Quranic Discourses

Philosophical Discourses

Topic: "Praise" from philosophical point of view

All praise due to Allah, the Lord of the worlds
Reason tells us that an effect, as well as all its characteristics and affairs, depend on its cause; whatever perfection it may be having, is a shadow of the cause. If beauty or goodness has any existence, then its perfect and independent entity is for All?h only, as He is the Cause of all causes. The praise and thank is addressed, in reality, to the cause which creates the perfection and excellence referred to. As every perfection is caused by All?h, every praise and thank, in reality, is addressed to All?h. Therefore, all praise is for, and due to All?h.

Topic: Reliance on Rational Concepts

Should we rely on rational concepts, in addition to the things perceptible through the senses? It is a subject of great con¬troversy among the western scholars of the later days. All Muslim philosophers as well as most of the western ones of ancient times believed that we can rely on the rational as well as the sensual perceptions. They were rather of the opinion that an academic premises does not look at a tangible and sensual factor as such. But most of the modern scholars, especially the scientists, hold that nothing can be relied upon except what one perceives through the five senses. Their proof is as follows: Pure rational proofs often go wrong. There is no test or experiment, perceptible through the senses, to verify those rational proofs or their premises. Sensual perceptions are free from this defect; when we per¬ceive a thing through a sense, we verify it through repeated tests and experiments; this testing continues till we are sure of the characteristics or properties of the object of test. Therefore, sensual perception is free from doubt, while rational proof is not.

But this argument has many flaws:

First: All the above-mentioned premises are rational; they cannot be perceived by any of the five senses. In other words, these scholars are using rational premises, to prove that rational premises cannot be relied upon! What a paradox! If they succeed in proving their view-point through these premises, their very success would prove them wrong. Second: Sensual perception is not less prone to error and mistake than rational proof. A cursory glance at the books deal¬ing with the optics and other such subjects is enough to show how many errors are made by sight, hearing and other senses. If rational proof is unreliable because of its possible mistakes, sensual perception also should be discarded for the same reason.

Third: No doubt, there should be a way to distinguish the right perception from the wrong. But it is not the "repeated testing", per se, that creates that distinction in our mind. Rather, it becomes one of the premises of a rational proof which in turn provides that distinction. When we discover a property of an object, and the property remains the same through repeated tests, a rational proof, on the following lines, is offered by our think¬ing power. If this property were not this thing's own property, it would not be found in it so unfailingly; But it is always found in it without fail; Therefore, it is its own property. It is now obvious that sensual perception too depends on rational premises to finalize its findings.

Fourth: Let us admit that practically every sensual per¬ception is supported by test. But is that test verified by another test? If yes, then the same question will arise about this later one. Obviously, it cannot go on ad infinitum; there must come at the end a test whose verification depends not on a visible test but on the above-mentioned rational proof. It means that one cannot rely on sensual perception without relying on ration¬al concepts.

Fifth: The five senses cannot perceive absolute and major issues; they know only the particular and minor things. Know¬ledge depends on absolute issues, which cannot be tested in a laboratory nor can they be grasped by the five senses. A professor of anatomy operates upon, or dissects, a number of living or dead human bodies - it does not matter how large or small that number is. He finds that each of the bodies - which he has opened - has a heart, a liver and the like. And after looking at those particular cases, he feels bold enough to teach an absolute proposition that all men have a heart and a liver. The question is: Has he seen in¬side "all" the human beings? If only that much can be relied upon which is perceived by the five senses, how can any absolute proposition of any branch of science be accepted as true? The fact is that sensual perception and rational concept both have their place in the field of knowledge; both are com¬plementary to each other. By rationality and understanding, we mean that faculty which is the source of the above examples of absolute principles. Everyone knows that man has such a faculty. How can a faculty created by All?h (or as they say, by nature) be always in wrong? How can it always fail in the function en¬trusted to it by the Creator? The Creator never entrusts any work to an agent until He creates a connecting link between them. So far as mistakes in rational and sensual faculties are con¬cerned, the reader should look for it in related subjects like logic etc.

Topic: Fallacy of the Sophists and the Skeptics

Man in his early childhood perceives the objects around him; he knows them without knowing that he knows, that is, without being aware that he has, or is using, a faculty called knowledge or cognition. This continues until a time comes when he finds himself doubting or presuming a thing. Then he realizes that before that he was using "knowledge" in his life affairs. He also gradually comes to understand that his perception or concepts are sometimes wrong, that error cannot be in the materials that he perceives - because those material things are facts and facts cannot be non-facts, that is, cannot be wrong. Therefore, the error must be in his perception. When there is no error in perception, it is knowledge - a perception that leaves no room for opposite ideas. By these stages, he becomes aware of the basic principle that positive and negative are mutually exclusive and totally exhaustive; they are contradictories, they cannot both be pre¬sent nor can both be absent. This fundamental truth is the foundation-stone of every self-evident or theoretical proposition. (Even if one doubts this statement, he intuitively knows that this "doubt" cannot be present with its negative, with its "no doubt".) Man relies on knowledge in every academic theory and practical function. Even when he feels doubtful about a matter, he identifies that doubt by knowing that it is a doubt. The same applies when he does not know, or only presumes, or merely imagines a thing, he identifies it by the knowledge that it is ignorance, presumption or imagination. But in ancient Greece, there arose a group, the Sophists, who denied existence of knowledge. They showed doubt in every thing, even in their own selves, even in that doubt. The Skeptics of later days are almost their successors. They deny knowledge of every thing outside their own selves and their own minds. Their "arguments" run as follows:

First: The most potent knowledge (that comes through the five senses) is often wrong and in error. Then how can one be sure of the knowledge obtained through other sources? How can we rely, in this background, on any knowledge or proposition outside our own selves?

Second: When we wish to comprehend any outside object, what we get is merely its knowledge; we do not grasp the object itself. Then, how can it be possible to grasp any object?

Reply to the First Argument:

First: This argument negates and annihilates itself. If no proposition can be relied upon, how can one rely on the propositions and premises used in this argument?

Second: To say that a source of knowledge is "often" wrong, is to admit that it is also correct many times. Then how can it be rejected totally?

Third: We have never said that our knowledge is always correct. The Sophists and the Skeptics affirm that no knowledge is correct. To refute this universal negative proposition, a particu¬lar affirmative proposition is sufficient. That is, we have only to prove that some knowledge is correct; and we have done so in the second reply.

Reply to the Second Argument:

The issue in dispute is knowledge, which means to unveil an object. The Skeptics admit that when they try to comprehend an object, they get its know¬ledge. Their only complaint is that they do not grasp the object itself. But nobody has ever claimed that knowledge means grasping the object itself; our only claim is that knowledge un¬veils some of the realities of its object, that is, of the thing so known. Moreover, the Skeptic refutes his own views practically in every movement and at every moment. He claims that he does not know anything outside his own self, outside his own mind. But when he is hungry or thirsty, he moves to the food or water; when he sees a wall falling down, he runs away from it. But he does not try to get food when he just thinks about hunger, and does not run away when he just thinks about a falling wall. It means that he does not act on the pictures in his mind - which he claims are the real things, and acts on that feeling or percep¬tion which comes to him from outside - which, according to him, does not have any reality and should not be relied upon! There is another objection against existence of knowledge. They deny existence of established knowledge; and have laid the foundation of today's natural sciences on this rejection. Their reasoning is as follows: Every single atom in this world is in constant movement; every single thing is continuously moving towards perfection or deterioration. In other words, what a thing was at a given instant, is not the same in the next. Understanding and perception is a function of brain. Therefore, it is a material property of a material compound. Naturally, this process too is governed by the laws of change and development. It means that all functions of brain, including knowledge, are constantly changing and developing. It is, therefore, wrong to say that there is any such thing as estab¬lished knowledge. Whatever knowledge there is has only relative permanence - some propositions last longer than others. And it is this impermanent conception that is called knowledge.

Reply: This argument is based on the presumption that knowledge is not non-material and abstract; that it is a physical thing. But this supposition is neither self-evident nor proved. Knowledge is certainly non-material and abstract. It is not a physical and material thing, because the attributes and properties of matter are not found in it:

1. All material things are divisible; knowledge, per se, is not divisible.

2. Material things depend on space and time; knowledge, per se, is independent of space and time. An event happens in a certain place and time, but we may comprehend it in any place and at any time without any adverse effect on its comprehension.

3. Material things are admittedly governed by the law of general movement and constant change. But knowledge, per se, does not change. Knowledge, as knowledge, is incompatible with change, as one may understand after a little meditation.

4. Suppose that knowledge, per se, is subject to constant change like matter and material things. Then one thing or event could not be comprehended with the same details, in exactly the same way, at two different times. Nor could a past event be remembered correctly later on. Because, as the materialists have said, "what a (material) thing was at a given instant is not the same in the next". These comparisons show that knowledge, as knowledge, is not a material or physical thing. It must be told here that we are not talking about the physical actions and reactions which an organ of a sense or the brain has to undergo in the process of acquiring knowledge. That action and reaction is a process, or a tool, of knowledge, it is not the knowledge itself. For more detailed discussion of this subject one should study the philosophical works.

Topic: On Compulsion and Delegation

Every species is related to a particular type of action and reaction. In fact it is these special characteristics which identify the species as such. We looked at various kinds of actions and reactions emanating from various groups. Our reason told us that there should be an efficient cause, an agent, to bring each kind of these actions and reactions into being. Therefore, we put every group in a separate category, identifying it as a species. When we compared human characteristics, for example, with those of an animal, and delineated them clearly, we decided that they were two different species, with different characteristics. When the actions are seen in relation to their subjects, that is, the species, they are primarily divided into two categories:

First: The actions emanating from the nature - where the knowledge of their emanation has no effect at all on their existence. For example, the growth and nutrition of the vegetables; the movement of the bodies; our own health or illness. These things are known to us, present in our own bodies; but our knowing or not knowing them has no effect whatsoever on their coming into being; they totally depend upon their doer - that is, nature.

Second: The actions issuing forth from the doer with his knowledge - where the said knowledge has a bearing on their being, like the intentional actions of the man and even of some animals. The doer does such an action after knowing and identifying it; and it is the knowledge and perception that gives him that insight. The knowledge makes him realize what would consti¬tute his perfection, and helps him in deciding whether a particular action would lead to that desired perfection. The knowledge distinguishes the means of perfection from other things; and this distinction helps the doer in choosing a particular course of action. And the action comes into being. The activities based upon ingrained aptitude (like issuing forth of the required voices, when a man speaks), as well as those emanating from natural disposition, or from the dictates of nature (like breathing) and, likewise, those springing from overwhelming grief or fear etc., do not require contemplation or meditation by the doer. Why? Because there is not more than one form of knowledge here, and the doer does not have to delay his activity awaiting a final decision. Therefore, he does it immediately. But in other cases, where the doer has before his eyes two or more possible forms of knowledge to choose from, he has to spend at least a few moments in contemplation and deliberation. For example, Zayd is hungry, and he gets a bread. Its one aspect is that it may satiate his hunger; but there may be other aspects too - it may be another man's property, it may be poisoned, it may have become dirty and so on. Zayd has to reflect whether the bread is legally, morally and hygienically fit for consump¬tion. When he reaches a conclusion, the actions follows without any delay. The first type of activities is called involuntary, like natural reactions; the second type is called voluntary, or intentional, like walking or talking. The intentional actions, emanating from man's knowledge and will, are again divided into two categories:

First: When the man decides to do - or, not to do - a certain work, he may do so entirely on his own, without being influenced by any other fellow. In the example given above, Zayd may decide, on his own, not to eat the bread because it was someone else's property; or he may eat it in spite of that snag. This is called a deed done by man's free will.

Second: When the man opts for a certain course of action under the influence of someone else. A tyrant may force a help¬less person to act according to that tyrant's instruction under duress. The poor fellow in this condition commits sins and crimes against his own will. This is called a deed done under compulsion. Right? But let us look at this second category more closely. We have said that this kind of deed results from the compeller's compulsion; he does not allow any freedom to the doer, who has to take the only way left open by the oppressor. But even then, it is the doer himself who decides to proceed on that way. It is true that the major factor leading to this decision was the tyrant's compulsion; but it is equally true that the decision was taken by the doer himself, even though it was taken to save himself from the tyrant's oppression. In short, even the deeds done under compulsion are done by the will of the doer. It follows that the division of intentional actions into these two categories is not real, not based on actual facts. The intentional action is the one which emanates from a knowledge and a will that tips the bal¬ance in its favor. This reality is found in the deed done under compulsion as well as in the one done by free will. It makes no difference that it was some other man's force or fear that tipped the balance in one case and the doer's own thinking that did so in the other. A man sitting near a wall looks up to find that it was about to fall; overcome by fear he sprints away from that place. And we say that he did so by his own free will. Suppose, a tyrant threatens to bull-doze the wall over him if he did not move away. Overcome by fear, he sprints away from there. And we say that it was done under compulsion. But the funda¬mentals in both cases are the same. The man is overcome by fear and decides to move away. So, why should we put them in two different categories.

Objection: There is enough difference between the two actions to warrant their assignment to two different categories. The deed done by free will is based on its underlying wisdom (in the eyes of the doer); the doer deserves praise or blame, and gets reward or punishment, for it. All these factors are simply absent in the case of a deed done under compulsion.

Reply: It is true. But these factors are based on subjective approach of the society. They do not have any existence outside the imagination. By talking on these subjective approaches we have crossed the limits of philosophy. Philosophy deals with the things that exist in reality, as well as with those things' natural characteristics. What all this leads to is the conclusion that the discussion whether man is free in his actions is beyond the scope of philosophy. We may yet bring it back on the track of philosophy from another direction: A transient (possible) thing has equal relation with existence and non-existence. It, therefore, needs a sufficient cause to tip the balance in favour of existence, so that it may come into being. The transient thing, when related to its sufficient cause, becomes an essential being - it becomes impossible for it not to exist. That is why it is said that a transient does not come into being unless it becomes an essential being. A transient, by its definition, must have a sufficient cause for its existence. A transient existing without its sufficient cause is a contradiction in terms. And that cause gives it the essentiality, so long as it exists. Now look at the universe at a glance. You will find a chain made up of unnumerable links, all of which would be essential beings. In other words, not a single existing thing could be called a transient, so long as it exists. But this "essential - ness" comes to it only when it is looked at in relation to its sufficient cause. The sufficient cause may be a single thing or a compound of various causes - the material, the formal, the efficient and the final causes, plus the necessary conditions of time and space as well as other preliminaries. An effect when related to its sufficient cause must invariably exist - because the said cause would make it essential. But when seen with only a part of that cause, or if related to any outside factor, it would not be essential; it would remain a transient as before. If a transient, on being related to only a part of its sufficient cause (e.g., to its efficient cause only) become essential and come into being, its sufficient cause would be superfluous; and it would be a contradiction in term. It shows that in this natural world two systems are found simultaneously: one of essentiality and the other of transience. The system of essentiality covers the sufficient causes and their effects - there is no transience in any part of this world, neither in any person nor in any action. The system of transience per¬meates the matter and its potentialities when related to only a part of the sufficient cause. Take any human action; if it is related to its sufficient cause - man (the efficient cause), knowledge and will (the final), matter (the material) and its shape (the formal) plus all conditions of time and space including removal of every hindrance - it would become essential. But if it is seen in relation to only its efficient cause, that is, man, it would remain transient. Finally, it should be pointed out that the transient things need a cause for their existence because of their transience. And this need would not end until the chain of cause and effect finally reaches a cause Who is the Essential Being. This observation leads to the following two conclusions:

First: The need of an effect for its cause does not end on its being related to its transient cause. The need continues until it reaches the Final Cause, the Essential Being.

Second: This need emanates from its transient nature. It needs a cause to bring it into existence with all its character¬istics and traits, including its relationship with its various causes, fulfilling all the conditions of its existence. Now we may ponder upon the question of compulsion and delegation of power, keeping in view the above-mentioned premises:

First: No delegation of power: Man, like all other things and their actions, depends on the will of All?h, for his existence. In the same way, man's action depends on the will of All?h in its existence. Therefore, the Mu'tazilites' view - that human actions have no relation at all to the divine will - is completely baseless. There was no reason at all for them to deny the decree and measure of All?h in respect of the man's actions.

Second: No compulsion: This relation to the will of All?h, inasmuch as it is concerned with existence, keeps all the char¬acteristics of the created thing in view. Every effect emanates from its cause - with all its characteristics which have any bearing on its existence. A man's creation is attributed to All?h, keeping in view all its intermediary causes and condition - the father, the mother, the time, the place, the features, the quantity, the quality and a lot of other concomitants. Likewise, the action of man is attributed to All?h, keeping in view all its characteristics and conditions. When a man's action is attributed to All?h and His will, it does not cease to be the man's action; it is still caused by the said man's will. The will of All?h decrees that the action be done by the man emanating from the man's own free will and choice. Therefore, it would be a contradiction in term to say that the action was no longer done by man's free will because it was related to the divine will. All?h Himself has decreed it to be a work of the man by his free will; how can it be said that the divine will lost its effectiveness and the action happened without the man's free will? It is now clear that the view of al -Mujabbirah - that the human action's relation to the divine will nullifies its relation to the human will - is absolutely devoid of truth. The above discourse shows that the said action has a relation to the human will and a relation to the divine will; neither relation nullifies the other, because each is connected with the other vertically, not horizontally.

Third: The human action, when related to its sufficient cause; becomes essential. But seen in relation to only a part of the sufficient cause, it remains transient. For example, when the action is related to only its sufficient cause, that is, man, it does not become essential, but remains transient as before. Therefore, what a group of modern materialist philosophers have said - that the whole system of nature is permeated by compulsion, and there is no free will at all in the universe - is totally wrong. As we have said, all effects in relation to their sufficient causes are essential, but, when related to only a part of the said causes, are transient. And it is the foundation on which man's life is based. A man teaches and trains his child and then hopes that his efforts would bear fruit. If there was no freedom in the world, if everything was essential and had to happen any¬how, then all this teaching and training would be of no earthly use; there would remain no place for hope in human life.

Topic: Resurrection of the dead and metamorphosis

The chapter (Surah Baqarah) describes several miraculous signs in the stories of the Israelites and the others for example, parting the sea and drowning the followers of Pharaoh (And when We parted the sea for you, so We saved you and drowned the followers of Pharaoh); giving death to the Israelites by thunder bolt and then raising them again from, dead (And when you said: "0 Musa! we will not believe in you. . . "); making the clouds to give shade over them and sending for them manna and quails (And We made the clouds to give shade over you. . .); making the streams to gush out from the rock (And when Musa prayed for drink ... ); lifting the mountain over them ( . . . and lifted the mountains over you ... ) ; transforming some of them into apes (. . . so We said to them: "Be apes. . . ") and bringing a dead body back to life by hitting it with a part of a slaughtered cow (So We said: "Strike the (dead body) with part of the sacrificed cow . . . ") . Among the non Israelites, there are many stories of dead men and/or animals brought back to life for example, a large group that had fled their homes for fear of death (Did you not see those who went forth from their homes. . .); a chosen servant of Allah who passed by a ruined town (Or like him who passed by a town and it had fallen down upon its roofs . . . ) and the birds which were raised from dead through the agency of lbrahim (And when 1brahim said: "My Lord! show me how Thou givest life to the dead . . . ). Altogether, there are twelve miracles, most of them occurring among the Israelites. The Qur'an has narrated them; and we have already shown that miracles do occur, and super natural events do take place. We have also shown that such happenings are not in conflict with the system of the cause and effect. It was clearly proved that it is not justified to interpret the verses of miracle in such a way as to deny their apparent meanings. Of course, the miracle is not related to an inherently impossible proposition, like dividing three in two equal wholes, or birth of a child that would be his own father. But if something is possible in itself and the Qur'an says that it did happen, one should not try to explain it away as an allegory or a metaphor. However, some miracles, like raising someone from dead and transformation, that is, metamorphosis, require a somewhat detailed study because they are sometimes criticized from philosophical point of view.

Objection: It is an accepted fact that if an existent thing, a being, having a potentiality of perfection, converts it into actuality, then it is impossible for it to retrace its steps and turn that actuality back into the same potentiality. Likewise, a more perfect being does not change, in its forward march, to a less perfect one. When a man dies, his soul is released from the fetters of matter; he becomes an immaterial "idea" or a spiritual being. Both these stages are above the matter; the existence in these planes is much more stronger than that in the material sphere. Therefore, it is impossible for a soul once death has separated it from the body to re establish its connection with that material body. Otherwise, it would mean that a thing, having converted its potentiality into actuality, again retrogressed to the same potentiality and as we have explained above it is not possible. Also, man is on a higher level of existence than that of the animals. Therefore, it would be impossible for a man to change, by metamorphosis, into an animal.

