Chapter Two (continued)

B. DEFENDING THE ISLAMIC VIEW
There are many non-Muslim writers, especially of liberal and feminist ideology, who have attacked the Islamic view of woman's sexuality. Their criticism is mostly based on some misconceived ideas about the Islamic sexual morality. Basically there are two problems with these writers: either they study Islam based on some Western social theories and models, or they are ill-equipped to study the original Islamic sources. They rely mostly on the work done on Islam by the Orientalists or the European travelers of the past centuries. In some cases, books like Thousand and One Nights and The Perfumed Garden are used to explain the Islamic view on women's sexuality! These books, at the most, reflect the Arab view of female sexuality not the Islamic view. Therefore, these writings do not even deserve refutation.

However, for our discussion I have selected the work of an Arab feminist writer, Fatima Mernissi. The reason for commenting on her work is that she is an Arab writer who had easy excess to Islamic literature and hadith, in particular Ihyau 'Ulumi 'd-Din of the famous Sunni scholar Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (d. 1111 C.E.). Moreover, Mernissi's book has been translated into various European and Asian languages and is becoming popular as an insider's report!

1. MERNISSI'S VIEWS

Fatima Mernissi's book, Beyond the Veil subtitled as "Male-Female Dynamics in Modern Muslim Society," is a study of the male-female relationship in the present Moroccan society. It is important to bear in mind that the attitude of the Muslims of Morocco does not necessarily represent Islam. However, Mernissi has discussed the Islamic sexual morality in a chapter entitled as "The Muslim Concept of Active Female Sexuality." The main part of her discussion centers on the comparison between the views of Freud and Ghazali on female sexuality. Mernissi has summarized her conclusion as follows:

The irony is that Muslim and European theories come to the same conclusion: women are destructive to the social order for Imam Ghazali because they are active, for Freud because they are not.

Then she goes on to describe the negative attitude of the Christian West and the positive attitude of Islam towards sexuality in general. She writes:

Different social orders have integrated the tensions between religion and sexuality in different ways. In the Western Christian experience sexuality itself is attacked, degraded as animality and condemned as anti-civilization. The individual is split into two antithetical selves: the spirit and the flesh, the ego and the id. The triumph of civilization implied the triumph of soul over flesh, of ego over id, of the controlled over the uncontrolled, of spirit over sex. Islam took a substantially different path. What is attacked and debased is not sexuality but women, as the embodiment of destruction, the symbol of disorder. The woman is fitna, the epitome of the uncontrollable, a living representative of the dangers of sexuality and its rampant disruptive potential...Sexuality per se is not a danger. On the contrary it has three positive, vital functions... (Beyond the Veil, p.44)

After describing the positive side of Islamic sexual morality, Mernissi attacks the concept of female sexuality in Islam as she has understood it from Ghazali's writings:

According to Ghazali, the most precious gift God gave humans is reason. Its best use is the search for knowledge...But to be able to devote his energies to knowledge, man has to reduce the tensions within and without his body, avoid being distracted by external elements, and avoid indulging in earthly pleasures. Women are dangerous distraction that must be used for the specific purpose of providing the Muslim nation with offspring and quenching the tensions of the sexual instinct. But in no way should women be an object of emotional investment or the focus of attention. which should be devoted to Allah alone in the form of knowledge-seeking, meditation, and prayer. (Beyond the Veil, p.45)

The conclusion which this ardent Arab feminist describes as the Islamic view can be summarized as follows: (a) Women are considered sexually active in the Islamic view; (b) therefore, women are a danger to the social order. (c) There should be no emotional investment in women; that is, a man should have no love for his wife. (d) Why should there be no love between husband and wife? Mernissi would answer that love should be exclusively devoted to Allah. Now let us deal with each of these premises and conclusions gradually and see whether or not they are based on any reliable Islamic sources.

(A)WOMEN ARE CONSIDERED SEXUALLY ACTIVE IN ISLAM

The statement that in Islam women are considered sexually active, can mean two different things: either they are more sexually active than men or they are as sexually active as men. In the first sense, it would mean that women have a stronger sex drive; and in the second sense, it would mean that women are as normal as men in their sexuality. By looking at the context of Mernissi's writing, I would be justified in saying that she is using this statement in the first sense, that is, women are more sexually active than men.

In my study of the Qur'an and authentic ahadith on this subject, I have not come across any statement which says that women are more sexually active than men. I can say with confidence that as far as Islam is concerned, there is no difference between the sexuality of men and women. There are, however, certain ahadith which can be used by Mernissi to prove that women are more sexually active than men provided she decides to stick to one part of those ahadith and ignore the other part! It is obvious that such partial use of hadith is an unacceptable academic exercise.

