, , , , , , , , , , , ,

”The institution of polygamy was never meant to be a

universal institution. It was permitted to exist in order to

meet certain difficulties which are not peculiar to Muslim

society alone. The worst of permitted things, according to

Islam, is “divorce”. It was partly to avoid “divorce”

becoming a common social phenomenon that polygamy

was tolerated. Of the two social evils divorce and

polygamy (evils if universalised), the later is certainly the

lesser. But the avoidance of divorce is perhaps not the only

justification for this institution; it is partly a concession to

the nature of the male who, according to this institution, is

allowed to indulge in his inclination for variety – without

escaping scot-free from the responsibility arising out of

this indulgence. In England the individual, does in some

cases, indulge in such inclinations, but the law leaves him

absolutely free from the responsibilities which may arise

from his sexual freedom. He is not responsible for the

education of the children he produces. Nor can such

children inherit their father. The consequences, in some

cases, are awful. France has been compelled to recognise

prostitution as a social institution which it is the ugly duty

of the State to keep healthy.”