Family is the bedrock, cradle of human civilisation. It is the foundation and basis of Muslim society.
Adam and Hawa, our first father and mother, struggled to cultivate and endure in the earth as husband and wife. Gradually their family multiplied into multitude. Family gives mooring, anchor, stability and tranquility among the close blood related and other members.
Allah says in the Qur'an:
?O Mankind, be conscious of your duty to your Lord, Who created you from a single soul, created of like Nature, his mate, and from the two created and Spread many men and women; and be mindful of your duty to God whose name you appeal to one another and to (the ties of) the womb. Verily God watches over you?. Qur'an (4:1)
The Islamic family system brings the rights of the husband, wife, children, and relatives into a fine equilibrium. It nourishes unselfish behavior, generosity, and love within the framework of a well-organized family system. The peace and security offered by a stable family unit is greatly valued by Islam, and it is seen as essential for the spiritual growth of its members. A harmonious social order is created by the existence of extended families and by treasuring children.
The institutions of marriage and the family have been commended as the ?way of the Prophets?.
Allah says in the Qur'an:
"And surely We have sent Messengers before you, and we assigned to them wives and offspring; and it was not for any Messenger to bring assign except by God's leave. For every term has a Book."Qur'an (13:38)
And the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) said:
?Marriage is a part of my Sunnah. Whoever runs away from my path is not from amongst us?. [Ibn Majah, Book of Marriage]
Moreover a Muslim family has its unique features, e.g. it provides a secure and healthy 'home' environment for all its members, it guards against passions of whims and desires and channelise them to wholesome and meaningful pursuit, it proliferates human virtues, such as, love compassion, sacrifice, justice etc. and it provides a refuge against any difficulty.
And since the family is the microcosm of a society and as such there are distinct role for its members.
Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) says:
"Each one of you is a trustee (shepherd) and is accountable for that which is entrusted to him. A ruler is trustee and is accountable for his trust, a man is a trustee in respect of his family, a woman is a trustee in respect of her husband's house and children." (Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim).
Men has the leadership role in the family and in the family women have to be loyal to men.
Allah says in the Qur'an:
"Men are the supporters of women, because Allah has stowed on the one more than the other, and for what they have to provide (for them) from their sources. So the righteous women are obedient and protect in the absence of their husbands that which God ordains to be protected." Qur'an (4:34)
Leadership raises the question of responsibility, consultation (shoora) and justice. As shepherd of the house women have responsibility over the house and children.
Parents are to provide their children with basic human necessities, such as food, cloth, shelter, education and medical support. This is treated as and Ibadah (worship) for the parents. Also parents should provide their children with love, warmth, compassion, etc. As human being consists of body and spirit, parents must provide their children with the life skills and spiritual nourishment.
Also there are many traditions regarding children's responsibility toward their parents. As God ask children to obey and serve their parents and be kind and decent to them. Bukhari and Muslim narrated,
'A man came to Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) and asked permission to go to Jihad (fighting for the sake of Islam). The Prophet asked him, "are your parents alive?" The man said, "yes". The Prophet responded, "then strive to serve them."
The rights and responsibilities within the family are inter-twined. One's responsibility is the other's right. Rights and duties of husband, wife, parents and children are inscribed in Shariah (God's Commands). No Superiority except in Piety.
What Islam has established is equitability in the role of sexes because of many factors, such as, physiological, physical, emotional, etc. Allah has no bias for or against men and women.
No burden bearer can bear another's burden.
Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) has stressed the importance of good conduct in the family.
"The best of you is the best to his family and I am the best among you to my family". "The most perfect believers are the best in conduct, and the best of you are those who are best to their spouses "(Tirmidhi).
Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) shared household works with his wives. For genuine economic reasons both the spouses might need to engage in financial activities. But rearing up and educating children cannot be compromised. There should be frank discussion and consultation between the spouses. Children need to be involved as and when necessary and also in order to train them to become responsible in their lives.
Extended family with three to four generations under the same family structure helps Muslims to acquire many social qualities, such as sacrifice, compromise, respect, affection, consultation etc. There is mutual support in case of needs. There may be some inherent difficulties in this arrangement, but, after all, children should also learn to live in the realities of life.
Thus the family enjoys a high status in Islam. It is the core of the society, because a healthy family means a healthy society. Hence Allah, the Exalted, commands that parents be treated with gentleness and submissiveness.
Allah says in the Qur'an:
"And we have enjoined upon man (to be good) to his parents. With difficulty upon difficulty did his mother bear him and wean him for two years. Show gratitude to Me and to your parents; to Me is your final goal." (Qur'an 31:14)
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
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 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 incompatable. 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 a 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 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-perspectivenes 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 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, recitings 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 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 Chiristianity, but that he should he called the saviour 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 ideal peace and happiness of humanity.”[2]
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 that section of westerners, who attack Islam, either do not understand Islam or else have 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 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 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 honour, 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 extend 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 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, racious nature of man tries 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 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 stearing 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.
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 civilization. And such mildness, flexibility and adaptability with the demands of time is not only not against the lofty teachings of Islam, but is 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 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:
“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 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 a 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 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:
(..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 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.
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 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 incompatable. 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 a 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 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-perspectivenes 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 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, recitings 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 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 Chiristianity, but that he should he called the saviour 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 ideal peace and happiness of humanity.”[2]
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 that section of westerners, who attack Islam, either do not understand Islam or else have 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 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 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 honour, 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 extend 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 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, racious nature of man tries 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 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 stearing 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.
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 civilization. And such mildness, flexibility and adaptability with the demands of time is not only not against the lofty teachings of Islam, but is 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 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:
“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 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 a 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 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:
(..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 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.
Fixed-Term marriage II
The particulars of the law of fixed-term marriage, the necessity of such law, and the insufficiency of permanent marriage in meeting human needs, especially in the present age, have formed the subject matter of our study. Now, want to present, as it were, the other side of the coin. We shall see what damage it may possibly do away with. By way of introduction I shall give a short history of the writer’s beliefs.
Among all the subjects, problems, topics and matters of discourse, that have existed and do exist now for man no subject or field of discourse in anywhere near as complex and garbled as the history of human sciences, beliefs, customs, traditions and manners. And this is the reason, why man has talked more nonsense on these subjects, than on any other, that he has an inordinate desire to express his views.
For example, Any one who is in touch with Islamic philosophy, gnosis, Sufism and theology, and is acquainted with some modern writings, which are mostly extracts or the origin writings of foreigners will follow what I mean. It is something like this. To express their point of view or, this kind of topic, the orientalists, their admirers and camp followers, consider every thing, necessary except that they themselves should have a thorough grasp and comprehension of the problem.
For example, around the subject that is known in Islamic gnosis as wahdatu’l-wujud (the unity of existence), is there any thing that has not been said! Only one thing is missing and that is what exactly wahdatu’l-wujud is and what conception the giants of gnosis like Muhyi’ud din ibn al-‘Arabi and Mulla Sadra had of wahdatu’l-wujud.
As I read a few of the articles with some of the ideas pertaining to fixed-term marriage in certain issues of Zan-e ruz, I could not help remembering wahdatu’l-wujud. I saw that all sorts of things had been discussed except that thing which is the spirit and the purpose of this law and the intent of the legislator.
Of course, since this law is part of the “heritage of the East’’, it is being received rather coldly. If it were a souvenir of the West, it would have been otherwise.
Certainly, if this law were imported from the Western part of the globe, there would have been conferences and seminars on how the restriction of marriage to permanent marriage does not suit the second half of the twentieth century, how the present generation wants to be free and live freely, and will accept anything but free marriage in which they individually choose all the restrictions and limitations.
For this reason, now that this call is raised from the west and someone like Bertrand Russell proposes the subject of Companionate marriage, it can be safely predicted that, to a greater extent than Islam, wants, this idea will be welcomed and permanent marriage will be forsaken altogether, and we will be compelled in future to defend, and propagate in favor of permanent marriage.
Objections and difficulties
The defects and harm that have been mentioned in connection with fixed-term marriage are as follows:-
1. Marriage should rest on a stable foundation. A couple, when they are first joined by the pact of marriage, should consider them attached to each other for ever, and the idea of separation should not enter their minds. So a fixed-term marriage cannot be a stable pact for the couple.
That the foundation of marriage should be stable is quite right, but this objection arises when we replace permanent marriage by fixed-term marriage and wish to annul permanent marriage.
No doubt, when both parties have the means for permanent marriage, and have full and satisfactory information regarding each other and have full trust in each other, they may very well find themselves in the pact of marriage for ever.
Fixed-term marriage has been allowed in the shari’ah only because permanent marriage by itself, could not cope with human needs in all conditions and ,circumstances, and dependence entirely upon permanent marriage would unavoidably create a situation in which people would either be advised temporary asceticism or would be left to be drowned in the depths of sexual communism. It is quite clear that any young man and woman who had found all the desired prerequisites for a permanent marriage would not be greatly enthusiastic about a temporary alliance.
2. The women and girls of Iran, who subscribe to the Shi’ite faith have not welcomed fixed-term marriage and have considered it rather as an insult to them. Thus, the general opinion of the Shi’ahs has rejected it.
Our reply is firstly that the dislike of mut’ah (fixed-term marriage) is due to the misuse made of it by sensual persons. The law should apprehend such persons, and we shall discuss shortly this point of misuse. Secondly, the wish that fixed-term marriage should be welcomed like permanent marriage is misplaced and wrong, because the philosophy of fixed-term marriage is based upon the non-availability of means, and the inability of both the parties, and one of them, to become permanently married.
3. Temporary marriage is detrimental to the position and honour of a woman because it is, so to say, the hiring of a human being. It is a religious license for the sake of human nature. It is against the dignity of a woman to give herself to a man in return for the remuneration she gets from him.
This is the most amazing objection of all. Firstly, in view of the distinctive features that we have already related in the previous section, what does it have to do with hire and a fee? Is the time limit in this marriage the cause of its being excluded from the definition of marriage and acquiring for itself a form in which ‘fee’ and ‘hire’ are appropriate terms? And is it only because it is explicitly ordained that the mahr (dower) must be ‘fixed’ and ‘definite’, that this mehr is being depicted as the rental charge? We ask whether, if there were no dower and the man did not place anything before the woman, the would then regain her human dignity? We shall discuss separately the subject of mahr (dower).
Incidentally, Islamic jurists have made clear, and the Civil Law has the same basis, been so arranged and brought together into sections, that temporary and permanent marriages, from the point of view of the substance of their stipulations, have absolutely no difference between them, and should not have. Each one of them is a marriage, and each one takes place with the recital of a specific formula. If the fixed-term marriage is set up with the recital of those terms that are specially intended for remuneration or fee, the marriage is void.
So we ask, how long and from which date has the renting of man been abolished? All tailors, barbers, doctors, artesian, all civil servants, from the Prime Minister to the lowest worker in a factory, are hired men.
The woman who has entered into the alliance of a fixed-term Marriage with, a particular man, out of her free will and of her own choice, is not a rented person and she has not acted against the honour and status of a human being. If you want to see a rented woman and wish to witness the slavery of woman, you should travel to Europe and America and call in on the film companies so that you may understand what a rented woman is. See how these companies put up the actions of women for sale, their poses, manners and sexual charms. The tickets that you purchase for cinemas and theatres are, as a matter of fact, a payment towards the rental value of the rented woman. You may see there to what the unfortunate woman presents her body for the sake of money. For a long time under the directions of ‘honorable’ experienced specialists, she has learnt the secrets of sex-appeal. She puts her body, soul and personality at the mercy of a financial organization to get more sales for that organization.
