Muhammad’s Polygyny

(left) Polygyny, (right) Polyandry

          Polygamy, the practice of having more than one spouse, has two subsets: (1) polygyny, and (2) polyandry. Polygyny is where a man has more than one wife whereas polyandry is where a woman has more than one husband. While polygamy has been practiced in Judaism and Christianity, in recent years polygamy has been seen as crude, brutish, and unsavory. Polygamy has even being labeled (alongside slavery) as the “twin relics of barbarism”¹.

In Islamic studies, there has been much discussion of polygyny for several reasons. One reason is to better understand Muhammad and attempt to piece together his life and motivations. Other popular reasons are to explore polygyny in Islam in the light of political and social issues, such as gender equality, human rights, and spousal laws. This paper will examine Muhammad’s wives in order to try to understand the Islamic view of polygyny.

          In Islam, polygamy has been practiced since its inception. For Muslims, limited polygyny is acceptable before Allah. However, polyandry is expressly forbidden as the Qur'an states that a man is prohibited from marrying a woman who are already married unless the man has captured them in battle², in which case their previous marriage is viewed as abrograted³. Further, sexual activity with anyone out of one's spouse, slave, or captive is prohibited (zinā)⁴. The Qur'an states that if an unmarried woman or an unmarried man is found guilty of sexual intercourse they should be lashed with a hundred lashes⁵.

The chief scriptural justification of polygyny is found in the Qur'an. Regarding guardians who wish to marry their wards but may not have sufficient funds to provide an adequate Mahr (dowry), The Qur'an states:

If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry [other] women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly [with them], then only one or [a captive] that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.⁶

Muslims have commonly interpreted this verse to mean that it is acceptable before Allah to have up to four wives. While the Qur'an may limit the number of wives one can have, it also allows for concubines, or female captives, that the Qur'an permits sexual intercourse with:

And those who guard their private parts, except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they are not to be blamed - but whoever seeks beyond that, then they are the transgressors…⁷

There are records that Muhammad, the founder and prophet of Islam, married at least thirteen women as well as several concubines⁸. According to some interpretations of the Qur’an, Muhammad’s excess of four wives was specifically allowed for only Muhammad by the Qur'an⁹.

Muhammad’s first marriage to Khadija was his only monogamous marriage and lasted for 25 years until Khadija’s death in 619CE. The advent of Khadija’s death seemed to set in motion the polygyny of Muhammad. While some have postulated that Muhammad did not take additional wives previously because of the high social status of Khadija¹⁰, the cause for Muhammad's previous monogamy is unknown. Regardless of the reason, the same year Khadija died Muhammad married two additional wives: Sawda bint Zamʿa¹¹, and Aisha bint Abi Bakr^{12 13}. In the fourteen years between Khadija’s and Muhammad’s death, Muhammad married at least twelve times.

Early Islamic Art with Faces
 whited-out out of respect
(right) Muhammad
 (left of Muhammad) Aisha

Some have claimed that these marriages reflect a desire for sexual gratification in Muhammad¹⁴. However, while Muhammad most certainly consummated his marriages, twelve of the thirteen wives were widows. Further, the one wife who was not a widow, Aisha bint Abi Bakr, was six-years-old when she married Muhammad.  Muhammad did not consummate this marriage until she reached nine-years-old¹⁵. Viewing Muhammad's selection of wives, it would seem unlikely Muhammad was looking solely for sexual gratification. The culture of the day dictated that a virgin was more desirable than a widow who has previously had sexual intercourse.  Additionally, it seems very unlikely that Muhammad would marry a six year old out of sexual yearning and then wait three years to consummate it. Ultimately, if Muhammad wished to be sexually gratified he could have more easily found pleasure through non-committal relationships, such as with concubines, rather than formally committing to several widows and a child. Evidenced by this, Muhammad likely married for reasons other than sexual desire.

