Woman: The Ever-Persecuted Throughout History (Volume One)

Woman: The Ever-Persecuted Throughout History
(Volume One)

(Quds-Sirrah)
By: Ayatollah Mohammadreza Nekounam

Bibliographic Information:

• Author: Nekounam, Mohammadreza (b. 1327)
• Title: Woman: The Ever-Persecuted Throughout History
• Publisher: Sobh Farda Publications, Islamshahr, Second Edition: 2014
• Physical Description: 4 volumes
• ISBN: 978-600-6435-46-6 (Complete Set)
• ISBN (Volume 1, Second Edition): 978-600-6435-47-3
• Subject: Women
• Dewey Classification: 305.4
• National Bibliographic Number: 2846409
• Publisher’s Address: Tehran, Islamshahr, Nasimshahr, Vajihabad, 12th Meter Jowharzadeh St., Building 36
• Postcode: 3769138575
• Phone (Distribution Centre): +98-25-32 90 15 78
• Website: www.nekounam.ir
• Rights Reserved by the Author

Preface:

Though throughout the extensive course of history, numerous books with varying perspectives have been written about women—this divine gift and the ever-persecuted throughout history—most existing works contain notable shortcomings. These deficiencies arise from a lack of comprehensive understanding of women, as the necessary time or knowledge was not available to the authors. At times, even some scholarly-religious figures, due to neglect or oversimplification, have introduced complexities in the discussion of women and their traits, leading to conclusions that contradict reason and the foundational principles of religion. As a result, the works of certain so-called intellectuals or individuals unfamiliar with authentic religious culture have predictably led to confusion and misguidance regarding women, both in Islamic and non-Islamic societies.

This lack of proper understanding has led to both extremism and negligence in the treatment of women, producing outcomes that, by force of circumstances, have only further misled women within various communities. Therefore, at a time when the subject of women is one of the most vital and foundational issues in many societies, particularly in our own, this book has been produced to offer a correct and comprehensive understanding of women’s true image and to dispel doubts and misconceptions about the nature of women in relation to the sacred religion of Islam.

This book draws upon the remarkable works of the venerable Ayatollah Nekounam, who has dedicated substantial scholarly effort in investigating psychological and research-related aspects of women. As such, this text reflects his principal views on the matter. The subsequent volumes, which are numerous, will be based on these principles. Some of these volumes critique religious and non-religious books on women, while others examine religious documents related to women, exploring proper behavioral approaches to women both in the home and society. Several volumes also delve into the relationships between women and their families, such as their roles with fathers, husbands, and children.

When read with care, attention, fairness, and without haste, this book will present a genuine and realistic image of women. This image aligns with religious doctrine, sound reason, fairness, and the highest philosophical, psychological, and social thinking of the author. Consequently, the reader will come to realize that many of the major questions and doubts raised regarding the religious or doctrinal views on women are no longer valid. After reading this book, the reader—whether male or female, Muslim or not—will naturally come to think in harmony with the religion and affirm the divine perspective on women.

It is also noteworthy that in this edition, the book focuses solely on the characteristics, attributes, and legal aspects of women, free from patriarchal or matriarchal biases, and based solely on truth, reality, and logical reasoning. Accordingly, even opposing questions and arguments are presented in a neutral and fair manner, initially with concise responses followed by detailed analysis. Therefore, readers are encouraged to engage with the content carefully, so as to fully appreciate the author’s ideas, critiques, and responses, ultimately leading to a favorable understanding of the delicate and intricate nature of women’s true character.

Publisher’s Note: This book aims to provide a correct and comprehensive understanding of the role and nature of women, presenting arguments rooted in fairness, reason, and religious ethics.

Introduction:

In the world of thought and belief, there is considerable divergence regarding women—this divine gift, the mirror of human beauty, and the ever-persecuted throughout history. Due to various factors and differing tastes, opinions about women have become so fragmented and contradictory that in many cases, they have reached polar opposite conclusions, with each group choosing to embrace the antithesis of the other’s perspective, without giving sufficient attention to the principles and reasons behind these beliefs.