For example, in one such hadith, Asbagh bin Nubatah quotes Imam 'Ali as follows: "Almighty God has created the sexual desire in ten parts; then He gave nine parts to women and one to men. " If the hadith had ended here, Mernissi would be right in her claim, but the hadith goes on: "And if the Almighty God had not given the women equal parts of shyness, then each man would have nine women related to him." (Wasa'il, vol. 14, p.40) In other words, Allah has given the women greater part of sexual desire but He has also neutralized it by giving equal parts of shyness to them. Seen as a whole, this and other similar ahadith do not support the claim that in Islam women are more sexually active then men. As for the question that why did Allah give more sexual desire to women and then neutralize it with shyness, I shall inshaAllah deal with it in the chapter on sexual technique. So how has Mernissi arrived at her conclusion? While contrasting the views of Freud and Ghazali on passive and active sexuality of women, Fatima Mernissi has studied the view of both writers on the process of human reproduction. First she quotes Freud as follows: "The male sex cell is actively mobile and searches out the female and the latter, the ovum, is immobile and waits passively..." (Beyond the Veil, p. 36, quoting Freud's New Introductory Lectures, p. 144) This proves to Mernissi that in Freud's view, woman is sexually passive. Then she contrasts this with Ghazali's view by quoting him as follows, "The child is not created from man's sperm alone, but from the union of a sperm from the male with a ovum from the female...and in any case the ovum of the female is a determinant factor in the process of coagulation." (Beyond the Veil, p. 37) This proves to Mernissi that in Ghazali's view, woman is sexually active.

I doubt whether Ghazali would agree with the conclusion which Mernissi draws from his last sentence. Moreover, even if Ghazali meant such a thing, then it cannot be substantiated from the original sources of Islam, the Qur'an and the sunnah. We have a clear hadith which refutes such a connotation to the process of reproduction. Once the Prophet was asked, "O Muhammad! Why is that in some cases the child resembles his paternal uncles and has no resemblance whatsoever to his maternal uncles, and in some cases he resembles his maternal uncles and has no resemblance whatsoever to his paternal uncles?" The Prophet said, "Whosoever's water-drop [i.e., sperm or ovum] overwhelms that of his or her partner, the child will resemble that person."(At-Tabrasi, al-Ihtijaj, vol. 1, p. 48 For a similar hadith in Sunni sources, see Ibn Qayyim, Tibyan, p. 334-5. Also see an interesting study on birth control among the Muslims, Sex and Society in Islam by B.F. Musallam.) In other words, if the wife's ovum overwhelms the sperm of her husband, then the child will resemble the mother or the maternal uncles; and if the husband's sperm overwhelms the ovum of his wife, then the child will resemble the father or the paternal uncles. This hadith makes it quite clear that male and female play equal role in reproduction; sometimes, the male sperm overwhelms the female ovum and at other times the female ovum overwhelms the male sperm.

Then she quotes Ghazali's statement about the pattern of ejaculation of sexes as follows, "...The woman's ejaculation is a much slower process and during that process her sexual desire grows stronger and to withdraw from her before she reaches her pleasure is harmful to her." (Beyond the Veil, p. 38) By this statement, Mernissi wants to prove that in Islam woman is considered sexually more active than man. When I read this statement for the first time, I said to myself that this can not be true at all times: sometimes the male ejaculates first and at other times the female ejaculates first. And I was surprised that Ghazali would say such a thing. So I checked the Arabic statement of Ghazali and noticed that while translating the above quotation, Mernissi has conveniently left out the word "rubbama" which means "sometimes". (Al-Ghazali, Ihya, vol. 2, p. 148) So the correct statement of Ghazali is that "The woman's ejaculation sometimes is a much slower process..." With this correction, Mernissi's argument loses its legs.

(B) WOMEN ARE A DANGER TO THE SOCIAL ORDER.

The outcome of the above premise of Mernissi is as follows: Since Islam considers women as sexually more active, therefore, it considers them to be a danger to the social order.

After quoting Ghazali that, "The virtue of the woman is a man's duty. And the man should increase or decrease sexual intercourse with the woman according to her needs so as to secure her virtue," Mernissi comments, "The Ghazalian theory directly links the security of the social order to that of the woman's virtue, and thus to the satisfaction of her sexual needs. Social order is secured when the women limits herself to her husband and does not create fitna, or chaos, by enticing other men to illicit intercourse." (Beyond the Veil, p. 39, Ihya, vol. 2, p. 148)

Firstly, by looking at Ghazali's statement, I see nothing which would seem to indicate that in his view women are a danger to the social order. It simply describes one of the basic rights of conjugal relationship that the husband should not be a self-centered and selfish person, rather he should also think about the feelings of his wife. There is no indication at all that unsatisfied Muslim women in general would necessarily go out and commit adultery.

