socially
respected institution. The point that is
often misunderstood in the West is that
women in other cultures do not
necessarily look at polygamy as a sign
of women’s degradation. For example,
many young African brides , whether
Christians or Muslims or otherwise,
would prefer to marry a married man who
has already proved himself to be a
responsible husband. Many African wives
urge their husbands to get a second wife
so that they do not feel lonely. A
survey of over six thousand women,
ranging in age from 15 to 59, conducted
in the second largest city in Nigeria
showed that 60 percent of these women
would be pleased if their husbands took
another wife. Only 23 percent expressed
anger at the idea of sharing with
another wife. Seventy-six percent of the
women in a survey conducted in Kenya
viewed polygamy positively. In a survey
undertaken in rural Kenya, 25 out of 27
women considered polygamy to be better
than monogamy. These women felt polygamy
can be a happy and beneficial experience
if the co-wives cooperate with each
other.
Polygamy
in most African societies is such a
respectable institution that some
Protestant churches are becoming more
tolerant of it. A bishop of the Anglican
Church in Kenya declared that, “Although
monogamy may be ideal for the expression
of love between husband and wife, the
church should consider that in certain
cultures polygamy is socially acceptable
and that the belief that polygamy is
contrary to Christianity is no longer
tenable.” After a careful study of
African polygamy, Reverend David Gitari
of the Anglican Church has concluded
that polygamy, as ideally practiced, is
more Christian than divorce and
remarriage as far as the abandoned wives
and children are concerned [59]. I
personally know of some highly educated
African wives who, despite having lived
in the West for many years, do not have
any objections against polygamy. One of
them, who lives in the U.S., solemnly
exhorts her husband to get a second wife
to help her in raising the kids.
The
problem of the unbalanced sex ratios
becomes truly problematic at times of
war. Native American Indian tribes used
to suffer highly unbalanced sex ratios
after wartime losses. Women in these
tribes, who in fact enjoyed a fairly
high status, accepted polygamy as the
best protection against indulgence in
indecent activities. European settlers,
without offering any other alternative,
condemned this Indian polygamy as ‘uncivilized.’
After the second world war, there were
7,300,000 more women than men in Germany
(3.3 million of them were widows). There
were 100 men aged 20 to 30 for every 167
women in that age group. Many of these
women needed a man not only as a
companion but also as a provider for the
household in a time of unprecedented
misery and hardship. The soldiers of the
victorious Allied Armies exploited these
women’s vulnerability. Many young
girls and widows had liaisons with
members of the occupying forces. Many
American and British soldiers paid for
their pleasures in cigarettes,
chocolate, and bread. Children were
overjoyed at the gifts these strangers
brought. A 10 year old boy on hearing of
such gifts from other children wished
from all his heart for an ‘Englishman’
for his mother so that she need not go
hungry any longer. We have to ask our
own conscience at this point: What is
more dignifying to a woman? An accepted
and respected second wife as in the
native Indians’ approach, or a virtual
prostitute as in the ‘civilised’
Allies approach? In other words, what is
more dignifying to a woman, the Quranic
prescription or the theology based on
the culture of the Roman Empire?
It
is interesting to note that in an
international youth conference held in
Munich in 1948 the problem of the highly
unbalanced sex ratio in Germany was
discussed. When it became clear that no
solution could be agreed upon, some
participants suggested polygamy. The
initial reaction of the gathering was a
mixture of shock and disgust. However,
after a careful study of the proposal,
the participants agreed that it was the
only possible solution. Consequently,
polygamy was included among the
conference final recommendations.
The
world today possesses more weapons of
mass destruction than ever before and
the European churches might, sooner or
later, be obliged to accept polygamy as
the only way out. Father Hillman has
thoughtfully recognized this fact,
“It
is quite conceivable that these
genocidal techniques (nuclear,
biological, chemical..) could
produce so drastic an imbalance
among the sexes that plural marriage
would become a necessary means of
survival....Then contrary to
previous custom and law, an
overriding natural and moral
inclination might arise in favour of
polygamy. In such a situation,
theologians and church leaders would
quickly produce weighty reasons and
biblical texts to justify a new
conception of marriage.”
To
the present day, polygamy continues to
be a viable solution to some of the
social ills of modern societies. The
communal obligations that the Quran
mentions in association with the
permission of polygamy are more visible
at present in some Western societies
than in Africa. For example, In the
United States today, there is a severe
gender crisis in the black community.
One out of every twenty young black
males may die before reaching the age of
21. For those between 20 and 35 years of
age, homicide is the leading cause of
death. Besides, many young black males
are unemployed, in jail, or on dope. As
a result, one in four black women, at
age 40, has never married, as compared
with one in ten white women. Moreover,
many young black females become single
mothers before the age of 20 and find
themselves in need of providers. The end
result of these tragic circumstances is
that an increasing number of black women
are engaged in what is called ‘man-sharing’.
