Part Four: Islam and Modernity The exigencies of the age: In the introduction to “ Man and his Future[ ” 1] in which I investigated the subject of the greatness and then decay of the Muslims, I recognized that the causes of the decline of the Muslims could p: 98 be examined under three headings: Islam, the Muslims, and external influences. In that introduction, one of the twenty seven topics which I thought required to be studied and examined with this very topic, and I promised to publish a short book with the title‘ : Islam and the Demands of the Age’, and I had already collected a good deal of notes for it. In this series of articles, it is not possible to put all the subject matter that should be get forth in a book. I shall, however, explain matters to the extent that I may enlighten the minds of the respected readers on this matter. The subject of religion and progress is one of those subjects which has been brought up in other religions much more than It has been for us Muslim. Many of the world’ s intellectuals have abandoned religion on because they thought that religion and progress were incompatible. They entertained the idea that having a religion entailed the discontinuance and stopping of, and struggling against, movement and change. In other words they considered religion to be fixedness, a monotony and solidification of existent forms and patterns. Nehru, the late Prime minister of India, had anti- religious beliefs, and adhered to no tradition or religion. From his writings it transpires that the thing that he abhorred in religion was its dogmatic aspect and its quality of seeing everything in only one perspective. In his later years, Nehru felt that something was missing and wanting both in his own self and p: 99 in the universe, and that this vacuum or gap could not be bridged except by a spiritual force. Despite that feeling, he was afraid of being attached to religion, because of that very stagnancy and uni- perceptiveness which, according, to him, was there in every religion. An Indian journalist, a Mr. Karanjia , ) (? had an interview with Nehru towards the end of his life, and that was apparently the last occasion when Nehru gave expression to his view on general universal topics. During that interview, Karanjia questioned him about Gandhi, and remarked that some intellectuals and progressivists believed that Gandhi, by his perceptive solutions and idealistic and spiritual methods, had weakened and shaken Nehru’ s original beliefs in scientific socialism. In his reply, Nehru told him that it was necessary and good to benefit from spiritual and idealistic methods also, and that he had always believed in them as Gandhi had, and that at the time of speaking it was of great importance and all the more necessary to count on those means. The reason was that in the face of the spiritual vacuum of modern civilization it was necessary, more than before to look for spiritual and ideological answers. Karanjia, afterwards, put some questions about Marxism and Nehru pointed out some of the shortcomings Marxism and again reverted to the way of spiritual solutions to problems. It was then that Karanjia asked Nehru whether the statements he had just made, with their references to moral and spiritual concepts, did not display a difference from the p: 100 Jawaharlal Nehru of yesterday. All his statements pointed to the idea that Nehru in the ripening of his age, was in search of God. Nehru agreed, and said that he had indeed changed and his insistence on the spiritual and moral values had not been without case and consideration. He pointed out that another matter was their created up, and that was how morality and idealism could be raised to a higher level. He again remarked that clearly religion existed for that purpose, but that religion had unfortunately degenerated because of its shortsightedness and its blind adherence to certain lifeless rites and rituals and to the performances of unchanging ceremonies. The outward form and the external shell of religion continued to exist while its spirit and real meaning had been lost. Islam and the demands of the age: Amongst all the traditions and religions, none has produced so much influence or as deep an impact on the different aspects of human life as Islam has done. In its procedures Islam is not content only with a series of acts of worship, recitations and incantations and a collection of moral exhortations, but it also deals with the fundamental directions that relationships between human beings should take, and the rights and duties of individuals in respect of each other in various situations, in the same way as it has explained the relations of men with God. So it is only natural that the question of suitability and harmony with the times should he given more attention with regard to Islam. Incidentally many p: 101 non- Muslims scholars’ and writers have studied the social and the civil law of Islam and have spoken highly of Islamic laws as a progressive series of laws, and they have draw attention to and commended the living character and enduring nature of this religion and its ability to adapt its laws to the advance of time. Bernard Shaw, the great English liberal writer said: “ I have always had the greatest respect for the religion of Muhammad on account of its extraordinary quality of staying lively. In my opinion, Islam is the only religion which has the ability to harmonize and exert its control over differing circumstances and changing ways of life, and to confront the diversities of the centuries” . “ Thus I predict, and already the signs can be seen, that tomorrow the Faith of Muhammad will become quite accepted in Europe” . “ The theologians of the Middle Ages drew a dark picture of the religion of Muhammad, as a result of their ignorance and prejudices. Because of their malice and fanaticism, he seemed, in their eyes, to be against Christianity. I have read extensively about this man, this extraordinary man, and I have come to the conclusion not only that was he not against Christianity, but that he should he called the savior of mankind. I believe that if such a man as he was to be in charge of the present day world, he would manage to solve the problems and difficulties of the world in such a way that he would ensure the p: 102 ideal peace and happiness of humanity[ ” . 1] Dr. Shibli Shumayyil, a Lebanese Arab, professes materialism. He translated the Origin of the Species of Darwin into Arabic for the first time together with the commentary of the German, Buchner, as an appendix, to serve as a weapon against religious beliefs, and he brought it within the reach of Arabic speaking people. In spite of his being a materialist, he could not restrain himself from admiring and praising Islam and had no reservation about acknowledging its greatness. He always spoke highly of it as a living religion and of its ability to adapt to the times. In the second volume of his ‘ Philosophy of Evolution and Progress( ” Falsafatu’ n- nushu’ wa’ l- irtiqa, ’) which he published in Arabic, he wrote an article under the title “ The Qur’ an and Prosperity( . al- Qur’ an wa’ 1- umran) in refutation of an article by a non- Muslim who had travelled in Islamic countries and had put the blame of the decline of the Muslim’ s onto Islam. Dr. Shibli Shumayyil diligently showed in this article that the cause of the decline of Muslims was their deviation from the social teachings of Islam and not Islam itself. He expressed his view that those sections of westerners, who attack Islam, either do not understand Islam or else has malicious motives and want to make people in the east cynical towards the laws and prescriptions which, anyway, have disappeared from among them, and thus fix the yoke of subservience around their necks. In our own times, his question of whether Islam can adapt p: 103 to the demands of the age, is very commonly asked. I myself have come into contact with different classes of people and especially with those who are educated and well- travelled. I have found no other matter involved to such a degree in controversy. Confused thinking: They sometimes give their questions a philosophic tinge and say that everything in this world is subject to change. Nothing is immutable and fixed. Human society is not an exception to that rule, so how is it possible that a series of social laws can remain always unchanged. If we attend only to the philosophic aspect of the question, the answer is evident. A thing which is always changing is at one time new and then becomes old. It grows and then decays. It progress and develops, just as the things of this world and its material composites. But the laws of nature are constant. The living organism, for example, has developed and is developing according to a, particular law and scientists have described this law of evolution: living organisms are themselves continually undergoing change and evolving. But what about the laws of change and evolution? Of course, the laws of change and evolution do not change and do not evolve, and we mean the laws themselves. It makes no difference whether the law in question is a natural law, or a derived or man- made law, because it is entirely possible for a derived or man- made law to be derived from nature and the order of things and for p: 104 that which determines the direction evolution takes to be individuals or human social groups. However, the questions that are put in connection with the adaptability or non- adaptability of Islam to the demands of the times do not only have a general or philosophic aspect. The question which is repeated more often than any other is that since laws are made according to needs and since a human being’ s social needs are not fixed and unchanging, social laws cannot be fixed and unchanging. This one is a very good and valuable question. Incidentally one of the miraculous aspects of the sure religion of Islam, on account of which every intelligent and sagacious Muslim has a sense of pride and honor, is the fact that Islam will regard to unchanging needs of the individual or society envisages unchanging laws, but that in the case of temporary and changing needs it conceives of a changing attitude. We shall, with the help of Allah, comment on this to the extent that this series of articles permits. What does time itself conform to? However, we think it necessary to mention two things before we start discussing this matter. One of them is that most of those people who talk of progress, evolution and change in the present circumstances think that every change that takes place in social conditions, especially when it originates in the west should be counted as evolution and progress; and this is the most misleading idea that has taken hold of people today. According to these people, because the amenities and p: 105 conveniences of life change day by day, because the more perfect replaces the more defective and because knowledge and technology is in a state of advancement, all the changes that take place in the life of men are a kind of progress and development, and should be welcomed. For it is the momentum of time, and like it or not, it is bound to have its way. As a matter of fact, neither are all changes the direct result of knowledge and technology, nor is there any necessity or momentum at work. Although knowledge is in a state of progress, the capricious, rapacious nature of man is not idle. Knowledge and the intellect guide man towards perfection, and the capricious, gracious nature of man try to drag him towards decomposition and deviance. His capricious and rapacious nature is continually trying to turn knowledge into a tool for itself, and to make use of it for the attainment of its carnal and animal appetites. Time has within it decomposition and deviance in the tune way as it has within it progress and evolution. One should advance with the progress of time, but also struggle against decomposition and deviance of time. Both reform and reaction rise up against of time, with the difference that reform takes a stand against the corruption of time and reaction stands in the way if the progress of time. If we consider time and its changes as the final criteria of good and evil, then with what standard p: 106 can we measure time itself and its changes? If everything has to adapt to time, to what is time to adapt? If man is helplessly dependent on time and its changes, what is the role of the activity, creativeness, and constructiveness of man’ s will? Man steps aboard the vehicle of time while the vehicle is in motion. He should not neglect the steering and control of that vehicle even for a moment. Those who talk much about the changes of time and neglect to steer and control it have forgotten the role of the effectiveness of man, and are like the rider of a horse who has put himself under the control of the horse.
----------
[1]: Mutahhari, Murtada – Insan va sarnavisht. Qum. (Iran) 1385 A. H.
[1]: Translated from the Persian, original untraced. (Tr. )
Adaptation or abrogation? The second point which has to be mentioned here is that some people have solved the difficulty of Islam and the demands of the times by means of a very simple and easy formula. They say that Islam is an eternal religion and is adaptable to any age and any time. But we want to know how that adaptation is to be brought about and what that formula is. They reply“ : Once we see that the temporal circumstances have changed, we forth with abolish the existing laws and establish other laws in their place” . The writer of the forty proposals has solved this difficulty in the same manner. He says that the worldly laws of religion should be supple and flexible and should be in harmony and conformity with the progress of knowledge, learning and the spread of p: 107 civilization. And such mildness, flexibility and adaptability with the demands of time are not only against the lofty teachings of Islam, but are exactly in conformity with its spirit( . Zan- e ruz, no. 90, p. 75) The said author writes before and after the above sentences that because the demands of the times undergo change, because every age demands new laws, and because the civil and social laws of Islam are in accord with the simple life of the Arabs of the jahiliyyah ( pre- Islamic times, ) and are frequently the actual customs and traditions of pre- Islamic Arabs and do not conform with the present age, it is necessary that other laws should be passed today in place of these laws. People with such views should be asked how it is that if the meaning of the conformability of a law with the exigencies of a particular age is its capacity for abrogation, this law does not have that suppleness and flexibility; why is this law not conformable to a particular age. This justification of the suppleness and adaptability of Islam to the times can be compared to a man who says that books and a library are the best source of pleasures in life. When he is asked to explain himself he says because any time he wants to enjoy himself a man can immediately sell the books and spend the money, thus acquired, on having a good time. This author says that the teachings of Islam are of three kinds. The first kind are the principles of p: 108 belief, such as belief in, tawhid ( the Oneness of God, ) the Resurrection, etc The second kind consists of worship such as the preparation and performance of prayer, fasting, purification, cleanliness and the hajj ( pilgrimage to Mecca, ) etc, and the third kind consists of the laws which are relevant to people’ s lives. The first and the second kinds are a part of religion, and the things which the people should always observe are these very matters. But the third kind is not a part of religion. Because religion does not have anything to do with people’ s lives, and the Prophet did not bring these laws on the grounds that they were a part of religion and related to the obligations of the Message. But, since the Prophet was, the incidentally, the man in charge, he had to deal with these matters also. Otherwise, the function of religion is only to lead people to worship, prayer and fasting. What has religion go to do with the life of this world? I cannot imagine that someone can live in an Islamic country and be so ignorant of the rationale of Islam? Has the Qur’ an not stated the purpose of sending the Prophets and Messengers? Has the Qur’ an not most explicitly stated: بِالْقِسْطِ النَّاسُ لِیَقُومَ وَالْمِیزَانَ الْکِتَابَ مَعَهُمُ وَأَنْزَلْنَا بِالْبَیِّنَاتِ رُسُلَنَا أَرْسَلْنَا لَقَدْ “ Indeed, we sent our messengers with the clear signs, and we sent down with them the Book and the Balance so that men might uphold justice( ” …. 57: 25) The Qur’ an mentions social justice as a fundamental aim of p: 109 all Prophets. If someone does not wish to act according to the Qur’ an, why should he commit a bigger sin and denigrate Islam and the Qur’ an? Most of the misfortunes that have befallen men these days are for this very reason that men have given up the unique support and backing of the very ethics and laws which are religion. For about fifty years, we have been listening to the song that Islam is quite alright provided it is limited to the mosques and places of worship and does not concern itself with social matters. This song was composed beyond the borders of the Islamic countries, but has been broadcast in all of them. Let me explain this sentence in an easier language so that I can point out the real purpose of the original composers. The real meaning, briefly, is that as long as Islam stands in the way of and holds back communism it should exist, but when it has an effect on and clashes with the interests of the west it should cease to exist. The prescribed worship of Islam, the view of westerners, should remain, so that when necessity arises people may be aroused against communism on the excuse of its being an atheistic, ungodly system. However, the social laws must go, because they are the philosophy of life of Muslim people, and because of them Muslims have a feeling of independence and individuality in face of the people of the west, and become difficult to digest in the p: 110 west’ s voracious appetite. Unfortunately those who originated this idea are victims to a great misunderstanding. Firstly, it is now fourteen centuries since the Qur’ an discredited those who said: ببعض ونکفُر ببعض نُؤمِن (.. We believe in some of it and disbelieve in some... Qur’ an) It has announced that dividing up the prescriptions of Islam is unacceptable. Secondly I think that the time has now come for Muslims to refuse to be taken in by these deceptions. The critical sense of the people has been more or less awakened, and gradually they will begin to discriminate between the appearance of progress and development which is the product of the power of human knowledge and thought on the one hand, and, and the appearance of corruption and decay on the other, irrespective of whether it originates in the west or not. The people of Islamic countries have more than before realized the value of Islamic teachings and have appreciated what a unique, self- sufficient philosophy of life Islam and its prescriptions represent, and they will at no cost abandon it. Muslims have realized that the propaganda campaign against Islamic laws is nothing but a colonial ruse. Thirdly, those who initiated this idea should know that Islam, when in power, can confront any atheistic or non atheistic system and is able to govern a society with a philosophy of life, and it does not need confine itself to mosques and places of worship. If they wish Islam to be imprisoned in places of worship and thus clear the ground for p: 111 western ways of thought, there is every likelihood of the ground being cleared for other ideologies that are against the western way of thinking. The fact that the West is today being attacked in some Islamic countries is the fruit of this very mistake.
