Did Jesus forbid marriage to many women?

In my writings I do not say things like, “By reading the Holy Scriptures I freed myself from all sins” or anything of the sort. When I came back from military service, every time I came to Turkey I would send a card to my former, divorced wife, with whom I used to be together. If I am not mistaken, we had not seen each other at all for a year. She knew that I had married someone else, but every time I went to Turkey we would still be together. On this subject there is a whole lot of advice, such as, “This is not a sound relationship, not a healthy marriage.” We knew that too. But we believed more in what were then, to our minds, the answers to questions such as, “What was so healthy anyway? Which relationship was necessarily the more right one? Which of them had brought eternal happiness?” That is, we were living with the feeling and the desire to value the happiness of the moment. As for the consequences it would bring, we could not determine those anyway. This way of thinking is given to a person by the world. Because no one is any more consistent. And those who are more consistent are so tiresome, so tiresome, that when I would hear—through some news I never expected—that they were occupied with even more disgraceful things, and that they even took pleasure in them, I would say, “My own mind is still the best after all.” I believed that the saying, “A market of minds has opened and everyone has bought his own mind,” was not an empty word. By this I am by no means saying, “I am the most intelligent person.” It is certain that there are people far more intelligent, wise, and knowledgeable than I am. In fact, there have even been times when I saw everyone else as the most intelligent and myself as very stupid. But about himself—about his own life and his choices, about his faith and his love, in short about his life—in the end a person must decide for himself. This has nothing to do with how much more intelligent or how stupid others may be. Just as in the end everyone is responsible for himself, and everyone will give an account to God bearing his own burden, so too the decisions about himself must be made by himself in person. In practice, however, this is something almost no one does. Because we are influenced by the words of our wife, our mother-in-law, our child, our boss, our friend, our religion, even by some writer in a newspaper or magazine, we obediently do those things even if we do not actually want them. Many reasons lie beneath this situation as well, but I do not want to stray too far from our subject, so let us just say “never mind” and move on.

Something I never expected happened: at night there was a knock at the door. My mother opened it and said to me, “Your wife has come.” Neither she nor I was expecting it. When I came back from the military I had sent her a card. My reason for sending the card was that I knew when she heard I had come, she would say, “Why! Couldn’t a person at least send even a card?” Actually I did not much care what people would say. If a thing has a right side to it—especially if the thing I was doing seemed to me merciless and ill-mannered—should my love for God keep me from doing what is good? On the contrary, for me, not sending her a card would in my view have been great rudeness. I still think so. Along with this, sometimes things that appear good can actually lead us into painful, bitter events, even into death. There were already many wrong things in my life—wasn’t that the very reason I had asked God for death? So the things I had done and believed had brought me to that point. In those days I could not see events so clearly and plainly. But I had by now learned that I could no longer have a relationship with a woman I was not married to. At the very least we should not have had a relationship like that of husband and wife. When my mother said, “Your wife has come,” my face went as white as if it were drained of blood. Because I knew what was going to happen. And yes, it did. How could I say “no” to that woman? The moment she got my card she set out on the roads. She had come from hundreds of kilometers away, and she stood at the door with a smiling face, and I could not say no, I was ashamed. As if I did not want it myself? I had been willing since yesterday, but what troubled me was the knowledge of God I now possessed. I said to my mother, “Mother, what am I going to do now?” She said, “What will you do, son—you’ll do what you’ve always done.” I said, “But God does not want such things.” She said, “Son, let your sin be upon me, go on now, it’ll be shameful.” But my heart absolutely did not accept those words, “Let your sin be upon me.” My mother saw such things as quite normal. But the logic that God would attribute a sin committed by one person to someone else was not in me. Was not everyone responsible for himself, for what he did? In a different event Jacob’s mother gives her son the same answer. (Genesis 27:8-13) Yes, in the first testing I had won, but in the second testing I had not succeeded. On the day I came out of the military, when conditions were even more favorable, I had stood with firm, unshaken faith; but this situation, though it was different, was wrong for me, and I was defeated.

Now that I have opened up this subject, I will not pass over an important truth. After twenty years had gone by, when a friend who had left the Jehovah’s Witnesses of his own will asked me a question about marriage to many women, I was about to give the stock answer I knew. But that question occupied my mind. Christians defend marriage to a single woman. For thousands of years they have taught this, and taught it as “God’s command.” In fact, never mind a single woman—even marriage for the clergy is forbidden. That is why priests and nuns do not marry. Actually this is a Catholic custom, not God’s command. Jesus the Messiah’s words on this subject are exactly as follows:

Whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman also commits adultery. His disciples said to Jesus: “If this is the situation of a man with his wife, it is not advisable to marry.” But Jesus said to them: “Not all men can accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born so from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of the heavens. Let him who can accept it accept it. Matthew 19:9-12

Priesthood and nunhood came into being based on these verses. They imagine that by not marrying they can draw closer to God. They do not say no one may marry, otherwise no people would be left in the world. But they say, “Whoever wishes to be close to God, once he has begun this office, may no longer marry.” Slyly, they make being close to God look like an office whose terms are harsh and difficult. On the surface there seems to be freedom, but those religions forcibly impose this on people’s consciences. A Jehovah’s Witness too is not obliged to do pioneering, but the training they receive drives them, in conscience, to do it. In this business of manipulating the conscience—that is, of putting people deliberately under influence and steering them—religions and politicians are very skilled. If these words of Jesus above are understood this way, then why were many of Jesus’ disciples married? For example, the Apostle Peter and others. Were these men then not close to God? Yet Jesus did not lay down a rule saying, “Forbid marriage to those who wish to draw near to God.”

However, marriage brings responsibilities. For some people, the time, energy, and every kind of labor to be devoted to these responsibilities may be needless and meaningless. If instead a person wants to devote more time to God and to spiritual things, the Gospel says, “then let him not marry.” But this is something only that person can know. It is not God’s command, nor a rule He has laid down. And it is also wrong to say, “Every married or single person is unable to draw near to God spiritually.” Yet at the beginning God said, “Be fruitful and multiply.” Nowhere is it written that He has canceled this command. Alongside this, there is also no command saying you must necessarily marry, you must have children. In short, on this subject God leaves people free. The urge within us, whatever sex we may be, is very great anyway. Whoever can overcome this urge, let him not marry. That is something for him to decide. But to get into bed with whomever you find here and there is also adultery. The word “adultery” (zina) that appears in the Holy Scriptures and in the Quran, we understand to mean all sexual relations outside of marriage. The act of marriage, on the other hand, takes place differently according to the laws of each country. To marry in an African tribe may be different from marrying in Europe. For God, what matters is not cultures and customs, but that marriage be a prerequisite for sexual relations. And however that comes about makes no difference. The laws and cultures of each country may differ, but it is nonetheless healthier for people to marry before the relationship. For instance, the marriage of Abraham’s son Isaac did not take place with such great rules. Even so, they became husband and wife. (Genesis 24:65-67) In the dictionary, to marry is explained as follows: “The union of a man and a woman for the purpose of founding a family.” (Turkish Dictionary—Kemal Demiray) God too sees marriage as a covenant between a woman and a man—that is, a pledge, an agreement. Look at what God says through His prophet Malachi:

…Because the LORD has borne witness between you and the wife of your youth, that woman with whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and the woman with whom you made your covenant. Malachi 2:14

Here God is clearly speaking of the covenant between two people—that is, of the giving of a pledge. In this matter let us by no means think of things like today’s marriage registry offices, the approval of civil servants, churches, imams, and so on. In ancient times, in the thousands of years of human history, marriage was not at all bound to such formalities. Generally the aspect of this subject that concerns states is with respect to taxes and law. Briefly and simply, to marry may be called: “The union of a man and a woman through the pledge they give to each other for the purpose of founding a family.” God too places great value on this pledge. Relationships apart from this are characterized as adultery. Whether one is a man or a woman, this holds for both sexes. Because in the Torah, in one of the laws known as the “Ten Commandments,” it says, “You shall not commit adultery,” and this command was abolished by neither the Gospel nor the Quran. (Exodus 20:14) So then, what exactly does “to commit adultery” mean? Many people cannot define it. In fact it would be more accurate to say that “everyone makes up the meaning off the top of their head.” On this subject even the religions have done, and are doing, terrible things. We defined adultery, with a simple explanation, as “sexual relations outside of marriage.” Christianity, on this subject, cannot say definitively what ought to be done. Sometimes it has been said, “A relationship between two single people is not adultery,” and sometimes, “If it is done anally, and there is no intercourse with the woman’s reproductive organs, it is not adultery”! That this is exactly so, proven as I have written it, is recorded in our twentieth century in the decision of the governing body of the Jehovah’s Witnesses—the most assertive among them—by Raymond Franz, himself a former member of that governing body, in his book. In those days, these decisions were not a secret matter anyway. Later this situation changed among the Witnesses. In the twentieth century, if a religion that says, “Among Christians we are the most correct,” looks at the thing called adultery with this eye, you can imagine the understanding of adultery held by the so-called modern religions of our time. Again, some religions do not regard oral sex alone as adultery! Yet Jesus the Messiah brings to this subject of adultery a rule that seems very strict for our time, but is perfectly clear.