Visit the cabarets and hotels and see what honors woman has attained. For a paltry sum as her wage she puts all her honour and prestige in the hands of the guests, so that she can contribute to filling the already full pockets of certain rich men.
Women on hire are those models who are wage-earners and hired workers for the big sales-stores and who give up their honour and prestige to satisfy their employers’ avarice and greed.
Women on hire are those women who appear on the television screen with all sorts of beautification, most of which are un-natural, to attract buyers for some commercial firm to popularize some commercial commodity. But her basic aim is her wage.
Who does not realize that in western countries today the gracefulness of a woman, her sex-appeal, her voice, the art and originality of a woman, the soul and body of a woman and in the end, the whole personality of a woman is at the beck and call of American and European capitalists. It is so sad that you, knowingly, or unknowingly, drag the gentle and honorable women of Iran to such a servile position. I am unable to understand why if a woman marries a particular man on liberal terms temporarily, she is to be considered a rented woman, but if a woman at some wedding party or at a cabaret, before the greedy gaze of thousands of men, ruins her larynx for the satisfaction of their sexual inclinations, and turns a thousand and one manners of somersault so that she may get the promised money, is not to he counted a hired woman.
Has Islam, which has restrained men from exploiting women like this, and has forbidden woman, from such servility and submission and earning her livelihood in this way degraded women, or has the Europe of the later half of the twentieth century?
If, some day, woman fully understands this and is enlightened and notices the traps that twentieth century man has set in her path and concealed from her, she will rise in revolt against this fraud. That will be the time when she finds out that her only protector in all sincerity is the Qur’an. Of course, that day is not far off.
The magazine Zan-e ruz, in its issue No.87 on page 8, has published a report of a woman named Mardiyyah and a man named Rida under the heading “A Hired Woman”, and has given an account of the misfortune of the unfortunate woman.
The story, according to the statements of Rida, begins with the approach of the woman with the proposal of marriage. It means that the formula of the forty proposals was acted upon for the first time and a woman went forthwith a request for marriage. It is quite evident that a story which starts with the proposal of a woman for marriage could not end any better than it did.
On the other hand, according to the statements of Mardiyyah, the man, sensual and cruel as he was, portending that he would take her as his permanently married wife and would take care of her and her children, deceived her. Furthermore, without the consent and approval of the woman, with the excuse of having entered into a fixed-term marriage with, her, after gratifying his passion he abandoned her.
If these statements are true, the marriage was void. The man was cruel and the woman was ignorant of the religious and statute law. They violated the law and should be punished.
Before people like Rida are punished, they should be instructed and Mardiyyah should be warned.
How can the laws, as it is, he assailed for an offence the root cause of which is the cruelty of men and the ignorance and forgetfulness of women. The Zan-e ruz magazine supports the cause of Rida, and thus lashes out with its sword against the law. If there were no law of fixed-term marriage, would the cruel man, Rida, and the neglectful and ignorant woman, Mardiyyah have lived peacefully and comfortability?
Why do you shirk the responsibility of instructing and warning men and women, and why do you keep the rights and duties of man and woman secret from them? Why should you take advantage of a poor woman’s ignorance and misrepresent the law which is her only protector and guardian as her enemy, and wish that she should destroy her only refuge with her own hands.
4. Fixed-term marriage is some sort of license for polygamy, and polygamy is prohibited by law. So temporary marriage it also prohibited by law. As regards the question of the category of persons for whom fixed-term marriage is allowed by the shari’ah, and the question of polygyny, we shall discuss these fully at a later stage.
5. Fixed-term, marriage, because it has no permanence, is an unsuitable arrangement for children born of this alliance. The inevitable result of a fixed-term marriage is that the children born will be without a guardian and will remain deprived of kind paternal and loving maternal protection and will remain deprived of a home.
This is the objection on which Zan-e ruz magazine lays much stress, but after the explanation that we have made, we do not think there can be any occasion left for argument or dispute. In the preceding section we mentioned that one of the differences between fixed-term marriages and permanent marriages is to do with having children. In permanent marriage neither one of the couple is permitted, without the consent of the other, to avoid the responsibility of the birth of child, whereas in fixed-term marriage both sides are free. In fixed-term marriage the woman cannot refuse sexual intercourse with the man, but she has the option that, with out causing interruption during coition, which is harmful for the man, she may avoid pregnancy. The problems of contraception have already been fully solved.
If, on the other hand, in temporary marriage couple wishes to have a child, and accept the responsibility of bringing up and looking after the child, they may have children. As far natural affection is concerned there is no difference between the children of a permanently married wife and a temporarily marriage wife. Suppose the father or the mother refuses to perform his or her duties, the law will then declare it their obligation and will oblige them; just as in the case of divorce, the law should take action and should safeguard the rights of the children. If they do not wish to have children, and their only aim is to satisfy their sexual instincts they should take steps to refrain from having children.
As far as we know, the church forbids birth control, but according to Islam, if the husband and wife prevent the birth of a child at its point of conception it is permissible. When the pregnancy ha already begun, Islam in no case allows abortion. When the Shi’ite jurists say that the aim of permanent marriage is to have children, and the aim of temporary marriage is gratification and satisfaction of the sexual instincts, they mean the same thing.
Criticism:
The writer of the forty proposals has, in issue No.87 of Zan-e ruz contributed an article criticizing fixed-term marriage.
He firstly says that “the subject of temporary marriage is so distasteful that even the writers of the law of marriage (in the civil code) could not manage to comment and give details of this law, as if they loathed their own, work, and only as an outward compliance, according to Articles 1075, 1076 and 1077, stuck some words and phrases together and then passed on.
“The composers of the law relating to temporary marriage (mut’ah) disliked their business so much, that they did not even define the above mentioned marriage formally and did not explain its terms and conditions….”
Afterwards the learned writer himself makes amends for this defect in the Civil Law and says: “The above mentioned marriage means that an unmarried woman, in proportion to a certain settled fee and remuneration, for a limited and specified period, a few hours or a few minutes, gives herself into the hand of a man for the satisfaction, of his passions, and for the gratification if his lust and the performance of sexual acts.”
He further says, “For the proposal and acceptance of the said marriage, special words are quoted from the Shi’ite books of jurisprudence in Arabic, to which the Civil Law does not refer and does not care to mention, as if in the eyes of the legislator it can be realized by the use of any words, Arabic or not, ‘which need only signify the said purpose (that is the sense of acceptance of remuneration and a fee).”
According to the learned writer:
a) The Civil Law does not define and does not explain its terms.
b) The essence of temporary marriage is that a woman in return for a fixed renumeration gives herself to a man
c) In view of the Civil Law, any word that signifies the sense of the woman being rented is sufficient to connote proposal and acceptance of temporary marriage.
I invite the learned writer to study the Civil Law once again, and to study it carefully, and I likewise request the readers of Zan-e ruz somehow to get a copy of the Civil Law and carefully study the following parts.
In the Civil Law, the sixth chapter of the volume on marriage is given over to fixed-term
marriage, and it consists of not more than three simple sentences. The first is that temporary marriage is of fixed duration, as it is to be concluded for a specified period. The second is that the period of temporary marriage should be specifically agreed upon. Thirdly, that the law in respect of mahr and succession is the same as mentioned in the chapters pertaining to dower and succession.
The respected writer of the forty proposals is under the impression that whatever is mentioned in the five chapters of the volume on marriage is all in respect of permanent marriage, and that only these three sections deal with fixed-term marriage. He is unaware of the fact that all the sections of the five chapters, excepting where it is otherwise specified, as in section 1069 or the section about divorce, are all common to permanent and temporary marriage. For example, section 1062, which mentions that “marriage takes place with an offer and acceptance in words which unequivocally denote the intention of marriage”, is not only meant for permanent marriage. It applies to both kinds of marriage the conditions that the Civil Law lays down concerning the person who concludes the marriage, or the conclusion of the marriage, or the husband and wife, all apply to both kinds of marriage. The Civil Law did not define temporary marriage because there is no need to define it, just as it does not define permanent marriage and considers it too well-known to require a definition. The Civil Law has considered every word that clearly denotes marriage or the taking place of marriage sufficient for the conclusion of marriage, whether it is a permanent or a fixed-term marriage. If, on the other hand, any word conveys a meaning inconsistent with the meaning of marriage, such as remuneration’, ‘gratification’, ‘lease’ and rent’, it is not effective for the proper conclusion of a marriage, either permanent or temporary.
On the strength of what has been written, I pledge my word that if a number of learned judges and those who fully understand the law, who are most numerous in the Ministry of justice, decide that the objection against the Civil Law that has been discussed above is justified, I shall refrain from criticism of any of the articles in Zan-e ruz.
Among all the subjects, problems, topics and matters of discourse, that have existed and do exist now for man no subject or field of discourse in anywhere near as complex and garbled as the history of human sciences, beliefs, customs, traditions and manners. And this is the reason, why man has talked more nonsense on these subjects, than on any other, that he has an inordinate desire to express his views.
For example, Any one who is in touch with Islamic philosophy, gnosis, Sufism and theology, and is acquainted with some modern writings, which are mostly extracts or the origin writings of foreigners will follow what I mean. It is something like this. To express their point of view or, this kind of topic, the orientalists, their admirers and camp followers, consider every thing, necessary except that they themselves should have a thorough grasp and comprehension of the problem.
For example, around the subject that is known in Islamic gnosis as wahdatu’l-wujud (the unity of existence), is there any thing that has not been said! Only one thing is missing and that is what exactly wahdatu’l-wujud is and what conception the giants of gnosis like Muhyi’ud din ibn al-‘Arabi and Mulla Sadra had of wahdatu’l-wujud.
As I read a few of the articles with some of the ideas pertaining to fixed-term marriage in certain issues of Zan-e ruz, I could not help remembering wahdatu’l-wujud. I saw that all sorts of things had been discussed except that thing which is the spirit and the purpose of this law and the intent of the legislator.
Of course, since this law is part of the “heritage of the East’’, it is being received rather coldly. If it were a souvenir of the West, it would have been otherwise.
Certainly, if this law were imported from the Western part of the globe, there would have been conferences and seminars on how the restriction of marriage to permanent marriage does not suit the second half of the twentieth century, how the present generation wants to be free and live freely, and will accept anything but free marriage in which they individually choose all the restrictions and limitations.
For this reason, now that this call is raised from the west and someone like Bertrand Russell proposes the subject of Companionate marriage, it can be safely predicted that, to a greater extent than Islam, wants, this idea will be welcomed and permanent marriage will be forsaken altogether, and we will be compelled in future to defend, and propagate in favor of permanent marriage.
Objections and difficulties
The defects and harm that have been mentioned in connection with fixed-term marriage are as follows:-
1. Marriage should rest on a stable foundation. A couple, when they are first joined by the pact of marriage, should consider them attached to each other for ever, and the idea of separation should not enter their minds. So a fixed-term marriage cannot be a stable pact for the couple.