***************************
Islam and Modernity 2
point
Man is not the only living creature who lives a gregarious life. Many animals, especially insects, have a social life. They follow series of fixed rule and a wise, disciplined mode of life. The principles of mutual help, division of labor, production and distribution, command and obedience, order and compliance are in force in their social groups. Bees and some ants and termites have been favored with a civilization, discipline and organization which human beings, who consider themselves the noblest of creatures, would take years if not centuries to catch up with. Their civilization, unlike human civilization, did not pass through eras such as the primitive jungle period, the Stone Age, the Iron Age and the nuclear age. They attained the same civilization and organization that they at present have on the day they were brought into existence on this earth, and no change has occurred in their condition. It is only the human being, whose life, according to the Qur’ an: ضَعِیفًا الْإِنْسَانُ وَخُلِقَ (.. And the man was created weak… Qur’ an 4: 28) begins from zero and moves forward without stop. For animals, the exigencies of the times are always the same, and do not further disturb their lives. For them the desire for modernization and a love for what is new have p: 112 no meaning. The new world and the old world do not exist. Science does not make new discoveries for them every day, and does not upset the pattern of their lives. Light and heavy technologies do not invade their market every day with new and better products. Why? Because they live by instinct and not by instinct. Man on the other hand, is different. His social life is always subject to change and transformation. Every century the world changes for man. The secret of man’ s being the noblest of creatures also lies in this. Man is a fully- grown and mature son of nature. He is created with the state and the capacity of not having to stand in need of the direct guidance and protection of nature, nor of that mysterious power called instinct. He lives by intellect and not by instinct. Nature has acknowledged human beings as being mature in mind and has left them as independent beings and withdrawn its direct control from them. All that an animal can do according to instinct and under the influence of untransgressable natural laws, must be done by a human being with the power of the intellect, through knowledge and according to positive laws and the shari’ ah which it is possible to disobey. The root- cause of all the corruption and waywardness perpetrated by human beings in the course of progress and development, of decline, degeneration, collapse and destruction also lies here. Just as the roads of progress and development are open for human beings, p: 113 so also are the roads of corruptions and deterioration not closed for them. Human beings have been given the status of carrying upon their shoulders, in the words of the Qur’ an, the burden of trust which the skies, the earth, and the mountains could not bear. In other words, human beings consented to live an independent life and accepted the responsibility of duty and laws. By that very account they cannot be immune from transgression, ignorance, self- aggrandizement and wrong doings. In the same place where the Qur’ an mentions the unique ability of human beings to bear the burden of trust and responsibility, it goes on, without a pause, to ascribe to them their tendency to be transgressors, and ignorant also. These two possibilities in a human being, namely the possibility for development and the possibility for decline, cannot be separated from each other. A human being is neither like an animal that, within his collective life, does not move a step forwards nor a step backwards, neither moving to the right nor to the left. There is in human life sometimes a move forwards and sometimes a move backwards, and if there is movement and speed, there is also stopping and slowing- down. If there is progress and development, there is also decay. If there is justice and virtue there is also injustice, vice and degeneration. If there are manifestations of knowledge and the intellect, there are indications of ignorance and sensuality also. There is always the possibility that the changes and new ideas and p: 114 values that spring up in a particular period may be disadvantageous and injurious for mankind. Rigid people and ignorant people: One of the characteristics of human beings is their tendency to go to extremes. If a man has moderate views, he tries to separate changes of the first kind from changes of the second kind. He tries to move forward in time with the power of knowledge, initiative, endeavor and hard work. He tries to adapt himself to manifestations of progress and advance in his age, and simultaneously tries to cheek the mistaken directions taken in his times and refuses to conform to them. However, it is unfortunately not always like this. There are two dangerous diseases that always threaten man in this connection. These are: the disease of inflexibility and conventionalism, and the disease of naivety and instability. The consequence of the former disease is stagnation, stopping, and keeping back from advance and development, while the consequence of the latter disease is backsliding and taking the wrong direction. A conventional, inflexible person hates everything that is new and accept nothing but the old, while the naive, unstable person counts every newly manifested thing as permissible in the name of a “ necessity of the times” or modernity and progress. An inflexible person considers every new thing to be a corruption and a deviation, and the naive person counts each and every new thing as ‘ civilization’ and an extension of knowledge and learning. An inflexible person does not distinguish between the kernel and the shell, the means and the end. p: 115 To him, religion has the responsibility of protecting ancient traditions. In his view, the Qur’ an was revealed for the purpose of stopping the flow of time and nailing down the situation of the world exactly as it is. In his view, the recitation of the last part of the Qur’ an[ , 1] writing with a red pen, using a traditional box, taking ones bath in a traditional bath house, eating with the hand, using oil- lamps for lighting, staying unlettered and uneducated should all be preserved as religious observances. A naï ve progressivist on the other hand, wants to know even new fashion, and new idea that has started in the west, and promptly follows them and calls them modernization and requirements of the times. Both the conventionalist and the naive progressivist agree in supposing that any situation obtaining in times gone by was a part of religious commandments and rites. The difference lies in this: the conventional person deduces the conclusion that those rites ought to be maintained and preserved, and the progressivist that religion is inextricably connected to the worship of the past, love of fixedness and stagnation. In the recent past the problem of incompatibility between science and religion has been a subject of keen discussion and controversy among the people of the west. The idea of incompatibility between science and religion arose basically because of two reasons. One of them was that the church maintained that certain matters of old science and philosophy were religious matters, and should, from the religious point of p: 116 view, be accepted as dogma and then scientific advances showed these ideas to be wrong. Besides that, it was also due to the fact that the sciences altogether altered and reformed the pattern of life. Religious conservatives wanted to bring the outward material form of life under the rule of religion, just as they had done with philosophical matters, giving them a religious tinge. The naive and the ignorant also thought that this was the case, and imagined that religion viewed the material life of people as a having a particular form and pattern. And when the material form of life had to be changed according to the judgment of science, science proclaimed that religion had been abrogated. The inflexibility of the first group together with the ignorance of the second brought about the illusory idea that science and religion were incompatible.
----------
[1]: A traditional part of an elementary Islamic education. (ed. )
The story in the Qur’ an Islam is a religion which moves forward and carries forward. So as to remind Muslims that they should always be in a state of growth, development and evolution, but within the framework of Islam, the Qur’ an compares the followers of Muhammad ( s. a. w. a) to a seed that is sown in the ground. That seed grows forth in the form of a tiny tender leaf, and afterwards strengthens itself and stands erect on its stem. It passes through stages with such speed and strength that farmers are surprised and joyful over it. This is an example for that society towards which the Qur’ an points. Development is one of those goals towards which the Qur’ an p: 117 directs. The Qur’ an lays the foundation of a society which is continuously in a state of growth, extension, dilation and expansion. Will Durant said that no religion has called its followers with such strength as Islam has done. The history of the advent of Islam shows how vigorous and strong Islam was in establishing society anew and making it progress. It is against both inflexible conservatism and ignorant naivety. The danger which threatens Islam comes both from the region of the first group and from the region of the latter group The conservatives, the inflexibly minded, and those who like to show that every old thing belongs to Islam, when, in fact, it may have no connection with the pure religion of Islam, have given the naive progressivists an excuse to count Islam against development in its true sense. On the other hand, the imitation, fashion- worshipping, and aping of the west, and the belief that the prosperity of eastern people lies in their being physically and spiritually, outwardly and inwardly, westernized, gives the naive people the idea that they should take on all of the customs, manners and traditions of the west, that the civil and social laws should all be made to conform to western laws. They make the conservative group look pessimistically at every thing new and consider it a danger for their religion, their independence and their national and social status. In the middle of all this, it is Islam that can amend the mistake of both groups. The attitude of p: 118 the conservatives gives good cause for the assaults and attacks of the progressivists, and the stupidities of the progressivists make the conservatives all the more adamant. It is strange that the apparently civilized progressivists suppose that time cannot produce mistakes and errors. Do they think that the changes of time are brought about not by man but by some other being? Since when and from what date has mankind become entirely infallible and thus made the changes of time free from any error or mistake? Just as man makes new discoveries in every age for the benefit of humanity under the influence of his scientific, moral, aesthetic and religious inclinations, so he is also under the influence of his egotism, ambition, sensuality and greed for wealth and exploitation. Just as man is successful in making new inventions and finding out better ways and means of living, he is also, from time to time liable to make errors and mistakes. Any how, the self- centered progessivist does not understand these words. He always repeats his cliché that the world today is what it is. What is even stranger is that these people think of the fundamentals of life in the same way they think of their shoes, hats and clothes. Just as shoes and hats are once new and then become worn out and have value when new and just out of the factory and must be purchased then, but must be caste away when they are old, so all the realities of the p: 119 universe are like this. The idea of these naive progressivists in respect of the good and bad of a thing is nothing except its being new or old. According of them feudalism, that is to say, some powerful man unlawfully and forcibly calling himself a master, establishing himself comfortably while hundreds of hands work in order to feed that mouth, is bad, not in itself, but because it has now become out- dated and the world today does not accept it. Its time is no more, and now it is considered as obsolete. Naturally, at the beginning, when such a thing first appeared and was brand- new on the world market, it was good. According to them, it is bad to exploit women because the world today no longer approves of it and does not tolerate it but yesterday, when the world did not acknowledge the right of inheritance for women did not accept their right of ownership and did not pay any heed to their opinion and views, that too was once new, and had then come newly into the market. According to people like them, because this age is the space age and it is therefore impossible to abandon the airplane and ride a mule, to ignore electricity and light an oil lamp, to disregard large spinning mills and use a hand spinning wheel, to torn, a blind eye on giant printing machine and write by hand, so also it is impossible to avoid dances, not to take part in bathing and p: 120 picnic parties, not to get drunk and cavort around, not to play poker, not to wear skirts above the knees, because all these things are the phenomena belonging to the modern age. If these things are not done, it would mean a return to the age of mule- riding. How many individuals have been ruined and what countless number of families has been wrecked by the phrase “ the signs of the times”. They say it is the age of science, the era of the atom, the age of the satellite, and the epoch of rockets. Very well, we also thank Allah that we live in this age and time and in this epoch and era and wish that we may increasingly and in a better way take advantage and derive benefit from science and art. Not withstanding that, a question arises — have all the other incentives and motivating factors become dried up except the fountain head of knowledge? Are all the phenomena of this century the result of nothing but scientific progress? Does science claim that the nature of the individual scientist has been completely subjugated, made obedient and humanized? Science does not make such a claim for the individual scientist, and that is why a group of scientists and scholars can undertake research and make discoveries with the utmost purity and sincerity of purpose, while groups of power- hungry, ambitious and money- worshipping people employ the results of their scientific labor to attain their nefarious purposes. The loud complaint of science is always that p: 121 it has become the object of exploitation by man’ s unruly nature. The preoccupation and misfortune of our age is this very thing. Science takes a step forward in the field of physics and discovers the laws of light, but a group of profiteers make the same discovery a means to make films with unforeseeably destructive results. The science of chemistry advances, and finds out how to make new compounds, whereupon some people begin to think how to profit from this advance and cook up a catastrophe for the human soul and call it heroin. Science finds its way to the heart of the atom, and harnesses its wonderful power, but before any plans for its use for the betterment of humanity could be made, the power- hungry men of the world manufactured bombs from it and then dropped them on innocent people. When a celebration was held in honor of Einstein, the great scholar of the 20th century, he himself mounted the rostrum and said“ , In whose honor are you going to hold this celebration — one whose talents have been the source for the preparation of the atom bomb” ? Einstein did not use his intellectual power for the preparation of a bomb, but the ambitions of another group did exploit his genius. Heroin, the atom bomb, this or that kind of film can never be accepted just because they are “ signs of the time”. If the most perfect bomb were to be dropped by the most ingenious array of instruments by a model p: 122 pilot on innocent people, the savagery of the act would not be lessened in the least.
***********************
Islam and modernity 3 point The main argument of the people who say that in family duties we should follow western patterns is that time, and, with it, social values have changed, and the exigencies of the twentieth century demand that we follow them. Thus if we do not make our view regarding this point clear, our further discussions will be incomplete. If we were to undertake a full and thorough discussion of this question, there would not be enough space in this series of articles, because many aspects need to be dealt with and examined. Some of them are philosophical, some to do with religious jurisprudence, and others moral and social. I hope to be able to discuss those points in detail in a book, Islam and the Exigencies of the Modern Age, which I intend to write. The preparatory notes are ready, and I shall examine the material in detail and present it before those interested. At present, it will be enough to clarify two points: Firstly, keeping up with the times is not as simple a matter as these ill- informed claimants imagine, and as they repeat with their cliché s. With time, there is both progress and going astray. One should move forward according to the advance of time, but fight against being led astray by time. To discriminate between the two one should look to see from which origins new phenomena and currents rise forth, and in what direction p: 123 they flow. It must be determined from which of the drives and urges of man’ s existence they have sprung, and from which of his social groupings. Does the change arise from the higher, human drives of man; or from his lower, animal urges? Have men of knowledge and science and their selfless study brought about these changes; or have the indulgence status seeking and desire for wealth of the corrupt strata of society? These matters have been fully explained in the preceding two articles. The secret of the dynamism and flexibility of Islamic law Another matter which should be made clear is that Islamic thinkers believe that within Islam there is an enigmatic secret which enables this religion to adapt to and improve according to the advance of time. They believe that this religion is in harmony with the forward movement of time, with the development of learning, and with the changes that arise from such development. Now we must see what this secret is. In other words, we have to look into the “ nuts and bolts” that went into the making of this religion and which have given it that quality of dynamism which has enabled it to remain in harmony with the changing circumstances arising from advances in knowledge and learning without needing to put aside any of its precepts, and without any contradiction arising among them. What is this enigma? This is the matter which will be explained in this article. Some of my readers will be aware of what I myself, more than anybody else, am conscious of, p: 124 that this subject has a technical and specialized aspect, and that it should only be discuss with specialists. However, seeing that there are many pessimists among those who have inquired from us and among those people with whom we have come into contact who are concerned about this matter, and having understood that they are unaware that Islam has such a special quality, we will enter into this subject only to such an extent as to relieve the pessimists of the pessimism and to give others and example of dynamism within Islam. The respected readers may consult the excellent book Tanbihu’ l- ummah ( A Warning for the People) compiled by the late Ayatullah Nai’ ini [ 1, ] and a very valuable article Vilayat va za’ amat ( Guardianship and Authority) by the great contemporary scholar Allamah Tabatabai [ 2] which is published in the book Maraja’ iyyat va ruhaniyyat ( The Ulama’ and Reference to Religious Authority[ ) 3, ] to see that discussions of this kind of problem have not been ignored by the leading scholars of Islam. Both the books are in the Persian language. There are number of factors which contribute to the secret of how the pure religion of Islam, with the fixed and unchanging laws that it has, can accommodate the development of civilization and culture, and can remain in conformity with the changing patterns of life, and we shall explain some of them. Attention to essence and meaning as opposed to shape and form: 1. Islam has not meddled with the outward pattern and form of life, which is wholly dependent upon the standard of human knowledge. Islamic instructions are concerned with the p: 125 spirit, meaning and aim of life and the best course that a man should adopt to attain that final aim. Knowledge neither alters the aim and spirit of life nor directs to a better, shorter and safer route to attain the aims of life. Knowledge always places in the power of man better and more perfect resources for attaining the aims of life and for traversing the route to reach an attain those aims. Islam by keeping the aims under its own authority, and by giving over the forms, models and tools to the realm of knowledge and skill, has kept away from all conflict with the development of culture and civilization. Furthermore, by encouraging the factors which develop culture and civilization, that is, science, labor, piety, determination, courage and perseverance, Islam has itself guaranteed the fundamental practical ground plan for the development of civilization. Islam has set up in along the path of mankind. On the one hand, these indicators point towards the right course and the right destination, and, on the other hand, they warn the dangerous signs of deviation and decline. All Islamic injunctions consist either of the first kind of indicators, or the caution signals of the second kind. The ways and means of life in every age depend upon the level of information and knowledge of man. By force of time and circumstances, the more man’ s information and knowledge increases, the more the means of life are perfected, and the more they replace comparatively defective means. In Islam, p: 126 no one single means, and no one particular external or material form can be found that has an aspect of ‘ holiness’ in it, so that a Muslim could consider himself constrained to retain that means or form for ever. Islam did not specify that tailoring, weaving, agriculture, transport, war or any other activity should be carried out using such and such means, so that when that means became obsolete due to an advance in knowledge there could arise an antagonism and a conflict between science and the dictates of Islam. Neither has Islam given any special instructions regarding shoes or clothes, or determined that a building should be made with stone or steel, or that particular kinds of apparatus should be manufactured and distributed. This is one of the reasons why the job of conforming this religion to temporal progress has been easy. A permanent law for a permanent requirement and a variable law for a varying requirement: 2. One of the other peculiarities of the Islamic religion which has much importance is that it has ordained permanent laws for permanent human requirements, and has maintained a changing attitude towards varying requirements. Some requirements, which may be personal, individual, general or social, are unchanging and permanent. They are the same for over. The discipline that human beings maintain in respect of their instinctive urges and the discipline that they establish for their society is, as a general rule, always the same. I am conversant with the concept of ethical relativity and with the idea of the relativeness of justice, and I am aware of the fact that p: 127 there are people who uphold these ideas; therefore, I shall make known my point of view to these people. Another section of human requirements comprise varying human needs which call for varying and non- permanent laws. Islam has kept in mind a variable position with respect to these varying needs, by means of linking the varying conditions with invariable and stable principles. These invariable principles create particular auxiliary laws for each changing condition. I cannot expand upon this point any further in this article except that I shall try to clarify the point in the minds of my respected readers by means of a few examples. قُوَّةٍ مِنْ اسْتَطَعْتُمْ مَا لَهُمْ وَأَعِدُّوا And prepare against them whatever force you can( . Qur’ an. 8: 60) i. e‘ , . O Muslim! Prepare force against the enemy to the furthest possible extent. Apart from this, in the traditions of the Prophet there is a series of commands which has been handed down, and which is collected together in Islamic law under the title of ‘ horse- racing and archery’. There are commands that you yourself and your sons should learn the arts of horse- riding and archery to a degree of complete proficiency, Horse- riding and archery were a section of the martial arts in those days. It is quite evident that the origin and the basis of the command about horse- riding and archery is the principle: And prepare against them whatever force you can. This means that the arrow, the sword, the spell, the bow, the mule and the horse are not fundamental in themselves p: 128 in the eyes of Islam: the basic point is to be strong enough. The thing that has real importance is that Muslims in every period of history and in every age should do their utmost to strengthen themselves with regard to military and defense forces against the enemy. The necessity of being proficient in archery and horsemanship is an expression in which to cloth the necessity of being powerful. In other words it is the practical or executive form of the latter. The necessity of strength against the enemy is a permanent law which originates from a permanent and constant necessity. However, the requirement of proficiency in archery and horsemanship is a manifestation of a changing necessity linked to time and it changes according to the age and the times. With changes in the conditions of civilization, other things such as the preparation of up- to- date weapons, and proficiency and specialization in their use, take the place of that necessity. Another example: another social principle has been laid down in the Qur’ an, which concerns the exchange of wealth. Islam acknowledges an individual’ s right of ownership. No doubt there are vast differences between what Islam permits in the name of ownership and what is going on in this regard in the capitalist world, but there is no occasion here to discuss these points. The essential condition of an individual’ s ownership is exchange. Islam has laid down principles to do with exchange: one of which is: بِالْبَاطِلِ بَیْنَکُمْ أَمْوَالَکُمْ تَأْکُلُوا وَلَا Do not consume your wealth amongst p: 129 yourselves in vain( , Qur’ an, 2: 188). This means that the property and wealth which passes from one person to another, which leaves the possession of the producer and the person has the prior authority over it and falls to another person and then to a third person, should always be in return for lawful profit, which should accrue to the previous owner. The passing of wealth from hand to hand without a return that may be human valuable for the owner is prohibited. Islam does not consider ownership as an absolute right of control. Besides that, it is made clear in the precepts of Islam that the sale and purchase of certain things, including blood and human excrement, is forbidden. Why is that so? For the simple reason
that the blood of man or a sheep cannot be put to any useful purpose and cannot be considered a useful commodity and a part of human wealth. The root cause of the prohibition of blood and human excrement is the principle of: Do not consume your wealth amongst yourselves in vain; the prohibition of the sale and purchase of these particular things is not the fundamental. The basic thing is that exchange of only those things which are of any human use should take place. The forbidding of the exchange of things like blood and human feces is merely an example of the prohibition of futile exchanges of wealth. In other words, it is a mere practical expression for the basic principle laid p: 130 down in the words: Do not consume your wealth amongst yourselves in vain. Moreover, if there is no occasion for exchange, no wealth can be appropriated from another in Vain and put to use. This principle is invariable for all times and is based upon a general and constant human necessity but the fact that blood and human feces do not constitute wealth and are not exchangeable depends upon the times, the historical period, the level of civilization, the change in the conditions and advancement of knowledge, upon industry and the possibilities of right and profitable utilization of these things. These factors may bring about alterations in the law. Another example: Amir al – mu’ minin’ Ali ( a. s) . in the latter years of his life, did not dye his hair in spite of the fact that it has become white. His beard was white as well. Some person asked him whether the Prophet had not given a command to dye white hair. He replied“ , Yes, he did”. The man asked why, then, he did not dye his hair‘ . Ali replied that when the Prophet had given these instructions Muslims were few in number, and amongst them there was a number of old people who used to take part in the battles. When the enemy looked at the ranks of Muslim warriors and saw the white- haired old men, they worked up courage and became self- confident from the fact that their opponents were a lot of old men. The Prophet issued an order that old p: 131 men should dye their hair so that the enemy should not realize that they were old. Then Ali told the man that the Prophet issued the order when the Muslims had been few in number and it had been necessary that a stratagem like that should be adopted. But in the time of ‘ Ali, when Islam had spread throughout the land, it was no longer necessary to carry on these practices. Everybody was free to dye or not to dye his hair. In the view of Ali ( a. s, ) . the commandment of the Prophet that Muslims should dye their hair was not the basic principle. The object of the commandment was something else. This was, so to say, the outer form in which the basic and the fundamental law were clothed. The purpose was to prevent the enemy from being bold in spirit or full of hope. Islam attaches importance both to the form, the external appearance and the outer “ covering”, and also to the spirit, the inner meaning and the heart of the matter, but always seeks that the form and the outward appearance, the “ covering” should agree with the spirit and inner meaning, the “ heart”. It puts a shell round the kernel, and clothing on the body.