You have heard that it was said, “You shall not commit adultery.” But I say to you: Everyone who keeps looking at a woman (or a man) with lust for her (or him) has already committed adultery with her (or him) in his heart. Matthew 5:27-28

Can this matter be explained any more clearly than this? Never mind God looking at what we do—think of how greatly He attends even to the things that pass through our minds. So then, you will say, “Who can do this?” Even though it seems very hard, if we want to, we can do it. Even though such a change will not come about in a single day, we can work to cast this trait off ourselves, just as we do with our many other weak sides. The prophet Job developed a method of his own, and says:

I have made a covenant with my eyes; how then could I gaze at a virgin? (Job 31:1) I say, “To apply this rule literally in our time, one would have to be blind.” But rather than the literal application of this matter, what is very important are the precautions a person takes and the attitude of heart he develops along these lines. If a definite rule must be laid down, it is, as Jesus the Messiah said, to master our own heart, our eyes, our desire. Very many people, on the contrary, are ruled by their eyes and desires. They are like three-year-old children who do not know what they want and cannot restrain themselves—indeed, in this matter, sometimes like animals.

Jesus, on the other hand, is against divorcing and being divorced. In the Torah and in the Quran this business of divorce comes about in a simple way. A person separates from a spouse he does not want by giving her a certificate of divorce. In the Quran it is additionally required that the one who divorces not take back the things he gave to that woman, and that he be generous for her livelihood. For example, in Surah An-Nisa 4:20-21:

If you wish to exchange one wife for another, and you have given the first a great amount of wealth, do not take back any of it. Would you take it by slandering her or by charging her with an open sin? And how could you take it (what you gave) back, when you have become one flesh with one another, and they have taken from you a solemn pledge? **

Although there are many verses about marrying and separating, the general idea in the Quran resembles the verse above. That these verses speak of spouses having given each other a great pledge is also very important for the meaning of marriage. Again, among all the Holy Scriptures, only the Quran brings a rule and limits marriage to four women. Yes, you did not misunderstand. When I say it sets a limit, this limit on the number in such marriages exists solely in the Quran. Neither did Jesus set such a limit, nor is there such a limit in the laws of Moses. But even before there was any king in Israel, concerning the king who would rule Israel, God says he should not multiply “gold”—that is, wealth that corrupts a person—nor “horses,” which are war power for self-reliance, nor, in the sense of excessive pleasure, should he “multiply wives.” (Deuteronomy 17:14-17) Again, no number is specified. But the thousand women that Solomon took must certainly be understood as many. Indeed, these thousand women lead him into sin. And his being led into sin was due not so much to the number of a thousand women, but to the fact that the women he took worshiped not the true God but various idols, other gods. Rather than supporting his faith, on the contrary, Solomon took as wives and married people who did not believe in the God he had faith in—which was a great mistake. Many women, that is, pleasure, wealth, and power—all these are factors that easily lead a person’s heart astray. And that it is so, and would be so, God foretold beforehand.

In the Gospel, the Apostle Paul gives counsel on this subject to his young disciple Timothy. This counsel becomes, for Christians, a rule concerning marriage—and a very definite rule at that. Look, there it is written exactly as follows:

If any man is reaching out for the office of overseer, he desires a fine work. The overseer should therefore be irreprehensible, a husband of one wife, moderate in habits, sound in mind, orderly, hospitable, qualified to teach. He should not be a drunken brawler nor a smiter; but reasonable, not quarrelsome, and free from the love of money. He should be a man presiding over his own household in a fine manner, having children in subjection with all seriousness. For if any man does not know how to preside over his own household, how will he take care of the congregation of God? He should not be a newly converted man, for fear that he might get puffed up with pride and fall into the judgment passed upon the Devil… 1 Timothy 3:1-6

Here Paul, by the spirit he received from God, lays down an ideal standard for the person who is to be an overseer. But people, as in every matter, love restrictive, definite rules. Or else, on the contrary, they love every kind of madness that recognizes no limit at all. Generally they are far from wise, moderate conduct. Because a wise, sensible person is not a harsh legalist who leads to ruin, but soft yet consistent, one who knows what he is doing and what he wants. Christianity, on the other hand, laid down harsh rules upon these verses. These were rules they could not carry out, could not keep. They forbade marriage, and burned with lust for one another among themselves. Men fell into bed with men, women with women. Saying, “In serving God we will do even more than what God asks,” they became a laughingstock and utterly disgraced. And under their influence, societies and nations grew up that recognized no rule at all, knew no God, and opposed everything that is right. Our condition is plain to see—is there any need to describe our world?

Let us come to Paul’s saying that “the person who is to be an overseer should be a husband of one wife.” So it is clearly understood from this verse too that among the Christians of that time—that is, among the followers of Jesus the Messiah—there were also men married to many women. Nowhere in the Gospel, in no book of it, is there a command that those married to many women should, after becoming Christian, separate from their wives. Those who pass for Christian, however, present the situation of those people as though “they were already married anyway, and this was an error stemming from the old law—that is, from the law God gave to Moses.” But neither before nor after is there any rule—and there still is none—saying you must be the husband of one wife, or that a person who has taken and takes more than one woman cannot be a Christian and is no longer a follower of Jesus. Here Paul is speaking of the qualities that persons who are to lead or serve in the church or congregation should possess. As I said, it is emphasized that the overseer should be in an ideal condition. Because Paul and God know that the head of a family with many wives will also have many troubles and problems. These are reasons that will create obstacles for that person in helping others in spiritual matters. But this does not mean that these people married to many women are evil monsters. It certainly does not mean that God hates men with many wives. Jesus the Messiah was against divorce, and the only reason that could exist for divorce was one of the spouses committing adultery. He said nothing against marrying, against marrying many women. Again, one criticism that would be raised against these things I have written is also:

…Some Pharisees who came to Jesus, with the aim of testing Him, asked this: “Is it lawful under the Holy Law for a man to divorce his wife on any sort of ground?” Jesus answered: “Have you not read the Scriptures? The Creator from the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said: ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh.’ So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together, let no man put apart.” Matthew 19:3-6.

Again the verses here are against separating, against divorce. Based on these verses they say, logically, that God created one man and one woman. They defend the view that He did not create two, three, four women for one man. Once I too used to agree with this logic. At the beginning I did not think God wanted marriages to many women to exist. But did everything really develop in accordance with what God wanted, so that we should look only for this and lay down laws of our own? It is certain that Adam had a great many children. With this the following question arises: Did Adam have one son and one daughter? Did Eve always bear one son and one daughter? No. Even at that time these people had more than one wife. (Genesis 4:19) Adam too afterward had many sons and daughters. (Genesis 5:4) They too surely were not always born according to an order of one male and one female. If we say that marriage to many women has existed ever since sin began, we will have spoken more truly. One of the finest examples is Hagar, the servant girl that his wife Sarah gave to Abraham. If marriage to many women had been a sin, Abraham, who is known as the friend of God, would surely have refused it.

In the laws we call the law of Moses (which were God’s laws, but because they were given through Moses people say it this way), it is written there: “A priest who is to serve at the altar must have no defect, must have no bodily blemish.” Indeed, there was not even to be any excess on his body. For example, a priest with six fingers was not to serve at the altar. Let us indicate some of these places by writing them out from their source.

The LORD says to Moses: “Say to Aaron, ‘No one of your offspring throughout their generations who has a defect may approach to present the food offering of his God. For no man who has a defect may approach: a blind man or a lame one or one with a slit nose or one of his members too long, a man who has a broken foot or a broken hand, or a hunchback or a dwarf or one with a defect in his eye or eczema or scab, or one with his testicles crushed. No man of the offspring of Aaron the priest who has a defect may approach to present the offerings made by fire to the LORD. Because he has a defect, he may not approach to present the food offering of his God. Leviticus 21:16-21

From these verses God emphasizes what qualities the priest serving at the altar should have. God had arranged the priesthood in Israel to pass from father to son, beginning with Aaron. It says that if a person is a priest and also has these blemishes, he may not take on the duty at the altar—that is, of presenting the sacrifices and offerings before God, of slaughtering them, of burning them, and so on. So then, is God here disparaging the blind, the lame, the disabled? Absolutely not. Because in the Gospel we read many times that Jesus the Messiah always showed mercy to the blind, the lame—in short, to the disabled—and healed them. But a defective priest serving in God’s work, in the place where the people have gathered for worship, would draw attention to these defects of his and thereby scatter the people’s spiritual attention. Also, flawlessness is sought in a person who serves God. None of us is flawless—that meaning should not be drawn. But even in the eyes of us humans, we cannot appoint a person called defective to represent God before the eyes of all the people. For example, a blind, lame, or sick animal is also not given to God as a sacrifice. Yet that animal is going to be slaughtered—indeed, in some cases, wholly burned. That is, no one will even eat its flesh. What harm would it do, then, if we slaughtered this animal as a sacrifice to God? It would be disrespect. This shows the value we give to God. The people of Israel did this foolishness, so what did God say to them?