Secondly, if unsatisfied women become a danger to the social order just because there is a possibility that they might commit adultery, then this possibility is in no way confined to women even unsatisfied men could commit adultery! If Islam had considered women as a danger to the social order on this account, then it must also do so with men! And in stretching this argument to its logical conclusion, one would have to say that Islam considers men and women a danger to the social order. You see the absurdity of this line of thought. If all men and women are a danger to the social order, then whose 'social order' are we talking about?!

(C) THERE SHOULD BE NO EMOTIONAL INVESTMENT IN WOMEN.

The second part of Mernissi's contention is that in Islam men are not supposed to be emotionally attached to their wives; love between husband and wife is not encouraged or tolerated. Apart from what we quoted from Mernissi on this issue at the beginning of this discussion, she has talked on this issue, in a passing manner, at other places also. For instance, after quoting an interview with a Moroccan woman about her first husband by an arranged marriage (which has nothing to do with Islam), Mernissi writes, "Does love between man and wife threaten something vital in the Muslim order?...Heterosexual involvement, real love between husband and wife, is the danger that must be overcome." (Beyond the Veil, p.113) In another place, she says, "And it appears to me that the breakdown of sexual segregation permits the emergence of what the Muslim order condemns as a deadly enemy of civilization: love between men and women in general, and between husband and wife in particular. " (Beyond the Veil, p. 107)

Mernissi could not have been more further from the truth than in these contentions! Instead of going to the original sources of Islam, she has based her conclusion on the way a certain ethnic group of Muslims behave in their personal life. Now let us see if what she says is according to the original sources of Islam or not.

The Qur'an says, "And among His signs is that He has created for you spouses from among yourselves so that you may live in tranquility with them; and He has created love (muhabbah) and mercy between you. Verily in that are signs for those who reflect."(30: 21 ) How can Mernissi say that Islam considers love between husband and wife a deadly enemy of civilization while the God of Islam counts it as a sign of His creation and glory? Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq says, "Loving (hubb) women is among the traditions of the prophets." (Wasa'ilu 'sh-Shi'ah, vol. 14, p.9) The same Imam quotes the Prophet as follows, "The statement of a husband to his wife that 'I love you' (inniuhibbuki) will not leave her heart ever." (Wasa'ilu 'sh-Shi'ah, p. 10)

There are three interesting ahadith in which Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq has described the love for women as a sign and cause of increase in faith. He says, "I do not think that a person's faith can increase positively unless his love for women has increased. "( Wasa'ilu 'sh-Shi'ah, p. 9) In another hadith, he says, "Whenever a person's love for women increases, his faith increases in quality." Wasa'ilu 'sh-Shi'ah, p.11) In a third hadith he relates the love for women to the love for Ahlu'l-bayt which is an important teaching of the Qur'an. He says "Whosoever's love for us increases, his love for women must also increase." (Wasa'ilu 'sh-Shi'ah, p. 11) I do not think that there is any further need to prove that Mernissi's accusation against Islam is baseless.

(D) LOVE SHOULD BE EXCLUSIVELY DEVOTED TO ALLAH.

If asked that why does Islam consider love for women as a deadly enemy of civilization and a danger to the social order, Mernissi would answer that emotional investment or the focus of attention "should be devoted to Allah alone in the form of knowledge-seeking, meditation, and prayer." This is what she describes as Ghazali's view. (Beyond the Veil, p.45) In other words, Mernissi is saying that Islam, like Christianity, considers love for God and love for woman as two antipathetic phenomena. However, to be fair to Mernissi, I must say that this is a misconception from which even a scholar like Ghazali is not immune.

Although I have already quoted in detail the Islamic view which believes that love for women is not inharmonious with spiritual wayfaring, I intend to discuss this issue in the light of what Ghazali, with his Sufi tendencies, has to say.

2. AL-GHAZALI'S VIEWS

In his discussions on marriage in Ihyau 'Ulumi 'd-Din, Abu Hamid al-Ghazali has a section on "Encouragement for Marriage" (at-targhibfi 'n-nikah). In this section he has quoted some sayings of the Prophet about virtue of marriage. Then he has a section on "Discouragement from Marriage" (at-targhib 'ani 'n-nikah). In this section, apart from the sayings of some mystics (Sufis), Ghazali has quoted three hadith: two from the Prophet and one from Imam 'Ali. Interestingly, the third hadith is not even relevant to the issue; it is more relevant to family planning it talks about having fewer wives and children! Moreover, all three ahadith are classified by the scholars of hadith as weak (da'if). (See the editor's footnote in Ihya', vol. 2, p. 101 and also in al-Kashani, Tahzibu 'l-Ihya, vol. 3, p. 57)

Then Ghazali goes on to discuss about the "benefits and harms of marriage. " Before scrutinizing the 'harms of marriage,' I wish to comment on two 'ahadith' of the Prophet which Ghazali has quoted from his Sunni sources and which Mernissi has also used in her book.