That is, many of these hapless single
black women are involved in affairs with
married men. The wives are often unaware
of the fact that other women are ‘sharing’
their husbands with them. Some observers
of the crisis of man-sharing in the
African American community strongly
recommend consensual polygamy as a
temporary answer to the shortage of
black males until more comprehensive
reforms in the American society at large
are undertaken. By consensual polygamy
they mean a polygamy that is sanctioned
by the community and to which all the
parties involved have agreed, as opposed
to the usually secret man-sharing which
is detrimental both to the wife and to
the community in general. The problem of
man-sharing in the African American
community was the topic of a panel
discussion held at Temple University in
Philadelphia on January 27, 1993. Some
of the speakers recommended polygamy as
one potential remedy for the crisis.
They also suggested that polygamy should
not be banned by law, particularly in a
society that tolerates prostitution and
mistresses. The comment of one woman
from the audience that African Americans
needed to learn from Africa where
polygamy was responsibly practiced elicited enthusiastic applause.
Philip
Kilbride, an American anthropologist of
Roman Catholic heritage, in his
provocative book, Plural marriage for
our time, proposes polygamy as a
solution to some of the ills of the
American society at large. He argues
that plural marriage may serve as a
potential alternative for divorce in
many cases in order to obviate the
damaging impact of divorce on many
children. He maintains that many
divorces are caused by the rampant
extramarital affairs in the American
society. According to Kilbride, ending
an extramarital affair in a polygamous
marriage, rather than in a divorce, is
better for the children, “Children
would be better served if family
augmentation rather than only separation
and dissolution were seen as options.”
Moreover, he suggests that other groups
will also benefit from plural marriage
such as: elderly women who face a
chronic shortage of men and the African
Americans who are involved in
man-sharing.
In
1987, a poll conducted by the student
newspaper at the university of
California at Berkeley asked the
students whether they agreed that men
should be allowed by law to have more
than one wife in response to a perceived
shortage of male marriage candidates in
California. Almost all of the students
polled approved of the idea. One female
student even stated that a polygamous marriage would
fulfill her emotional and
physical needs while giving her greater
freedom than a monogamous union. In
fact, this same argument is also used by
the few remaining fundamentalist Mormon
women who still practice polygamy in the
U.S. They believe that polygamy is an
ideal way for a woman to have both a
career and children since the wives help
each other care for the children.
It
has to be added that polygamy in Islam
is a matter of mutual consent. No one
can force a woman to marry a married
man. Besides, the wife has the right to
stipulate that her husband must not
marry any other woman as a second wife.
The Bible, on the other hand, sometimes
resorts to forcible polygamy. A
childless widow must marry her husband’s
brother, even if he is already married
(see the “Plight of Widows” section), regardless
of her consent
(Genesis 38:8-10).
It
should be noted that in many Muslim
societies today the practice of polygamy
is rare since the gap between the
numbers of both sexes is not huge. One
can, safely, say that the rate of
polygamous marriages in the Muslim world
is much less than the rate of
extramarital affairs in the West. In
other words, men in the Muslim world
today are far more strictly monogamous
than men in the Western world.
Billy
Graham, the eminent Christian evangelist
has recognized this fact: “Christianity
cannot compromise on the question of
polygamy. If present-day Christianity
cannot do so, it is to its own
detriment. Islam has permitted polygamy
as a solution to social ills and has
allowed a certain degree of latitude to
human nature but only within the
strictly defined framework of the law.
Christian countries make a great show of
monogamy, but actually they practice polygamy. No one is unaware of the part
mistresses play in Western society. In
this respect Islam is a fundamentally
honest religion, and permits a Muslim to
marry a second wife if he must, but
strictly forbids all clandestine amatory
associations in order to safeguard the
moral probity of the community.”
It
is of interest to note that many,
non-Muslim as well as Muslim, countries
in the world today have outlawed
polygamy. Taking a second wife, even
with the free consent of the first wife,
is a violation of the law. On the other
hand, cheating on the wife, without her
knowledge or consent, is perfectly
legitimate as far as the law is
concerned! What is the legal wisdom
behind such a contradiction? Is the law
designed to reward deception and punish
honesty? It is one of the unfathomable
paradoxes of our modern ‘civilised’
world.
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 criticize 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 recognize
polygamy. Thus we can say that, in fact,
the religion of Christ allows polygamy,
and the ancient Christians have actually
practiced it. Hence, the legal
abstinence of the Europeans from it must
have some other reason or reasons.
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 organization
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.
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.
Islam
and 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.
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.
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.
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.
|