----------
[1]: Muhammad Husayn ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahim an-Na’ini (1277/1860- 1355/1936) one of the great recent teachers of an-Najaf al-Ashraf. (Iraq).
[2]: Allamah Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Tabataba’i (1321/1904-1402/1981) one of most renowned contemporary scholars of Islam, now living in Qum. Author of the great commentary on the Qur’an, Al-Mizan, and Shi’ah dar Islam (translated in English by Dr. Sayyid Husayn Nasr as Shi’ite Islam) he is a master of both the sciences of Divine Law and the intellectual sciences, metaphysics and ‘irfan.
[3]: An anthology of articles published following the death of the great marja’-e taqlid Ayatullah Burujirdi (1380/1961).
The question of change of script: There is presently under discussion in our country the question of changing the script. This matter requires to be examined closely from the linguistic and literary angle of the Persian language, as well as from the perspective of Islamic principles. From the Islamic perspective p: 132 this proposition can be dealt with in two ways, Firstly, it is to be seen whether Islam has some particular alphabet; whether it distinguishes between different alphabets; whether Islam considers our present alphabet, which is the Arabic alphabet, its own, and considers other alphabets like the Latin alphabet as foreign alphabets. It is certainly not so. In the eyes of Islam, which is a universal religion, all alphabets are equal. The other aspect of the proposition concerns the result that the change of alphabet and script would have on Muslim society as regards its being merged into, absorbed and swallowed up by societies that are alien to it? What would be the result of severing the intimate ties of association of this nation with its cultural heritage which has, at any rate, written all its Islamic and scientific literature in this very alphabet for as long as fourteen centuries? Apart from that, the question arises as to who suggested this plan for changing the script, and who would enforce it? This is what needs to be investigated. It does not matter what you wear, as long as you do not imitate slavishly: People like me are sometimes confronted by questions that are asked in an attempt to belittle and ridicule. What does the shari’ ah say about eating while standing? What about eating with cutlery? Is it forbidden to put on a hat? Is the speaking of foreign language prohibited? In reply to these questions I say that Islam did not issue, hard and fast orders regarding these matters. Islam did not lay down whether food should be taken p: 133 with the hand or with a spoon. Islam has, however, directed that cleanliness be maintained. Regarding shoes hats and dress, Islam has not specifically mentioned any particular fashion. In the eyes of Islam the English, Japanese and Persian languages are each as good as the others. However, Islam has said something else. It is forbidden to willfully destroy a particular speech form. It is forbidden to be intimidated by others. It is forbidden to imitate blindly. It is forbidden to be absorbed and swallowed up by others. It is forbidden to be bewitched by others, like a small animal mesmerized by a snake. It is forbidden to soak up the aberrations and misfortunes of others in the name of “ moving with the times”. It is forbidden to believe that an Iranian must become bodily, spiritually, inwardly and outwardly a European. It is forbidden to spend a weekend in Europe and then pronounce everything in French accent[ . 1] The question of “ ahamm wa muhimm( ” that which is more important and that which is significant) 3. Another aspect which provides Islam with the possibility of adapting to the requirements of the times is the rational aspect of this religion. Islam has given its followers to understand that all its commands arise from a series of supreme exigencies; and, what is more, Islam has established the degree of importance of these exigencies. This consideration has facilitated the task of knowing the reality of Islam in cases where diverse exigencies find themselves in conflict with each other. Islam has permitted that, in these circumstances those who are deeply acquainted with Islam should determine p: 134 the degree of importance of the exigencies, and select the more pressing exigencies, always in accordance with the guidelines set down by Islam itself. The fuqaha( ’ jurisconsults) call this principle ahamm wa muhimm ( lit“ . that which is more important and that which is significant”). Here also I could give many examples, but I shall refrain from doing so. Laws with the right of ‘ veto’: 4. Another consideration which has given this religion the property of mobility and adaptability, and gives it eternal life, is that there is a series of principles and laws incorporated into this religion whose function is to control and harmonize the other laws. The fuqaha’ call these rules al- qawai’ du ‘ l- hakimah ( governing principle) such as the principle of ‘ la haraj (“ no blame”) and la darar(“ , no harm[ ”) 1] which has authority throughout fiqh ( Islamic jurisprudence). The purpose of this series of principles is to control and harmonize the other laws. In fact, Islam has acknowledged these principles as having the right of veto over all laws and precepts. This subject has an extensive history into which I cannot enter here. The governing authority: Besides what has already been mentioned, another series of “ nuts and bolts” are also used in the structure of the pure religion of Islam which have endowed it with the property of perpetuity and its position as the last religion. The late Ayatullah Na’ ini and ‘ Allamah Tabatabai [ 2] has, in this respect, laid great emphasis on the authority which Islam has conferred on a competent Islamic government. The fundamental of ijtihad: The Pakistani thinker, Iqbal, has said that ijtihad [ 3] is p: 135 the motive force of Islam. This is, no doubt right, but the main point is the ability of Islam to support ijtihad. If there were anything in the place of Islam, we would see how difficult the task of ijtihad would be. For then, the way to ijtihad would be blocked. The main point is the hidden secrets which have been employed in this amazing divine religion, so that in this way it has been given the property of harmonization with the advance of civilization. Ibn Sina, in his book ash- Shifa’, sets forth the necessity of ijtihad on the same basis. He says that since temporal conditions change and new problems are continuously coming to the fore, and since on the other hand, the general principles of Islam are permanent and unchanging it is necessary that in every age and in every period there should be persons who have complete knowledge and acquaintance with Islamic matters, and who can be the answerers to the needs of Muslims with attention towards the new problems that come forward in every age. In the supplement of the Constitutional Law of Iran such an anticipation has been made, that in every age a body of not less than, five mujtahids who are also “ conversant with the requirements of the times”, shall watch over the laws which are passed. The intention of the writers of this clause was that persons who are neither ‘ reactionary’ nor ‘ ignorant progressivists’ who are neither against the advances of the p: 136 era, nor subservient to or followers of others, should watch over the laws of the State. The point which must be remembered is that ijtihad, as the word really signifies, means specialization and expertise in the science of Islamic affairs. It is not the kind of thing that every educational “ drop- out” can claim merely on the basis of having spent a few days in one of the centres of Islamic learning. In order to specialize in Islamic matters and to be competent to pronounce one’ s own opinion, entire life- time, provided it is not short, is decidedly not too long. That, too with the condition that the person is endowed with the liking for it, a certain powerful genius and is finally completely graced with the favors of Allah. Apart from specialization and ijtihad, certain persons can be recognized as authorities for their viewpoints and opinions who are at the pinnacle of piety, and knowledge and fear of God. The history of Islam can show persons who, with complete scientific and moral competence, used to tremble like willows when they intended to express their opinions. I apologize to my worthy readers that the diversion in this topic has reached such a great length.
----------
[1]: The actual text speaks of those who pronounce the Persian “r” (rather like a Scottish rolled “r”) as if it were “gh” (the French gutteral “r”) , which was an affectation of Europeanized Iranians (Tr. )
[1]: The principle of la haraj (no blame) is applied when excessive difficulty would occur from the carrying out of an injunction in the shari’ah, and allows the person concerned not to carry it out. The principle of la darar (no harm) applies when the performance of an injunction would result in illness to the person concerned, and likewise allows him or her to abstain from performing it.
[2]: For both these see note 2 under Islam and modernity (3)
[3]: ijtihad is the exercising of independent judgment in Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh). The person who exercises ijtihad is called a mujtahid. By his knowledge of religious sciences and by virtue of his moral qualities, he has the right to give new opinions (fatwa) on matters pertaining to the shari’ah. A marked difference exists between Sunni Islam and Shi’ite Islam in the matters of ijtihad, since in the former the “gate of ijtihad” has been closed since the 3rd century A. H. , while in the latter it is still open.
Part Five: The Human Status of Woman in the Quran point As what kind of entity does Islam envisage Woman? Does it consider her the equal of man in terms of dignity and the respect accorded to her, or is she thought of as belonging to an inferior species? This is the question which we now wish to answer. The particular philosophy of Islam concerning family rights Islam has p: 137 a particular philosophy concerning the family rights of men and women which is contrary to what has been going on in the last fourteen centuries and with what is actually happening now. Islam does not believe in one kind of right, one kind of duty and one kind of punishment for both men and women in every instance. It considers one set of rights and duties and punishments more appropriate for men, and one set more appropriate for women. As a result on some occasions Islam has taken a similar position as regards both women and men and on other occasions different positions. Why is that so and what is its basis? Is. that why Islam, also, like many other religions, has derogatory views concerning women and has considered woman to be of an inferior species, or does it have some other reasons and another philosophy? You may have heard repeatedly in the speeches, lectures and writings of the followers of western ideas that they consider Islamic laws concerning dowry, maintenance, divorce and polygyny, and other laws like them, as being contemptuous of, and insulting to, the female sex. In this way they try to create the impression that those provisions only prove that man alone has been favored. They say that all the rules and laws in the world before the twentieth century were based upon the notion that man, due to his sex, is a nobler being than woman, and that woman was created simply for the benefit p: 138 and use of man. Islamic rights also revolve in this same orbit of man’ s interest and benefit. They say that Islam is a religion for men, and that it has not acknowledged woman to be a complete human being and that it has not ordained laws for her which is necessary for a human being. Had Islam gauged woman to be a complete human being, it would not have provided for polygyny, it would not have given the right of divorce to man, it would not have made the witnessing of two women equivalent to that of one man, it would not have given leadership of the family to the husband, it would not have made a woman’ s inheritance one half of the inheritance of a man, it would not have countenanced that a woman be ‘ priced’ in the name of a dowry, it would not have provided for her economic and social independence, and it would not have made her a ‘ pensioner’ of man who is obliged to ‘ keep’ her. From the aforesaid thing, they say, it is inferred that Islam has humiliating views about woman, and has taken her to be just a means to procreating more people, and a necessary prerequisite for that. They add that although Islam is a religion of equality and has maintained real equality in other situations, in the case of woman and man it did not observe it. They say that Islam has provided discriminative and preferential rights for men. If it p: 139 did not have in view discriminative and preferential rights for men, it would not have ordained the above laws. If we resolve the argument of these gentlemen into an Aristotelean logical pattern, it would have the following form: If Islam had considered woman a complete human being it would have ordained equal and similar rights for her, but it has not ordained equal and similar rights for her. Therefore it does not consider a woman a complete human being.
Equality or identicalness The basis point which is used in these arguments is that the necessary result of men and women’ s sharing in human dignity and honor is that their rights should be the same and the identical. Now, the thing on which, philosophically speaking, we should put our finger is to determine exactly what is the necessary result of man and woman’ s sharing in human dignity. Is the necessary conclusion that each of them should have rights equivalent to the other, so that there should be no privilege or preference in favour of either of them, or is it necessary that the rights of man and woman, besides having equivalence and parity, should also be exactly the same, and that there should be no division what so ever of work and duty. No doubt the sharing of man and woman in human dignity and their equality as human beings demands their having equal human rights, but how can there be identicalness of rights? If we can begin to put aside the imitation and blind p: 140 following of western philosophy, and allow ourselves to think and ponder over the philosophical ideas and opinions which have come to us from them, we must see firstly whether identicalness of rights is or is not necessary for equality of rights. Equality is different from identicalness. Equality means parity and equitableness, and identicalness means that they are exactly the same. It is possible that a father distributes his wealth equally and equitably among his sons but he may not distribute it identically. For example, it is possible that a father has different kinds of wealth: he may own a commercial firm, some agricultural land and also some real estate but, due to his having examined his sons and found different talents among them, for example, he may have found that one of them had a gift for commercial affairs, and that the second had ability in agriculture, and the third, had the capability to manage real estate. When he comes to distribute his wealth amongst his sons in his life- time, bearing in mind that he must give equally to his sons in terms of the value of the property and that there should be neither preference nor discrimination, he bequeaths his wealth according to the talents which he has found in them. Quantity is different from quality. Equality is different from being exactly the same. What is certain is that Islam has not considered there to be identicalness or exact similarity of rights between men and women, but it has never p: 141 believed in preference and discrimination in favour of men as opposed to women. Islam has also observed the principle of equality between men and women. Islam is not against the equality of men and women, but it does not agree with the identicalness of their rights. The words “ equality” and “ egality” have earned a kind of sanctity because they embrace the meaning of equivalence and absence of discrimination. These words are attractive and draw respect from listeners, especially when these words are joined to the word “ rights”. “ Equality of rights— ” how beautiful and sacred is this combination of words! Can there be anyone with a conscience and an innate moral sense, who does not reverse these two words? But why is it that we who were once the standard bearers of knowledge, philosophy and logic, have come to such a position that others want to impose their opinions on us concerning the identicalness of the rights of men and women in the sacred name of equality of rights. It is exactly like someone who wants to sell boiled beet roots and calls them pears. What is certain is that Islam has not granted the same rights to men and women in everything, in the same way as it has not imposed the same duties and punishment on both of them on all occasions. However, is the sum total of all the rights that have been established for women less in value than the rights that have been granted to men? Certainly not, p: 142 as we shall prove. Here a second question arises. Why has Islam granted dissimilar rights to men and women in certain instances? Why did it not allow the same rights for both of them? Would it not have been better for the rights of men and women to have been both equal and identical, or is it preferable that the rights should be only equal but not the same? To study this point thoroughly, it is necessary that we should discuss it in three parts: 1. The view of Islam concerning the human status of woman from the point of view of creation. 2. What is the reason for the differences which exist in the creation of man and woman? Are these differences the cause of there being dissimilarities in their natural rights, or not? 3. The basic philosophy behind the differences that exist in Islamic law for men and women, which, in certain respects, place them in different positions. Are these philosophical reasons still justifiable and do they still hold good or not?