Reply: Accepted that once a potentiality is turned into reality it cannot be regressed to the self same potentiality. But raising someone from dead in this world, as well as metamorphosis, is outside the domain of this law. Perception and reason show that a vegetable substance, when consumed by an animal, proceeds to its ultimate perfection, that is, animality, and takes the animal form. This form in itself is an incorporeal and immaterial thing. Having reached this stage, the vegetable has turned its potentiality into actuality. Now it cannot turn back to vegetable kingdom. The animality is the fountain head of the animal's conscious actions and perceptions. When it performs a deed an impression is outlined on its psyche. When it indulges in the same activity over and over again, that impression gets deeper and deeper until it becomes an ineradicable trait. This new trait may become the building block of an animal species with pronounced characteristics; for example, the fox with its cunning, the pig with its lascivious lust, the panther with its predatory stalking. If, on the other hand, it fails to acquire any characteristics, the psyche remains at its original level of simple animality. It is like the case of a vegetable which fails to reach the threshold of animality and remains at the original level of vegetable kingdom. Likewise, an animal, becoming a part of a human being, progresses forward on the path of humanity. A human being has the capacity of perceiving his self in absolute incorporeal terms. When it thus changes its potentiality to this actuality, it is impossible for it to go back to the self same potentiality. The humanity too, by repeatedly doing a certain type of deed, acquires especial traits and characteristics and it creates various kinds of human beings with their particular properties in the same way as happens in animal kingdom. Now, let us suppose that a dead man was returned to life in this world, and his soul re-established its relation to the matter, that is, the body. Obviously, it would not affect the incorporeality of the soul it was incorporeal in the first life, remained so after that connection was severed, and would remain in this second life too. Body is the tool by which the soul carries on its material and intellectual activities, just as an artisan makes articles with the help of his tools and equipments. When the man died, the soul lost that tool; when he was revived the soul regained the possession and control of that tool. Now, it may use that tool to acquire new talents, to attain to a higher level of perfection than before. It cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be a retrogression or a retreat from perfection to imperfection, nor is it a change from reality to potentiality. Objection: The scenario given above entails perpetual compulsion, which is obviously a false and void proposition. An incorporeal and immaterial soul, separated by death from the body, does not have any more potentials of acquiring further perfection through re establishment of its relation to the body. Remember that only a negligible number of people are claimed to have risen from the dead. And the multitude of human beings remain un-revived. If it were in their nature to acquire new perfections through re establishing their link with their bodies and yet they were denied that opportunity, they would be perpetually deprived of what their nature demanded. And this perpetual deprivation is nothing but perpetual compulsion.

Reply: There is no compulsion involved here at all. The soul has already progressed from its potentiality to the actuality. It reached a certain level and died. Now, at present it does not have any more potentiality. It will continue to possess the actuality it has already acquired. Let us suppose that there is a man who did some 'good and some bad deeds, and then died. Had he remained alive he could have added to his deeds and acquired a somewhat different spiritual form, either lovelier or uglier than before. Likewise, if he is returned to life, be may acquire better or worse traits than before. But if he is not revived, then he already owns his actuality, and will accordingly be rewarded or punished in al Barzakh, until he acquires a spiritual form according to his earned qualities. Even then, if he is returned to this world, he would get new potentiality for spiritual perfection, and may acquire another spiritual form by using the material tool, for example, his body. But, if he is not returned, there is neither any potentiality nor any question of compulsion, perpetual or otherwise. We should not forget that mere deprivation of a possible perfection is not a compulsion. Otherwise, every happening in this world could be called a perpetual compulsion. Every event, every development here affects each and every thing of the universe, directly or indirectly. There is a never ending struggle and conflict going on in the universe; and it affects the whole system including the ability of a man to fully attain to his perfection. That effect may be beneficial or harmful. But nobody claims that because he was prevented, by the circumstances beyond his control, from obtaining a possible benefit, he was under perpetual compulsion. If a talent for a certain perfection is ingrained in someone's nature and then he is prevented from achieving it, either by some factors in his own nature or some external forces bent on nullifying that talent, then only it may be called a perpetual compulsion because in this case, putting that talent or potentiality in that species be a vain thing, an aimless venture. Now we come to metamorphosis. If a man's figure is transformed to that of a pig or an ape, it is just an external change. He is still a man in the form of an animal; not that his humanity was erased and replaced by the nature of pig or ape. We have already described that when one repeatedly carries on an activity, its impression is etched on one's psyche. When a man repeatedly indulges in debauchery, his psyche turns into that of a pig; and it is not impossible for that figure to appear in his facial features in this world too as it would certainly appear in the next world. Such a man is still a man, albeit a transformed one; not that he has lost his humanity. By the way, we sometimes read, in the newspapers and magazines, reports of academic conferences in Europe and America that tend to prove that it is possible to revive a man after his death, and that a man's facial figures may change to something else. Of course, we do not base over belief on such news and reports; nevertheless, we expect our adversaries not to forget today what they had read yesterday.

Poser: Then there is no difficulty in believing in transmigration of the souls.

Reply: There is a world of difference between metamorphosis and transmigration of the souls. In metamorphosis the same body changes its figure to look like something else; while the believers in transmigration of the souls say that a soul, after attaining its perfection and leaving the body, establishes a new connection with a new body. Obviously, it is an impossible proposition. A question may be asked whether or not the new body was already connected to a soul of its own. If it already belonged to another soul, it would entail domination of one body by two souls, which is impossible two persons cannot have one body, nor can one body be governed by two personalities. If, on the other hand, the body did not have a soul already, it would mean that an accomplished and developed soul was burdened by an unaccomplished and undeveloped body. It would certainly be a regression from actuality to potentiality just like returning a wise old man to his infancy! And this too is impossible. Also, it should be apparent from what we have explained that it is certainly impossible for a human soul, after leaving its human body, to be incarnated in a vegetable or animal body. In short, the belief in transmigration of the souls entails impossibility after impossibility.

Topic: On the Originality of Creation The experience as well as the philosophical argument proves that any two things are different from each other in their respective particulars even if they are united in their common and general characteristics. Even if the two are so alike as to make it difficult for the senses to discern any dissimilarity between them, when seen or tested with the help of scientific instruments clear differences come before the eyes. It means that every creation is unique and original; no two things are made of one model. Now we should look at this matter from the philosophical point of view. Let us take any two things and see why they are distinct from each other. If the basis of distinction is not a thing within them, then it must be an outside factor. In that case, their selves must be absolute and indivisible entities. But an absolute and indivisible entity cannot be duplicated nor repeated. In other words, the two distinct entities would become one and the same. And it is a contradiction in terms. Therefore, we have to admit that every being is different in its own self from all other beings. It follows that every thing is unique; and does not have any similarity or likeness to any other thing. And it is Allah who has given every thing its uniqueness, distinction and originality, as He is the Originator of the heavens and of the earth. ********

Topic: About the "speech" of Allah

Philosophers point out that when a speaker conveys his thought to the mind of a hearer, by means of words, it is popularly called speech and talk, and its net result is that the hearer understands and the speaker is understood. The reality of speech is "what conveys an idea to the other party"; rather particulars -the medium of words, and their being produced by the passage 'of air through the larynx, mouth, and lips and their entering the ears of the hearer - are inconsequential; they are not essential to the reality of speech. Whatever describes the intended meaning is speech; even the movement of your hand to call someone to your side or to indicate to him to sit down, etc. is your speech, albeit without your uttering a single word. Taking this as their basis, the philosophers say: the things found in the universe depend on their causes for their existence and for their characteristics. By their existence they pronounce the existence of their causes; and by their characteristics and faculties they show the characteristics and faculties of their causes. Therefore, every "effect" is a speech for its cause, and by this speech that cause talks about its own perfection. And all existing things taken separately or jointly, and their aggregate, the universe, are, in this way, the speech of God; by this speech, God describes His perfect attributes which are otherwise hidden from us. Allâh is the Creator of the universe, and the universe is His creation. In the same manner, He speaks via the medium of the universe about His names and attributes, and the universe is His speech. They go even further: They say that deep thinking leads one to the belief that the ultimate "speech" is God Himself. We say that the universe leads to the Creator; but leading is a quality of existence and nothing in the universe exists on its own. Every thing exists because God has given it existence. When a thing leads to the Creator, it does so by the existence and qualities given to it by the Creator. In other words, it is the Creator Himself Who leads to Himself through His creation. In the same way, it is He Himself Who leads to His creation. He Himself leads us to Himself; in this sense ' He is the speech and the Speaker and the meaning; and at this stage, we may say that His speech is His person or an attribute of His person. Also, He Himself, by creating the universe, leads us to His power and wisdom; the universe is, thus, His speech to lead us to the Creator; and in this sense, speech (i.e., the universe) is an attribute of His action. The author says: Quite apart from the question of the correctness of this interpretation, the words of the Qur'ân do not support it. Speech, as mentioned in the Qur'ân and sunnah, is something different from the Speaker and the hearer. Allâh says: Among them are some to whom Allâh spoke (2: 253); and Allâh spoke to Musâ (directly) speaking (4:164); and Allah said: "0 'Isa'!" (3:55); and We said: '10 Adam!- (2:35); Surely We have revealed to you (4:163); informed me the All-knowing, the All-aware (66:3); there are numerous similar verses. Obviously, the speech or talk mentioned in them cannot mean the Person of Allâh by any stretch of imagination. Topic: Struggle for Existence and Survival of the Fittest

According to scientists, scientific experiments show that existing things struggle with each other for their existence, because it is ingrained in their nature to protect themselves from extinction, and to make use of their powers in the purpose for which they are created. This struggle is carried on through mutual action and reaction - each influences the others, and is in its turn influenced by others. In the end, the more powerful and more perfect being vanquishes the weaker and the less perfect one. It means that nature goes on selecting, among individuals of a species, the fittest and the most perfect, and it alone is allowed to continue and propagate the species and all others gradually become extinct. Thus we get two laws of nature: the struggle for existence, and natural selection and survival of the fittest. As the society is based on the demands of nature, the above¬mentioned two laws are found in civilization also. The best society is the one which is based on the foundation of a complete and firm unity; in which the rights of the individuals and groups, and of society in general, are well-balanced and well preserved. Such a society has more right to survive; and others lacking in these qualities deserve to perish and vanish. Experience has shown that only those nations do survive which look well after their collective duties, and proceed, fully alert, on the road of collective bliss and felicity. On the other hand, when disunity creeps into a nation, hearts become disunited, differences crop up, tyranny and mischief poison the atmosphere, the lords of the land indulge in luxuries and the will to strive for a cause is weakened in them, and, as a result, the nation or group is obliterated from the face of the earth. Archaeologists have unearthed fossils, bones and skeletons of many animals which have become extinct, like the brontosaurus: or from whose species only a few examples have survived like alligators and toads. The only factors which led to their extinction were the laws of the struggle for existence, natural selection and survival of the fittest. Likewise, the species which are found today are constantly changing because of the said struggle and survival; and only the fittest and strongest deserves to survive. Then those strong and good traits are transmitted to the next generations, and thus the species continues to develop and flourish. According to them, that is also how evolution initially began. Matter was scattered in space, and when it joined together, the stars, the planets and the species living therein came into being. Then what was fit for survival survived and existence passed on from generation to generation; and what was unable to withstand the struggle of stronger beings was destroyed. This, in short, is the theory of the scientists. Later scientists have had their own objections against this theory. There are even today many weaker species, both in animals and in vegetables, that go on flourishing. For example, man has domesticated and developed many species of vegetables and animals, these varieties are definitely fitter and stronger than their natural counterparts. Yet the natural varieties go on reproducing and transmitting their weak traits to the next generations. This phenomenon shows that the supposedly basic natural laws of struggle for existence, natural selection and survival of the fittest are not comprehensive. This difficulty led later scientists to invent a new theory and that is adaptation to the environment. "Environment" covers all the surrounding conditions of time and space and factors which influence the state of a thing. The nature of thing adjusts itself to the surrounding influences. That is why every living thing, be it in the water or on dry land, in polar regions or in the equatorial zone, has limbs and faculties which are suited to that particular environment. If a life adjusts itself to the influences of its environment, it continues: otherwise, it is finished. The previously mentioned two laws - the struggle for existence, and natural selection and survival of the fittest - should be based on this basic law of adaptation to the environment; and where this latter law is isolated, the former two laws, even if their conditions are fulfilled, cannot save a species. The difficulty is that even this law is not comprehensive, as scientists themselves admit. The fact, as admitted by science, is that these laws are correct to a certain extent, but they are not comprehensive and all-inclusive. A comprehensive philosophical interpretation can be offered in the following way: All that happens in this material world, whether it is the existence of a thing or the changes and alterations occurring in it, revolve around the law of cause and effect. Every material being tries to influence other things to make it agreeable to itself. The net result of this action is that every active agent takes some thing from the object of its action to add to its own perfection. Thus every thing is constantly engaged in preserving its existence. To this extent, it may be accepted that there is a struggle for existence and survival in this world. A strong active agent either changes a weaker object to suit its own needs or destroys it completely for the same purpose. Had that weaker object been stronger, it could have faced the opposite forces and preserved itself from the forced changes and destruction. To this extent, it may be accepted that there is a law of natural selection and survival of the fittest in this world. When many causative factors gather around an object., and all, or most, of them combine to create an effect on the said object, it cannot escape from their combined force, and has to adjust itself accordingly. To this extent, the law of adaptation to the environment must be accepted. But it must be remembered that these laws effect (in the thing which is capable of being effected) only that object's accidental properties and supplementary factors. It cannot change the thing per se into another thing. Materialists do not believe that there are separate genera and species, completely different from each ocher. They chink all things are basically the same - one matter, and that the different shapes are the result of different accidental properties; and it is only by these accidental or supplementary factors that species differ from each ocher. Otherwise, there is no basic difference between them. Every thing, after disintegration, returns to the same state - matter. It is because of this view, that they said that a species changes into another through the above-mentioned laws. We shall discuss this view, God willing, in an appropriate place. To come back to our original topic A commentator of the Qur'an has said that the verse: And were it not for Allah 's repelling some men with others, the earth would certainly be in a state of disorder; but Allah is Gracious to the creatures, points to the laws of the struggle for existence and natural selection. According to him ocher two verses also point to the same laws: Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made, for they have been oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them. Those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say, Our Lord is Allah. And had there not been Allah's repelling some people by others, certainly there would have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques in which Allah's name is much remembered; and surely Allah will help him who helps Him (i.e. His cause) ; most surely Allah is Strong, Mighty. Those who, should We establish them in the land, will keep up prayer and pay the zakat and enjoin good and forbid evil; and Allah 's is the end of the affairs (22:39-41). According to him, this verse points to the struggle for existence and for the defense of the truth; and that this struggle leads to the survival of the fittest and preservation of the beat. The second verse, which he put for his argument, is verse 17 of chap. 13: He sends down water from the heavens, then the valleys flow according to their measure, and the torrent bears along the swelling foam, and from what they melt in the fire for the sake of (making) ornaments or apparatus arises a foam like it; thus does Allah compare truth and falsehood; then as for the scum, it passes away as a worthless thing; and as for that which profits the people, it remains in the earth; thus does Allah set forth parables. According to the said commentator, this verse signifies that the torrents of the happenings and the scale of the struggle throws away and nullifies the scum of falsehood which might have harmed society, and the pure gold of truth, beneficial for society, remains. It clearly shows the law of the survival of the fittest in action. The author says: The laws of the struggle for existence and natural selection (in the meanings mentioned earlier) are correct to a certain extent, and also it is agreed that the Qur'an supports them in the said meaning. But the two types of verses quoted by the said commentator have nothing to do with these two laws. The first type of verse was revealed to show that Allah's will cannot be defeated; and that the truth, that is, religious beliefs and knowledge as confirmed by Allah, shall always pre¬vail; and likewise, the standard-bearer of that truth shall always vanquish falsehood. To see the purpose of the verse, look again at the phrases, "for they have been oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them" and "Those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say, Our Lord is Allah". The purpose of those clauses is to make it clear that the believers shall be victorious; but not because of the struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest. We should not forget that the strongest and the fittest, in the language of these laws, means the one who is the strongest and fittest in the physical and material sense; it does not mean strong in truthful¬ness or fittest in the spiritual sense. According to these two laws whoever is better equipped with military hardware and more trained and better disciplined, will vanquish the weaker party - it makes no difference which party is in the right and which in the wrong. But these verses tell us that the believers shall be victorious because they have long been oppressed for speaking the truth, and Allah is truth and He shall help the truth to prevail; falsehood shall not be able to withstand the proof of truth; Allah Himself shall assist the bearer of truth if he is sincere in his heart. The next words show this aspect clearly: "...and surely Allah will help him who helps Him; most surely Allah is Strong, Mighty. Those who, should We establish them in the land, will keep up prayer..." It shows that their confession of truth is based on sincerity. Then Allah ends the verse on the words, "and Allah's is the end of the affairs." This sentence reminds one of many Qur'anic sentences which prove that creation is relentlessly progressing on the path of perfection towards truth and real felicity and bliss. Doubtlessly, the Qur'an proves that victory is for Allah and His forces only: Allah has written down, I will most certainly prevail, I and My apostles (58:21) , And certainly Our word has already gone forth in respect of Our servants, the apostles, Most surely they shall be the assisted ones, and most surely Our host alone shall be the victorious ones (37:171-173) and: and Allah is predominant over His affair (12:21). In all these verses, victory has been reserved for the people of sincere faith and true belief, irrespective of their physical or material strength, while the laws of struggle and survival are based on physical and material strength and fitness. Likewise, the second verse, quoted by the said commentator, which describes the parable of pure water and gold in contrast to the foam and scum, is revealed to show that truth shall last and falsehood shall go away. How'? It does not say. It may be by physical struggle as in the case when truth and falsehood are both of a material kind. On the other hand, it may not be governed by the law of struggle, if either truth, or falsehood, or both are of the spiritual, and not the material, world. Allah says: And the faces shall be humbled before the Living, the Self- subsistent God (20:111), Whatever is in the heavens and the earth is His; all are obedient to Him (2:116); and that to your Lord is the goal (53:42). Thus, Allah is victorious and predominant over all things, and He is the One, the Subduer. It has already been explained that the verse under discussion, "And were it not for Allah's repelling some men with others, the earth would certainly be in a state of disorder", points to that reality upon which society is based. Man's instinct for subjugating others for his own benefit. This reality includes, to a certain extent, in the meaning accepted by us earlier, the laws of the struggle for existence and natural selection. But the basic law, which is also comprehensive, is the same instinct of subjugating others. And the verse should be interpreted in this light. It should not be based on two partial and non-comprehensive laws. Let us look at this topic from another angle: The two laws - the struggle for existence and natural selection - demand that plurality be replaced by singularity. Both sides of the struggle aim at annihilating the opposite party, so that the victor may add to itself the advantages of the vanquished party's existence and its attachments. And nature, by its selection aims at keeping alive only the best. The net result will be to vanquish and annihilate many and to let only the one, that is, the best and the fittest, survive. This is basically against the concept of society, because society is formed of a multitude, all of whom are expected to co-operate with, and help, each other. It is this natural law which is the basis of society and civilization, not those laws which exhort one man to eat up the other. The repelling which, as mentioned under verse 2:213, builds nations and protects them from mischief, is that repulsion which leads to togetherness and that unity which is based on plurality. It is not that repulsion which negates togetherness, nor is it that unity which destroys plurality. The jihad and fighting ordained by Allah develops the earth and protects it from chaos, disorder and mischief, because it is through this fighting that the collective rights of the oppressed and down-trodden people are revived; and not because it shatters unity, annihilates people and obliterates their footprints. This basic difference between the two theories must always be kept in mind. Academic Discourse

