You are bound to be astonished to hear that psychologist and sociologists in the west generally believe that man is a born polygynist, and that monogamy is against his nature.

On page 80 of his The Pleasures of Philosophy, after commenting on the moral confusions of today with regard to sexual matters, Will Durant says: “Some of it (i.e., the increase in ‘social evil’) doubtless, is to be accounted for by our incorrigible love of variety; nature does not build us for monogamy.”

He also says: “Man is naturally disposed towards having numerous wives. Only the most scrupulous moral susceptibilities and the balancing of the scales due to poverty, hard labour and the constant vigil of the wife impose monogamy upon him.” [1]

In the 112^th issue of Zan-e ruz under the heading, “Is Man Innately Promiscuous?” A German, Professor Schmidt, is quoted as saying: “Throughout history, man has always been promiscuous and woman a guard against promiscuity. Even in medieval times, according to the existing testimony, ninety per cent of young men used to occasionally change their wives and fifty per cent of married men committed some breach of trust against their wives. Dr. Robert Kinsey, the well-known American researcher, in his report known as the Kinsey Report, has written: ‘The men and women of America have beaten all the nations of the world in faithlessness and breach of trust....’ Kinsey, under another heading in the report says: ‘Woman, unlike man, is bored by seeking variety in love affairs and pleasure, and this is the reason why woman is at a loss to understand what to do about the behaviour of man.’ Nevertheless, man treats the business of looking for variety as a sort of adventure. He easily deviates from the right path and, if there is one thing which is important for him, then it is physical gratification and not emotional or spiritual enjoyment. The display of a man’s being emotionally and spiritually affected is only up to the time he gets an opportunity to get his physical pleasure. One day a well-known medical practitioner told me: ‘That a man is a polygamist, and that a woman is a monogamist, a self-evident proposition. The reason is that in man millions of spermatozoa are created, while in the woman, when she is ready to become pregnant there is no more than one seed in her ovary’. Leaving aside from Kinsey’s theory, is there any harm if we ourselves think over the question of whether it is difficult for man to remain faithful?

“Henri de Montherlan of France in reply to this question writes: ‘To be faithful is not difficult for man. It is, rather, impossible. One woman is created for one man and one man is created for life and for all women. If man helplessly stumbles and commits infidelities with his wife, it is not his fault, it is the fault of his creation and natural disposition that all the factors which cause a breach of faith have been brought together in him.’”

In the issue 120 of the same magazine, under the heading, ‘Love and Marriage-French Style’ the following is written: “The French husband and wife have settled the matter of unfaithfulness between themselves by conforming to certain rules of conduct, certain limits and restrictions in this respect. As long as the man does not transgress the limits of these rules of conduct, a leap into the dark is not a difficulty for him. Can a man, in principle, after two years of married life remain faithful? Certainly not, because it is against his nature. Nevertheless, with regard to women he discriminates, to a certain extent between them, and, fortunately, they (the wives) are aware of this discrimination. In France if a husband commits an infidelity, his wife does not get annoyed or does not let it go on her nerves. She consoles herself: ‘He took his body to someone and not his spirit and his sentiments His sentiments and spirit are mine.’”

A few years back the views of biology Professor, Dr. Russell Lee, were published in the newspaper Kayhan on the same topic, and for long they were discussed by the writers of Iran. Dr. Lee believed that the satisfaction of a man with one woman is an infidelity against reproduction, not as regards quantity bit as regards quality. The reason is that limiting a man to one woman weakens his offspring. If he had numerous wives the generations would get stronger and more powerful.

We do not at all agree with this description of the nature of man. For these thinkers, the source of their inspiration is the special form of their social environment and not the real nature of man.

