1. POLYGAMY
Question:
Why is a man allowed to have more than one wife in Islam? i.e. why is
polygamy allowed in Islam?

Answer:

1. Definition of Polygamy
Polygamy means a system of marriage whereby one person has more than one
spouse. Polygamy can be of two types. One is polygyny where a man marries
more than one woman, and the other is polyandry, where a woman marries
more than one man. In Islam, limited polygyny is permitted; whereas polyandry
is completely prohibited.

Now coming to the original question, why is a man allowed to have more than
one wife?

2. The Qur�an is the only religious scripture in the world that says,
�marry only one�.
The Qur�an is the only religious book, on the face of this earth, that contains the
phrase �marry only one�. There is no other religious book that instructs men to
have only one wife. In none of the other religious scriptures, whether it be the
Vedas, the Ramayan, the Mahabharat, the Geeta, the Talmud or the Bible does
one find a restriction on the number of wives. According to these scriptures one
can marry as many as one wishes. It was only later, that the Hindu priests and
the Christian Church restricted the number of wives to one.

Many Hindu religious personalities, according to their scriptures, had multiple
wives. King Dashrat, the father of Rama, had more than one wife. Krishna had
several wives.

In earlier times, Christian men were permitted as many wives as they wished,
since the Bible puts no restriction on the number of wives. It was only a few
centuries ago that the Church restricted the number of wives to one.

Polygyny is permitted in Judaism. According to Talmudic law, Abraham had
three wives, and Solomon had hundreds of wives. The practice of polygyny
continued till Rabbi Gershom ben Yehudah (960 C.E to 1030 C.E) issued an
edict against it. The Jewish Sephardic communities living in Muslim countries
continued the practice till as late as 1950, until an Act of the Chief Rabbinate of
Israel extended the ban on marrying more than one wife.

(*Interesting Note:- As per the 1975 census of India Hindus are more
polygynous than Muslims. The report of the �Committee of The Status of
Woman in Islam�, published in 1975 mentions on page numbers 66 and 67 that
the percentage of polygamous marriages between the years 1951 and 1961

4
was 5.06% among the Hindus and only 4.31% among the Muslims. According
to Indian law only Muslim men are permitted to have more than one wife. It is
illegal for any non-Muslim in India to have more than one wife. Despite it being
illegal, Hindus have more multiple wives as compared to Muslims. Earlier, there
was no restriction even on Hindu men with respect to the number of wives
allowed. It was only in 1954, when the Hindu Marriage Act was passed that it
became illegal for a Hindu to have more than one wife. At present it is the Indian
Law that restricts a Hindu man from having more than one wife and not the
Hindu scriptures.)

Let us now analyse why Islam allows a man to have more than one wife.

3. Qur�an permits limited polygyny
As I mentioned earlier, Qur�an is the only religious book on the face of the earth
that says �marry only one�. The context of this phrase is the following verse from
Surah Nisa of the Glorious Qur�an:

�Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if ye fear that
ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one.�
[Al-Qur�an 4:3]

Before the Qur�an was revealed, there was no upper limit for polygyny and
many men had scores of wives, some even hundreds. Islam put an upper limit
of four wives. Islam gives a man permission to marry two, three or four women,
only on the condition that he deals justly with them.

In the same chapter i.e. Surah Nisa verse 129 says:

�Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women....�
[Al-Qur�an 4:129]

Therefore polygyny is not a rule but an exception. Many people are under the
misconception that it is compulsory for a Muslim man to have more than one wife.
Broadly, Islam has five categories of Do�s and Don�ts:

(i) �Fard� i.e. compulsory or obligatory
(ii) �Mustahab� i.e. recommended or encouraged
(iii) �Mubah� i.e. permissible or allowed
(iv) �Makruh� i.e. not recommended or discouraged
(v) �Haraam� i.e. prohibited or forbidden
Polygyny falls in the middle category of things that are permissible. It cannot be
said that a Muslim who has two, three or four wives is a better Muslim as
compared to a Muslim who has only one wife.

4. Average life span of females is more than that of males
By nature males and females are born in approximately the same ratio. A
female child has more immunity than a male child. A female child can fight the
germs and diseases better than the male child. For this reason, during the
pediatric age itself there are more deaths among males as compared to the
females.

