The Case of Polyandry - 6

One last point to see before we conclude this discussion is the association of the children to their true parents. We had looked into this before, but we had done so without a connection to the Quran. Now, we are going to make that final touch.

"Call them by [the names of] their fathers; it is more just in the sight of Allah. But if you do not know their fathers - then they are [still] your brothers in religion and those entrusted to you..." (33/5)

"O Prophet, when the believing women come to you pledging to you that they will not associate anything with Allah , nor will they steal, nor will they commit unlawful sexual intercourse, nor will they kill their children, nor will they bring forth a slander they have invented between their arms and legs, nor will they disobey you in what is right - then accept their pledge and ask forgiveness for them of Allah. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." (60/12)

Both verses quoted above underline the fact that associating the children with their true lineage is important in the sight of Allah. Then, creating the conditions that are going to lead to the violation of this principle is clearly against the instructions of God. This brings us to the conclusion that a polyandrous family setting before the development of the modern medical technology would not be acceptible. However, with the advent of the genetic testing technologies, such confusion can be eliminated, and so, a proper association of lineage is possible even in case of polyandry. Therefore, from the perspective of these verses, too, one can not claim a prohibiton to polyandry.

And with this, I would like to add my final comment. Throughout this series, my intention was to scrutinize the case of polyandry from a religious perspective, because when criticizing Islam, people say that while allowing men to have 4 women, there is no similar permission to women to have 4 men. As a general rule, if something is explicitly decreed by God, whether the wisdom behind it is obvious or not, whether we like it or not, the believers accept it as is (33/36). However, this attitude does not keep the believers from studying the wisdom therein. So, if the result of my study indicated that indeed only men are allowed to have more than one spouse, I would take a course accordingly. Yet, I saw that the case of "prohibition of polyandry" is more cultural than religious. More so, in our time. Therefore, I am not going to claim that polyandy is allowed, but I am going to say that there is no clear ban of polyandry. When there is no clear ban, the job is on the hearts and minds. It is their duty to show us a path pleasing to Allah, and it is the individuals' job to make to appropriate choice.

Also note that, in the context of Islam, neither polygyny nor polyandry is aimed at idolizing sexual desires. The ultimate aim is conducting a life of dignity and chastity towards God. And doing that inherently requires an honest admission of human nature in its fullest extent. Allah knows best.

The Case of Polyandry - 5

An important point to look at when studying the polyandry-related verses in the Quran is the meaning of the word mohsanat. This word is sometimes translated as "married women", and is offered as evidence against polyandry. Let's study this concept and see if it really involves or implies a prohibition of polyandry.

In the following verses from the Quran, the underlined parts are the ones that are translations of the word mohsanat. 

"And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess... And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse." (4/24)

"And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women, then [he may marry] from those whom your right hands possess of believing slave girls.... [They should be] chaste, ... But once they are sheltered in marriage, if they should commit adultery, then for them is half the punishment for free [unmarried] women. " (4/25)

First, without any critical thinking, let's just look through the perspective of the classical understanding. So, by reading the first verse (4/24), where mohsanat is translated as married women, we see that men cannot marry the married women, hence a prohibition to polyandry. However, if those women fall captive after a war, then they can be married by men. Aside from the direct use of mohsanat, there is also a related usage, mohsinina, which is translated as chaste. 

In the next verse (4/25), mohsanat is used 3 times. In the first case, it is translated as free women, in the second as chaste women, and in the third, free unmarried women. Aside from these direct instances of mohsanat, there is still another form of it used in this verse, and that is translated as sheltered. In defense of these utter differences in meaning, the context is offered as the reason.

Virtually all remaining uses of mohsanat throughout the Quran are interpreted as chaste. One last piece of information that is noteworthy before we embark on an analysis is that mohsanat is derived from a root that means protected, guarded, shielded, which is reflected in one usage in 4/25. According to this original meaning, mohsanat literally refers to a female subject that is protected. Now let's do some critical thinking. 

I am going to start by pointing at some flaws and cultural artifacts that are hidden in the classical interpretations above.

1. In 4/24, it is claimed that mohsanat refers to married women, and that even if these women are already married, when they fall captive somehow, men can marry them. First of all, if these women are referred to by the Quran as married even after falling captive, that means the men who are marrying them are doing polyandry. If it is claimed that falling captive automatically abrogates marriage, then why are they referred to as married in the Quran? Plus, the original word in the Quran, which is translated as captive, does not say captive but is traditionally understood as such. It actually says "whom your right hand possess", and this can mean people who are slaves but not captive. Then, another question arises, if a man has a woman slave that is married, can that master marry her? Does that mean the lady can be married both to her master and to her husband at the same time, i.e. polyandry? Or does it mean her original marriage automatically drops upon marriage with the master? In the latter case, it has to be further established that the master has the right and authority to marry his female slave even if she is already married.
   
   You see, all these questions would not arise if you lived in a time and place where male centered culture is dominant and slavery is the norm. However, Quran is revealed for all times, and how things were interpreted in the distant past does not necessarily bind us. Therefore, either there is much and deep wisdom in the male centered applications and in the master-slave relationships so that we must force our minds to comprehend it, or there is something wrong with the classical interpretation of mohsanat.
   