Topic: on the many marriages of the Prophet

Another target of their objection is the many marriages of the Prophet. They say: Plurality of marriage in itself points to avidity and to yielding to lust and desire; and the Prophet was not content with four wives which he had allowed to his ummah, but exceeded even that limit and married nine women. This question is related to many different verses of the Qur'an, and detailed discussion of its every aspect should be given under those verses. Therefore, we are leaving the details for the relevant places, restricting ourselves to a short description here in a general way. It is necessary to point out that the plurality of the Prophet's marriages is not such a simple matter as to be dismissed in a sentence that 'he was inordinately fond of women, so much so that he married nine wives.' The fact is that he had married each one of his wives for some particular reason in particular circumstances during his long life. His first marriage was with Khadijah (may Allah be pleased with her), and he lived with her alone for more than twenty* years, and it constitutes two-thirds of his married life- and covered [almost] the whole Meccan period of the prophethood. Then he immigrated to Medina and began spreading the Call and raising the words of religion. Thereafter he married several women-virgin and widows, young, old and middle-aged. This continued for about ten years, then the women were prohibited to him other than those who were already in his marriage. Obviously, these happenings with these peculiarities cannot be explained just by love of women or desire and passion for them, because his early life and the later period both contradict this assumption. Just look at a man with a passion for women who is infatuated with carnal desire, and enamored of female companionship, with a sensual lust for them. You will find him attracted to their adornment, spending his time in pursuit of beauty, infatuated with coquetry and flirtation, and craving for youth tender age and fresh complexion. But these peculiarities were diametrically opposite of the Prophet's character. He married widows after virgin, old-aged women after young girls. He married Umm Salamah (an aged woman) and Zaynab bint Jahsh (who was more than fifty years of age) after marrying 'A'ishah and Umm Habibah, and so on. Then he offered his wives a choice that he should give them a provision and allow them to depart gracefully (i.e., divorce them) if they desire this world and its adornment, or they should renounce the world and abstain from adornments and embellishments if they desired Allah and His Messenger and the latter abode. It may be seen in the following words of Allah: O Prophet! say to your wives: "If you desire this world's life and its ornature, then come, I will give you a provision and allow you to depart a goodly departing. And if you desire Allah and His Messenger and the latter abode, then surely Allah has prepared for the doers of good among you a mighty reward" (33: 28 - 29). As you see this is not the attitude of a man who is enamored of women's love and infatuated with carnal desire. If a scholar, after deeply studying this matter, follows the dictates of justice, he will have to look for some reasons, other than avidity and lust, for his plurality of wives, beginning with his early life to the latter days. In fact he (s.a.w.a.) had married some of them to add to his strength by increasing relationships and helping hands; some of them were taken into marriage to win the enemies' hearts and as a protection from some of their evils. He married some others to maintain and protect them, in order that it might become a regular practice among the believers for the protection of widows and aged women against poverty and degradation. Some marriages were performed to practically affirm and enforce a lawful order, for abolition of evil traditions and false innovations, which were prevalent in the society. This was the case of his marriage with Zaynab bint Jahsh; she was first married to Zayd ibn Harithah, then Zayd divorced her; this Zayd was called "son of the Messenger of Allah" by the [pre-Islamic] custom of adoption; the pagans considered wife of an adopted son like the wife of an actual son and the "father-in-law" could not marry her. Therefore the Prophet married her [to confirm abrogation of adoption and the related customs], and several verses were revealed on this subject. The first woman to be married to the Prophet after the death of Khadijah, was Sawdah bint Zam'ah, whose husband had expired after returning from the second migration of Abyssinia. Sawdah was a believing lady who had migrated [for her faith] . If she were left to return to her own family who at that time were unbelievers, they would have tortured and tormented her as they were doing with other believing men and women using suppression and killings and forcing them to renounce their faith. He married Zaynab bint Khuzaymah after her husband, 'Abdullah ibn Jahsh, was martyred in Uhud. She was one of the most generous ladies even in the era of ignorance, and was called "Mother of the poor", in recognition of her generosity and kindness towards needy people. The Prophet, with this marriage, preserved her prestige and dignity. He also married Umm Salamah, whose actual name was Hind. Before that, she was married to 'Abdullah Abu Salamah, who was a cousin" of the Prophet (son of his paternal aunt) and his foster brother; Abu Salamah [and his wife] were among the first to emigrate to Abyssinia. She had renounced the worldly pleasure and was highly distinguished in piety and wisdom. When her husband died she was very advanced in age and had many orphan n children. That is why the Prophet married her. Safiyyah was daughter of Huyayy ibn Akhtab, the chief of Banu 'e-Nadir. Her husband was killed in the battle of Khaybar, and her father with Banu Qurayzah, and she was among the captives of Khaybar. The Prophet chose her for himself and married her after emancipating her. With this marriage he protected her from humiliation and established affinity with the Children of Israel. The marriage with Juwayriyyah, i.e., Barrah, daughter of al-Harith, the chief of Banu 'l-Mustaliq, was performed after the battle of Banu 'l-Mustaliq. The Muslims had arrested two hundred of their families together with women and children. The Prophet married Juwayriyyah; so the Muslims said: "These are the relatives of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) by marriage; they should not be held captives." So they freed all of them. Impressed by this nobility, the whole tribe of Banu 'l-Mustaliq entered into the fold of Islam. It was a very large tribe, and this [generosity of the Muslims as well as the Islam of that tribe, created a good impression throughout Arabia. One of his wives was Maymunah, whose name was Barrah bint al-Harith al-Hilaliyyah. She was the one who gifted herself to the Prophet after the death of her second husband, Abu Ruhm ibn 'Abdi 'l-'Uzza (al-'Amir;). The Prophet then married her, and a verse was revealed regarding her marriage. Also he married Umm Hablbah, i.e., Ramlah daughter of Abu Sufyan. She was married to 'Ubaydullah ibn Jahsh and had emigrated with him to Abyssinia in the second Migration. While there, 'Ubaydullah was converted to Christianity, but she remained steadfastly on Islam; while her father, Abu Sufyan, in those days, was gathering army after army to annihilate the Muslims. Therefore, the Prophet married her and afforded protection to her. Hafsah bint 'Umar was married to him after her husband, Khunays ibn Hudhafah, was killed in Badr, and she was left a widow. And he married 'A'ishah bint Ab; Bakr, and she was a virgin. When one looks at these details, and ponders on what we have mentioned above regarding the Prophet's life from his early days to the end, and on his self-denial and rejection of worldly embellishments, and his exhortation to his wives to do the same, one can have no doubt that the marriages which he had contracted with these women were not like those done by other people. And to it the benevolence with which he treated the womanhood, revived their rights, which the centuries of ignorance and barbarism had put to sleep, and restored their prestige and honor in the society. [He was so much concerned with women's welfare that] reportedly the last words he uttered were addressed to the men about their women. He had said: "(Be careful about) prayer, (be careful about) prayer; and (about) what your right hands possess, do not impose on them what they have no strength for; (fear) Allah, (fear) Allah about the women, because they are helpless in your hands . . . " His behavior was matchless in dealing equitably with his wives, living with them gracefully and paying regard to their feelings and wishes (as we shall describe some aspects of it when writing on his characteristics in the coming discourses, God willing.) As for the permission to marry more than four, it was, like the fasting continuously for two days without any break at night, an order exclusively reserved for the Prophet-the ummah was prohibited it. It was these especial characteristics-and the fact that all people were clearly aware of them that did not have any room for objection to his enemies, although they were always on the look out for some openings to attack him.

Topic: An Essay on Marriage

Contents: •

MARRIAGE IS ONE OF THE GOALS OF NATURE •

DOMINATION OF MALES OVER FEMALES •

POLYGAMY •

OBJECTIONS AGAINST POLYGAMY

The basic reality of sexual relation between man and woman is most clearly established by human-nay, even animal-nature; Islam being the religion of nature, confirms it without any doubt. Procreation-the goal nature wants to achieve with this union- is the basic factor and the only reason, which has transformed cohabitation into marriage, and raised it from mere carnal relation to a durable union. That is why we see that the species of animals in which both parents jointly bring up their offspring - like the birds in their guarding the eggs and feeding and bringing up the chicks, and those animals who need a den or lair for giving birth to and bringing up their offspring and for preparation and protection of which the female needs cooperation of the male - have opted for a constant attachment and exclusive relationship between the male and the female. In this manner they come together, and share the tasks of guarding and hatching the eggs, and this cooperation continues till the chicks grow up and go their own way; then the parents separate (if they separate at all), then a new cycle begins. It shows that the real cause of marriage and the rationale for matrimony is the instinct of procreation and bringing up the children. As for the satisfaction of sexual urge or joining hands in struggle of life, like earning and saving money preparation of food and drink, obtaining household effects and, in short, managing the domestic life-these things are not a part of the goal of nature; they are mere preliminaries of, or benefits accruing from, marriage. It is clear from the above that: Freedom and licentiousness shown by the couples-husband or wife cohabiting with other than his or her spouse without any restraint whenever and wherever he/she desires, like animals world where male mounts female wherever he gets the chance - as is the norm of the day in " civilized" countries, likewise fornication and particularly adultery; Treating the marriage as a permanent union, and prohibition of divorce and separation, not allowing either party to dissolve the marriage and marrying another spouse - as long as the couple is alive; Elimination of procreation and refusal to rear children; laying the foundation of marriage - tie on sharing the domestic life, as is prevalent in "advanced" countries; and consequently sending the newborn children to public nurseries established for their nursing and bringing up; All this goes against the laws of nature. The nature has equipped human being with instincts and organs, which totally oppose these "modern" habits, as we have mentioned above. Of course, there are animals in whose birth and rearing male's continued presence is not needed. Once the female becomes pregnant, she takes on herself all the duties of pregnancy, and of nursing and rearing the offspring. In such cases there is no natural need of durable union between male and female. Such animals are free to cohabit as and when they feel the urge, to the extent that does not disturb the nature's aim of preserving the species. It would be a folly to think that it won't harm man to disturb the system ordained by creation, to go against the dictates of nature, provided one compensated for the resulting defects with thought and deliberation; and that in this way he would freely enjoy the life and its blessings. But such thought is nothing short of madness. These natural structures - including the human personality - are composites made of innumerable parts. When each part is kept in its proper place, following the laid down conditions, it creates an overall effect agreeable to the goal of nature, the aim of creation. This effect leads the species to its perfection. It is not unlike the medical mixtures and compounds, which require particular ingredients with especial qualities and prescribed measure and weights, and are dispensed with laid down process; and if changes are made even slightly in its weight or quality it will lose its effects. Man is a being, naturally created of various parts compounded in a particular way; this especial process results in some inner qualities and psychological characteristics, which in their turn produce various actions and activities. If some of these actions are changed from their natural position, it will badly disturb the alignment of those qualities and characteristics, which in its turn will dislocate all the intrinsic characteristics and qualities from their natural position, will deviate the whole being from the path of nature; this would severe man's link with his natural perfection, and turn him from the destination the nature was urging him to reach. If we look at the general calamities mankind is submerged in nowadays, which render people's endeavors to achieve comfortable and happy life null and void, and which are threatening the humanity with downfall and ruination, we shall find that it has been caused, in the main part, by the total absence of piety, and by the mastery that stupidity and cruelty, violence and greed, have got over human psyche; and the biggest factor in this mastery is this licentiousness and permissiveness, this discarding of natural laws concerning marital responsibilities and rearing of children. The system adopted nowadays for domestic life and for bringing up the children, kills the instincts of mercy and kindness and erases the traits of chastity, modesty and humility from man's psyche, from the first moment of his awareness to his last breath. Can't we compensate for these deficiencies through our reason and contemplation? Forget it. Reason and understanding, like other faculties of life, is a tool acquired by nature as a means to bring the deviating factors back to the natural path. It is not meant to negate the endeavors of creation and dictates of nature; otherwise it would be tantamount to killing the nature by the very sword it had given in man's hand to defend himself. Moreover, if the reason (a tool of nature) is used to support the depravity and decay of other natural faculties, this tool also would be damaged and misaligned like those others. We are witnessing today that whenever man tries to remove, through his thinking, one of the catastrophes threatening the society, he opens the gate of a greater and more disastrous calamity; and sufferings and travails extend their tentacles some more. Someone among these people might say: The psychological traits like chastity, generosity, modesty, kindness and truthful - ness, which are called spiritual virtues, are relics of the era of superstition and barbarity; they are not good for the modern advanced man. Chastity puts fetters on man's many desires. Generosity negates man's endeavors for gathering money, and disregards all the troubles he had undergone in earning it; more- over, it encourages the poor to remain idle and degrade himself by begging here and there. Modesty is a bridle that prevents man from freely expressing his ideas or demanding his rights. Kindness weakens the heart; and truth does not agree with demands of today's life.

COMMENT: This talk in itself is an example of the deviated thinking, which we have mentioned above. This man is oblivious of the fact that these virtues are essential for a human society; if they are removed, the society cannot remain alive as society even for an hour. What will happen if these characteristics were removed from the society? Everyone will exceed his limits to snatch others' rights, properties and honor; nobody will offer any help to meet dire needs of society; nobody will feel any shame in breaking the laws of the land; no one will show any mercy to weaker groups - who cannot be held responsible for their weakness-like children and others; everyone will lie to everyone else, giving him wrong information and false promises. The society will disintegrate at once. This man should understand that these virtues have not gone, nor will they ever go, away from this world. Human nature adheres to them and it will keep them alive as long as it is calling the mankind to live in society. The most important thing is to arrange and moderate these traits, so that they conform with the goal of nature, which invites man to a happy life. If the attitudes reigning nowadays over the advanced societies were really virtuous or truly well balanced, they would not have pushed the society to such depravity and disaster; instead they would have led mankind to safety and peace, comfort and happiness. To come back to our original topic: Islam has put the institution of matrimony in its natural place-as we have mentioned earlier. It has allowed marriage and forbidden fornication and illicit sexual relations. It has established the marriage tie, putting up with possibility of its dissolution, that is, divorce; and made this bond exclusive to a certain extent, as we shall explain below. The foundation of this bond was laid on procreation and bringing up the children; there is a well-known saying of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.): "Marry, procreate, increase your number. . ."

DOMINATION OF MALES OVER FEMALES

Observation of animals' sexual behavior shows that the males have a sort of domination and authority over the females in this matter. It is as though the male considers himself to be the master of the female, possessing the right to mount her. That is why we see the males fighting each other for the females, but not vice versa; the fema1e does not stand up to fight another female if the male goes to the latter. Likewise, love-rites, the equivalent of proposals in our society, are initiated in animal kingdom by the males, not the females. It only means that the female is by nature aware that in this respect the male is the active and dominant agent, while she is only a passive receiver. Do not be mislead by occasional ingratiating behavior of the male with the female when he fawns on her by doing whatever would please her; it is but a part of love-play, which he does to heighten the desire and increase the pleasure. But as far as the domination and mastery is concerned, it springs from his virility and its natural function. The idea that strength and power are inseparable concomitants of the males, and softness and submissiveness, the characteristics of the females, is found more or less in all nations, and has filtered into various linguistic idioms and expressions. They call a tough unbendable thing as "male", and a tender pliable item as "female"; e.g., [in Arabic] they say: Male iron, male sword, male grass, male place, and so on. This idea is generally common to the whole human species, prevalent in different societies and various nations -although there might be some difference in degrees. Islam has kept this reality in view in its legislation. Allah says: Men are the maintainers of women, because of that with which Allah has made some of them to excel the other. . . (4:34). Islam has made it obligatory for a wife to submit to her husband if he wants to cohabit with her-whenever possible.

POLYGAMY

As far as we have observed, the question of "monogamy or polygamy" in the animal world is not definitely settled. In cases where the male and the female have to live together (because the male remains busy whole time in helping his mate in "domestic" affairs, raising the children and looking after them) "monogamy " is the rule, i.e.; the female remains exclusively attached to the male. Yet sometimes the system may be changed through skill, planning and guarantee of security, i.e., by domestication and training, as is seen between cock and hens and even pigeons, etc. Coming to our own species, polygamy was a custom prevalent in most of the ancient nations like Egypt, India, China and Persia; and even Rome and Greece, who supplemented the wife with concubines who lived with her in the same house. Some nations, like the Jews and the Arabs, observed no limit; some married ten, twenty or even more wives; reportedly the king Solomon had married hundred of women. Mostly, polygamy was prevalent in tribal and other similar communities, like villagers and highlanders. A head of family in such societies always felt a pressing need for a large coterie of followers Polygamy was his way of achieving this goal; increased births gave him a large number of sons, who in some years became a force for defending his interests-a necessary part of life in those communities - and raising him to the leadership of the community. Also, the increased number of marriages increased the circle of relatives through affinity. Some scholars have said that the main factor leading tribesmen or villagers to polygamy was their preoccupation with a lot of back-breaking jobs, like carrying and transporting loads; shepherding and cattle grazing; farming and irrigation; hunting, cooking and weaving; and things like that. This theory is correct to a certain extent; but contemplation of their psychological traits proves that these factors had a secondary importance in their eyes. What we have mentioned earlier was the primary and basic concern or a nomad. Also it was this factor which led them to gather adopted sons around themselves. There was one more basic reason which increased the number of wives in those societies, and that was the presence of women in much greater number than men. In those tribal societies battle and war was a never-ending phenomenon, as was assassination and murder. Such killings continued to decrease the male population, and women's number increased to a level where the only way to fulfill their natural needs was through polygamy. Think over it. Islam has ordained marriage with one wife, and allowed marrying up to four, provided the man is able to treat them equitably; it has at the same time taken steps to remove the difficulties and shortcomings found in polygamy, as we shall mention later. Allah says: and they (women) have rights similar to those upon them in a just manner (2:228).

OBJECTIONS AGAINST POLYGAMY:

First Objection: It creates evil effects in society. It hurts the feelings of women, frustrates their hopes and stops the fountainhead of love in their hearts. The love is transformed into a desire for revenge. They neglect the household, do not look after children's welfare, and pay their men in their own coin. Thus they indulge in adultery, embezzle their property, and tarnish their honor. The society immediately sinks to the lowest level possible.

Second Objection: Polygamy goes against the system, which the nature has obviously established. Census figures, obtained from various communities generation after generation, show that the male and female populations are almost equal. It means that nature provides only one woman for one man. To disturb this balance goes against the nature's programmed.

Third Objection: Allowing polygamy encourages men to lust and avidity, and gives boost to such tendencies in society.

Fourth Objection: Polygamy degrades women in society, as it counts four women as equal to one man; and it is an unjust assessment, even from Islamic point of view which treats two women as equal to one man, e.g., in inheritance and evidence, etc. On that basis too, marriage with only two women should have been allowed-not with four. Marriage with four is deviation from justice, however we look at it. These objections have been written by Christians or by those sociologists who advocate equal rights for both sexes in society. Reply to the First Objection: We have repeatedly explained that Islam has laid the foundation of human society on rational, not emotional, life. In sociological field, it follows what is good for the society in reason, not what is desired by emotions or feelings. It does not mean that Islam kills the emotions and feelings, or negates the divine gift of natural instincts. It is accepted in the Psychology that difference in education and training creates difference quantitatively and qualitatively in psychological traits and inner feelings and emotions. For example, many rites and customs that are highly appreciated by the Orientals are looked down upon by the Occidentals, and vice versa. Every community differs from the others in one way or the other. Religious education and training in Islam raises the woman to a level where her feelings are not injured with such things. Of course, the Western woman has become accustomed since many centuries to being the only wife, and has been taught this idea generation after generation. This has created in her a psychological aversion against polygamy. Proof of this may be found in the shocking licentiousness and promiscuity of men and women prevalent in the "advanced" nations nowadays. Do not their men satisfy their lust with anyone they like and who responds favorably to their advances -no matter whether she is within prohibited degree or outside, is virgin or deflowered, is married or unmarried. It has reached a stage where one cannot find among them a single man or woman in a thousand who has not indulged in illicit sexual relations. Not only that; now they have plunged into sodomy to the extent that no one seems clean of it. The debauchery has become a norm of the day, so much so that just last year it was proposed in the British parliament to legalize the sodomy - after it had spread among them "illegally". As for the women, and especially virgins and spinsters, their affairs are even more amazing and more shocking. Would that I knew why the women in those countries are not sorry for this state of affairs? Why are they not embarrassed by it? Why are their hearts not broken by it? Why are their feelings not injured when they see all this debauchery from their men? Also, why is the man not annoyed when he marries a girl and finds her deflowered and comes to know that she had already been bedded not only by one or two men? Why does he start boasting in the morning that her bride had been so popular with men that tens, rather hundreds, had vied with each other to win her favors? Why this insensitivity? Is there any reason except that this wantonness and immorality has been going on for so long, and this licentiousness and lasciviousness has so captured their minds, that now it has become a second nature to them; now it neither hurts their feelings nor looks strange or objectionable to them. It is as we had mentioned earlier that the prevalent customs mould the feelings and emotions in their own mould, and do not let them take any other shape. As for the claim that polygamy makes the women neglect their house, ignore the children's education and incline towards illicit sexual relations and embezzlement, experience shows hollowness of such talks. This law was ordained and enforced in the early days of Islam, and no scholar of history can claim that it had caused any disturbance in the social order. The reality was poles apart from such claims. Moreover, the women who marry a man as his second, third or fourth wife-in Islamic or other polygamous societies-enter into marriage contract willingly, with their open eyes. They belong to the same society, they are not captured from other countries, nor have they been brought here for this purpose from outer space. Yet they willingly agree to such marriage for one or the other sociological reason. It follows that woman by nature is not against polygamous marriage; nor are her feelings injured by it. If there is any resentment it should be shown by the first wife; when a woman has remained alone with her husband, she would not like intrusion of another woman in her house, lest her husband show more attachment to the new wife, or the new wife acquire more authority, or differences raise their heads between the two wives' children, or things like that. It shows that unhappiness and resentment, if there be any, springs not from natural disposition, but from an incidental situation, that is, remaining for sometime alone with the husband. Reply to the Second Objection: The argument by the equality that nature supposedly maintains between numbers of males and females are untenable for many reasons:

1. Marriage does not depend on equa1 rates of birth alone; there are many other factors and conditions that control it. First of all, maturity of mind and capability of marriage appears sooner in girls than in boys. Girls, and especially in hot climates, are ready for marriage as soon as they reach the age of nine; while boys do not attain puberty before the age of sixteen (and this is what Islam has kept in view for deciding the age of marriage). Its evidence may be found in the behavior prevalent among the girls in the "civilized" countries: Rarely does a girl remain virgin up to the age of the "legal adulthood"; and the only reason is that nature makes her ready for marriage long before bestowing that ability on boys. Now, let us look at a group of boys and girls born during the last sixteen years-and supposedly both sexes are equal in number. How many marriageable boys will be there in the group? Only those who are sixteen years old, that is, those born in the first year of the period under study. But how many girls of marriageable age will be there in the group? All those who were born from the first to the seventh year of this period [i.e., the marriageable girls will be seven times more than the marriageable boys]. Increase the period under study to twenty-five years (the age when men usually reach their full maturity and strength). How many men and women of marriageable age you get in this group? The men who were born during the first ten years, and the women who were born during the first fifteen years. It gives us an average of two women for each man, by natural law.

2. Census reportedly shows that expectancy of life is greater in woman than in man. In other words, men die earlier, leaving some women who would remain alone, with no man to marry them if monogamy is to be the rule.*

3. The ability to procreate continues longer in men than in women. Usually women reach menopause at the age of fifty, while men's virility continues for years and years after that. Sometimes his ability to procreate continues to the end of his natural age, i.e., a hundred years. Accordingly a man's reproductive period, about 80 years, would be double of that of a woman (which is about 40 years). This premises in conjunction with the preceding one proves that the creative nature allows the man to marry more than one wife. How can nature bestows the ability to reproduce and then prohibit the use of receptacles suitable for that reproduction? Such contrariness is not the way natural causality works.

4. The carnages like battles and wars liquidate mainly the male population, compared to which women remain almost unaffected. As mentioned above, it was a strong factor in the spread of polygamy in the tribal societies. If those widows and spinsters are not cared for through polygamous marriages, then what are the alternative available to them? Either fornication or negation and nullification of their natural faculties! This problem had raised its head in West Germany a few months before writing these lines. There the spinster women spoke about the hardships and difficulties they were facing because they could not find any man free to marry them; they demanded from the government to allow them to contract polygamous marriage-in Islamic manner. The idea was to permit the men to marry more than one wife in order that those spinsters should not be deprived of their natural rights. But the government rejected the demand, and the Church refused to agree-although tacitly they agreed to the spreading of adultery and fornication and to the ruining of would-be generation.