During wars, there are more men killed as compared to women. More men die
due to accidents and diseases than women. The average life span of females
is more than that of males, and at any given time one finds more widows in the
world than widowers.

5. India has more male population than female due to female
foeticide and infanticide
India is one of the few countries, along with the other neighbouring countries, in
which the female population is less than the male population. The reason lies in
the high rate of female infanticide in India, and the fact that more than one
million female foetuses are aborted every year in this country, after they are
identified as females. If this evil practice is stopped, then India too will have
more females as compared to males.

6. World female population is more than male population
In the USA, women outnumber men by 7.8 million. New York alone has one
million more females as compared to the number of males, and of the male
population of New York one-third are gays i.e sodomites. The U.S.A as a whole
has more than twenty-five million gays. This means that these people do not
wish to marry women. Great Britain has four million more females as compared
to males. Germany has five million more females as compared to males. Russia
has nine million more females than males. God alone knows how many million
more females there are in the whole world as compared to males.

7. Restricting each and every man to have only one wife is not
practical
Even if every man got married to one woman, there would still be more than
thirty million females in U.S.A who would not be able to get husbands
(considering that America has twenty five million gays). There would be more
than four million females in Great Britain, 5 million females in Germany and nine
million females in Russia alone who would not be able to find a husband.

Suppose my sister happens to be one of the unmarried women living in USA, or
suppose your sister happens to be one of the unmarried women in USA. The
only two options remaining for her are that she either marries a man who
already has a wife or becomes 'public property'. There is no other option. All
those who are modest will opt for the first.

Most women would nto like to share their husband with other women. But in
Islam when the situation deems it really neccessary Muslim women in due faith
could bear a small personal loss to prevent a greater loss of letting other Muslim
sisters becoming 'public properties'.

8. Marring a married man preferable to becoming 'public property'
In Western society, it is common for a man to have mistresses and/or multiple
extra-marital affairs, in which case, the woman leads a disgraceful, unprotected
life. The same society, however, cannot accept a man having more than one
wife, in which women retain their honourable, dignified position in society and
lead a protected life.

Thus the only two options before a woman who cannot find a husband is to
marry a married man or to become 'public property'. Islam prefers giving
women the honourable position by permitting the first option and disallowing the
second.

There are several other reasons, why Islam has permitted limited polygyny, but
it is mainly to protect the modesty of women.

Ron,

You wrote:  "Judaism did indeed permit polygamy thousands of years ago, but it no longer does �"

Could you please provide a source?  I am interested.  I would have thought that the reason we don�t see much Jewish polygamy is because the Torah is not (at least not yet) the law of the Land (of Israel, especially).  I don�t see �and neither have I read- where the laws of polygamy, or polygyny, in Judaism were ever either annulled or abrogated (by Judaism).  Have you read otherwise?

Serv

Thank you, Ron.  I have reviewed the link that you kindly provided and notice that, at least as I read it, the rabbinic ban on polygyny is not necessarily perpetual:  

�He [Gershom ben Judah] is famous for his religious bans within Judaism, which include: the prohibition of polygamy for 1,000 years.�

It sounds to me as though, given the years during which Gershom ben Judah lived and wrote, the ban on polygamy within Orthodox Judaism has either expired or soon will.

Best regards,

Serv

You're absolutely right, Servetus.  If you take "a thousand years" literally, then the ban technically expired a few years ago.  However, I don't think there is anything magical about a thousand years.  I think the phrase was intended to mean "for the forseeable future".  Anyway, I don't see any rush among Jewish rabbis bring back polygamy.  The reasons Gershom banned it are if anything even stronger today than they were in his time.

This issue is a lot like slavery, which is also mentioned in the Old Testament.  Both slavery and polygamy may have made sense in ancient times, when constant warfare meant a perpetual shortage of men and a periodic surplus of orphan (enemy) children; but they have no place in modern times.

That is not to say that there will never come a time when polygamy and even slavery may become acceptable or even beneficial again.  Perhaps if some horrible disease wiped out half of the male population, then both Christian and Jewish leaders would advocate a return to polygamy.  That's what I meant by a "living, progressive" religion.

