Contemporary Muslim debates over polygamy (or, more properly, polygyny) focus on two crucial verses. The first states:
If you fear you will not deal justly with the orphans, marry such as seem good to you from the women, two or three or four; but if you are afraid you will not be fair, then only one or what your right hands own. (4.3)
Said to have been revealed after the death of numerous Muslims in the Battle of Uhud, this verse refers directly to the situation of fatherless children. There is a difference of opinion as to whether it suggests marriage to the orphaned females themselves or to widows with children to support. However, it was generally understood in the premodern period to apply to polygamy in general. Its most important provision was the imposition of an upper limit of four wives; pre-Islamic Arab custom did not impose any such maximum. 4.3 is the only verse to explicitly declare the permissibility of polygyny, but 4.23 assumes its acceptability when it stipulates that two sisters cannot be married to the same man simultaneously. Other questions associated with plural marriages are treated in verses addressed to the Prophet Muhammad and his wives, the Mothers of the Believers. While the rulings are specific to the Prophet’s household, the verses assume that polygamy is practised more widely.
The other verse that directly addresses polygamy declares that ‘You are never able to be just between women, even if you ardently desire to be, but do not incline completely away from one, leaving her suspended’ (4.129). There is a tension between this verse and 4.3 on the issue of justice and fairness between wives. Egyptian author Qasim Amin noted the conflict, opining that ‘the both legitimizes polygamy and warns against it’ (Amin, 2000:85). The notion that polygamy could be a perilous endeavour is not a recent one. The Prophet is reported to have cautioned against neglecting a wife, stating that a man who has two wives and favours one over the other will be resurrected at the final judgement with one side of his body drooping. For most of Muslim history, however, the concern for just treatment of multiple wives was seen as a matter to be left to the conscience of the individual Muslim husband.
Pre-modern Muslim scholars took it for granted that polygamy was permissible. Indeed, no discussion of polygamy per se is found in early legal works treating questions of marriage and divorce. Rather, jurists assumed that polygamy was legal and set about treating more specific questions having to do with matters such as the establishment of separate quarters for wives and the allocation of time between them. While historically unusual except for the wealthy few, the practice of polygamy was widely accepted as normal by classical and medieval
Beginning in the nineteenth century, however, polygamy became the subject of widespread debate among Muslim intellectuals. A number of Muslim reformists and, more recently, Muslim feminists have challenged traditional views on polygamy. Modern authors who disapprove of polygamy take a range of positions on whether it should be simply discouraged, legally restricted or prohibited, and what type of role, if any, the state should play in setting limits on polygamous marriages. In all of these debates, 4.3 and 4.129 hold centre stage.
A few thinkers have directly challenged polygamy, arguing that doing justice is set forth in 4.3 as a requirement for the permissibility, not merely advisability, of marrying more than one wife; since the declares justice between wives an impossibility in 4.129, logically polygamy is forbidden. Most, however, have rejected this view, arguing that it fails to take into account the acceptance of polygamy by the Prophet and his community.
Others have taken a more historical approach. Pakistani scholar Fazlur Rahman argued that polygamy, like slavery, was an entrenched practice when Islam arrived, and could not have been immediately eradicated. However, according to him, the ultimate intent of the divine revelation was to abolish these institutions and polygamy should therefore be prohibited today. Muhammad took the view that, while polygamy had been a salutary practice overall in early Muslim history (though not always without personal cost to the individual women who had to share their husbands), in modern Egypt polygamy led to discord and even violence within the family. He argued, in keeping with longstanding legal principle, that something otherwise lawful could be forbidden if it led to social ills; this was the case for polygamy.
disciple Rashid Rida was less categorical. While noting that monogamy was the norm, and indeed the ideal (a crucial point made by feminist exegetes generations later), he thought that there were situations in which personal and societal need overcame the normative weight attached to monogamy. This influential line of argument has been a staple of twentieth- and twenty-first-century apologetics for polygamy. These texts invoke demographic imbalances due to war, or infertility or illness of the first wife; in these cases, polygamy is extolled as a means of support and protection for vulnerable women, as in 4.3. On other occasions, authors make reference to the ‘naturally’ greater sexual appetites of men, based on biological imperatives. Apologists for polygamy often contrast the honest nature of concurrent marriages to wives with equal legal privileges and guarantees to the de facto polygamy of affairs, girlfriends or even serial monogamy, as practised in the West.
Some Muslim feminist authors have suggested that this type of argument is cultural bias masquerading as authoritative religious doctrine (though they also do not shy away from noting the hypocrisy in some Western polemics against Muslim polygamy). Adopting some arguments from the modernists, exegetes such as Riffat Hassan, Asma Barlas and Amina Wadud have stressed the importance of the one man-one woman pairing in portrayals of creation, marriage, family and society. Though disagreeing on certain points, they stress the exceptional and limited nature of polygamy. Indeed, the question of polygamy is important not only for its intrinsic interest for those concerned with Islamic family law in the contemporary world, but also for broader debates over whether rules must always be literally applied or whether their specific provisions are context-specific, and thus liable to change with changes in social conditions.
Reference
Amin, Q. (2000) The Liberation of Women and the New Woman: Two documents in the history of Egyptian feminism, trans. S. Sidhom Peterson, Cairo: American University of Cairo Press.
verses. The first states:
4.3 is the only verse to explicitly declare the permissibility of polygyny, but 4.23 assumes its acceptability when it stipulates that two sisters cannot be married to the same man simultaneously. Other questions associated with plural marriages are treated in verses addressed to the Prophet Muhammad and his wives, the Mothers of the Believers. While the rulings are specific to the Prophet’s household, the verses assume that polygamy is practised more widely.
both legitimizes polygamy and warns against it’ (Amin, 2000:85). The notion that polygamy could be a perilous endeavour is not a recent one. The Prophet is reported to have cautioned against neglecting a wife, stating that a man who has two wives and favours one 
4.3 and 4.129 hold centre stage.
declares justice between wives an impossibility in 4.129, logically polygamy is forbidden. Most, however, have rejected this view, arguing that it fails to take into account the acceptance of polygamy by the Prophet and his community. 
took the view that, while polygamy had been a salutary practice overall in early Muslim history (though not always without personal cost to the individual women who had to share their husbands), in modern Egypt polygamy led to discord and even violence within the family. He argued, in keeping with longstanding legal principle, that something otherwise lawful could be forbidden if it led to social ills; this was the case for polygamy.
disciple Rashid Rida was less categorical. While noting that monogamy was the norm, and indeed the ideal (a crucial point made by feminist exegetes generations later), he thought that there were situations in which personal and societal need overcame the normative weight attached to monogamy. This influential line of argument has been a staple of twentieth- and twenty-first-century apologetics for polygamy. These texts invoke demographic imbalances due to war, or infertility or illness of the first wife; in these cases, polygamy is extolled as a means of support and protection for vulnerable women, as in 4.3. On other occasions, authors make reference to the ‘naturally’ greater sexual appetites of men, based on biological imperatives. Apologists for polygamy often contrast the honest nature of concurrent marriages to wives with equal legal privileges and guarantees to the de facto polygamy of affairs, girlfriends or even serial monogamy, as practised in the West.
portrayals of creation, marriage, family and society. Though disagreeing on certain points, they stress the exceptional and limited nature of 
polygamy. Indeed, the question of polygamy is important not only for its intrinsic interest for those concerned with Islamic family law in the contemporary world, but also for broader debates over whether 
rules must always be literally applied or whether their specific provisions are context-specific, and thus liable to change with changes in social conditions.