Women, being embodiments of perfection and beauty, surpass all other beings in their grace, purity, and artistic charm. However, due to their multifaceted characteristics, numerous qualities, perplexing complexities, and captivating subtleties, human beings have been plagued by countless superstitions, confused ideas, and inconsistent debates throughout history. Discussions have often resorted to shameful questions such as: “Is woman fundamentally human? Is she a complete human being or an imperfect one?” Such discussions are regrettably a part of this history.

Of course, there are rational discussions to be had regarding whether women, in terms of intellectual and practical capacities, legal rights, and individual and social duties, are equal to men or whether they possess distinct rights. These questions deserve serious and thoughtful reflection.

From a sound, dynamic intellectual and theological standpoint, it is clear that women are human beings—complete human beings, not deficient in any way—and they have rights that are appropriate for their nature. While some of their characteristics might imply different rights from those of men, these differences do not imply that women’s full entitlement to their rights contradicts their inherent qualities. Nature, reason, and religion all avoid any form of extremism in this regard.

Each of these significant, sensitive issues—whether about women’s intrinsic identity or the debates surrounding them—merits careful scrutiny, but the primary focus of this book is on the characteristics, legal aspects, and important practical issues regarding women. This includes a critical examination of the social norms and aberrations, misconceptions, and erroneous beliefs surrounding women’s sacred roles, all of which have been sensitive topics in various cultures and religions.

In brief, the central theme of this book is to examine the concept of women from the perspectives of reason, experience, justice, and fairness, free from any male-dominated or misogynistic agenda.

Structure of the Book:

Woman: The Ever-Persecuted Throughout History is a research-based, socio-critical book that challenges the current state of our society and presents an accurate depiction of the position of Muslim women and the Islamic perspective on the role of women. The book consists of twelve sections, each of which tackles social realities and provides a roadmap for understanding the current state of society.

The first section addresses the interaction between men and women in society, discussing issues such as modesty, sex, and nudity. The book emphasizes the importance of appropriate dress and distinguishes between covering and hijab, critiquing the idea of nudity while advocating for modesty and dignity.

Subsequent sections explore various aspects of marriage, including courtship, engagement, and the sanctity of the marital bond, as well as the issues surrounding polygamy, divorce, and temporary marriage. Each of these issues is critically examined and discussed with respect to Islamic principles, offering a balanced and fair view that rejects all forms of social extremism.

Section Eight: The Creation of Woman

In the eighth section, the woman is portrayed in creation, and the illusion of deficiencies is explored. It becomes evident that creation has never been unjust towards women, and the most optimal system of creation, along with the actual purity of creation, is discussed. Features related to sexual pleasure, the duration of sexual intercourse, and the mutual sharing of enjoyment and fulfillment between men and women are addressed. The natural conditions of women in marriage, including the issues of virginity and childbirth, are considered, emphasising that nature itself is the best protector of women, fostering hope and vitality. Ultimately, this section concludes with the notion that women are the masterpiece of creation.

Section Nine: Women in Society

The ninth section, which concludes the third volume, begins with a discussion on the oppression of women in society and the logical and informed support that religion provides to women. The activities of women in society, their relationship with employment, wealth, inheritance, and compensation, as well as the discussion on social classes, lawful and unlawful professions, are all explored. The section ends with the statement that the concern of men should be the well-being of women.

Section Ten: The Oppression of Women and Islamic Support

The tenth section, which begins the fourth volume, addresses the oppression of women in society and the support Islam offers to them. Topics in this section include: the daughter of the Prophet as a source of pride, a woman being the mother of seventy prophets, the differences and merits between the genders, the delicate nature and emotionality of women, the misconceptions and exploitation of women, the role of women in employment, the idea that women are not simply homemakers, the division of labour, the employment of women in society, the issues surrounding women’s voices and singing, shared and specialised jobs for women, and the ownership and inheritance rights of women. The section concludes with the idea that the primary concern of men should be the comfort of women.

Section Eleven: The Intellect and Emotions of Women

Section eleven discusses the intellect and emotions of women, exploring the concept of women’s intellectual deficiencies. The section examines the balance of reason and emotion, the impact of ignorance, and the short and long-term challenges faced by women in intellectual matters. The emotional aspects of women are also examined, especially with regard to their religious duties, their capacity for understanding, and the value of consulting women in decision-making. Issues surrounding testimony and emotional influences on the testimony of women are approached logically.