The status of woman in the world- view of Islam As for the first part, the holy Qur’ an is not only a collection of laws. It does not contain merely a series of dry commands and laws without comment. It contains both laws and history, both exhortation and the interpretation of creation, and countless other subjects. Just as the Qur’ an lays down rules of action in the form of law on some occasions, so it also comments upon existence and being. It explains the secrets of the creation of the p: 143 earth and the sky, plants, animals and mankind, and the secret of life and death greatness and suffering, growth and decline, wealth and poverty. The Qur’ an is not a treatise on philosophy, but it has explicitly expressed its views concerning the three basic topics of philosophy: the universe, mankind and society. Not only does the Quran teach its believers laws, and not only does it give exhortation and advice, but it also endows its followers with a special way of thinking, a particular world- view, by its interpretation of creation. The foundation of all Islamic commandments concerning social matters, for example, ownership, and government, family rights, and so forth, is this same explanation which the Qur’ an gives of creation and the things of the world. One of the matters that have been commented on in the holy Qur’ an is the subject of the creation of women and men. The Qur’ an was not silent on this matter, and did not provide an opportunity for those who talk nonsense to put forth their own philosophies for laws concerning men and women, and then to accuse Islam of having a derogatory attitude towards women on the strength of their own theories. Islam has already laid down its views regarding women. If we want to see what the view of the Qur’ an is regarding the creation of woman and man, it is necessary to have a look at the question of their creation as it is treated in the Books of other religions. The Qur’ an also did not p: 144 remain silent on this subject. We should see whether the Qur’ an considers woman and man to be of one essence or two. In other words, whether woman and man have one nature and essence or two. The Qur’ an most explicitly lays down in several ayat ( verses) that: We created women from the nature of man and from an essence the same as the essence of man. Concerning the first Adam, the Qur’ an says: Who created you from one single soul, and created from it its mate ( Qur’ an, 4: 1). With regard to all men, the Qur’ an says in several places: Allah created your mate from your own kind. There is no trace in the Qur’ an of what is found in some sacred books: that woman was created out of an inferior stock to that of man, that they gave woman the status of a parasite and of an inferior, or that the mate of the first Adam was created from one of the left- side parts of his body. Besides that, in Islam there is no derogatory view about woman as regards her nature and innate constitution. Another of the contemptuous views that existed in the past and which have left their undesirable effects in world literature is that woman is the origin of sin, and that her existence is the source of sin and temptation. Woman is a small devil. They say in every sin or crime committed by man, woman had her hand. According to them man in himself is innocent of any p: 145 sin: it is woman who drags him towards sin. They say Satan cannot find his way to man’ s being directly: It is only through woman that he can deceive man. Satan tempts woman, and woman tempts man. They say the first Adam, who was deceived by Satan and turned out of the Paradise of happiness, was deceived through woman. Satan tempted Eve, and Eve tempted Adam. The Qur’ an relates the story of the Paradise of Adam, but never says that Satan or a snake tempted Eve and she tempted Adam. Neither does the Quran describe Eve as the main person responsible, nor does it exonerate her from the sin. The Qur’ an says: O Adam, inherent, thou and thy wife, the Garden, and eat of where you will ( 7: 19). Wherever the Qur’ an describes the matter of Satan’ s tempting, it uses the pronouns in the form of the dual ( i. e, . referring to two persons). It says: Satan tempted both of them( , 7: 20الشَّیْطَانُ لَهُمَا فَوَسْوَسَ ) So he led them both on by delusion( , 7: 22بِغُرُور فَدَلَّاهُمَا ) And he swore to both of them“ , Truly, I am for you both a sincere adviser( ” . 7: 21) النَّاصِحِینَ لَمِنَ لَکُمَا إِنِّی وَقَاسَمَهُمَا In this way the Qur’ an strongly refutes the misconception which was prevalent at that time and which is still found in certain quarters and among certain people of this world, and exonerates the female sex from the accusation that woman is the source of temptation and sin, and is half a devil. Another contemptuous view which exists concerning woman is p: 146 in the field of her spiritual ability. They say“ : A woman cannot go to Heaven. A woman cannot traverse the spiritual and divine stages of enlightenment. A woman cannot attain proximity to God as can a man” . The Qur’ an, on the other hand, has made it explicitly clear in a large number of verses that reward in the life after death and nearness to God to not depend upon sex, but upon faith and deeds, whether they be of a woman or a man. For every great and pious man, the Qur’ an mentions a great and pious woman alongside him. The wives of Adam and Ibrahim ( Abraham) and the mothers of Musa ( Moses) and Isa ( Jesus) are mentioned with great esteem. Although the Qur’ an refers to the wives of Nuh ( Noah) and Lut ( Lot) as being unworthy of their husbands, it does not ignore the wife of Fir’ awn ( Pharaoh) as a woman of distinction under the control of a detestable man. It can be said that the Qur’ an purposely seeks to keep a balance in its histories and the leading role in them is not confirmed to men. About the mother of Musa the Qur’ an says: So we revealed to Moses’ mother“ , Suckle him, then, when thou fearest for him, cast him into the water, and do not fear, neither sorrow, for We shall return him to thee( ” . 28: 7) About Maryam ( Mary) the mother of Isa, the Qur’ an says that she had attained such an elevated spiritual degree that the angels used p: 147 to visit her in her prayer- niche and converse with her. Sustenance was supplied to her from an invisible source. She had attained so high a position of Divine favour that it completely astounded the prophet of that time, and exceeded his own degree. Zakariyya ( the prophet) was dumb- founded when he looked upon her. In the history of Islam itself there are many pious and distinguished women. There can be few men who are able to reach the high status of Khadijah[ , 1] and no men except the Holy Prophet himself and ‘ Ali could attain the status of az- Zahra[ . 2] az- Zahra excelled her sons, the Imams, and all the prophets as well, excepting the Seal of the Prophet Muhammad ( s. a. w. a). . Islam does not make any difference between man and woman in the journey from this world towards al- Haqq ( the Truth, i. e, . towards God). The only difference that Islam makes is in the journey from al- Haqq to this world, in returning to mankind and bearing the prophetic message, and here it recognizes man as being more suitable. Another derogatory view that was held was in connection with sexual abstention and the sacredness of being single and celibate. As we know, in some religions, sexual intercourse is in its essence unclean. According to the followers of these religions only those who live all their life in celibacy can attain the stations of the spirit. One of the world’ s well- known religious leaders said: “ Root out the tree of marriage with the spade of virginity”. The same religious leaders allow p: 148 marriage only as one evil to ward off a greater evil. In other words they maintain that, as majority of people are unable to endure the hardship of remaining celibate and may loose Self- control and thus become victims of perversion, indulging in sexual contact with numerous women, it is better that they should marry and not have sexual relations with more than one woman. The root cause of sexual abstention and celibacy is a feeling of aversion against the female sex. These people consider love of women to be one of the great moral depravities. Islam has combated fiercely against this superstition. It considers marriage to be sacred and celibacy to be impure. Islam considers love of women to be a part of prophetic morality, and says: النساء حُب الأنبیاء الأخلاق مِن “ Love of women is of the morality of the prophets” . The last Prophet used to say“ : Three things are dear to me: perfume, women and prayer” . Bertrand Russell says[ : 1“ ] In all codes of moral conduct there appears a kind of aversion to sexual relations except in Islam. Islam has ordained regulations and limitations with regard to this relationship for social reasons, but it has never considered it an abominable and unclean matter” . Another derogatory opinion held regarding women was that she is only a means for bringing man into existence, and that she was created for man. These ideas can never be found in Islam. Islam most explicitly explains the basis of the final cause; it says quite clearly that the earth p: 149 and the sky, the clouds and the winds, plants and animals have all been created for man. But it never says that woman was created for man. Islam says that man and women were each created for the other: لَهُنَّ لِبَاسٌ وَأَنْتُمْ لَکُمْ لِبَاسٌ هُنَّ They are a vestment for you ( man) and you are a vestment for them( , Qur’ an, 2: 187). If the Qur’ an considered woman to be a means of making men and something created for then, it would certainly have kept this fact in view in its laws. As Islam, in its explanation of creation, does not have this opinion and does not consider woman to be a parasite on man’ s existence, there is no trace or reflection of this idea in its special precepts regarding man and woman. Another of the derogatory views held in the past was that women were considered an unavoidable and necessary evil. Many men, in spite of all the gains and advantages they had derived from women, regarded them contemptuously and considered them to be a source of misfortune and misery. The holy Qur’ an makes a special mention of the fact that woman is a blessing for man and is a source of solace and comfort for his heart. Yet another derogatory view was that woman played a very insignificant part in bringing offspring into the world, Arabs of the pre- Islamic age, and certain other peoples, considered women to be only a repository for the sperm of the man which, according to them, was the p: 150 real seed of the child, and they said that her part was to keep that seed safe and to nourish it. The Qur’ an says in several verses that“ : You were created from man and woman” . In other verses, which are analyzed in the commentaries, the final answer has been given in a similar way. From what has been said above, it is clear that both from a philosophical point of view, as well as from its explanation of the nature of creation, Islam does not hold any derogatory ideas concerning women; rather, it has seen to it that all the above mentioned derogatory views are discarded. Now it is appropriate to examine why there is an absence of identicalness in the rights of men and women.
----------
[1]: Khadijah was the Holy Prophet’s first and most dearly beloved wife. She was the first person to believe in his prophethood, and she proved a firm support for him in the first difficult years of his mission. (Tr. )
[2]: Fatimatu’ z-Zahra’ was the Holy Prophet’s daughter, the wife of ‘Ali, and the mother of the second and third Imams, Hasan and Husayn. She is included by the Shi’ah, together with the Holy Prophet and the twelve Imams, among the fourteen immaculate ones, free from sin. (Tr. )
[1]: Translated from the Persian, reference untraced (Tr. )
Equality, but not Uniformity We said that Islam has a special philosophy concerning the relations and rights of men and women within the family which differs from that which was current fourteen centuries ago and does not conform either with what is accepted in the world of today. We have already explained that according to the Islamic view it is never a matter of dispute as to whether a man and woman are equal as human beings or not, and as to whether their family rights should or should not be equal in value with each other. According to Islam, a woman and a man are both human beings and both are apportioned equal rights. That which has been kept in view in Islam is that woman and man, on the p: 151 basis of the very fact that one is woman and the other is a man, are not identical with each other in many respects. The world is not exactly alike for both of them, and their natures and dispositions were not intended to be the same. Eventually this requires that in very many rights, duties and punishments they should not have an identical placing. In the western world they are now attempting to create uniformity and identicalness in laws, regulations, rights and functions between women and men, while ignoring the innate and natural, differences. It is here that the difference between the outlook of Islam and that of western systems is to be found. Thus the dispute between, on the one hand, those sections of the people who support Islamic rights and, on the other hand, those who support western systems is about the identicalness and exact similarity of rights of women and men and not about equality of rights. ‘ Equality of rights’ is a counterfeit label which the followers of the west have stuck on as a souvenir of the west. In my writings, conferences and lectures, I always avoid the use of this counterfeit label, and the use of this phrase, which comes to mean nothing but uniformity and identicalness of rights for women and men, in place of genuine equality of rights. I am not saying that nowhere in the world did or does the claim for equality of rights for women and men have any meaning, nor am p: 152 I saying that every past and present law in the world concerning the rights of men and women was passed on the basis of equality of worth and estimation and that it is just identicalness which was eliminated. No I have no such claim. Europe, before the twentieth century is the best evidence. In Europe before the twentieth century, woman legally as well as practically lacked all human rights. Neither did she have rights equal to those of man nor the same as his. In the sudden development of the movement which sprang up in less than one century in the name of woman and for woman, she acquired rights almost the same as those of man. However, considering her natural build and her physical and spiritual needs, she never acquired rights equal to those of man. For if woman wishes to acquire rights equal to the rights of man and happiness equal to the happiness of man, the only way to get that end is for her to forget about an identicalness of rights with man and have faith in rights suitable for herself. Only in this way can unity and real sincerity between man and woman be achieved, and only then will woman obtain happiness equal to or better than man’ s. Man then, out of sincerity and without any derogatory thoughts, will be ready to concede to her equal and at times better rights than their own. Similarly, I am not at all claiming that the rights that have in p: 153 practice been the lot of women in our seemingly Islamic society are equal in value to the rights that men have had. I have many times said that it is essential to hold a thorough inquiry into the plight of women, and that many rights that have been given to women by Islam and have in practice been ignored should be restored to them; but not that we should blindly follow and imitate the ways of the west, which have brought thousands of misfortunes for them, and give a pretty name to an erroneous principle and thus encumber women who already have misfortunes of the eastern type with misfortunes of the western type as well. Our point of view is that dissimilarity in the rights of man and woman should be observed to whatever extent nature has differently moulded and created them. This is in better accord with justice and with natural rights; and will both secure good will in the family and also result in the better development of society. It must be completely understood that we claim that justice and the natural and human rights of man and woman call for dissimilarity in certain rights. Thus, our discussion has a completely philosophical orientation: it is linked to the philosophy of rights and linked with a principle which is called the principle of justice, which is one of the vital pillars of Islamic theology and jurisprudence. The principle of justice is the same fundamental principle which brought into existence p: 154 the rule of the harmony of reason and religious law in Islam. It means that according to Islamic jurisprudence — or at least Shi’ ite jurisprudence — if it can be established that justice demands that a particular precept should be such- and- such and not something else, then if it is something else it will be an iniquity and against justice; thus we are obliged to say that the ruling of religious law is what reason and justice tell us it should be. For Islamic religious law, according to the fundamental principle which it has itself taught can never leave the axis of justice and intrinsic, natural rights. By expounding and elucidating the underlying meaning of justice, Islamic scholars have laid upon it the foundation of the Philosophy of rights. As a result of the occurrence of regrettable historical events they could not continue the work they had started, At any rate, preoccupation with the idea of human rights and the principle of justice as being something essential, in accordance with the order of things and beyond conventional law, was first of all propounded and put forward by the Muslims. They laid the foundation of the rights that are both natural and also required by intellectual considerations. However, it turned out that Islamic scholars could not carry on that work and, after a gap of about eight centuries, European thinkers and philosopher’ s continued it, and took upon themselves the credit for that task. On the one hand, they worked out social, political and economic p: 155 philosophies, and, on the other hand, they informed individuals, societies and nations and explained to them the value of life and their rights as human beings. They started movements, instigated revolutions, and changed the face of the world. In my opinion, besides historical reasons, psychological and geographical reasons also played their part in creating this situation whereby the Islamic east did not follow up these rights which are intellectually indispensable and whose foundations they had laid This is one of the differences in mentality between the east and the west, that the east has a tendency towards ethical thinking, while the west is inclined towards the idea of rights. The east is under the spell of morality, and the west is in love with rights. The easterner by virtue of his eastern nature conceives of his humanity as consisting of behaving with kindness and toleration, in being friendly towards his fellow men and in conducting himself the generosity towards them. On the other hand, a westerner takes pride in the realization of his rights, and in safeguarding them, and will not allow anybody to intrude upon the sacred territory of his rights. Humanity needs ethics, as well as rights. It is linked to rights as well as to morals, and neither of the two, rights or morals, is in itself, the criterion of humanity. The sacred religion of Islam has the great privilege of having approved both rights and ethics. In Islam, as was mentioned before, sincerity and right action in p: 156 the moral sense is considered a virtue; and knowledge of rights and defending them is also considered a virtue and to be human. This matter has details which cannot be gone into here. However, the particular mentality of the east set to work. In spite of the fact that in the beginning the concept of rights and the insistence on morality had both been acquired from Islam, the east gradually let go of rights and focused its attention on morals. Our point is that the problem with which are at present confronted is a problem of rights, a philosophical and intellectual problem, a problem based upon arguments and reasoning. It is closely connected with reality of justice and the nature of the rights. Justice and rights were in existence before any laws were passed in the world, so the enacting of a law cannot change the reality of justice and the human rights of mankind. Montesquieu said“ : Before man created laws there seem to have been relations founded on law and upon justice between creatures. The existence of these relations itself was the cause of the creation of laws. If we say that apart from the actual first laws, consisting of orders and prohibitions, nothing else just or unjust exists, it is as if we say that before man drew a circle, the radii of that circle were not all equal”. Herbert Spencer said: Justice is associated not with the sentiments, but with something else which is the natural rights of individuals. For justice p: 157 to have external reality it is necessary to have regard for rights and innate differences[ ”. 1] The European philosophers who upheld, and still do hold this view, are in large number. The manifestos and proclamations that were drawn up, and the material that was incorporated under the heading of Human Rights has as its source this very theory of natural rights. In other words, it was the theory of natural and innate rights which reappeared in the form of the Proclamation of Human Rights. Once again, what Montesquieu, Spencer and others have said concerning justice is, as we know, the very same thing that theologians have said concerning the inborn intellectual capacity to determine ‘ right’ and ‘ wrong’ and the real meanings of justice. Amongst Islamic scholars there were some individuals who refused to accept the idea of instinctive rights and considered justice as something conventional. Amongst Europeans also such a belief existed. The Englishman Hobbes refused to accept justice as having real existence.