That the foundation of marriage should be stable is quite right, but this objection arises when we replace permanent marriage by fixed-term marriage and wish to annul permanent marriage.
No doubt, when both parties have the means for permanent marriage, and have full and satisfactory information regarding each other and have full trust in each other, they may very well find themselves in the pact of marriage for ever.
Fixed-term marriage has been allowed in the shari’ah only because permanent marriage by itself, could not cope with human needs in all conditions and ,circumstances, and dependence entirely upon permanent marriage would unavoidably create a situation in which people would either be advised temporary asceticism or would be left to be drowned in the depths of sexual communism. It is quite clear that any young man and woman who had found all the desired prerequisites for a permanent marriage would not be greatly enthusiastic about a temporary alliance.
2. The women and girls of Iran, who subscribe to the Shi’ite faith have not welcomed fixed-term marriage and have considered it rather as an insult to them. Thus, the general opinion of the Shi’ahs has rejected it.
Our reply is firstly that the dislike of mut’ah (fixed-term marriage) is due to the misuse made of it by sensual persons. The law should apprehend such persons, and we shall discuss shortly this point of misuse. Secondly, the wish that fixed-term marriage should be welcomed like permanent marriage is misplaced and wrong, because the philosophy of fixed-term marriage is based upon the non-availability of means, and the inability of both the parties, and one of them, to become permanently married.
3. Temporary marriage is detrimental to the position and honour of a woman because it is, so to say, the hiring of a human being. It is a religious license for the sake of human nature. It is against the dignity of a woman to give herself to a man in return for the remuneration she gets from him.
This is the most amazing objection of all. Firstly, in view of the distinctive features that we have already related in the previous section, what does it have to do with hire and a fee? Is the time limit in this marriage the cause of its being excluded from the definition of marriage and acquiring for itself a form in which ‘fee’ and ‘hire’ are appropriate terms? And is it only because it is explicitly ordained that the mahr (dower) must be ‘fixed’ and ‘definite’, that this mehr is being depicted as the rental charge? We ask whether, if there were no dower and the man did not place anything before the woman, the would then regain her human dignity? We shall discuss separately the subject of mahr (dower).
Incidentally, Islamic jurists have made clear, and the Civil Law has the same basis, been so arranged and brought together into sections, that temporary and permanent marriages, from the point of view of the substance of their stipulations, have absolutely no difference between them, and should not have. Each one of them is a marriage, and each one takes place with the recital of a specific formula. If the fixed-term marriage is set up with the recital of those terms that are specially intended for remuneration or fee, the marriage is void.
So we ask, how long and from which date has the renting of man been abolished? All tailors, barbers, doctors, artesian, all civil servants, from the Prime Minister to the lowest worker in a factory, are hired men.
The woman who has entered into the alliance of a fixed-term Marriage with, a particular man, out of her free will and of her own choice, is not a rented person and she has not acted against the honour and status of a human being. If you want to see a rented woman and wish to witness the slavery of woman, you should travel to Europe and America and call in on the film companies so that you may understand what a rented woman is. See how these companies put up the actions of women for sale, their poses, manners and sexual charms. The tickets that you purchase for cinemas and theatres are, as a matter of fact, a payment towards the rental value of the rented woman. You may see there to what the unfortunate woman presents her body for the sake of money. For a long time under the directions of ‘honorable’ experienced specialists, she has learnt the secrets of sex-appeal. She puts her body, soul and personality at the mercy of a financial organization to get more sales for that organization.
Visit the cabarets and hotels and see what honors woman has attained. For a paltry sum as her wage she puts all her honour and prestige in the hands of the guests, so that she can contribute to filling the already full pockets of certain rich men.
Women on hire are those models who are wage-earners and hired workers for the big sales-stores and who give up their honour and prestige to satisfy their employers’ avarice and greed.
Women on hire are those women who appear on the television screen with all sorts of beautification, most of which are un-natural, to attract buyers for some commercial firm to popularize some commercial commodity. But her basic aim is her wage.
Who does not realize that in western countries today the gracefulness of a woman, her sex-appeal, her voice, the art and originality of a woman, the soul and body of a woman and in the end, the whole personality of a woman is at the beck and call of American and European capitalists. It is so sad that you, knowingly, or unknowingly, drag the gentle and honorable women of Iran to such a servile position. I am unable to understand why if a woman marries a particular man on liberal terms temporarily, she is to be considered a rented woman, but if a woman at some wedding party or at a cabaret, before the greedy gaze of thousands of men, ruins her larynx for the satisfaction of their sexual inclinations, and turns a thousand and one manners of somersault so that she may get the promised money, is not to he counted a hired woman.
Has Islam, which has restrained men from exploiting women like this, and has forbidden woman, from such servility and submission and earning her livelihood in this way degraded women, or has the Europe of the later half of the twentieth century?
If, some day, woman fully understands this and is enlightened and notices the traps that twentieth century man has set in her path and concealed from her, she will rise in revolt against this fraud. That will be the time when she finds out that her only protector in all sincerity is the Qur’an. Of course, that day is not far off.
The magazine Zan-e ruz, in its issue No.87 on page 8, has published a report of a woman named Mardiyyah and a man named Rida under the heading “A Hired Woman”, and has given an account of the misfortune of the unfortunate woman.
The story, according to the statements of Rida, begins with the approach of the woman with the proposal of marriage. It means that the formula of the forty proposals was acted upon for the first time and a woman went forthwith a request for marriage. It is quite evident that a story which starts with the proposal of a woman for marriage could not end any better than it did.
On the other hand, according to the statements of Mardiyyah, the man, sensual and cruel as he was, portending that he would take her as his permanently married wife and would take care of her and her children, deceived her. Furthermore, without the consent and approval of the woman, with the excuse of having entered into a fixed-term marriage with, her, after gratifying his passion he abandoned her.
If these statements are true, the marriage was void. The man was cruel and the woman was ignorant of the religious and statute law. They violated the law and should be punished.
Before people like Rida are punished, they should be instructed and Mardiyyah should be warned.
How can the laws, as it is, he assailed for an offence the root cause of which is the cruelty of men and the ignorance and forgetfulness of women. The Zan-e ruz magazine supports the cause of Rida, and thus lashes out with its sword against the law. If there were no law of fixed-term marriage, would the cruel man, Rida, and the neglectful and ignorant woman, Mardiyyah have lived peacefully and comfortability?
Why do you shirk the responsibility of instructing and warning men and women, and why do you keep the rights and duties of man and woman secret from them? Why should you take advantage of a poor woman’s ignorance and misrepresent the law which is her only protector and guardian as her enemy, and wish that she should destroy her only refuge with her own hands.
4. Fixed-term marriage is some sort of license for polygamy, and polygamy is prohibited by law. So temporary marriage it also prohibited by law. As regards the question of the category of persons for whom fixed-term marriage is allowed by the shari’ah, and the question of polygyny, we shall discuss these fully at a later stage.
5. Fixed-term, marriage, because it has no permanence, is an unsuitable arrangement for children born of this alliance. The inevitable result of a fixed-term marriage is that the children born will be without a guardian and will remain deprived of kind paternal and loving maternal protection and will remain deprived of a home.
This is the objection on which Zan-e ruz magazine lays much stress, but after the explanation that we have made, we do not think there can be any occasion left for argument or dispute. In the preceding section we mentioned that one of the differences between fixed-term marriages and permanent marriages is to do with having children. In permanent marriage neither one of the couple is permitted, without the consent of the other, to avoid the responsibility of the birth of child, whereas in fixed-term marriage both sides are free. In fixed-term marriage the woman cannot refuse sexual intercourse with the man, but she has the option that, with out causing interruption during coition, which is harmful for the man, she may avoid pregnancy. The problems of contraception have already been fully solved.
If, on the other hand, in temporary marriage couple wishes to have a child, and accept the responsibility of bringing up and looking after the child, they may have children. As far natural affection is concerned there is no difference between the children of a permanently married wife and a temporarily marriage wife. Suppose the father or the mother refuses to perform his or her duties, the law will then declare it their obligation and will oblige them; just as in the case of divorce, the law should take action and should safeguard the rights of the children. If they do not wish to have children, and their only aim is to satisfy their sexual instincts they should take steps to refrain from having children.
As far as we know, the church forbids birth control, but according to Islam, if the husband and wife prevent the birth of a child at its point of conception it is permissible. When the pregnancy ha already begun, Islam in no case allows abortion. When the Shi’ite jurists say that the aim of permanent marriage is to have children, and the aim of temporary marriage is gratification and satisfaction of the sexual instincts, they mean the same thing.
Criticism:
The writer of the forty proposals has, in issue No.87 of Zan-e ruz contributed an article criticizing fixed-term marriage.
He firstly says that “the subject of temporary marriage is so distasteful that even the writers of the law of marriage (in the civil code) could not manage to comment and give details of this law, as if they loathed their own, work, and only as an outward compliance, according to Articles 1075, 1076 and 1077, stuck some words and phrases together and then passed on.
“The composers of the law relating to temporary marriage (mut’ah) disliked their business so much, that they did not even define the above mentioned marriage formally and did not explain its terms and conditions….”
Afterwards the learned writer himself makes amends for this defect in the Civil Law and says: “The above mentioned marriage means that an unmarried woman, in proportion to a certain settled fee and remuneration, for a limited and specified period, a few hours or a few minutes, gives herself into the hand of a man for the satisfaction, of his passions, and for the gratification if his lust and the performance of sexual acts.”
He further says, “For the proposal and acceptance of the said marriage, special words are quoted from the Shi’ite books of jurisprudence in Arabic, to which the Civil Law does not refer and does not care to mention, as if in the eyes of the legislator it can be realized by the use of any words, Arabic or not, ‘which need only signify the said purpose (that is the sense of acceptance of remuneration and a fee).”
According to the learned writer:
a) The Civil Law does not define and does not explain its terms.
b) The essence of temporary marriage is that a woman in return for a fixed renumeration gives herself to a man
c) In view of the Civil Law, any word that signifies the sense of the woman being rented is sufficient to connote proposal and acceptance of temporary marriage.
I invite the learned writer to study the Civil Law once again, and to study it carefully, and I likewise request the readers of Zan-e ruz somehow to get a copy of the Civil Law and carefully study the following parts.
In the Civil Law, the sixth chapter of the volume on marriage is given over to fixed-term
marriage, and it consists of not more than three simple sentences. The first is that temporary marriage is of fixed duration, as it is to be concluded for a specified period. The second is that the period of temporary marriage should be specifically agreed upon. Thirdly, that the law in respect of mahr and succession is the same as mentioned in the chapters pertaining to dower and succession.
The respected writer of the forty proposals is under the impression that whatever is mentioned in the five chapters of the volume on marriage is all in respect of permanent marriage, and that only these three sections deal with fixed-term marriage. He is unaware of the fact that all the sections of the five chapters, excepting where it is otherwise specified, as in section 1069 or the section about divorce, are all common to permanent and temporary marriage. For example, section 1062, which mentions that “marriage takes place with an offer and acceptance in words which unequivocally denote the intention of marriage”, is not only meant for permanent marriage. It applies to both kinds of marriage the conditions that the Civil Law lays down concerning the person who concludes the marriage, or the conclusion of the marriage, or the husband and wife, all apply to both kinds of marriage. The Civil Law did not define temporary marriage because there is no need to define it, just as it does not define permanent marriage and considers it too well-known to require a definition. The Civil Law has considered every word that clearly denotes marriage or the taking place of marriage sufficient for the conclusion of marriage, whether it is a permanent or a fixed-term marriage. If, on the other hand, any word conveys a meaning inconsistent with the meaning of marriage, such as remuneration’, ‘gratification’, ‘lease’ and rent’, it is not effective for the proper conclusion of a marriage, either permanent or temporary.