…And when you present a blind animal as a sacrifice, is it as if it is nothing bad! And when you present a lame and a sick one, is it as if it is nothing bad! Come now, present it to your own governor; will he be pleased with you? Or will he receive you with favor? Malachi 1:8

Is it not reasonable? The cleaner and purer the appearance and conduct of the priest who is to mediate between God and people, the more this brings glory to God. This situation also affects the people there. For example, in Turkey—and perhaps in the whole world—it is not normal for any officer in his uniform to carry huge loads of goods and sacks in front of the public, and it is also forbidden by law. This law was enacted not to protect the officer, but to protect the dignity of that country’s military army. Or it is likewise forbidden for a general to go among the public in his uniform. I am explaining this by speaking of everyday life; special circumstances are different. For example, a general cannot get on a bus, a ferry, a train in his uniform and go home. That is why they have official cars and drivers. These laws were made not for the personal comfort of those high-ranking officers, but so that the army would not lose its dignity in society. It is the same for statesmen. That is why, when a person sees even a colonel, he automatically feels respect. In Germany, on the other hand, the dignity of a policeman can be likened to the dignity our officers possess. The aim in all these things is not merely to give glory to those persons, but rather to ensure that trust and respect are given to the things those persons represent. Otherwise those persons are no different from us. What makes them different from us are the duties they hold and represent. From all these explanations, God did not lay down any such military rule saying it is correct for these things to be so, or that they must necessarily be so. Rather, I have given such examples to help our understanding of the qualities that priests should possess. For example, in the officer-army dignity example I just gave, there are also other experiences that would raze those rules to the ground. When we look at the prophets and at the life of Jesus the Messiah, we read that even without all these enumerated rules, those persons had respected places in society—and in a way that would astonish us. Even though they were beaten, spat upon in the face, and killed, they won the respect of society not on the basis of the rank they held, but through the very characters they reflected. (Matthew 7:28-29; John 7:46)

The purpose of the laws of Moses was given by God to educate people, to make them understand higher values, and to prepare them for the Messiah. Let us by no means expect that the same laws will also be applied in heaven. (Matthew 19:8; Ephesians 2:14-15; Galatians 3:11-12 and 24-25)

If we consider, both in the laws given to Moses and in the writings of the Apostle Paul, what qualities the persons who are to take on special duty in serving God should possess, in both cases superior qualities are sought, and persons suited to these conditions. And a person who does not possess these conditions is by no means far from God, cast out. We also cannot understand the words in some verses literally. For example, if from Paul’s words, “a husband of one wife, having children in subjection,” we understand that this is necessarily a quality one who is to serve as an overseer, as a follower of Jesus, must certainly possess, then we would have to say that those who are married and childless also cannot come to this office! For that would follow: if these are conditions that must be fulfilled to the letter as a rule, then it should be so. Indeed, Paul is writing this letter at that time to Timothy, who, as he was not married, normally also had no children. So we must weigh and understand these rules in a way that is in harmony with the whole book. In fact, what Paul means by those verses is: “If he has a wife, it should be one; if he has children, he should be able to keep them in subjection.” Whether or not he has a wife or children is not an impediment, but if he does have them, then by ourselves adding an “if” beside those words, we can arrive at an easier understanding in grasping the meaning of those verses.

In Moses’ time some qualities required of priests were of course different from those required of ordinary people. Although there are very many long laws on this subject, I recommend that you read only Leviticus chapter 21. A few of the simplest examples: it is written there, the wife a priest takes must be a virgin. (Leviticus 21:7) Later it says, one who has a defect in himself, in his body, may not perform the duty of the priesthood by presenting God’s offerings and may not approach the altar. (Leviticus 21:17-22) But does the fact that this person does not possess these qualities mean he is someone God hates? Of course not—in fact that person is still a priest; even if he does not take on duties in these places, he receives and eats a share of the holy things. (Leviticus 21:22) I said that God established the duty of the priesthood according to an order passing from father to son. That is why in the writing it says “the sons of Aaron,” and by this the priests are meant. All the children and lineage of Aaron were automatically priests. But one among them would be High Priest and would remain in that office until he died. The papacy too came into being taking inspiration from this rule. Although such things were abolished with Jesus the Messiah, Christians resort now to the laws of Moses, now to the laws of Jesus, however it suits them.

A person who, because of the reasons written here, cannot fulfill the requirements of the priesthood at the altar is by no means evil, deserving of death, or anything of the sort. In the same way, a person who cannot fulfill Paul’s rules to Timothy about those who are to be overseers or servants is neither cursed nor evil nor deprived of God’s mercy. He too is a believer in Jesus and God—indeed a servant of God. Of course every believer should expend all his effort for superior qualities. While this holds in many matters, if circumstances and conditions are inclined toward marriage to many women, this is a responsibility only that person can know. But he is not for this reason far from God. There is no rule written in the Holy Scriptures that came through Jesus, Moses, or Muhammad saying that he is far off.

From these verses too we understand that it was certain that among the followers of Jesus at that time there were believers married to many women. Again, as I said, Christians say, “But these people married under the old knowledge, so that is why it was this way.” Yet in the present day, they strive to make those who married many women under the old knowledge divorce them if they convert to Christianity! Why is no tolerance shown to that? In Mexico, in Africa, and in many other places, the Witnesses, the church, and however many pass for Christian will not accept these people who are married to many women among them unless they divorce, and they strive to train their consciences too, saying, “You will perish and die.” And with which one should that man begin this business of casting off? Would God want such a thing? Should the word of God be a reconciler of people, or a divider? Yet Jesus is against divorce in definite words, and we read plainly in Malachi 2:16 that God “hates divorce.” Only adultery can alter this situation. Separation is permitted in cases of very severe incompatibility, but not divorce. In the verses these people are moreover encouraged to come together again. The verses of 1 Corinthians 7:8-15 already give detailed information on this subject.

It has been said, whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce. But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for the ground of fornication, makes her an adulteress (drives her into adultery); and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Matthew 5:31-32

Despite these words of Jesus, the Christian religions still pressure people, saying, “There is no divorce; if you do not separate from the other women and remain with a single woman, you will die”! There is no definite command saying do not take many women, live with a single woman. If there is a limit, again, as I said, that too is in the Quran. It is written, “Do not take more than four; if you content yourselves with one, it will be better for you.” (Surah An-Nisa) 4:3 and 19, 20, 21 and (Al-Ahzab) 33:50.

The subject of divorce in the Quran is like the laws Moses brought. But the reason for this too is stated by Jesus. He says, “The reason God permitted divorce was because of the hardness of your hearts.” (Matthew 19:7-8) If God is going to show this indulgence to the Arabs and to those who will become Muslim as well, who are we to view this mercy, this indulgence, with an evil eye!

Basing our faith on wrong foundations, we cannot lay down limits and rules for everyone. Neither of the two books supports this thought and belief. Nor is the Quran a book that refutes the Holy Scriptures. Indeed, one who reads the Quran also becomes aware of this:

And let the people of the Gospel judge by what God has sent down in it… (Al-Maidah) 5:47

When God said: “O Jesus! I will cause your term to be fulfilled and raise you up to Myself (to My presence). I will cleanse you and deliver you from those who disbelieve. And I will place those who follow you above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. (Al-Imran) 3:55

With this verse in Surah Al-Imran too, it clearly does not say those who follow Jesus the Messiah will be kept above the disbelievers “until the Quran comes,” but until the Day of Resurrection—that is, the Day of the resurrection—up to that day. Muslims, however, teach, “After the Quran came, the Gospel’s authority also ended.” In the Quran, among all people, Jesus the Messiah alone is the one who was raised up to God’s presence, who is living, and who was resurrected and saw no decay. And this is not in the Muslims’ belief, but in the Quran itself! Those who know flee from these truths. Why is it that people are ashamed of the truths God has taught! Again I want to point out: are these people afraid they will be defeated by the Christians? By speaking, by accepting the truth of God, does a person become defeated? In short, the Quran openly supports living according to the rulings of the Gospel.