Section Twelve: Women in Leadership and Major Roles

The twelfth and final section discusses the role of women in major societal responsibilities, leadership, and religious authority. It touches upon women in positions such as leading congregational prayers, ruling a nation, and holding positions of religious leadership, as seen in historical figures like Queen Sheba and the daughter of the Persian King Khosrow. Each topic is explored with an emphasis on the structure and legitimacy of such leadership roles, avoiding extremes in either direction.

Summary of the Book’s Structure

The essence of this book and its sections lies in its foundational scientific and social approach. The significance of these topics stems from the fact that they are examined from the perspective of society and the realities that exist within it. The text does not distinguish between the individual, the home, and society, but rather posits that society brings to light both the individual and the household in an overt way.

May this book, in alignment with the Islamic horizon and revolutionary society, be a guiding force for rational transformation.

Section One: Sex and Freedom

Chapter One: Sex and Veiling

The Notion of Veiling

The first topic we address is the veiling of women, as it brings forth the initial and direct social interaction between men and women. It is important to first understand that the veiling of women can be viewed in two forms: public veiling and private veiling.

Public Veiling

Public veiling refers to the covering of private body parts, which is a practice shared between men and women. In this regard, men and women are equal, and this is one of the most significant distinctions between humans and animals. Animals, while they possess some form of natural covering, do not actively cover themselves, while humans, through their inherent reason, adopt various forms of covering. Throughout history and across cultures, there has been no significant opposition to this form of veiling, although variations may exist based on different customs and practices.

Supporters of free sexuality and nudity have criticized even this level of veiling, arguing that it is unnecessary unless in public spaces. They claim that within the privacy of one’s home or among family members, such covering is not required. They argue that revealing certain body parts at home can enhance the awareness of young children and promote a joyful and lively atmosphere in social gatherings.

In response to this view, it can be stated that the need for educating children and providing them with necessary knowledge does not contradict the widespread practice of veiling. Furthermore, a lively social gathering should not be confused with moral degradation or public nudity. These arguments fail to justify the advocacy of nudity, which finds little support outside of morally compromised environments. These views often stem from unsettled emotional states and lack proper scientific or ethical backing. Moreover, they contribute to the promotion of secular or atheistic ideas and challenge the moral and religious values upheld by society.

Therefore, the discussion surrounding veiling in different societies does not concern this public veiling, as it is universally accepted and supported by both scientific and ethical principles, with divine laws strongly endorsing it.

Private Veiling

The second form of veiling, which we discuss here, is the specific veiling of women. This type of veiling varies in its quality and appearance, but it is always meant to counteract nudity and sexuality and, in the end, reflects a higher level of spirituality and communal modesty.

There are two main viewpoints regarding this private veiling: One view posits that women need a distinct form of veiling different from men, while the other suggests that women should be allowed the same freedom as men to appear publicly without restrictions.

Some advocate that women, just like men, should be free to appear in public without any restrictions, arguing that nudity and sexuality are natural rights, and there should be no limitation in expressing them. Proponents of this view tend to disregard religious, ethical, and modesty concerns and fail to recognize that being a woman or enjoying personal freedom does not imply the right to be naked or sexually exposed, even if they claim to follow religious principles.

On the other hand, many religious adherents, upholding moral integrity and modesty, view women’s veiling as a necessary restriction. They believe that allowing women to be exposed without covering contradicts their dignity and the ethical and religious responsibilities that they bear. It is essential to differentiate between excessive or inappropriate veiling imposed by rigid cultural customs and the proper, dignified religious veiling.

Religious Commitment and Women’s Veiling

As no rational or well-founded intellect rejects the concept of veiling for women, no divine religion has ever been indifferent to the issue of women’s veiling and modesty. All Abrahamic religions have embraced some form of modesty for women, and even if certain religious followers may have strayed from the true path of modesty, the core teachings of these religions support modesty and veiling.

One may argue that many followers of various religions have historically promoted nudity and sexual liberation, yet the true commandments of these religions never endorsed such practices. If nudity is found in religious circles, it is a result of distortion and not the original teachings of the faith.