On the strength of what has been written, I pledge my word that if a number of learned judges and those who fully understand the law, who are most numerous in the Ministry of justice, decide that the objection against the Civil Law that has been discussed above is justified, I shall refrain from criticism of any of the articles in Zan-e ruz.
FIXED-TERM MARRIAGE
Unlike many person’s, I am never made uncomfortable by doubts and misgivings in the problems of Islam, despite my attachment to and belief in it. Rather, in the depth of my heart I feel glad, because I believe and have experienced during my life that whenever and howsoever any aspect of this pure, divine code of life is assailed, it displays itself with more force, vigor, clarity and splendour.
The distinct feature of truth, of course is that doubt and disbelief help to make it all the more vivid. Doubt precedes belief, and indecision is the source of investigation. Zindah bidar [1] quotes from al-Ghazali’s treatise Mizanul-‘amal: “…..The utility of our exhortations is only this much that you may begin to have misgivings about your time-ridden traditional conceptions, for indecision is the basis of investigation and one who does not doubt is not reflecting on things in the right way. One who does not look in the right way does not see things well, and such a man lives in blindness and confusion.”
Let them speak, write, hold seminars and protest till, in spite of themselves, they will become a means of making clear the realities of Islamic teachings.
One of the brilliant laws of Islam, according to the Ja’fari (shi’ite) school, which is the formally established sect in our country, is that marriage may take place in two years: permanently or for a fixed period.
Permanent and fixed-term marriages are alike in some of their arrangements and different in certain others. One of the features that distinguish between them is, in the first instance, that in fixed-term marriage a woman and a man take a decision that they will undertake a marriage for a fixed period, and at the end of that period, if they are inclined to extend the period, they may extend it, and if they do not wish to do, they may separate from each other.
The other feature is that they have more freedom in the settling of terms and conditions according to how they wish. For example, in a permanent marriage a man is responsible, whether he likes it or not, for daily expenses, clothing, dwelling and the other necessities of life, such as medicine and medical treatment, but in a fixed-term marriage, the couple is joined by the free contract that was agreed upon by them. It is possible that the man may not wish, or cannot afford, to bear these expenses, or that the woman does not wish to use the money of the man.
In a permanent marriage the wife, whether she likes it or not, must accept the man as the head of the household and carry out what he says in the interest of the family situation, but in a fixed term marriage everything depends upon the terms of the agreement they conclude between themselves.
In permanent marriage, the wife and the husband, whether they like it or not will have mutual rights of inheritance with each other, while in a fixed-term marriage this is not so. Thus the real and essential difference between the fixed–term and the permanent marriage is that the former, as far as limits and conditions are concerned, is “free”, that is, it depends upon choice and the contract between the two parties. The fact of the marriage being temporary gives to both parties a sort of liberty, because (with regard to the fixation of the duration of the agreement) they can exercise their opinion.
In the case of permanent marriage, neither of the two parties (without the consent of the other party) has a right to exercise restraint in having children or to practice birth-control, but in fixed-term marriage, the consent of the other party is not necessary. In fact, this is another sort of freedom that has been given to the couple.
The children born to the couple who have temporarily married are in no way different from the issue of a permanent marriage.
Mahr (dower) is also a pre-requisite in a permanent marriage as well as in a fixed-term marriage, with the difference that in a fixed-term marriage non-specification of the amount of the mahr nullifies the marriage, whereas in a permanent marriage the marriage itself not nullified and an unspecified mahr can be arranged.
In permanent marriage, the mother and the daughter of the wife, and the father and son of the husband are forbidden (for marriage) and are mahram; [2] it is similarly the case with the above relations in temporary (fixed-term) marriage. Besides, just as proposing marriage to a permanently married woman is prohibited, so is it also in the case of a fixed-term married woman; just adultery with a permanently married woman makes her prohibited to the adulterer forever, so also does it in the case of a temporarily married woman; just as a permanent wife has to observe a period of iddah (during which she may not marry) after divorce, so a temporary wife also has to observe a period of iddah after the termination of the agreed period of the marriage or its dissolution. There is this much difference, that the period of iddah for a permanent married woman after divorce is (the time of) three periods of menstruation, while for temporarily married woman it is (the time of) two period of menstruation or forty-five days. In the case of a permanently married wife, a man cannot, while she is alive, marry her sister. In the case of a fixed- marriage, also, two sisters cannot be married to the same person at one time.
These are some of the relevant principles of temporary or terminable marriage as mentioned in Shi’ite jurisprudence, and our Civil Law has observed them to the latter.
We, of course, uphold this law which has the above distinctive features. If our people have, in the name of this law, misused it and are still misusing it, the law itself is not at fault. If this law were nullified, the objectionable practice would not stop; only the form would he changed. Besides, there would be hundreds of evils that would result from the annulment of this law. We must not launch an attack on the spirit of the law, when we should be reforming and awakening man, simply because of man’s lack of capability and fitness for reform, and then exonerate man and hold the law responsible.
Now, let us examine what necessity there is for a law in the name of fixed-term marriage, when there is already a law of permanent marriage? Is a fixed-term marriage, as the contributors to Zan-e ruz have written, incompatible with the dignity of a woman as a human being, and against the spirit of the Charter of Human Rights? Is not temporary marriage, if it ever was a necessity at all, a necessity of a by-gone era? And is it not true that the contemporary life-style, the conditions and demands of present-day life, argue against it?
We shall examine this point under two headings:—
a) Contemporary life and fixed-marriage.
b) The defects and evils of fixed-term marriage.
Contemporary life and fixed-term marriage
As we already know, permanent marriage creates great deal of responsibilities and duties for the couple. This is why a boy and a girl in their early youth, when they enter the period in which natural puberty brings them under the pressures of the instincts, are not ready for a permanent marriage. The characteristic feature of our modern age is the lengthening of the span of time between natural puberty and social maturity, when one becomes capable of establishing a family. If, in the simple old days, a boy at the beginning of his natural puberty could take up a vocation in which he could still till the end of his life, this is no longer possible. A student who successfully passes through his education in primary school, secondary school and university without any interruption, and gets his school certificate and passes the university entrance examination, will graduate at the age of twenty-five. Surely it will then take three to four years to arrange things to get married permanently. The same applies in the case of an educated girl who has to pass through all the stages of study.
Modern youth, the time of puberty, and the onset of textual activity:
If you ask a boy student of eighteen years of age who sexual ardor is naturally at its height, to get married permanently, people would laugh at you. The same is the case with a girl student of sixteen. It is not practically possible for this category of people to burden themselves at such an early age with the responsibilities of permanent marriage and commit themselves to a life with the many duties and obligations towards each other and also towards the children which they will have.
Monasticism for a fixed period, sexual communism, or fixed-term marriage:
I ask you how, in these circumstances, with these natural instincts, should we behave? Is nature prepared to delay the advent of puberty till we complete our education, and bring our sexual instinct to stand still, because our modern way of life does not permit us to marry at sixteen or seventeen years of age?
Are the young ready to undergo a period of temporary asceticism and put themselves under the strain of rigid austerity till such time as there may arise an occasion for permanent marriage? Suppose a young person is prepared to undergo temporary asceticism, will nature be ready to forego the formation of the dreadful and dangerous psychological penalties which are found in the wake of abstention from instinctive sexual activity and which psychiatrists are now discovering?
There remain two alternatives only. We may leave the young to themselves and ignore what they do. We may allow a boy to have unlawful sexual relations with hundreds of girls, and allow a girl to have unlawful relations with tens of boys and have so many abortions. In other words, in practice, we accept sexual communism, and because we have given liberty to the young man and young woman equally we have satisfied the spirit of the Charter of Human Rights. We say this, because, according to so many persons lacking foresight, the spirit of the Charter of Human Rights is that if a woman and a man are to leap into the valley of Gehenna, they should leap together, hand in hand, shoulder to shoulder.
Can such young men and women, who have had sexual relations with a large and unlimited number during their student life, turn out to be new men of life and women of the family when they become permanently married?
The other course is fixed-term free marriage. Fixed-term marriage puts the limit on a woman that she must not be the wife of two men at the same time. Evidently such a restriction upon the woman itself necessitates a restriction upon the man. When every woman has exclusive attachment to a particular man, every man will necessarily be attached to a particular woman, excepting in cases which the number on one side may be more. [3] With this arrangement a young man and woman may live through the time of their education without falling back upon temporary asceticism and enduring its penalties, and without falling into the abyss of sexual communism.
Experimental marriage
The occasion for such marriage is not confined to the period of study. It may arise in other circumstances too. In principle it is possible that a man and a woman who want to marry permanently, but have not had the opportunity to get to know each other well enough, may marry temporarily for a specified period as an experiment, If they are fully confident and satisfied with each other, they may give permanence to this marriage, otherwise they can separate.
I ask you why Europeans think it necessary and unavoidable to maintain a number of prostitutes in a specified area in every town under the control and observation of the state. Is there any other reason except to make sure that the numbers of bachelors who cannot afford to marry permanently do not become a great danger for families?[4]
Russell’s views on fixed-term marriage:
Bertrand Russell, the well-known British philosopher in his book Marriage and Morals writes: “So long as the virtue of respectable women is regarded as a matter of great importance, the institution of marriage has to be supplemented by another institution which may really be regarded as a part of it — I mean the institution of prostitution. Everybody is familiar with the famous passage in which Lecky speaks of prostitutes as safeguards of the sanctity of the home and of the innocence of our wives and daughters. The sentiment is Victorian, and the manner of expression is old-fashioned, but the fact is undeniable. Moralists have denounced Lecky because his remark made them feel furious and they did not quite know why, but they have not succeeded in showing that what he said was untrue, The moralist asserts, of course quite truly, that if men followed his teaching there would be no prostitution, but he knows quite well that they will not follow it, so that the consideration of what would happen if they did is quite irrelevant” (p.97)
This is a Western formula for finding a remedy against the danger to men and women who cannot afford to marry permanently, and previously we saw the formula which Islam has put forward. If this Western formula be accepted and put into practice and a group of unlucky women are specifically allocated for fulfillment of this “social duty”, will woman then rise to her real position and be given human respect, and ,will the spirit of the Declaration of Human Rights be satisfied?
