Note: I will publish a Roman Urdu version later.
Recently Pakistan's Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) and its chief, Maulana Sheerani, passed a couple of fatwas which challenged two Pakistani laws: one requiring the permission of first wife before second marriage and the other barring the marriage of underage children. They called these laws 'un-islamic' which in other words mean that these laws should be repealed. This naturally brought the issue of polygyny in Islam into discussion as well and yesterday, I came across this news where a minister was appeasing Sheerani and his cohorts in their opposition against a bill trying to alter the outdated British-era laws against child-marriage by bringing the punishments in consonance with our own times, the punishment of marrying (read selling) a child according to the 1929 law being just a fine of 1000 rupees and a month's imprisonment. It is apropos these things that I intend to write today with major portion dedicated to polygyny issue because arguments in favor of other issues are easily countered and related to this.
The primary contention on which CII based its fatwas is the same argument which supporters of polygyny use to silence the Muslims who argue against it: since it is allowed by Quran, no man can restrict or prohibit it. This argument is based on Verse 87, Chapter 5 of Quran which say:
Once we get past this contention on the topic of polygymy, though, we find other 'logical' arguments in its favor as well, the primary one being that some men are not satisfied with one wife. So either we have to allow them polygamy or they will find illegal mistresses for themselves and engage in adultery.
To counter both the above arguments, those who want polygyny to be abolished use the ayah that allows polygyny itself:
It is also worth noting that later in the same Surah, God says:
Another thing worth noting from the interpretation of the polygyny ayah is that it serves to silence those who argue that polygyny is allowed because some men are, somehow, not satisfied with one wife. It is clear that satisfying the lust of such men was never the purpose of God in allowing these wives. It was, actually, the opposite.
While most of the arguments in favour of polygyny are outright crazy, because that is what excessive religiosity and the risk of losing power can do to men, there is this one argument which does make sense. It is that in some cases a woman might become ill or incapacitated. The husband might even be willing to take care of her but she might not be able to have sex and bear children. In such a case it is rather cruel to compel the husband to not marry a second wife. It would be equally cruel for the husband to have to divorce her for marrying another woman. What to do in such a case? Polygamy would be better...Not. The first question that comes to mind is, why only men? The situation might be reversed as well. The husband could be the one who is dependent. Should we, then, allow women the right of second marriage as well? And those who argue against second marriage of women on the grounds that we might not be able to find who is the father of the child. They are, I believe, living in 7th century as well. But no, second marriage in itself isn't the right solution in either case. Its plain stupid. The best solution, in the contemporary world, is to provide a public service for all such people, not to bind them into cruel relations like these. The answer can be found in changing this male-dominant system which churns out incapable women, deliberately, and not in perpetuating it.
It is worth noting that even slavery isn't directly prohibited in Islam. So going by their main arguments Mullahs might even argue that we start slave trade again. Then they would present the same 'logical' and 'religious' arguments to justify it which 18th century South of USA used to present i.e. it is a system bestowed by the Lord for the betterment of humanity. The slaves (blacks) are dumb creatures of God, created to serve the whites who are the sole bearers of the responsibility of human civilization's advancement. Interestingly, a lot of slaves agreed with this at that time. The truth, however, was that the planters of the South USA badly needed the slaves to perpetuate their hold over the congress as well as their economic hold over USA. Substitute the slaves with the women and there you have the arguments in favor of polygyny and the male-dominant system. Believe me religion can be used to twist almost anything to one's purpose.
Another thing worth mentioning on the topic of polygyny is that while it is debatable whether it should be abolished or not; it is perfectly within the ambit of Islam for every woman to insist on the inclusion of a clause prohibiting, in the marriage contract itself, the second marriage of the husband because in Islam, as in secular law, marriage is a contract, an agreement between the two parties. This could be as binding as any law that government could create, though, at least in the contemporary judicial system it might not be as effective because of the civil-criminal difference.
Finally, as I said above, religious text can be interpreted in several ways; mullahs have been interpreting it in the way that is most suitable for perpetuating their hold over Muslim communities throughout the world and any reasonable mind can see that their interpretation have always been skewed in favor of males. Moreover, they interpret it in the most conservative way possible. What else can we expect of people whose primary source of knowledge is the books written centuries ago? What's more they have always had support as well because humans, in general, are afraid of change. They might garb it in the cloak of religion but it comes down to this: I don't want children to be sold in the name of marriage; I don't want to see them live in this male-dominated system, I certainly don't want anyone to be a slave and I am sure neither does the God I believe in.
Recently Pakistan's Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) and its chief, Maulana Sheerani, passed a couple of fatwas which challenged two Pakistani laws: one requiring the permission of first wife before second marriage and the other barring the marriage of underage children. They called these laws 'un-islamic' which in other words mean that these laws should be repealed. This naturally brought the issue of polygyny in Islam into discussion as well and yesterday, I came across this news where a minister was appeasing Sheerani and his cohorts in their opposition against a bill trying to alter the outdated British-era laws against child-marriage by bringing the punishments in consonance with our own times, the punishment of marrying (read selling) a child according to the 1929 law being just a fine of 1000 rupees and a month's imprisonment. It is apropos these things that I intend to write today with major portion dedicated to polygyny issue because arguments in favor of other issues are easily countered and related to this.