B: Women’s Freedom or Men’s Captivity?

A woman who does not cover her hidden beauties when leaving the house, but rather spends time enhancing her appearance with artificial means, is not only a captive of her own desires, but also strips men of their freedom in society and at work, entrapping them in her allure. As a result, apart from the societal and environmental destruction caused, it diminishes the love and affection within other families.

The display of feminine beauty—especially in a vulgar and frivolous manner—causes attention, enslavement, and longing in weak-minded men. How many divorces, disappointments, failures, social chaos, homelessness of children and mothers, and betrayals have resulted from this so-called “freedom” of women in society? This is why Islam has even condemned the use of perfumes (fragrance) by women in public, so as not to provoke men and disturb the health of society. Additionally, many recommendations have been made regarding a woman’s modesty and avoidance of frivolity in society, to the extent that the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said: “A mature woman should not walk in the street with a ‘fookul’ [a heavy perfume], nor should she let her hair loose.” Such sensitivities and emphases indicate that these acts of self-decoration and exhibitionism disturb the peace of individuals and destabilize societal health.

Truly, what sound mind would consider drilling holes in a ship full of passengers on a tumultuous sea to be acceptable under the guise of freedom? It is evident that such freedoms only lead to destruction, deprivation, and the removal of others’ rights.

C: Modesty: A Woman’s Identity and Security

Women who lack modesty do not enjoy complete freedom due to the numerous disturbances from thoughtless members of society. Therefore, prolonged exposure and nudity lead to weariness, disgust, loss of identity, and dissatisfaction with their own gender, making women see their gender as an obstacle to their true freedom. On the other hand, modesty, although seemingly a burden for those who only view the external, ultimately leads to health, comfort, freedom, and saving time by avoiding unnecessary embellishments and destructive preoccupations. Most importantly, it preserves a woman’s identity, peace of mind, and sense of security regarding her gender. Through modesty, a woman feels vitality, freshness, importance, dignity, and value. She protects her beauty like a pearl in the shell of modesty, keeping it safe from the greedy robbers and revealing it only to her true lover, someone who does not exploit or destroy her but loves her soul and personality, and accompanies her not just in joy and pleasure, but also in sorrow, pain, and hardships. This understanding brings about a real sense of love, affection, intimacy, and fulfillment, ultimately leading to her perfection.

A woman with a simple, elegant, modest, and low-maintenance dress enters the path of perfection, never feeling empty or lacking identity in either her home or society. This principle is the key to family stability in modest societies and its absence is the cause of the weakening of family foundations in open, sexually permissive societies.

D: Women’s Freedom; A Political Motivation

Therefore, slogans and speeches should not be the foundation for discussions about this matter, nor should women be made naked under the guise of freedom to fulfill political, cultural, individual, or group ambitions. Women should not be led to moral decay and prostitution in the name of protecting women or freedom, nor should they be driven to ruin.

Respecting a woman’s dignity, accepting her rights, and eliminating false traditions and deviations—as Islam teaches—does not contradict her modesty, chastity, and moral integrity. However, liberating women, making them naked, and constantly talking about women’s freedom only serves political goals with two malicious faces: one is the exploitation of women and their sexual and economic abuse, and the other is the destruction of spirituality and moral collapse.

These goals and motivations are accompanied by very extensive plans, and all the freedom-loving people of the world, women, and religious leaders must stand in opposition to this vile anomaly using modern scientific policies, in order to maintain both the health of society and the well-being of women while preserving the pillars of religion and spirituality.

E: The Attraction of Women

A woman is a human being and should be free, enjoying her full human rights, but this does not conflict with her appropriate covering and does not mean sex or nudity. Undoubtedly, a woman has her own unique qualities, and in some aspects, her physical and emotional state differs from that of men. Therefore, her clothing and covering, just like her other characteristics, should be suited to her unique features and distinct from men. These differences can be defined and explained by reason, nature, faith, and the wisdom of people in any society—both men and women.

Naturally, women possess attraction and appeal, and this is an undeniable truth. In every era and in all human societies—even in supposedly free societies where sensitivities appear to be less—women have maintained their desirability and pursued their objectives. This very desirability requires that women maintain both their individual and social roles with responsibility, striving to improve both the individual and societal well-being, without being unrestrained, so that they themselves and society retain their natural dignity, harmony, and balance.