Bertrand Russell has written a full chapter on the subject of experimental marriage in his book Marriage and Morals. He says:
“Judge Ben B. Lindsey, who was for many years in charge of the juvenile court at Denver, and in that position had unrivalled opportunities for ascertaining the facts, proposed a new institution which he calls ‘companionate marriage’. Unfortunately he has lost his official position, for when it became known that he used it rather to promote the happiness of the young than to give them a consciousness of sin, Ku Klux Klan and the Catholics combined to oust him. Companionate marriage is the proposal of wise conservative. It is an attempt to introduce some stability into the sexual relations of the young, in place of the present promiscuity. He points out the obvious fact that what prevents the young from marrying is lack of money, and that money is required in marriage partly on account of children, but partly also because it is not the thing for the wife to earn her own living. His view is that young people should be able to enter upon a new kind of marriage, distinguished from ordinary marriage by three characteristics. First, there should be for the time being no intention of having children and that accordingly the best available birth-control information should be given to the young couple. Second, that so long as there are no children and the wife is not pregnant; divorce should be possible by mutual consent. And third, that in the event of divorce, the wife should not he entitled to alimony. He holds, and I think rightly that if such an institution were established by law, a very great many young people, for example students at university would enter upon comparatively permanent partnerships, involving a common life, and free from the Dionysiac characteristics of their present sex relations. He brings evidence to hear that young students who are married do better work than such as are unmarried. It is indeed obvious that work and sex are more easily combined in a quasi-permanent relation than in the scramble and excitement of parties and alcoholic stimulation. There is no reason under the sun why it should be more expensive for two young people to live together than to live separately, and therefore the economic reasons which at present lead to postponement of marriage would no longer operate. I have not the faintest doubt that Judge Lindsey’s plan, if embodied in the law, would have a very beneficial influence, and that this influence would be such as all might agree to be a gain from the moral point of view.” (ibid. pp. 107— 109)
That which Judge Lindsey and Russell call ‘companionate marriage’, though it is a little different from temporary Islamic marriage, clearly shows that thinkers like them have gone to the root of the problem and are satisfied on the point that the usual permanent marriage is not by itself sufficient for social requirements.
The distinct feature of truth, of course is that doubt and disbelief help to make it all the more vivid. Doubt precedes belief, and indecision is the source of investigation. Zindah bidar [1] quotes from al-Ghazali’s treatise Mizanul-‘amal: “…..The utility of our exhortations is only this much that you may begin to have misgivings about your time-ridden traditional conceptions, for indecision is the basis of investigation and one who does not doubt is not reflecting on things in the right way. One who does not look in the right way does not see things well, and such a man lives in blindness and confusion.”
Let them speak, write, hold seminars and protest till, in spite of themselves, they will become a means of making clear the realities of Islamic teachings.
One of the brilliant laws of Islam, according to the Ja’fari (shi’ite) school, which is the formally established sect in our country, is that marriage may take place in two years: permanently or for a fixed period.
Permanent and fixed-term marriages are alike in some of their arrangements and different in certain others. One of the features that distinguish between them is, in the first instance, that in fixed-term marriage a woman and a man take a decision that they will undertake a marriage for a fixed period, and at the end of that period, if they are inclined to extend the period, they may extend it, and if they do not wish to do, they may separate from each other.
The other feature is that they have more freedom in the settling of terms and conditions according to how they wish. For example, in a permanent marriage a man is responsible, whether he likes it or not, for daily expenses, clothing, dwelling and the other necessities of life, such as medicine and medical treatment, but in a fixed-term marriage, the couple is joined by the free contract that was agreed upon by them. It is possible that the man may not wish, or cannot afford, to bear these expenses, or that the woman does not wish to use the money of the man.
In a permanent marriage the wife, whether she likes it or not, must accept the man as the head of the household and carry out what he says in the interest of the family situation, but in a fixed term marriage everything depends upon the terms of the agreement they conclude between themselves.
In permanent marriage, the wife and the husband, whether they like it or not will have mutual rights of inheritance with each other, while in a fixed-term marriage this is not so. Thus the real and essential difference between the fixed–term and the permanent marriage is that the former, as far as limits and conditions are concerned, is “free”, that is, it depends upon choice and the contract between the two parties. The fact of the marriage being temporary gives to both parties a sort of liberty, because (with regard to the fixation of the duration of the agreement) they can exercise their opinion.
In the case of permanent marriage, neither of the two parties (without the consent of the other party) has a right to exercise restraint in having children or to practice birth-control, but in fixed-term marriage, the consent of the other party is not necessary. In fact, this is another sort of freedom that has been given to the couple.
The children born to the couple who have temporarily married are in no way different from the issue of a permanent marriage.
Mahr (dower) is also a pre-requisite in a permanent marriage as well as in a fixed-term marriage, with the difference that in a fixed-term marriage non-specification of the amount of the mahr nullifies the marriage, whereas in a permanent marriage the marriage itself not nullified and an unspecified mahr can be arranged.
In permanent marriage, the mother and the daughter of the wife, and the father and son of the husband are forbidden (for marriage) and are mahram; [2] it is similarly the case with the above relations in temporary (fixed-term) marriage. Besides, just as proposing marriage to a permanently married woman is prohibited, so is it also in the case of a fixed-term married woman; just adultery with a permanently married woman makes her prohibited to the adulterer forever, so also does it in the case of a temporarily married woman; just as a permanent wife has to observe a period of iddah (during which she may not marry) after divorce, so a temporary wife also has to observe a period of iddah after the termination of the agreed period of the marriage or its dissolution. There is this much difference, that the period of iddah for a permanent married woman after divorce is (the time of) three periods of menstruation, while for temporarily married woman it is (the time of) two period of menstruation or forty-five days. In the case of a permanently married wife, a man cannot, while she is alive, marry her sister. In the case of a fixed- marriage, also, two sisters cannot be married to the same person at one time.
These are some of the relevant principles of temporary or terminable marriage as mentioned in Shi’ite jurisprudence, and our Civil Law has observed them to the latter.
We, of course, uphold this law which has the above distinctive features. If our people have, in the name of this law, misused it and are still misusing it, the law itself is not at fault. If this law were nullified, the objectionable practice would not stop; only the form would he changed. Besides, there would be hundreds of evils that would result from the annulment of this law. We must not launch an attack on the spirit of the law, when we should be reforming and awakening man, simply because of man’s lack of capability and fitness for reform, and then exonerate man and hold the law responsible.
Now, let us examine what necessity there is for a law in the name of fixed-term marriage, when there is already a law of permanent marriage? Is a fixed-term marriage, as the contributors to Zan-e ruz have written, incompatible with the dignity of a woman as a human being, and against the spirit of the Charter of Human Rights? Is not temporary marriage, if it ever was a necessity at all, a necessity of a by-gone era? And is it not true that the contemporary life-style, the conditions and demands of present-day life, argue against it?
We shall examine this point under two headings:—
a) Contemporary life and fixed-marriage.
b) The defects and evils of fixed-term marriage.
Contemporary life and fixed-term marriage
As we already know, permanent marriage creates great deal of responsibilities and duties for the couple. This is why a boy and a girl in their early youth, when they enter the period in which natural puberty brings them under the pressures of the instincts, are not ready for a permanent marriage. The characteristic feature of our modern age is the lengthening of the span of time between natural puberty and social maturity, when one becomes capable of establishing a family. If, in the simple old days, a boy at the beginning of his natural puberty could take up a vocation in which he could still till the end of his life, this is no longer possible. A student who successfully passes through his education in primary school, secondary school and university without any interruption, and gets his school certificate and passes the university entrance examination, will graduate at the age of twenty-five. Surely it will then take three to four years to arrange things to get married permanently. The same applies in the case of an educated girl who has to pass through all the stages of study.
Modern youth, the time of puberty, and the onset of textual activity:
If you ask a boy student of eighteen years of age who sexual ardor is naturally at its height, to get married permanently, people would laugh at you. The same is the case with a girl student of sixteen. It is not practically possible for this category of people to burden themselves at such an early age with the responsibilities of permanent marriage and commit themselves to a life with the many duties and obligations towards each other and also towards the children which they will have.
Monasticism for a fixed period, sexual communism, or fixed-term marriage:
I ask you how, in these circumstances, with these natural instincts, should we behave? Is nature prepared to delay the advent of puberty till we complete our education, and bring our sexual instinct to stand still, because our modern way of life does not permit us to marry at sixteen or seventeen years of age?
Are the young ready to undergo a period of temporary asceticism and put themselves under the strain of rigid austerity till such time as there may arise an occasion for permanent marriage? Suppose a young person is prepared to undergo temporary asceticism, will nature be ready to forego the formation of the dreadful and dangerous psychological penalties which are found in the wake of abstention from instinctive sexual activity and which psychiatrists are now discovering?
There remain two alternatives only. We may leave the young to themselves and ignore what they do. We may allow a boy to have unlawful sexual relations with hundreds of girls, and allow a girl to have unlawful relations with tens of boys and have so many abortions. In other words, in practice, we accept sexual communism, and because we have given liberty to the young man and young woman equally we have satisfied the spirit of the Charter of Human Rights. We say this, because, according to so many persons lacking foresight, the spirit of the Charter of Human Rights is that if a woman and a man are to leap into the valley of Gehenna, they should leap together, hand in hand, shoulder to shoulder.
Can such young men and women, who have had sexual relations with a large and unlimited number during their student life, turn out to be new men of life and women of the family when they become permanently married?
The other course is fixed-term free marriage. Fixed-term marriage puts the limit on a woman that she must not be the wife of two men at the same time. Evidently such a restriction upon the woman itself necessitates a restriction upon the man. When every woman has exclusive attachment to a particular man, every man will necessarily be attached to a particular woman, excepting in cases which the number on one side may be more. [3] With this arrangement a young man and woman may live through the time of their education without falling back upon temporary asceticism and enduring its penalties, and without falling into the abyss of sexual communism.
Experimental marriage
The occasion for such marriage is not confined to the period of study. It may arise in other circumstances too. In principle it is possible that a man and a woman who want to marry permanently, but have not had the opportunity to get to know each other well enough, may marry temporarily for a specified period as an experiment, If they are fully confident and satisfied with each other, they may give permanence to this marriage, otherwise they can separate.
I ask you why Europeans think it necessary and unavoidable to maintain a number of prostitutes in a specified area in every town under the control and observation of the state. Is there any other reason except to make sure that the numbers of bachelors who cannot afford to marry permanently do not become a great danger for families?[4]
Russell’s views on fixed-term marriage:
Bertrand Russell, the well-known British philosopher in his book Marriage and Morals writes: “So long as the virtue of respectable women is regarded as a matter of great importance, the institution of marriage has to be supplemented by another institution which may really be regarded as a part of it — I mean the institution of prostitution. Everybody is familiar with the famous passage in which Lecky speaks of prostitutes as safeguards of the sanctity of the home and of the innocence of our wives and daughters. The sentiment is Victorian, and the manner of expression is old-fashioned, but the fact is undeniable. Moralists have denounced Lecky because his remark made them feel furious and they did not quite know why, but they have not succeeded in showing that what he said was untrue, The moralist asserts, of course quite truly, that if men followed his teaching there would be no prostitution, but he knows quite well that they will not follow it, so that the consideration of what would happen if they did is quite irrelevant” (p.97)
This is a Western formula for finding a remedy against the danger to men and women who cannot afford to marry permanently, and previously we saw the formula which Islam has put forward. If this Western formula be accepted and put into practice and a group of unlucky women are specifically allocated for fulfillment of this “social duty”, will woman then rise to her real position and be given human respect, and ,will the spirit of the Declaration of Human Rights be satisfied?
