The Sharing Group Discussion on Sayyidina ‘Ali ibn Abu Thalib’s (k.w.) Monogamy with Sayyidatina Fathimah az-Zahrah (r.a.)

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ 

Sister Inga Härmälä asked, on The Sharing Group, on the 24th October 2017, “Can polygamy be considered a sunnah?  The Prophet (s.a.w.) himself set an example of monogamy and later an example of a type of polygamy which is prohibited for normal Muslims more than 4 wives.  So we cannot see his type of polygamy as a sunnah for us to follow, right?  On the other hand, the marriage contracts he negotiated for his daughters, at least in the case of Sayyidatina Zaynab (r.a.) and Sayyidatina Fathimah az-Zahrah (r.a.) were strictly monogamous.  So which of these sunan can we follow?” 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: The Prophet (s.a.w.) married widows, single mothers and women considered ugly, poor, old, sickly or otherwise undesirable.  Who can live up to that?  It is an easier sunnah to marry one wife and fulfill one’s obligations, than to marry many and disappoint them all.  More than one wife also means more than one mother-in-law. 

Sister Inga Härmälä: And Sayyidatina ‘Aishah bint Abu Bakr (r.a.)? 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: Sayyidatina ‘Aishah bint Abu Bakr (r.a.) was already a rejected bride, when Sayyidina Jubayr ibn Muth’im (r.a.) called off their engagement at the behest of Muth’im ibn ‘Adi because Sayyidina Abu Bakar ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Utsman asw-Swiddiq (r.a.) and his entire family converted to Islam.  What the Quraysh did not want, the Prophet (s.a.w.) stepped in and elevated. 

Sister Inga Härmälä: Could you share the sources stating the undesirability of the wives of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.)?  And being a rejected bride does not mean she was undesirable.  Why did prophet make his daughters contracts monogamous?  Was it that he did not trust his closest companions, Sayyidina Abu ‘Amr ‘Utsman ibn ‘Affan (r.a.) and Sayyidina ‘Ali ibn Abu Thalib (k.w.) to be able to fulfill the responsibility of a polygamous marriage?  Then, if the Prophet (s.a.w.) did not trust them, then who should we trust? 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: In Arab culture, a rejected bride would be considered undesirable.  The Prophet (s.a.w.) was Sent to destroy such taboos.  Both Sayyidina ‘Utsman (r.a.) and Sayyidina ‘Ali (k.w.) had other wives.  However, being married to the daughters of the Prophet (s.a.w.) had certain heavy spiritual obligations.  Also, by putting in such stipulations, the Prophet (s.a.w.) demonstrated its permissibility in shari’ah. 

Sister Inga Härmälä: Sayyidina ‘Utsman (r.a.) and Sayyidina ‘Ali (k.w.) married others only after the death of the Prophet’s (s.a.w.) daughters, as I have understood.  If you have read something else, please add link. 

About Sayyidina ‘Utsman (r.a.) you might be right.  I had forgotten that it was his daughter Sayyidatina Zaynab (r.a.) he referred to in the hadits: “I married one of my daughters to Abu al-‘Aasw ibn ar-Rabi’ before Islam and he proved truthful in whatever he said to me.”  But Ali was not allowed polygamy nor was Sayyidina Abu al-‘Aasw ibn ar-Rabi’.  Refute this article then because I will not be able to find something else by googling: Why Did the Prophet (s.a.w.) Prohibit Sayyidina ‘Ali (k.w.) from a Legal Marriage? 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: Although, I do not speculate on whether Sayyidatina Fathimah (r.a.) would be jealous, since I do not believe the daughter of the Prophet (s.a.w.) would be so petty, there is no incongruency in the Prophet (s.a.w.) denying Sayyidina ‘Ali (k.w.) permission to marry again.  We know, from sirah, that Sayyidina ‘Ali (k.w.) was so poor that his mahr was a gift from Sayyidina ‘Utsman (r.a.).  If he cannot afford to marry one woman, how was he to support another? 