----------
[1]: Both translated from the Persian. Originals untraced. (Tr. )
The Declaration of Human Rights is philosophy and not law: point The absurd thing is that they say that text of the declaration of Human Rights has been approved by the two Houses ( of the Iranian Parliament, ) and, as the equality of rights for men and women is included the text of the Declaration, so, under the law approved by the two Houses, men and women should have equal rights. As if the text of the Declaration of Human Rights is something which is within the competence of the two Houses to approve of or reject. The contents of the Declaration of p: 158 Human Rights are not the kind of thing which can be put up for the legislative assemblies of countries to approve of or reject. The Declaration of Human Rights deals with the innate undeniable and unrelinquishable rights of mankind. It refers to rights which, as the Declaration claimed, are prerequisites of man’ s humanity and which the hand of the All- mighty Creator established for them. In other words, the Source and Power which provided upon men with intellect, volition and human dignity also bestowed upon man, as the Declaration Claims, human rights. Human beings cannot make the contents of the Declaration of Human Rights law for themselves, and neither can they cancel or depart from those rights on their own. Then what is the sense in saying that it had been approved by the two Houses and the legislative power? The Declaration of Human Rights is philosophy and not law. It should be presented to the philosophers for their approbation and not for the approval of members of parliaments. The Two legislative Houses cannot determine philosophy and logic for people by taking a vote. If legislative work is to proceed like this, then they should take the Einstein’ s Theory of Relativity to Parliament and present it to the members to have it approved by them. The hypothesis that there is life on other planets should also be sent for their approval. The laws of nature cannot be approved or rejected just like conventional laws. It is as if we were p: 159 to say that both the Houses of Parliament have passed an act saving that if we graft a pear onto an apple, the graft will be successful; but if it is grafted onto a mulberry it will not. If such a declaration is issued on behalf of a group of persons who are themselves thinkers and philosophers, the nations should entrust it to the hands of their philosophers and campaigners for rights. If in the opinion to the philosophers and thinkers of that particular community the matter can be confirmed, then it is the duty of all the members of that community to consider what they say as a truth above law. It is binding upon the legislative power also not to enact any law against what they say. As for the other nations, they are not obliged to accept any declaration until it has been established and discovered in their eyes that such rights exist in the same state in nature. Besides this, these questions are not experimental matters which require equipments, laboratories and so forth which Europeans have but others do not, it is not a question of breaking the atom, the secret of which, and the necessary equipment for which are with a limited number of persons: it is philosophy and logic, and for this the tools are the brain, the intellect and the power of reasoning. Even if other nations are obliged to follow others in questions of philosophy and logic, because they do not consider p: 160 themselves competent in philosophical thinking, we Iranians should not think like that. In the past we reached a high standard of ability and showed our worth in philosophic and logical investigations. Why should we follow others in their solutions to philosophic problems? It is strange that Islamic thinkers gave so much importance to the question of justice and the essential rights of man when it arose that, without any hesitation, in accordance with the law of the harmony between reason and Islamic law, they used to say that the law of Islam was indeed this. That is to say they did not see the necessity of ancillary corroboration by an Islamic law. Today we have been reduced to the level where we seek confirmation for these matters in approval by members of Parliament. Philosophy cannot be proved by questionnaires More ludicrous than this is that when we want to make a study regarding the human rights of women, we refer the matter to young boys and girls, print questionnaires and try to find out by the way which they are filled in what human rights and whether the human rights of women and men are the same or different. Anyhow we are seeking to make a study in a scientific and philosophic manner about the human rights of women on the basis of intrinsic human rights, and we want to see whether those same principles which require that human beings, as a general rule, have a series of natural and God- given rights, also affirm, that women and men should p: 161 have the same kind of rights or not. So, I request the scholars, thinkers and jurists of this country, who are the only persons who really matter and should put forth their opinions in such matters as this, to look into our arguments critically. I would be highly obliged if they gave their opinions together with their reasons for or against what I have written. In order to study this point, it is necessary that we should firstly look at the basis and the roots of human rights, and then consider specifically the rights of men and women. It would not be out of lace to briefly refer in the first place to the movements in the present age to do with rights which culminated in the call for equality of rights for men and women. A glance at the history of women’ s rights in Europe In Europe, from the seventeenth century onwards, voices began to be raised in the name of human rights. Writers and thinkers of the 17th and 18th century propagated their thoughts in respect of the natural, inherent and undeniable rights of man with wonderful perseverance. Jean- Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire and Montesquieu belong to this group of thinkers and writers. The fist practical result of the propagation of the ideas of the supporters of natural human rights occurred when in England a protracted struggle took place between the rulers and the ruled. In 1688 AD, the people succeeded in moving for some of their social and political rights according to a manifesto of rights [ 1] and had them restored. Another p: 162 practical result of the propagation of these ideas was manifested in the War of Independence of America against England. Thirteen British Colonies in North America, due to the strains and difficulties imposed upon them, rose in disobedience and rebellion and at last gained their independence. In the year 1776 AD, a Congress was formed in Philadelphia which declared its complete independence and published a document [ 1] to that effect. In the introduction that document they wrote, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” . However that is well- known in the world under the name of the ‘ Declaration of Human Rights’ is that document which was issued after the Great French Revolution. This declaration [ 2] consists of a series of general principles which are prefixed to the French Constitution, and it is considered an inseparable part of it. This proclamation consists of an introduction and seventeen clauses. The first section states that “ Men are born, and always continue, free and equal in respect of their rights” . In the 19th century new changes and new thoughts occurred in the field of economics, sociology and politics which culminated in the advent of socialism and the resultant requirement of the allocation of a share of profits to the working class, and the transfer of government from the hands p: 163 of the capitalists to the workers. Till the early part of the 20th century, all the controversies concerning human rights were connected entirely with the rights of the people before their governments, or with rights of the proletariat and the working class before the employers. It was in the 20th century for the first time that the question of the rights of woman before man came to the fore. Britain, which is considered to be the oldest democratic country, only acknowledged equal rights for men and women in the beginning of the 20th century. The United States of America, in spite of their generally admitting the rights of all human beings in the 18th century in their Declaration of Independence, passed the act giving equal political rights to men and women in the year 1920 and France also approved this matter in the 20th century. Anyhow, in the 20th century, many groups all over the world favored a profound change in the relations of men and women concerning their rights and duties. According to these people, the change and transformation in the relations of peoples with their governments, and in the relations of the labor class and the proletariat with the employers and the capitalists did not suffice for social justice, so long as the relations of rights of men and women are not reformed. Accordingly, a Universal Declaration of Human Rights was issued for the first time after the Second World War in 1948 [ 1] on behalf of the United Nations Organization. p: 164 In its introduction it was stipulated: Whereas the people of the United Nations have once again proclaimed their belief in human rights and the status and worth of an individual human being and equality of the rights of men and women… The crisis of change due to mechanization in the 19th and the 20th century and the eventual unfortunate condition of craftsmen, especially women, exaggerated the situation all the more, demanding that the matter of the rights of women should be especially attended to. In his Nouvelle Histoire Universelle ( vol. 4, p. 387) Albert Malet writes“ : Since the State no longer interfered in any way between the employers and the workers, except to forbid the latter to group together and strike, the employers were able to enforce a real economic despotism’…. in France, in 1840, in the Ronen region, cotton mill workers labored up to 16— 17 hours a day… The exploitation for work of women and children was particular obnoxious...... mortality in the working districts was horrifying” . This is a short and cursory history of the human rights movement in Europe. As we know all the matters contained in the Declarations of Human Rights, which have novelty for the Europeans, were anticipated fourteen century ago in Islam. Some Arab and Iranian scholars have compared ( the position of) Islam with these declarations in their books. Of course, there are differences in some parts between what the declarations say and what has said, and this is itself an absorbing and interesting matter. One of these differences is the problem p: 165 of the rights of men and women, in which Islam approves of equality, but does not agree with identicalness, uniformity and exact similarity. The dignity and the rights of human beings “ Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, “ Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
“ Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, “ Whereas, it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations, “ Whereas the people of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, “ Whereas… “ Now, Therefore, The General Assembly proclaims “ This universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms p: 166 and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction. The splendid sentences above form the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is the preamble to the charter of which it has been said is “ the greatest blessing ever to come to the lot of the world of humanity in support of human rights unto this day” . Every sentence and even part of it is numbered and, as I pointed out in the preceding article, is derived from the ideas of several centuries of world philosophers who sought freedom and recognized human rights.
----------
[1]: The author refers to the Persian translation of Albert Malet’s Nouvelle Histoire Universelle where mention is made of the “Declaration of Rights” presented to William and Mary of Orange in the presence of the entire British Parliament on 13th February 1689. (Tr. )
[1]: Actually called “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America”, made on 4th July 1776. (Tr. )
[2]: The “Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens. ” This was promulgated by the French National Assembly as a preamble to the constitution in 1789, and subsequently popularized by Thomas Paine’s “The Rights of Man”. (Tr. )
[1]: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted and proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10th December 1948. (Tr. )
Important points in the preamble to the Declaration of Human Rights This Declaration was drawn up in thirty sections. We shall Ignore the fact that some matters are repeated in some articles or at least that the mention of certain matter in one section makes another section redundant, and that some of the articles of the Declaration could have been divided up into several smaller articles. The important points of the preamble which should be noted are: 1. All human beings benefit from a single kind of dignity, honor and inherent, inalienable rights. 2. Dignity, honor and inherent human rights are universal and include all human individuals with no discrimination or distinction, white and black, tall and short, woman and man, alike share in this benefit. Just as in a family an individual member cannot claim to be of a nobler and higher origin than p: 167 the other members of the family, so, in the same way, all human individuals are the members of a large family and organs of one body and are the same in their dignity. No- one can consider himself to be of nobler birth than any other individual. 3. The basis of freedom, peace and justice is that all individuals, from the depth of their conscience, have belief and faith in the reality of the equal dignity and inherent honor of all human beings. This Declaration wants to claim that it has discovered that the source of all the troubles that individual human beings create for each other, and the basic cause of the breaking out of wars of the atrocities, transgressions and acts of savagery which individuals and nations inflict on one another, is the non- recognition of the dignity and inherent honor of human beings. This non- recognition by one group compels the opposing group to explode, and it is thus that peace and security is endangered. 4. The highest aspiration which everyone must strive to attain is the advent of a world where freedom of conviction, security and material prosperity are perfectly attained. Suppression of beliefs, fear and poverty should be uprooted. The thirty articles of the Declaration were drawn up to attain this ideal. 5. Belief in the inherent dignity of human beings, and regard for their undeniable and inalienable rights should be gradually created by teaching and education in all individuals. The dignity and respect of man Since the Declaration of Human Rights is based on the honor, freedom p: 168 and equality of human beings, and was created in order to restore human rights, it should be met with due honor and respect by very conscientious person. We people of the east have been pleading in favour of the worth, position and honor of the human being for a long time; as I mentioned in the preceding article, human beings as such, together with their rights, their freedom and equality are given the utmost attention, respect and importance. Those who wrote and drew up this Declaration, and likewise the philosophers from whom the writers of this Declaration derived, in fact, their inspiration, deserve our tribute and regards. Nevertheless, because this Declaration is a philosophical matter and is drawn up by human beings and not by angels, and because it is the conclusions of a group of human individuals, every thinker has the right to scrutinize it critically, and, if he should find certain weak points in it, to point them out. This Declaration is not free from weak points, however, we shall not refer here to the weak points, preferring as we do, to refer to the strong points only. The basis of this Declaration is the ‘ inherent dignity’ of the human being. According to this Declaration, a human being derives his claim to a series of rights and freedoms on the basis of a general dignity and honor that is special to him. Other animals do not have and enjoy these rights and freedoms, because they lack that dignity and p: 169 honor. This is the strong point of this Declaration. The decline and fall of the human being in western philosophy Here, once again, we come across an old problem in philosophy. The value and worth of the human being; the position and dignity of the human being in comparison with all other creatures what, we should ask is that innate, inherent dignity of the human being which distinguishes him from a horse, a cow, sheep or a pigeon? Here it is that a clear contradiction is observed between the basis of the Declaration of Human Rights, on the one hand, and the value and worth of humanity in western philosophy, on the other. In western philosophy. mankind has for long been without worth and value. The previous observations that were made concerning human beings and their distinguished position had their source and origin entirely in the east. Today in most western philosophical systems, these observations are belittled and ridiculed. A human being, in the eyes of the west has been degraded to the level of a machine. His spirit and nobility is denied. Belief in a final cause and a plan or design for nature is considered a reactionary idea. In the west, the belief in mankind being the noblest of creatures could not lash for long, for the western belief was based on the belief that all other creatures were dependent on and under the domination of human beings and his derived from the ancient Ptolemean theory of the earth and the heavens that the earth was the centre and all the heavenly bodies revolved p: 170 around it. Thus, when this belief was abandoned there were no grounds left for considering mankind as the noblest of creatures. In the eyes of the west, all such, thoughts were mere self- aggrandizements to which human beings were the victims of the past. A human being today is courteous, obliging and modest and considers himself to be like other objects, nothing more than a handful of dust. From dust he comes and to dust he shall return, and it is here that he will finally come to an end. A westerner, in his humility, does not consider the soul to be an independent form of human existence, and does not consider it to have the capacity of actual and real existence. He does not believe in there being any difference between himself and a plant or an animal in this respect. A westerner does not consider there to be any difference between the thought and actions of the soul and the heat generated from coal, as far as its entity and essence are concerned. He considers all of them to be manifestations of matter and energy. In the eyes of the west, the field of life for all living beings, including mankind, is the bloody battle- field which give birth to them. The actual, ultimate controller of the life or living beings, including mankind, is , basic struggle for survival. Man always struggles to save himself in this battle. Justice, virtue, cooperation, benevolence and all other moral and human values are p: 171 all products of this fundamental struggle for existence. Man has constructed these concepts in order to make his own position secure. According to some influential western philosophers, a human being is a machine, under the fundamental control of nothing but financial interests. Religion morals, philosophy, science, literature and all the arts are all built on the foundation of the manner of production, sharing and distribution of wealth. All these things are manifestations of the economic aspects of man’ s life. But no, this is all too glorified for man. The real motivating and stimulating factors in all human actions are innate sexual drives. Morals, philosophy, science, religion and art, all manifestations of humanity are melted down and reshaped as the action of the sexuality of man’ s being. What is difficult to understand is that if we decide that we should deny the purposefulness of creation, and believe that nature quite blindly proceeds on its own course; if the only law which guarantees the life of the various species of living creatures is the struggle for survival, the selection of the fittest and nothing but chance; if the survival and existence of a human being is the product of accidental change, devoid of any purpose, merely a chain of unnatural acts over a few million years, which his forefathers permitted with other species and which resulted in him having the form he has today, if it is decided to believe that man is an example of the machines which he now manufactures himself p: 172 with his own hand, if it is decided that belief in the spirit, its fundamentality and its permanence is, it is considered to be, a sort of egotism or self- conceit, or an exaggeration by man about himself, if the real activating and stimulating factors in all human actions are economic or sexual drives or the desire for superiority, if ideas of right or wrong are wholly relative, and if reference to natural, inward inspiration is nonsense, if a human being is a species that is slave to his sensualities and passions and never lowers his head except by force, if….. and so on, then how can be possible for us to talk about the dignity and honor of man, his unalienable rights and his noble individuality, and make that the basis of all our activities? The west is involved in a basic contradiction about man: In western philosophy, the personal dignity of mankind had been destroyed as far as possible and his position totally debased. Concerning the creation of man and the causes that gave him existence, concerning the purpose of Creation for him and the structure and warp and woof of his existence and being, and concerning the motivation and stimulation for his activity, his conscience and moral sense, the western world has lowered him to the degree we have already pointed out. With this background, the west issues a great declaration about the worthiness and dignity of mankind, his inherent honor ad nobility, his sacred and inalienable rights and invites all human individuals to believe in that lofty declaration. For p: 173 the west, they should firstly have revised the explanations and expositions they made concerning man, and then they could have issued a declaration for the sacred and inherent rights of human beings. I admit that not all western philosophers have presented man in the above- mentioned way. A large number of them have presented man almost in the same way as the east has done. My viewpoint concerns the way of thinking which exists among the majority of people in the west and is now influencing people all over the world. The Declaration of Human Rights ought to have been issued by those who consider human beings of a higher rank than a material, mechanical compound. It would have been worthy of someone who did not consider the drives and motivations of the activities of human beings to depend exclusively upon animal and selfish motives: someone who believed in human nature. The Declaration of Human Rights should have been issued by the East, which believes in I am settling on the earth a vicegerent[ , 1] and perceives in man a sign of the manifestation of Divinity. He who goes after human rights should be someone who believes that man is built with the intention of traveling towards the destination of: O Man! Thou art striving into thy Lord with a striving and thou shalt encounter Him[ ” . 2] The Declaration of Human Rights befits those systems of philosophy which agree with the Qur’ anic verse: By the soul, that which shaped and inspired it to lewdness and god- fearing! [ 3] p: 174 and believe that a human being is naturally disposed towards virtue. The Declaration of Human Rights should have been issued by those who are optimistic about the nature of man according to: We indeed created man in the fairest stature [ 1] and consider man to have the most harmonious and the most Perfect structure.