The fact that almost all of Muhammad’s wives were widows suggests that Muhammad was trying to aid those who were uncared for and needed help. Indeed, the Qur’an dictates to all Muslims to take special care of orphans^16. There is additional evidence from hadiths showing that Muslims opted to support orphaned families through guardianship on a fairly regular basis¹⁷.  This guardianship often led to plural marriages as Muslim men desired their ward’s beauty and company.  Their initial financial support often led to marriage.  Muhammad apparently sought out widows because he was financially capable of helping them whereas other may not have been. This might help explain why Muhammad had so many wives while Muslims accept that the Qu'ran only allows up to four wives.

The name of Muhammad with the names of
 the four rightly-guided caliphs surrounding

Another possible reason for Muhammad’s polygyny was socio-political ties. In fact, examining the marriages of Muhammad and his children, all four of the Rashidun, or the four “rightly guiding Caliphs” (the companions of Muhammad and rulers after his death), are connected to Muhammad through marriage.  Muhammad possibly desired to marry his friends’ children to solidify friendships and faith while strengthening the bonds between some of the most powerful families in the Muslim world.

 Aisha, the six-year-old wife of Muhammad was the daughter of Abu Bakr, who would become the first Caliph¹⁸. Ḥafsa bint Umar, the daughter of Umar ibn al-Khattab, who would be the second Caliph, eventually married Muhammad as well. Umar first offered to marry his widowed daughter to Abu Bakr, and then to Uthman Ibn 'Affan. Both refused. Upset, Umar went to Muhammad, complaining that Abu Bakr and Uthman both rejected his daughter, Hafsa.  Muhammad told Umar that Allah had greater plans for Abu Bakr, Uthman, and Hafsa. Subsequently, Muhammad offered to marry Hafsa¹⁹.

Similar to Muhammad’s efforts to strengthen socio-political ties through marriage, several Islamic leaders sought to strengthen their ties to Muhammad and Islam through marrying Muhammad’s relatives. Uthman Ibn 'Affan, who would become the third Caliph, married Muhammad’s second daughter, Umm Kulthum bint Muhammad. The last Rashidun, Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib, eventually married Muhammad’s daughter Fatimah whom both Umar and Uthman sought to marry as well²⁰.

Some studies have shown that over a ten-year time, arranged-marriages
demonstrate more love/compassion in the latter measured  portion of the
 marriage than choice-marriages21 (though other studies disagree)22 23

All of these examples help to illustrate how early Islam viewed marriage and polygyny as a method of creating and maintaining socio-political ties. Much of reasons why people got married in the early Islamic world had more to do with their parents and situation rather than their physical or emotional attractions.

 In the current western culture, the idea of marriage for any reason other than love is abhorrent. In recent years, marriage has been emphasized as a matter of love rather than logic or commitment. Arranged marriages have decreased, polygamy has decreased, marriage ages have increased, and divorce rates have increased. Subsequently, as many modern readers reflect on Muhammad's polygyny, many have emphasized the sexual nature of Muhammad’s marriages and minimized, or misunderstood, the pragmatic reasons. Muhammad did not marry solely for sexual gratification. He married to help those in need, to strengthen Islam, and to ensure that the work he did would carry on for generations to come.

---

 References

1. John A. Wills. The Twin Relics of Barbarism. Historical Society of Southern California, Los Angeles. 1(5). 40-44
2. Qur'an, 4:24; Sahih Muslim. Book 008. Number 3432
3. Sahih Muslim. Book 008. Number 3432

