Misconception:
Someone might wonder why should the hand of burglar who stole a specific amount of money that is not so big, be cut off, whilst the hand of the embezzler who embezzled a huge amount of money should not be cut off?
The answer to that:
Answering this question, ibn Al-Qayim –may Allah be merciful to him- said: “This is from Allah’s wisdom. Regarding the burglar, he steals the people after they have taken their enough security standards, and they cannot do anything more than this to prevent him from stealing, because he has broken the locks, doors, roofs and windows, and people cannot be more cautious than that. Therefore, if his punishment was not to have his hand cut off, then burglary would spread over the society, people would steal each other, feeling the safety would disappear from the society, the damage would increase and the disaster would become more crucial. As for the thief who snatches (like the one who snatches and runs away), or the robber who steals money by oppression in front of people’s eyes and takes it forcibly, his hand will not be cut off, because the people could stop him or even testify against him in front of the judge, and regarding the embezzler, also his hand will not be cut off, because he steals the money at inattention of the owner, and this means that the owner didn’t take his enough safety standards to prevent anyone from embezzling his money.”
Method of cutting:
There is no dispute among scholars that gentleness and kindness should be taken into consideration when carrying out punishment, so the stealer should be driven to the place of cutting gently, he shouldn’t be treated roughly, nor be insulted nor be humiliated, as the Messenger of Allah said:
“Do not be helpers to Satan against your (Muslim) brother.”
As-Silsilah As-Sahih 1638
The ruler should also pick the right time for the cutting, so he should avoid the severe cold and heat. Punishment shouldn’t be carried out on the stealer while he is suffering from a non-chronic disease, it shouldn’t as well be carried out on pregnant women, on the women who has natal bleeding or on anyone whose cutting the hand off will cause his death.
After he arrives at the place of cutting he sits, a sharp knife is then put on the articulation of his palm (his wrist), and they strongly hit on it to be cut in one attempt, and if there is a quicker way then it should be applied.
Misconception:
Someone may say: I saw a scene of a stealer whose hand was cut off by one of the Islamic groups in an Arabic country which is in war. It was an inappropriate scene, as they hit his hand with a cold sword –meaning a not sharp one- several times until his hand was cut off, and they were happy with that saying “Allah Akbar -Allah is the Almighty.”
The answer to that:
This is an individual act and it is against the teachings of the Sharia on this matter, as in the Islamic Sharia, a hand should not be cut off in this way, and their act indicates ignorance of its teachings and it ruins the image of the forgiving Islamic Sharia! They as well violated the teachings of the Sharia from these points:
1. Hudûd (punishments) are not carried out during wars:
As the Messenger of Allah ((ﷺ said:
“No hand should be cut off during wars.”
At-Tîrmidhi
Ibn Al-Qayim said:
“Even though this is a punishment prescribed by Allah, the Prophet ((ﷺ explained to us that it shouldn’t be carried out during wars, because it could then lead to something that is worse than when suspending it or postponing it, as it could lead the stealer to join the other side who fight against the Muslim people, and that is out of his anger, and this is also explained in the statement of ‘Umar, Abu Ad-Dardâ’, Hudhâifa and others.”
2. One should not be happy when the punishment is carried out on the guilty:
The Prophet ((ﷺ used to hate and forbid that someone be happy when the punishment is carried out, but carrying it out on the guilty is an obligation to obey Allah and to comply with His command. Abd Allah ibn Mas‘ûd said:
“I remember the first man whose hand was cut off by the order of the prophet ((ﷺ, a burglar was brought and he ordered to cut off his hand, and it was as if the face of the Messenger of Allah showed sorrow, so they said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, you disliked his hand to be cut off!’ He said: ‘Sure I disliked that, why not? Do not be helpers to Satan against your (Muslim) brother. If a case arose which requires a punishment in front of the judge, then he must carry out that punishment. Allah is Forgiving and He loves forgiveness, (let them pardon and forgive. Do you not love that Allah should forgive you? And Allah is Ghafûr (Oft-Forgiving), Rahîm (Most Merciful)) (An-Nûr 24:22).’.”
As-Silsilah As-Sahiha
This is the burglar’s punishment in the Islamic Sharia, which as we saw is more efficient if we look at it from a rational, reasoning and future perspective, and more useful in helping protecting the society. Now, let’s look at the punishment of stealing in the other religions.