5. Even if we close our eyes from all the above factors, the argument of equality of the numbers of both sexes would stand only if we suppose that every man in the society marries polygamous - up to four wives. But nature has not prepared every man for it; only a few, and not all, can marry more than one wife. Islam has not made it compulsory for every man to enter into many marriages; it has only made it lawful-for him who is able to treat all wives equitably. This permission does not create any difficulty or disturbance; and its clearest proof may be found in the Muslim and other polygamous societies where it has not created any shortage of women and no man fails to find a wife for him. In contrast with that, we find in the monogamous societies thousands of women who are left in the lurch, as they cannot find anyone to marry them and provide them a chance to settle in life; their only outlet is fornication.

6. Apart from that, this objection could only be advanced if Islam had not had provided this rule with checks and balances for keeping it safe from those imaginary defects. Islam has made it compulsory for a man who wants to marry more than one wife to behave with them with justice and equity, to live with them in fairness, and divide the nights between them; it has obliged him to maintain them and their children equitably. Obviously, not every man can easily spend on, let us say, four wives and their offspring, keeping within the circle of justice and fairness in his dealings with them; it may be done only by some of the well-to-do people. Moreover, there are some lawful Islamic ways which may be used by a woman to encourage and oblige her man not to marry another wife after her.

Reply to the Third Objection: This objection springs from not looking attentively at the Islamic way of education and training or at the goals of this shari'ah. The education given to women in an Islamic society-as approved by religion-trains them to keep themselves covered, makes chastity and modesty their second nature, and protects them from breach of decency. Consequently, a Muslim woman grows up with far less sexual desire than is found in a man. This is in spite of common belief that sexual desire in a woman is stronger and greater. Why has this idea spread? Just because by nature a woman seems more concerned with her adornment and beauty. But the fact is otherwise; and no Muslim man (who has married women grown up in Islamic atmosphere) can have an iota of doubt about it. In reality, an average man's sexual desire far exceeds that of a single woman -even of two or three of them. Let us look at it from another angle. Islam is very concerned that none should be deprived of necessary natural desires or essential biological demands. From religious point of view, it is not good for a man to dam up his sexual desire and remain frustrated, as it would lead him to indecency and immorality. But a woman remains justifiably incapable of sexual relations for about a third of her married life, e.g., during monthly periods, advanced stages of pregnancy, delivery, breast-feeding and for similar other reasons. But it is necessary to provide for prompt satisfaction of the husband's desire. It is the necessary conclusion of the repeatedly mentioned principle that Islam has laid the society's foundation on rational, not emotional, basis. It is therefore a great danger from Islam's point of view to leave the man unmarried or in his above-mentioned sexual frustration, as it would lead him to lustful thoughts and immoral activities. Apart from that, the Law-giver of Islam considers it very important that the Muslims should have lots of offspring, in order that the Earth should flourish with goodly prosperity at the hands of a Muslim society, erasing polytheism and mischief from the World. It is these and similar other considerations which have led the Islam to legalize the institution of polygamy; it was not for spreading lustful ways or encouraging lecherous behavior. Had our detractors followed the dictates of justice, their own social customs-popular among them who have built their society on the foundation of material enjoyment - more deserving to be accused of spreading immorality and encouraging licentiousness, than the Islam which has based its social order on the foundation of religious bliss and felicity. Furthermore, just the fact, that man has the permission to marry other wives, pacifies and calms down the avidity, which a sense of deprivation could have agitated. Every deprived one is greedy; when one is forbidden a thing, his mind remains continually busy in devising plans to get that thing. Every Muslim - even if he has only one wife -is satisfied and contended that he is not prevented from satisfying his sexual desires if a need; arose in future to do so. This in a way calms down his such desires, and protects him from inclining towards indecency and tarnishing other's honors. A Western scholar has rightly said that the strongest factor that has contributed in spreading adultery and immorality in the Christian nations is the Church's prohibition of polygamy.** Reply to the Fourth Objection: This allegation is totally unacceptable. We have described in a previous discourse, when writing on the rights of women in Islam***, that no social system whatsoever -be it religious or secular, ancient or modern-has ever honored the women as much, and cared for their rights so comprehensively and perfectly, as the Islam has done; and we shall further explain it somewhere else. As for allowing a man to marry more than one woman, it is not intended to be a negation of women's social prestige, nullification of their rights or degradation of their status in life; it is founded on several underlying benefits, some of which have been mentioned above. A lot of the Western scholars-both men and women-have admitted the goodness and perfectness of this Islamic law, and the social disorder and dangers inherent in prohibition of polygamy. Interested readers should look for their comments in their books. The strongest argument used by the Western detractors of polygamy, which they offer before their audience with much embellishment, is the condition found in those Muslim families where there are two or more wives. Such houses are devoid of happy life and good living. No sooner do the two rival wives enter the house than they start envying each other. (People call envy, the disease of rival wives.) Thereafter all the kind of feelings and noble characteristics which are ingrained in woman's nature- love and tender-heartedness, kindness and gentleness, compassion and affection, good advice and looking after husband's honor in his absence, faithfulness and devotion, mercy and sincerity for husband and his children from other women, and care for the house and household - are changed to their opposites. The home - the place intended for man's comfort, where he expects to rest and relax after his daily toils and troubles, when he is dead tired in body and mind after the drudgery of earning his livelihood-is transformed into a battlefield where life and honor, wealth and prestige are freely attacked and violated; nothing is safe from any side; horizon of life becomes cloudy, pleasant existence, a thing of the past. In place of bliss and happiness, appear hitting and slapping, abuse, invective and curse, backbiting and tale bearing, spying, intrigue and trickery. Children quarrel and dispute with one another. Things sometimes reach a stage where the wife plans to kill the husband, and some children kill the others or even their father. Kinship is metamorphosed into a never-ending feud that for generations causes bloodshed, genocide and downfall of the house. Add to it the effects it brings to the society: unhappiness, moral corruption, cruelty, injustice, transgression, indecency and lack of security and trust. (There is also another dimension to this problem) when you add legality of divorce to the permission of polygamy. These two factors, combined together, create in the society connoisseurs, who live luxurious lives and whose interest is centered on satisfaction of their lust and avidity; their passion revolves around getting this woman and discarding that one, raising one's status and lowering the other's. It is nothing less than thwarting and frustrating a half of the mankind, i.e., the females, and submerging them into sorrow and grief. Their degradation results in depravity of the other half (and the whole society is demoralized).

COMMENT: This was the gist of what they have said, and the objection is true-but its targets are the Muslims, not the Islam or its teachings. When have the Muslims truly followed the Islamic teachings, that Islam could be held responsible for the consequences of their misdeeds? Centuries have passed that there is no good government, which could train them with noble teachings of the shari'ah. On the contrary, the first people to rip apart the curtain put up by the religion, to break the laws of the shari'ah and to violate its limits were the very Muslim rulers and people in power-and people follow the customs of their rulers. It is not possible to narrate here even a small portion of the life style in the "Muslims " Kings' palaces, or the scandals indulged into by the sultans and governors, since the days the religious government fumed into monarchy and sultanate; otherwise we will have to write a complete book on this subject. In short, the objection, if valid, can be laid against the Muslims: that they adopted a way of life, which could not bring any happiness in their homes, and followed a policy, which they could not prevent from deviating from the straight path. The whole blame lies on the men, not on their women or children-although every soul is responsible for what it has earned of sin. Why? Because it was these men's behavior-they thought nothing of sacrificing their own happiness, and that of their families and children together with the clean environment of the society, on the altar of their greed, lust and ignorance - that was the root cause of all these disasters and fountain-head of all these destructive troubles. As for the Islam, it has not legislated polygamy as a compulsory and obligatory duty of every man. It looked at the people's nature and at the difficulties some of them faced now and again, and so it concluded that polygamy contained definite goodness [for solving those problems], as was described above in detail. Then it looked minutely at the negative effects of polygamy and its dangers. Consequently, it allowed polygamy for the underlying benefit of humanity, but at the same time imposed such a restriction on it as to remove the chances of all those disgraceful depravities-that the man should be confident that he would live with them in equity and treat them justly and fairly. Islam allows plurality of wives only to him who is sure of himself in this respect. As for those who do not care for their own or their families' and children's happiness and felicity, whose only mark of honor is satisfaction of their stomachs and genitals, and in whose eyes woman is only a means to satisfy man's lust and to give pleasure to him, Islam is not concerned with them, nor does it allow them to marry more than one-if we say that they are allowed to marry even the one, with that mentality of theirs! Moreover, there is a mix-up in this objection between two completely separate aspects of religion, i.e., the legislation and the governmental authority. It may be explained as follows: According to modern scholars the criterion to judge about a laid down law or prevalent tradition whether it is a good law and tradition or bad, is to look at the acceptable or unacceptable effects and results obtained from enforcement of that law in the societies, and whether or not the societies in the prevalent condition accept the law faithfully. I do not think they are oblivious of the fact that society sometimes is fettered by some customs, traditions or accidents that do not agree with the law under study; in such a condition, the society should be reformed in a manner as not to hamper or negate the said law or tradition, in order that it may be seen how the law works; and what effect it brings in its wake-whether it is good or bad, beneficial or harmful. The only difference is that their criterion for a laid down law is the currently prevailing desire and demand of the society-whatever that demand may be. Thus what agrees with their current wishes and demands is considered a good law, and what goes against it, is bad. That is why when those Westerners saw the Muslims wandering in the valley of error, steeped in immorality in this life and wickedness in the next, they attributed to the Islamic shari'ah (which the Muslims supposedly followed) all the evils found among the Muslims, e.g., falsehood and embezzlement, indecency and usurpation of rights, prevalent transgression and ruined homes, and in short the whole spectrum of corrupted social order. They thought that the Islamic tradition and system is like other social systems in its implementation and effects. The other systems conform with their members' desires and demands. So, those scholars thought that Islam too has the same quality, and that all these social disorders have been generated by Islam; that it is this religion that gives rise to depravity and corruption (and among them are found the most depraved and the most immoral persons; as they say, there are all kinds of game in the belly of the wild ass). Had it been a real religion and its laid down laws really good and containing people's welfare and felicity, it would have produced good and beautiful effects in the society, instead of becoming a curse for it. But these people have confused the nature of a good and beneficial law with the nature of a corrupt and harmful people. Islam is a composite unit of spiritual knowledge, moral teachings and practical laws-all of which are interrelated. If one part is damaged or tampered with, the whole is damaged, and its effects are changed. It is not unlike the medical compounds and mixtures, which require, for their health-restoring effects, their proper ingredients and a proper place to prepare them. If some ingredients are spoiled or adulterated, or if the directions for its use are not properly followed, it will not bring the desired effect; rather it may produce opposite result (and harm the patient). At this juncture let us admit for the sake of argument, that the Islamic system could not reform the people, and could not erase common social vices and depravities-because its legislative base was unsound. But why is it that the democratic system has not succeeded in our eastern countries as it has in Europe? Why is it that the more we try to go ahead on this path the farther back we fall? No one has any doubt that the vices and depravities have taken deeper roots in our society today (when we have become civilized and enlightened) than it was fifty years ago (when we were uncivilized barbarians!). Today our society is devoid of social justice; we trample on human rights; we do not give higher education to our masses; and we lack all the social benefits and blessings - for us these are merely names without substance, words without meaning. Ask them the reason, and they will say: This good system has not worked among you because you have not really put it into practice, have not tried to implement it properly. Well, why this excuse is acceptable in case of democracy, but not in case of Islam? Let us suppose that Islam, because of the weakness of its foundation (God forbid!), could not capture the people's hearts and could not take deep roots in the society; and consequently its rule could not continue, it lost its vitality in the Muslims' social order and was discarded at the first opportunity. But why did the democratic system-the universally appreciated system- go away, after the World War I, from Russia? Why were its trace lost there? Why was it replaced by the communist system? Again, why did it give way, after the World War II, to the communist system in China, Lithuania, Estonia, Albania, Rumania, Hungary, Yugoslavia, etc.? Why does it pose a danger to other countries, after having established considerable influence in them? Now let us look at the communist system. It flourished for about forty years; and spread to, and ruled over, nearly half of the mankind. Its rulers and champions are never tired of boasting of its excellence and superiority. According to them it is the only clean stream that is unpolluted by dictatorial tendencies and democracy's exploitation; the countries where it has taken roots have turned into Utopia. If this claim is correct, then why did the same rulers and champions, some two years back, stand up to condemn the rule of its matchless leader, Stalin, who had led and governed Russia for thirty years? Why did they announce that his rule was despotic and dictatorial, and that it was nothing but enslavement in the guise of communism? Everyone agrees that Stalin had great influence in legislation of the laid down laws and their enforcement and all that follows. In other words, all this was produced by the will of an enslaving dictator; it was a one man's rule, which revived thousands and killed thousands; made some people happy and kept others oppressed, deprived and unhappy. Only Allah knows who will come after these (present rulers) to condemn them as they had done with their predecessors. **** Look into history books and you will find mention of a lot of systems, civilizations and cultures that governed the societies for sometime; some were good, others bad; then they passed away because of various factors-the strongest being the treachery of the leaders and feeble will of the masses. Would that I knew what is the difference between Islam (as a social system) and those other transformed and changed systems, that the excuse (of leaders' treachery and followers' weak-wiliness) is accepted in their case and rejected in the case of Islam? Yes, today the word of truth has fallen between a formidable western might and an imitative eastern ignorance; neither any sky shelters over it nor any earth raises it up. However, it should be clear from what we have mentioned above that whether a system is effective or not, and whether its hold on the people remains strong or it loosened, depends not so much on its correctness or incorrectness-so that this aspect could be used to prove its truth or falsity. It is rather affected by so many other causes and reasons. There was not a single system in the long human history but it produced results for sometimes and then became barren; it ruled over the society for a stretch of time and then passed away-all this for some factors acting for or against it; and We bring these days to men by turns, and that Allah may know those who believe and takes witnesses from among you (3: 140). In short, the Islamic shari'ah and its laws differ in their fundamental philosophy from all other social orders prevalent in various human societies. These [man-made] social systems go on changing with change of times and policies, but not so the Islamic laws. The Islamic laws - consisting of obligatory, prohibited, like, disliked and permissible-never change. Of course, those actions which a person has the choice to do or not to do, and every disposition which he has right to enact or leave, the Islamic ruler has got authority to order the people to do it or forbid them doing it; he can dispose such matters as if the society were a single body and the ruler its thinking mind and soul. Had there been an Islamic ruler there, he could have prevented the people from the inequities and injustices they commit in the name of polygamy or for other pretexts, without affecting any change in the divinely given permission. It would have been a general executive order based on an underlying benefit, just as a man might decide for his personal reasons not to marry more than one wife-not because the rule had changed but because it was only a permission which he had full right not to avail himself of. ________________________________________ * It is supported by a report published recently in a newspaper (Ittila 'at, Tehran, 11th Day, 1335 A.H. Solar (= 1st January,1957), quoting the Census report of France as follows: The census shows that in France 105 boys are born for every 100 girls Yet the women have a plurality of 1,765,000 over men in a population of about 40 million. The reason for this disparity lies in the fact that the boys have less resistance to diseases than the girls, and consequently by the age of nineteen boys' number decreases by 5 per cent. Then their number continues to decrease up to the age of 25 - 30, and by the time they reach 60 - 65 years of age, only 750,000 males remain alive vis-à-vis 1,500,000 females. (Author's Note) ** Vide John Davenport, An Apology for Mohammed and the Koran, which has been translated into Persian by the scholar, Sa'idi. (Author's Note) Mr. Sa'idi has translated the title of the said work of Davenport as: which if retranslated into English would mean 'Offering Apology to Muhammad and the Qur'an'. He seems unaware of the difference between 'apology for' end 'apology to', and of the fact that the word 'apology' as used in this title, means, explanation or defense of belief', etc. The title, therefore, means 'In Defense of Muhammad and the Qur'an'. ( tr. ) *** Vide al-Mizan (English Translation) vol 4, pp. 61 - 83. ( tr.)

Topic: On unquestionable adoption of concepts and rulings

The nation, most frequently described in the Qur'?n, is that of the Israelites; and the prophet most numerously referred to therein is their prophet, Mus? (a.s.), son of `Imr?n. His name has been mentioned in one hundred and thirty six places, twice as many as the second most numerously mentioned name, that is, of Ibr?h?m (a.s.), who has been named sixty-nine times only - as some people have calculated. It is not difficult to understand the reason for these fre¬quent references. Islam, the true religion, is based on the belief of monotheism; its present foundation was laid by Ibr?h?m (a.s.) ; and All?h completed and perfected it for His Prophet, Muhammad (s.a.w.a.), as He says: . . . the faith of your father Ibr?h?m; He named you Muslims before and in this . . . (22:78) . And the Israelites were the most disputatious and most quarrelsome of all the nations; they were the most obstinate and most abstruse of all when there was a question of submitting to the truth. And the heathens of Arabia, whom the Prophet of Islam had to contend with, were of the same mould, so much so that All?h said to His Prophet: Surely those who disbelieve alike is to them whether you warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe (2:6). Every vice, every depravity found in the Israelites could be found in them; they, in their hard-heartedness and impertinence were the mirror-image of the Israelites. Ponder over the stories of the Israelites, as narrated in the Qur'?n; look at the picture of their characters and morals as it emerges from those narratives. You will find a nation deeply submerged in sensualist and materialism. They did not believe in what was beyond the reach of their external senses; for them spiritual happiness was a word without meaning; their only am¬bition was the pursuit of sensual pleasure; their eyes could not focus on intellectual progress or spiritual perfection, so their only aim in life was the material development. And to this day, they have not changed a whit. It was this tendency which made their mind and will totally subservient to the matter and the material phenomena. They did not understand except that which they could see, hear, touch, taste or smell; they did not strive but for some tangible and material goals. Their servitude to the sensual phenomena prevented them from accepting any thing outside the domain of the five senses - even if it was truth; their thralldom to matter encouraged them to accept every thing told by their materially advanced big bosses - even if it was false. It created a clear contrariety and inconsistency in their words and deeds. They condemned every adoption of others' concepts, ridiculing it as blind following, if that concept was unperceivable by the external senses - no matter how correct it was. And at the same time, they appreciated every adoption of others' concepts, labe¬ling it as the pleasure of life, if it conformed with their material base desires - no matter how wrong that concept was. This trait became deeply rooted in their psyche during their long sojourn in Egypt, where the Egyptians humiliated them, enslaved them and castigated them; they subjected them to severe torment, killed their sons sparing their daughters, and in this was a great trial for them from their Lord. However, it was this deep-rooted trait which made them heedless to what their prophets and divine scholars told them about what was good for them in this life as well as in the here¬after. (Remember their disputations with Mus? and others!) And these very people were ever ready to accept and follow what their big bosses called them to, for gratification of their worldly desires. Today the truth and reality has been afflicted by this very tragedy. The modern civilization, presented to the humanity by the western world, is likewise based on sensual perception and material outlook. It is not prepared to accept any proof for something which is not perceivable by the external senses; and does not ask for any proof of validity, if a thing gives material and sensual pleasure. This has resulted in weakening of the hold of human instincts, and in disappearance of deep knowledge and high morals from our society. This trait has exposed the edifice of humanity to ruin, and is confronting the society with chaos and disorder. And you will surely see its real face in a not too distant future. Actually, not every proof is asked for, nor every unques¬tioning adoption of others' ideas and concepts is objectionable. Man proceeds on the road of perfection through his intentional activities. His actions emanate from his will, and the will springs from thought and notion. Thinking, therefore, is the foundation of his perfection. Man depends on practical or intellectual cog¬nition to which his perfection is directly or indirectly related. This cognition creates in his mind the need for individual or collective actions; this knowledge leads to intention and will which produces the desired activity. Man, by his instinct, tries to find out the cause of every event, happening inside or outside his self. He does not do any action without knowing its reason; he does not accept any theory without ascertaining its proof. It is his unfailing trait; he always looks for the cause of the events and actions; it is his nature and the nature never deviates from its set course. But this trait puts an unbearable burden on him. No in¬dividual can accomplish all the academic and practical processes required for his material and spiritual well-being. It is this burden which led the man to establish a society and cooperate with other human beings. Various people were given responsibilities to per¬form various tasks, in order that the society, taken as a whole, might collectively accomplish all tasks, and fulfill all the needs of all its members put together. Human needs are expanding by leaps and bounds; various branches of knowledge - sciences, technologies, arts etc. - are growing larger and larger, to such an extent that every subject has grown into hundreds of subjects - each requiring its own specialists. Look for example, at medical science. In old days it was a branch of physics; now it has branched out into hundreds of independent subjects, and no single physician or surgeon may gain expertise in more than one or two of them. This vast multitude of special fields has instinctively led man to limit his inquiry for cause, and his search for proof, to only those branches of knowledge in which he has gained some expertise; and accept and follow the verdicts of other specialists in other fields. A sane person invariably always relies on the experts in the fields of their expertise. The confidence in their expertise creates a certainty that what has been said or done is correct; and this serves as the proof demanded by human nature. The nature dictates that man should try his best to find out the detailed proof of the rightness of his idea and action in the fields of his specialty; and as a corollary it directs that he should unquestioningly accept the concepts and verdicts of others in other fields. In short, an ignorant man should follow the decree of a learned one. It is impossible for one man to be an expert in all the branches of knowledge, or independent in all the ac¬tivities necessary for his life and well-being. Therefore, it is im¬possible for any man to be free from blindly following a lot of experts in numerous avenues of life. Anyone claiming contrary to this, is a fool. Of course, it is a shame if a man remains content with un¬questioning following, even where he can form an independent opinion based on detailed knowledge; as it is a shame if he forms independent opinion without acquiring necessary knowledge. Both trends are undesirable, both are ruinous to a healthy civiliza¬tion, both are dangerous to the society. It is the prerogative of All?h that His decrees and orders be followed without any questioning, without any if or but; because He is the First and Final cause, an no other cause or reason is needed when He has spoken.