Looking at the way of thinking of the west in their explanations and presentations of man, the Declaration of Human Rights does not befit them, because it is the way which the west uses in practice to deal with human beings; that is to say, doing away with all human sentiments, making fun of all human distinctions, maintaining the priority of capital for man, the primacy of money, worshipping the machine, deeming wealth supreme, exploiting man and giving capital unlimited power. If, by chance, a certain millionaire should happen to bequeath his wealth to his dear dog, that dog would be regarded as being more honorable than man. Human beings would attend on the wealthy dog like butlers, clerks and office- hands, and stand before it respectfully with folded- hands.
----------
[1]: (Qur’an, 2: 30) إِنِّی جَاعِلٌ فِی الْأَرْضِ خَلِیفَةً
[2]: (Qur’an, 84: 6) یَا أَیُّهَا الْإِنْسَانُ إِنَّکَ کَادِحٌ إِلَیٰ رَبِّکَ کَدْحًا فَمُلَاقِیهِ
[3]: (Qur’an, 91: 7-8) وَنَفْسٍ وَمَا سَوَّاهَا. فَأَلْهَمَهَا فُجُورَهَا وَتَقْوَاهَا
[1]: (Qur’an, 95: 4) لَقَدْ خَلَقْنَا الْإِنْسَانَ فِی أَحْسَنِ تَقْوِیمٍ
The west has forgotten both itself and its God: The important problem of human society today is that man has forgotten what the Qur’ an calls his “ self “, and also his God. The important thing is that he has debased himself. He has totally neglected to look inside himself, to listen to his inner self and conscience, and he has entirely focused his attention on material and solid things. He considers the aim of life is nothing but to enjoy p: 175 material things, and knows nothing except that. He considers creation as if it were without purpose. He denies his own self and has forsaken his soul. Most of the misfortunes of human beings result from these misconceptions, and it may be feared that the day is not far- off when this way of thought will be universal, and suddenly destroy humanity. This angle of viewing human beings is the cause of the fact that, as Civilization spreads and develops, the civilized person slowly degenerates. This way of thinking about human beings has turned out to be the cause of the Fact that man in his true meaning is to be Found only in the past. The great machine of civilization has the capacity to manufacture every grand and first- class thing except man. Gandhi said [ 1]: Because of this, the westerner deserves to receive the title of Lord of the Earth, for he is the master of every worldly possibility and blessing. He is capable of every worldly task, which other nations regard as being in the hands of God. But the westerner is incapable of one thing, and that is reflecting on his own self; and this thing alone is enough to prove the futility of the false glitter of the new civilization. “ If western civilization has made accidental addicts to alcohol and engaged their attention in sexual activities, it is because the westerner wants to forget his self and lose his self instead of a searching for it… “ His practical strength in discovering, p: 176 inventing and preparing the means of war is the result of the westerner’ s escape from his self, not of his exceptional power and domination over himself….. The westerner’ s fear of solitude and silence, his reliance on money, have made him incapable of hearing the voice of his inner self, and the motive for his unremitting hustle and bustle is the same thing. His impulse to conquer the world is his inability to rule over his self, and for this reason the westerner is the creator of confusion and corruption all over the, world….. What is the use of conquering the world when man gives up his own soul?.... The people who are taught by the Bible to preach truth, love and peace are themselves running in all directions in search of gold and slaves. Instead of conforming to the teachings of the Bible in looking for reward and justice in the Kingdom of Heaven, they use the weapon of religion to exonerate their own sins, and instead of broadcasting the Word of God, they drop bombs onto nations” . This is the reason that the Declaration of Human Rights was violated by the west before anyone else and more than anyone else. The philosophy that the west follows in practice leads them to no other way of action except the breaching of the Declaration of Human Rights.
----------
[1]: Translated from the Persian. Original untraced, (Tr. )
Part Six: The Natural Basis of Family Rights point We pointed out that the spirit and foundation of the Declaration of Human Rights is that even human being should benefit p: 177 from a kind of essential and honorable respect and individuality. In the context of his creation and formation, a series of rights and freedom were given to him which can no way be taken from or denied him. We also said that this spirit and foundation is upheld by Islam and is in harmony with the philosophy of the east. What is incompatible with the spirit and essence of this Declaration, and what shows it to be false and baseless is the very explanation given in many of philosophical systems of the west concerning man and the make- up of his existence. Evidently the sole reliable testimony to which we can refer for the purpose of finding out the true rights of human beings is the priceless book of creation. By referring to the pages and lines of this great book, the real rights held in common by all human beings and the position of the rights of man and woman in comparison with each other may be determined. Strangely enough, there are some naive people who are not prepared to recognize the great testimony of the book of creation unless they see some reason to do so. In their opinion the only competent authority is the body of the people who had a hand in the preparation of the Declaration and are today the masters and the supreme rulers of the world. It does not matter if they themselves are not concerned to abide by the subject- matter of this Declaration. p: 178 Others should not be so presumptuous as to question what they say. However, on the basis of these very same human rights we believe we have a right to question and to take note of what they say and do. We consider the huge process of creation, the speaking book of God, to be the only competent referable source of evidence. I again apologize to my worthy readers that in this series of articles, certain of the questions which I put forward have a somewhat philosophical tinge and seem rather dry, and for some readers may be rather boring. I myself, as far as possible, avoid discussing these sorts of problem, but sometimes the relevance of these dry, philosophical matters to the problems of the rights of women are so great that it is impossible to avoid them. The connection between natural rights and the direction in which nature moves In our view, natural and innate rights come into existence when the handiwork of creation directs created beings towards the perfection of their qualities, the predisposition for which is inherent in them, although in a latent state, and does this with clear- sightedness and by keeping in view the function and purpose of all of them. Every innate aptitude is the basis of a natural right. For example, the child of a human being has a right to education and schooling but a young lamb has no such right. Why? Because the aptitude for leaning and attaining wisdom exists in a human child, but not in a lamb. The plan of creation has p: 179 assigned this aptitude of acquiring knowledge to mankind, but has not ascribed it to sheep. The right to think, to give expression to one’ s thoughts and to hold independent opinions, is of the same category. There are some people who think that to assume natural rights and to claim that mankind has been given the distinction of having a particular kind of right by creation is a baseless and self- centered idea and should be discarded. There is no difference at all as far as the rights of human beings and other creatures are concerned. This is a totally mistaken idea. As a matter of fact, natural aptitudes are very varied. The creative plan has assigned to every kind of creature its own particular sphere, and its well- being is also determined to be within the path of its own orbit. The creative process has its own plan in relation to this matter, and it has left this basic document in the hands if its creatures so that there could not the even the least possibility of an accident based on ignorance or lack of information. The root and foundation of family rights, which is the subject under discussion, should also he looked for in nature like all other natural rights. By looking into the natural characteristics of men and women and the inborn aptitudes that creation has endowed them with, we can understand whether men and women have identical rights and duties. Do not forget us we have mentioned in our p: 180 preceding articles, that the problem under discussion is the identicalness of the rights of men and women and not the equality of their rights. Social rights As far as non- family social rights are concerned, that is, as far as rights within society at large, outside the circle of the family, are concerned, an individual acquires both equal and identical rights. In other words, fundamental natural rights are equal and identical to each other. Every member of society has an equal right to benefit from his innate talents; everyone has the right to work; everyone has the right to take part in the race of life; every individual has the right to offer himself for any post or position in society and try to get it in a lawful manner; everyone has the right to demonstrate his personal academic achievements and practical worth. Of course, the same equality in basic natural rights gradually places people in an unequal position as far as acquired rights are concerned; that is to say, everyone has an equal right to work and to take part in the competition of life, but when the question of the result of the competition, the standard of work and the level of adequacy is considered, not every one come’ s up to the required standard. Some prove themselves more talented and some are found to be less talented. Some are more efficient and some less efficient, some are more capable and some are less capable. Some are found to be more learned, more p: 181 proficient, more skilful, more useful and more efficient than others in the task, and so, naturally, their acquired rights assume an unequal patterning. If we resolved that people’ s acquired rights should also be equal like their basic natural rights, our decision could be called nothing but cruel and unjust. Now, why should all individuals be considered equal in their natural fundamental social rights? The reason is that observation of human beings demonstrates that amongst human individuals no- one is born the ruler or the ruled. No- one has come into this world as a worker or a craftsman, or a professor, or a teacher, or an officer, or a soldier, or a minister. These are the merits and peculiarities which are a part of acquired rights. It means that individuals, by their competence, potential, work and activity, must take them from society, and that society by positive law give them to its individuals. This is a very important difference between the social life of mankind and the collective life of gregarious animals like the bee. The institutions in the life of these animals are totally natural. Their duties and functions are all assigned by nature and not by their own choice. Some are born rulers and some are born to be ruled. Some are laborers and some engineers, while others are born executives. Evidently the life of man is not like this, and that is why some thinkers have totally refused to accept the old philosophical idea that man is by nature p: 182 gregarious, and have considered human society to be based completely on arbitrary convention.
Family rights This is the state of affairs in society outside the family. Do the individuals within the family unit also have identical fundamental natural rights, the difference only lying in acquired rights? There is a lot of difference between a family which consists of wife and husband, the father and mother, and sons and daughters, the brothers and sisters and society outside the family, regards fundamental rights, and the law of nature has set up family rights in a special pattern. Here there are two different opinions. One view is that the fact of being a wife or a husband, a father or a child, a mother or a child, like all other social relationships and like the cooperation between individuals in public or state institutions, is not a reason in itself for some persons to have automatically a special status. Only required privileges can be a reason for some one of them, for example, to be the head and the other a subordinate, one to be obeyed and others to obey him, one to get more monthly pay and the other less. If a person is wife, or a husband, or a father, or a mother, or a son, or a daughter, this would not be in itself a reason for him to have a special status. Only acquired privileges can determine their position in relation to each other. The idea of the identicalness of the rights p: 183 of men and women within the family, to which they have wrongly given the name of equality of rights, is based upon this very opinion. According to this idea, a man and a woman with similar talents and needs who have an understanding of similar rights to which they are temperamentally disposed will get married. As a result, it is necessary that family rights should be based upon equality, identicalness and uniformity. As opposed to this, the other view is that their basic natural rights are also different. To be a husband in itself, that is, the fact of being a husband, imposes certain obligations and signifies certain rights, and to be a wife in itself imposes certain obligations and implies certain rights, and likewise in the case of being a father, or a mother, or son, or a daughter. Anyhow, according to this view, the family is different from all social partnerships and associations. The unidenticalness of the rights of men and women, which Islam endorses, is based upon this principle. Now, which of the two above opinions is valid, and in what way can we understand which of the two is correct? The natural basis of family rights 2 In order that the respected readers may successfully draw their own conclusions, it is necessary that they should bear in mind the subjects mentioned in the previous chapter. We said— : 1. Natural rights exist due to the fact that nature has a definite aim, and, keeping that aim in sight, it has placed certain abilities in the being p: 184 of created things, and given them rights. 2. A human being, because he is human being, benefits from a particular series of rights, which are called the rights of man, while animals do not benefit from these rights. 3. The method of determining natural rights and their special qualities, is to refer back to creation. Every natural aptitude is natural evidence for a natural right. 4. All individual human beings, as far as social life is concerned, have equal and identical natural rights the difference is in their acquired rights which depend upon work, the performance of duties and upon their taking part in the competition for carrying out these responsibilities, 5. All individual human beings’ rights in society are equal and identical. The reason for this is that a close study of the innate value of individual human beings brings to light that amongst them ( unlike in the case of gregarious animals such as bees) there is no one who is born a ruler or to be ruled, and likewise, no- one is born to submit or to be obeyed, to carry out orders or to command, to be a worker or to be the employer. They did not come into this world as commanders or soldiers. The careers of man are not demanded according to nature. Their tasks, jobs and responsibilities were not assigned by nature. 6, The theory of the identicalness of the rights of men and women is based upon the assumption that social life within the family is the same as p: 185 social life outside the family. The members of the family have equal and identical rights. A woman and a man with the same aptitudes and the same requirements join together in family life, and they have the same innate capabilities. The law of creation did not determine their status, and did not assigned certain tasks and functions to them. On the other hand, the theory of non- identicalness in family life is based upon the idea that the circumstances of family social life are different from those of social extra- familial life. A man and a woman do not join together in family life with the same aptitudes and the same requirements, and they do not possess the same natural capabilities. The law of creation has placed them in different positions, and has designed a particular orbit for each of them. Now, let us see which one of the above two theories is correct and find out in what way we can discover the correctness of one of them. According to the criteria that we have already laid down, it is not so difficult a matter to determine which one of the two views is correct. If we refer to the natural aptitudes and requirements of men and women, namely to the natural capabilities with which the law of creation has endowed every man and woman, it is possible to determine the right course of action. Is family life conditioned by nature or regulated by convention: We mentioned in the last section that p: 186 there are two views about human social life. Some think that mankind is by nature, social, and they consider man to be what is called “ gregarious” by nature. Others, on the other hand, consider social life to be based upon convention. They think that man, by his own free will, and under the pressure of certain unavoidable external factors ( not any inner drive) has made his choice and has agreed to live with his fellow man. Now, what about family life? Are there two opinions here? No, the family life of human beings is completely natural, that is, man is by nature created domestic. Suppose that we doubt whether the social life of man is natural; even then we cannot doubt whether his domesticity is natural or not. Many animals, for example, have a kind of “ married” life, like pigeons or certain insects which live in pairs, although they do not, by nature, have much social life, indeed, they may have none all. The question of family life is different from that of social life. Among human beings and among some animals there is a natural tendency towards a family life, establishing a home and having children, and this is according to a purposeful plan of nature. History does not have any evidence for the theory that man was at any time without a family life. In other words, neither did man and woman ever live separated from each other, nor did sexual relations between individuals take a communal or public form. The p: 187 life of wild tribes in the present age, which is considered to be a specimen of the life of primitive man, is also not like that. The life of primitive man, whether matriarchal or patriarchal, did take the form of family life.