Sister Inga Härmälä: Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis, have you really never engaged in this story about Muhammad (s.a.w.) explicitly forbidding Sayyidina ‘Ali (k.w.) from doing it, not because of poverty, but because of a promise made before he married Sayyidatina Fathimah (r.a.)?  Or you do not believe in this hadits? 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: Sister Inga Härmälä, the following hadits is muttafaq ‘alayh, meaning that it is found in both books of the Shaykhayn.  It is recorded that Sayyidina al-Miswar ibn Makhramah (r.a.) related that Sayyidina ‘Ali ibn Abu Thalib (k.w.) proposed marriage to the daughter of Abu Jahl ‘Amr ibn Hisham al-Makhzumi, when he was already married to Sayyidatina Fathimah (r.a.), the daughter of the Prophet (s.a.w.).  When Sayyidatina Fathimah (r.a.) heard about that, she went to the Prophet (s.a.w.) and said to him, “Your people are saying that you do not get angry for the sake of your daughters, and ‘Ali is going to marry the daughter of Abu Jahl.” 

Sayyidina al-Miswar (r.a.) then said that the Prophet (s.a.w.) stood up and said, “I gave a daughter of mine in marriage to Abu al-‘Aasw ibn ar-Rabi’; when he spoke, he told me the truth and when he made me a promise he fulfilled his promise.  Fathimah is a part of me, and whatever hurts her hurts me.  By Allah, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah and the daughter of the enemy of Allah will not be joined together as wives of one man.”  So, Sayyidina ‘Ali (k.w.) abandoned that proposal. 

Four reasons were given in Sharh Swahih Muslim by Imam Abu Zakariya Yahya ibn Sharaf an-Nawawi (r.a.), and Fath al-Bari’ by Imam Shihab ad-Din Abu al-Fadhl Ahmad ibn ‘Ali ibn Hajr al-‘Asqalani (r.a.). 

Firstly, that this marriage would be hurtful to Sayyidatina Fathimah (r.a.), whatever hurt her would hurt the Prophet (s.a.w.), and whatever hurts the Prophet (s.a.w.) hurts the body of believers, and is a major sin.  The Prophet (s.a.w.) clearly said, “Fathimah is a part of me, and whatever hurts her hurts me.”  There is no mention of jealousy in the matn.  This is assumed by many, and given in the translations, meaning that it is the opinion of the translator. 

The second reason given is that this would be a trial of Sayyidatina Fathimah’s (r.a.) religion.  In the matn of the same hadits from Swahih Muslim, the Prophet (s.a.w.) is quoted as saying, “Fathimah is part of me, and I fear lest she be put to trial with regard to her religious commitment.”  This was a time when Sayyidatina Fathimah (r.a.) had just lost her mother, and her sisters to untimely deaths.  This incident is said to have occurred just after the events of Fath al-Makkah. 

The third reason given is the explicit objection to joining the daughter of the Prophet (s.a.w.) and the daughter of the enemy of Allah (s.w.t.) together as wives of one man.  Again, this is found in the matn itself. 

And the final reason was that this was out of respect for Fathimah (r.a.) and her maqam. 

You are correct that I do not believe in this hadits, and I consider it problematic.  I will not go into the technical details of the chains.  However, I will point out some inconsistencies. 

Firstly, this is Sayyidatina Fathimah az-Zahrah (r.a.) and Sayyidina ‘Ali ibn Abu Thalib (k.w.) we are taking about.  They are not ordinary companions.  I cannot imagine someone exalted as one of the four foremost women in Paradise would be wracked by mere jealousy.  I cannot imagine that the one the Prophet (s.a.w.) labelled as the Gate to the City of Knowledge in the declaration of Ghadir Khumm would seek another wife when he knew he was not in a position to support them. 

Secondly, after the events of the Hijrah, after the various battles, the Year of Sorrow, the trials of Khandaq and so much more, are we expected to believe that such a minor thing would test the iman of Sayyidatina Fathimah (r.a.)? 

Thirdly, the Qur’an is Explicit that no soul bears the burden of another.  There is more than one ayat.  The Prophet (s.a.w.) is explicit that coming to Islam erases all past sins, indiscretions and affiliations.  Sayyidatina Juwayriyyah bint al-Harits (r.a.) and Sayyidina ‘Ikrimah ibn Abu Jahl (r.a.) had become Muslims.  Would the Prophet (s.a.w.) make a public announcement and humiliate them when we have another hadits where the companions were admonished for bringing up the deeds of Abu Jahl and hurting the feelings of Sayyidina ‘Ikrimah (r.a.)?  Are we expected to believe that people are held accountable for the unfortunate acts of their relatives, even after the amnesty of Fath al-Makkah?  Our Prophet (s.a.w.) is not a liar. 