On the other hand, those who say, “I am a Christian,” play certain word games on the subject of marriage and point to this verse. There:

Jesus answered and said: “Have you not read that the One who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife; and the two will be one flesh’? So that they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together, let no man put apart.” Matthew 19:4-5

Taking up the words here, he will cleave to his wife, they say, “Look, it does not say ‘to his wives’ there, it says ‘to his wife.’” That is, because the woman is used in the singular form here, they point out that this meaning too arises. Whether a man has one wife or five wives—indeed even a thousand wives like Solomon—that person has become one flesh with those women. He has become one flesh with each of them. When the number increases, this rule is not broken. There are families with one child, and there are families with five children. There are even families with no children at all. What makes them a family is not the number of children.

But the spirit says expressly that in later times some will fall away from the faith (turn away), paying attention to misleading spirits and teachings of demons, their consciences seared by the hypocrisy of liars, forbidding to marry… 1 Timothy 4:3

These teachings of demons, about which Paul prophesied beforehand as a warning, the Catholic church later put into practice in the form of priesthood and nunhood. According to them, this too stemmed from Paul’s counsel! (All of 1 Corinthians chapter 7) But Paul, instead of marrying merely for the sake of custom or because of social pressure, told people who possessed this will of self-control—and that only as advice—to remain single. He by no means said, “Do not marry, but behind the thick church walls you have built, burn with lust for one another, man with man, woman with woman.” The church, with such prohibitions, actually encouraged those people into perversion. For this reason God warns people definitely and severely, saying:

I bear witness to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to these, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book, says Revelation 22:18-19. A similar verse appears in Deuteronomy 4:2.

Even though God has commanded so definitely that nothing be added to His laws, His words, we humans, by loading more made-up burdens and rules on our own backs, imagine we are somehow serving God better? Briefly and plainly, this amounts to saying: “My God, with what You asked of us You could not really know what is exactly right and good—look, I will do You something better,” and by this we are only being impudent and ill-mannered. Even knowledgeable, sincere believers shrink from opposing such rules that they have made up. Because the answer is ready: “What do you mean—just because we want to serve God better, you view this with an evil eye!” they say, and they silence those persons. The Witness is like this, and so is the Catholic, the Protestant, the Muslim, the Jew.

Among Jehovah’s Witnesses too, rules similar to those of the Catholics were in force for a long time regarding marriage. One quality expected of those who wished to spend all their time in this work was that they remain single. Yet if those verses were understood exactly literally, should not the situation be the complete opposite? According to the verse, should they not all have a single wife and children? Until the time of Martin Luther, until around the seventeenth century when the Catholic church went through a division into the form of the Protestant church, priests, or the class called clergy, could not marry. Yet if that person loved God and, taking on duty in such a work, was devoting his life to helping people come to know God, he immediately came face to face with a meaningless law—one stemming from a human command, one very hard to keep, saying he may not marry. These practices in the religions were satanic, selfish human commands that put people needlessly in a difficult position. Among the Catholics, the same rules are still in force. Now, among the Witnesses, marriage is free, but those who have children, or who have small children—with a few countries being the exception—are not accepted for working in a full service. (Blessed are those who are not accepted!) As for marriage: when their own president Knorr, if I am not mistaken in the 1950s, could not hold out and married, then it became free for all of them! By not obeying the rules they themselves laid down, they make a laughingstock of themselves. Might not a person make a mistake and misunderstand the Holy Scriptures? Of course he might—but in all their writings that have come out until now, you cannot come across a single such apology. So it seems they have no mistakes at all!

Some, however, cite examples to argue that marriage to many women cannot be right, pointing to Jacob’s jealousy problems with his wives, to the problems between Hagar and Abraham’s wife Sarah, and to the wives who caused Solomon to go astray.

First let us point out a few things. If the problem is jealousy, then let no one have more than one child either. Because quarreling and jealousy among siblings is something that always exists. If we set about laying down prohibitions to prevent jealousy, we would have to lay down many more meaningless laws. For example, that some women want no other woman more beautiful than themselves to exist.

If Hagar became small in the eyes of her mistress, that is, of Abraham’s wife Sarah, because she became pregnant—if being looked down upon is a problem, then let no one ever marry at all. Because many women have not merely looked down upon their husbands, and husbands upon their wives, but from time to time have even hated each other, and still do.

Again, if going astray from God, as with Solomon, is a problem, God brings clarity to this too, saying in the Gospel, “Let your marriages be in the Lord.” In the Quran, as I mentioned, it says, “Do not marry those who do not believe.” But applying this rule too by looking at a person’s label of piety would be very wrong. In devotion to God and in righteousness, I have known countless men and women who pass for pious but who have been a stumbling block to their wives and husbands in many matters. They are pious only on the label. In reality, by their deeds they possess an understanding, a knowledge, a belief, and a spirit very far from God. If I apply this situation to our time, I say that marriage seems almost impossible. From how many people can I expect belief in the very things I have written in this book? God does not say, “He must believe exactly as you do.” He says, “Marry someone who believes in the Lord, who has faith.” And everyone must make this search in line with his conscience and his means, without deceiving himself either. Let us also not forget: in our time, finding someone who is “in the Lord” will be like looking for a needle in a haystack.

For example, the Witnesses, basing themselves solely on these verses, generally marry a Witness like themselves. But on this subject I see them not as people who are in the Lord, but on the contrary as people who are opposed to the Lord’s will. Like the women who worshiped other gods that Solomon took. I believe they are people who will lead a person away from the true God. Because what they serve and worship is not God but their organization. They too are helpless, and most often self-interested and evil people. They will surely be very angered by this saying. But the same thing holds for the Muslim, Jewish, and Christian world too. They too, like the Witnesses, say they supposedly worship God. But the greatest glory the Muslims give to Muhammad, the Jews to Moses, and the Christians, calling him God, to Jesus—and they worship them. A Muslim cannot even say just “Muhammad.” Sallallahu Alayhi wa Sallam (SAV). This is called invoking a blessing. According to them, to even take Muhammad’s name into one’s mouth without invoking a blessing is disrespect and a sin. How many people know the Turkish of this blessing? I still do not know it exactly. It could be translated as something like, “May the peace of God be upon you.” Do those people imagine they are glorifying God with words they do not know, do not understand? With words that come out of his mouth like a parrot, words he does not understand, whom can a person glorify? If, while speaking with those persons, you ask, “Which is greater in majesty, God or Muhammad?” they say, “God, of course—God forbid, what a thing to say.” Then, if you say, “So then, when you express God with a single word, why is it not disrespect, but merely saying ‘Muhammad’ without invoking this Arabic blessing is disrespect?” they stare at your face in bewilderment, and then, full of rage, they hate you. All these religionists are the same on certain subjects! They get very angry with me, saying, “What kind of talk is that about the Prophet Muhammad, just saying ‘Muhammad’? As if he’s your friend, that you speak of him like that?” At the very least one must say “the Prophet.” So then, why does no one ever say “the Prophet God”? If this word “Prophet” is so good and must necessarily be said, is not God more worthy of it? These pious ones resemble bank advertisements. You know—the kind where they say, “Really there’s no difference between us, but we’re such-and-such a bank.” Which is more valuable? To invoke a blessing without even knowing its meaning, attaching to that person a whole lot of names and epithets like a surname while living very far from Him and never applying His words; or to value what that person said, taking the trouble to learn what God’s true will is, and living according to that truth? They know nothing but to teach rule upon rule! In Jesus’ time too the Jews had fixated on Moses—as though Jesus were against Moses. The tactic is always the same, but to such people Jesus gives a very fitting answer:

Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have put your hope. For if you had believed Moses, you would believe me also, for he wrote about me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words? This saying in John 5:45-47—as much as it applied to the so-called followers of Moses who then defended God, so equally does it apply to the present-day so-called Christians who defend Jesus, and to the so-called Muslims who defend Muhammad. Among all these religions I have named, which one believes in the true God? Someone from within which one should one marry? Which of these is in the Lord? In my view, frankly, none of them is carrying out God’s will in belief and works. As for the naturally good individuals here and there, you can find them not only in those religions, but everywhere among those who do not believe in God as well. And this too, as I said, is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

Let us come back again to this marriage to many women. Why did I touch on this subject of marrying many women? Is it to defend my own being together again with the woman I had separated from? No. For years, ever since I began my researches about God, even at the very start of the road, I always saw that behavior as a sin I was committing. Even with this knowledge I still cannot say it is right. Even though we had once been married. In fact I say that neither then nor after the divorce did we ever have an aim suited to the meaning of the marriage that God expects of us. And these unions after divorce give both sides hopes that will come to nothing, and drive the relationship even more into an impasse. Furthermore, I have no intention of taking other women for the present either. But my aim is to bring to light something that is wrong. I have known many people who threw the Quran out of their hands, saying, “How can God say you may take four women!” They said the reason was that “they could not believe in such a God.” This, of course, is always defended by women, and some men supposedly support it too. Could those men dare to do anything else but support it! Our subject is really not this, and these things do not much concern me.

