(b) Women Are A Danger To The Social Order
منذ 3 سنوات
669
After quoting Ghazali that, "The virtue of the woman is a man's duty. And the man should increase or decrease sexual intercourse with the woman according to her needs so as to secure her virtue," Mernissi comments, "The Ghazalian theory directly links the security of the social order to that of the women's virtue, and thus to the satisfaction of her sexual needs. Social order is secured when the women limits herself to her husband and does not create fitna, or chaos, by enticing other men to illicit intercourse."1
Firstly, by looking at Ghazali's statement, I see nothing which would seem to indicate that in his view women are a danger to the social order. It simply describes one of the basic rights of the conjugal relationship -that the huband should not be a self-centered and selfish person, rather he should also think about the feelings of his wife. There is no indication at all that unsatisfied Muslim women in general would necessarily go out and commit adultery.
Secondly, if unsatisfied women become a danger to the social order just because there is a possibility that they might commit adultery, then this possibility is in no way confined to women -even unsatisfied men could commit adultery! If Islam had considered women as a danger to the social order on this account, then it must also do so
Mernissi could not have been more further from the truth than in these contentions! Instead of going to the original sources of Islam, she has based her conclusion on the way a certain ethnic group of Muslims behave in their
The Qur'an says, "And among His signs is that He has created for you spouses from among yourselves so that you may live in tranquility with them; and He has created love (muhabbah) and mercy between you. Verily in that are signs for those who reflect." (30:21) How can Mernissi say that Islam considers love between husband and wife a deadly enemy of civilization while the God of Islam counts it a sign of His creation and glory? Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq says, "Loving (hubb) women is among the traditions of the prophets."1 The same Imam quotes the Prophet as follows, "The statement of a husband to his wife that 'I love you' (inni uhibbuki) will not leave her heart ever."2
There are three interesting ahadith in which Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq has described the love for women as a sign and cause of increase in faith. He says, "I do not think that a person's faith can increase positively unless his love for women has increased."3 In another hadith, he says, "Whenever a person's love for women increases, his faith increases in quality."4 In a third hadith he relates the love for women to the love for Ahlu 'l-bayt which is an important teaching of the Qur'an. He says, "Whosoever's love for us increases, his love for women must also increase."5
I do not think that there is any further need to prove that Mernissi's accusation against Islam is baseless.
Although I have already quoted in detail the Islamic view which believes that love for women is not inharmonious with spiritual way-faring, I intend to discuss this issue in the light of what Ghazali, with his Sufi tendencies, has to say.In his discussions on marriage in Ihyau 'Ulumi 'd-Din, Abu Hamid al-Ghazali has a section on "Encouragement for marriage" (at-targhib fi 'n-nikah). In this section he has quoted some saying of the Prophet about virtue of marriage. Then he has a section on "Discouragement from Marriage" (at-targhib ani 'n-nikah). In this section apart from the sayings of some mystics (Sufis), Ghazali has quoted three hadith: two from the Prophet and one from Imam 'Ali. Interestingly, the third hadith is not even relevant to the issue; it is more relevant to family planning -it talks about having fewer wives and children!
Then Ghazali goes on to discuss about the "benefits and harms of marriage." Before scrutinizing the 'harms of marriage,' I wish to comment on two 'ahadith' of the Prophet which Ghazali has quoted from his Sunni sources and which Mernissi has also used in her book.
