لطفا منتظر باشید ...
The Second Harm: "The inability [of men] to fulfill the
wives'' rights, to forebear their [ill] manner and to bear patiently
their annoyance." (Ihya'' vol. 2, p. 118)
What is Imam Ghazali saying? Does he mean that
women in general are over-demanding, ill-mannered and a nuisance? Can he
really base this view on the Qur''an and sunnah of Prophet Muhammad
(peace be upon him)? I do not think so; and that is why we see that
Ghazali has produced only the sayings of some mystics in support of his
views. And it is obvious that this cannot be substantiated by the original
Islamic sources.
The Third Harm:
"The wife and children will distract him
from Allah and attract him towards seeking [the benefits of] this world
and planning a good life for his children by accumulating more
wealth...And whatever distracts a person from Allah whether wife, wealth
or childrenis disastrous for him." (Ihya'', vol. 2, p. 119)
If what Ghazali says is true, then not only
marriage, but children, friends, relatives and every material thing in
this world must be labeled as ''harmful'' to a Muslim because all these have
the potential of distracting a person from God and the hereafter. Here
Ghazali sounds more like St. Paul! And if this is true, then a Muslim
should have nothing to do with this world, he should just confine himself
to a cave in an isolated jungle or desert and pray to God! The absurdity
of this idea from the Islamic point of view is obvious.
What
Ghazali and other mystics say is not very much different from the monastic
ideas of the Christian Church. And, incidentally, they suffered the same
fate as the Christian monks. You have already read the comments of
''Allamah Rizvi about the monks that "when the nature took its revenge, the
monks and abbots cultivated the idea that they were representatives of
Christ, and the nuns were given the titles of ''brides of Christ.'' So with
easy conscience they turned the monasteries into centres of sexual
liberties." (see previous) Similarly, when nature took its revenge against
the Sufis, in the words of ''Allamah Mutahhari, they started to "derive
[sexual] pleasure in company of handsome persons and this work of theirs
is considered as a journey towards Allah! (Aklaq-e Jinsi, p. 67)
The Sufis have a concept of al-fanafi ''l-lah which means
''obliteration of the self into God''. In simple words, it means the
spiritual experience of becoming one with God. I am surprised how Ghazali
can consider marriage as a distraction from God when fana and
obliteration of two beings can be experienced in this world only in the
sexual context when husband and wife reach the climax and become one for a
few moments!
3. LOVE FOR GOD VIS-ہ-VIS LOVE FOR THIS WORLD
Imam Ghazali and other mystics have made a serious mistake in
understanding the concept of ''preparing for the hereafter''. And this is
what I would like to briefly clarify here. The concept of ''preparing for
the hereafter'' depends on one''s outlook about the relationship between
this world and the hereafter. There are three possibilities: 1. Submerge
in the blessings of this world and forget the hereafter; 2. Utilize this
world for the hereafter; 3. Forsake this world for the hereafter. The
mystics and Sufis have adopted the third alternative, whereas the
materialists have adopted the first alternative. Between these two
extremes, lies the true Islamic view. There are many verses of the Qur''an
which highly praise the blessings of this world, and many others which
strongly exhort the Muslims to seek the hereafter. Seen in isolation,
these verses can be used by the two groups to prove their extreme views.
But seen in the light of other verses which talk about the
inter-relationship of this world and the hereafter, one is guided to the
Qur''anic view. And it is obvious that you cannot isolate the verses of
Qur''an from one another, especially if they are talking about the same
issue. As I said earlier, this is not the place to fully discuss this
issue, but I will give a few examples from the Qur''an and the
sunnah to clarify the Islamic view about this world and the
hereafter.
The Qur''an says: "Seek, among that which God has
given to you, the hereafter, but do not forget your portion of this world
either."(28:77) Allah says, "And when the prayer has ended, spread
out in the world and seek the blessings of Allah and remember Him often,
haply you will succeed."(62:10)
Imam Hasan says, "Be for your
world as if you are going to live forever, and be for your hereafter as if
you are going to die tomorrow." (Wasa''il, vol. 12, p. 49) The Imam
is teaching you that Islam does not want you to forsake this world, it
wants you to totally benefit from it and love it but not to the extent
that you may forget the hereafter the hereafter, where your fate depends
on how obedient you were to God in your worldly life. Imam Musa al-Kazim
says, "The person who forsakes his world for the sake of his religion or
he who forsakes his religion for the sake of his world is not from us."
