Note: Polygamy has had proponents and opponents for centuries. Proponents point to widowed women for whom no possibility of another marriage exists other than becoming a second wife, and who would cause significant social harms if they remained unmarried; opponents, meanwhile, consider polygamy to be oppression against children and wives, which is realized even if all living amenities are provided. In recent years, however, another reason has been added to the arguments of the opponents of polygamy: that some have considered polygamy an instance of violence against the wife. In their belief, violence is not merely physical violence; rather, other types such as psychological and verbal violence, etc., are also conceivable for it, and polygamy entails psychological and emotional violence against the wife. We discussed this subject with Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Amir Mohajer Milani, the Director of the Jurisprudence Group at the Women and Family Research Institute. Although he did not deny the correlation between polygamy and violence against the wife in some cases, he did not consider it a permanent and perpetual matter. In his belief, the key to solving the issue of polygamy is considering the conditions of time and place regarding the issuance of the texts (Nusus); a matter that, if attended to, will have significant effects on jurisprudential deductions. The detailed exclusive interview of Contemporary Jurisprudence with this professor and researcher of women and family jurisprudence follows below:

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Is the primary ruling (Hukm-e Avvali) in Islam merely the permissibility (Ibahah) of polygamy, or its desirability (Istihbab)?

Mohajer Milani: There is a difference of opinion among jurists regarding this issue. The late Sahib Jawahir believes that the desirability of polygamy is established. He considers the reason for this to be emulation of the Ahlulbayt (PBUH), who had multiple wives. The late Ayatollah Shobairi Zanjani believes that in Islam, polygamy [as a recommended principle] does not exist; rather, it is merely a ruling of permissibility, which is established for a person only under specific conditions where they possess the conditions for remarriage. Also, the late Shahid Sadr says in Iqtisaduna that certain evidences and jurisprudential rulings must be examined within their own conditions of time and place, whereas some jurists examine them without considering these conditions and in a vacuum, issuing fatwas accordingly; while if they had examined these evidences within their own conditions of time and place, they would have reached different results. This point is also extendable to polygamy and its evidences. If the narrations of the Ahlulbayt (PBUH) are examined according to the social texture of their time, it is not clear that the ruling of the desirability of polygamy would also be current for the present conditions of our time, which has a different social texture than the time of the Lawgiver. Even the existence of a practice (Sirah) in the time of the Infallible (PBUH) and its confirmation (Taqrir) by the Infallible (PBUH) does not necessarily mean its extension to other times is permissible; because it is possible that the Imam (PBUH) confirmed that practice within its own temporal container and considering its own temporal and spatial exigencies, not as a trans-temporal and trans-spatial practice. Therefore, clinging to the practice of the Ahlulbayt (PBUH) to discover the ruling of the desirability of polygamy is not so simple.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Can one conclude the non-permissibility of polygamy in the case of the first wife’s lack of heartfelt willingness from verses such as “And consort with them honorably (wa ‘ashiruhunna bil-ma’ruf)”?

Mohajer Milani: No, no jurisprudence has reached such a result. If we say that the meaning of “consort with them honorably” is the Shari’a custom (Urf-e Shar’i), it is clear that in Shari’a custom, polygamy is permissible, and the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the wives has no intervention in its ruling. Even if we consider “honorably” (Ma’ruf) to mean rational custom (Urf-e Oqala’i), the authority of this custom is still contingent upon the absence of a Shari’a statement contrary to it, whereas in multiple evidences, the ruling of the permissibility of polygamy has been stated absolutely, which serves as a restrictor (Muqayyid) or specifier (Mukhassis) for this verse.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Can polygamy be considered an instance of “violence against the wife” and ruled as prohibited (Haram) or preferable to abandon (Marjuh)? Is there a difference in this ruling between permanent and temporary polygamy?

Mohajer Milani: Polygamy does not always imply violence against women. If a person took multiple wives and treated all of them with kindness, affection, love, and provided standard living amenities, polygamy would not only not be an instance of violence against women, but would also be an instance of women’s felicity. However, if he ignored these matters, mistreated previous wives, did not provide basic living amenities for them, and did not treat them with justice, polygamy would be an instance of violence. Of course, the violence we refer to differs from the violence discussed in modern literature. According to Shahid Sadr, the text must be viewed within the framework of religious concepts, not within the framework of modern literature; because it was issued within that [religious] framework.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Considering that polygamy has no intrinsic ugliness (Qubh Zati) and is not considered ugly or an instance of “bad consortion” among all societies even in the present time, can its permissibility be questioned by applying imported and non-Shari’a titles such as “violence against the wife”?

Mohajer Milani: No, as I submitted, these imported titles cannot be considered as restrictors or specifiers for understanding texts (Nusus) that were issued centuries ago in a different atmosphere and literature.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: In the case of the first wife’s satisfaction, is polygamy still an instance of violence against the wife?

Mohajer Milani: No. If a man’s sexual need is not met without a wife or with one wife, and to meet it, it is necessary for him to fall into sin, polygamy is definitely permissible and is absolutely not an instance of violence against women. No jurist has said that a man should go and commit a sin but not engage in polygamy. Of course, polygamy has a detailed discussion from a social perspective, and the harms that are inflicted upon society, children, and wives must be seriously examined and analyzed, and it must be determined in what conditions and contexts these harms come into existence.