Punishment of stealing in the Bible:
1) Stoning and burning of the stealer and his whole family:
Joshua (7:1-26): “1 But the children of Israel committed a trespass in the accursed thing: for Achan took of the accursed thing: and the anger of the Lord was kindled against the children of Israel. ….. 10 And the Lord said unto Joshua, Get thee up; wherefore liest thou thus upon thy face? 11 Israel hath sinned, and they have also transgressed my covenant which I commanded them: for they have even taken of the accursed thing, and have also stolen, and dissembled also, and they have put it even among their own stuff. 12 Therefore the children of Israel could not stand before their enemies, but turned their backs before their enemies, because they were accursed: neither will I be with you any more, except ye destroy the accursed from among you. ….. 19 And Joshua said unto Achan, My son, give, I pray thee, glory to the Lord God of Israel, and make confession unto Him; and tell me now what thou hast done; hide it not from me. 20 And Achan answered Joshua, and said, Indeed I have sinned against the Lord God of Israel, and thus and thus have I done: 21 When I saw among the spoils a goodly Babylonish garment, and two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold of fifty shekels weight, then I coveted them, and took them; and, behold, they are hid in the earth in the midst of my tent, and the silver under it. 22 So Joshua sent messengers, and they ran unto the tent; and, behold, it was hid in his tent, and the silver under it. 23 And they took them out of the midst of the tent, and brought them unto Joshua, and unto all the children of Israel, and laid them out before the Lord. 24 And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them unto the valley of Achor. 25 And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the Lord shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and BURNED THEM with fire, after they had stoned them with stones. 26 And they raised over him a great heap of stones unto this day. So the Lord turned from the fierceness of His anger. Wherefore the name of that place was called, The valley of Achor, unto this day.”
2) Crucifixion to death:
Gospel according to Matthew (27:37-38): “37 And set up over his head his accusation written, ‘This is Jesus the king of the Jews’. 38 Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.”
3) Death:
Deuteronomy (24:7): “7 If a man be found stealing any of his brothers of the children of Israel, and he deal with him as a slave, or sell him; then that thief shall die: so you shall put away the evil from the midst of you.
4) Slavery and thrall:
Exodus (22:1-3): “1 If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. 2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. 3 If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.”
In Islam, every guilty person is held accountable for his crime and no one else bears his guilt or is punished instead of him. Allah the Almighty said:
“No bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another. Then to your Lord is your return, so He will tell you that wherein you have been differing."
(Al-An‘âm 6:164)
Resistance against the attacker in the Islamic Sharia and self-defense
Self-defense in Islamic Sharia:
If someone attacks another person, his money, his self, his honor or over power him wanting his money or to kill him, then this person and the other people are allowed to repel or stop the aggression by the needed reasonable force that can stop it. The one who defends himself, if it is possible, should start with the lighter way or force to stop the attacker, and then he can gradually increase the force until he achieves his target. Therefore, if he could stop the attacker by speech then there is no need to hit him, and if hitting him is required there is no need to use a stick. If he could stop him by cutting an organ then he is forbidden to kill him, and if killing is the only way the defender can resort to, then it is permissible and there is no blame on him. If the defender can run away then he should do it, because he is obliged to rescue himself in the easiest and simplest way possible. Allah the Almighty said:
“Then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him. And fear Allâh, and know that Allâh is with the pious.”
(Al-Bâqarah 2:194)
Conditions of self-defense:
1. That there would indeed be an attack.
2. That the attack would be immediate: So if the attack is done by threatening that something will be done in the future, then there is no need for defending as there is no defending before attacking. But if the attacker pointed something at him, as a gun for example, and threatened him with murder, then he has the right to stop and repel him.
3. Presenting evidence: that proves that he was attacked by the attacker as just saying it will not be accepted, because if it were then it would cause bloodshed with the excuse of self-defense.
4. Gradation during the self-defense: The Messenger of Allah ((ﷺ said to the man asking him:
“‘O Messenger of Allah, if someone comes to steal my money?’ He said: ‘Urge him by Allah.’ He said: ‘What if he persists?’ He said: ‘Urge him by Allah.’ He said: ‘What if he persists?’ He said: ‘Urge him by Allah.’ He said: ‘What if he persists?’ He said: ‘Then fight. If you are killed you will be in Paradise, and if you kill him, he will be in the Fire.’.”
(Ahmad
Self-defense in the Bible
Exodus (22:2): “2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.”