Christianity, in a manner that flatters women’s feelings, has for centuries opposed the Quran with these arguments. They defend being the husband of one wife, but it is these very Christians who hate covered women who do not bare their backsides! And the name they give it is: you worship Satan, while we worship Jesus? They follow him, of course! Those German bosses who will not even hire a woman with a covered head, in their lives fall into bed with many women, and many of them have illegitimate children. That can happen and it does—what is it to us! The part that concerns us is that the covered person he sees is a pagan, while he himself is a believer, bound for heaven! Why doesn’t she sit on his lap too, instead of playing the role of chastity with her headscarf! And if she is ugly by his standards, unkempt—she’s finished. In Germany, alongside the Turks who wear headscarves, the Bulgarians, Romanians, Russians who know nothing of what God is were immediately met with sympathy—why? Because even if they cannot do anything, through them they can bathe their eyes. Besides, a Christian and a person who does not believe in God are not distinguished by outward appearance. But the one who wears a headscarf is noticed!

So then, what shall we say about those who are covered? What of the believers who cover their heads but wear skin-tight jeans underneath, with a cigarette in hand, getting into a Mercedes? Are they so very chaste? We read about the affairs among them only when they burst into the open, in newspapers and magazines. The German knows this, and everyone knows it too. Again, none of this really concerns me. The part that grieves me most is that these people always use God’s name as a screen, and I am ashamed of that. And people’s hatred, in my view, is for this reason. Not for their headscarves. If those covered ones were always trustworthy in their word, doing their work with love and from the heart, honest, truly chaste, knowledgeable, clean, and gentle, would not the whole world feel sympathy for them? I do not mean that doing what is right necessarily gathers sympathy—perhaps people would hate them even more, but then that would be a hatred without cause. Whereas now! Moreover, the papacy, which represents Christianity, hates everyone from whom it and its interests gain nothing.

Because of this “at most one wife” rule that the Christian world made up, I believe that throughout history many people were forced to suffer meaningless pains. In our time this does not seem to be a problem. But if we go back a little in history, many women, because of the Christian pressure of society upon them, could not find a home to shelter in, a family, an order of marriage, and could not form a relationship with their chastity intact. How could they? The Christian clergy opposed marriage to many women. The prostitution that increased in Europe, the sexually transmitted diseases that emerged—and even more, mental illnesses—are all due to the rules of these false religionists, based on human teachings. Ever since the human world was founded, there have been wars in every age. These wars both lasted for years and left many women without men, widowed. So wars will happen, hundreds of thousands of men will die, but the single-woman rule the religionists made up themselves will not be broken! And shamelessly, those so-called followers of Jesus who say, “Marriage to more than one woman is a sin,” will bless and consecrate those very wars and soldiers! What drives those widowed women, girls, and married men that remain into adultery before God is, again, the rules these religionists made up. For very long ages people went off to these wars, and millions of them never came back again. Epidemics, women’s illnesses lasting many years, famines—which mean harsh conditions—destitution, women who could not bear children, and so on, drove women to prostitution and men to adultery. It was not only the woman who was barren—even if the man was, that man became aware of it only after taking three or five women. In those days there was no such thing as medicine, or it was very primitive compared to our time. Feminist women look at this situation with rage and say, “Why, if the man is barren, is another husband not brought to the woman?” Because, while the man was striving for the entire livelihood and bearing that responsibility, I cannot imagine anyone bringing a stud man into the house with her own money! Exceptions aside, neither would a man do this, nor would a woman who had that man’s means.

At the end of wars, sometimes in a village a handful of men and a great many widowed women and girls remained. It should not be hard to guess what those widowed women and girls did with such a very small number of men. What was done was done anyway. Why did those religionists place obstacles to this, and instead of marrying them honestly and chastely, turned it into a form that would forever stain those persons’ consciences before God? This stained conscience means that after a while the person sinks in the matter of faith. That is, when our conscience troubles us, the more we suppress its voice, and are forced to suppress it, a day comes when we become insensible in the matter of faith too, in the matter of God’s promises and the hope He gives. Actually this is precisely the satanic aim in those human commands: to create a false conscience in people and try to tear them away from God. Look, this truth is written in the Gospel:

…Hold faith and a good conscience; some, thrusting the good conscience aside, have sunk in the matter of faith. 1 Timothy 1:19

The aim is to create an uneasy conscience in people by making up absurd, unkeepable, or very heavy commands out of their heads. And it is far simpler for them to enslave someone whose conscience is uneasy, because it is easier to dominate a person who always feels guilt. With very few exceptions, in every age the real task of the religionists has been to lead people away from God and to make donkeys of them for themselves. Yes, and we, on the other hand, have always seen them as God’s representatives, God’s men, holy ones. And now again the men of the same religion perform marriage between man and man, and bless them too, saying, “May God let you grow old on one pillow”! In every age they know well how to keep up with the fashion—as long as you remain their donkey.

Let us come to the answer to the questions in the thoughts of the feminists connected with this subject. For example, up to now I have neither seen nor heard of a single man who was married to many women—and also in need. There are said to be gigolos who live off women’s money. These are all things that happen in relationships outside of marriage. I am not treating the nonsense and immorality that people do for pleasure with this subject. Many women have always sought a door for themselves, and they found it alongside those men they call “evil monsters”! Yet who is compelling that woman to marry that monster? Women both feel jealous and wage war, and yet cannot give up that door for anything! What is this called? Those poor women who work in the fields, cut trees in the forests, do all the housework! The field she works is the field of the evil man she lives with, the house whose work she does is again that evil man’s, and with the firewood she cuts she will again warm herself in that evil man’s house. Like the Turks saying to the Germans, “If it weren’t for us, you couldn’t have developed.” Yes, surely those women work hard and the men use this. They are self-interested, far from justice and most of all from love. Or the Germans, having the Turks do the dirtiest and heaviest jobs they themselves would not do, and, because these people did not know the language or their rights, cheating them badly, secured benefits for themselves for a long time. In many matters, too, and moreover with hatred! But if the Turk had not come, someone else would have, and they would have been cheated. If it is desired that the situation be seen from this angle, in reality it is so. What person does not think of himself? I have compared the woman who comes as a bride to a home with nothing, and the person who comes as a worker to a country with nothing, so that the situations may be better understood. According to which country’s people are living by God’s word, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself”? So a woman is to have houses, fields, inns, and bathhouses, and hand them over to a man to consume! And make that man say, “Bread from the hand, water from the lake”! If you have heard or seen such a thing, then bravo, truly. I have neither heard nor seen it. And if there is such a case, the woman surely has some other need. Let us not think of this need necessarily as money. Generally, for some reason, this generosity is always done, and has always been done, by men. Again, exceptions have surely existed. Fine, honest women worth a hundred men on their own have lived, and do live. Is there no woman who is honorable, who values not money and interest but love and righteousness? Whoever says, “No, there has never been,” is lying. I am always speaking of the general majority, not of beings and facts that have to be searched out with a microscope. These words of mine do not hold so much for married couples under normal conditions—that is, where both are poor and lonely, one man and one woman. They now, even if rarely, even if they sometimes hate each other, drag each other along. Actually these situations are most often a matter of need, helplessness, destitution, self-interest. It is not a man-woman problem but a human problem. Whoever holds the power, the powerless has been crushed beneath him. Whether this is the man’s domination over the woman, or the woman’s over the man, it has been no different at all. Are egoism, self-interest, jealousy, hatred, cruelty found only in the man, or in the woman too? Surely they are found in both sexes. Again, generally, women have always aimed to take from the man, while the woman has given nothing at all. Because a woman cannot rely on her strength like a man, she is always intent on extracting something. So that, if she is left out in the open, she will not be in need. Again the matter is fear—the fear of being in need.

Satan frightens you with the prospect that you will be poor. He commands you to stinginess. But God promises you forgiveness and mercy. Al-Baqarah (2):268

Generally, because of this fear too, women have resorted to every means—like every frightened, helpless person. Narrow-minded, spider-headed people imagine that by dividing people according to their sexes they will solve the problems of the world.