4. Qur'an, 24:2; Qur'an, 70: 29-31; Kecia Ali (2006), Sexual Ethics and Islam, ISBN 978-1851684564, Chapter 4
5. Qur'an, 24:2
6. Qur'an, 4:3; Sahih Bukhari. Volume 3, Book 44, Number 674
7. Qur'an, 70: 29-31
8. Zaad al-Ma'aad, 1/114;  Ibn al-Qayyim, Biography
9. Qur'an, 33:50
10. Walther, Wiebke (1993). Women in Islam. Markus Wiener Publishing Inc. 104.
11. F. E. Peters (2009). A Guide for Jews and Christians. Princeton University Press. 83.
12. Abbott, Nabia (1942). Aishah The Beloved of Muhammad. University of Chicago Press. p. 1.
13. Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3309.
14. Silas (2006). Muhammad, Islam and Sex. Retrieved from http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/mo_sex.htm
15. Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3309.
16. Qur'an, 2:83
17. Sahih Bukhari. Volume 3, Book 44, Number 674
18. Esposito, John L. "A'ishah In the Islamic World: Past and Present". Oxford Islamic Studies Online.
19. Ibn Saad/Bewley vol. 8 pp. 56-58
20. "Fatimah", Encyclopaedia of Islam. Brill Online.
21. Gupta, Usha; Singh, Pushpa (1982). An exploratory study of love and liking and type of marriages.Indian Journal of Applied Psychology. 19(2), 92-97.
22. Walsh, M., & Taylor, T. (2010). Understanding in Japanese Marriages. The Journal of Social Psychology. 118(1). 67-76.
23. Myers, J. E., Madathil, J., & Tingle, L. R. (2005). Marriage Satisfaction and Wellness in India and the United States: A Preliminary Comparison of Arranged Marriages and Marriages of Choice. Journal of Counseling & Development. 83(2). 183-190.

Opposites Do Not Attract… Unless You Are a Magnet

A popular saying about relationships is that “opposites attract”.  But, is this really true?  Do people really want to be with someone who is totally opposite of them?  Do people prefer friends who are opposite of them?  Do people prefer to marry someone opposite to them?  Or is the converse popular saying true: “Birds of a feather flock together?”  In this paper, I will attempt to show that, in general, the statement and sentiment that “opposites attract” is false and that in successful, happy relationships there are usually strong similarities and common respect for the others’ cherished attributes.  These issues are important to society as we all have the choice to decide who we will spend our time with, who we will associate with, or who we marry.

Charles-Augustin de Coulomb
 with a magnet attraction diagram

The popular idea of opposites attracting could possibly be traced to publications from Coulomb, a French physics in the 17^th century.  Coulombs’ publications form the foundations of Coulomb's law which deal with electrical charges and magnetism.  His publications show that like, or similar, charges repel each other, while opposite charges attract each other (1788).  This law is informally explored by many of us while experimenting with magnets.  Flat magnets have two polar opposite sides: one positively charged and one negatively charged.  As one moves two magnets together, there is an invisible attracting or repulsing force depending on the polarization of the ends that are moved.  If a positive end is placed near to a positive end, they will repulse each other, while if a positive charge end is placed near a negative charge end the magnets will be attracted to each other, or in other words the “opposites attract”.  While “opposites attract” may be a very reliable and valid physics principle, to apply it to interpersonal relationships is generally inaccurate.

"Aristotle with a Bust of Homer"
Rembrandt van Rijn
Oil on Canvas 153

Aristotle (384 BC - 32 BC) noted in his Rhetoric and Nichomachean Ethics that people often love those who are like unto themselves (Aristotle, 1934).  Since then there have been several studies that have set out to determine what attracts individuals to relationships with others (DeArmond & Crawford, 2011; Kiesler, 1996; Nangle, Erdley, Zeff, Stanchfield, & Gold, 2004).  There has been found in such studies great evidence that people are attracted to others of similar social status, behavior, humor, personality traits, and beliefs.  Studies have shown evidence that children are well liked by their peers who are similar to them in social status and behavioral style, while dissimilar children are disliked by peers who do not share such similarities (Akers, Jones, & Coyl, 1998; Nangle, Erdley, & Gold, 1996). Additionally, Hymel and Woody (1991) show evidence that children prefer others with a similar sense of humor. Studies also show that college students generally prefer roommates with similar personality traits (Carli, Ganley, & Pierce-Otay, 1991; Deutsch, Sullivan, Sage, & Basile, 1991) and prefer strangers that share similarities to them (Hodges & Byrne, 1972; Reagor & Clore, 1970; Lombardo, Steigleder, & Feinberg, 1975), particularly if they share a common negative view (Bosson, Johnson, Niederhoffer, & Swann, 2006; Weaver & Bosson, 2011).   Studies show evidence that couples in general prefer (Buston, & Emlen, 2003) and are similar to each other rather than being dissimilar or opposite (Botwin, Buss, & Shackelford, 1997; Chen, Luo, Yue, Xu, & Zhaoyang, 2009, Gonzaga, Campos, & Bradbury, 2007; Klohnen, & Mendelsohn, 1998; Luo, & Klohen, 2005; McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001) particularly in weighty matters such as religious practices (Call & Heaton, 1997; Heaton & Pratt, 1990; Strycharz, 2004).  It has even been shown that those who are depressed prefer other depressed companions to non-depressed companions (Locke & Horowitz, 1990).  These evidences indicate that the saying “opposites attract” when applied to interpersonal attraction and preference is flawed.  While there may be incidental cases of apparent opposites attracting, in general, this theory is untrue.