What is worth mentioning is that the accredited Greek translation is written in a different way than the English translation, as it says: “2 If a thief is found stealing, then he is executed at his place, and the one who killed him isn’t responsible of his killing.”
(Αν ο κλέφτης συλληφθεί επ’ αυτοφόρω να κλέβει, θα εκτελείται επί τόπου, κι εκείνος που θα τον σκοτώσει δεν θα φέρει ευθύνη για το φόνο του.)
Self-defense in the man-made laws:
We previously saw the level of contradiction in the man-made laws in defining what is the crime, and what is the right. In addition to that, we saw the confusion in determination of the suitable and unified punishment that should be applied in every country and that will help maintain security and deter the criminals. This confusion and differences are also observed in the field of self-defense against burglary, as there are laws that stand in favor of the criminal on the victim’s account, and there are laws that stand in favor of the victim on the criminal’s account. For example, in the United States of America, they apply a “Stand your ground” law, which allows homeowners to use lethal force once they feel they are under the threat of burglary. This law caused severe political and legal conflicts and disagreements, and many protests went in the streets against that law. In the American state of Connecticut, a teacher entered his house and found a masked, knife-wielding intruder, so he immediately shot him to death. After that, it appeared that it was his teenage son. As for the United Kingdom, the field of self-defense witnessed a severe political and legal conflict. Where both of the prime minister ‘David Cameron’ and lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice ‘Christopher Stephen Grayling’, were trying to pass a law that is more strict against burglary, but Liberty, the leading civil rights group, condemned the policy as “irresponsible”.
We may quote the saying of the minister of justice ‘Chris Grayling’ as evidence[10]:
“No one of us really knows what his reaction will be when his house is under burglary, no one of us really knows how terrifying it will be to face a burglary in the midnight, no one of us really knows how horrifying it is to feel that our family is in danger. The heat of the situation might make you think nothing else but to protect your loved ones, but until now, you are not certain that the law will stand on your side, and I think householders acting instinctively and honestly in self-defense are victims, not criminals. They should be treated that way. That’s why we are going to deal with this issue once and for all, we are in the process of changing something which is very important, it is called ‘two strikes and you are out’, as if you commit two serious violent or sexual offences, you will get an automatic life sentence!! After the last elections, we promised that we would take measures against the out of control human rights’ culture. It is completely madness that the people who decided to attack our society are able to go back to courts for trial again and again, and we are accused of violating human rights if we deport them to the countries they came from. We know very well that we cannot deal with that matter the way we want, but we cannot continue in the same way we do in now.” … “You have to put yourself in the position of the man or woman who has reacted to the presence of a burglar and has reacted with fury, with anxiety, with fear ... and who has no time for calm reflection.” … “Those people are a real threat to our society, and we must treat them as such.”
Here are quotes of the Prime Minister ‘David Cameron’[11]:
“We’re saying ‘you can do anything as long as it’s not grossly disproportionate," he said. "You couldn’t, for instance, stab a burglar if they were already unconscious, but really we should be putting the law firmly on the side of the homeowner, the householder, the family, and saying ‘when that burglar crosses your threshold, invades your home, threatens your family, they give up their rights’.”
One of the British journalists who is a supporter of taking stricter punishments toward burglary said:
“I think that judges are more lenient with dangerous crimes, and I think that the public failed as well in supporting the enacting of stricter punishment against burglars. Because you might get a strict punishment for simple crimes like speeding tickets while driving and so on. On the other hand, there are dangerous crimes that do not have strict punishments that are suitable for them.”
Part IV
Polygamy in the Islamic Sharia and in the man-made laws
• Polygamy, multiple mistresses and wife swapping (Swinging)
• Polygamy and multiple mistresses in the man-made laws
• Difference between the second wife and the second mistress
• Wife swapping (Swinging) in the man-made laws.
•Polygamy in Judaism and Christianity.
• Polygamy in Islam.
Part IV
Polygamy, multiple mistresses and wife swapping (Swinging)
The Islamic Sharia has permitted polygamy to the man in a framework that preserves the stability of society and family. The man-made laws, on the other hand, have permitted men to have multiple mistresses and girlfriends in a framework that destroys society and family.
We will mention a comparison between polygamy in the Islamic Sharia and multiple mistresses in the man-made laws, to see which legislation is consistent with instinct and guarantees for the woman, her rights and her dignity.