Topic: on ways of finding the direction of Qiblah

The Muslims have to face towards the qiblah in prayer - and it is an act of worship which each of them has to perform several times a day - and at the time of slaughtering an animal as well as at some other times. It compelled the Muslims to find out the direction of the qiblah wherever they might be. In the beginning it was based on guess and rough estimates. Then the overwhelming need prompted the Muslim geographers and mathematicians to devise more accurate methods to find its direction. They based their reckoning on the longitude and latitude of a place - they calculated the degree of inclination between its location and that of Mecca with the help of trigonometry and astronomy. They fixed the direction of qiblah in every town with the help of the well-known Indian Circle which fixed the meridian of a place and showed the degree of its inclination from the qiblah. Then they started using the compass. Its hands pointed to the North and the South; and if the degree of inclination to Mecca was known beforehand, it was easy to fix the direction of the qiblah. It gradually replaced the Indian Circle, being a lot quicker and easier to use. But both these endeavors of theirs - may Allah reward them for these - were not free from defect and miscalculation. First: The Indian Circle: The latter geographers found out that the early scholars were not very accurate in their calculation of the longitude - and this had led to confusion in calculation of the degree of inclination, and consequently in the fixing of the qiblah's direction. The early scholars were more accurate in finding the latitude of a place, than its longitude. They used to fix the latitude of a place by measuring the altitude of the North Pole there. But fixing a longitude depended on measuring the distance between two places, and it was done by noting the time when a certain celestial event, like a solar or lunar eclipse, occurred in one place, and then calculating as to how much time had elapsed before it appeared in the other place. Obviously, neither the old instruments were dependable enough, nor the means of communications fast enough, to give this calculation the desired accuracy. With advancement of scientific apparatus and development of new means of communication, the need was felt to find a more accurate way of fixing the qiblah. The well-known scholar, Shaykh (Haydar Quli) Sardar Kabuli - Allah's mercy be on him! - looked into this matter, and calculated the inclination of various places with the help of the modern sciences. He wrote on this subject his book Tuhfatu 'l-ajillah fi ma `rifati 'l-qiblah. It is a fine work, in which he explains scientifically, how to find out the direction of qiblah for a place; also he has given charts fixing the qiblah of various towns. Allah helped him in his endeavour - may He reward him for it - in such a fine way that his calculations showed a clear miracle of the Prophet. When the early Muslim scholars calculated the position of Medina, they found that it was situated at 25?n lat. 75?20' long. The trouble was that al-mihrab (= niche) of the Mosque of the Prophet (based on the original direction) was not exactly to the direction which the newly calculated position was indicating. The religious scholars were always arguing on this subject, and they invented some reasons to justify that "deviation", although none was based on reality. But Sardar Kabuli - may Allah have mercy on him! - showed clearly that Medina is situated on 24?57' lat. 39?59' long; and that the inclination towards Mecca is 0?45'. And the niche of the Prophet's Mosque has exactly the same inclination. By this calculation, one more miracle of the Prophet came to light; it was the direction to which he turned his face while he was praying, and about which he later said that Jibril took hold of his hand and turned him towards the Ka'bah. Truth was what Allah and His Messenger said. After him, came the great mathematician, 'Abdu 'r-Razzaq al-Bagha'iri - Allah's mercy be on him - and he calculated the direction of the qiblah of most of the towns of the world, and published it in his book; his charts fix the qiblah of more than 1,500 towns. In this way, the favor of Allah was completed about the direction of the qiblah. Second : The Compass : It has been established that the Earth's magnetic Poles are not identical with its geographical Poles. First of all, the magnetic Poles have been changing from time to time. Second, the magnetic North Pole is at a distance of about one thousand miles from the geographical North Pole. Obviously, the compass does not show the exact direction of the qiblah; in some places the deviation may reach a degree that cannot be allowed. Now, the leading mathematician, Husayn `Ali Razm Ara, undertook these days (i.e., the 1332nd year of the solar hijri calendar) to solve this problem. He calculated the difference between the magnetic and geographical Poles at various places, and determined the degrees of inclination of the qiblah from the magnetic Pole in respect of about one thousand towns. Then he invented his compass which fixes the qiblah of those places very accurately. This compass is now in general use in the Muslim world. May Allah reward him for his endeavors.

Scientific Discourses

Topic: A discourse about Woman

•

The life of Woman in Uncivilized Nations •

Woman in Pre-Islamic Civilizations •

Woman in some other Civilizations •

Woman in Arabia: The environment in which the Qur'an was revealed •

What Islam brought for Woman •

The freedom of Woman in Western Civilization

It is well known that Islam - and we should not forget that it is Allah who legislated it - did not base its laws on experiments, like all other laws. Yet, we are sometimes obliged to look at the rules, laws and customs of modern and even ancient peoples, so that we may rationally judge the shari'ah of Islam. We have to look at the felicity of the human races and then see whether other customs and laws fulfill the requirements of humanity or not. In this way, we may see the difference between Islamic and non-Islamic rules, and appreciate the living and powerful spirit of Islam in comparison with others. That is why we refer to the history of nations and societies, and describe what they have to say on particular subject. Accordingly, we should discuss the ideas and ideals of Islam about the following.

1. The identity of woman and the comparison of it with the identity of man.

2. Her value and importance in society - so that we may know what influence she had and has in human life.

3. Her rights and the laws made about her.

4. The foundation of the above-mentioned laws. But before we discuss the above subjects from the Islamic point of view, it is necessary to look at history and see what her life was like before the advent of Islam, and what treatment has been accorded to her by non-Muslim nations - both civilized and uncivilized - until now. It is not within the, scope of this book to go into the detail of these subjects; but a short review will not be out of place.

THE LIFE OF WOMAN IN UNCIVILIZED NATIONS

In uncivilized tribes and nations - like the tribes of Africa, the aboriginal of Australia, the inhabitants of the Pacific Ocean islands, the Red Indians of America, etc., a woman's life in comparison with a man's life was exactly like the life of a domestic animal as compared with the life of a human being. Because of the natural instinct of exploitation, man believes that he has a right to possess cattle and other domestic animals, and to use them as he wishes and in any work he likes. He makes use of their hair, wool, meat, bones, blood, hides and milk; they serve him as a guard and watch; they are exploited even for breeding and procreating; their offspring and their profit serve the purpose of man; they carry his burden, are used in agriculture and hunting and satisfy the need of man in countless other ways. These animals have no say at all about their own necessities of life and their desires, like food and drink, living space, their sexual urge, and the rest. It is only their owner who provides them with these items according to his own wish. And he would never wish but what is beneficial to himself through those animals. If we were to look from the eyes of that animal at the arrangements made by man we would surely be alternately amused and enraged at his high-handedness; we would find an animal being persecuted without any fault, another one crying for. help without anyone paying any heed to it, a third one oppressing others without any hindrance; we would see one living a blissful and enjoyable life without doing any work to deserve it, like the stallion or the bull kept for breeding, which lives a most happy life according to its own view; and would find others living a distressed and difficult life without having committed any sin to deserve such a punishment, like a donkey which carries loads heavier than itself and the horse in the mill. Such animals do not have even the right of life. The owner believes that it is he who has the right of their lives. If someone kills a horse, he is not charged with the murder of that horse, he is only accused of destroying the property of the owner. It is because man thinks that the animal's existence is an appendage to his own existence, its life is an offshoot of his own life; and that its status is that of a hanger-on. The position of a woman vis-à-vis a man in these tribes and societies is exactly the same. According to their belief, woman was created for man. She was her man's appendage even in existence and life. It was the father who owned her so long as she was not married, and the husband assumed that right soon after marriage. The man could sell her, gift her away or loan her to some other man for the purpose of cohabitation, procreation, or service, etc. He could mate out to her any punishment he decided upon, even the death penalty. He could abandon her, without caring whether she would die. He could kill her to feed on her meat, especially in feasts and during famine. All the properties and rights of the woman belonged to the man; only he, and not she, could enter into dealings - selling, buying, accepting, rejecting - on her behalf. And the woman was duty-bound to obey the man - her father or husband -- whether she liked it or not; she was not expected to act independently even in her, let alone his affairs. It was her duty to look after the house and the children and make sure that the man's whims and desires were properly satisfied. When there was work to do, she always got the hardest, like carrying heavy load on her back, digging the earth, etc., and from vocations and handicrafts her share was the lowest and the most worthless. Things got bad to such extent that in some tribes a woman, after giving birth to a child, had to get up at once and engage herself in household drudgery, while the man lay on her bed convalescing and getting treatment for himself. These were her rights and her duties. Every tribe and society had its own special rules and characteristics according to its habit and habitat; anyone interested should study the books written on this subject.

WOMAN IN PRE-ISLAMIC CIVILIZATIONS

Now we come to those nations who lived under traditional well-defined customs which they had inherited from their forefathers, and which were not based on any book or codified law. Such were the people of ancient China, India, Egypt and Iran. In all these civilizations the woman had no independence or freedom, either in her intentions or her actions; she was totally under the guardianship and mastership of man. Neither could she decide on anything concerning herself, nor had she any right to interfere in civilian affairs like the government, the judiciary, etc. It was her duty to participate with man in all the responsibilities of life, like earning a livelihood. In addition, it was her exclusive duty to look after domestic affairs and the children. She had to obey her man in all his orders and desires. On the whole, a woman in these societies was in a better position than her sisters in uncivilized nations. She was not killed4 and her meat was not used in feasts. She was not entirely deprived of the right to property; she owned to a certain extent what she got from inheritance or marriage, though she could not administer it independently. The man had the right to take, as many wives as he desired, and to divorce whomever he wished. The husband could marry after the death of his wife, but in most cases the widow had no such right; and mostly she was forbidden to participate in society beyond her door-step. Each of these civilizations had some particular customs. The class system in Iranian society, gave women of the upper class a right to participate in government and state and to succeed to the throne. Also it recognized as valid a marriage with women having close affinity, like the mother, daughter or sister. In China, marriage was a sort of servitude for woman. The husband almost purchased and owned her. She had no right in inheritance and could not eat with men, not even with her own sons. Polyandry was allowed; many men jointly married one woman, and shared her among themselves, and the child was affiliated in most cases with the strongest husband. In India, she was completely an appendage of the man. She was not allowed to remarry after the death of her husband - she would be burnt alive with the body of the deceased husband; otherwise she would live in disgrace. During her monthly period she was treated as the dirtiest thing; even her clothes could not be touched by others. In short, the status of women in these nations was something between a human being and an animal. She was treated as a minor child under his guardianship; but unlike the child, she was never thought fit to be free from the yoke of her man's guardianship.

WOMAN IN SOME OTHER CIVILIZATIONS

There were some other nations who lived under, and were governed by, a codified law or book, like the Chaldeans, the Romans and the Greeks. The Chaldeans and the Assyrians followed Hammurabi's Code, which made the woman an appendage of her husband; she was not independent in her decision or action. If the wife disobeyed her husband in any way, or decided independently on anything, the husband could turn her out of his home or could bring in another wife degrading the offending wife to concubine. If she made any mistake in household management or exceeded the limits of the domestic budget, the husband could lodge complaints before the judge and on being found guilty she could be drowned in water. The Romans were the first to enact civil laws. The earliest laws were made four centuries before the Christian era; and were gradually completed and perfected. The Roman law gave some freedom to the woman in her own affairs. The master of the house, that is, her husband and the father of her children, was vested as, a sort of godhead; he was worshipped by the people of his household, as he, in his return, worshipped his forefathers and ancestors. He had full authority and decisive will in all that he desired and ordered concerning his family - he could kill them, if he so wished, without anybody lifting a finger to restrain him. The females of the family - wife, daughter and sister - were in a worse condition than the male members, even than their own sons. The women were not a part of society; their complaints were not heard, their dealings were not recognized and they could not interfere in social affairs. But the men, like brothers and sons, even the adopted ones (adoption and affiliation of children to other than their real fathers was a common practice in Roman society as well as in Greek, Iranian and Arabian) could be granted independence in their affairs by the master of the house. The females were not a part of the household. The men were the members of the family, and the women were their appendage. Any formal relationship, giving the right of inheritance, etc., was reserved for between the males. The women had no formal relationships - neither between themselves like mother with daughter, or sister with sister, nor between themselves and the men like wife with husband, mother with son, sister with brother or daughter with father. And there was no mutual right of inheritance except where there was the formal relationship. Of course, the natural relationship was not denied, and some consequences of that half-hearted acceptance were the prohibition of marriage between close relations in many societies, and the guardianship of the master of the house over her women. In short, woman, in their eyes, was a parasite., completely dependent in her social and domestic life; the rein of her life and her will was in the _hands of the master of the household - her father if she was with him, or husband if she lived with him, or others. The master could do with her whatever he wished, and decide about her as he thought fit. He sold her, gifted her away, loaned her to others for sexual enjoyment, gave her in repayment of debt, rent or taxes. He punished her by beating and even killing her. He had the authority to administer her property if she got hold of any through marriage or if she earned it with the permission of her master; but not through inheritance be cause she had no such right. Her father or other male relatives gave her in marriage and her husband had the right to dissolve the marriage. The custom of the Greeks in the composition of the household and the mastership of the males was almost identical with the Romans. Their social and domestic organization was made up of the males; the females were their dependants. They had no independence in their will or action except under the guardianship of men. But there was a surprising contradiction in that system: if there was any decision to be taken against the woman, she was treated as an independent person, and if there was any judgment in her favor, she was a dependant of men - provided such orders were of benefit to the men. Thus, the woman was punished for all her faults and crimes as though she were independent, but she was never rewarded for her good work except under guardianship of her man. This shows that these legal systems did not think that woman was a part of human society, not even a weaker part dependent on others; instead, they treated her as a harmful bacterium which disturbed society and damaged its health; but there was the unavoidable reality that she was needed to continue the human race; therefore it was necessary to look after her. Even then she should be punished if she made a mistake or committed a crime; and her rewards should be given to the man when she did a good work. She was not to be left to do as she liked; otherwise, society would come to harm. In this she was like a powerful enemy who has been defeated, caught and enslaved; he lives his long life under duress; if he does any wrong he is punished, but if he does a good deed he is not thanked. As society, according to their thinking, was made up of the men only, they believed that the progeny in reality consisted of male children only, and the family could continue only when there was a male child to carry it on. This belief was the basis of the system of the adoption of sons. The house which had no male child was thought to be ruined, and such a family was deemed extinct and dead. No wonder then that they had to adopt others' sons as their own to save the family from extinction. Such adopted sons were treated as legitimate, legally recognized sons, having mutual rights of inheritance, and subject to all the rules and customs concerning natural sons. When a man thought himself to be sterile, he brought one of his relatives like a brother or a brother's son to sleep with his wife, so that she could conceive by that relative, and the son born thereof would be called his own son, and the family would continue. Marriage and divorce in Greece was like the Roman system. They could marry more than one wife, but only one of the wives would be officially recognized; others were unofficial.

WOMAN IN ARABIA: THE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THE QUR'AN WAS REVEALED

The Arabs lived in the Arabian peninsula, an infertile land with an extremely hot climate. Most of them belonged to nomadic tribes far away from any civilization; they lived on raid and plunder. Their neighbors were Iran on the one side, Rome (the Byzantine Empire) on the other and Ethiopia and Sudan on the third. As a result of this geography, most of their customs and traditions were barbarous, and traces could be found in them of some Roman and Iranian traditions, as well as some Indian and ancient Egyptian customs. The Arabs did not accord any independence to the woman in her life; nor did she have any honor or dignity except that of her family. She was not entitled to inheritance. A man could marry as many wives as he desired; there was no restriction on divorce. Daughters were buried alive. This wicked custom was started by Banu Tamim when many of their daughters were made captive after a war against Nu'mân ibn Mundhir. This disturbed them very much and they started burying their daughters alive. Gradually the practice was adopted by other tribes. When a daughter was born, the father thought it a disgrace and hid himself from others' eyes. On the other hand, his joy knew no bounds when he got news that a son was born - the more the better, even if the son was an adopted one. They gladly affiliated to themselves the son born as a result of their adultery. Sometimes, when many people slept with one woman in one month and a son was born, every one of them claimed him for himself and often than not, this led to dispute and conflicts. Even then, it was seen in some families that their women had some freedom, and especially the daughters were free in matrimonial affairs, their consent and choice was respected and accepted. In this they were influenced by Iranian upper class society. Anyhow, their treatment of women was a mixture of the civilized systems of Rome and Iran (not giving them any independent rights, not allowing them to participate in public affairs like government and war, except in exceptional cases) and the barbarous systems of primitive nomads. The women were deprived of many human rights, but not because the master of the house was a sacred person deserving to be worshipped. It was simply a matter of the stronger party subjugating and exploiting the weaker one. So far as worship was concerned, all of them (men and women both) worshipped idols, as was also done by the as-Sabi, the worshippers of stars etc. Every tribe had its own idol made according to its liking and preference. They also worshipped the celestial bodies and the angels (whom they thought to be the daughters of Allah!) and made idols representing them according to their own fancy. The idols were made of various materials, often of stone and wood, though Banu Hanifah are reported to have made their idol from flour. They worshipped it for a long time, then came a time of famine, so they ate it. A poet says about it. The (tribe of) Hanifah ate its lord, At the time of hardship and famine. They did not fear their lord, About (its) evil consequences and effect. Sometimes they worshipped a stone; then if a more beautiful stone came to hand, the first one was thrown away and replaced by the second one. If nothing suitable was found, they took a double handful of earth, brought a sheep or goat and milked it over that mound of earth. Then they started going round it and worshipping it. Such deprivation and misery created in woman's mind a weakness which made her an easy prey to superstition and credulity. Books of history and anthropology have recorded how she fell into error whenever she tried to explain natural phenomena and simple events. This in short, was the condition of woman in human society in various eras before the advent of Islam. It may be seen from above that. First: Men thought that women were human beings, but on the level of dumb animals, or with very weak and low grade human qualities, who could not be trusted if set free. The first was the view of primitive people, and the second, of others. Second: Society did not accord her the status of a member; and she was not considered an integral part of humanity. For primitives, she was one of the necessities of life like a home and accommodation. For civilized people, she was a captive and dependant on her masters who took advantage of her labor and always remained alert lest she escaped or cheated. Third: Both types of societies deprived her of all common rights; she was given only that much which was necessary for her exploitation by men. Fourth: They treated her as a strong person treats a weakling. In other words, the basis of their dealings with her was exploitation. In addition, civilized nations believed that she was a weak human being, incapable of independently looking after herself, and who could not be trusted in any matter. Different nations and tribes had different ways, and sometimes customs and beliefs were mixed; also there were variations in the degrees and grades of the above treatment.

WHAT ISLAM BROUGHT FOR WOMAN

Woman had to undergo patiently the above-mentioned treatment, which imprisoned her in the dungeon of humiliation and disgrace. Consequently, weakness and inferiority became her second nature; she was brought up in this environment and lived and died in it. Ultimately, the word 'woman' became synonymous with 'weakness' and 'insignificance' - not only in the conversation of men but even in the language of women themselves. Look at any society, primitive or civilized, and you will find adages and proverbs reflecting on woman's feebleness and unimportance. Take any two or more languages of different origins and unrelated developments, and you will find one thing in common: allegories, metaphors and similes connected with the word 'woman' to scold a coward, to rebuke a weakling and to chide a contemptible and despised person. An Arab poet said. I do not know (and would that I knew), Whether the family of Hisn are people or women. Such expressions may be seen in hundreds and thousands in every language. These idioms and expressions were enough to show what human society believed about women, even if there were nothing recorded in the books of history and culture, because the ideas and ideals of a nation may clearly be gleaned from its language. The only thing showing any consideration and care towards her is found in a few sentences of the Torah and in the admonition of Jesus to have mercy on her. Then came Islam, the religion of truth and monotheism, accompanied by the Qur'an. Islam originated and initiated in her favor a system which the world had never known before, from the early dawn of humanity. It set forth straight away against the dictum of the whole world, and rebuilt, for her, her natural place, which the world had completely destroyed, from the very beginning. It cancelled and dismissed as baseless their belief about her identity and their practice concerning her treatment.