In some regions such as Mexico and Africa where the Jehovah’s Witnesses preach, there have also been men and families married to many women who, listening to these things and being affected, felt love for God, a great warmth. Even though these women snarl at one another, their one and most important complaint about that man is generally, “He should have taken only me—why are the others here too.” Otherwise they are all satisfied with that man. Even if they throw insults behind his back, they will not give up that door. Sometimes an entire family like this believes in God, in the God the Witnesses present, and puts faith in Him. And that is when the problem begins. The man must separate from all of those women except one. In fact neither the women nor the man wants this. It has many economic, legal, and spiritual effects. Indeed each of them also has children. That is all right—if God has wanted such a thing, saying you must separate, then whatever the case, I too am in favor of its being done. But if there is no such thing—if it is not God but only a human teaching—that is what grieves me. Often those persons are branded, “not worthy of God,” and again their consciences are stained. Or that entire large family breaks apart even though none of them wants it. Even with their quarrels, their fights, their jealousies, their inability to bear one another, they had become a family; like Jacob’s family, a family defending its common interests. (Genesis 31:1-16) Then come and divide these people in God’s name! By what right and in whose name does one do this business? Knowing what? Based on what? The book in his hand does not say such a thing. Do they say, “But those men are not Jacob”? What is it to them who is who? Will he give an account on that man’s behalf? But everyone will surely give an account concerning the things he strove to have done that do not belong to God. That is why:

“My brothers, you know that we teachers will undergo a heavier judgment; for this reason, let not many of you become teachers. For we all stumble many times,” says the Gospel in James 3:1-2. And in the world too, it is the Witnesses who are most eager for this business of teaching. I am not disparaging being a teacher; I am drawing attention to the responsibilities it brings.

Yet for thousands of years women have needed the protection of a man. However much that man abused this, because there was no other recourse, women were forced to endure this situation. At the same time, men too were forced to endure women. But those women, gathered in a family community, did this with their chastity, their honor, and most importantly with a good and clean conscience before God—and that is what matters. Sharing one man among many women did not tear them away from God. (All of 1 Samuel chapter 1) Being alone, loneliness, responsibility, is for those women the most painful of all. Indeed, often it means plain death or prostitution for them. On this subject the Holy Scriptures have told the stories of experiences lived by certain believers. For example, Ruth, the great-grandmother of David. The Holy Scriptures write the events that befell her under this name. If you are curious, please read that passage, a total of three and a half pages, from its source. More than anything, those people thought not only of their own pleasures, but also of the God they loved and the people they loved. To those persons a family, a man’s protection, and the surname he gave were very valuable. Words expressing these feelings appear in the verse Isaiah 4:1 of the Holy Scriptures:

On that day seven women will take hold of one man, saying, “We will provide our own food and our own clothing; only let us be called by your name. Take away our disgrace!” If this appears as a prophecy, then it means these words also have a real side.

For some reason people have always viewed the freedom God gave with an evil eye. They have added laws on top of it themselves. Alongside this, the condition of those girls and women who lived in abundance became haughty, their noses stuck up in the air. (Isaiah 3:16) The women who struggled in poverty and need to get a bite of bread and to enter under a roof, to have a nest to be protected in, were far more numerous. Yet who is compelling them to marry at all? Could not God have laid down definite rules? But if He has given us freedom, laws suited to our harsh conditions on earth, why do we disparage God or distort His commands?

Think of a husband and wife who love each other. But the woman is barren, they cannot have a child. The man’s line will die out and disappear, and all his property will be scattered. He takes another woman to bear him children. So then, should he throw the other one he loves out the door? No, God has no such absurd command either. Only humans lay down such laws. As in the example I gave above and recommended you read, the relationship of the prophet Samuel’s mother and father was like this. This subject is written in the first chapter of 1 Samuel. Because the man took another woman, neither did that woman hate her husband, nor did the man stop loving his wife because she was barren. We also gave the example of Abraham and of Jacob. There are thousands, tens of thousands of such people. This was so only in the matter of barrenness. And if we consider women who were ill, the number increases even more. Were there not women who had bleeding or some other kind of illness for years? (Mark 5:25) Should these people have been thrown out the door? Or should the man have bowed his neck and resigned himself to everything? Because of the laws the Christians made up, those men neither bowed their necks and accepted this, nor did they stay without a woman. They committed adultery in secret, living with a bad conscience toward God. And jealousy is so great and blind that it makes many women today say, “What can I do—whether I’m this way or that way, you’ll have to put up with me.” Not everyone—not every woman is so selfish, so meaninglessly jealous and blind. In places where God’s laws are applied, people have felt no need for such secret adultery and fornication. By marrying, they preserved a good conscience and did not sink in the matter of faith. Those men are neither so dishonorable nor so unchaste as people strive to make them out to us. If they are already dishonorable and unchaste, this has nothing to do with whether or not they marry many women. In the Holy Scriptures and in the Quran we read again and again of the marriages of many prophets to many women. A man’s marrying many women does not make him dishonorable. And whoever the man a woman marries may be, sharing him with many women does not make that woman a whore either. In both cases these people are not committing adultery before God. Humanity, however, has for centuries lived with a morality and a logic that are completely the opposite, under the influence of the religions.

Let us come to the moral aspect of this business. That too is the wish of women—perhaps of every woman—not to share her husband with another wife. Who does not understand this? But this, as we said, cannot always and in every age retain its validity for these conditions and situations—and has not been able to. Indeed, women have struggled hard not only against other women, but also to drive away whatever and whomever the man now loves, out of jealousy that the man’s love will be divided. According to many women, the man should love only the things she wants, and should live at her feet only for her. If these self-centered, sick feelings we call egoism exist in men too, they are not, generally in our time, as extreme as they are in women. Such women are really not looking for a husband, but for a collared dog on their neck; but the leash of the collar too must be solely in their own hands!

In the old days—and perhaps still in many places—to have children meant power, strength, a future, blessing. Even in our present time, only in very few countries in our world is there no need for this situation. But for the great majority, mothers and fathers become dependent on their children in their old age. Even if not materially, they are also dependent spiritually. The ones who love them, from whom they see benefit, who are closest to them, are again their children. Children are still people’s life insurance for the future, their closest ones, and the only beings on earth who love them or do not love them, but with whom they can be indulged. This is so in rich Europe, and in poor Africa and in Turkey too. However worthless those children may be, we all know that in old age this is sought for the parent not necessarily by their money, their wealth, their strength, but sometimes by their mere existence. That our time gives many very distorted examples on this subject too does not change these truths of the past. There are many reasons we could enumerate that even compel a man to take many women. Our present time looks at this subject only as sexual pleasure. That is why women fill with rage and jealousy. And men may really be seeking only their own pleasure. So then, what are women seeking? In this world, was it only men who became addicted to fun and pleasure? If the subject that gathers all the anger is pleasure, in our time women are, on every kind of pleasure and entertainment, incomparably farther ahead than men.

We humans have forgotten all the historical truths; only our present situation concerns us. With our eyes and understanding darkened, we can even purse our lips and say, “How astonishing that God would say marry many women,” and even say, “I don’t believe in such a God”! What a narrow point of view. As I said a little while ago, in those days a nest meant everything to women. A roof to slip their heads under, someone they could call “my husband”—even a man, no matter how many wives he had—was very essential. Now, women of our time say, “I’d die before I’d do such a thing.” And God never compelled any woman by saying, “Go and marry this man or that man no matter what.” And did the men take those women by force? Even though from time to time this pressure still exists in many places, this was not peculiar to those times. Besides, what has changed with the present time? In those days girls married someone according to the taste of their fathers, their mothers. That is, the woman or the girl, whatever she was, married unwillingly. Now women and girls have gone out on the hunt for a rich man, or, saying, “For money I’ll endure all sorts of conditions for a certain time,” they marry and have children in order to collect alimony. If, one way or another, women were always forced to marry unwillingly for the sake of this materialism, if willingly or unwillingly they spent themselves for the sake of interest, what shall we say? Shall we now make a distinction between man and woman? A person who does not value love should bear the burden of the thing she does value. Instead of blaming all men for the relationships she endured for money, wealth, interest, with hatred, without love, should not those persons blame their very selves? The man too has had other problems, different burdens. Whether we are man or woman, none of us has a life without hardship, without trouble, without problems. If our wife or husband turned out badly, shall we make a distinction of sex? Then would not the children too say, “Why wasn’t I born the child of such-and-such a rich man, of such-and-such a king”? Or could not the children of those kings, those rich people, also say, “I wish my mother and father had eaten onions, but had loved me and had time for me”? Examples like this can be multiplied. Did not our mothers and fathers too have many mistakes, behaviors we sometimes could never understand? There are also those who hate their mother and father because of these. But all these events neither deprive us of the wish to become mothers and fathers, nor do they give us any guarantee that we will not make even other and more wrong mistakes than they did. We are all the same, and none of us has the right to swell up over another. Whether little or much, let us not be eager to dominate. Because with whatever we dominate over another, we too will be dominated—let us not forget. (Matthew 7:1-2 and again Matthew 6:14-15)

Concerning marriage, which would have been better? For God to give restrictive laws, or to leave it free? “Well, but because He left it free, men go astray this time,” will you say? Who is telling you, “Marry” that perverted man? If you married knowingly, why are you still complaining? Even if you have no recourse at all, are you the only one living in helplessness on this earth? As if the married couples of one wife are so very happy? Whom is God compelling by saying, “You must marry”? But our being chaste and honest, and our having a good relationship with God, is vital. As I said again, being married to many women, and that man being shared among many women, does not spoil this situation. Besides, which wealthy woman has such a problem? It is not necessary to view one’s material condition as a problem and to do everything to obtain wealth. The main idea of our whole subject anyway is, “How can we, if possible, please God without committing sin?” isn’t it? A person who does everything and endures everything to become wealthy, just as he spoils his relationship with God, is already building walls of bronze between Him and himself.