In fact, Islam is the only religion that clearly set restrictions on the polygamy, and reduced the number of women that the man could marry before the advent of Islam. While all the other religions never specified or determined the number of the wives that a man can marry. Allah the Almighty said:
“And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphan-girls (Which are under your guardianship, and you want to marry them because of their wealth in order to deprive them from their rights and from their dowries, as you used to do before the advent of Islam), then (leave them and) 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 slaves) that your right hands possess. That is nearer to prevent you from doing injustice.”
(An-Nisâ’ 4:3)
As for the rest of the other religions, polygamy is permissible without any restriction on the number of women that a man could marry and without any conditions about how the husband should deal justly between them. Before we discuss the situation of the religions on polygamy, we will present the situation of the man-made-law on that topic:
Polygamy and multiple mistresses in the man-made laws
Polygamy and multiple mistresses have one general meaning, which is that the man has felt his deep need to have more than one woman for specific personal reasons some of which we will state later. The final result is one, that the man has a wife and another wife, or has a wife and a mistress!
From the legal perspective, some man-made laws criminalized polygamy saying it is something opposed to the high morals, when at the same time it legalizes having multiple mistresses and it even legalizes adultery and prostitution! That is, if a man marries another wife and the government finds it out, then he will face trial because the government would consider his second marriage as a crime, lustfulness and moral decadence, and he will be punished with jail time.
On the other hand, if he has a mistress other than his wife, and even if he has illegitimate children from her, then it is fine, he is neither incriminated nor punished. That is because in their opinion, this is not a crime, or lustfulness, or even moral decadence; it is personal freedom and moral openness! Keep in mind that the difference between polygamy and multiple mistresses is just the presence of a marriage paper which is like a contract that preserves the rights of the second wife in case of marriage, and the absence of that paper means that the second wife will only remain a mistress without any recognized official rights!
So, do governments actually fight the fact that the man takes another woman other than his wife, whether it is his second wife or mistress, or do they fight that paper and that contract that connects him with his second wife and guarantees her rights upon him and obliges him to comply with those rights? In other words, is his crime that he has a relationship with another woman other than his wife, whether as a second wife or as a second mistress, or his crime is that he signed on a paper (of his second marriage)? If the ban of polygamy is to not let the man take another wife other than his first one then it is as well necessary to not let him take a second woman as mistress! In fact, many men in the Western countries have abstained from marriage and preferred to live their lives without being committed to one woman, so that they could change their girlfriend with a new one every couple of months and live a life like married people (i.e. to have sexual relations but) with no commitments! So did the man-made laws fight this phenomenon and criminalized it? Or is it considered a personal freedom that one man can sleep with many women without a limited number!
The worst of all is that the man-made laws have legalized the profession of prostitution, as there are many places authorized by the government for that purpose. It servitudes some women and leases them per hour to any man who wants to cheat on his wife. Each of these women gets an official license from the government to practice prostitution, and she has a tax file where she pays her taxes at the end of the year, just like any other honorable citizen!
This has been widely spread in many countries which itself criminalizes polygamy, as there is mostly no street in them that is free from whorehouse!
And here we want to say that polygamy should also be considered as personal freedom if the West really wants to respect personal freedom, especially since we know that it is not done but by the consent of both sides.
Difference between the second wife and the second mistress:
Before deciding to have a second wife, the man would think deeply and seriously and with a big responsibility, because of what will ensue this marriage from commitments over him and rights for the second wife, whether these rights are financial or legal. However, in the case of a mistress, the decision will be easier for him knowing that she will only remain a mistress with no commitments over him or rights of her own or of her children upon him, if she gets pregnant!
This opens the door to evilness and corruption within society, because it pushes the man to move from one mistress to another with the sole purpose of having fun and entertainment. Every time he gets pleasure from a mistress, he starts looking for another one or, in other words, for another victim whose feelings and emotions will be manipulated, and whose future will be ruined! Such a man wouldn’t abstain from lying to his mistress telling her that he wants to marry her and so on, and saying that what is preventing him from doing so is the government that doesn’t allow polygamy, and that he will separate from his wife to marry her. So, if he lied to and cheated on his wife, then what stops him from lying to and cheating on his mistress?!
Keep in mind that having a mistress has disadvantages for the man himself, as his life will be miserable, he will live like a criminal, hiding from everyone so that his wife will not see him with her or hear him speaking with her. This behavior is an inclusive indication that what he is doing is wrong, because if it was a good thing then he would not try to hide it! It has also disadvantages for the woman, since she has accepted to be a mistress to a married man, and she will never be equal to his first wife, but she will consider herself inferior, knowing that she lives with a man who is not her husband but the husband of another woman. Therefore, she will not live a normal life with him, neither internally or externally, as she will not feel enjoying while walking with him, fearing that they might be seen together, let alone her lack of psychological and emotional stability because her lover can leave her anytime he gets bored with her.