Bertrand Russell has written a full chapter on the subject of experimental marriage in his book Marriage and Morals. He says:
“Judge Ben B. Lindsey, who was for many years in charge of the juvenile court at Denver, and in that position had unrivalled opportunities for ascertaining the facts, proposed a new institution which he calls ‘companionate marriage’. Unfortunately he has lost his official position, for when it became known that he used it rather to promote the happiness of the young than to give them a consciousness of sin, Ku Klux Klan and the Catholics combined to oust him. Companionate marriage is the proposal of wise conservative. It is an attempt to introduce some stability into the sexual relations of the young, in place of the present promiscuity. He points out the obvious fact that what prevents the young from marrying is lack of money, and that money is required in marriage partly on account of children, but partly also because it is not the thing for the wife to earn her own living. His view is that young people should be able to enter upon a new kind of marriage, distinguished from ordinary marriage by three characteristics. First, there should be for the time being no intention of having children and that accordingly the best available birth-control information should be given to the young couple. Second, that so long as there are no children and the wife is not pregnant; divorce should be possible by mutual consent. And third, that in the event of divorce, the wife should not he entitled to alimony. He holds, and I think rightly that if such an institution were established by law, a very great many young people, for example students at university would enter upon comparatively permanent partnerships, involving a common life, and free from the Dionysiac characteristics of their present sex relations. He brings evidence to hear that young students who are married do better work than such as are unmarried. It is indeed obvious that work and sex are more easily combined in a quasi-permanent relation than in the scramble and excitement of parties and alcoholic stimulation. There is no reason under the sun why it should be more expensive for two young people to live together than to live separately, and therefore the economic reasons which at present lead to postponement of marriage would no longer operate. I have not the faintest doubt that Judge Lindsey’s plan, if embodied in the law, would have a very beneficial influence, and that this influence would be such as all might agree to be a gain from the moral point of view.” (ibid. pp. 107— 109)
That which Judge Lindsey and Russell call ‘companionate marriage’, though it is a little different from temporary Islamic marriage, clearly shows that thinkers like them have gone to the root of the problem and are satisfied on the point that the usual permanent marriage is not by itself sufficient for social requirements.
Islam and Modernity II
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 labour, production and distribution, command and obedience, order and compliance are in force in their social groups.
Bees and some ants and termites have been favoured 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:
(..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 has 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, 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 not like an animal who, 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 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, endeavour 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 naivity 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. 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 naïve 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 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 judgement 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.
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 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 naivity. 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 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 cliche 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 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 aeroplane 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 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 have 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 humanised?
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 labour to attain their nefarious purposes. The loud complaint of science is always that it has become the object of exploitation by man’s unrulv 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 unforeseebly 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 harness 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 honour of Einstein, the great scholar of the 20th century, he himself mounted the rostrum and said, “In whose honour 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 pilot on innocent people, the savagery of the act would not be lessened in the least.
Bees and some ants and termites have been favoured 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:
(..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 has 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, 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 not like an animal who, 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 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, endeavour 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 naivity 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. 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 naïve 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 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 judgement 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.
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 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 naivity. 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 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 cliche 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 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 aeroplane 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 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 have 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 humanised?
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 labour to attain their nefarious purposes. The loud complaint of science is always that it has become the object of exploitation by man’s unrulv 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 unforeseebly 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 harness 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 honour of Einstein, the great scholar of the 20th century, he himself mounted the rostrum and said, “In whose honour 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 pilot on innocent people, the savagery of the act would not be lessened in the least.
1, 2, 3's Of Marital Life
By Sahar Abdu
Islam Online, Cairo
My beloved brother came to me so depressed. I tried very hard to help him and to comprehend the source of his depression and misery. I have often felt his pain with my experience in marital relationships. My brother is a newlywed. He worries about his failure to solve his marital problems and daily clashes with his wife. I felt his pain as well as his wife's. Neither of them had the chance to fully understand how to be a husband or wife. I told him that Allah SW has made us in constant need, with our physical, emotional and financial needs. However, the emotional needs are the most important of these. Allah SW says in the holy Quran it is He (SWT), "Who provides them with food against hunger and with security against fear (of danger)."
Fulfilling these emotional needs is very important to the establishment of a stable martial life and family. These needs include:
The Need For Love
This is by far the most important type of need. Unfortunately, couples have a tendency overlook it. The need for love in its general meaning is vital for the continuation of the marital life. Therefore, couples should renew their love continuously. The following are some of the methods that nurture love between husbands and wives:
Do not make comparisons between the engagement period and the marriage. It is just unfair. Both have their own conditions. Couples frequently worry about the absence in their marriage of the intense emotions they felt during engagement. They forget that these feelings mature into other types of love and express themselves in much more mature ways.
Do not surrender to life's problems and burdens. Marital life can get complicated, especially when children enter the picture. Couples feel the real everyday pressures of caring for their children, their homes and their spouses. It is easy to become overwhelmed and forget to smile or laugh.
Do not use other couples as the standard for yourselves. Husbands and wives should absolutely refrain from making any comparisons with other couples. For instance, the husband must not tell his wife so and so is better than you, nor could she tell him so and so is better than you. It offends him or her. And it is not always the case that the other couples situation is what it appears.
Be forgiving of each other's shortcomings. Couples should look past minor failings and concentrate instead on the positive. The focus should be on good deeds and the encouragement of anything that promotes harmony, respect and love.
Simplicity. Life is already complicated enough. Couples should work to simplify it for one another. The home should be a sanctuary from the stresses of life. The actions of the Prophet PBUH are a guide to us in this regard.
Express your love. Couples should express their love to each other by all means possible. They should nurture this love, strengthen it and enjoy it. Unfortunately, some cultures do not promote the male's explicit expressions of love because they associate manhood with toughness. Our Prophet (PBUH) again was the most compassionate and loving husband. His gentleness with his wives is also a guide to our relationships. This expression may be needed more and more when the wife goes through difficult physical times, like pregnancy or delivery. A loving touch, a gentle word, a smile, or a comforting word are often all it takes to assure the other side of your love, support and appreciation.
The Need For Freedom
The type of freedom needed here is a comprehensive freedom in all aspects of life. It includes:
Financial freedom. The husband should always give his wife some money to spend it whenever she feels necessary, even if his income is limited. Women need to feel secure financially. This is why Islam mandated the dowry to women.
Freedom of independent opinion. Both sides should not impose their own opinions on the other. They should respect the independence of the other and respect the difference in their views. Viewing the spouse's opinion as silly or belittling it in any way does not contribute to a healthy marital relationship.
Social freedom within the guides of the Shari'a. Men should have full confidence in their wives when they seek to go to school, visit family, visit friends or seek a job as long as both sides are performing their duties toward themselves and toward the family. Both should realize the need for restrictions on these freedoms. However, the margin of freedom should be respected.
The Need For Success
Husbands and wives need the assistance of each other to succeed in anything they do, even if it is simple matter. No one ought to ridicule what the other is doing, but encourage the other to be their best.
The Need For Change
Daily routine needs to be broken sometimes. There is a need for a walk, a trip, a change in the house decoration, going to the park, to the zoo, etc. These activities renew life and provide it with energy and continuity.
Sexual Needs
Sex is natural and both sides should work hard to fulfill the needs of the other. Couples should not shy from admitting the existence of some sexual problems. There is no harm in that. Both should work on them and seek sexual fulfillment. Statistics have shown that 70% of marital problems are of sexual nature.
In conclusion my dear brothers and sisters, if love and compassion exists between couples, they should be able to solve any problem facing them. I pray to Allah SWT to grant all couples happiness and prosperity. Let us all remember that life is so short and we should enjoy it
Islam Online, Cairo
My beloved brother came to me so depressed. I tried very hard to help him and to comprehend the source of his depression and misery. I have often felt his pain with my experience in marital relationships. My brother is a newlywed. He worries about his failure to solve his marital problems and daily clashes with his wife. I felt his pain as well as his wife's. Neither of them had the chance to fully understand how to be a husband or wife. I told him that Allah SW has made us in constant need, with our physical, emotional and financial needs. However, the emotional needs are the most important of these. Allah SW says in the holy Quran it is He (SWT), "Who provides them with food against hunger and with security against fear (of danger)."
Fulfilling these emotional needs is very important to the establishment of a stable martial life and family. These needs include:
The Need For Love
This is by far the most important type of need. Unfortunately, couples have a tendency overlook it. The need for love in its general meaning is vital for the continuation of the marital life. Therefore, couples should renew their love continuously. The following are some of the methods that nurture love between husbands and wives:
Do not make comparisons between the engagement period and the marriage. It is just unfair. Both have their own conditions. Couples frequently worry about the absence in their marriage of the intense emotions they felt during engagement. They forget that these feelings mature into other types of love and express themselves in much more mature ways.
Do not surrender to life's problems and burdens. Marital life can get complicated, especially when children enter the picture. Couples feel the real everyday pressures of caring for their children, their homes and their spouses. It is easy to become overwhelmed and forget to smile or laugh.
Do not use other couples as the standard for yourselves. Husbands and wives should absolutely refrain from making any comparisons with other couples. For instance, the husband must not tell his wife so and so is better than you, nor could she tell him so and so is better than you. It offends him or her. And it is not always the case that the other couples situation is what it appears.
Be forgiving of each other's shortcomings. Couples should look past minor failings and concentrate instead on the positive. The focus should be on good deeds and the encouragement of anything that promotes harmony, respect and love.
Simplicity. Life is already complicated enough. Couples should work to simplify it for one another. The home should be a sanctuary from the stresses of life. The actions of the Prophet PBUH are a guide to us in this regard.
Express your love. Couples should express their love to each other by all means possible. They should nurture this love, strengthen it and enjoy it. Unfortunately, some cultures do not promote the male's explicit expressions of love because they associate manhood with toughness. Our Prophet (PBUH) again was the most compassionate and loving husband. His gentleness with his wives is also a guide to our relationships. This expression may be needed more and more when the wife goes through difficult physical times, like pregnancy or delivery. A loving touch, a gentle word, a smile, or a comforting word are often all it takes to assure the other side of your love, support and appreciation.
The Need For Freedom
The type of freedom needed here is a comprehensive freedom in all aspects of life. It includes:
Financial freedom. The husband should always give his wife some money to spend it whenever she feels necessary, even if his income is limited. Women need to feel secure financially. This is why Islam mandated the dowry to women.
Freedom of independent opinion. Both sides should not impose their own opinions on the other. They should respect the independence of the other and respect the difference in their views. Viewing the spouse's opinion as silly or belittling it in any way does not contribute to a healthy marital relationship.
Social freedom within the guides of the Shari'a. Men should have full confidence in their wives when they seek to go to school, visit family, visit friends or seek a job as long as both sides are performing their duties toward themselves and toward the family. Both should realize the need for restrictions on these freedoms. However, the margin of freedom should be respected.
The Need For Success
Husbands and wives need the assistance of each other to succeed in anything they do, even if it is simple matter. No one ought to ridicule what the other is doing, but encourage the other to be their best.
The Need For Change
Daily routine needs to be broken sometimes. There is a need for a walk, a trip, a change in the house decoration, going to the park, to the zoo, etc. These activities renew life and provide it with energy and continuity.
Sexual Needs
Sex is natural and both sides should work hard to fulfill the needs of the other. Couples should not shy from admitting the existence of some sexual problems. There is no harm in that. Both should work on them and seek sexual fulfillment. Statistics have shown that 70% of marital problems are of sexual nature.