While discussing the issue of forgery or interpolation in hadith, our 'ulama' say that one source of forgery was the mystics and the so-called pious mullahs who imported various ideas of celibacy and monasticism from without Islam into the hadith literature. And since the evilness of woman is a main component of Christian monasticism, similar ideas also crept into the hadith literature -either in form of total forgery or in form of interpolation. When I read the above hadith, I suspected it to be an interpolation; especially its opening sentence. My suspicious was confirmed when I started to look for a similar hadith in the Shi'ah sources. The Shi'ah sources narrate a similar hadith as follows:
The hadith narrated from Sunni sources equates the woman to Satan, whereas in the Shi'ah sources there is no such implication at all. On the contrary, in the second version of the hadith found in the Shi'ah sources, it is the man's sight which is related to the temptation by Satan! If we have to choose between the sources of the Prophet's sunnah, then we have no choice but to accept the version given by the Imams of Ahlu 'l-bayt, the family of the Prophet. After all, no one could have known the Prophet better than the Ahlu 'l-bay. In our view, Imam Ghazali, Imam Muslim and Mernissi are all wrong in their attempt to equate woman with the Satan. The hadith they have quoted has been interpolated, most probably, by the mystics to encourage monasticism which they have imported from Christianity.
First of all, I was not able to find a similar hadith in the Shi'ah sources. This, plus its content, casts doubt on
Now let us return to the work of Ghazali in which he is described the harms of marriage. Ghazali names three things as the harms of marriage and we shall discuss each of them separately:
The First Harm:
"The first and greatest harm [of marriage] is 'the inability to gain lawful livelihood.' This is something which is not easy for everyone especially during these time bearing in mind that livelihood is necessary. Therefore, the marriage will be a cause for obtaining the food by unlawful means, and in this is man's perdition and also that of his family. Whereas a single person is free from these problems ..."1
Then he goes on to quote the mystics on this issue whose statements are of no value to us unless they are based on Qur'an and the sunnah. They praise celibacy under the influence of monasticism which has been condemned by the Prophet and the Qur'an.
The logical conclusion of what Ghazali and other mystics say is that 'if you are rich, it is okay to marry; but if you are poor, you should not marry otherwise you will end up seeking provision from unlawful means!' This is totally rubbish and goes against the Qur'an which says, "Marry the spouseless among you ... if they are poor, God will enrich them of His bounty." (24:32) "Do not kill your children because of (fear of) poverty -We will provide for you and them." (6:152) The Prophet said, "Whoever refrains from marriage because of fear of poverty, he has indeed thought badly of God."1 I do not know how can a person gain spiritual upliftment by thinking negatively about God's promise!
The second Harm:
"The inability [of men] to fulfill the wives' rights, to forebear their [ill] manner and to bear patiently their annoyance."2
What is Imam Ghazali saying? Does he mean that women in general are over-demanding, ill-mannered and a nuisance? Can he really base this view on the Qur'an and sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)? I do not think so; and that is why we see that Ghazali has produced only the sayings of some mystics in support of his views. And it is obvious that this cannot be substantiated by the original Islamic sources.
The Third Harm:
"The wife and children will distract him from Allah and attract him towards seeking [the benefits of] this world and planning a good life for his children by
If what Ghazali says is true, then not only marriage, but children, friends, relatives and every material thing in this world must be labelled as 'harmful' to a Muslim because all these have the potential of distracting a person from God and the hereafter. Here Ghazali sounds more like St. Paul! And if it is true, then a Muslim should have nothing to do with this world, he should just confine himself to a cave in an isolated jungle or desert and pray to God! The absurdity of this idea from the Islamic point of view is obvious.
What Ghazali and other mystics say is not very much different from the monastic ideas of the Christian Church. And, incidentally, they suffered the same fate as the Christian monks. You have already read the comments of 'Allamah Rizvi about the monks that "when the nature took its revenge, the monks and abbots cultivated the idea that they were representatives of Christ, and the nuns were given the titles of 'brides of Christ.' So with easy conscience they turned the monasteries into centres of sexual liberties." Similarly, when nature took its revenge against the Sufis, in words of 'Allamah Mutahhari, they started to "derive (sexual) pleasure in company of handsome persons and this work of their's is considered as a journey towards Allah!"2
Imam Ghazali and other mystics have made a serious mistake in understanding the concept of 'preparing for the hereafter'. And this is what I would like to briefly clarify here.
The concept of 'preparing for the hereafter' depends on one's outlook about the relationship between this world and the hereafter. There are three possibilities: 1. submerge in the blessings of this world and forget the hereafter; 2. utilize this world for the hereafter; 3. forsake this world for the hereafter.