Just because a narration is muttafaq ‘alayh, and accepted by many Sunni scholars does not mean we have to accept it.  Many other Sunni scholars, particularly those who are neither Shafi’i nor Hanbali, do not. 

Sister Inga Härmälä: I disagree with you and trust this hadits based on the simple fact that Sayyidatina Fathimah (r.a.) and Sayyidina ‘Ali (k.w.) were humans, not angels.  So you believe it is a lie that the Prophet (s.a.w.) talked to his daughters’ husbands and advised them to stay monogamous and the reason for their monogamy during their marriage with these daughters was different, such as poverty? 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: It has got nothing to do with angels.  I do not believe they were idiots, and I do not share this Shafi’i sacralisation of Swahih al-Bukhari.  This is simply one of several dozen narrations from the jami’ that traditional Hunafah reject.  It contradicts the Qur’an and reason, and should be thrown out. 

Sister Inga Härmälä: Okay, can you just explain who benefitted from making up this hadits?  You think it is slandering Sayyidatina Fathimah (r.a.) and Sayyidina ‘Ali (k.w.)?  All I see in it is a man love for his daughters and standing up for their rights against his own. 

And it does not contradict Qur’an and reason in anyway.  Sayyidatina Fathimah (r.a.) is a human and feelings of jealousy is a common human feeling, Described in the Qur’an as well.  When it comes to Sayyidina ‘Ali (k.w.), he, too is a man, and in the Qur’an, man’s greed is mentioned in relation to polygamy.  All I see is logic and Qur’an. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: There are a lot of Sunni ahadits fabricated in the schismatic era from the caliphate of Sayyidina ‘Ali (k.w.) to the time of the Umayyads that are specifically denigrating of Sayyidina ‘Ali (k.w.) and the Ahl al-Bayt.  Many of them made their way into Sunni texts.  Swahih al-Bukhari even has narrations where people who fought for the Umayyads against the Ahl al-Bayt are in the chains of transmission, and considered tsiqah.  An example would be ‘Ikrimah al-Yamani and the narrations about killing apostates, which explicitly contradict the Qur’an and other ahadits.  Swahih al-Bukhari also has narrations from Marwan ibn al-Hakam, then advisor of Yazid ibn Mu’awiyah, and the one who pushed him towards the massacre at Karbala, and the events of al-Harrah. 

The portion about the Prophet (s.a.w.) labelling Sayyidatina Juwayriyyah (r.a.), a Muslim convert, as the “daughter of the enemy of Allah”, is contrary to his character, and the Qur’an.  A lot of the swahabah were the sons and daughters of the “enemies of Allah”.  The Prophet (s.a.w.) even married one of them. 

Sister Inga Härmälä: To be honest he is saying “the daughter of the enemy of Allah”, which is no different from “the daughter of Abu Jahl”; he simply calls the same man with another name.  He is not blaming the daughter for anything, simply saying that he does not accept that Sayyidatina Fathimah (r.a.) will share her husband with “this woman of that man”.  If it was her person or family origin which was the problem, then why did not Sayyidina ‘Ali (k.w.) simply choose another woman to become a second wife?  In addition to that, I do not believe in taking narrations to be 100% true, word by word.  So it could be that “the daughter of the enemy of Allah” was an addition made by one of the many narrators. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: That is a weak argument.  Abu Jahl was long dead by then.  That should not have been a factor.  Why should Sayyidatina Juwayriyyah (r.a.) have even singled out for the sins of her father?  Sayyidina ‘Ali (k.w.) did eventually have other wives. 

Sister Inga Härmälä: Women are generally not called by their own names as a practice of respect in Arab culture.  If she did not have children to be called “Umm someone”, she would be called “bint Someone”.  Sayyidina ‘Ali (k.w.) had other wives after the death of Sayyidatina Fathimah (r.a.).  And plenty of them. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: Regardless, it is still stigmatising her for things she did not do.  That is contrary to the Qur’an, and as such, I disregard the entire narration.  Anything that contradicts the Qur’an in the least should be discarded. 

