Many societies, scholars and social-workers agree that polyandry could be a better social solution for many problems. For example:
If medically proved that one’s husband is impotent, and the wife or both of them desire children and heirs. In such situation the woman would either have to -suffer the deprivation of motherhood for life, or divorce her seedless husband and get married to another man who is not impotent. In many cases, neither solution can be considered as the best alternative. Polyandry would have the advantage of preserving the martial relationship without depriving the woman of having children of her own.
A woman whose husband becomes chronically ill would have one of possible alternatives – she may suppress her instinctive sexual needs for the rest of his life – or she may divorce her sick husband at the time when he needs her compassion most, and get married to another man, thus legally satisfying her instinctive needs – or she could compromise by keeping her sick husband, and secretly take for herself one or more illicit sex partners.
Anthropologists tell us that among various tribes and societies, polyandry is a social and economic necessity. In some very poor areas, the infant morality is very high. Children on the other hand, are a source of additional labour for the earning capacity of the family. To have more children under such situations would require the practice of polyandry. It is by this very reason Christian missionaries in some African regions justified their permission to local people to practice polyandry without being excommunicated from the church. One researcher has even found, through his studies that men in such societies not only accept polyandry, but some of them even prefer this. Aside from cases where men outnumber women, devastating diseases, high maternal mortality rates, and female infanticide, in the past and at present, have taken their roll mainly among women. The result is not simply more men who cannot find wives, but even more widowers who may aspire to a respectable family life. In such a situation, if polyandry is bad, the limitation on polyandry is even far worse.
Both unmarried men and widowers are human beings. Unless their instinctive needs are legitimately satisfied, the temptation is great for corruption and immorality. But aside from the moral question these men are also exploited. They are used as tools for women’s pleasure, yet have no guarantees, no rights or security, sexual or emotional. Should their partners become pregnant, it is the men’s burden alone. But even if such men are ready to pay the price for this personally, society also suffers seriously from such situations. The increasing number of illegitimate children born today under conditions such as these provides a potential base for tomorrow’s maladjusted and even criminals. Further more it is inhuman, humiliating for those children to grow up without knowing who their fathers were and without enjoying a lean and normal family life.
Now comes the ‘smoking gun’ – why doesn’t the society allow a woman to have more than one husband, although it is evident that the nature of women is physiologically and psychologically different from that of men? Psychologically speaking, the woman is polygamous by her very nature. Physiologically, multiple orgasms increase her sexual enjoyment and sex drive nine times more than that of men’s. Furthermore, in all cultures, new and old, the headship of the family has not always be man’s. For example, many pre-Islamic societies in Arabia were matriarchal. Even if the woman is married to more than one husband we can determine easily through DNA testing who is the father of her children and who would be paying the upbringing cost and who will get inheritance from whom.
To sum up, societies should be against immorality, hypocritical pretense of morality, and against divorce unless no better solution is available, and should provide for a better alternative which is consistent with human nature and with the preservation of pure and legitimate sex relationships. In a situation like this, it is doubtful that any solution would be better than polyandry, which is, after all, an optional solution.
If this sounds weird, why doesn’t this? None of these reasons are given in the Quran for polygyny. Such lame argument puts Muslim men in very poor light – most Muslim men know how to control themselves and make excellent, loyal and loving *monogamous* husbands.