Why Can't Women Marry Two Men in Islam?

In several Muslim-majority countries, the gender imbalance is striking.

For every 100 women:

• Qatar has 299 men

• The UAE has 222 men

• Oman has 193 men

• Bahrain has 184 men

• Kuwait has 158 men

• Saudi Arabia has 137 men

• Pakistan has 106 men

• Malaysia and Afghanistan each have 105 men

(Source: statisticstimes.com)

This overwhelming surplus of men raises a serious question. What solution does Islam provide in societies where men significantly outnumber women?

The truth is, it offers none.

Instead of addressing this imbalance, Islamic teachings simply expect those men who cannot find wives to remain celibate for life. This unrealistic expectation leads to deep frustration across society. In the most extreme and horrifying cases, this has already resulted in crimes like men digging up women's graves to commit rape, as reported in parts of Pakistan.

Islam forbids women from marrying more than one man. The most common justification is that multiple male partners would make it impossible to determine the father of a child.

But this reasoning is deeply flawed.

On the other hand, men are allowed to marry up to four women and can also have sexual relations with any number of slave girls. These sexual privileges are not granted out of any  Necessity but purely for LUST of Muslim men. In classical Islamic law, men were even allowed to use slave girls for TEMPORARY sexual relationships (just like Shia mut'ah). Once fulfilling the lust by raping slave girls, the Muslim owners sold them and bought new ones for their pleasure. All of this was declared HALAL by Islam. [Contrary to Islam, the Bible didn't allow such a rape of slave girls by their owners in any TEMPORARY sexual relationships. The bible ordered them to marry them if they like them, after which they became like permanent wife, and could not be sold any further. Link]. 

Clearly, the permissibility of such relationships had nothing to do with lineage or reproductive order. It was simply about fulfilling male desire.

If the issue is truly about determining paternity, then:

• Why are infertile or menopausal women — such as those over 45 or those who are biologically unable to conceive — still not allowed to have more than one husband?
• And in today's world, DNA testing exists. It can identify a child's biological father with near-perfect accuracy. So why does this restriction still exist?

The real issue is not paternity. It is a deeper problem of gender inequality. This system was designed to uphold male dominance. It gives men extensive sexual freedoms while tightly controlling women under the pretext of lineage.

When Muslim jurists are confronted with this double standard, they often resort to citing the "nature" of women. They claim that a woman only desires emotional and physical connection with one man, and therefore has no need for multiple husbands.

However, this argument defeats itself. If a woman, of her own free will, expresses the desire for more than one husband, that in itself proves that not all women share the same "nature." A woman who does not feel emotionally or physically fulfilled by one husband may naturally be drawn to another man. This is a valid expression of human nature, not a rejection of it.

In reality, the system that restricts women to one husband while granting men the freedom to have multiple wives and concubines is not only unscientific, but also indefensible on moral, human, and natural grounds.

Consider a young girl married off at six, without her consent (as she is not able to give any consent), to a man in his fifties. As an adult, she feels no connection to her aging husband, who refuses to divorce her. If she falls in love with someone her own age and forms a relationship, why should she face a brutal punishment like stoning (as Islam does)?

Why the hypocrisy when a man can exploit countless concubines without their consent and face no consequences, yet a woman is condemned for choosing a relationship out of love?

Lineage condition was not there to PROTECT Children, but ONLY to benefit Men

Islam does not care about children or their lineage. Yes, the condition of LINEAGE was not there to protect the children, but it was put there by Muhammad to protect men and their lusts and their properties (inheritance). 

Do you know that Muhammad (Islamic Sharia) allowed a man to disown his own child born to his concubine if he has any “doubt” about paternity? Muhammad then labelled the child a Walad-al-Haram (i.e. “bastard).

After denying the paternity of his own child from a slave mother, the Muslim father then enslaved his own such child, and sold him/her in the slave market and made money from it. 

Question: Why did Muslim fathers use to deny the parentage of their own children from slave women?

Answer: Muhammad allowed a Muslim master to rape the slave woman in a "Temporary" sexual relationship and then to sell her to another master, or to give her to his brother or to any of  his slave. And the poor slave girl was raped by them one by one. They waited in between only 3 to 7 days of her menstrual blood, and after that, a new man was allowed to rape her. 

Consequently, challenges arose regarding how to handle situations where doubts emerged about the biological parentage of the child in such cases (while delivery of the child varied as it can last from 6 months to 10 months). 

Mohammad devised a solution wherein the owner had the privilege to deny the parentage of his own child, thus declaring the own child to be an illegitimate BASTARD (Arabic: Walad-ul-Haram). 

Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal: 

أنَّ رسولَ اللَّهِ صلَّى اللَّهُ عليهِ وسلَّمَ قَضى أنَّ كلَّ مُستَلحقٍ يُستَلحَقُ بعدَ أبيهِ الَّذي يُدعَى لَهُ ، ادَّعاهُ ورثتُهُ من بعدِهِ ، فقَضى : إن كانَ من أَمةٍ يملِكُها يومَ أصابَها فقد لَحقَ بمنِ استلحقَهُ ، وليسَ لَهُ فيما قسمَ قبلَهُ منَ الميراثِ شيءٌ ، وما أدرَكَ مِن ميراثٍ لم يُقسَمْ ، فلَهُ نصيبُهُ ، ولا يَلحقُ إذا كانَ أبوهُ الَّذي يُدعَى لَهُ أنكرَهُ ، وإن كانَ من أَمةٍ لا يملِكُها ، أو من حرَّةٍ عاهرَ بِها ، فإنَّهُ لا يَلحقُ ولا يرثُ

"The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, ruled that every child belongs to the one who claims him after his father. His heirs can claim him after his death. He ruled that if the child belongs to a slave whom he possessed on the day the child was born, then the child belongs to the one who claimed him, and he has no share in the inheritance that was divided before his claim. However, he will have a share in any remaining inheritance that has not been divided. But if the father to whom he is attributed denies him (i.e. his parentage), the the child will not joined to the heirs.