Sister Inga Härmälä: Well perhaps in that time not mentioning her father’s name and calling her by her given name would have been even more stigmatising, as if she had no ancestry at all.  Or then those words were never even spoken.  But at least we have to first give 70 excuses of how this might have been good words spoken by a prophet. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: I fail to see why we should make excuses simply to accept a purported narration.  The easiest and most logical conclusion is that the Prophet (s.a.w.) would not commit such a blatant contradiction of the Qur’an, and that this narration is a fabrication.  That is husn azh-zhan of the Prophet (s.a.w.). 

Sister Inga Härmälä: Sure, you can think like that.  I like to believe that this incident occurred and that it was the reason why Sayyidina ‘Ali (k.w.) refrained from marrying this woman or any other woman until Sayyidatina Fathimah (r.a.) died. 

Brother Hamayoon Sultan Qurayshi: One of our worst problems today, whether it be in religion or politics, is retrospective justification of a given viewpoint.  Rather than accept that something we believed or were told might not be true, we cling desperately to our pre-existing views and cause problems for ourselves and for our community by refusing to question and challenge what was once believed. 

Sister Inga Härmälä: Yes you are right, Brother Hamayoon, this is a big problem of ours.  It is in human nature.  As enough good evidence gathers up opinions do change however, at least I have experienced that throughout my life. 

Brother Hamayoon Sultan Qurayshi: It is unfortunately not the case nowadays and especially amongst Muslims, as we desperately defend 800-year-old fatawa and understandings.  I do not do textual religion for this very reason, because the evidence is seen by many as a threat to our previous views about texts, rather than something to consider on its own merits and thus make informed decisions on whether the texts, especially given ahadits, and our understanding of them, were correct.  I am more happy to entertain a narration being incorrect than find myself defending something just because it is what I think.  Upon challenge, if my views are confirmed, then al-Hamdulillah, but better such rationalism than automatic textualism. 

Sister Inga Härmälä: Well, I do not see any type of slander in the hadits, so how could I refute it based on such arguments mentioned here?  And feeling of jealousy towards your spouse is not a normal male feeling, it is a human feeling.  And I do not believe in ranking some humans above others based on their genes.  That is just not part of my creed. 

Brother Hamayoon Sultan Qurayshi: The issue is not necessarily about slander for me, although the retrospective defences offered of some things can fall into that trap.  My issue too is in the inconsistencies which Brother Terence has pointed out above.  Also, in regard to the direct family of the Prophet (s.a.w.) as well as his nearest and dearest, this does become an issue because if they were not better by virtue of being in such close proximity to him, including in relation to being from him, then it would beg the question of exactly what he was for?  Could the Beloved (s.a.w), The Messenger of Allah, have been so ineffectual?  I cannot believe that. 

Sister Inga Härmälä: Okay, I see we differ in many points.  But can you just mention exactly which inconsistencies here make you believe this incident never happened?  Is it the idea that the Prophet (s.a.w.) forbade something legal to two of his close companions? 

Brother Hamayoon Sultan Qurayshi: It is the points Brother Terence made above in his post, Sister Inga, where he discusses the hadits, the matn, and the inconsistencies for which he feels make the hadits questionable.  It is mainly that for the hadits and the reasons for the Prophet (s.a.w.) having apparently objected to this marriage to have been true, namely that she was a daughter of Abu Jahl, it would necessarily contradict other things that the Prophet (s.a.w.) also said about no soul bearing the burdens of another.  The Prophet (s.a.w.) previously admonished companions for mentioning the misdeeds of Abu Jahl to Sayyidina ‘Ikrimah (r.a.). 

Many companions were converts but whose relatives were still amongst the mushrikin, so could marriages to converts be objected to based on the actions of their relatives?  Let us say that one of Binyamin Netanyahu’s children became Muslim today and sought marriage to a Muslim, but Muslims objected because of who his father is.  Would this be a correct position for the Muslims to take?  For the Prophet (s.a.w.) to have then caved to such a position is unconscionable. 

I think that you are misapplying the hadits too in using it to justify a position on monogamy when even taken in and of itself, the stated objection based on the text is about her being the daughter of Abu Jahl, rather than Sayyidina ‘Ali (k.w.) already being married.  But as above, there are questions about the hadits. 