Of course, we do not believe man and woman to be biologically and psychologically the same as each other. Rather, we believe that they are in both respects dissimilar, and that creation has its own purpose in this dissimilarity. For this very reason identicalness of rights for man and woman, and the exact correspondence of the rights of one to the other should not be claimed. From the point of view of monogamy as well, man and woman have absolutely different mentalities. Woman is by nature a monogamist. Polyandry is incompatible with her natural tendency. The kind of things she desires from her husband does not fit in with polyandry. However, man is by disposition not a monogamist, in the sense that polygyny is not against his nature. Polygyny is not at variance with what he wishes and expects from a woman.

However, we do not agree with the belief that the natural disposition of man is at variance with monogamy. We are against the idea that the inclination of man towards variety is beyond reform. We are opposed to the belief that faithfulness is impossible for man, and that one woman is created for one man, and one man for all women.

We believe that the social environment brings into being the factors of infidelity in man, and not his creation and nature. Creation is not responsible for unfaithfulness; it is the social environment. The factors of unfaithfulness are brought into being by the social environment, which on the one hand induces a woman to use all her tactics for temptation and attraction on a complete stranger, to use a thousand and one tricks for enchanting him, to divert man from his way, and which, on the other hand, deprived hundred of thousands of women, fit and in need of marriage, from getting married, and sends them out into society to tempt and seduce men on the excuse that only legal form of marriage is monogamy.

Before the manners and customs of the West became widely received with approbation in the Muslim East, ninety men out of hundred were earnest monogamists. Neither had they more than one legal wife nor did they amuse themselves with concubines and loves. Exclusive marriages, in the real sense of the word, were in vogue in almost all Islamic families.

Polygyny is a source of protection for monogamy:

You will be surprised if I say that, in the Muslim East polygyny has been the foremost factor in the protection of monogamy. Yes, to be allowed to have more than one wife was the safety device of monogamy. This means that when there are conditions, where polygyny is justified where the number of women in need of marriage is above the number of marriageable men, and the right of marriage of these women is not formally recognized, and where those men who fulfill the moral, financial and physical conditions for marrying more than one wife are not permitted to marry another wife, devotion to loves and girl friends withers the very root of real, genuine monogamy.

In the Muslim East, on the one hand, polygyny was permissible, while on the other hand, there were none of these tempting means to excitement, no stirring up of the emotions. This was the reason that in most families’ monogamy was the rule, and the love affairs of men did not reach such limits that eventually philosophies would be devised in their support, and it should be said that man is created for numerous women, and monogamy is some thing impossible and unattainable for man.

You may possibly ask what man is supposed to do in the view of the theory of those who think that man is naturally disposed to polygyny, and in view of the social law which condemns polygyny.

The proper course in the school of thought of these worthy thinkers is evident. Man should legally be a monogamist, but in a practice a polygamist. He must not have more than one lawful wife, but, as for love affairs and mistresses, he may have any number he likes. There are no restrictions to this. According to these gentlemen love affairs and mistresses are the natural, in disputable and lawful right of man, and to restrict man to one woman for life means a sort of impotency.

The real point at issue:

In my opinion, by now my worthy readers should have grasped what the problem really is; the problem of  mankind’s polygyny, that was and still is under study. The point at issue is not whether monogamy is better than polygyny. There is no dispute about the matter that monogamy is better. Monogamy which means an undisturbed, secure family life, in other words, that the body and soul of each, the husband and the wife, are one for each other. It is evident that the spirit of matrimonial life which is oneness and unity is attained better and with more perfection with a single spouse. One does not have to make a choice of one of two alternate routes on which to proceed. The problem that is to be tackled in earnest is that for social necessities, especially those due to an excess of the comparative number of women in need of marriage to the number of men in need of marriage, absolute and unrestricted monogamy is in practice at stake. For this reason, pure monogamy in each and every family is no more than, a fiction. One of two alternatives should be chosen: either the formal acceptance of polygyny, or the love affairs system. In other words, a few married men should marry more than one wife, and these will certainly not exceed ten per cent, and unmarried women should settle, get a home and make a life for themselves; or else open the way for love affairs. In the latter case every lover may associate at her own free will with several men, and, as a result, almost all married men will in practice be polygamists.

