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!
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.
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.
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."
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 .