Ron,

To my view, there is every reason to think, or to assume, that Jewish legal injunctions, when they stipulate a time limit, are quite possibly literal.  The Gaonate was operating in diaspora and many of the Mosaic laws, not to mention temple rites & rituals, were necessarily in abeyance.  That is part of the Jewish experience and sojourn.

One notes, for instance, and as you originally pointed out, that it is primarily among the Ashkenazim, or dwellers in (heretofore largely Christian) Europe and North America, that the prohibition against polygamy was most universally applied.  Among the Sephardim, on the other hand, who were often located in Islamic countries, the practice, according to the author of the article below, although increasingly discountenanced, was nevertheless continued.

You wrote:  �The reasons Gershom banned it [polygamy] are if anything even stronger today than they were in his time.�

I haven�t read his decision, but if it involved the costs, then I would have to agree.  In fact, I sometimes wonder if one is ill-advised, from a financial standpoint, to take even one wife: 

�Even in the Orient monogamy [among Jews] soon became the rule and polygamy the exception; for only the wealthy could afford the luxury of many wives.�  (Jewish Encyclopedia)

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=425&letter=P - http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=425&letter=P

Thanks, again.  I hadn�t looked into this issue in detail until this ongoing discussion.

Best regards,

Serv

Hayfa wrote: For instance, there are far more women then men out there. (except in China and one or two areas of India).

Sorry, Hayfa, but that's just not true.  Overall, men outnumber women slightly.  You're right that women outlive men by several years, but men outnumber women by about 5% at birth.  At the age when most people get married the difference is not significant.  If you want country--by-country stats, you can look here: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/indwm/tab1a.htm - http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/indwm/tab1a.htm

Men earn more then women, that is the case and you can create all the laws you want, but the reality is that they do. And why not, if a man is wealthy enough, should he not have more than one wife?

(Well, there go my illusions about women marrying for love.  )

To answer your question: He shouldn't, because he would be leaving some other man unmarried.  Some things money can't buy; and even if it can, it shouldn't.  The opportunity to be married and have a family is one of those things.

And if egalitarianism doesn't move you, consider the theory, which I think has some credibility, that a surplus of unmarried men is a major cause of social unrest and potential violence.  Having a wife and kids quite literally gives a man something to live for.  Without it, he will redirect his passion in other ways, which may be unhealthy both for himself and for his society.

Hayfa wrote: Well your statisitcs show most places have more women then men.. except for countries in war or India ot China.. go look at it again! Here in US women outnumber men.. (never mind those in prison, a whole added issue)

 My fault for pointing you to a misleading Web page.  Yes, most countries do have slightly more women than men -- except for India and China, and that's a mighty big "except".  Those are the two most populace countries in the world.  Together they represent more than a third of the world's population.

Wikipedia quotes the 2001 World Almanac as saying that there are 101.3 men for every 100 women.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women  

In fact, the ratio at birth is more like 105 men for 100 women ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_ratio - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_ratio ), and that ratio continues for young men and women into their twenties, when most marriages take place.   The ratio doesn't flip in favour of women until the mid-thirties or so.  You can see a graph for the United States that makes this clear here: http://nationalatlas.gov/articles/people/a_gender.html - http://nationalatlas.gov/articles/people/a_gender.html

Anyway, there's no point in quibbling over a few percentage points either way.  Widespread polygamy would soon overwhelm such minor differences, leaving a substantial number of men with no possibility of marriage.  That is a recipe for social unrest.

And really why not? Why should I not have he choice?? Men are dominant in 99% of soceities. Men are physically stronger, why should I not marry who I want?

Well, if you're asking me, I would agree that you should be able to marry whoever you want, but that's only because I am a libertarian when if comes to matters of sexuality and family life.  It just seems rather incongruous to me that a Muslim should argue for personal choice here, to the detriment of society as a whole.  I strongly doubt that you would say the same about same-sex marriage, or group sex, or extramarital sex, etc.

honeto wrote: Mystical I will have to realistically disgree with that. I agree that a woman in normal circumtances will not agree to share her husband, but a true believer woman probably won't be as blunt if a unusual situation arises when its not a matter of man's benefit but purely for the benefit of the woman and the society. That unusual situation can be after a war and loss of a lot of men, leaving childless widows or those woman with children who are still young. Then it may be not about sharing the man but about helping and giving hope to those who otherwise would have none. Right in our lifetime, right here on this earth in many regional crises such a situation has arised where big number of men are lost to conflicts.

