A Comparative Perspective on Jurisprudential and Legal Opinions Regarding Polygyny: A Critique of Supportive and Oppositional Views

Abstract

This article aims to conduct a comparative examination and critique of jurisprudential and legal opinions concerning polygyny, offering an in-depth analysis of the perspectives held by both its proponents and opponents. This study employs a descriptive-analytical method, relying on library and documentary sources. The findings indicate that opponents, invoking concepts such as inherent human dignity, legal equality, and the psychological well-being of the family, regard polygyny as an inherently unequal and harmful institution. Through a hermeneutic interpretation of Qur’an 4:129, this group considers the condition of ‘justice’ to be practically impossible—particularly in its emotional dimension—and thus views the ruling as one tied to specific historical circumstances that have lost contemporary relevance. Conversely, proponents, adopting a functionalist perspective, conceptualize polygyny as a “social necessity” for addressing problems such as population imbalance, the protection of women without guardians, and as a moral mechanism for preventing social corruption. From this standpoint, Islam did not innovate this pre-existing custom, but rather restricted and reformed it by imposing stringent requirements such as material justice and financial capability. The conclusion highlights the tension between the two models of “individual-emotional rights” and “social necessities.” Ultimately, the article argues that contemporary legal trends are moving toward restricting the ruling through judicial and statutory oversight in order to create a balance between safeguarding women’s dignity and responding to social needs.