Similarity preferences can be seen in simple things such as an individuals tend to have more same-sex friends than opposite-sex friends.  Another example is that we tend to spend time with people of similar ideas such as entertainment and interests. 

An Example Confirmation Bias

One may ask, “If the saying that opposites attract is false, then how and why did it come into being?”  The answer could lie in how we perceive people and attributes.  Imagine you are an important business man and you receive frequent phone calls, which have an equal chance of ringing during your whole work day.  When the phone rings you generally answer it.  However, occasionally while you are on the phone with someone, you receive a second phone call that you must either ignore or put your current conversation on hold to answer.  You complain to your secretary and hypothesize that you spend more time juggling several conversations at once than you do talking to just one person. You conclude it is more likely that someone will call you while you are already in a conversation on your phone than not.  In reality, this is not true; you receive more phone calls while you are not already on your phone.  However, rarely if ever do you think to yourself at these times, “Someone called me when I am not talking to anyone else on the phone, and this is evidence that my hypothesis is incorrect”.  In contrast, when you are already on the phone with someone else and you receive another incoming phone call, you often say to yourself, “This is evidence that my hypothesis is correct.”

We, as humans, pay more attention to unusual events and stimuli while giving less attention to usual or perceived mundane events and stimuli. This Phenomenon is called Availability Heuristic (Tversky, & Kahneman, 1973).  We also give selective attention to the evidence that supports our ideas and hypotheses while ignoring contrary evidence.  This phenomenon is called confirmation bias (Dawson, 2000; Gurmankin et al. 2002; Gambrill, 2005; Klayman, 1995; Nickerson, 1998).

In relation to attraction, when we see two friends or a romantic couple with strikingly different characteristics from each other, we often pay more attention to them than to others with no apparent striking differences, even if they are in the minority.  As we examine dissimilar groups and see a striking difference, we seldom think of all the similarities which they have to each other.  Instead, we focus only on their differences, thus providing excellent conditions for a confirmation bias, as we choose to ignore much of the contrary evidence. 

There are many today who believe that opposites attract. However, these significant studies show that people generally are attracted to others of similar social status, behavior, humor, personality traits, and beliefs. The theory that opposites attract is inconsistent with these scientific studies, and must be dismissed as a myth.

References

Akers, J. F., Jones, R. M., & Coyl, D. D. (1998). Adolescent friendship pairs: Similarities in identity status development, behaviors, attitudes, and intentions. Journal of Adolescent Research, 13, 178–201. doi: 10.1177/0743554898132005

Aristotle (1934). Rhetoric. Nichomachean ethics. Rackman transl. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.

Asher, S. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1986). Identifying children who are rejected by their peers. Developmental Psychology, 22, 444–449.

Bosson, J. K., Johnson, A. B., Niederhoffer, K., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2006). Interpersonal chemistry through negativity: Bonding by sharing negative attitudes about others. Personal Relationships, 13, 135-150. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00109.x

Botwin, M. D., Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Personality and mate preferences: Five factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 65(1), 107-136. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00531.x

Buston, P.M., & Emlen, S.T. (2003). Cognitive processes underlying human mate choice: The relationship between self-perception and mate preference in Western society. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 10(15). doi: 10.1073/pnas.1533220100

Call, V.R.A., & Heaton, T.B. (1997). Religious influence on marital stability. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36, 382-392. doi: 10.2307/1387856

Carli, L. L., Ganley, R., & Pierce-Otay, A. (1991). Similarity and satisfaction in roommate relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 419–426. doi:10.1177/0146167291174010     

Chen, H., Luo, S., Yue, G., Xu, D., & Zhaoyang, R. (2009). Do birds of a feather flock together in China?. Personal Relationships, 16(2), 167-186. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01217

Coulomb, C.A. (1788). Histoire de l'Academie royale des sciences. Paris: Académie Royale des Sciences.