HER IDENTITY:

Islam declared that woman is as much a human being as man is. Every person, male or female, is a human being, whose substance and ingredients combined originate from two human beings - one male and one female, and no one has any superiority over the other except through piety. Allah says: 0 you people! Surely We have created you of a male and a female, and made you nations and tribes that you may recognize each other; surely the -most honorable of you with Allah is one among you who guards (him/her self) most (against evil); surely Allah is Knowing, Aware (49:13). Allah clearly says that every human being' originates and is made from two human beings, a male and a female, and they both jointly and in equal degree are the source of his existence; and everyone, male or female, is a combination of the substances taken from those two. Note that Allah did not say as the Arab poet had said: "And surely the mothers of the people are but receptacles". Nor did He say like another poet. i Our sons are (those who are) the sons of our sons; and as for our daughters, Their sons are the sons of distant men. 1 Instead He (Allah) declared that every one was created from both male and female. All were, therefore, similar to each other. There could be no declaration more complete and more appropriate. Finally, He declared that being a male or a female or being born in a certain family or tribe is not the criterion of superiority. Superiority originates only from piety. Also, Allah has said: . . . that I will not waste the work of a worker among you, whether male or female, the one of you being from the other . . . (3:195). Here it is clearly said that endeavor is not repulsed and work is not wasted. And why? Because the one of you is from the other. This verse in this way clearly says what was implied in the words of the previous verse, "surely We have created you of a male and a female": The man and the woman together are a single species, without any difference in their origin and root. He goes on to say that the work of anyone from these two groups is not wasted before Allah; it will not be neglected, nor will its reward be given to another person; every soul is mortgaged against its own endeavors. It is not as the people have said, that women were responsible for their mistakes, but so far as their good work was concerned, its reward should be given to the men. Every male and every female get what he or she does, and there is no superiority except of piety. The virtues are a part of piety like faith with its various degrees, beneficial knowledge, balanced wisdom, good character, patience and forbearance. Therefore, a believing woman (in various stages of the faith), or a learned and wise one, or one who is of noble character, will be superior in her own right, and higher in grade than those men, whosoever, who are not equal to her in these virtues. Because there is no superiority except of piety and noble character. There are other verses of the same meaning, and rather more clear. Allah says. Whoever does good, whether male or female, and he is a believer, We will most certainly make him live a happy life, and We will most certainly give them their reward for the best of what they did ( 16:97). . . . and whoever does good, whether male or female and he is a believer, these shall enter the garden in which they shall be given sustenance without measure (40:40). And whoever does good deeds, whether male or female and he is a believer, these shall enter the garden, and they shall not be dealt with a lot unjustly (4:124). And Allah has condemned their disdain of the daughters in these words (and it is the most telling condemnation). And when a daughter is announced to one of them his face becomes black and he is full of wrath. He hides himself from the people because of the evil of that which is announced to him. Should he keep it with disgrace or bury it (alive) in the dust? Now surely evil is what they judge ( 16:58 - 59). Obviously they hid themselves because they thought that a daughter was a disgrace for the father. They thought that she would soon reach marriageable age and would become a toy in the hands of her husband who would use her for sexual enjoyment - a shameful thing; and this shame would effect her family and her father; it was, therefore, better to bury her alive. (The original reason of this custom has already been described.) Allah severely condemned this practice in these word. And when the buried alive shall be asked for what sin she was killed (81: 8 -9). There has remained a residue of such superstitions among Muslims, a legacy of their pagan ancestors, which has not been washed away 6om their hearts. You will see them thinking that illicit sexual relations are a shame and disgrace for the woman (even if she repents) but not for the man (even if he continues in that sin); while Islam has declared that disgrace and evil belongs to the sin in which the man and the woman were equal partners.

HER VALUE IN SOCIETY: I

slam has made the man and the woman equal in their will and action so far as the management of their lives is concerned. Allah said: The one of you being from the other (3:195). She is independent in her will and intention and independent in her action. The woman owns the products of her own will and action as the man owns his own without any difference whatsoever. For her is the benefit of what she earns, and on her is the responsibility of what she does. According to Islam both are equal; the Qur'an confirms it and Allah shows the truth to be the truth by His words. Side by side, Islam recognizes two special qualities in her,' by which the Creator has distinguished her from the man: First, she is like a tilth for the creation and propagation of the human race. The species cannot exist without her. This distinction calls for some special rules concerning her life. Second, she has a comparatively delicate body and a sensitive perception. This has a tangible effect on her life and on the social and domestic responsibilities entrusted to her. This is her value in human society - and also the value of the man may be understood from it. These two distinctions are the basis of all the rules that are common to both groups and of those that are reserved for either of the two. Allah says: And do not covet that by which Allah has made some of you excel others; men shall have the benefit of what they earn and women shall have the benefit of what they earn; and ask Allah of His grace; surely Allah knows all things (4:32). It shows that the contribution made by each group to society is the criterion of the excellence granted to it. And it is this excellence which gives special status to one in comparison to the other. For example, man has been given preference over woman in the share of inheritance; while woman has been given preference over man by being exempted from the responsibilities of maintenance. And no one should covet the preference given to someone else. There is another type of excellence, which results from the deeds of the doer, whoever he or she might be. For example, the virtues of faith, knowledge, reason, piety and other admirable qualities. And it is the grace of Allah, He gives it. to whomsoever He wishes, and ask Allah of His grace. The proof of the above statement is found in the words of Allah, following the above-mentioned verse: Men are the maintainers of women . . . (4:34)

COMMON AND SPECIAL RULES:

Woman, like man, is subject to all the rules concerning worship and social rights. She may act independently in all matter in which man is free to act, like inheritance, earning, dealings with other people, learning, teaching, making a claim, defending her rights, and so on. In all such affairs, Islam makes no discrimination between man and woman. Of course, in other matters it has limited her sphere of activity, because of her natural characteristics. For example, she may not be made a ruler or a Qâdi, she is exempted from participation in fighting, although she may attend the jihâd and be en trusted with its other responsibilities, like nursing and treating the wounded soldiers; and she gets half the share of man in inheritance. She has to hide her body and the places of adornment; she has to obey her husband so far as his conjugal rights are concerned. To compensate these burdens, she is exempted from her own maintenance; it is her father or husband who must maintain her, and they are also obliged to protect her to their utmost ability, and she has the right to bring up her children. Islam has also enjoined that her person and honor must be protected - her name may not be used in an undignified manner. Also, she is exempted from worship during her monthly period and after delivery. In short, Islam says that in all conditions and in every way she should be treated with tenderness and kindness. What she is obliged to learn and do, in brief, is as follows: On the side of learning, she must know the fundamentals of the faith and the commandments of the shari'ah concerning worship and civil rules. And on the side of action, she must follow the rules of the religion and obey her husband by giving him his conjugal rights. But she is not obliged to earn her livelihood by any employment, handicrafts or artisanship. Nor she is obliged to take up the drudgery of domestic work. Similarly, it is not her duty to burden herself with what is considered useful for the general welfare of the society, like learning various disciplines (other than those mentioned earlier) or participating in useful industries or handicrafts. She is not obliged to do so. But if she acquires such extra knowledge or looks after her domestic arrangements or affairs useful for the society, it will be regarded as her extra excellence, provided she keeps within the limits imposed upon her by the shari'ah. It will be a matter of pride for her. Islam has allowed, nay, encouraged her to boast of such achievements before her compatriots, although it has forbidden the men to boast (except in jihâd). The traditions of the Prophet support what we have said. Space does not allow full details; otherwise, we would have, liked to describe how the Prophet lived with his wife, Khadijah, and his daughter, Fâtimah, as well as with his other wives; and how he behaved with the women of his community and what he said and enjoined about women. Also, we would have quoted the traditions narrated from the Imâms of Ahlu 'l-bayt and their women like Zaynab (daughter of 'Ali), Fâtimah and Sakinah (daughters of Husayn) and others, and what they said about women. Perhaps we will get a chance to quote some of them in the traditions connected with the verses concerning woman.

THE FOUNDATION:

The foundation upon which these rules have been built is nature. It may be understood from the explanation under the heading, "Her value in the Society". Further, details are as follows. The scholars of social sciences will no doubt agree with the premise that the duties imposed by society should be based upon natural abilities and demands. It is nature which has led human beings to this collective social life from the earliest dawn of humanity. Of course, a certain society may at times deviate from the natural course. As the body, by deviating from its natural way, looses its health and becomes sick, likewise, a society, by straying from natural dictates, deteriorates into chaos. Society, healthy or sick, is thus based on nature; although a sick society has been contaminated by extraneous and harmful elements during its progress. This fact has been mentioned, or alluded to, by scholars of social sciences. And the Book of Allah, long before these researches, has explained it in the most excellent style: Our Lord is He who gave everything its creation, then guided it (20:50); Who created, then made complete, and Who made (things) according to a measure, then guided (87:2 -3); And (I swear by) the soul and Him Who made it perfect, then He inspired it to understand what is wrong for it and right for it (91:7-8). These and other such verses show that all things, including human beings, are guided to what they have been created for; and that they have been equipped with what is needed to reach their goal. The blissful life is that which conforms perfectly with the dictates of nature. It has been pointed out in these words of Allah: Then set your face uprightly for the (right) religion - the nature made by Allah in which He has made men; there is no alteration (by anyone else) in the creation of Allah; that is the established religion . . . (30:30). So far as social norms are concerned, nature demands that all individuals should have equal rights and duties. It does not approve of giving one more than his due and oppressing another by depriving him of his rights. But this equality does not mean that every individual should be offered every responsibility and every office. It would be wrong, for example, for a young inexperienced man to be given the place of a well-experienced official, or for an idiot to be given the chair of a professor; or to expect from a weakling the performance of a strong and brave person. If we treat capable and incapable persons equally, it will be harmful to both. What is then the meaning of this equality? It means that every person should be given his right and put in his proper place. This equality between individuals and groups implies that shall get his due rights without any let or hindrance; no right shall be usurped or denied unjustly. The following words of Allah point to it: and they have rights similar to those upon them in a just manner, and for the men is (the right) a degree above them... (2:228). This verse ordains equality between the rights of both groups at the same time as it shows the difference between both. Both groups, men and women, share equally in the basic gifts of thinking and will (which in their turn create free choice). She should, therefore, be equally free in her thought and will and should have free choice. In other words, she should be free to look after her life's affairs - as well as social, except where there is any genuine reason to the contrary. Islam gave her this freedom and independence in full measure, as has been explained earlier. She, thus, became, by the grace of Allah, an independent ~ personality, unfettered in her will and action by men and their guardianship. She got what the world had denied her throughout all her existence since the beginning of humanity and which was unheard of in all her history. Allah says: There is no blame on You for what they do for themselves in a proper manner (2:234). But while sharing these basic qualities with man, she differs from him in other ways. An average woman lags behind an average man in the build of her body and its basic organs, like the brain, the heart, the veins, the nerves, her height and weight. (The details may be seen in any book of anatomy.) As a result, her body is comparatively soft and elegant, while a man's is tough and rough. And the fine sentiments, like love, tender-heartedness, and inclination towards beauty and adornment are more pronounced in her than in man. On the other hand, the reasoning power is more prominent in man than in woman. The woman lives a sentimental life; the man an intellectual one. It was for this reason, that Islam differentiated between men and women in those duties and responsibilities which were related to reason and those related to sentiment. Ruling, judging and fighting have been reserved for man, because these things are closely related to reasoning and thinking. And the bringing up of, and looking after, the children, the domestic management has been reserved for woman. Her maintenance is the responsibility of her husband, for which he is compensated by a double share in inheritance. Look at the division of inheritance in this way: It is as though inheritance is divided in two equal shares. Then one-third of the woman's share is given to the man in lieu of her maintenance. Thus the man gets two-thirds of the estate and the woman is left with one-third. But the expenses of her maintenance are not less than that of a man. In this way, she gets the benefit of the man's two-thirds share in equal measure. (One-third's benefit goes to her while the man gets the benefit of the remaining one third.) The net result is that the man gets two-thirds in species while the woman gets two-thirds in benefit. Man has been given more to manage, because reasoning is his predominant characteristic; woman has been bestowed with more to benefit from and enjoy, because feeling and sentiment is more pronounced in her nature. (This topic will be explained under the verses of inheritance.) Then Allah completed His grace and bounty to women by giving them the concessions and exemptions mentioned earlier.

QUESTION:

The above-mentioned clemency granted in Islam to woman makes her idle. When she is told to hide herself from strangers and is guaranteed all the necessities of life (by transferring its burden onto man) she is bound to become slow, lazy, idle and unproductive; she will not be able to exert herself in difficult works and professions. Thus her growth will be retarded and her progress will turn into backwardness; she will not be able to contribute meaningfully in making society perfect. And experience is an irrefutable proof of this aspect.

REPLY: It is one thing to ordain laws to improve the conditions of humanity; and a completely separate thing to enforce these laws through exemplary character and good upbringing (which leads humanity to progress). It was the tragedy of Islam in the past that it did not get good rulers and striving guardians. Consequently, the laws were suffocated, upbringing halted and then turned in the opposite direction. Irrefutable experience shows that mere theories and beliefs do not produce the desired result, unless, and until, they are ingrained in the soul by exhortation and good training and example. The Muslims in their long history could not take any good example to follow from their rulers, who usurped full authority over them. Look at Mu'âwiyah speaking on the pulpit of Iraq after taking over the caliphate: "I did not fight you to make you pray or fast - this is your own affair. I fought you only to become your ruler, and this 1 have now become." Also look at other caliphs from the Umayyid and 'Abbâsid dynasties and other rulers after them. All of them were of the same type. And had it not been that this religion gets its light from the light of Allah which cannot be extinguished (and Allah is to complete His light even if the unbelievers dislike it), judgment would have been pronounced against the Muslims long ago.

THE FREEDOM OF WOMEN WESTERN CIVILIZATION

There is no doubt whatsoever that Islam was the first to release woman from her bondage and to grant her freedom of will and action. All the slogans of the emancipation of woman raised in western countries are an echo of the clarion call of Islam. These nations in this matter are just following the lead given by Islam - even though they have made mistakes in this endeavor. The principle laid down by Islam is a perfectly circular ring, and nothing can be added to, or subtracted from, this circle without disturbing the whole alignment. These people tried to improve upon the masterpiece of Islam, and decided to create complete equality between man and woman in all rights and privileges. This was done after long agitations and demands. They did not pause to ponder that woman lags behind man in many powers and faculties. They explain away the inherent weakness of the woman by attributing it to the defective training and upbringing to which she has been subjected since time immemorial (perhaps, since the beginning of humanity) even though she was equal to man in all her natural potentials. But it may be asked that if the natural potentials of both groups were the same, why did society since the dawn of humanity decide to oppress her? Why and how did man succeeded in subjugating her in the first place? And why has this oppression never changed its course? Western civilization, in spite of its keen desire to emancipate woman, has not succeeded in doing so. The data collected show that woman is far behind man in all those professions and activities which Islam has reserved for man, like ruling, judging and military service. And as to what has been the fruit of this endeavor, the less said the better.

Topic: A Discussion about Marriage and Divorce

Marriage is one of the fundamental sociological institutions. Mankind, since its very beginning, has been keeping to it without any disruption. Such an institution must have been based on the foundation of nature itself. Islam has based its matrimonial laws on the correlation between masculinity and femininity. There is no need to emphasize that this complementary system created in man and woman - and it is the most intricate and interrelated system permeating their whole bodies - was not created in vain and without purpose. The male by his nature is attracted to the female and vice versa. And this system has only one goal in sight: reproduction and the continuity of the race. Marriage is based on this reality; and all its rules revolve around this axis. That is why Islam in its matrimonial laws has kept in view the fundamental principle of sexual interrelation; and on this principle are based the laws concerning chastity and conjugal rights; exclusive attachment of the wife to the husband and the rules of divorce and 'iddah; legitimacy and parentage, the custody and upbringing of the children; inheritance and other related subjects. Modern non-Islamic laws have laid the foundation of matrimony on a co-operation between husband and wife in their struggle for life. Marriage accordingly, is a co-operative institution much narrower than other such institutions like municipality etc. It is for this reason that modern laws do not pay any attention to the rules of chastity etc., which are an integral part of the matrimonial laws of Islam. This basis, co-operation in life, has given rise to a vast multitude of social problems and domestic upheavals. Apart from that, ,1 it is not in conformity with the realities of creation and nature. Why does a man want to join others and co-operate with them? It is because his well-being depends on countless things and innumerable actions which he alone cannot get and do. He is by necessity obliged to join hands with others. Consequently each person co-operates with the others, dividing labor and work according to their aptitudes. And all the required work is completed with their joint effort. This development requires co-operation between any two persons - it does not specifically call for co-operation between a man and a woman. Therefore, building the edifice of matrimony is fundamentally wrong. Nature has based it on the need of procreation and not on social or domestic co-operation. Otherwise, there would not have been any need of any special laws for marriage; the general rules governing association and co-operation would have been enough. It would negate the virtue of chastity and fidelity, nullify the concept of legitimacy and affinity, and abrogate the rules of inheritance - as communism has done. If we accept this ultimate result of the western philosophy of marriage, we would have to accept that all this complicated and interrelated system in the bodies of man and woman was created without any purpose. This is a short review of the Islamic and western philosophies of marriage. More explanation will be given in some other relevant place. So far as divorce is concerned, it is a thing which the shari'ah of Islam should be proud of. It has been made lawful and this legalization also is based on nature. There is nothing in nature to interdict it. Details of the conditions of its validity will be given in the chapter of "Divorce" (chap. 55). Here it should be noted that today all the nations of the world (not excepting the Roman Catholic countries) have had to adopt this system in their civil codes, even though previously they ridiculed Islam on this account.

Topic: A Discussion about Marriage and Divorce

Marriage is one of the fundamental sociological institutions. Mankind, since its very beginning, has been keeping to it without any disruption. Such an institution must have been based on the foundation of nature itself. Islam has based its matrimonial laws on the correlation between masculinity and femininity. There is no need to emphasize that this complementary system created in man and woman - and it is the most intricate and interrelated system permeating their whole bodies - was not created in vain and without purpose. The male by his nature is attracted to the female and vice versa. And this system has only one goal in sight: reproduction and the continuity of the race. Marriage is based on this reality; and all its rules revolve around this axis. That is why Islam in its matrimonial laws has kept in view the fundamental principle of sexual interrelation; and on this principle are based the laws concerning chastity and conjugal rights; exclusive attachment of the wife to the husband and the rules of divorce and 'iddah; legitimacy and parentage, the custody and upbringing of the children; inheritance and other related subjects. Modern non-Islamic laws have laid the foundation of matrimony on a co-operation between husband and wife in their struggle for life. Marriage accordingly, is a co-operative institution much narrower than other such institutions like municipality etc. It is for this reason that modern laws do not pay any attention to the rules of chastity etc., which are an integral part of the matrimonial laws of Islam. This basis, co-operation in life, has given rise to a vast multitude of social problems and domestic upheavals. Apart from that, ,1 it is not in conformity with the realities of creation and nature. Why does a man want to join others and co-operate with them? It is because his well-being depends on countless things and innumerable actions which he alone cannot get and do. He is by necessity obliged to join hands with others. Consequently each person co-operates with the others, dividing labor and work according to their aptitudes. And all the required work is completed with their joint effort. This development requires co-operation between any two persons - it does not specifically call for co-operation between a man and a woman. Therefore, building the edifice of matrimony is fundamentally wrong. Nature has based it on the need of procreation and not on social or domestic co-operation. Otherwise, there would not have been any need of any special laws for marriage; the general rules governing association and co-operation would have been enough. It would negate the virtue of chastity and fidelity, nullify the concept of legitimacy and affinity, and abrogate the rules of inheritance - as communism has done. If we accept this ultimate result of the western philosophy of marriage, we would have to accept that all this complicated and interrelated system in the bodies of man and woman was created without any purpose. This is a short review of the Islamic and western philosophies of marriage. More explanation will be given in some other relevant place. So far as divorce is concerned, it is a thing which the shari'ah of Islam should be proud of. It has been made lawful and this legalization also is based on nature. There is nothing in nature to interdict it. Details of the conditions of its validity will be given in the chapter of "Divorce" (chap. 55). Here it should be noted that today all the nations of the world (not excepting the Roman Catholic countries) have had to adopt this system in their civil codes ,even though previously they ridiculed Islam on this account.

Sociological Discourses

Topic: Sociological Arguments about Prophethood

Mankind was but one people; so Allah sent the prophets as bearers of good tidings and as warners, and He sent down with them the book with the truth, so that it might judge between the people in that in which they had differed. And none differed about it but the very people who were given it, after clear signs had come to them, revolting among themselves; whereupon Allah guided, by His will, those who believed to the truth about which they differed. And Allah guides whom He pleases to the straight path. (2:213)

Author: Verse 2:213 explains why religion was promulgated and mankind obliged to follow it, and why differences occurred in it.

Question: It may be accepted that human wisdom cannot act independently in all situations concerning an individual or a nation. But nature always progresses towards its good, and also society, which is based on nature, follows it and moves towards the good of its individual members, and finally acquires an ideal form which ensures the happiness of all its members. This principle is called the effect of the environment. Conflicting faculties and powers, after action and reaction, ultimately create a noble society, befitting human life. History and experience show that all societies are always in search of their perfection; they aspire for the common weal and are progressing towards a felicity and happiness which are the final ambition of every man. some societies like Switzerland, have already attained that goal, while others are on the way, and may be near to, or farther away from it.

Answer: Nobody can deny that nature always strives to attain perfection and happiness; and that society, which is based on nature, is also like that. But it should be remembered that its desired perfection and bliss is not real perfection and bliss. What nature possesses at the moment are the instincts of love and fear, not intellect. But it is the intellect, which is the foundation of real perfection and bliss. Even the evidence offered in the question shows this fact. The perfection and happiness found in some countries and desired by others is only material perfection and the happiness of the body. But man is not body only; he is made of both body and soul. The body's perfection is not man's perfection. The body dies while the spirit lives forever. Perfecting only one side and neglecting the other (and that also the one which is to last forever) is not perfection at all. Historical and sociological evidence strengthens our view that society, by trial and error, can only progress towards material perfection and physical happiness. If any society wants to lead its members to the perfection of the total being, then it cannot do so without prophetic help and divine guidance.

Question: If it is true that the prophetic call has a connection with divine creative guidance which leads everything to its goal of perfection, then it must have a clear and existing influence on human societies. We see that not only man but everything is naturally guided to the matters of its advantage and benefit without fail. If the prophetic call had been guidance like that, it would have been influential in all human societies and man would not have been able to ignore it, just as he is unable to ignore other natural calls. But we know that it is not so. So how can it be called a true reformation when it is not accepted by societies? So, the theory that the prophetic mission is necessary to remove the differences in society and life is just a theory, which cannot be proved by facts.