To clarify I support monogamy in most cases today as per my other post.  I think this is where the confusion here came from - that this hadits was not about monogamy.  This, thus, veered away to a discussion of the merits of the hadits itself which may have been thought to have been a defence of polygamy but which actually was not. 

Sister Inga Härmälä: Well as I see it, both you and Brother Terence understood it in a very strange way.  Just to be clear of my interpretation, I will try to find the article where this hadits is explained in detail. 

Brother Hamayoon Sultan Qurayshi: Terence can explain himself but the alternative to the understanding I have on this, is for the Prophet (s.a.w.) to have been contradicting himself, as I wrote above, and not being consistent.  The logical conclusion of the hadits being literally true, assuming it is true at all, is also worrying for its implications, especially in the potential for the Prophet (s.a.w.) making a decision for someone to bear the burden of another’s sins, which we know cannot happen.  I cannot accept this to be true and is something I thus do not find strange at all.  I would be happy to read the article though. 

Sister Inga Härmälä: I have read very good stuff about this hadits, but now I cannot find it.  It is generally quoted as the source of why we can stipulate monogamous marriage contracts.  If you do not see the words “daughter of the enemy of Allah” as an insult, but as a way of expressing who is being talked about, and if you see that Sayyidina ‘Ali (k.w.) is only reminded about his promise of monogamy, not that this specific woman is unsuitable, then there are no contradictions left.  I will post some quotes I agree with from articles I do not agree with: 

“The correct ruling is that it the right of the wali or the bride to stipulate conditions before the marriage contract disallowing the husband from marrying multiple wives.  From the wordings of the hadits, it is obvious that the Prophet (s.a.w.) had entered into this agreement with both his sons-in-law at the time of their marrying his daughters.  He merely kept ‘Ali (k.w.) to the pre-nuptial conditions, that is all.  Concerning the multiple marriages of the Prophet (s.a.w.), obviously, none of the guardians of any of his wives made a pre-nuptial condition that he not marry multiple wives, so he himself did not have to fulfill any marriage contract.” 

“It is not true that the Prophet (s.a.w.) cited the girl being the daughter of his enemy as a reason for ‘Ali (k.w.) not marrying her.  Rather, the Prophet (s.a.w.) statement was just a statement of fact in that he wanted to express what the outcome would be. This is similar to Anas ibn an-Nadhar’s (r.a.) statement, “By Allah, her tooth will not be broken”, from Swahih al-Bukhari.  The Prophet’s (s.a.w.) intention was not to hurt the feelings of Abu Jahl’s daughter, for she was a good Muslim.  Rather, his statement was an attack on her father and not her.” 

The rest is here: Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun’s Article “Muhammad’s Inconsistency: Prohibiting a Lawful Marriage” 

Brother Hamayoon Sultan Qurayshi: I just read it and much of it is verbal gymnastics exhorting us that if we see this, and if we see that, then this will be the case; that the Prophet (s.a.w.) could have been representing Sayyidatina Fathimah’s (r.a.) wishes, and she could have said that she would not be able to deal with it.  But did she?  Are the assumptions based on any evidence?  It is the sort of work that I absolutely despise: desperately defending something with a series of gymnastics manoeuvres rather than entertaining the possibility that it may actually be wrong.  We can assume all sorts of things to prove a point about anything, and we may even “win” the argument, but that does not make it true. 

A case in point is the claim in the article that Abu Jahl was referred to as the “son of the enemy of Allah”, which is true, to defend the overall position, but it ignores that Rasulullah (s.a.w.) also told the swahabah that Sayyidina ‘Ikrimah ibn Abu Jahl (r.a.) was coming to them as a believer and muhajir, that insulting the dead upsets the living and does not reach the dead, and that they should thus not insult his father.  If he said this about Sayyidina ‘Ikrimah (r.a.), why would he not observe the same about Sayyidina ‘Ikrimah’s (r.a.) sister and attack Abu Jahl then?  Why the inconsistency? 

I am sorry but that article represents everything that several years ago drove me away from the scholars of my childhood community and led to my starting to question everything I was taught.  I am still very much orthodox - I consider myself a classical Hanafi - but I do not do intellectual gymnastics, and am willing to challenge conventional wisdom and put myself in some very difficult positions as a result. 