The first hadith is as follows:

The Prophet said, "When the woman comes towards you, it is Satan who is approaching you. When one of you sees a woman and he feels attracted to her, he should hurry to his wife. With her, it would be the same as with the other one." (Ihya', vol. 2, p. 110, Beyond the Veil, p. 42)

After quoting this hadith, Mernissi adds the comments of Imam Muslim that "She resembles Satan in his irresistible power over the individual."

While discussing the issue of forgery or interpolation in hadith, our 'ulama' say that one source of forgery was the mystics and the so-called pious mullahs who imported the idea of celibacy and monasticism from without Islam into the hadith literature. And since the evilness of woman is a main component of Christian monasticism, similar ideas also crept into the hadith literatureeither in form of total forgery or in form of interpolation. When I read the above 'hadith', I suspected it to be an interpolation, especially its opening sentence. My suspicion was confirmed when I started to look for a similar hadith in the Shi'ah sources. The Shi'ah sources narrate a similar hadith as follows:

The Prophet said, "When one of you sees a beautiful woman, he should go to his wife. Because what is with her [i.e., wife] is same as what is with the other one." (Wasa'il, vol. 14, p. 72-73) The same hadith is also recorded with a slight difference: The Prophet said, "O Men ! Verily the act of seeing [a beautiful woman] is from Satan, therefore whoever finds this inclination in him should go to his wife." (Wasa'il, vol. 14, p. 73)

The hadith narrated from Sunni sources equates the woman to Satan, whereas in the Shi'ah sources there is no such implication at all. On the contrary, in the
second version of the hadith found in the Shi'ah sources, it is the man's sight which is related to the temptation by Satan! If we have to choose between the sources of the Prophet's sunnah, then we have no choice but to accept the version given by the Imams of Ahlu'l-bayt, the family of the Prophet. After all, no one could have known the Prophet better than the Ahlu'l-bayt. In our view, Imam Ghazali, Imam Muslim and Mernissi are all wrong in their attempt to equate woman with the Satan. The hadith they have quoted has been interpolated, most probably, by the mystics to encourage monasticism which they have imported from Christianity.

The second hadith is as follows: The Prophet said, "Do not go to the women whose husbands are absent. Because Satan will get in your bodies as blood rushes through your flesh. (Ihya', vol. 2, p. 110; Beyond the Veil, p. 42)

First of all, I was not able to find a similar hadith in the Shi'ah sources. This, plus its content, casts doubt on the authenticity of the hadith. Secondly, the source of this so-called hadith is Sahih at-Tirmidhi. And I am surprised how Ghazali and Mernissi could use this hadith while their source, Imam at-Tirmidhi, himself comments that "This is a strange hadith!'' (haza hadithun gharib.) Thirdly, even if the hadith is accepted, it does not prove what Mernissi wants from it: "The married woman whose husband is absent is a particular threat to men." Because the hadith equates the men, and not the women, with Satan. Actually, the woman in this hadith emerge as the victim of men who have been overwhelmed by the Satan!

* * *

Now let us return to the work of Ghazali in which he is describing the harms of marriage. Ghazali names three things as the harms of marriage and we shall discuss each of them separately:

The First Harm:

"The first and greatest harm [of marriage] is 'the inability to gain lawful livelihood.' This is something which is not easy for everyone especially during these times bearing in mind that livelihood is necessary. Therefore, the marriage will be a cause for obtaining the food by unlawful means, and in this is man's perdition and also that of his family. Whereas a single person is free from these problems. . . " (Ihya', vol. 2, p. 117)

Then he goes on to quote the mystics on this issue whose statements are of no value to us unless they are based on the Qur'an and the sunnah. They praise celibacy under the influence of monasticism which has been condemned by the Prophet and the Qur'an.

The logical conclusion of what Ghazali and other mystics say is that 'if you are rich, it is okay to marry; but if you are poor, you should not marry otherwise you will end up seeking provision from unlawful means!' This statement is totally against the Qur'anic view which says, "Marry the spouseless among you. . . if they are poor, God will enrich them of His bounty."(24:32) "Do not kill your children because of (fear of poverty We will provide for you and them."(6: 152) The Prophet said, "Whoever refrains from marriage because of fear of poverty, he has indeed thought badly of God." (Wasa'il, vol. 14, p. 24) I do not know how a person can gain spiritual upliftment by thinking negatively about God's promise!

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-À-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 .

Chapter Two (continued)