In conclusion my dear brothers and sisters, if love and compassion exists between couples, they should be able to solve any problem facing them. I pray to Allah SWT to grant all couples happiness and prosperity. Let us all remember that life is so short and we should enjoy it
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Who is a Mahram
Any woman with whom a man has a relationship (of blood or fosterage) that precludes marriage, is considered a Mahram to him. Mahram women include his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, aunt, grandaunt, niece, grandniece, his father’s wife, his wife’s daughter, his mother-in-law, his foster mother (the one who nursed him), foster sisters, and any foster relatives that are similar to the above mentioned blood relatives as the Prophet (SAW) said,
"What is forbidden by reason of kindship is forbidden by reason of suckling." (Related by Al-Bukhari)
These are considered Maharim because Allah (SWT) mentioned them in the Holy Quran:
"And marry not women whom your fathers married, except what has already passed; indeed it was shameful and most hateful, and an evil way. Forbidden to you (for marriage) are: your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, your father’s sisters, your mother’s sisters, your brother’s daughters, your sister’s daughters, your foster mother who gave you suck, your foster milk suckling sisters, your wives’ mothers, your step-daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives to whom you have gon in - but there is no sin on you if you have not gone in them (to marry their daughters), - the wives of your sons who (spring) from your own loins, and two sisters in wedlock at the same time, except for what has already passed; verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." (An-Nisa 4:22-23)
All the man’s female relatives mentioned in these two verses are considered his Maharim, because it is unlawful (haram) for him to marry them, except the wife’s sister mentioned last, who is not a Mahram because he can marry her if he divorces her sister, or if she dies. Reciprocally, if a woman is a Mahram to a man, such as her brother, her father, her uncle, …etc. then he is a Mahram to her.
All other relatives are considered non-Maharim and they fall under the category of strangers to her, except one’s wife or husband who is also called Mahram.
"What is forbidden by reason of kindship is forbidden by reason of suckling." (Related by Al-Bukhari)
These are considered Maharim because Allah (SWT) mentioned them in the Holy Quran:
"And marry not women whom your fathers married, except what has already passed; indeed it was shameful and most hateful, and an evil way. Forbidden to you (for marriage) are: your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, your father’s sisters, your mother’s sisters, your brother’s daughters, your sister’s daughters, your foster mother who gave you suck, your foster milk suckling sisters, your wives’ mothers, your step-daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives to whom you have gon in - but there is no sin on you if you have not gone in them (to marry their daughters), - the wives of your sons who (spring) from your own loins, and two sisters in wedlock at the same time, except for what has already passed; verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." (An-Nisa 4:22-23)
All the man’s female relatives mentioned in these two verses are considered his Maharim, because it is unlawful (haram) for him to marry them, except the wife’s sister mentioned last, who is not a Mahram because he can marry her if he divorces her sister, or if she dies. Reciprocally, if a woman is a Mahram to a man, such as her brother, her father, her uncle, …etc. then he is a Mahram to her.
All other relatives are considered non-Maharim and they fall under the category of strangers to her, except one’s wife or husband who is also called Mahram.
The Right of Khula (Separation)
Muhammad Yousaf Taibi
Khula means to take off. In this context it means take off a marriage bond (by women). Allah (SWT) gave the husband the right to divorce and to balance the rights of the spouses; He gave the women the right to separate.
Allah (SWT) says:
"...And it is not lawful for you (men) to take back (from your wives) any of your Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage) which you have given them, except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah (e.g. to deal with each other on a fair basis). Then if you fear that they would not be able to keep the limits ordained by Allah, then there is no sin on either of them if she gives back (the Mahr or a part of it) for her Al-Khul' (divorce)..." (Al-Baqarah 2:229)
Explaining this Hadith, Hafiz Ibn-e-Kathir writes: It is not lawful for you to tease your women so that you may take the dower back. However if the disagreement does not dissolve and the wife dislikes the husband and does not fulfill his rights, then she can obtain Khula by giving the dower back.
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas (RA): The wife of Thabit bin Qais came to the Prophet and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I do not blame Thabit for defects in his character or his religion, but I, being a Muslim, dislike to behave in un-Islamic manner (if I remain with him)." On that Allah's Apostle said (to her), "Will you give back the garden which your husband has given you (as Mahr)?" She said, "Yes." Then the Prophet said to Thabit, "O Thabit! Accept your garden, and divorce her once." (Sahih Al-Bukhari)
These Ahadith show that if the husband wants to divorce his wife, then he should not tease her to get the dower back. This is unlawful for him but if he does not want to divorce but the wife is bent on separation, then she should return the dower and seek separation. However, it is not lawful for a woman to obtain Khula without any reason. If she does on the persuasion of her parents or anyone else, then such a woman would not even get the scent of Paradise.
Thoban (RA) said: the Prophet (SAW) said:
"If any woman asks her husband for divorce without some strong reason, the odor of Paradise will be forbidden to her." (Sunan Abu Dawud)
In another Hadith, Abu Hurairah (RA) said: the Prophet of Allah (SAW) said:
"Those who seek Khula without any reason are hypocrites." (Musnad Ahmad)
It is not essential to seek Khula through court, the two parties can separate through mutual agreement. But if the husband does not agree then the wife can contact the court. As far as the question whether in case of Khula the amount more than dower can be demanded or not is concerned, the scholars differ on it. Some scholars regard it as unlawful. They quote the following Hadith as a proof. The Prophet (SAW) said:
"Don't demad the amount greater than the dower." (Ibn Majah)
The scholars have also differed on the matter whether Khula is a divorce or cancellation of Nikah. But the fact is whatever name you give it, its commands will remain the same. In case of Khula, the waiting period (Iddah) of a women is one menstruation period. When Rabi bint Masoodt obtained Khula from Thabit (RA), the Prophet (SAW) asked her to wait until one menstruation period before she could go her home. (An-Nissai, Abu Daud, Tirmizee)
Another thing worth mentioning is that in case of Khula, the husband does not have the right to touch his wife. Of course in that case it will negate the concept of Khula.
If the woman is pregnant than she does not have the right to marry again until the delivery because Allah (SWT) says:
"...And for those who are pregnant (whether they are divorced or their husbands are dead), their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is until they deliver (their burdens)..." (At-Talaq 65:4)
So the above discussion means that a wife buys the right of Khula by returning the dower.
Khula means to take off. In this context it means take off a marriage bond (by women). Allah (SWT) gave the husband the right to divorce and to balance the rights of the spouses; He gave the women the right to separate.
Allah (SWT) says:
"...And it is not lawful for you (men) to take back (from your wives) any of your Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage) which you have given them, except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah (e.g. to deal with each other on a fair basis). Then if you fear that they would not be able to keep the limits ordained by Allah, then there is no sin on either of them if she gives back (the Mahr or a part of it) for her Al-Khul' (divorce)..." (Al-Baqarah 2:229)
Explaining this Hadith, Hafiz Ibn-e-Kathir writes: It is not lawful for you to tease your women so that you may take the dower back. However if the disagreement does not dissolve and the wife dislikes the husband and does not fulfill his rights, then she can obtain Khula by giving the dower back.
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas (RA): The wife of Thabit bin Qais came to the Prophet and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I do not blame Thabit for defects in his character or his religion, but I, being a Muslim, dislike to behave in un-Islamic manner (if I remain with him)." On that Allah's Apostle said (to her), "Will you give back the garden which your husband has given you (as Mahr)?" She said, "Yes." Then the Prophet said to Thabit, "O Thabit! Accept your garden, and divorce her once." (Sahih Al-Bukhari)
These Ahadith show that if the husband wants to divorce his wife, then he should not tease her to get the dower back. This is unlawful for him but if he does not want to divorce but the wife is bent on separation, then she should return the dower and seek separation. However, it is not lawful for a woman to obtain Khula without any reason. If she does on the persuasion of her parents or anyone else, then such a woman would not even get the scent of Paradise.
Thoban (RA) said: the Prophet (SAW) said:
"If any woman asks her husband for divorce without some strong reason, the odor of Paradise will be forbidden to her." (Sunan Abu Dawud)
In another Hadith, Abu Hurairah (RA) said: the Prophet of Allah (SAW) said:
"Those who seek Khula without any reason are hypocrites." (Musnad Ahmad)
It is not essential to seek Khula through court, the two parties can separate through mutual agreement. But if the husband does not agree then the wife can contact the court. As far as the question whether in case of Khula the amount more than dower can be demanded or not is concerned, the scholars differ on it. Some scholars regard it as unlawful. They quote the following Hadith as a proof. The Prophet (SAW) said:
"Don't demad the amount greater than the dower." (Ibn Majah)
The scholars have also differed on the matter whether Khula is a divorce or cancellation of Nikah. But the fact is whatever name you give it, its commands will remain the same. In case of Khula, the waiting period (Iddah) of a women is one menstruation period. When Rabi bint Masoodt obtained Khula from Thabit (RA), the Prophet (SAW) asked her to wait until one menstruation period before she could go her home. (An-Nissai, Abu Daud, Tirmizee)
Another thing worth mentioning is that in case of Khula, the husband does not have the right to touch his wife. Of course in that case it will negate the concept of Khula.
If the woman is pregnant than she does not have the right to marry again until the delivery because Allah (SWT) says:
"...And for those who are pregnant (whether they are divorced or their husbands are dead), their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is until they deliver (their burdens)..." (At-Talaq 65:4)
So the above discussion means that a wife buys the right of Khula by returning the dower.
Polygyny (Ta’ad-dud)
As one glances across the history of Islam, one can not help but notice the deep impressions made by faithful believing women who comforted, trusted, and endured poverty and hardship, nursed and even fought in battles beside their men - women who willingly hid their charms because of Allah’s (SWT) command and strove to show Islam to all nations - women who were not overly influenced by the lure of the material world and who excelled within the Islamic bounds set for women.
Yet, today there are those who ask what type of woman would marry a man who is already married, without considering the fact that they need go no further than the wives of our Prophet (SAW) and other eminent companions to find the answer. Of course the standard reply is that those were different times. Perhaps they are unaware that Allah’s (SWT) laws are contained in the final dispensation, Islam, are not bound by considerations of time or place, but stand applicable whenever circumstances permit. No Muslim can deny that Allah (SWT) has sent His last revelation, His last Prophet (SAW) and His last Divine law and declared that He will not accept anything other than Islam as religion,
"…This day I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion…" (Al-Ma’idah 5:3)
"And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers." (Al-Imran 3:85)
And, Allah (SWT) has already instructed Muslims in no uncertain terms not to make unlawful that which He has made lawful. Thus, it is not fitting that those who choose to follow the Prophet’s (SAW) Sunnah be condemned for availing themselves of an option given to them by Allah (SWT). Polygyny is not a decadent or indecent relationship but a valid part of the marriage system of Islam. Allah (SWT) says,
"And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphan-girls, then marry (other) women of your choice, two or three, or four but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one or (the captives and the slaves) that your right hands possess. That is nearer to prevent you from doing injustice." (An-Nisa 4:3)
One must note that man is first told to marry two, three or four women, then he is advised to marry only one if he can not deal justly with more than one. This does not mean that Islam encourages all men to marry at least two women, but that such an option is undoubtedly permissible for those who can fulfill its conditions. The verse also sets the upper limit of four in a society in which an unlimited amount of simultaneous marriages were allowed. Thus a man must be able and willing to divide his time and wealth in an equitable fashion before he is allowed to have more than one wife. Conversely, if he is unable to feed, clothe and house all his wives justly, then, according to the Quranic command, he should not marry more than one. The point is that the permissibility of polygyny has been exemplified in the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) who was allowed by Allah (SWT) to marry nine women during the same time period. It is true that many of the marriages were for socio-political purposes like encouraging the marriage of widows, breaking certain taboos and linking clans; however, the Prophet (SAW) still married those who pleased him and turned down those who did not.