(Wasa''il, vol. 12, p. 49) In Islam, piety does not mean forsaking
this world and living in isolation in a desert or a monastery! Piety means
to live a normal life in the society but without forgetting the ultimate
destination, the purpose of our creation an eternal life in the hereafter.
Even the relationship between the love for God
and the love for one''s spouse, children, and the world at large is of the
same type. There are two levels of love in Islam: the love for God and the
love for everything else. Islam does not forbid a person to love the
spouse, children, parents, relatives, friends, and the worldly blessings
which Allah has given to him or her. However, what Islam expects is that
this love should be in harmony with the love for God, it should be based
on the love for God . The practical implication of this is that if a
conflict occurs between the demand of the love for God and the love for
anything else, then the love for God should take precedence. In Islam, God
is the axis of existence, He and nothing else is the Absolute Truth.
Allow me to explain this phenomenon in a metaphorical manner: the
moon revolves around the earth, but at the same time, it also revolves
around the sun. Moreover, the magnetic relationship between the moon and
the earth is a minor part of the overall magnetic force which makes the
planets revolve around the sun in our solar system. Similarly, in Islam
the love between two human beings is like the relationship of the moon and
the earth; and the love which a Muslim has for God is like the
relationship of the sun and the planets. Obviously, the first type of love
exists within the realm of the second. In other words, there are two
cycles of love: love for God and love for one''s husband, wife or children.
The first is a wider circle within which exists the second circle of love.
Remember, there is a fine difference between what we are saying
and what Mernissi and, to some extent, Ghazali have said. Mernissi says
that in Islam love between husband and wife is forbidden because love
should be devoted to God alone. Whereas we are saying that Islam does not
forbid love between husband and wife or love for anything else as long as
it is in harmony with the love for God. That is, it should not overwhelm
you to the extent of forsaking the love for God. This is clearly mentioned
in the Qur''an:
Say (O Muhammad), "If your fathers, your
sons, your brothers, your wives, your clan, (your) possessions which you
have acquired, (your)business which you fear may slacken and
(your)dwellings which you love (if these) are dearer to you than Allah,
His Messenger and struggling in His way, then wait till Allah brings
about His decision (on the day of judgement)."(9:24)
I would like to emphasize on the word "ahabbu
dearer." If Allah had said that "if your...are dear to you" than Mernissi
or others of her ideology might have been right in saying that Islam
expects exclusive love for Allah and that all other loves are forbidden.
But here Allah is talking in a comparative manner and says that if you
love other things or persons more than Allah, then you are wrong, because
such love could take you on the path of disobedience to the commands of
Allah and cause your perdition in the hereafter.
It is clear from
what we said above that the Islamic concept of love is not confined to
love for God vis-a-vis love for women, it is a universal concept in which
we talk about love for all persons and things. So it is absolutely
misleading to give a sexist context to this issue and say that the Islamic
sexual morality is an anti-women morality.
In conclusion, we can
say that the views of Mernissi and Ghazali that in Islam women are
sexually more active than men and that Islam does not tolerate love
between husband and wife cannot be substantiated from the original Islamic
sources, the Qur''an and the authentic sunnah.
C. CRITERION OF MORAL
AND IMMORAL
We have said
earlier that Islam does not agree with the suppression of sexual urges,
rather it promotes their fulfillment. But at the same time we have been
emphasizing that it must be done in a responsible and lawful way. In other
words, we have hinted that according to Islam sexual urges can be
fulfilled in two ways: lawful and unlawful or moral and immoral.
What is the criterion of moral and immoral in the Islamic
morality? Islam, like any other religion or ideology, has certain
fundamental beliefs and all its teachings must be in harmony with its
fundamentals. The foundation of Islam is the faith in One God, not just as
the Creator but also as the Law-Giver. The Qur''an is not just a book of
spiritual guidance, it is also a source of laws regulating our daily life.
"Islam," after all, means "submission to the will of God" The Qur''an says
clearly that "It is not for any believer man or woman, when God and His
Messenger have decreed a matter, to have the choice in the affair.