Answer: First:

a. The effects of the religious call are there for every one to see and appreciate. Only an obstinate contender can deny it. Since its foundation and appearance, it has trained thousands and thousands leading them to bliss, and has condemned several times more to perdition and unhappiness - depending on their acceptance or rejection, submission or arrogance and belief or disbelief. Such an effective thing cannot be said to have had no effect.

b. Some societies have from time to time been established based on religion, and they have shown what may be achieved by following this path.

c. The world is still alive; the human species is not yet extinct. It is possible that one of these days human society will turn into a virtuous society founded on religion - a society which will guarantee the true happiness of man, and real excellence of character and morality. It will be a day when none shall be worshipped except Allah, and justice and virtue shall be the norm of the day. Such a magnificent effect cannot be ignored or belittled.

Second: Sociology, Psychology and moral science prove that our actions have a dual relationship with our characteristics: they come into being because of psychological factors, and they in their turn have an influence on psychological factors. The actions are the effects of soul and psyche; and they effect the psyche in its characteristics. It is this principle, which has given birth to two principles: the principle that man is influenced in his character and morals by society; and the principle that he inherits many characteristics from his forefathers. In short, these actions increase their scope horizontally through the environment, and continue from generation to generation vertically through heredity. Now, it is known that the divinely appointed prophetic mission has remained with human societies since the dawn of humanity, not only in historical, but even in pre-historical, days. Nobody can deny that such a mission, such a call, must have deeply effected the man's social characteristics and high morals. This religious call must have influenced man's psyche very deeply, even if he does not believe in that call. We would be justified in asserting that all the good qualities of present-day nations and societies are the effects of prophethood and religion, which they have acquired through heredity or the environment. Religion, since its inception, has been accepted and followed by many great societies and groups. And do not forget that religion is the only institution, which calls man to the true faith, to noble character, justice and common welfare. Whatever good traits are found today in nations (however little they may be) are the residue of the effects of religion and its results. Societies can be managed in any of three ways - there is no fourth alternative. First is the system of tyranny. It turns human beings into slaves of the tyrant (or tyrants) in all aspects of their lives. Second is the system based on civil laws. These laws control overt actions only; they do not touch other aspects of the human personality, like character and ethics. Third is religion which controls and rules over the whole being - beliefs, ethics and actions - and calls to keep all of them on right path, with truth and virtue. It is clear from the above that if there is any good in this world or any happiness and bliss for man, it must be attributed to religion and its effects, because no other system aspires to give any guidance to these matters. Look for further proof, at the nations that have built their societies on materialism and have neglected religion and morality. They soon lost the virtue, love, mercy and purity of heart and forgot all probity and ethical excellence. It all happened while they were following the dictates of nature. Had nature, per se, been enough, and had those characteristics not been a legacy of religion inherited from the ancients, they would not have lost those noble virtues. History says that the Christians during and after the wars of the Crusades adopted important points of Islamic law and acted upon them. Now they have advanced, while the Muslims, who did not follow their own religion, have been left behind. To make a long story short, heredity and environment have let the spirit of religion permeate human society, as they do with other things. Therefore, it is wrong to say that religion has had no impact on humanity.

Topic: Essay on the meaning of Qiblah and its benefits

Let as look at the social structure of humanity. Ponder on society per se, and you will admit that it was the human nature which brought it into being and developed it with its many-sided aspects. It did so because of the inspiration it received from Allah - the divinely-gifted instinct which made a man realize that he depends on collective efforts of other men for his survival and development. That is why human beings rely on society and keep their activities within the bounds of the social laws. Then he acquired knowledge - mental images - related to his surrounding matter, and about his own needs and activities. What creates a relation - positive or negative - between a man and his activities is the knowledge of their various properties; like the knowledge that something is good or bad, this should be done, that should be avoided. In fact, all the fundamental concepts of sociology come under this category. It covers leadership and subordination, ownership and jurisdiction, collective and individual affairs, and in short, all the common rules and values as well as the national or tribal traditions and customs. Even the last mentioned rites which change from nation to nation, from region to region and from era to era, have been produced by the human nature which worked according to the divinely bestowed instinct. All these exoteric aspects of society are symbols of esoteric ideas and ideals; human nature sees in them fulfillment of its inner craving, and thus moves towards it in appropriate way - by taking it, discarding it, doing it, leaving it or perfecting it. Now, Allah is free from matter and its concomitants; He can never be perceived by any physical sense. How can people turn towards Him, especially if they want their inner devotion manifested in their actions - because actions are confined within material limits. It can only be done by representing the esoteric ideas with manifest actions. Various feelings and emotions are represented with various appropriate physical postures: Man prostrates to show his self-abasement; and bows down to glorify the Creator. Circumambulation around the Ka'bah represents self-sacrifice. Standing in prayer portrays the Creator's greatness, and wudu' and ritual bath are intended to make one spiritually clean, to prepare oneself for Divine Presence. Undoubtedly, complete attention towards God during the prayer is the soul of the. worship. Without total undiverted attention worship has no life, no vitality. And the attention depends on such representations for its existence, continuation and perfection. The worshippers of idols, celestial bodies or other material things (like trees, animals and/or human beings) stand face to face with their deities and idols, turning towards them with their bodies maintaining close proximity with them. Islam came to verify the previous religions brought by the prophets; it is the most comprehensive and complete Divine Religion. It has appointed the Ka'bah as the qiblah - the direction to which people should turn during prayer (and no one is excused from prayer in any condition) wherever they may be in the world. They are further obliged (or encouraged) to turn towards it in certain conditions, and forbidden to face it or keep it behind their backs in some other conditions. Thus, a Muslim is obliged to keep his attention to the House of Allah. He is not to forget his Lord in private or in public,' in his working hours or in sleep, while standing up or sitting down in prayer, or in other actions - not even in his meanest condition. The above discourse looked at the benefits which an individual derives from the qiblah. If we ponder on this rule from sociological point of view, then its effects are even more important and far-reaching. It has united all the Muslims - of diverse places and different times - fixing their attention to one point. The qiblah, therefore, portrays that they are one in their belief, connected to each other in their social structure, and brothers in in Islam. If such a fine spirit permeates the material and ideological lives of the individuals and groups, the society shall reach its highest point of perfection; and the most comprehensive and all- encompassing unity shall manifest itself in the Muslim society. Allah has especially bestowed this favor on His Muslim servants. By this favor He has protected their religious unity - even now when they have fallen apart in so many groups, have been divided into so many sects and are following so many diverse ideologies.

Topic: A Sociol discourse on Intercession

Some people say: "Human society cannot continue without some laid rules, nor without an authority to look after its affairs. When all members maintain discipline and obey the rules, social justice is maintained and strengthened. This system is based on temporal benefits which the society cannot do without, as well as on spiri¬tual and ethical ideals, like truth, sincerity, keeping one's word etc. which the development and good of the society depend upon. For these rules and regulations to have any force and effect, it was necessary for them to be accompanied by punishment laid down for the transgressors. Only in this way the system could be protected against the willful transgression of some and indifference and negligence of others. That is why when a government (no matter which ideology it follows) is strong and capable enough to make people obey its edicts, the country marches forward, and society proceeds on the path of development. On the contrary when it is weak, the country is overcome by lawlessness and dis¬order, and plagued by troubles and turmoil. "In view of the above, it is essential for the good of society to make people believe that they could not escape the conse¬quences if they transgressed the law. Nothing should be said or done to raise a hope in them that they could avoid the punishment by some means, like intercession, bribe or deception. "The biggest objection against Christianity is aimed at its belief of atonement: That Christ was crucified in order to atone for the sins of his followers. Now the Christians rely on that atonement to get salvation in the next world, without caring what they do in this life. Religion, in this way, destroys the very foundation of society, retards civilization and pulls it backwards. Data show that lie and injustice is found in ardent followers of religion to a far greater extent than in those who do not follow any religion. Its only reason is that the former are confident that their sins would certainly be wiped off through intercession." This is in short what some "scholars" hold against the belief of intercession: That it weakens the foundation of civili¬zation and social justice. But neither Islam proves intercession, in the meaning they have given it, nor the intercession which Islam speaks of gives the result they have claimed. Before writing against intercession, as taught by Islam, they should learn what Islam teaches, how it applies its laws to the society, what type of inter¬cession it promises and how, when and to what extent it is to be applied and effected:

First: What the Qur'?n confirms of the intercession is this: The believers shall not abide in the hell, on the Day of Resur¬rection, provided they come to their Lord with approved belief and true faith. Thus, it is a conditional promise. Then it has emphasized that the faith remains in grave danger from sins, especially the big ones, and more particularly if one persists in them. Such a believer would be tottering on the brink of eternal damnation. When a believer remembers that promise, his hope of deliverance soars high; when he needs this warning, he is over¬come by dread of perdition. His soul remains hovering between hope and fear; he worships his Lord both with love and awe. Thus, he spends his life in a moderate way, on the middle course. He experiences neither discouragement of pessimism, nor the rashness of over-optimism.

Second: Islam has made comprehensive laws for temporal and spiritual upliftment of the society; these laws cover all aspects of life of an individual and a group. It has prescribed suitable punishments for those who violate any of those rules - from monetary compensation to chastisement to firmly fixed punish¬ment - until a stage comes when the offender is deprived of his rights as a member of society and is condemned to eternal shame, or even death. All this system has been entrusted into the hands of divinely appointed ulu '1-amr (people vested with authority). Then each Muslim has been made responsible, for all other Muslims, as he is obliged to enjoin his compatriots, to do good and desist from evil. To cap it all, the Muslim nation is ob¬liged to call others to the right path, and the way to affect this call is to give them good news of eternal reward if they do good and to warn them of eternal perdition if they indulge in evil. It is this knowledge of this and the next world which is the foundation of Islam's character-building. The Prophet promul¬gated this system; and experiment has proved its effectiveness and potency. Its power to mould the society into divine image was proved during the time of the Prophet and continued to do so until Umayyids came into power. They made the shar?`ah a toy to play with; put the Islam's penal code in cold storage and behaved as though they were above all law, as if nothing could hinder them in their pursuit of pleasure. The result of that exer¬cise is before our eyes today. The standard of "freedom" has been raised; western civilization is making inroads in our society. In Islamic countries, Islam exists in name only. It is this manifest weakening of religion and this retrogress¬ive movement of the Muslims which has caused their fall from heights of justice and virtue, and made them slip down the plane of morality and ethics. It is their debauchery and their wal¬lowing in their base desires and sensualities that has made them bold to transgress every limit, to violate every rule, so much so that even the atheists look down at their debauchery, dishonesty and immorality. This is the real and only cause of the deterioration of Muslim society. The objector is completely off the mark when he attri¬butes this state of affairs to those sublime religious realities whose only aim, and only effect, was and is the man's felicity and happiness in this world as well as in the hereafter. The data, mentioned in his argument, are irrelevant here. They have looked at a Muslim society which has got no guardian and no authority to enforce Islamic laws within its jurisdiction, and at an atheist society which has a strong authority to enforce its laws and to keep the people within the limits, with help of education and training of its own choice. Therefore, this com¬parison is quite clearly unjustified.

Traditional Discourses

Topic: Interpreting the Qur'an according to one's own opinion

He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book, of it there are some verses decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are ambiguous; then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity, they follow the part of it which is ambiguous, seeking to mislead, and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation, but none knows its interpretation except Allah; and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: "We believe in it, it is all from our Lord"; and none do mind except those having understanding. (3:7)

The Prophet said: "Whoever interprets (i.e. explains) the Qur'an according to his opinion, should settle himself in his seat of Fire." (as-Safi)

The author says: This matter has been narrated by both the Sunnis and the Shi'ahs. And there are many other traditions of the same import, narrated from the Prophet and the Imams of Ahlu 'l-bayt (a.s.). It is narrated in Munyatu 'l-murid that the Prophet said: "Whoever spoke about the Qur'an without knowledge, should settle himself in his seat of Fire."

The author says: Also, it has been narrated by Abu Dawud in his as-Sunan.

The Prophet said: "Whoever speaks about the Qur'an without knowledge, shall coming on the Day of Resurrection reined with a rein of fire." (Munyatu 'l-murid) The same book narrates that the Prophet said: "Whoever spoke about the Qur'an of his own opinion (even if) he was right, he committed wrong."

The author says: This tradition has also been narrated by Abu Dawud, at-Tirmidhi and an-Nisa'i.

The Prophet said: "What I am afraid of, most of all, concerning my ummah after me, is the man who will take the Qur'an putting it in the wrong place (i.e. giving wrong interpretations)." (al-Munyatu 'l-murid) Abu Basir said that Abu 'Abdillah (a.s.) said: "Whoever interprets the Qur'an according to own opinion, if he gets to the right interpretation, he shall not be rewarded; and if he errs then he shall be farther away from the heaven. (at-Tafsir, al-Ayyashi) The same book quotes Ya'qub ibn Yazid who narrated from Yasir that ar-Ridha (a.s.) said: "Opinion in the Book of Allah is infedility."

The author says: This theme is found in other traditions written in 'Uyunu 'l-akhbar, al-Khisal and at-Tafsir of al-Ayyashi among other books. The words of the Prophet: "Whoever interprets (i.e. explains) the Qur'an according to his own opinion": ar-Ra'y (= opinion) means the belief reached after diligent research. It is also used for the opinion based on desire and one's own inclination. The Prophet has used the phrase, "his opinion"; it shows that what is condemned is the interpretation of a verse independently without looking at other relevant verses. It does not forbid striving hard and doing one's utmost to understand the meaning of the Qur'an; nor does it say that one should confine himself to waht has been said in the traditions of the Prophet and Ahlu 'l-bayt (a.s.) relating to the exegesis of the verses (as many traditionalists think). Otherwise, it would be diametrically opposed to the many verses which show that the Qur'an is plain Arabic and whhich exhort the people to meditate on it; also it would be against many traditions that tell to turn to the Qur'an and judge the traditions by it. What the words, "according to his opinion", refer to is explaining the Qur'an according to one's personal views by being independent of other Qur'anic declarations. This happens when an exegete depends solely on the instruments of Arabic language and literature, which are used for understanding a human talk. When we hear a speech of a man we at once look towards the rules of the language so that we may understand what the speaker means, and in this way decide its import; we use this method everywhere, even in legal matters like testimony and acknowledgement. We use this method because human speech is based on the rules of language and rhetorics. But the Qur'an's diction is not based on this foundation, as we have explained earlier. The whole Qur'an is a speech whose sentences and verses are all related to one another; at the same time they are separate from each other; one part speaks with, and leads to the others, as 'Ali (a.s.) has said: "Obviously, it is not enough to look at a single verse in the light of the language and literature and decide what it means, unless one meditates on all the relevant verses and strives one's utmost to find out from all of them together what that particular verse means." The verse 4:82 points to this very fact, as we have explained in the topic of brevity: "Do they not then meditate on the Qur'an? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy." Explaining the Qur'an according to one's opinion is, thus, prohibited. And this prohibition is directed to the way of exegesis, and not to the exegesis itself. In other words, the Prophet has forbidden the people to try to understand the Divine words by the same methods which are used to understand a human speech - it is irrelevant whether they succeed in comprehending its true meaning or not. That is why he (s.a.w.a.) has said in another tradition: "Whoever spoke about the Qur'an of his own opinion, (even if) he was right, he committed wrong." This dictum clearly proves that the mistake lies in choosing the way; it does not matter whether that way takes one to the true destination or not. The same is the explanation of the words, narrated in the tradition of al-Ayyashi: "if he gets to the right interpretation, he shall not be rewarded". This view is supported also by the state of affairs in the days of the Prophet. The revelation of the Qur'an was not yet completed; and what was revealed was not yet arranged; not all the Muslims had in their hands all the revealed verses - most of them had only a few chapters and verses with them. Had they been allowed to explain every piece or verse separately, without comparing that piece with other relevant verses, they would almost certainly have fallen into error. It appears from the above discourse that what the exegete has been forbidden is to interpret a verse of the Qur'an independently, relying on his own knowledge and opinion, without reference to another authority. In other words, it is necessary, when one wants to explain a Qur'anic verse, to seek help from others by referring the matter to them. Who is that other authority? It could only be either other Qur'anic verses, or the traditions. The second alternative is out of question because the prophet has ordered the Muslims to refer the traditions to the Qur'an; it cannot be the other way round. The tradition's meanings and even their authenticity is tested by the Qur'an; how can tradition decide the meaning of the Qur'an? Thus, there remains only one valid and approved way of explaining the verses of the Qur'an, and that is with the help of other relevant verses. This much is enough to show the irrelevance of numerous explanations written about the tradition of "interpreting the Qur'an by one's own opinion". The scholars have explained this tradition in not less than ten ways:

First: It means interpreting the Qur'an without expertise in those subjects which are essential for knowing its exegesis. And as-Suyuti has said in al-itqan that there are fifteen in all: Language, syntax, conjugation, etymology, styles of literature, rhetoric, elocution, recitation of the Qur'an, roots of religion, fundamentals of jurisprudence, reasons and occasions of revelations (as well as the stories mentioned in the Qur'an), abrogating and abrogated verses, law of the Shari'ah, traditions that explain the general and unspecific verses, and the gifted knowledge. This last phrase refers to a tradition of the Prophet: "Whoever acts upon what he knows, Allah gives him knowledge of what he does not know."

Second: It refers to the attempts of finding the interpretations of the ambigious verses, which no one knows except Allah.

Third: It is interpretation of the Qur'an to support a wrong belief or action. It happens when an exegete makes his own view or belief the foundation upon which he builds the exegesis of the Qur'an; he fits the verse on his own belief in any possible way - no matter how weak or far-fetched that might be.

Fourth: It is declaring, without any proof, that a certain explanation is the meaning really intended by Allah.

Fifth: It refers to explaining the Qur'an according to one's inclination and desire. These five explanations of the said tradition have been narrated by Ibnu 'n-Naqib, as as-Suyuti has quoted in al-itqan. There are five other explanations which we enumerate here from other books:

Sixth: It is explaining the difficult passages of the Qur'an in a new way which was not narrated from the companions and their disciples - because such an interpretation would make the exegete liable to the displeasure of Allah.

Seventh: The tradition is about explaining the Qur'an in a certain way, while the speaker knows that it is not the true explanation. These last two have been mentioned by Ibnu 'l-Anbari.

Eighth: The tradition forbids talking about the Qur'an without knowledge and without making sure - it does not matter whether the speaker knows or not that another explanation is true.

Ninth: It forbids reliance on the apparent meaning of the Qur'an. It is the explanation of those who think that the apparent meaning of the Qur'an is not a valid authority; to understand a verse, one must look to a clear tradition narrated from a sinless authority (i.e. the Prophet, his daughter and the twelve Imams, peace be on them all). But in fact it shall not be an exegesis of the Qur'an; rather it shall be following the tradition. Anyhow, according to this group, exegesis of the Qur'an depends on the explanation of a sinless authority.