Yes, this is the correct position as regards the problem of polygyny, but the missionaries of western life-styles are not prepared to pose the problem in its right perspective. They are not prepared to speak the truth out openly. They are actually defender of prostitution and a promiscuous life. They consider lawful wives to be irksome and a source of inconvenience, and they consider even one wife to be more than necassary, let alone two, three or four wives. They delight and feel great pleasure in being free from the bondage of marriage, but in their talk with simple persons they pretend to be defenders of monogamy and, in an innocent tone, they say they advocate the cause of monogamy. “We want man to marry only one wife and to remain faithful to her and not to be a polygynist and unfaithful.”

Twentieth-century man’s fraudulence:

In many matters concerned with family rights twentieth century man has been able to deceitfully misrepresent the facts, and, by deluding women with elegant expressions of equality and independence, he has evaded his responsibilities towards her and added to his own countless successes. Nevertheless, in few matters was he as successful to the degree he was in polygyny.

I sometimes see such things in the writings of the Iranian writers that I truly doubt whether it is due to simplemindedness or whether it is a deception.

One of the writers has put down his view about polygyny thus:

“At present, in the developed countries, the relations between husband and wife rest upon reciprocal rights and responsibilities, and so the recognition of polygyny in any form or manner (permanent or temporary) would be as difficult for a woman to accept as it would be to expect man to tolerate a rival in matrimonial affairs.”  

I do not know whether really the ideas of these people are the same concerning this matter, or whether they purposefully misrepresent the facts. Do they really not know that polygyny rises from a social problem which rests heavily on the shoulders of all men and married women, and that for the solution of this difficulty something better than polygyny has not yet been found? Do they not know that if they shut their eyes and hold demonstrations, crying out ‘long live monogamy’ and ‘death to polygyny’ that this will not remedy the ailment.

Do they not know that polygyny is the right of women and not part of rights of men, and has no connection with the comparative rights of men and women?

How ridiculous it is when they say “polygyny would be as difficult for a woman to accept as it would be to expect a man to tolerate a rival in matrimonial affairs.” Apart, from the fact that it is a false analogy, perhaps they do not know that the ‘modern world’ (which name these people assign to every new phenomenon when they are not prepared to entertain any doubt against its soundness) continuously calls man forth to hold the love of his wife in esteem, and to endure with patience the existence of rivals in matrimonial affairs. The modern world condemns cases of impatience with the names envy, bigotry intolerance, fanaticism, etc… I wish that our young men were, to some extent, aware of the depth of what is going on in this respect in the west.

In view of this fact, polygyny rises from a social difficulty and is not due to the innate nature of man. If there did not exist in society the problem of an excess of the number of women in need of marriage over the number of marriageable men, the custom of polygyny would have ceased to exist, or would have rarely existed. If we wish to completely abolish the custom of polygyny under these conditions (supposing that these conditions actually exist) a legal on it would be neither nor correct. For this purpose, a few other things are necessary. The first thing is social justice, and work with sufficient income for every man who wishes to marry, so that he may make proper arrangements for the peaceful environment of the family before he gets married. Secondly, freedom and independence for the woman in making the choice of a husband, so that she may not be given in marriage by her father, brother or any other person against her will to a wealthy man, who already has a wife. Evidently if a woman has freedom and has a chance to marry a bachelor, she will not want to be the wife of a man who already has a wife and will not like to go to face a rival wife. Are these the guardians of women who, out of their greed for money, sell away their daughters and sisters to moneyed men who already have wives?

Thirdly, the factors of stimulation, excitement and overpoweringly effective home destruction should not be rampant every where. The factors of temptation attract married women from the homes of their husbands to the houses of strangers, to say nothing of unmarried women. If society wants reform, and in all earnest wishes to redeem and reestablish monogamy it should try for the establishment of these three factors, otherwise legally tabooing polygyny will only pave the way for promiscuity and sensuality, and will not have any other result.