The other thing the man-made laws didn’t pay attention to or tried to ignore is that polygamy is more for the interest of the woman than it is for that of the man, as the number of women around the world is higher that the number of men, because of these reasons:
1. Births: many international statistics indicate that the average number of births of female infants exceeds the number of males.
2. Death rate: the death rate among men is very high because of the violent wars that are held between countries from time to time, such as the First and Second World War. In addition to that, there are also the traffic accidents that most of their victims appear to be males, and there is also the fact that the death rate at younger ages is higher for males than females.
3. Abstention of men from marriage: because they don’t want to have marital obligations and family obligations or because of homosexuality, as many men in some developed countries pursue homosexuality, or because of monasticism, where in some Christian communities many men head towards celibacy and they don’t get married.
4. Prison: where the percentage rate of males is higher than females.
All these reasons make it hard for a woman to get a husband who will share his life with her.
Through the banning of polygamy, the man-made laws made many women to accept becoming just mistresses, so they can get a man, even if that man is another woman’s husband! Rather, the man-made laws should legalize polygamy and leave it to the freedom and choice of women, as marriage in general is not completed but by mutual consent, and the criminalization of polygamy is in fact opposed to the freedom of the individuals that the same countries call for.
For example, if someone should say to one of these women who cannot get a husband and wants to marry a married man, whether she is Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist, that polygamy is morally inappropriate and that she’d better stay a virgin with no husband and be deprived of the right to live a normal life, like any other married woman, or if he should tell her that it is better for her to live as a mistress for a married man, and after he leave her then she has to look for another paramour who is also married man and she should spend her life that way. Her answer will be: ‘Why do you put your nose in my personal life? What is wrong with you? It is not your business! If you don’t want polygamy or see it inappropriate then this is your concern, and don’t impose your opinion on others who have different views, as anyone who wants polygamy can have it, and anyone who doesn’t want it can have only one wife!’
Wife swapping in the man-made laws
(Also known as: Swinging, wife sharing, partner sharing, wife trading or wife lending.)
What is now extremely common in many developed countries is the phenomenon of wife swapping (Swinging), during which two men swap their wives and each one makes love to the other man’s wife, or the man makes love to his wife and the other man’s wife at the same time. After that, the other man makes love to his wife and to the other man’s wife at the same time.
The reason for that, as many married people stated, is their desire for change and sexual diversity and they consider it as a way of rapprochement and consolidate relationships between friends. The writer ‘Curtis Bergstrand’ stated in his book “Swinging in America” that this habit at first grew in America among fighter pilots during the Second World War, when the death rates among pilots were high, so the pilots formed a special community for themselves to consolidate the relationships between their families. Thus, the pilots were taking care of the wives of the dead or lost pilots, such care and solicitude which extends to an emotional and sexual side as well. One of the swinging forms that began to appear and spread among married people in the American civil society, is known as ‘key clubs’, where men throw their house keys on the floor randomly and then each wife picks a key randomly, and in this way, the wife gets to be with the key owner for that night[12].
It was published on the news channel website ‘CNN’ in September 15, 2011 that the number of married people who practice swinging has reached about 15 million! Now, there are global organizations that encourage the phenomenon of wife swapping (swinging) and organize trips, clubs, and special parties where one can practice swinging. Men are not allowed to enter there unless they have their wives, unlike women, who are allowed to enter even if they do not have husbands. There are at those clubs, special rooms for sex, where a man can have sex with another man’s wife, and after he finishes he can have sex again but with another man’s wife. The same applies to the wife; she can also have sex with many married men, one by one!
Of course, wife swapping (swinging) in the man-made laws is not considered as a crime, but it is considered as personal and sexual freedom, and they consider the pilot who takes care and fulfills the sexual and emotional desires of another dead or missing pilot’s wife morally appropriate, but when it comes to polygamy, they consider it a crime! So, if a married pilot marries another dead pilot’s wife to take care of her, they will see him as a criminal and they will imprison him for the crime of polygamy!
Polygamy in Judaism and Christianity:
All prophets in the Bible had more than one wife, for example: The Prophet Solomon (king Solomon), David, Abraham, Jacob and others, peace be upon them, are recorded in the Bible to have had more than one wives.