However and from whatever angle I think about it, I cannot find a fault in the freedom God has permitted us. And what’s more, who are I or we? Priests who could not obey the laws they laid down themselves and burned with lust for one another, and the children that those nuns buried by breaking through the church walls! Was it any better to place people under such troubles? An Indian ascetic who counted sleep a sin, and who cut off his eyelids because he could not hold out and slept—this too stems from the same spirit. From whom do such oppressive commands come? These are nothing but commands they made up themselves, coming not from God but from demons, from Satan. And in a sense God wanted it to be so. So then, why would God want such a thing?

On this subject the people of Israel who went astray from God are an example to all humanity. They were no different from us. We too are no different from them. Their experiences became an example to all humanity. Blessed is the one who understands! Look at what God says about Israel, about that people who stubbornly walked in their own ways:

In the wilderness I said to their sons: Do not walk in the laws of your fathers, and do not keep their judgments, and do not defile yourselves with their idols. I am the LORD your God; walk in my laws, keep my judgments and carry them out… …But the sons rebelled against me; they did not walk in my laws and did not keep my judgments to carry them out—those judgments which, if a man carries them out, he will live by them… … (24-26) …their eyes were on the idols of their fathers. So I too gave them laws that were not good and judgments by which they could not live. And I let them become defiled by their offerings—by making every firstborn pass through the fire—that I might make them desolate, so that they would know that I am the LORD. Ezekiel 20:18,21,24-26

This explanation of God’s here should be a very fine lesson to us. Actually, the absurd teachings, the disgusting practices, that those who say, “I believe in God,” possess were due to their own sins. And God, watching this situation, does not rescue them out of that filth—He only permits it. But He also states the reason. He says, “Because they did not listen to me.” By saying, “So I too gave them laws that were not good and judgments by which they could not live,” let us not imagine that God Himself gave them the unkeepable judgments. God did not stop them in the judgments and practices they made up out of their own corrupt hearts; He only permitted it. So that, because of these laws they made up themselves, they would perish, become defiled, and see and understand that those judgments were not the will of the LORD. In our time too, why should these situations not be so? God is still the same then as now, is He not? Does God change? No—the LORD Himself says in Malachi 3:6, “I do not change.” How will these religions, religionists, and humanity escape from the coming judgment? Will the LORD not scatter them too to the four corners of the wind? If God did this to Israel, whom He called “my chosen,” will He not do even more to us?

By the things I have recounted, do I mean to say to people, “Multiply your wives”? No, this is something everyone must decide for himself; the thing I want to explain is only to show, based on the documents in our hands, the wrongness and the absurdity of what has been taught to us. God and Jesus the Messiah were against divorce. Those so-called pious ones, religionists, by placing obstacles before the persons in this situation who wish to draw near to God, and by making them divorce, scattered their nests and their family unity. And they did these things in God’s name at that. I am against this. If, after the Gospel, God again permits divorce in the Quran, this too, like the ancient Israelites, is due to the hardness of heart of the Arabs, or of people. (Matthew 19:3-12)

On the subject of marriage there is counsel from Paul in the Gospel. And very wise counsel too. But as I said, it is only counsel, not God’s command. Nor can it hold for everyone. Only those who can accept it and do it gladly do it. On this subject the Apostle Paul writes as follows:

As for virgins, I have no command from the Lord concerning them. But by the Lord’s mercy, as one who is trustworthy, I give what I think. So I think that, on account of the present distress, it is good for a person to remain as he is. Do you have a wife? Do not seek to be divorced. Do you have no wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned. And if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. However, those who marry will meet with distress in this life. And I am wishing to spare you these distresses.

Brothers, this is what I mean to say: The time is short. From now on, let those who have wives be as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they did not mourn, and those who rejoice as though they did not rejoice, and those who buy as though they did not possess, and those who make use of the world as though they did not make full use of it. For the present form of this world is passing away.

I want you to be free from anxiety. The unmarried man is anxious for the things of the Lord, thinking how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious for the things of the world, thinking how to please his wife, and so his interest is divided. The unmarried woman or virgin is anxious for the things of the Lord, so as to be holy both in body and in spirit. But the married woman is anxious for the things of the world, thinking how to please her husband. I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict your freedom. I want you to live in a fitting manner, devoted to the Lord without distraction. Gospel—1 Corinthians 7:25-35

Supposedly basing itself on these verses, the Church charted a path for itself according to the order of priesthood and nunhood. They went behind those great thick-walled structures, as though built to stand a thousand years without ever falling. They did not marry, they forbade marriage, and they did very disgusting things. Leaning against those buildings, they also robbed the people around them. They took the last morsels from their hands. Those places became nests of torture. Did they imagine they were following Paul? Paul sacrificed himself for the sake of people. He strove that not the slightest harm might come to them. He did not hide himself behind thick walls. He lived together with those people. For their sake he was stoned, whipped, and in vast, boundless shipwrecks he spent days having given up hope of his life. He worked for his livelihood. Though he had the right to be a burden, he was a burden to no one. (2 Corinthians 11:20-29 and 2 Thessalonians 3:7-9) These people were accepted by God; God showed His works upon them and set His seal upon them (approved them). But most of those who dressed themselves up as though they were these people were frauds, merciless, cruel. Those who are still striving to suck people’s blood come from among these. In the buildings they call the house of God, they rob people. Not only materially, but by taking whatever they have spiritually as well. And when they are done with their business, they fling that person away like a piece of garbage. Are these the ones who walk according to Paul’s counsel and are like Paul! We have seen, we see, and what is unseen will also by no means stay hidden. And the end of them all is very, very near. Do not be surprised if one day all the nations gather together and cast off from themselves all those religions, characterized in Revelation, known as the last little book of the Holy Scriptures, as “Great Babylon” or the “harlot,” and everything belonging to them. There are prophecies that write that the destruction of all religions will come in a single day, suddenly. Because they all behaved exactly like a harlot; they sold themselves, righteousness, justice, faith, mercy, and love for God. And most often for the sake of things called nothing at all. (Revelation 14:6-8 and 18:1-24)

If we briefly gather up the whole subject and repeat it: for a Christian, there is no limit in the Gospel saying how many women you may marry. God did not lay down such a limit. Concerning divorce, Jesus the Messiah lays down a limit in the Gospel, saying, “Do not divorce except for adultery, and do not marry a divorced person either.” (Matthew 19:3-12) Again, this “divorced person” means someone who divorced following his own whim, apart from adultery. There is no limit saying how many women you may or may not marry. He may take as many as he wants, but divorce would not be as easy as it used to be—this too he should not forget. If a person wishes to live according to the rulings of the Gospel as a follower of Jesus the Messiah, his being married to many women is not an impediment. But it is not ideal for the one who serves as an overseer to have more than one wife. Yet this person can take on many duties and responsibilities in that congregation, that community. Only for the person who is to serve as an overseer (supervisor)—that is, in many communities of believers in certain regions—is having many wives a hindering situation. But all these things do not make a person far from God. In the laws given to Moses too it says that a defective person cannot serve as a priest at the altar. But it does not say that a person who does not possess these conditions is far from God. Even if he cannot take on duty in these places, he is still a priest of God. The only book that sets a limit on the number of marriages is the Quran. There, there is a limit of up to four. Again, as counsel it says, “If you keep to one, it will be good for you.” That is all. (An-Nisa, Surah 4:3 and 19-21; Al-Ahzab, Surah 33:50)

Again I have seen certain sincere Muslims always seeming, as it were, ashamed on this subject. Those who defend Christianity, in order to prove that the Quran was sent down by Satan, cling to this subject of marriage to many women. “Why has God again permitted marriage to many women in the Quran?” The supposed aim is to prove that this book cannot be from God. If this is the whole criterion, then from whom is the Holy Scriptures? As an answer to those who say it cannot be from God, it is very fitting to say, “The same laws, principles, and freedom are there too.”

In the Quran, other details are gone into more concerning the subjects of marrying and separating. (Al-Baqarah) 2:221-242 Since the subject of marriage has been opened here, while it is on my mind, I too would like to draw attention to one of the absurdities Muslims commit regarding this subject. In Al-Baqarah, 2:229, it says:

“Divorce is twice. After that, either keeping together in kindness or parting in a good manner is required. It is not lawful for you to take back anything you have given them.”