Imam Showkani records in Nail al-Awtar, Volume 7 page 77 (link):

وروي عن أبي حنيفة والثوري وهو مذهب الهادوية أن الأمة لا يثبت فراشها إلا بدعوة الولد ولا يكفي الإقرار بالوطئ ، فإن لم يدعه كان ملكا له

“It is narrated from Abi Hanifa, al-Thawri and it is the Hadwiyah madhab that the paternity of a slave woman’s (child) cannot be proved without the claim (from the father), the admission of performing sexual intercourse shall not suffice, if he didn’t claim paternity, the child will become a slave for him (i.e. the father). “

For more details and proofs, please read our article:

• Why did Muhammad allow Men to deny the parentage of their own children from their slave women?

The Issue of Paternity in Ancient Times and Its Successful Solution

Today, with the help of DNA testing, the issue of determining a child's biological parentage has been fully resolved. However, it is important to understand that even in ancient times, societies had practical and effective solutions to this issue, and those systems worked successfully for generations.

In many ancient civilizations and tribal communities, women were allowed to have more than one husband. In fact, such practices still exist in certain regions even today. These cultures did not view paternity through the narrow lens of biological lineage. Instead, they focused on the person who actually raised the child. The bond of caregiving and emotional attachment was seen as more important than the act of biological reproduction.

A child does not instinctively care who their biological parent is. The child naturally forms a bond with the one who provides food, protection, love, and care. In reality, the status of the caregiver is often greater than that of the one who simply contributed to the child’s birth.

It should be emphasized that whenever a man or woman raises a child, a strong and natural parental bond develops between them. This connection aligns perfectly with human nature. Across the world and throughout history, every culture has recognized this nurturing bond as a fundamental part of human life. Psychologists, based on extensive research and observation, affirm the legitimacy and emotional depth of this relationship. Islam, however, stands as an exception, where such an understanding is rejected.

For thousands of years, many of these civilizations and tribes have successfully handled the question of paternity by respecting this natural bond, rather than condemning a child as illegitimate based on rigid biological definitions. Their approach was rooted in compassion, practical wisdom, and a deep understanding of human nature.

Is Monogamy the Best Relationship Model?

Many people are satisfied with the idea that a committed relationship between one man and one woman is the best and most stable form of partnership. Monogamy is widely accepted and practiced, offering emotional security and a straightforward social structure.

However, not everyone shares this view, and there are other important perspectives that deserve attention. The fundamental issue is that there is no divine force designing a perfect world for humanity. Nature moves on its own path, changes according to its own logic, and does not cater to human ideals. To live in harmony with nature, we must sometimes adjust, adapt, and accept its unpredictable and imperfect patterns.

Nature often appears inadequate only when we confront the diversity of human needs and behaviors. The reality is that human beings are not all alike. While many people find satisfaction in a one-to-one monogamous relationship, this model is not suitable for everyone.

Some individuals have needs or preferences that do not align with monogamy. For instance, people who identify as bisexual may naturally feel drawn to more than one partner because they are attracted to more than one gender. Similarly, some lesbian women have described feeling sexually fulfilled with one partner but seeking emotional or daily life compatibility with another. These examples illustrate a deeper truth: human needs in relationships, intimacy, and emotional connection are highly diverse and cannot always be met by a single partner.

Even among heterosexual individuals, many are not entirely fulfilled by their sole partner. Studies and real-life experiences show that people often form emotional or physical connections outside their marriages in secret. This raises an important question. If human desires are so varied, why should society strictly enforce only one model of relationships?

In many parts of the modern world, there is growing discussion about ethical non-monogamy and consensual open relationships. Supporters argue that if two partners agree and are honest with each other, they should be free to include a third person or explore other relationship structures. This approach values consent, transparency, and emotional honesty rather than rigid adherence to traditional rules. It acknowledges that human relationships are complex and that forcing everyone into the same structure may suppress natural behavior, leading to dissatisfaction or secrecy.

Instead of automatically treating non-monogamy as a problem, we should consider that some alternatives may actually promote greater emotional well-being. If practiced with honesty and mutual understanding, these relationship styles can offer people more freedom to express their true needs. This view does not reject monogamy. Rather, it invites us to see it as one option among many. It encourages us to recognize the variety of human experiences and the absence of any perfect, one-size-fits-all system for relationships.

Of course, this perspective has its critics, and their concerns should be taken seriously. Some argue that open relationships may harm family stability, complicate child-rearing, or weaken the bonds that hold communities together. These concerns are valid. Any alternative relationship model must be built on a foundation of responsibility, emotional care, and mutual respect, not just a desire for freedom or self-indulgence.

In conclusion, this conversation is not an attack on monogamy. Instead, it is a call to approach relationships with greater understanding and flexibility. Monogamy may be the right path for many people. For others, different models might offer better emotional and personal satisfaction. The most important foundation for any relationship should be mutual consent, open communication, emotional honesty, and respect. Social norms should allow space for human diversity rather than forcing everyone to follow the same pattern.