Whosoever disobeys God and His Messenger has gone astray into manifest
error."(33 :36)
So in Islam, the right and the wrong, the
moral and the immoral, the lawful and the unlawful is decided by Allah and
His Messenger. And, in our view, the Imams of Ahlu''l-bayt are the best
commentators of the Qur''an, the protectors of the authentic sunnah and
living examples of the teachings of Islam. In short, the criteria of
lawful and unlawful in Islam are the Qur''an, the authentic sunnah of the
Prophet and his Ahlu''l-bayt. The Shi''ah faith also emphasizes that
whatever Allah has decreed as lawful and unlawful is based on a
reasonmaterial or spiritual or both. However, God is Omniscient whereas we
are still at the shallow end of the deep ocean of knowledge, therefore it
is not always possible for us to understand the rationale behind each and
every command of God. The basic concept of sexual moralitythat sex is not
evil and should not be suppressedis a very obvious example of an Islamic
teaching which is in complete harmony with human reason and nature.
As soon as we say that Islam believes in regulating our sexual
behavior, we are confronted with the question about (1) regulating sex by
morality and (2) personal freedom in sexual behavior. These are the two
issues which we intend to discuss briefly before closing this chapter.
1.
REGULATING SEX BY MORALITY
The first question is, "Can sexuality
be regulated by morality?" We are told that "there cannot really be such a
thing as a specifically sexual morality. Morality attaches not to the
sexual act, but always to something else, with which it may be conjoined.
We may reasonably forbid sexual violence, say, but that is on account of
the violence; considered in and for itself, and detached from fortuitous
circumstances, the sexual act is neither right nor wrong, but merely
''natural''.''''(Quoted in Scruton, Sexual Desire, p. 2) The conclusion
of this idea is simple: since there can be no real sexual morality,
therefore, there should be no restrain, whatsoever, in sexual
gratification. Nothing should be considered immoral or unlawful!
This idea by itself is absurd. Sexuality is an act which mostly
involves two persons, and whenever two persons are involvedeven on secular
basislaws and regulations become necessary to regulate their behavior.
To provide a rational basis for this idea it is sometimes said
that many nervous and mental disorders take place because of the feeling
of sexual deprivation. The preventive measure for such nervous and mental
disorders is unrestrained gratification of sexual instinct. What they want
to say in simple words is that the more you restrict sex, the more people
will be attracted towards it and suffer the feeling of deprivation.
The libertine culture of the West actually enforced the
unrestrained sexual behavior in the West during last thirty years. And, by
keeping in mind the above arguments, one would expect to see a decline in
the number of nervous disorders, sexual frustration, rape, incest, child
abuse, and sexual assault. But has this really happened? No, of course,
not! A look at the statistics shows that all the so-called effects of
sexual deprivation have increased manifold in spite of the unrestrained
sexual mood of the 60s, 70s and 80s!
What actually happened was
that the Western world, after revolting against the suppression of sex by
the Christian system, mistook unrestrained sex for nurtured sex. Islam
does not accept the idea of suppressing the sexual instincts, instead it
encourages the nurturing of those feelings and fulfilling them in a
responsible way. Whatever restrictions Islam imposes on sex are based on
the idea of nurturing it. It is not different from the way we fulfill the
desire for food: you must eat, but not overfeed yourself. Similarly you
must fulfill your sexual desires, but not at the expense of the rights of
others and of your own body.
After rebelling against the
suppressive sexual morality of the Church, the libertarian culture went to
the other extreme of absolutely unrestrained sex. They made a big mistake
in thinking that restrictions, in any form, were unnatural and wrong. Even
Bertrand Russell, who strongly supports the libertarian view, had to
accept that some restrictions in sexual morality are necessary. He writes,
"I am not suggesting that there should be no morality and no
self-restraint in regard to sex, any more than in regard to food. In
regard to food we have restraints of three kinds, those of law, those of
manners, and those of health. We regard it wrong to steal food, to take
more than our share at a common meal, and to eat in ways that are likely
to make us ill. Restraints of a similar kind are essential where sex is
concerned, but in this case they are much more complex and involve much
more self-control." (Russell, Marriage and Morals, p. 293-294)
Russell, however, had difficulty in finding a new basis for sexual
morality. The dilemma which the Western world is facing at the present
time is very eloquently reflected in what Russell has written. He says,
"If we are to allow the new morality [of unrestrained sex] to take its
course, it is bound to go further than it has done, and to raise
difficulties hardly as yet appreciated. If, on the other hand, we attempt
in the modern world to enforce restrictions which were possible in a
former [Christian] age, we are led into an impossible stringency of
regulation, against which human nature would soon rebel. This is so clear
that, whatever the dangers or difficulties, we must be content to let the
world go forward rather than back. For this purpose we shall need a
genuinely new morality. I mean by this that obligations and duties will
still have to be recognized, though they may be very different from the
obligations and duties recognized in the past. .I do not think that the
new system any more than the old should involve an unbridled yielding to
impulse, but I think the occasions for restraining impulse and the motives
for doing so will have to be different from what they have been in the
past.'''' (Russell, Marriage and Morals, p. 91-92)
If Russell
had an opportunity to study Islam closely, I am sure he would have found
in it "a genuinely new morality" which regulated sex without leading into
"an impossible stringency of regulation."