The crises arising from the frustration of unmarried women

Now, if the number of women who need to marry is above the number of marriageable men, forbidding polygyny is treason against humanity, as it is only trampling on the rights of women. If the matter had ended there, it may have perhaps been acceptable, but the crisis which will arise from it will be more dangerous than any other crises, because the peace of the family is more sacred than the security of any other institution.

The reason for this is that the person who is being deprived of her natural rights is a living entity, capable of all the reactions, which a living entity can display when it is deprived. That entity is human soul, with all the mental and emotional consciousness and psychic complexes which result from failures. It is woman with the power of female magic: She is the daughter of Eve with all the potential to deceive Adam.

It is not wheat and barley which may be the thrown into the sea when it is more than required, or which can be stored in the warehouse as a precautionary measure; it is not a house or a room that may be locked when, not required. It is a living entity, a human being, a woman; she shall display her amazing power. She is bound to take complete vengeance on the social order of the world. She will say:

I tell you the truth, I cannot be patient

while others enjoy food and I merely look upon them.

This very thing, ‘cannot be patient and look upon them’, will do marvels. It shall ruin houses and families. It shall create complex problems, rancours and grudges. Woe unto mankind! When they are confronted with problems that come down upon them together with instinctive urges, both hand in hand.

The women deprived of a home life will do their best to entice men, who is not as unsteady and irresolute in any other matter as he is in this matter, and obviously “when there is more mud, ever, the elephant slips.” We regretfully say that even a small quantity of this ‘mud’ is sufficient to make this elephant slip.

Will the matter stop here? No. It shall take into its embrace married women. The women who see their husbands in the state of unfaithfulness will also make up their mind to take vengeance upon their husbands and will contemplate infidelity. They also will follow in the footsteps of man. What will be the ultimate result?

The ultimate result is written down in a short and a well known sentence in the Kinsey Report: “In faithlessness and infidelity American men and women have beaten all the nations of the world.”

Please see that the matter does not end with the corruption and immorality of man only. The flames of this fire will spread and ultimately scorch the skirt of the mistress of the house.

Various results following from the phenomenon of the excess in the number of women:

The phenomenon of the comparative excess of the number of women has always been there in the life of mankind. What is noticeable in this connection is that the reactions to this phenomenon, which create difficult problems for society, have not been alike. Those communities whose spiritual self is more imbued with piety and chasteness through the guidance of the great divine religions have solved this problem by means of polygyny and those communities whom the values of piety and virtue do not so much suit have made of this phenomenon the means to sensuality and corruption.

Neither was polygyny in the east devised and originated by Islam, nor does the renunciation in the west have any connection with the Christian religion. For in the east the custom of polygyny existed before the advent of Islam, and eastern religions had allowed it; even in the original Christian religion there is no prohibitory commandment on this subject. Whatever is there, depends upon the western nations themselves, and not the Christian faith.

Those communities that have settled for indulgence in sensual gratification and promiscuity have suffered more harm than those that approve of polygyny.

In the book, The Life of Muhammad, after discussing the verse in the Qur’an concerning polygyny, Dr. Muhammad Husayn Haykal says: “This ayah considers it better to restrict oneself to one wife, and it says: if you fear that you cannot behave in conformity with justice, take only one wife; then it underlines that one cannot behave with justice. However, since there may arise occasions in the life of society when polygamy become necessary, it is recognized with the condition of justness in behaviour, In the midst of the wars of the Muslims, when some of them were killed and their wives naturally widowed, Muhammad (s.a.w.) acted in this way. Truly, can you say that after wars and epidemics and civil disturbances which leave thousands and millions of people dead and many women widowed, that restriction to one wife is better than several wives with the condition of fairness in behaviour? Can Occidentals claim that after the World War the law of restriction to one wife was enacted to the letter?” [2]

**********************

[1] ibid., translated from the Persian, original untraced. (tr.)

[2] Translated from the Persian. (tr.)