1 kings (11:3): ‘And he (Prophet Solomon or king Solomon) had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines.’
Deuteronomy (21:15): ‘If a man has two wives, one beloved, and another hated.’
Exodus (21:10): ‘but if he likes her and he married her, then he married another woman, then her food, clothes and making love to her are not diminished.’
Not even one text in the Bible, whether in the Old Testament or in the New Testament, mentioned the ban of polygamy nor even specified or determined the number of wives! One of the texts that prove the presence of polygamy in the New Testament:
1 Timothy (3:1): ‘1This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desire a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; … 12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.’
In this text, we find out that polygamy is permissible to everyone except those who want to be deacons or members of the diocese.
The writer Matilda Joslyn in her book “Women, Church and State” said[13]:
‘Is it not clear from the words of Paul about the qualifications of a bishop, that he has to be married to one woman, that polygamy was permissible in the first church with the approval of Jesus Christ’s apostles?! If so, then why are different measures being adopted nowadays other than the ones the apostles themselves approved of ?!’.
Some Christians quote some texts from the New Testament as proofs of banning the act of polygamy, for example:
Gospel of Mark (10:2-12): “2And the Pharisees came to him, testing him, and asked him, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?’ 3He answered, ‘What did Moses command you?’ 4They said, ‘Moses allowed a certificate of divorce to be written, and to divorce her.’ 5But Jesus said to them, ‘For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this commandment. 6But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. 7For this cause a man will leave his father and mother, and will join to his wife, 8and the two will become one flesh, so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9What therefore God has joined together let no man separate.’ 10In the house, his disciples asked him again about the same matter. 11He said to them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, and marries another, commits adultery against her. 12If a woman herself divorces her husband, and marries another, she commits adultery.”
Gospel of Luke (16:14-18): “14And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him. 15And he said unto them, ‘Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. 16The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. 17And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. 18Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”
Gospel of Matthew (5:31-32): “31It was also said, ‘Whoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorce, 32but I tell you that whoever puts away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, cause her to commit adultery; and whoever marries her that is divorced commits adultery.”
As we can see, these three texts talk about divorce and not polygamy, and the meaning of the sentence ‘But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female’ is Adam and Eve in general. It does not say that polygamy has been prohibited since the beginning of creation, because this contradicts with what is known about polygamy in the Bible and especially for the prophets. Therefore, these texts are not right to testify the ban of polygamy, but to the ban of divorce, whether the man has one wife or more. The texts also mention that the only case a divorce is acceptable is if the wife has committed adultery. In this case the man can divorce her, but if he divorces her unfairly without her committing adultery and marries another woman, then he is the one who commits adultery (meaning he cheated on her as if he has slept with another woman who is not permissible for him). The text does not say that whoever marries a woman other than his wife without divorcing her, has cheated on her or has committed adultery, and the same applies to the sentence ‘if a woman divorces her husband and marries another she commits adultery’. Here, adultery is related to divorcing the husband and not polygamy. If the meaning here was polygamy, then how is polygamy possible in the case of a woman who divorces her husband and marries another one (singular) or a man who divorces his wife and marries another one (singular)?! If polygamy was the problem, then a husband’s divorcing his wife and marrying another would be permissible, but what is meant here is that the husband should not to divorce his wife even if he has more than one wife.
Also, the sentence ‘who marries a divorced woman he commits adultery’, clearly indicates that the man who marries a divorced woman, even if this is his first marriage, is considered to be committing adultery, not because of polygamy, since he didn’t have a wife before, but because he married a divorced woman.
Note, we notice the difference between the Gospel of Mark (10:2-12) and the Gospel of Luke (16:14-18), as they both mentioned the same story but through a very different text, which indicates the disqualification of their testimony and the impossibility to consider them a sacred text revealed by Allah (God) or to attribute them to Jesus, peace be upon him.
1 Corinthians (7:1-9): “1Now concerning the things about which you wrote to me: it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband … 8But I say to the unmarried and to widows, it is good for them if they remain even as I am. 9But if they don’t have self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn.”
Here, it as well says (let each man have his own wife), the meaning here has nothing to do with the prohibition of polygamy, but for man not to touch another woman who is not his wife, to not approach adultery, it is as the same context as: ‘Everyone should take care of his son, or everyone should protect his home, money or business’, this doesn’t mean he has only one son or one home, but it speaks with a more general meaning. Another example at 1 Samuel:
1 Samuel (15:3): “3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”
The point is not to kill one man, one woman, one child or one donkey. It means everyone from men, women, children and donkeys, etc.