Would the same apply in reverse?  For instance, India and China, through selective abortion, are both creating lopsided societies with a severe shortage of women.  Do you think women should be allowed to have multiple husbands in such a circumstance?  Would the men be as willing to share their woman, "giving hope to those who otherwise would have none"?

 Islam did not invent polygamy. Islam only regulated an already existing practice of every nation and culture. Neither does Islam make a muslim polygamous. There are many more muslim men strictly faithful to their only wives than people who are supposedly monogamous but are just polygamous without the label. Man's polygamous nature is a fact and polygamy as in Islam is only the alternative to an otherwise adulterous society with its ills.

honeto wrote: Ron, the answer is simple, selective abortion is un-Islamic, so this sort of population imbalance would not happen in an Islamic soceity.

So, the question remains: Do you think women should be allowed to have multiple husbands in such a circumstance?  Would the men be as willing to share their woman, "giving hope to those who otherwise would have none"?

Hi Chrysalis,

That's quite an essay.  I'm not sure I can reply to all of it, but let's see what happens:

1 and 2. I agree that what I described is unlikely, but not impossible.  After all, we already have a disease (AIDS) that seems to target men based on their behaviour, so there's no reason a disease could not disproportionately affect women.  Childbirth is the single most dangerous event in most women's lives, and it wouldn't take much to make it deadly on a regular basis.  But let's leave that aside.  Neither scenario (more women or more men) is especially likely at present, so either way we're talking about a hypothetical situation.

3. If the only purpose of marriage is to propagate society, then I agree, but in my opinion that is a very narrow view of it.  If there were a shortage of women, the surplus men would still want a chance to be part of a family, for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with propagating society.

4. It should be of no importance to know which man fathered the child.  The parents are responsible for raising the children -- and that means all the parents, not just the biological father.

5 and 6. In terms of sexual relations, one woman is more capable of satisfying multiple men than the other way around.  As for men having an innately higher sex drive, I believe that is a cultural presumption, not a physical fact.

7. Sexually transmitted diseases are spread via promiscuity, regardless of gender.  Neither gender is safe if they have sex outside of marriage, and both genders are equally safe if they stay within the marriage.

8. See 5 and 6.  Even allowing for a few days each month when women are not sexually available, a woman is far more capable of satisfying multiple men than vice versa.

9. Again, I think that is a cultural presumption, not a physical fact.  Women may no longer be capable of having children, but they are no more likely than men to lose their interest in sex.

Chrysalis wrote: For the child's stability, emotional wellbieng, sense of security and what-not, the Child should be aware of his parent's presence. ... Then there is the question of the Father's themselves. ... I think there are difinitley going to be issues.

Well Chrysalis, you're welcome to your opinion, but I don't agree.  There were no "issues" for me or my stepdaughter, despite there being no biological connection between us.  What matters is the stability of the parent-child relationships, not the biology.  As for medical issues, etc., you said yourself that biological paternity can be determined if necessary.
 

We're talking of natural means to intimate relations. And I'm sorry, this is nothing cultural, its a scientific fact. In the MAJORITY of cases (I'm not saying 100%) Males DO have a higher libido. ...

Just a quick survey of uninhibited societies of the world will show you that men are more naturally inclined to be keeping multiple partners at the same time compared to women. Which I think proves that women are not naturally, emotionally and physically inclined to be keeping multiple partners. And they do so out of choice.

I agree that men (young men in particular, I'm not so sure about older men/women) are more inclined to seek multiple partners.  But frankly I think that is more about promiscuity than lasting relationships; and I think it illustrates not only that young men are more comfortable with multiple partners, but that they are more comfortable with their women having multiple partners.

Men don't mind using prostitutes, for instance, knowing full well that the women are having sex with many other men.  How many women don't mind knowing that the man they are with today was with a different woman yesterday, and will be with another tomorrow?