The theory of the four eras As far as the question of the owner of property is concerned, it is admitted by all that in early times ownership took the form of joint- ownership and individual possession began after wards; but, in the case of sex, this has never been so. The reason that there was joint ownership in the early ages of human life was that at that time human society was arranged in tribes was based on the pattern of a large family. In other words, the members of a tribe who lived together shared the benefits as in family life. This was the reason for joint- ownership. In early times, let us suppose, there was no ides of law, or custom or tradition that could make man or woman responsible to each other. Only nature and their innate natural feelings bound them to certain duties and rights, but even then they never had unrestricted sexual relations. Just as with animals who live in pairs and abide by no social or positive law but under the law of nature, and conform their behavior to certain rights and duties, their life and sexual relations is not without cheeks and conditions. Mihr’ angiz Manuchihriyan in the introduction to her book Intiqad bar qavanin- e asasi va madani- e Iran p: 188 ( Criticism of the Constitution and Civil Law of Iran) writes“ : According to sociology, the life of men and women in the different parts of the world is passing through one of these four eras: 1. The natural era; 2. The era of male dominance: 3. The era of female protest; 4. The era of the equality of the rights of men and women. “ In the first era men and women associate and have sexual relations with each other without any restriction or condition” . Sociology does not agree with the above statement. What sociology accepts at the most is that amongst some tribes, and sometimes, some brothers may marry some sisters jointly. All the brothers can have sexual relations with all the sisters, and the children are related to all of them. In other instances, adolescent boys and girls, before they get married, are not bound by any restrictions, and only marriage imposes limitations over them. If it happens that the situation as regards sexual behavior is in some savage tribes more generalized than this and woman is, as it were, a “ public” woman, that is an exceptional state of affairs and should be considered a case of deviation from the natural and normal situation. In his The Story of Civilization, vol. 1, Will Durant writes: “ Our animal forefathers invented it. Some birds seem to live as reproducing mates in a divorceless monogamy. Among gorillas and orangutans the association of the parents continues to the end of the breeding season, and has many p: 189 human Features. Any approach to loose behavior on the part of the female is severely punished by the male. The Orangs of Borneo, says in De Crespigny‘ , live in families: the male, the female, and a young one’; and Dr. Savage reports of the gorillas that ‘ it is not in usual to see the ‘ old folks’ sitting under a tree regaling themselves with fruit and friendly chat, while their children are leaping around them and swinging from branch to branch in boisterous merriment’ . Marriage is older than man. “ Societies without marriage are rare, but the sedulous inquirer can find enough of them to form respectable transition from the promiscuity of the lower mammals to the marriage of primitive men” . The message is that family feelings are a natural and instinctive matter for a human being. It is not a product of habit or the result of civilization, it is just as for many animals who naturally and instinctively have a drive towards family feelings. As a result we hold that there never was a period for mankind in which male and female, without any kind of restriction, condition or obligation, however natural, lived a completely free conjugal life. Such an imaginary stage is like sexual communism, which even the upholders of economic communism never claimed to have found any traces of in early times. The theory of four eras in the relations between man and woman is a bungled imitation of the theory of four eras which socialists believe in p: 190 as regards the ownership of property. They say that mankind has traversed four eras as regards ownership: the first stage that of common property; then the stage of feudalism; then capitalism; and finally the stage of socialism and communism, which is a return to the first stage of common property, but on a higher level. We are in for a pleasant surprise when Ms. Manuchihriyan gives the relationship of men and women the name of ‘ equality of rights of men and women’ and does not follow the socialists in this matter, and does not give the last era the name of “ common property”. Although the above- named lady believes that between the fourth era and the first era there is much similarity, the reason she gives for it is that “ In the fourth era, which has much similarity with the first era, man and woman live together with absolutely no kind of domination or superiority of one over the other. I am still at a loss to understand what Ms. Manuchihriyan really means by ‘ much similarity’. If she only means the non- domination and non- supremacy of man, and an equality of undertakings and conditions between each other, how do a similarity exist between each other, how does the similarity exist between the present era and the era when, according to her, there existed no undertaking, no condition and no limits whatsoever, and men and women did not lead a family life. If the underlying idea is that during the fourth era all p: 191 limitations and undertakings will gradually disappear, family life will be abolished, and sort of sexual communism will prevail, it shows that the idea of these fervent believers in ‘ equality of rights’ is something other than all other supporters of equality of rights imagine and demand. It would probably by rather horrifying for them. We shall now divert our attention towards the nature of the family rights of men and women. In this connection, we should keep two things in mind: one of them is to see whether men and women have any difference in their nature, or not. In other words whether the differences of men and women are only as far as concerns the sexual organs, or whether the differences are more profound than this. The other thing is whether, if the differences and dissimilarities are there, they are of the kind which have an effect in the determination of their rights and duties, or whether these are only differences of color and birth which have no relevance to the nature of human rights.
Woman in nature I do not think that there is a need for arguments to decide the first issue. Everyone who has studied this subject knows that the differences between men and women do not merely concern the sexual organs only. If there is anything which is worth thoughtful consideration, it is whether these differences have any effect in determining the rights and duties of men. European thinkers and scholars have satisfactorily explained the first issue. The close study of p: 192 biology and psychology and also the social aspect of this question by these eminent thinkers does not give the least occasion for an objection concerning this issue. The aspect which attracted their attention less was how far these dissimilarities can have an effect in determining family rights and duties, and as a result put men and women in different positions. In his well- known book Man the Unknown, the world- famous French physiologist, surgeon and biologist Alexis Carrel admits both issues, that is, he acknowledges the fact that men and women, according to the law of creation, have been made differently, and adds that these differences and dissimilarities make their duties amid rights dissimilar. In the chapter headed “ Sex and Birth” he has discussed the subject. He says: Testicles and ovaries possess functions of overwhelming importance. They generate male and female cells. Simultaneously, they secrete into the blood certain substances, which impress the male or female characteristics on our tissues, humors, and consciousness, and give to all our functions their character of intensity. The testicle engenders audacity, violence and brutality, the qualities distinguishing the fighting bull from the ox drawing the plough along the furrow. The ovary affects the organism of the woman in an analogous manner………. The differences existing between man and woman do not come from the particular form of the sexual organs, the presence of the uterus, from gestation, or from the mode of education. They are of a more fundamental nature. They are caused by the very structure of p: 193 the tissues and by the impregnation of the entire organism with specific chemical substances secreted by the ovary. Ignorance of these fundamental facts has led promoters of feminism to believe that both sexes should have the same education, the same powers and the same responsibilities. In reality, woman differs profoundly from man. Every one of these cells of her body bears the mark of her sex. The same is true of her organs, and, above all, of her nervous system. Physiological laws are as inexorable as those of the sidereal world. They cannot be replaced by human wishes. We are obliged to accept them just as they are. Women should develop their aptitudes in accordance with their own nature, without trying to imitate the males. Their part in the progress of civilization is higher than that of men. They should not abandon their specific functions” . After the explanation regarding the way in which the cells of the male sperm and female ovule are created, and how their union with each other takes places; and after pointing out that it is the existence of the female and not the male which is essential for the generation of offspring, he says that pregnancy fully develops the body and soul of a woman. At the end of the chapter he says: The same intellectual and physical training, and the same ambitions, should not be given to young girls and to boys. Educators should pay very close attention to the organic and mental peculiarities of p: 194 the male and the female, and to their natural functions. Between the two sexes are irrevocable differences. And it is imperative to take them into account in constructing the civilized world. ( ” pp. 89 — 90 and 92) As you have seen, this eminent thinker states the great number of natural differences between men and women, and also believes that these differences, in terms of their functions and rights, place men and women in different positions. In the next chapter, also, we shall quote the writings of thinkers concerning the differences between men and women, and we shall infer from these in which areas of human activity they have similar abilities and requirements and in which they should have similar rights, and in which areas they do not have the same positions and in which they should have dissimilar rights and duties. In the study and determination of the family rights and duties of men and women this is one of the most sensitive areas.
Part Seven: The Differences Between Woman and Man point The differences between woman and man! What an absurd idea! In spite of our living in the second half of the twentieth century, there are still people here and there, who think as if they were in the Middle Ages, and maintain old and out- of- date ideas of differences between women and men, and think that men and women are not the same as each other. No doubt they wish to infer, like the men of middle ages, that woman is an inferior sex; that woman is not full human p: 195 being; that woman is the link between animals and mankind. They think a woman does not have the ability or the esteem to live an independent and free life, and that she is obliged to live under the patronage and guardianship of man. Anyhow, ideas like these are now obsolete and out- of- date. Now it is established that all those idle speculations were quite fictitious, and that, in the period of their domination over women, men had vigorously supported these arguments, while the true position was really just the reverse. Woman, as a matter of fact, is the superior sex and man is the inferior and imperfect sex. But no in the twentieth century, due to the astonishing progress of science, the differences between men and women have become clearer and more well- defined. There is no idle speculation or fiction, in these hard facts. These are scientific and experimental realities. Nonetheless, these differences have in no way any bearing on the question as to whether woman or man is or is not the superior sex, the other sex being lower inferior or imperfect. The law of creation brought these differences into being in order to make the relationship of a man and a woman within the family more firm, and the foundation of their unity more secure. The law of creation planned these differences so as to allocate with its own hands the rights and duties of women and men. The law of creation has laid down these differences in men and p: 196 women with a purpose, just like the purpose that is found in the differentiation of the functions of the different organs within a single body. If the law of creation has designed every organ, the eyes, the ears, the legs, the hands and the spine in a particular form, it is not because it has given a preference to two eyes, for example, and has unduly discriminated in their favour, showing cruelty to one part as compared with another. Is it a question of symmetry or one of imperfection and perfection? One of the things which surprise me is that some people insist that the difference between men and women in their physical and psychological make- up should be depicted as women being imperfect and man being comparatively perfect. This would show that the law of creation had some ulterior motive in creating woman an imperfect being. The idea that a woman is an imperfect creature arose among the people of the west before it did among us easterners. Men of the west were quite unjust in their jeering at women and in calling her imperfect. Sometimes they claimed to be representing the church and remarked‘ , A woman should be ashamed of being a woman’. Sometimes they said Woman is a being who has long hair and is short of understanding‘ ’. A woman is the last of all savage beasts that man has tamed‘ ’ . A woman is the last link between animals and human beings,’ and so on. More surprising than this is that a section of the people to the west have recently done a p: 197 complete volte- face, and now want to prove by one thousand and one different arguments that man is an imperfect, inferior and humble being, and that woman is perfect and superior sex. If you, my dignified reader, had gone through the book The Natural Superiority of women written by Ashley Montague, which was serialized in Zan- e ruz, you would have seen how strenuously and with what shower of nonsensical talk the author wanted to prove that woman is more perfect than man. That book, in so far as it presents the results of the discoveries of medicine, psychology or social statistics is very valuable, but when the writer himself proceeds to draw “ inferences” and wants to deduce conclusions in support of his theory, which is represented by the title of the book, he goes to the extremes of nonsense. Why should they consider woman to be so inferior and worthless an object one day and then be obliged the next day to make amends for the past and do away with all deficiencies and defects from the face of woman and transfer them to the face of man? Why should it be necessary to interpret the differences between man and woman as an imperfection in one and perfection in the other, and be obliged, at one time, to take the side of one and, at another time, to support the other? On the one hand, Mr. Montague insists on representing woman a species superior to man, yet, on other hand, he represents the p: 198 distinctive attributes of man as being the result of historical and social factors and not the result of natural factors. In fact, the differences between men and women are a matter of symmetry and not one of imperfection or perfection. It is the intention of the law of creation that these differences should be the source of a better relationship between women and men, who are without doubt created to live together. To live a single life is contrary to the law of creation. This point will become clearer during our subsequent discussion in connection with our clarifications of the differences.
Plato’ s theory: This matter is not one that has only recently been put out for discussion. It is at least two thousand four hundred years old, because it was discussed in the same form in Plato’ s Republic. Plato claims, in unambiguous terms, that women and men possess similar capabilities, and that women can carry out all the obligations and responsibilities which men are charged with, and benefit from all the rights that men enjoy. The origin of all the new ideas which have come up for consideration concerning woman and, what is more, certain other ideas which people in the twentieth century have deemed to be excessive and consider unacceptable are also found in the thoughts of Plato. That these ideas belong to a man who is called the father of philosophy may look strange to the reader. Plato in Book V of his Republic, argued in favour of the State’ s control p: 199 over women and children in connection with the improvement and the well- being of different generations, of its depriving some women, and men of their right to reproduce, and of its allocation of the right to reproduce exclusively to those who have especially excellent and distinctively superior qualities. He further more urged in favour of the arrangement whereby the education and training of children was carried on outside the environment of the family, and of permitting reproduction only in certain years of the lives of men and women, the age at which they would be most full of vitality and vigor. Plato is of the opinion that women should also be given military training in exactly the same way as men and that they should also take part in athletic competitions exactly as men do. However, there are two noteworthy points in what Plato said. Firstly, he admits that women in Physical as well as spiritual and mental powers are weaker than men, that is, he admits of a difference between women and as regards quantity, but he does not believe in their being different as regards the quality of their talents. Plato believes that men and women an alike in their talents, though, of course, woman is weaker than man in all respects; but, he asserts, it does not necessarily follow that men and women have a special ability to do one task rather than another. Plato thanks God for his being born a man and not woman especially because he considers p: 200 woman to be weaker than man. He says“ ; I thank God that I was born a Greek and not other than Greek, that I came to this world as a free person and not a slave, and that I was born a man and not a woman” . The other thing is that whatever Plato said in respect of the well- being of children, their training, the similarity of the make- up of men and women, and the state’ s control on women and children, all of it concerns the ruling class, that is, philosopher- rulers, whom he considers specifically worthy to be rulers. As we know, Plato is, in politics, against democracy and favors an aristocracy. All that Plato said concerned the aristocratic class, and as far as people out that class are concerned his views were different. Aristotle against Plato: After Plato, the other figure of the ancient world whose thoughts and opinions we are acquainted with is Plato’ s pupil Aristotle. In his Politics, he expressed his ideas concerning the differences between women and men, and vehemently opposed his teacher, Plato. Aristotle believes that the difference between women and men is not only in the quantity of their abilities, but also in the quality. He says the nature of the abilities of woman and man is different, and that the functions which the law of creation imposes upon each one of them and the rights which have been designated to them are different in many respects. According to Aristotle excellence in the morals of p: 201 men and women are also different in many respects. A certain behavior may be regarded as a virtue for a man, and yet may not be commendable for a woman, and in exactly the same way a certain behavior or comportment may be praise- worthy and excellent for woman, but not considered worthy of a man. The views of Aristotle ousted the views of Plato in the ancient world, and the thinkers coming after them gave preference to the views of Aristotle over those of Plato. The opinion of the modern world: All that has been stated above concerns the ancient world. Now we have to see what the modern world says. The modern world does not rely on mere guesses and conjectures. Instead, relies on observation and experiment, on statistics and figures, on the study of the thing itself. In the light of profound medical psychological and social studies, more and multifarious differences between women and men have been discovered. These could not have been discovered by any means in the ancient world. Those in the ancient world who used to judge men and women did it simply on the grounds that one has a large frame and the other a smaller one; one is more coarse and the other more delicate; one is taller and the other shorter; one has a stronger voice and the other is soft- speaking; one is more hairy and the other has a more smooth body. The greatest extent they went to was to take into account the difference in the time p: 202 of puberty, or to look at the differences in intellect and sentiments. Man was considered a symbol of intellect and woman a symbol of kind and affectionate feelings. However, other kinds of differences have recently been discovered besides these, and it has been discovered that the worlds of women and men are different to each other in many respects. We shall mention all the differences between women and men which we were able to gather from the writings of the great scientists, and then we shall deal with the question as to how many of these differences are based in nature, and how many are the result of historical, cultural or social factors. A number of these differences can be listed by anybody after a little experience and attention, and some of them are so clear and self- evident as to be impossible to deny. Reciprocal differences: Physique: Man, normally, is of a larger frame and woman has a smaller body; man is taller and woman is shorter; man is more coarse and woman is more delicate; man has a stronger voice and is harsh in his tone, while woman is more soft speaking and more melodious in her voice; the development of a woman’ s body takes place sooner than the development of man’ s body to the extent that it is universally said that the fetus of a girl develops sooner than that of a boy. The muscular development and strength of a man’ s body is greater than that of a woman. A woman’ s p: 203 power of resistance to many diseases is greater than a man’ s. Woman reaches the age of puberty earlier than man, and also becomes unproductive sooner as regards the reproduction powers. A girl starts speaking earlier than a boy. The normal brain of a man is larger than the normal brain of a woman, but with attention to the proportional size of their bodies, the brain of a woman is larger than that of a man. The lungs of a man have the capacity to inhale more air than the lungs of a woman. A woman’ s heartbeat is quicker than a man’ s. Psychology: Man has a greater preference for physical exercise, hunting, tasks involving movement, than a woman. The sentiments of man are challenging and war- like, while the sentiments of woman are peaceable and convivial. Man is more aggressive and quarrelsome, and woman is more quiet and more calm. A woman refrains from taking drastic action, both with regard to others and with regard to herself, and this is the reason for the smaller number of suicides in women than in man. In a mood for suicide, man will take a hastier course in comparison with woman. Men will use a gun, hang themselves, shoot themselves, or jump from the top of a lofty building, while women tend to use sleeping pills, poison, and so forth, in such a crisis. The feelings of woman are aroused quicker than a man’ s. Her sentiments are excited sooner than those of man; that is, p: 204 a woman, in matters with which she is involved or of which she is afraid reacts sooner and with more acuteness just as she feels, while a man is more cool headed. A woman is naturally more disposed than a man towards decoration, ornaments, beautification, adornment and dress. The feelings of woman are more transient than those of man. Woman is more cautious, more religious, more talkative, more timid and more formal than man. The feelings of a woman are motherly and these feelings are clearly visible in her childhood. Woman is more concerned with the family, and her attention is subconsciously directed more than man towards the importance of a home. In activities based on reasoning, and in abstruse intellectual problems, woman cannot equal man but in literature, painting and all matters that are related to aesthetics, she is not behind man. Man has more ability to keep a secret than woman and he keeps unpleasant private matters to himself better than a woman. This is the reason why men are victims to some psychological illnesses more than women. These illnesses develop as a result of his keeping his confidences to himself. Woman is more soft- hearted, and instantly resorts to weeping, and occasionally to fainting. Feeling towards each other: Man is the slave of his own passions and woman holds herself fast in the love of man. A man loves a woman, because he has admired her or chosen her while a woman loves a man because she has perceived p: 205 his worth or has previously made an avowal of her sincerity. Man wants to take possession of the person of the woman and to wield power over her, and woman wants to conquer the heart of man and prevail upon him through his heart. Man wants to master woman through her head, and woman wants to influence man through his heart. Man has a desire to embrace woman and woman has a desire to be embraced. Woman desires to see bravery and courage in man and man wants to see elegance and charm in woman. Woman considers the support of a man the most valuable thing for her. Woman is able to control her sexual drive more than man. The sexual drive of man is aggressive and that of woman passive and inciting.