Tenth: There were some people who believed that the Qur'an had valid apparent meanings, but said that common people could not understand it. According to this view also relying on the apparent meaning of the Qur'an was forbidden by this tradition. One must look for clear traditions of sinless authorities to interpret the Qur'an. These are ten explanations of the said tradition - although some may in effect be identical to some others. In any case, none of these is supported by any proof. Moreover, some are obviously wrong, or their inaccuracy may be understood from what we have earlier said about this tradition. There is no reason to point it out again. There are many verses that support the traditions mentioned earlier: Do they not meditate on the Qur'an? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy (4:82). Those who made the Qur'an into shreds (15:91). Surely they who distort Our signs are not hidden from Us. What! is he then who is cast into the fire better or he who comes safe on the Day of Resurrection? Do what you like, surely He sees what you do (41:40). .....(there are those who) alter words from their places.....(4:46). And pursue not that of which you have not the knowledge (17:36). Such verses in conjunction with the above mentioned traditions make it clear that the prohibition contained in those traditions is about the method used for the exegesis; they show that when explaining the Divine Speech, one should not adopt the same means that are used for explaining human talks. What is the difference between Divine and human speeches? It is not in the use of the words, the construction of sentences or style of elocution. The Qur'an is in plain Arabic, and all norms of eloquence have been mentioned in it. Allah Himself has said: And We did not send any apostle but with the language of his people, so that he might explain to them clearly (14:4); ....and this is clear Arabic language (16:103); Surely We have made it an Arabic Qur'an so that you may understand (43:3). The difference between the two is about the meaning and its application. This statement needs some elaboration: We are at home in this material world, and surrounded with its natural phenomena. As a result, when we hear a word, our mind, first of all, looks at its physical connotation and application. When a fellow human being describes a thing or an affair, we apply his words to what we are accustomed to in this world; because we know that the speaker too is governed by the same forces as we are, and his comprehension and cognition is not different from ours. In this way the application of a word affects its meaning - it may particularize a general meaning or vice versa; the circumstances may manipulate a word's connotation in a lot of ways. It is what we call rational context, in contrast to textual evidence. For example, if we hear a powerful and wealthy man saying, "There is not a thing but with us are the treasures of it", first we shall look at the literal meaning of this sentence, then will come the stage of its application. At this stage, we shall say that he has many strong and well-protected buildings which have got a lot of containers of various types to store his treasures, that consist of a large quantity of gold, silver, currency notes, bonds, jewels, various commodities, ornamental items, arms and ammunition etc. We get this picture in our mind because this is what we call treasure and that is how it is kept safe and secure. But we will never imagine that he has in his treasury, the earth and the heavens, the continents and the oceans, the sun and the moon, the animals and the human beings. These too are "things", but they are not possessed, gathered and put in a treasury. Because of this rational context we do restrict the generality of the word "thing" and apply it to a few selected items only; and in those items too only a small quantity is preserved in strong, impregnable buildings to protect it from theft and other damages. And this knowledge of ours has restricted the general meaning of the words, "thing" and "treasures". But now we hear Allah revealing to His Apostle (s.a.w.a): And there is not a thing but with Us are the treasures of it (15:21). If our mind is not developed, and is still on the lowest rung of comprehension, we shall interpret this verse in exactly the same manner. Of course, we shall not have any proof to say that the verse has been used in the same sense; yet we shall rush to that explanation, because our mind is accustomed to it. This is, then, explaining the Qur'an according to our own opinion without knowledge. Now let us say that our understanding is a bit more developed, and we know that Allah does not gather things to put them in a treasury. We think over this verse and read the next sentence: and We do not send it down but in a known measure; and then we compare it with another verse: ......and (in) what Allah sends down sustenance from the cloud, then gives life thereby to the earth after its death.........there are signs for a people who understand (45:5). We shall at once say that the word "thing", in the verse under discussion, refers to the sustenance like bread and water; and that "sending it down", in the next sentence, refers to the coming down of rain. We shall give it this interpretation because we do not know of anything, except the rain, that comes down from the heavens; therefore, we shall say that accumulation of everything near Allah and then it coming down in measured quantity refers to the accumulation of rain and its coming down to the earth to produce food grains. This too shall be interpreting the Qur'an according to one's own opinion "without knowledge". What is our argument? It is that we do not know of anything, except the rain, that descends from the heaven. But "not knowing" that a certain thing exists is quite different from "knowing" that it does not exist. If our knowledge is more advanced and our mind more developed, we shall try not to say anything concerning the Qur'an without knowledge. We shall say that the words of the verse are general; they should not be restricted in any way. "Thing" includes everything, and the word, "treasures", covers every single item of everything. We shall arrive at the conclusion that the sentence describes the affairs of the creation and the creatures. Then will come the puzzling sentence, "and We do not send it down but in a known measure". Doubtlessly, human beings, animals and vegetables do not come down from the heavens; they grow from, and are born on, the earth. Faced with this difficulty, we shall say that the first sentence, "And there is not a thing but with Us are the treasures of it", is a metaphorical way of saying that everything in existence is subservient to the will of Allah; that the Divine will is like a treasure that holds every creature, and only as much issues forth from it as is willed by Allah. But this interpretation also, like the previous two, is based on "not knowing". We "do not know" that the things descend (in the meaning known to us) from Allah, and , therefore, we explain away the sentence in an allegorical way. If you look at the Divine names, attributes and actions as described in the Qur'an, or at the Qur'anic declarations about the angels, the Divine Books, the apostles and the Day of Resurrection and its details, or at the laws of the shari'ah and their significance as given in the Qur'an, and then ponder on the way people want to interpret them in the light of rational context, you will see that all such exercises are but interpretations according to one's own liking without knowledge; that they should better be called misinterpretations. We have shown under the fifth heading (why the Book contains the ambiguous verses?) in the discourse of the decisive and ambiguous verses that the Qur'anic expressions vis-a-vis the Divine realities are like a proverb in relation to its significance; and those realities have been explained in various expressions and diverse wordings, so that all taken together may lead the hearers to their real significance. That is why the verses are said to be witnesses of each other; and that is how they explain one another. Otherwise the Divine realities could never be correctly explained; and people would have fallen in the pitfall of interpreting the Qur'an without knowledge. The above discourse shows that interpreting the Qur'an according to one's opinion is always accompanied by speaking about it without knowledge. The tradition of the Prophet points to this fact: "Whoever spoke about the Qur'an without knowledge should settle himself in his seat of Fire." It is such interpretations that make it look as though the verses of the Qur'an were contradictory to one another. Interpreting the verses by one's own opinion, without true knowledge, disturbs the semantic flow of the Qur'an. Thus the verses are misinterpreted, the words shifted from their right places and used in wrong contexts. Then it becomes necessary for these exegetes to explain some or most of the verses in a way that is against their apparent meanings; Divine words and sentences are given such meanings which linguists have never heard of. Thus we find a group explaining away the verses of free will and choice, and their opponents misinterpreting the verses of Divine decree and measure. Most of the Muslim sects are guilty of this type of misinterpretation, especially in those verses whose apparent meanings go against their beliefs. They seek refuge in clothing such verses with meanings of their choice, and their so-called arguments boil down to this sentence: The apparent meaning of this verse is against what has already been established by rational proofs; therefore it must be given a new meaning, against the apparent one. This practice creates confusion; the logical sequence of the verses is disrupted, their semantic flow is disturbed and they seem to contradict each other. Thus both lose their validity. It is known that there is no discrepancy in the Qur'an. If a certain explanation shows that two verses are contradictory to each other, the only defect would be in that explanation. This has been termed, in many traditions, as hitting one part of the Qur'an with the other. See for example the following traditions: It is narrated in al-Kafi and at-Tafsir of al-'Ayyashi from as-Sadiq from his father (peace be on them both) that he said: "A man does not hit a part of the Qur'an with the other (part) but that he becomes an infidel." Ma'ani 'l-akhbar, al-Mahasin (through their chains) and at-Tafsir of al-'Ayyashi: as-Sadiq (a.s.) said: "A man does not hit a part of the Qur'an with the other (part) but that he becomes an infidel." as-Saduq says that he asked Ibnu 'l-Walid what this tradition meant. He replied: "It is replying to a man concerning the exegesis of one verse, with the exegesis of another one." The author says: This reply of Ibnu 'l-Walid is somewhat vague. If by this expression he means the above-mentioned mix-up - as the polemicists argue by offering one verse "against" another, adhering to the one and explaining away the other - then he is correct. But if he wants to disallow explaining one verse with the help of the other and bringing the one as evidence for the other, then it is wrong, as may be seen from the following two traditions too: It is narrated in at-Tafsir of al-Nu'mani, through his chains to Isma'il ibn Jabir that he said: "I heard Abu 'Abdillah Ja'far ibn Muhammad as-Sadiq (peace be on them both) saying: 'Verily, Allah - Benevolent and High is He - sent Muhammad and ended with him (the chain of) the prophets; thus there is no prophet after him; and He sent down to him a Book, and ended with it (the chain of) the Books; thus there is no (Divine) book after it. He allowed in it the lawful (things) and prohibited in it the unlawful; so its lawful is lawful up to the Day of Resurrection, and its unlawful is unlawful up to the Day of Resurrection; there is in it your shari'ah, and the information of the people (who passed away) before you and (who are to come) after you; and the Prophet (may Allah have mercy on him and his progeny!) appointed it as a standard (that will remain) for ever in his successors. But the people left them (those successors) although they were witnesses over the people of all times; and they (i.e. the people) deviated from them, then they killed them, and followed others and gave those others their unalloyed obedience. (This continued) till they extended their enmity to him who showed his love of those invested with authority (from Allah) and who sought their knowledge. Allah has said: .....and (they) have forgotten a part of what they were admonished with, and you will not cease to be informed of deceit from among them (5:14). And it is because they hit a part of the Qur'an with the other; and they argued with the abrogated (verse) thinking that it was the abrogating one, and debated with the help of the ambiguous thinking that it was the decisive; and offered a particularized verse for their argument assuming that it was a general one; and stuck at the beginning of a verse leaving aside the reason of its interpretation; and they did not see what was beginning of the speech and what was its end; and they did not know its arrival or its departure, because they did not take it from its people; thus they went astray and misled others. " 'And know, may Allah have mercy on you! that he who does not distinguish in the Book of Allah the abrogating verse from the abrogated one, and a specific from a general one, and a decisive from an ambiguous; and does not differentiate between permission and an obligation, and does not recognize a verse of Meccan period from a Medinite one, and does not know the reasons of revelation; and does not understand the difficult words of the Qur'an (whether simple or compound); and does not comprehend (what has been hidden in it of) the knowledge of (Divine) decree and measure; and is ignorant of advancing and delaying (in its verses); and does not distinguish the clear from the deep, nor the manifest from the esoteric, nor the beginning from the termination; and is unaware of the question and the answer, the disjoining and the joining, and the exceptions and the all-inclusive, and is ignorant of an adjective of a preceding (noun) that explains, the subsequent one; and is unaware of the emphasized subject and the detailed one, the obligatory laws and the permissions, the places of the duties and rules, and the meaning of the lawful and the unlawful (in which the unbelievers have perished); and does not know the joined words, and the words that are related to those coming before them, or after them - then such a man does not know the Qur'an; nor is he among the people of the Qur'an; And if someone claims knowledge of these variations, without proof, then he is a liar, a doubting (person), and a fabricator of lies against Allah and His Apostle, and his resting place is the hell, and what an evil destination it is!' " It is written in Nahju 'l-balaghah and al-Ihtijaj that 'Ali (a.s.) said in a sermon: "When a legal problem is put before one of them he passes judgment on it according to his opinion. Then exactly the same problem comes before another of them and he gives the opposite verdict. Then these judges bring this matter to their leader who had appointed them and he confirms all their (contradictory) verdicts, although their Allah is one and their Prophet is one and their Book is one. Is it because Allah had ordered them to differ and they obeyed Him? Or He had prohibited them from it but they disobeyed Him? Or is it that Allah had sent an incomplete religion and sought their help to complete it? Or, they are His partners, so that it is their right to say and it is His duty to agree? Or is it that Allah sent a complete religion but the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) fell short of conveying it and handing it over (to the ummah)? And Allah, the Glorified, says: We have not neglected anything in the Book (6:38); and that in it is the clarification of everything; and He has said that one part of the Book confirms the other and that there is no discrepancy in it; And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy (4:82). And verily, the exterior of the Qur'an is elegant and its esoteric (meaning) is deep. Its wonders cannot be enumerated, and its marvels will not cease; and the darkness cannot be removed except by it."

The author says: This narration clearly shows that every religious opinion and view must be based on the Qur'an. The sentence, "in it is the clarification of everything", paraphrases a Qur'anic verse, ( . . . and We have revealed the Book to you explaining clearly everything [16:89] ). Ibn Sa'd, Ibnu 'd-Durays (in his al-Fada'il) and Ibn Marduwayh have narrated from 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb from his father from his grandfather: "The Apostle of Allah (s.a.w.a.) appeared before a group who were bandying arguments about the Qur'an, and he was very angry and said: 'This is how the nations before you went astray - they disputed with their prophets and hit one part of the book with the other.'Then he said: 'And verily the Qur'an has not been revealed so that its parts would contradict each other; rather, it has been revealed so that its part would confirm each other. Therefore, follow what you know (of it) and believe in what is ambiguous to you (from it)."' (ad-Durru 'l-manthur) Ahmad has narrated in another way from 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb from his father from his grandfather that the Messenger of'All5h (s.a.w.a.) heard some people disputing with one another. So, he said: "That is how those who were before you had perished; they hit one part of the Book of Allah over the other. And the Book of Allah has been revealed (and) its one part confirms the other; therefore, do not (try to) refute its one part with the other part. What you know of it, you should believe in it, and what you do not know of it, you should leave it to him who knows it." (ad-Durru 'I-manthur) The author says: As you see, these traditions count "hitting one part of the Qur'an with the other" as opposite to "confirming some of its parts with the others". In other words, this "hitting" refers to confusing the meanings of the verses, disturbing their aims and objects, mistaking, for example, the decisive verses for the ambiguous ones and vice versa. It means that speaking in the Qur'an according to one's own opinion, and explaining the verses without knowledge (described in earlier quoted traditions) and hitting some parts of the Qur'an with the others (mentioned in the above traditions) refer to one and the same thing, that is, explaining the Qur'an with the help of other than the Qur'an.

Question: No doubt, the Qur'an was revealed so, that the people may comprehend and understand it. See, for example, these two verses: - Surely We have revealed to you the Book with the truth for the sake of men ... (39:41). This is a clear statement for men (3:138). Also there is no doubt that it was the Prophet who had the authority to explain it. As Allah says: ... and We have revealed to you the Reminder that you may make clear to men what has been revealed to them . . . (16:44). And surely he explained it to his companions, who transmitted it to their disciples. What has come to us from the companions and their disciples is doubtlessly the explanation given by the Prophet, and we cannot disregard it, as the Qur'an tells us to follow what is given to us by the Prophet. As for those explanations which the companions gave us without ascribing them to the Prophet, it is true that they cannot have the same authority as the Prophet's declarations-, yet we feel more at ease with them (instead of looking for them on our own). Why? Because either they had heard it from the Prophet, or they were led to it by their expertise in religion - the expertise they had acquired from the Prophet's instruction and exposition. The same applies to their disciples and the disciples' disciples. Surely the meaning of the Qur'an could not be hidden from them they had deep rooted knowledge of Arabic language; they were keen on learning the Qur'anic interpretation from the Prophet himself; and they strived their utmost to acquire the knowledge of religion. All this may be seen in biographical details of the early scholars of religion. Looking at the above-mentioned details, we come to the conclusion that deviating from their method and tradition, going out of their company or explaining any verse in a way that is not found in their opinions and sayings, is an innovation; and that one must remain silent where they have not given any opinion. What the companions and their direct and indirect disciples have said is enough for the purpose of understanding the Qur'an. There are thousands of traditions on exegesis, and as-Suyuti has counted some seventeen thousand traditions on this subject, narrated from the Prophet and his companions and their disciples.

Reply: Its reply may be inferred from what we have written earlier. There are numerous verses which invite the public in general, the believers as well as the unbelievers, those who were present at the time of revelation as well as those who came later or shall come in future, to understand the Qur'an and meditate and ponder on it. For example, see the verse 4: 8 2 which has been quoted repeatedly: Do they not then meditate on the Qur'an? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy. It clearly shows that the Qur'anic knowledge may be acquired through meditation and contemplation; and that by this process the apparent discrepancy between the verses disappears completely. Remember that this verse puts a challenge to unbelievers that they would not find any discrepancy in the Qur'an if they pondered on it. And in this context they could not be advised to go to the companions and their disciples if they wanted to understand its meaning; nay, even the advice to refer to the Prophet would have been irrelevant: If the Prophet's explanation were in conformity with the apparent meaning of the verse, then people would understand that meaning from the verse itself on meditation and contemplation - and there would be no need to refer to the Prophet. And if his explanation were against the apparent meaning of the Qur'an - a meaning that an average man would not understand from the words - then the challenge would be futile and the argument of the verse 4:82 would not stand. Of course, so far as the details of various Qur'anic laws are -concerned, they cannot be known without the Prophet's explanation, as the Qur'an itself says: . . . and whatever the Apostle gives you, take it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back . . . (59:7). Also, the details of the Qur'anic stories and of the Day of Judgment depend on his exposition. It shows that the Prophet's responsibility, in this respect, was of teaching only. A teacher guides and helps his student in understanding what would be difficult to comprehend without his help. The teaching brings the meaning nearer to the mind; it does not create a meaning. The teacher arranges the subject matter to make it easier to comprehend, so that the student is not obliged to waste his time and energy in self- education - a proposition that carries with it a risk of wrong deductions. This aspect of the Prophet's responsibilities is mentioned in many verses. For example, . . . and We have revealed to you the Reminder that you may make clear to men what has been revealed to them, and that haply they may reflect (16:44). . . . And teaches them the Book and the Wisdom . . . (62:2). The Prophet, therefore, teaches the people what the Qur'an itself says and the Divine Speech itself shows, and which the people themselves may understand even if it requires some meditation. It is not the Prophet's function to bestow on the verses such meanings as cannot be normally understood from those words. Such an explanation would not conform with the following Qur'anic declarations:- A Book of which the verses are made plain, an Arabic Qur'an for a people who know (41:3). . . . and this is clear Arabic language ( 16:103). Then there are the traditions of the Prophet exhorting the Muslims to hold fast to the Qur'an and to verify with its help the traditions attributed to him. It necessarily follows that all what the Prophet has said may be known from the Qur'an. Otherwise, he could not tell us to check with it all the sayings attributed to him. Now, if we say that understanding of the Qur'an depends on the Prophet's explanation, it would be a vicious circle. The Qur'an would be understood only if explained by the traditions, but the authenticity of the tradition could be established only if one understands the Qur'an. Now we come to the traditions narrated from the companions. First, we are faced with the problems concerning the chains of the narrators, because not all of them are free from one or the other defect. Second, the companions have differed a great deal with one another in their expositions of the Qur'an. Third, in many cases, divergent views have been ascribed to a single companion, as anyone may find out by looking in the books of traditions and exegesis. What is one supposed to do when faced with such discrepancies? We are told by these people that we should choose one of those diverse opinions and stick to it; that we should not destroy the "composite unanimity" of the companions, nor should we go outside their circle. But the trouble is that the companions themselves were not averse to differ from each other; then why should we not differ from them? They themselves never claimed that their opinions were vested with an authority which others were duty bound to accept; nor did they ever say that, although they differed from one another, others should not differ from them. If we were stuck up with the Qur'anic exegesis narrated from the companions and their disciples, the forward march of knowledge would be arrested and academic research negated. Look at the explanations transmitted to us from the early scholars, and study the books of exegesis written in early centuries. You will find that they contain only simple word meanings, and are devoid of deep thoughts and fine ideas. If we stop at those explanations, where we can find the vast and deep knowledge mentioned in the verse: . . . and We have revealed the Book to you explaining clearly everything. . . ( 16:89). Then it is said that it is unthinkable that the companions did not know the meaning of the Qur'an, in spite of their keen interest in religious knowledge and their understanding and serious efforts in this way. But the very discrepancy in their various explanations belies this argument. Discrepancy and difference could not occur unless the truth was hidden from their eyes, and unless they were confused. The truth is that the highway to the understanding of the Qur'an is wide open; and the Divine Speech itself leads one to its own understanding; it does not depend, for this purpose, on any other guide. It is a Book introduced by Allah as the guidance, the light and the clear explanation of everything. It cannot be said to need another guide, to seek illumination from another light or to depend on an outside factor for its own explanation.

Question: The correct traditions say that the Prophet said in his last sermon: "Certainly I am leaving among you two weighty things: The bigger one and the smaller one. As for the bigger one, it is the Book of Allah; and as for the smaller one, it is my progeny, the people of my house. Therefore, keep me in mind about these two things; because you shall never go astray so long as you hold fast to them." This tradition has been narrated by both sects from a great many companions of the Apostle of Allah (s. a. w. a.); it has come to us through so many chains that one can entertain no doubt about its authenticity. The traditionalists have counted that it has been narrated by thirty-five companions. Some narrations contain the sentence: "They shall not separate from one another till they come to me on the reservoir (i.e., Kawthar)." This tradition proves that the words of Ahlu 'l-bayt (a.s.) on the Qur'an are a binding authority and that one must adhere to what has come down to us from them concerning the exegesis. Otherwise, one would be guilty of separating the Qur'an from the Ahlu 'l-bayt (a.s.).

Reply: What was said earlier regarding the explanation of the Prophet applies here too. The tradition quoted in the question is not intended to negate the authority of the apparent meaning of the Qur'an, nor does it say that the exegesis given by the Ahlu 'I-bayt (a.s.) is the only authoritative explanation. The Prophet has used the words, "they shall not separate from one another". It means that authority belongs to the Qur'5n and the Ahlu 'l-bayt (a.s.) together; the Qur'an explains its meaning and makes manifest the Divine realities, and the Ahlu 'l-bayt (a.s.) guide to the true path and direct the people to the Qur'5nic aims and goals. Moreover, like the Prophet, the Ahlu 'I-bayt (a.s.) too have directed the Muslims to hold fast to the Qur'an, to meditate on it and to verify from it the traditions attributed to them. Furthermore, a considerable number of the exegetical traditions of the Ahlu 'l-bayt (a.s.) themselves have used the method of explaining a verse with the help of the other. This method can be meaningful only if the Qur'anic verses may be understandable to an average man - provided the correct direction is followed. Apart from these rational arguments, some traditions of the Ahlu 'I-bayt (a.s.) explicitly mention this fact. al-Barqi has narrated through his chains from Abu Labid that Abu Ja'far (a.s.) said in a tradition: "Whoever thought that the Book of Allah was vague, fell in perdition and destroyed others." Another tradition has been narrated in the same book as well as in al-Ihtijaj that Abu Ja'far (a.s.) said: "When I narrate to you anything, you should ask me where it was in the Book of Allah . . . " The above discourse makes it clear that there is no conflict between those traditions which say that the Qur'anic knowledge is not unintelligible and that it may be understood with the help of the Qur'anic verses themselves, and those which are apparently against it. For example, it is narrated in at-Tafsir of al-'Ayyashi from Jabir that he said: "Abu 'Abdillah (a.s.) said: 'Verily, the Qur'an has an interior, and for its interior there is an exterior.' Then he said: 'O Jabir! and there is nothing farther from the understanding of the men than it (i.e., the Qur'an). Verily, a verse, its first (part) is revealed about one subject and its middle (part) about another thing, and its end about something else; and yet it is a well-connected speech, (that) revolves in various ways.' " This theme has been given in various other traditions. In some of them, the sentence, "and there is nothing farther from the understanding of the men . . . ", has been ascribed to the Prophet. Also, 'Ali (a.s.) is reported as saying: "Verily, the Qur'an may be explained in many ways; it has many faces. It is clear that what has been allowed, nay, encouraged, is explaining it through its own path, and what has been forbidden is explaining it through another path. The prescribed way is exegesis of the Qur'an with the help of the Qur'an itself, explaining a verse with another verse. A man can do so only when he is well versed in the traditions of the Prophet and his Ahlu 'I-bayt (a. s.); it gives him correct perspective and creates in him a discriminating taste. It is after acquiring this taste that one may explain the Qur'an with confidence. And Allah is the best Guide.