Sister Inga Härmälä: As I said, I do not believe in the article either.  The only the quote I took from it is that the strongest evidence is that this hadits exists with strong narrations and as far as I know, all Sunni and Shi’ah scholars consider it swahih both as isnad and matn.  You have not provided even one scholar in the history of Islam who have refuted this hadits based on the ideas you both have presented here. 

My stand is that not 100 % of the words are correct, it is a hadits after all.  So I guess, perhaps the Prophet (s.a.w.) never referred to the daughter of Abu Jahl by that name.  But I would never refute this based on the idea that Sayyidatina Fathimah (r.a.) and Sayyidina ‘Ali (k.w.) were some kind of übermensch, and therefore would never have encountered such a problem during their marriage. 

As our conclusions regarding the ethics of marriage is pretty much the same, it does not matter that our standpoint on this hadits differs.  I take good lessons from it, and because you cannot, it is better that you consider the whole thing false.  This is the beauty of faith. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: It is not true that Shi’ah scholars consider it swahih in sanad.  In fact, the Shi’ah almost universally reject this narration, on account that the sanad is viewed as munqati’, and with some narrators not considered tsiqah. 

In terms of Sunni Islam, this is one of the ahadits from the Shaykhayn rejected by the Hanafi scholars of the time of Imam Abu Manswur Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Maturidi (r.a.), and mentioned in his Kitab at-Tawhid.  His position, as I have mentioned above, is that is a narration contradicts the Qur’an, our ‘aqidah or established facts, then it is to be discarded without the need to examine the chains of transmission.  This was the general position of Hanafi madzhab until the last 300 years or so. 

Sister Inga Härmälä: Do you have this text of Imam Abu Manswur al-Maturidi (r.a.) where he refutes this particular hadits?  Is it in English?  I can read Arabic too, so you can send it to me in whatever form you like.  I agree with the methodology, but this particular hadits I could not see as contradicting Qur’an. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: Brother Atabek Shukurov wrote a long series of article on it.  You can find it on his web site.  I am not in the habit of sending posts and citations.  I expect others to do their own homework. 

Brother Ashiq Zuhoori Yasin: The sunnah only applies when the first wife have already passed on, that in itself is hikmah.  If one would hopefully wait for his wife’s death then that is something to worry about.  We have a growing number of men, especially in the Malay community, that have the impression that wives are like trophies, to have one is normal, to have two is good, to have three is great and to have four is perfect.  These are men who are far away from the sunnah despite thinking that they are upholding the sunnah.  It is absurd and we know where this ideology came from. 

Brother Firdaus Farida: I met one like that.  His logic was to keep all of them pregnant to rebuild the Muslim population. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: The Muslim population does not require rebuilding.  As it is, we have far too many stupid Muslims.  We do not need any more. 

Sister Inga Härmälä: I think polygamy in Islam should be compared to the question of slavery in Islam.  It was a widespread practice in that society and some circumstances, such as war and poverty, made these systems more or less a necessity.  We abolished slavery as against human nature and values of equality and polygamy should not necessarily be abolished, but it should not be treated as an option for any man, as it is being propagated these days.  Unfortunately also, here in this group it seems as if jealousy towards your husband is a bad characteristic for women. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: Polygamy was mandated as a form of welfare.  The verse on polygamy also Mentions widows and orphans.  For most of our societies, we have passed that stage.  Polygamy was a necessary compromise of an earlier age.  It has no central place in modern society. 

Brother Firdaus Farida: You sound like you compare a wife to a slave.  You know you do not own her, right?  She is not your car you can groom and polish to be just what you want her to be. 

Sister Inga Härmälä: No, I compared the two practices, nothing more, Brother Firdaus Farida. 

Brother Hamayoon Sultan Qurayshi: I do definitely agree that it should not be considered an automatic option for men, as it often is today, usually because Muslim men cannot keep their trousers up.  The excuse we often hear about it being better to marry a second and multiple times rather than conduct an extra marital affair, makes a mockery of the intent of even one marriage, let alone the original reason for multiple ones.  Polygamy might be justifiable in very specific circumstances today but the practice of it cannot be left in the hands of modern Muslim man.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Brief Biography of Shaykh Ibrahim ibn ‘Abdullah Niyas al-Kawlakhi (q.s.)

The Du’a of the Blind Man

The Benefits of the Verse of 1,000 Dananir