2. ISLAM & PERSONAL
FREEDOM
The second question with which we are confronted by
secularists and liberals is that of personal freedom: "Am I not free to do
whatever I like as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of
others?"
I think it will be very helpful to point out the main
difference between Islam and the secular, liberal idea of personal
freedom. In the secular system, the rights are divided into two: rights of
an individual and rights of the society. A person is free to do whatever
he or she likes as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of other
people. To become an acceptable member of society, one has to accept this
limitation on his or her freedom. An individual''s freedom is only
restricted by the freedom of others. Islam, on the other hand, divides the
rights into three: rights of an individual, rights of the society, and
rights of God. A person is free to do whatever he or she likes as long as
it does not violate the rights of other people and God. To become a
Muslim, one has to accept this limitation on his or her personal freedom.
One more important difference is in the concept of individual''s
right. In secular usage, individual''s rights are seen in contrast to those
of the other members of society. Islam goes one step further and says that
even the body of an individual has some rights against the person himself.
In other words, Islam holds a person responsible even for the use of his
or her body. You are not allowed to abuse your own body or harm it. Allah
says, "The hearing, the sight, the heart all of these shall be
questioned of." (17:38) Describing the day of judgement, He says,
"On the day when their tongues, their hands, and their feet shall bear
witness against them as to what they were doing." (24:24) "On that
day We will put a seal upon their mouths, and their hands shall speak to
Us and their feet shall bear witness of what they were earning."
(36:65)
Imam Zaynu''l-''Abidn, in his Risalatu ''l-Huquq,
describes the rights which a person''s tongue, ears, eyes, feet, hands,
stomach and sexual parts have on him. If a person misuses or abuses his
body, then he is guilty of infringing the rights of his own body and also
the rights of God who has given the body as a trust to us. The Qur''an
says, "The believers are...those who protect their sexual organs except
from their spouse''s. . . Therefore, whosoever seeks more beyond that in
sexual gratification], then they are the transgressors."(23: 5-6)
In Islam, an individual''s rights are not limited only by rights of
the society but also by those of his own body and God. The justification
for this is very simple: Islam does not allow a person to harm or destroy
himself; and sin or immorality is a means of perdition. This limitation is
based on the love and concern which the Merciful God has for us. "Allah
does not desire to make any impediment for you, but He desires to purify
you and to complete His blessings upon you." (5:6)
The Islamic
concept of personal freedom may seem restrictive when compared to that of
the secular system, but its rationale and justification is accepted, in an
indirect way, even by the secular society. The logical consequences of the
secular idea of personal freedom is that a person is allowed to do
whatever he likes with himself; the only limitation is that he should not
infringe upon the rights of others. But the West has not been able to
totally swallow this idea as can be seen in the laws which place
restrictions on certain acts, for example, suicide or using narcotic drugs
and also the mandatory use of car seat-belts. By using narcotic drugs, the
addict is not infringing upon the rights of othersunless. of course, the
meaning of infringing upon others'' rights is stretched to include
spiritual values which are not part of the secular realmbut still the
Western society considers it unlawful and takes steps to prevent the
addicts from using drugs. This is justified by saying that it is the
society''s duty to prevent its citizens from harming themselves. In these
examples, we see that the secular system is retreating from the logical
consequences of its version of individual freedom. The only difference
remaining between the secular and the Islamic views is that the former
gives the right of restricting to the society while the latter view gives
that right to God.
In conclusion, we may say that the Islamic view
forbids not only the acts which infringe upon the rights of others but
also those which infringe upon the rights of the person''s own body. This
view is based on the love and concern which Allah has for human beings .