Also, in the saying ‘For it is better to marry than to burn’ there is no indication of prohibiting polygamy, but it just says marriage without any restriction of the number of wives!
There are many pastors and Christians from several sects who admit the absence of a prohibition on polygamy in Christianity, and many of them married more than one woman, for example the King Charlemagne, the emperor Valentinian I, Luther and others.
The writer Matilda Joslyn mentioned that by saying[14]:
“As it is historically known in an incontrovertible way, both Christian church and Christian state used their powers throughout the different ages, and under different circumstances in favor of polygamy. In the fourth century, the emperor Valentinian I gave Christians the right to marry two women. In the eighth century, King Charlemagne, who was the head of the Christian state and church, married six women, and some historians remember they were nine… Luther himself, while holding the Bible in his hand, the New and the Old Testament, said: ‘I admit from my side that if a man wants to marry two or more women then I cannot prohibit him from doing so, and this act of his doesn’t violate the Bible.”
St. Augustine said[15]:
“Now, in this era, after we have used the Roman law, the man cannot marry another wife as long as his wife is alive.”
This indicates that the prohibition of polygamy was due to the accreditation of the Roman law, and not because of the religious texts.
St. Augustine also said[16]:
‘Once again, Jacob, son of Isaac was accused of committing big crime, because he married four wives, but this accusation is baseless and meaningless, because polygamy was not a crime as it was the tradition, but now it has become a crime because it is not in the tradition… and the only reason to consider polygamy as a crime is because both the law and tradition prohibit it!”
Polygamy in Islam
To understand the Islamic perspective of polygamy we must know the following:
1. That Islam is not the first or the only religion that legalized polygamy, but it is the first and only religion that put restrictions on polygamy, also it is the only religion that determined the number of wives on a maximum four, while polygamy was legalized in all other religions without any restriction or maximum number of wives. Al-Hârith bin Qâis, said:
“I converted to Islam while I have eight wives, I mentioned that to the Prophet ((ﷺ, and he said to me: ‘Choose from them four (and give divorce to the others)’.”
(Abu Dawûd)
2. Polygamy in Islam is not one of the obligatory acts on each Muslim, as he will not sin if he didn’t do it, nor will it be considered as lack of faith, but it is from the permissible acts. Whoever wants to marry more than one wives he can, whoever doesn’t want to then he is free. This is an example of the many permissible acts in Islam that the Muslim will not be held responsible for if he leaves it.
3. To know and understand the reason behind the descent of the Qur’anic Verse which permits polygamy and determines it on four wives, we should read the Qur’anic Verses that precede it, understand them, and understand the reason of their decent. Then we will understand that this verse was descended only to defend the woman and protect her rights.
Allah the Almighty said:
“O mankind! Be dutiful to your Lord, Who created you from a single person (Adam), and from him (Adam) He created his wife [Hawwâ’ (Eve)], and from them both He created many men and women; and fear Allâh through Whom you demand (your mutual rights), and (do not cut the relations of) the wombs (kinship). Surely, Allâh is Ever an All-Watcher over you. * And give unto orphans their property and do not exchange (your) bad things for (their) good ones; and devour not their substance (by adding it) to your substance. Surely, this is a great sin. * And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphan-girls (Which are under your guardianship, and you want to marry them because of their wealth in order to deprive them from their rights and from their dowries, as you used to do before the advent of Islam), then (leave them and) 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 slaves) that your right hands possess. That is nearer to prevent you from doing injustice. * And give to the women (whom you marry) their Mahr (obligatory bridal-money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage) with a good heart; but if they, of their own good pleasure, remit any part of it to you, take it, and enjoy it without fear of any harm (as Allâh has made it lawful). * And give not unto the foolish (and the orphan children who are under your guardianship) your property (i.e. their property which you guard, and which you should guard and to not destroy as if it’s yours) which Allâh has made a means of support for you (i.e. because Allah has made the money a means of support for human beings, but the foolish and the small children can’t manage their wealth or guard it), but feed and clothe them therewith, and speak to them words of kindness and justice (i.e. tell them that you will give them their money just when they grow up enough or when they can manage it rightly etc.). * And try orphans (as regards their intelligence) until they reach the age of marriage; if then you find sound judgement in them, release their property to them, but consume it not wastefully and hastily fearing that they should grow up, and whoever (amongst guardians) is rich, he should take no wages, but if he is poor, let him have for himself what is just and reasonable (according to his labour). And when you release their property to them, take witness in their presence; and Allâh is All-Sufficient in taking account.”