The mystics and Sufis have adopted the third alternative, whereas the materialists have adopted the first alternative. Between these two extremes, lies the true Islamic view. There are many verses of the Qur'an which highly praise the blessings of this world, and many others which strongly exhort the Muslims to seek the hereafter. Seen in isolation, these verses can be used by the two groups to prove their extreme views. But seen in the light of other verses which talk about the inter-relationship of this world and the hereafter, one is guided to the Qur'anic view. And it is obvious that you cannot isolate the verses of Qur'an from one another, especially if they are talking about the same issue. As I said earlier, this is not the place to fully discuss this issue, but I will give a few examples from the Qur'an and the sunnah to clarify the Islamic view about this world and the hereafter.
The Qur'an says: "Seek, among that which God has given to you, the hereafter, but do not forget your portion of this world either." (28:77) Allah says, "And when the prayer has ended, spread out in the world and seek the
Imam Hasan says, "Be for your world as if you are going to live forever, and be for your hereafter as if you are going to die tomorrow."1 The Imam is teaching you that Islam does not want you to forsake this world, it wants you to totally benefit from it and love it but not to the extent that you may forget the hereafter -the hereafter, where your fate depends on how obedient you were to God in your worldly life. Imam Musa al-Kazim says, "The person who forsake his world for the sake of his religion or he who forsake his religion for the sake of his world is not from us."2 In Islam, piety does not mean forsaking this world and living in isolation in a desert or a monastery! Piety means to live in the society a normal life but without forgetting the ultimate destination, the purpose of our creation -an eternal life in the hereafter.Even the relationship between the love for God and the love for one's spouse, children, and the world at large is of the same type. There are two levels of love in Islam: the love for God and the love for everything else. Islam does not forbid a person to love the spouse, children, parents, relatives, friends, and the worldly blessings which Allah has given to him or her. However, what Islam expects is that this love should be in harmony with the love for God, it should be based on the love for God. The practical implication of this is that if a conflict occurs between the demand of the love for God and the love for
Allow me to explain this phenomenon in a metaphorical manner: the moon revolves around the earth, but at the same time, it also revolves around the sun. Moreover, the magnetic relationship between the moon and the earth is a minor part of the overall magnetic force which makes the planets revolve around the sun in our solar system. Similarly, in Islam the love between two human beings is like the relationship of the moon and the earth; and the love which a Muslim has for God is like the relationship of the sun and the planets. Obviously, the first type of love exists within the realm of the second. In other words, there are two cycles of love: love for God and love for one's husband, wife or children. The first is a wider circle within which exists the second circle of love.
Remember, there is a fine difference between what we are saying and what Mernissi and, to some extent, Ghazali have said. Mernissi says that in Islam love between husband and wife is forbidden because love should be devoted to God alone. Whereas we are saying that Islam does not forbid love between husband and wife -or love for anything else- as long as it is in harmony with the love of God. That is, it should not overwhelm you to the extent of forsaking the love for God. This is clearly mentioned in the Qur'an:
I would like to emphasize on the word "ahabbu -dearer." If Allah had said that "if your ... are dear to you" than Mernissi or others of her ideology might have been right in saying that Islam expects exclusive love for Allah and that all other loves are forbidden. But here Allah is talking in a comparative manner and says that if you love other things or persons more than Allah, then you are wrong, because such love could take you on the path of disobedience to the commands of Allah and cause your perdition in the hereafter.
It is clear from what we said above that the Islamic concept of love is not confined to love for God vis-a-vis love for women, it is a universal concept in which we talk about love for all persons and things. So it is absolutely misleading to give a sexist context to this issue and say that the Islamic sexual morality is an anti-women morality.In conclusion, we can say that the views of Mernissi and Ghazali -that in Islam women are sexually more active than men and that Islam does not tolerate love between husband and wife- cannot be substantiated from the original Islamic sources, the Qur'an and the authentic sunnah.