Nevertheless, many Muslims today find the subject of polygyny distasteful and insist on considering plural marriage demeaning to women. This is primarily because the roles of men and women in western society, at least, have become severely distorted. Women openly compete with men for the same jobs; men sue their wives for support payments; women’s clothing styles include suites and ties; men’s clothing styles include bracelets, necklaces, ear rings and long hair, and both sexes wear interchangeable clothing under the title of "uni-sex". The female has lost her natural position of protection in western society and is thus obliged to fight for equality with the male. Under such circumstances, it is not surprising to find western women and their eastern counterparts vehemently opposed to polygyny.
Women outnumber men at birth and live longer than men do. American women today can expect to live to be 77.9 years old and men can expect to live to age 70.3 according to the Center for Health Statistics. Couple that with the high incidence of violent crime among males, their war dead and the rise in the rates of homosexuality and it becomes obvious that there are not enough men for each woman to have one. Thus many women are obliged to become mistresses, girlfriends and playmates to fulfill their natural physical needs, leaving their psychological needs distorted in such demanding relationships. Muslims can choose to join the West in it death throes, falsely called "progress" and "sophistication", or choose to retain Islamic values. It is a fact that the average married western citizen continues to seek personal sexual freedom outside the framework of marriage. Serial or progressive monogamy in which a person remarries a number of times is so widespread today that it has arrived as an alternative marriage structure in American society. Some researchers predict that we are close to the day when 85% of all men and women reaching the age of sixty-five (in the US) will have been remarried at least once. Thus we can see that an Islamic society, which honors, shelters and protects women, is definitely preferable to a corrupt open society which forces women into despicable roles out of desperation or ignorance in order to compete with men for survival. Men are the natural guardians of women and every woman should be under the care of a guardian.
There is no doubt that no woman relishes the thought of sharing her husband with another and that plural marriages provide a base for jealousies to arise. However, the laws of Islam always give precedence to the general welfare of society over the individual discomfort or personal preferences. Hence the Islamic marriage system includes polygyny to protect and provide for the ever present surplus of females in most human societies. The institution of polygyny is the Islamic marriage system also takes into account certain undeniable aspects of human nature which affect male-female relationships. These aspects represent the natural instincts which must be present in order for men to be prepared and able to provide for the physical and emotional needs of the surplus females in society. Simply stated, men must have a greater instinctual sexual drive and a natural desire to have more than one wife, this has been scientifically proven.
Certain conditions are attached to plural marriages in Islam in order to protect the women involved because it is invariably the women who are taken advantage of in such relationships. For example, a man may not have more than four wives at a time and each marriage contract is legal and binding, involving the same rights, responsibilities and obligations as the first contract. That is, wife number one is not the mother or chief of all subsequent wives, nor is wife number four allowed preferential treatment at the expense of the other wives. Each individual marriage contracts carries the same amount of weight in an Islamic court of law and thus men are not allowed to openly attach greater importance to one at the expensive of the other. Such behavior would not be equitable treatment and might even be construed as oppression.
The Prophet (SAW) was reported to have said,
"Whoever has two wives and leaned unduly to one of them will come on the Day of Judgment with half of his body leaning." (Sunan Abu Dawud)
So the man must live with all of his wives on a footing of equality and kindness. In fact, the whole question of permissibility of plural marriages in Islam is tied to a given man’s ability to deal justly with all his wives in terms of his time and wealth.
The most important factor in a truly Islamic marriage is the piety of the partners involved. This fact was alluded to by the Prophet (SAW) in the following statement:
"A woman may be married for four reasons: for her property (wealth), her rank (lineage), her beauty and her religion. However, you should marry the one who is religious and you will be satisfied." (Sahih Bukhari)
Therefore, love, as it is known in the West, is not a prerequisite for marriage in Islam; hence the concept of plural marriages does not have as emotionally devastating an effect on a true Muslim woman as it would have on their non Muslim counterparts, except where WESTERN influences are great. In Islam, love usually follows marriage, so it is better to marry a religious, pious, disciplined man and love for Allah’s (SWT) pleasure rather than to develop a pre-marital romantic fixation which often fades in time due to the inevitable trials of marriage.
Hence, if a man is able to care for and take care of more than one wife justly, there is no sin on him if he does so. On the contrary, he should be commended for following the Sunnah of the Prophet (SAW) and fulfilling his role as a guardian of women.
Yet, today there are those who ask what type of woman would marry a man who is already married, without considering the fact that they need go no further than the wives of our Prophet (SAW) and other eminent companions to find the answer. Of course the standard reply is that those were different times. Perhaps they are unaware that Allah’s (SWT) laws are contained in the final dispensation, Islam, are not bound by considerations of time or place, but stand applicable whenever circumstances permit. No Muslim can deny that Allah (SWT) has sent His last revelation, His last Prophet (SAW) and His last Divine law and declared that He will not accept anything other than Islam as religion,
"…This day I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion…" (Al-Ma’idah 5:3)
"And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers." (Al-Imran 3:85)
And, Allah (SWT) has already instructed Muslims in no uncertain terms not to make unlawful that which He has made lawful. Thus, it is not fitting that those who choose to follow the Prophet’s (SAW) Sunnah be condemned for availing themselves of an option given to them by Allah (SWT). Polygyny is not a decadent or indecent relationship but a valid part of the marriage system of Islam. Allah (SWT) says,
"And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphan-girls, then marry (other) women of your choice, two or three, or four but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one or (the captives and the slaves) that your right hands possess. That is nearer to prevent you from doing injustice." (An-Nisa 4:3)
One must note that man is first told to marry two, three or four women, then he is advised to marry only one if he can not deal justly with more than one. This does not mean that Islam encourages all men to marry at least two women, but that such an option is undoubtedly permissible for those who can fulfill its conditions. The verse also sets the upper limit of four in a society in which an unlimited amount of simultaneous marriages were allowed. Thus a man must be able and willing to divide his time and wealth in an equitable fashion before he is allowed to have more than one wife. Conversely, if he is unable to feed, clothe and house all his wives justly, then, according to the Quranic command, he should not marry more than one. The point is that the permissibility of polygyny has been exemplified in the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) who was allowed by Allah (SWT) to marry nine women during the same time period. It is true that many of the marriages were for socio-political purposes like encouraging the marriage of widows, breaking certain taboos and linking clans; however, the Prophet (SAW) still married those who pleased him and turned down those who did not.
Nevertheless, many Muslims today find the subject of polygyny distasteful and insist on considering plural marriage demeaning to women. This is primarily because the roles of men and women in western society, at least, have become severely distorted. Women openly compete with men for the same jobs; men sue their wives for support payments; women’s clothing styles include suites and ties; men’s clothing styles include bracelets, necklaces, ear rings and long hair, and both sexes wear interchangeable clothing under the title of "uni-sex". The female has lost her natural position of protection in western society and is thus obliged to fight for equality with the male. Under such circumstances, it is not surprising to find western women and their eastern counterparts vehemently opposed to polygyny.
Women outnumber men at birth and live longer than men do. American women today can expect to live to be 77.9 years old and men can expect to live to age 70.3 according to the Center for Health Statistics. Couple that with the high incidence of violent crime among males, their war dead and the rise in the rates of homosexuality and it becomes obvious that there are not enough men for each woman to have one. Thus many women are obliged to become mistresses, girlfriends and playmates to fulfill their natural physical needs, leaving their psychological needs distorted in such demanding relationships. Muslims can choose to join the West in it death throes, falsely called "progress" and "sophistication", or choose to retain Islamic values. It is a fact that the average married western citizen continues to seek personal sexual freedom outside the framework of marriage. Serial or progressive monogamy in which a person remarries a number of times is so widespread today that it has arrived as an alternative marriage structure in American society. Some researchers predict that we are close to the day when 85% of all men and women reaching the age of sixty-five (in the US) will have been remarried at least once. Thus we can see that an Islamic society, which honors, shelters and protects women, is definitely preferable to a corrupt open society which forces women into despicable roles out of desperation or ignorance in order to compete with men for survival. Men are the natural guardians of women and every woman should be under the care of a guardian.
There is no doubt that no woman relishes the thought of sharing her husband with another and that plural marriages provide a base for jealousies to arise. However, the laws of Islam always give precedence to the general welfare of society over the individual discomfort or personal preferences. Hence the Islamic marriage system includes polygyny to protect and provide for the ever present surplus of females in most human societies. The institution of polygyny is the Islamic marriage system also takes into account certain undeniable aspects of human nature which affect male-female relationships. These aspects represent the natural instincts which must be present in order for men to be prepared and able to provide for the physical and emotional needs of the surplus females in society. Simply stated, men must have a greater instinctual sexual drive and a natural desire to have more than one wife, this has been scientifically proven.
Certain conditions are attached to plural marriages in Islam in order to protect the women involved because it is invariably the women who are taken advantage of in such relationships. For example, a man may not have more than four wives at a time and each marriage contract is legal and binding, involving the same rights, responsibilities and obligations as the first contract. That is, wife number one is not the mother or chief of all subsequent wives, nor is wife number four allowed preferential treatment at the expense of the other wives. Each individual marriage contracts carries the same amount of weight in an Islamic court of law and thus men are not allowed to openly attach greater importance to one at the expensive of the other. Such behavior would not be equitable treatment and might even be construed as oppression.
The Prophet (SAW) was reported to have said,
"Whoever has two wives and leaned unduly to one of them will come on the Day of Judgment with half of his body leaning." (Sunan Abu Dawud)
So the man must live with all of his wives on a footing of equality and kindness. In fact, the whole question of permissibility of plural marriages in Islam is tied to a given man’s ability to deal justly with all his wives in terms of his time and wealth.
The most important factor in a truly Islamic marriage is the piety of the partners involved. This fact was alluded to by the Prophet (SAW) in the following statement:
"A woman may be married for four reasons: for her property (wealth), her rank (lineage), her beauty and her religion. However, you should marry the one who is religious and you will be satisfied." (Sahih Bukhari)
Therefore, love, as it is known in the West, is not a prerequisite for marriage in Islam; hence the concept of plural marriages does not have as emotionally devastating an effect on a true Muslim woman as it would have on their non Muslim counterparts, except where WESTERN influences are great. In Islam, love usually follows marriage, so it is better to marry a religious, pious, disciplined man and love for Allah’s (SWT) pleasure rather than to develop a pre-marital romantic fixation which often fades in time due to the inevitable trials of marriage.
Hence, if a man is able to care for and take care of more than one wife justly, there is no sin on him if he does so. On the contrary, he should be commended for following the Sunnah of the Prophet (SAW) and fulfilling his role as a guardian of women.