(An-Nisâ’ 4:1-6)
In the beginning of the Noble Verses, Allah the Almighty orders the people to worship Him and fear Him, and He orders the guardians of the orphans to give them their money if they reach puberty and see that they can manage their money, and not to oppress them by looting their money. As the Arabs before the advent of Islam used to defraud the orphans, so if a man had an orphan under his tutelage, he would mix the orphan’s money with his, take what was good and leave the bad so he would defraud the orphan! Al-Saddi said:
“It was spread between the Arabs that the orphan’s guardian used to mix the orphan’s money with his, so he takes the fat sheep from the orphan’s sheeps, and replace it with a skinny one and say: a sheep for a sheep. Then he used to take the good dirham and replace it with the bad dirham, and after say: a dirham for a dirham.”
Allah the Almighty banned the crime of stealing an orphan’s money, as He said: “And give unto orphans their property and do not exchange (your) bad things for (their) good ones; and devour not their substance (by adding it) to your substance. Surely, this is a great sin.” which means it is a major sin.
The series of frauds continues on the orphans and so does the stealing of their money especially if the orphan is a girl. When ‘Urwa ibn Az-Zubayr -may Allah be pleased with him- asked Aisha –may Allah be pleased with her- about the saying of Allah the Almighty ‘And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphan-girls’ she said:
‘O my nephew! It was about the female orphan under the tutelage of her guardian and her money was mixed with his, and her guardian was interested in her beauty and wealth and wanted to marry her with a little or reduced dowry. So such guardians were forbidden to marry female orphans unless they deal with them justly and give their full dowry; and they were ordered to marry women other than them (if they were afraid to not deal justly with the female orphans).”
(Al-Bukhâri)
Therefore, the Noble Verse was descended regarding the man who steals the right of the orphan who is under his tutelage and solicitude. Because if a man wanted to marry an orphan girl he wouldn’t give her dowry as it was usual for other women, so Allah the Almighty prohibited him from doing that and ordered him to give her the standard dowry like he would give to the other women, or leave her and not marry her, and he could marry another woman, two, three, or four as a maximum.
But as usual, the enemies of Islam come with their usual and famous magical scissor, and cut from the Noble Verses everything that preceded the saying of Allah the Almighty “marry (other) women of your choice, two or three, or four;” and what is after, that is the condition of polygamy which is justice between wives!
Condition of Polygamy in the Quran:
Islam didn’t order the man to have another wife other than his, but it permitted him to do so, and set for him conditions that make him take it very seriously before deciding to marry a second wife. One of these conditions is to achieve justice among wives in relation to food, drink, clothes, and staying. Allah the Almighty said
“if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then marry only one.”
(An-Nisâ’ 4:3)
Islam also prohibited oppression and injustice towards the wives, or to be more inclined towards one of them in comparison to the other. Allah the Almighty said
“You will never be able to do perfect justice between wives even if it is your ardent desire, so do not incline too much (to one of them by giving her more of your time and provision) so as to leave (the other) hanging (i.e. neither divorced nor married). And if you do justice, and do all that is right and fear Allâh (by keeping away from all that is wrong), then Allâh is Ghafûr (Ever Oft-Forgiving), Rahîm (Most Merciful).”
(An- Nisâ’ 4:129)
The Messenger of Allah ((ﷺ said:
“When a man has two wives and he is inclined to one of them, he will come on the Day of resurrection with a side of his body hanging down.”
(Ahmad, Abu Dawûd, An-Nasa'i, At-Tîrmidhi and Ibn Majah)
Note: Dear reader, it needs to be taken into consideration that Islam is an international religion that was descended for all human beings for every time and place, and it wasn’t descended for certain people or communities and according to their way of thinking and desires. Therefore, Islam permitted the man to marry more than one wife, understanding the realities of their life and their living conditions, since what is thought to be unsuitable in this society, may be suitable for another, and what is thought to be unsuitable in this time, might be suitable in another. Also, this was decided as a mercy for women who would remain maidens in case there was not Polygamy. Therefore, anyone who wants to take this permission, he can but only by committing to its conditions, and anyone who doesn’t want to, then so be it!