And in Al-Baqarah, 2:230, it says:

Again, if the man divorces his wife (a third time), she is no longer lawful to him until she has married another husband. If this husband then divorces her, there is no sin upon them in remarrying the first husband, provided they think they can keep within the bounds of God.

Basing themselves on these verses, Muslims have resorted to the very ludicrous methods we know of from Ottoman times. Although the verses above grant the right of divorce, they are in favor of its being in a limited manner. To say to a woman, “You are divorced,” and to divorce her arbitrarily, or in anger, however it suits one, finds no approval in the Quran either. The aim is to ensure that these rights, or this indulgence, between husband and wife are not abused. It aims to put respect between spouses and mastery over one’s desire in the foreground. Here divorce twice is spoken of. That incompatibility between spouses, and that divorce is the easiest solution, the apostles in Jesus’ time also knew. (Matthew 19:9-10) But according to the words of Jesus the Messiah, only “adultery” could be a valid reason for divorce. On this subject the Apostle Paul also says, “If the spouse of an unbeliever leaves, let him leave.” But he also states, “If he wishes to remain, let him not separate.” He does not grant that person the right of divorce just because the other did not believe. And he clearly states that Paul says this not as God’s command, but based on his own preference. We can be sure that God approves these thoughts too. But even so, the obligation to live with an unbeliever, someone living contrary to God’s commands, is not a law of God. (1 Corinthians 7:10-16)

Muslims have understood, understand, or want to understand this divorce literally. That is, a man saying this word three times, “You are divorced, you are divorced, you are divorced,” in anger or for whatever reason—even if this is the first divorce—means to them that he has divorced three times. In my view this too is illogic; again word games are being played. If that person has a reason to separate, or the anger of the moment, he will say this word that comes to his mouth three times, even five times. In the Quran, though, what is spoken of is an actual separation, a divorce. Whether this divorce lasts a day, or ten days, or a year, it is so. After this they can reconcile again. The same situation can happen one last time again, but on the third there is no longer any reconciliation. Even if both sides wish it, their wishes are not enough to cross this limit. If the law is like this, who would dare to make such a mistake again in his life? If that woman has no value at all for her husband anyway, her separating and marrying someone else should not grieve him. But on the contrary, if the woman is valuable to that husband, if separating will be very hard for him, then they need to be careful about what they say and the decisions they will make. God says here that He can only overlook their making such a mistake twice. According to these rules too, divorce does not find so much support. In the laws of Moses these subjects are not as detailed as in the Quran. Instead there are other details. Anyway, our subject is the practices of Muslims. In Turkey, with the Republic, these subjects were closed off, disappeared, as it were. The staunch religionists of the Islamic world, however, still apply this rule as in the practice of Ottoman times.

If a man has either divorced his wife twice or said “you are divorced” three times, the matter is finished. But if the man is later remorseful, then people begin to seek ways out. The imam, like the politician, as in democracy—do the ways out ever end! According to the Quran, the woman must necessarily marry someone else and then be divorced from him too, so that the man can take back the wife he divorced. But this is marriage—who knows when the man who takes her will separate from that woman? And this business can drag on for a long time. Most importantly, his wife will get into that man’s bed. Ah, the man is finished. They have found the way out. They hire a man for money. This man will remain married to the woman for one night and then separate afterward. It is all planned, of the kind they call a rigged fight. Whether the man is now trustworthy and so on are separate matters. In these affairs many disgraceful things have also been experienced. The name of this act is “hülle” (the intervening marriage), and the one who does it is called a “hülleci.” In Europe he is called a gigolo, and that fellow does his job however he does it. In our Islam, under the name of hülle, they supposedly play an Ali Cengiz trick on God. This too is probably the Muslim version of the business! In the Quran, though, no such swindle is ever written. Yet God, with this rule, actually closes off all the ways to those persons’ marrying again. Since the marriages of such people, though shown so much indulgence, are finished off with a moment’s anger, or with whatever, how many times should this be? Who marries again and then separates and goes back to that person? These are only very rare exceptions. With such cunning, people have only striven to distort God’s commands. So then, whom did they deceive? Only themselves. And to the ignorant, uninformed public they have palmed off such things as, “It is written in the Quran, it is God’s command.” Do they imagine God is like themselves? Let us not look at the entertainers and such of our time who appear in glossy, illustrated newspapers and magazines. Let us not look for normality in their relationships under this thing called marriage. Yet in the Torah it is written thus on this subject:

“If a man divorces his wife, and she goes from him and becomes another man’s wife, will the man ever return to that woman again? Would not that land become greatly defiled?” they say…. This is how it appears, in Jeremiah 3:1.

In the Quran there are verses written against those who distort God’s words. Basing themselves on these verses, Muslims say, “They corrupted God’s books,” and push the Torah and the Gospel aside. So then, what are they doing themselves in this case? Distorting God’s word through the interpretations and practices made is one thing, and changing those words on the books, in the writing, is another. And if these claims of theirs about the Torah and the Gospel were true, this would have to be in harmony with all the verses in the Quran too. In countless places in the Quran, though, there are a great many verses such as: “Bring the Torah and read it; let the people of the Gospel live by the rulings given to them; the word of God cannot be corrupted.” In the example of hülle I gave above, and in all the other wrong practices, it is not the books that have been corrupted, but the people themselves. It is their own distorted teachings, which they corrupted and attributed to God. With these examples we call Ali Cengiz tricks, people deceived themselves and corrupted themselves. Otherwise God’s word was not corrupted. Look at what the Quran writes about the corruptions connected with this subject and many other subjects.

Do you then hope that they will believe you? Yet there is a group among them who, after hearing and understanding the word of God, knowingly corrupted it. (Al-Baqarah) 2:75

Does this verse mean only the Muslims? If we look at the preceding verses, it speaks of Moses and of Israel too. On other subjects it speaks of the Christians too. When we plainly read these verses and look at all the religions, we cannot see a single religion that has not corrupted God’s word. As I said, moreover, the meaning of this saying, “after hearing and understanding the word of God, knowingly corrupted it,” must be understood as corruption not on the book, but in interpreting, teaching, and practicing those books in a corrupt and distorted manner. I do not mean the mistakes that are made. The verse anyway speaks not of a mistake, but of something done knowingly, deliberately. A person may misunderstand, or because of his misunderstanding may have wrong practices and wrong expectations too. Religions too can misunderstand. As if there are no things that I misunderstand? If I say there are none, what difference would remain between me and these religions I disparage? There is misunderstanding a thing sincerely, and there is deliberately distorting it. So then, how can this be proven? Does not everyone, every religion, say the same thing? Do they not all say, “We are the most truthful and sincere”? Actually, about what they are, did not Jesus the Messiah give us the point of view that will help us discern, by saying, “By their fruits you will recognize them”? (Matthew 7:15-20)

What I cannot understand is that, on the subject of marriage that I have spoken of as the very simplest, and on subjects like these, people put God to the test, to interrogation, and even, as it were, drag Him to the seat of judgment. Whether: “How can God give such a freedom?” or: “If it is so, then I do not believe in that God either,” or: “If God exists, why does He permit such things?” Do we for once realize who we are? What do we imagine ourselves to be? Do we see ourselves as somehow more just than God? Or are we somehow more merciful, more full of love than God? And what do we even know? Do we know ourselves, that we can speak so easily on behalf of all people’s needs, spiritual feelings, loves, and hatreds? Did we create all humanity? Are we their owner? However much power we may possess, can we make even our own child, at the very simplest, do everything we want? Can the American president make him? Can he who burns and destroys countries, drags presidents out of pits and hangs them, get a word through to his child—even a word that is for the child’s own good? To tear down, to burn, to destroy—anyone can do this, because it is the easiest. Can he teach what love is? Can he make himself loved? Let him try by force and see whether it will happen. Can he draw out what lies inside people, in their hearts? People’s greatest skill has always been to destroy. Let them build for once, and let us see! Yet the names of merciful kings have been remembered more after them. The names of the others have been forgotten. Can those who defy God defy someone like themselves, a fellow human? Let him go and vent his rage on his own governor, and drag him to interrogation! Or on his president, or his boss—and if his power is not enough for any of them, then let him start with the smallest. While people cannot even get their rights from one another, who are they, that we defy God? Just because He too gave humanity freedom. Just because He compels no one. How ill-mannered we are. Oh please, let us believe in God! As if without us God cannot establish paradise! As if, if we do not believe and accept, the world will end. People rip themselves apart crying “freedom, freedom,” and yet always strive to portray the one who gives freedom with an evil eye.

Among the coming subjects, in the one titled “Equality or Freedom?”, I will try to shed perhaps a little more light on this problem by looking at it from a different angle.