The primary contention on which CII based its fatwas is the same argument which supporters of polygyny use to silence the Muslims who argue against it: since it is allowed by Quran, no man can restrict or prohibit it. This argument is based on Verse 87, Chapter 5 of Quran which say:
O you who have believed, do not prohibit the good things which Allah has made lawful to you and do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors.As the Muslims were not required to get the permission of first wife and children were married off at a very young age 1400 years ago. No man can be compelled to get such a permission if he doesn't want to and no man should be hindered from selling off his daughters in marriage while it also doesn't matter if, along the way, the prospective child and mother's life is endangered because science and human knowledge couldn't progress after 7th century. That would be haram, I guess. This sums up the mullah arguments in favor of their fatwas.
Once we get past this contention on the topic of polygymy, though, we find other 'logical' arguments in its favor as well, the primary one being that some men are not satisfied with one wife. So either we have to allow them polygamy or they will find illegal mistresses for themselves and engage in adultery.
To counter both the above arguments, those who want polygyny to be abolished use the ayah that allows polygyny itself:
And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphan-girls, then marry (other) 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 or (the captives and the slaves) that your right hands possess. That is nearer to prevent you from doing injustice. (Quran 4:3).The best way to interpret any text from the past is to look at its history and context. If we look at both, with reference to this ayah, we find the following: The ayah was revealed after the battle of Uhud when Muslim army was defeated and large number of men were killed. These deaths caused a severe societal problem of Muslims widows and orphans. It was to deal with this problem that the opening ayat of Surah An-Nisa were revealed. The same is evident from the context of this surah.
It is also worth noting that later in the same Surah, God says:
Ye will not be able to deal equally between (your) wives, however much ye wish (to do so). But turn not altogether away (from one), leaving her as in suspense.....(Quran 4:129).On the basis of this interpretation and the ayah above it is argued that the socioeconomic and political milieu has changed, the state's sphere of action has expanded with the rise of welfare concept of state; if the state wants to protect and provide for its widows and orphans now, it can. There is no longer a need for polygyny. In-fact polygyny has turn it to the opposite of what it was supposed to be; what was supposed to be a protection for the women has turned into a problem for them, which serves only to perpetuate the male-dominant system. It must, therefore, be abolished. The Muslim majority countries which have abolished polygyny have done so on basis of this very same argument. Still others like those, perhaps, who framed Pakistani (Sunni) and Iranian (Shia) laws argue for restrictions on polygyny, like asking for first wife's permission before second marriage, on the same grounds. That is why mullahs of CII are not only wrong, they also show us their extremely bigoted, misogynistic and regressive nature and motives, when they pronounce such laws un-Islamic.
Another thing worth noting from the interpretation of the polygyny ayah is that it serves to silence those who argue that polygyny is allowed because some men are, somehow, not satisfied with one wife. It is clear that satisfying the lust of such men was never the purpose of God in allowing these wives. It was, actually, the opposite.
While most of the arguments in favour of polygyny are outright crazy, because that is what excessive religiosity and the risk of losing power can do to men, there is this one argument which does make sense. It is that in some cases a woman might become ill or incapacitated. The husband might even be willing to take care of her but she might not be able to have sex and bear children. In such a case it is rather cruel to compel the husband to not marry a second wife. It would be equally cruel for the husband to have to divorce her for marrying another woman. What to do in such a case? Polygamy would be better...Not. The first question that comes to mind is, why only men? The situation might be reversed as well. The husband could be the one who is dependent. Should we, then, allow women the right of second marriage as well? And those who argue against second marriage of women on the grounds that we might not be able to find who is the father of the child. They are, I believe, living in 7th century as well. But no, second marriage in itself isn't the right solution in either case. Its plain stupid. The best solution, in the contemporary world, is to provide a public service for all such people, not to bind them into cruel relations like these. The answer can be found in changing this male-dominant system which churns out incapable women, deliberately, and not in perpetuating it.
It is worth noting that even slavery isn't directly prohibited in Islam. So going by their main arguments Mullahs might even argue that we start slave trade again. Then they would present the same 'logical' and 'religious' arguments to justify it which 18th century South of USA used to present i.e. it is a system bestowed by the Lord for the betterment of humanity. The slaves (blacks) are dumb creatures of God, created to serve the whites who are the sole bearers of the responsibility of human civilization's advancement. Interestingly, a lot of slaves agreed with this at that time. The truth, however, was that the planters of the South USA badly needed the slaves to perpetuate their hold over the congress as well as their economic hold over USA. Substitute the slaves with the women and there you have the arguments in favor of polygyny and the male-dominant system. Believe me religion can be used to twist almost anything to one's purpose.
Another thing worth mentioning on the topic of polygyny is that while it is debatable whether it should be abolished or not; it is perfectly within the ambit of Islam for every woman to insist on the inclusion of a clause prohibiting, in the marriage contract itself, the second marriage of the husband because in Islam, as in secular law, marriage is a contract, an agreement between the two parties. This could be as binding as any law that government could create, though, at least in the contemporary judicial system it might not be as effective because of the civil-criminal difference.
Finally, as I said above, religious text can be interpreted in several ways; mullahs have been interpreting it in the way that is most suitable for perpetuating their hold over Muslim communities throughout the world and any reasonable mind can see that their interpretation have always been skewed in favor of males. Moreover, they interpret it in the most conservative way possible. What else can we expect of people whose primary source of knowledge is the books written centuries ago? What's more they have always had support as well because humans, in general, are afraid of change. They might garb it in the cloak of religion but it comes down to this: I don't want children to be sold in the name of marriage; I don't want to see them live in this male-dominated system, I certainly don't want anyone to be a slave and I am sure neither does the God I believe in.