Dawson, N.V. (2000). Physician judgments of uncertainty. In Decision Making in Health Care: Theory, Psychology, and Applications (ed. G. B. Chapman and F. A. Sonnenberg), pp. 211-252. Cambridge University Press: New York.

DeArmond, S., & Crawford, E.C. (2011). Organization personality perceptions and attraction: The role of social identity consciousness. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19(4) 405-414. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2011.00568.x

Deutsch, F., Sullivan, L., Sage, C., & Basile, N. (1991). The relations among talking, liking, and similarity between friends. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 406–411. doi: 10.1177/0146167291174008

Gambrill, E. (2005). Critical thinking in clinical practice: Improving the quality of judgments and decisions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Gonzaga, G. C., Campos, B., & Bradbury, T. (2007). Similarity, convergence, and relationship satisfaction in dating and married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 34-48. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.34

Gurmankin, A.D., Baron, J., Hershey, J.C., & Ubel, P.A. (2002). The role of physicians' recommendations in medical treatment decisions. Medical Decision Making 22, 262-271. doi: 10.1177/0272989X0202200314

Heaton, T.B., & Pratt, E.L. (1990) The effects of religious homogamy on marital satisfaction and stability. Journal of Family Issues, 11, 191-207. doi: 10.1177/019251390011002005

Hodges, L. A., & Byrne, D. (1972). Verbal dogmatism as a potentiator of intolerance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 312–317. doi:10.1037/h0032315

Hymel, S., & Woody, E. (1991, April). Friends versus non-friends; Perceptions of similarity across self, teacher, and peers. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, Washington.

Kiesler, D. J. (1996). Contemporary interpersonal theory and research. New York: Wiley.

Klayman, J. (1995). Varieties of confirmation bias. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 32, 358-418. doi: 10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60315-1

Locke, K. D., & Horowitz, L. M. (1990). Satisfaction in interpersonal interactions as a function of similarity in level of dysphoria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 823–831. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.5.823

Lombardo, J. P., Steigleder, M., & Feinberg, R. (1975). Internality-externality: The perception of negatively valued personality characteristics and interpersonal attraction. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 6(2), 89-95.

Luo, S., & Klohnen, E. C. (2005). Assortative mating and marital quality in newlyweds: A couple-centered approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2), 304-326. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.2.304

McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415

Nangle, D. W., Erdley, C. A., & Gold, J. A. (1996). A reflection on the popularity construct: The importance of who likes or dislikes a child. Behavior Therapy, 27, 337–352. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(96)80021-9

Nangle, D. W., Erdley, C. A., Zeff, K. R., Stanchfield, L. L., & Gold, J. A. (2004). Opposites do not attract: Social status and behavioral-style concordances and discordances among children and the peers who like or dislike them. Journal Of Abnormal Child Psychology: An Official Publication Of The International Society For Research In Child And Adolescent Psychopathology, 32(4), 425-434. doi:10.1023/B:JACP.0000030295.43586.32

Nickerson, R.S. (1998). Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175-220. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175

Reagor, P. A., & Clore, G. L. (1970). Attraction, test anxiety, and similarity–dissimilarity of test performance. Psychonomic Science, 18, 219–220.

Strycharz, S.J. (2004). The relationship of spirituality and marital satisfaction among Roman Catholic couples. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 64, 4115.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A Heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207–232.

Weaver, J. R., & Bosson, J. K. (2011). I feel like I know you: Sharing negative attitudes of others promotes feelings of familiarity. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(4), 481-491. doi:10.1177/0146167211398364

After reviewing these pictures I formally recant my above statements and conclusions. Perhaps opposites do attract.