The differences between woman and man 2 In issue no. 90 of Zan- e ruz, the view of an eminent American Professor of psychology Prof. Reek , ) (? was published. For many years, he had been making investigations and conducting research into the conditions of woman and man and he had arrived at certain concrete conclusions; he listed a lot of differences between woman and man in a voluminous book. This professor says that the world of man is totally different from the world of woman. If a woman cannot think like a man or act like a man, this is because the worlds of both are different. He observed that in the Old Testament it is mentioned that ‘ Man and woman have come into being from one p: 206 flesh’. Yes, no doubt both have come into being from one flesh, but they have dissimilar bodies, and, taken as a whole, are different from each other. Moreover, the feelings of these two beings can never be alike, and their reactions to events and circumstances will never be the same. Man and woman take different actions according to and consistent with, their true sexual dispositions, and just like two planets they revolve in their two different orbits. They can have understanding between each other and be completely at one but they can never be one. This is the reason why man and woman can live together, love each other and not get tired and bored with their particular and distinctive qualities and behaviors. Prof. Reek made a comparative study of the mentalities of men and women and pointed out a number of differences. Among others, he said that it is boring for a man to be always in the company of the woman he loves, whereas nothing is more pleasant for a woman than to live by the side of a man she loves. Man , in his heart, wishes to remain always in the same state day after day, while a woman always wants to have a new being and to rise every morning from bed with a new look. The best words that a man can say to a woman are“ : My dear. I love you” and the most beautiful words that a woman can say to the p: 207 man she loves are“ : I am proud of you”. If a man has had relations with several lovers during his life, that man is considered attractive in the eyes of other women. On the other hand, a woman who has had relations with more than one man is disliked by men. When they are old men have a feeling of unhappiness because they miss their main support in life, that is, their work, but old women on the contrary feel satisfied because they have the best thing in front of their eyes, namely a home and some grand- children. In the eyes, of men, a successful life means to be regarded as a respectable personality in public, while in the eyes of a woman success means to win the heart of one man, and to hold and sustain it for the whole, of her life. A man always likes to convert his spouse to his opinions and nationality, while for a woman after marriage to change her beliefs and nationality to that of the man she loves is as easy as changing her family name. The masterpiece of creation: Apart from the controversy as to whether the dissimilarities between men and women necessarily cause differences in their rights and duties concerning household matters, this phenomenon is basically one of the most amazing masterpieces of creation, and is a lesson in the Unity of God and in knowledge of Him, a sign and an indication of the wise and efficient order of the universe and clear p: 208 evidence for proof of the fact that the process of creation is not based upon mere chance— nature does not go through its processes blindly, as if in the dark. It is an enlightening proof of the reality that the phenomena of the universe cannot be explained without invoking the fundamental principle of a final cause. So as to arrive at its own goal and to preserve its nature the gigantic apparatus of creation has brought into being the great device of reproduction. From its own workshop, females of the same species and males of the same species are continuously brought into existence. Since, in order to maintain and prolong the existence of the subsequent generations, the cooperation of the two sexes, especially in the human species, is required, and so as to persuade these two sexes to help each other in this work, the foundation of their union and unity was laid. It has been arranged in such a way that self- assertion and the seeking of ones own interest, which is natural in every living being is transformed into service, cooperation, forbearance and self- denial. The two sexes are made with the desire to live together; and to make the plan completely practical, remarkable physical and mental differences are established between them, so that their bodies and souls can be better united. These differences are the source of mutual attraction, and are designed so that the male and female should feel love for each other. If woman had had the p: 209 body, spirit, manners and behavior of a man, it would have been impossible for her to attract man towards herself, and make him eager to become united with her. Likewise, if man had all the physical and mental attributes of a woman, it would have been impossible for woman to regard him as the hero of her life, and consider that her highest art is to hunt and conquer his heart. Man is born to conquer the world, and woman to conquer man. The law of creation has constituted and built man and woman according to such a pattern that they are attached to and seek each other, but not in the way in which they are attracted to other things. The interest that a human being has in other things arises from his self- interest, in other words, a human being wants things for himself. He sees them as a means; he wants to sacrifice them for himself and for his comforts. But the attachment of a husband and a wife is in such a way that each of then wishes the will- being and comfort of the other, and is happy in forbearance and self- denial for the sake of the other. A union stronger than passion: It is strange that some people cannot distinguish between ‘ passion’ and ‘ affection’. Such people think that the only factor which can unite a couple is desire and passion, the motive of taking advantage, of benefiting, the same sort of interest that a person has in food, p: 210 drink, clothes and cars. They do not know that besides selfishness and the desire to exploit, there are other interests who are innate and natural. These interests do not have their roots in self- interest. The source of such attachments is exactly the reverse of what they think. These relations have their source in self- denial, forbearance and a preference of discomfort for oneself so as to ensure the comfort of the other. These are the relationships which reveal the humanity of human beings. Indeed, some of these sentiments are observed, as far as the couple and their offspring are concerned, even in animals. These persons imagine that a man has always looked and still looks towards a woman in the same way as a young westerner looks at street- walker, as if it is only passion which could unite the two of them. As a matter of fact, the union which constitutes the basis of the unity of the husband and the wife is greater than passion. It is the same thing which the holy Qur’ an mentions with the name of “ mawaddah( ” love) and “ rahmat( ” mercy). وَرَحْمَةً مَوَدَّةً بَیْنَکُمْ وَجَعَلَ إِلَیْهَا لِتَسْکُنُوا أَزْوَاجًا أَنْفُسِکُمْ مِنْ لَکُمْ خَلَقَ أَنْ آیَاتِهِ وَمِنْ And of His signs is that He created for you, of yourselves, spouses that you might repose in them, and He has set between you love and mercy. Surely in that are signs for a people who consider( . Qur’ an, 30: 21) How fallacious it is to explain the history of the relations of man and woman p: 211 thinking only of the idea of profiting and exploiting, and, as it was previously mentioned, basing this on the struggle for survival. We have already referred to how much nonsense has been written about this. When I read some of their writings and their elucidations of the history of the relations of man and woman, I find that the only principle these people employ is that of contrast. They suppose that men and women are two different classes of society which have always been in conflict and at war with each other. Truly, it is all amazing for me, and I deplore their lack of reason and judgment. If they can account for the history of the relations of fathers and their children in terms of profit and exploitation, they can also interpret the history of wives and husbands in the light of that point of view. It is true that man is stronger than woman, but the law of creation has so constituted man instinctively that he could not perpetrate on his wife the atrocities which he has inflicted or his slaves, serfs, inferiors and even his neighbors, just as he could not practice that sort of cruelty with his own sons and daughters. I do not deny the cruelties of men towards women, but refuse to accept the interpretation that is put forth concerning those cruelties, throughout history, men have inflicted a great many cruelties on women, but the motivation for these cruelties was the same as that p: 212 which caused them to be cruel to their children, in spite of their great concern for them, their careers and their welfare. These were, of course, the very things which caused them to be cruel to themselves as well, and the root cause was ignorance, fanaticism and traditionalism, but not the will to exploit. If I get time, I will give a detailed exposition regarding the history of the relations of men and women at an opportune occasion. Reciprocal differences in the feelings of men and women towards each other: Man and woman do not differ from each other only in their outlook towards matters of family life, the very way in which, they are attached to each other is different. To be more clear the nature of the attachment of man to woman is not the same as the nature of the attachment of woman to man. Despite of the fact that attraction is mutual, still, unlike inanimate bodies, the smaller body attracts the bigger body towards itself. Creation has designed man as a symbol of searching, loving and demanding, and woman as a symbol of love and attraction. The sentiments of man are characterized by asking, and the sentiments of woman are towards demureness; the sentiments of man are to seek, while the sentiments of woman are to be sought. Quite recently the photograph of a young Russian girl who had committed suicide appeared in one of our daily newspapers. The girl had written on the paper which she had left behind: ‘ Up to this time no man has kissed p: 213 me, and life is unbearable for me’. This was the cause of a great defeat for a girl, that she had not been loved by a man or kissed by him; but which young man would he disappointed from life if a girl had not kissed him, or if he had not kissed a girl? In his detailed and comprehensive discussion, Will Durant says that if the criterion of the preference for, or worth of, a girl were learning and intellectual achievements, and not natural charm and subliminal cleverness, girls with lesser academic achievements would not have been very successful in finding husbands. The true position, however, is that sixty per cent of university women are without husbands. He says that Sonia Kovalevsky, a distinguished scientist, complained that no one would marry her“ . Why can no one love me? I could give more than most women, and yet the most insignificant women are loved and I am not( ” The Pleasures of Philosophy, p. 136) Please note that the nature of the feelings of disappointment of this lady is different from what the disappointment of a man would be. She says“ : Why does nobody want me”. ? In the affair of finding a wife, a man feels defeat when he is unable to get the woman he loves, or if he gets her and is unable to keep her under control.
All these matters have a philosophy behind them: a stronger and deeper bond of attraction and unity. And why this attraction? Is it so p: 214 that men and women can get more pleasure out of life? No, not just that; rather it is the foundation of human society and the structure of the maintaining and training of the coming generation which is laid on that base.
The view of a female psychologist In issue no. 101 of Zan- e ruz, the opinion of a female psychologist, Cleo Dalsun was quoted. This lady says that in so far as she is a woman psychologist, she is keenly interested in the study of the mentality of me. In recent past, she says, she was commissioned to research into the psychological factors in women and men and she came to the following conclusions: 1. All women like to work under somebody else. In other words, they prefer to work as a subordinate under the supervision of some superior. 2. All women want to feel that their existence creates, and is a matter of need. After that this lady mentions her own opinion. She says that she believes these two desires of women have their root in the fact that women are under the commands of their feelings, whereas men follow their reason. It has been observed very often she goes on, that women are not only equal to men as far as intelligence is concerned, but are sometimes better than them. The only weak point in women is the intensity of their feelings. Men always think in more practical ways, arrive at better conclusions, are better organizers and give better instructions. So the mental superiority of men p: 215 over women, she reasons, is something which is planned by nature. However much women may fight against this matter of fact, it will prove fruitless. Because they are more sensitive than men, women should accept the reality that they need the supervision of men their life. The most important aim in the life of woman is security, and when she succeeds in fulfilling her aim, she ceases to be active. A woman is afraid of facing the dangers involved in achieving her aim. Fear is the only feeling which they need help in order to dispel. Those tasks which require continued mental effort make women bored and tired. A hasty movement: The movement that was started in Europe to restore the suppressed rights of women took place haphazardly and in a great hurry because they were very late in starling it. Feelings did not let reason speak and be taken as their guide, and that was how everything good and bad was washed away in one wave. This movement helped woman out of many misfortunes, gave her many rights, and opened closed doors for her, but, in exchange, it created a lot of other misfortunes and miseries for her and for human society in general. No doubt, if these matters had not been taken up hurriedly, the restoration of women rights would have taken a far better course. In that case the wailings of wise people against the present unpleasant situation and the even more horrendous future would not have reached the skies. Anyhow, there p: 216 is still hope that knowledge and reason may prevail, and the feminist movement, instead of being led, as before, by feelings, will listen to the advice of knowledge and reason. The fact that the distinguished thinkers of Europe have given expression to their views on this matter is by itself a sign of hope in this direction. It can be seen that concerning the relations of men and women, the people of the west are themselves fed up and bored with their own behavior, the very same behavior with which the imitators of the west have recently become intoxicated. The view of Will Durant: In part four of his book The Pleasures of Philosophy, Will Durant has made a very detailed and comprehensive analysis of the problem of sex and the family. We shall make a short selection of certain parts of that book for our readers so that they may have an idea of the way of thinking of western scholars and abstain from passing hasty judgments. Under the heading of “ Love” Will Durant writes: “ It is at puberty that love sings its first clear song. Literally puberty means the age of hair — the sprouting of vegetation on the male, particularly hair on the chest, of which he is barbarically proud, and hair on the face and chin, which he removes with the patience of Sisypus. The quality and abundance of the hair seem to rise and fall ( other things equal) with the cycle of reproductive power, and are at their best at the acme of p: 217 vitality. This sudden foliage along with the deepening of the voice, is among the “ secondary sexual characters” that come to the male at puberty; while to the blossoming girl nature brings the softened contours that will lure the eye, the widened pelvis that will facilitate maternity, and the filled out breast that is used to nurse the child. ‘ What causes these secondary characteristics? No one knows, but professor Starling has found favour for his theory that when puberty comes, the reproductive cells begin to produce not merely ova and sperms, but certain “ hormones” which pass into the blood and cause a physical and psychical transformation. It is not only the body that is now endowed with new powers; the mind and character are affected in a thousand ways‘ . There are in life,’ said Romaine Rolland‘ , certain ages during which there takes place a silently working change in a man- ’ or in a woman. This is the most important of them all. New feelings flood the body and the soul; curiosity drives the mind forward, and modesty holds it back( ’ . pp. 107- 108) “‘ All men,’ says de Muset ‘ are liars, traitors, babblers, hypocrites, strutters; all women are vain, artificial, and perfidious… ; but there is in the world one thing holy and sublime and that is the union of these two imperfect beings( ’” . ibid, . p. 110) “ In, adults the ritual of courtship is acquisitive advance by the male and seductive retreat by the female. There are exceptions here and there… Usually the male takes p: 218 the positive and aggressive role, because he is by nature the fighter and the beast of prey; the woman is to him a prize which he must conquer and possess. All courtship is combat, and all mating is mastery( ” . ibid. p. 111) “ The superior modesty of woman obviously subserves the purposes of reproduction. Her coy retreat is an aid to sexual selection; it enables her to choose with greater discrimination the lover who shall be privileged to be the father of her children. The interest of the race and the group speak through her, as the interests of the individual find their strident voice in man... Woman is cleverer than man in love because, normally, her desire is less intense and does not obscure her judgment( ” . ibid, p. 117) “ Darwin considered the female of most species to be comparatively indifferent to, love; Lombroso, Kisch, Krafft- Ebing… will have us believe…. that ( …. it) is not physical delight that woman seek, so much as an indiscriminate admiration and a lavish attention to her wants and in many cases the sheer pleasure of being desired contents her‘ ... Love in woman’, says Lombroso ‘ is in its fundamental nature no more than a secondary character of motherhood, and all the feelings of affection that bind woman to man arise not from sexual impulses, but from the instincts — acquired by adaptation — of subordination and self- surrender ( ibid, . pp, l17- 118) In the chapter gathered together under the title “ Men and Women”, Will Durant writes “ The p: 219 function of the woman is to serve the species, and the function of the man is to serve the woman and the child. They may have other functions also, but wisely subordinate to these; it is in these fundamental and half unconscious purposes that nature has placed our significance and our happiness.... The woman’ s nature is to seek shelter rather than war; and in some species the female seems quite without the instinct of pugnacity. When she fights directly it is for her children( ” . ibid. p. 119) “ She is more patient than man; and though he has more courage in the larger issues and crises of life, she abounds in diurnal and perennial fortitude for facing the smaller and endless irritations of existence….. But woman is pugnacious vicariously. She goes for a soldier and delights in a masterful man; some strange masochistic element in her thrills at the sight of strength, even when its victim is herself( ” . ibid. pp 119- 120) “ Occasionally this ancient joy in virility overrides her more recent economic sense, and she will marry a fool if he is brave. She submits gladly to a man who can command; if she seems less submissive in our days it is because men have less force of character than before…. “ Woman’ s interests are familiar, and normally her environment is the home; she is as deep as nature and as narrow us four walls. Instincts adapt her to the traditional and she loves the traditional as any expert loves the sphere which reveals his p: 220 excellence. She is less experimental in mind and morals ( barring certain metropolitan exceptions; ) if she resorts to ‘ free love’ it is not because the finds freedom in it, but because she despairs of achieving normal marriage with a responsible male. How gladly she would draw the man closer to her and absorb him into the home! Even if, in younger years, she thrilled to the shibboleths of political reform, and spread her affection thin over all humanity, she withdraws these tentatives when she finds an honest mate; rapidly she weans him and herself from this universal devotion and teaches him an intense and limited loyalty to the family‘ . I would give the world for you,’ the youth says in courtship’ s ecstasy; and when he marries he does. “ It is just as well. The woman knows, without needing to think of it, that the only sound reforms begin at home; she serves as agent for the race when she transforms the wandering idealist into her children’ s devotee. Nature cares little about laws and states, her passion is for the family and the child; if she can preserve these she is indifferent to governments and dynasties, and smiles at those who busy themselves with transforming constitutions. If nature seems now to fail in this task of protecting the family and the child it is because woman has for the while forgotten nature. But it will not be long defeated; she can at any time fall back upon a hundred reserve expedients; there are p: 221 other races and other peoples, greater in number and extent than ourselves, through whom she can maintain her resolute and indiscriminate continuity( ” ibid, . pp. 120, 124, 125) This has been a short selection, of the statements of distinguished thinkers, about the differences between women and men, and their views in this connection. I had intended to discuss, under the heading of ‘ The Secret of Differences’, how far historical and social factors have been effective in bringing about these differences. Anyway, I dropped the idea of a comprehensive discussion of this matter, so as to abstain from enlarging the scope of the subject matter. I hope this matter will become completely clear in the course of future chapters.
- 19/08/04