   
   
   
   
2. It is claimed that the Quran is miraculous in its wording and in many literary ways. It is also known that in the Quran there are verses that explicitly state that its content is straightforward (18/1) and easy to understand (54/17) or at least explained in detail (41/3). Then, why are there 4 distinct uses of the exact same word in two consecutive verses, complicating the comprehension? According to the classical view, the word mohsanat is used in a total of four different meanings in 4/24 and 4/25: married women, free women, chaste women, free unmarried women. Plus, there is the extra usage of another form of the same word which means sheltered. In such a situation, an honest scholar would humbly and openly say "this is as good as we can see, but we are by no means claiming that this is the definitive approach", and would remain open to new understandings. However, this has not been the case throughout the history (I apologize if there were any exceptions). How do we know that scholars stuck with their questionnable interpretations and deemed them defintive? Because they permitted the killing of married women who had sex outside of marriage. As a scholar, if you had doubts about the veracity of your injunctions, you would prefer to err on the safe side when the time comes. For example, instead of risking "killing a believing lady unjustly", you would rather risk "not punishing an adulteress".
   
   So, either there is a problem with the miraculousness of the Quran and that it is not easy to understand and apply it, or there is a problem with the classical view.
   
   
   
   
   
3. As a remnant of the Jewish tradition, among the early Muslims, stoning to death was an accepted punishment for the people who committed adultery despite being married. However, the verse (4/16) that instructs the punishment for those people did not explicitly say "stone to death"; rather it said "give them pain or burden them". Still, the interpretations of the verses went with the norm, that is stoning to death for the adulterer and the adulteress. But the problem is, if you take mohsanat as married women, then you cannot apply the punishment to the married slave women mentioned at the end of 4/25. It says, whatever punishment you give to the mohsanat, give half of it to the married slave women if they commit adultery. If you take mohsanat as married free women, the penalty for adultery is stoning to death. Since one cannot divide the death penalty by two, the scholars changed the way they interpreted mohsanat, and they said it must mean free unmarried women. Note that this whole chain of logic starts with ascribing death penalty to married women that commit adultery, which is a cultural rule and which has no basis in the Quran. And instead of trying to develop a better understanding of the Quran, people chose to change the meaning of the word. By doing so, they made Quran become an instrument that is used to justify brutal actions. There can be no room for such merciless and irrational approach in understanding and interpreting the Quran, especially when it comes to producing injunctions that have irreversible consequences.

The above discussion shows that in order to use the verses from the chapter Al-Nur as evidence against polyandry, one has to first establish properly the meaning of the word mohsanat, and then make a case accordingly. As is, such a claim is a difficult stretch.

The Case of Polyandry - 4

After the initial analyses, now it is time to look at the verses of the Quran to see the status of polyandry. We are going to look at if there are any verses that are explicitly contradicting the practice of polyandry or verses whose implications are not compatible with polyandry. In order to keep the discussion brief, I am going to spare the details, unless a request for otherwise is sent.

All arguments against polyandry have child making and a possible confusion about the father as one of their bases. We already discussed this issue before in the first episode, but what I want to focus on here is a different dimension of marriage. All those arguments also introduce marriage exclusively as an institution for child making, as if marriage does not exist without the concept of child making. However, there is nothing that supports this notion in the Quran. Plus, if that was the case, the marriage of the people who cannot have child for biological reasons would become invalid. So, making children is a supplementary concept that comes on top of the concept of marriage. Once we separate these two concepts, i.e. marriage and child making, and realize that marriage comes at a more fundamental level than child making, then it becomes easier to penetrate the millennium long accumulation of information and directly reach the Quran to study the topic with fresh eyes.

Then the very first question we need to answer is what is marriage according to the Quran. In trying to answer this question, we can quickly see both what it is and what it is not.

"Marry the spouseless among you, and your slaves and handmaidens that are righteous; if they are poor, God will enrich them of His bounty; God is All-embracing, All-knowing." (24/32)

Marriage is not an act that is exclusively the right of the wealthy. Furthermore, believers are hereby given the responsibility to help the financially challenged people to get married. Therefore, financial responsibilities cannot be preclusion to marriage. It has to be noted that this superior position of marriage to financial status is due to its power to protect people from the prohibitions of God. Of course in a marriage, at least minimal economic wellbeing is of essence, however this wellbeing for the transient world cannot come before the wellbeing in the eternal world. So, the real condition that makes marriage a priority above other facts of life is that it enables people to lead a life of respect to God. And this condition is valid both for men and women. This is why polygyny is conditionally allowed in the Quran in the first place (4/3). By the same token, if a woman is in need of more than one man, her intention to protect herself from the prohibitions of God through marriage should be compatible with the teachings of the Quran.

To give you a better perspective, let me tell how the situation would be solved according to the existing, classical understanding. So, we are talking about a marriage in which the man is unable to meet the sexual and romantic needs of the woman. The situation is so serious that the woman finds herself in a constant mood of desiring attention from outside. That is, she is in a constant fight against herself in her everyday life in order to guard herself from the prohibitions of God. According to the classical view, she must divorce this husband and find another one that would meet her demands. To do this, she must return the dowry (mahr) that was given to her by her husband and seek divorce from the authorities. Assuming that this process goes through smoothly, without any obstacles due to prejudices and patriarchal culture, she can finally look out. And let's hope that the next person she finds is sexually potent enough, because there is no way for her to measure this, given that pre-marriage sex is not allowed in Islam. 

However, we all know that in reality, the smooth flow of events told above is almost impossible due to economical or cultural reasons. Plus, the husband resists the divorce, because the entire situation is simply unacceptable from a male perspective. And how the authorities would handle the case is another matter. So, the woman is left alone to her fight in her being. And God forbid, if she loses the battle to herself and gets into a secret affair, then she is risking being stoned to death (which is another issue to discuss). All because she is not given the same sexual rights and freedoms that are given to men in the classical understanding.