Thus, modesty is a reality, and although it may be seen by misguided minds as a limitation, it is actually a necessary and logical constraint, benefiting both women and society. It does not contradict women’s human rights or freedom. Women are free, but within the bounds of human dignity, maintaining their uniqueness, just as men should also pursue their defined freedoms in society.

This perspective helps dispel some misconceptions, revealing their illogical nature. It should be noted, however, that while modesty is supported, excessive and immoderate veiling is also incorrect. A woman should not be seen as an invisible or hidden figure, nor should her modesty be cloaked in extreme or irrational coverings. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) stated: “Exposing the face is part of Islam, and the veil is a source of corruption.” Therefore, modesty and purity should be reinforced through appropriate covering and cultural, scientific, and religious growth, so that a woman’s modesty reflects her dignity and elegance, without the need for unnecessary concealment.

Second Argument: Comparing Free and Modest Societies

Advocates of sex and nudity believe that the current state of free societies is based on the natural law and correct social principles, which ensure women’s freedom and independence in a reasonable and proper way. Women have been able to fully secure their position in such societies and demonstrate it well. In these societies, women defend their individual and social positions, fully adapting to the existing conditions, reclaiming their material and human needs, feeling proud of their position, and asserting themselves in society without any weakness, advancing alongside men in all areas of knowledge, culture, and social life.

The current situation in modern civilized societies has created the best possible conditions for women, as they have freed themselves from all oppressive restrictions and the subjugation of being confined to the home, fully assuming their vital role in both individual and social spheres. Certainly, this position is supported by society, law, and reason, because women must be free to showcase their abilities in all areas and free themselves from the isolation of hypocrisy and stagnation.

However, women in societies that promote modesty and adhere to it face numerous moral and material deprivations, which in some aspects cannot be compared to the current situation in advanced societies.

In these “virtuous and chaste” societies, there are various moral failings, abuses, and exploitations that are incompatible with their apparent sanctity. In many cases, women lack basic social value and cultural rights. Many of these evils stem from this rigid thinking, exploitative culture, and extreme modesty, which can be explained and proven through statistical and psychological-social studies. Reactionary thoughts, restrictive veils, subjective coverings, and hypocritical ethics result in corruption, moral degradation, and sanctimony that leads to thousands of hidden wrongdoings.

Just as sex and nudity have become the driving forces for growth and progress in free societies, modesty, veiling, and conservatism have become factors for exploitation, regression, and, above all, the deterioration of women.

Critique of the Second Argument:

A: An Unjustified Comparison

In response to this argument—which presents both the positive and negative aspects of open and closed societies—it must be said that while opportunities for women exist in open societies and many deficiencies exist in closed societies, such a comparison only highlights the positive aspects of open societies and the negative aspects of closed ones, and thus is an inaccurate comparison. It fails to address the negative aspects of open societies and the positive aspects of modest and closed ones. Moreover, it mistakenly connects these aspects to sex and modesty.

When we examine the negative aspects of open and advanced societies in relation to women, we find that the numerous problems and moral and material deprivations of women in these societies often stem from exploitative factors. In this case, it should be stated that the problem is related to the abuse of freedom and sex, which jeopardizes the position of women due to malicious objectives.

B: Sex and Social Abnormalities

The clearest evidence of the fallacy and destructiveness of this mindset is the current situation in so-called “advanced” societies. It is evident that permissiveness, sex, and nudity have wreaked havoc in these societies, to the point where no standards of correctness or societal health remain. The existing moral destruction stems from this line of thought, to the extent that even these societies themselves admit that the problems caused by this are now beyond control. These issues have led to social upheaval, psychological degradation, and general anxiety. Today, many individuals in these open societies, under the guise of freedom, are turning toward spirituality and modesty due to the profound sense of emptiness and disillusionment caused by overexposure to sex and indulgence.

Thus, comparing these two types of societies—one based on openness and one on modesty—becomes an unjustified exercise, since the former has fallen prey to destruction and chaos, whereas the latter, although not perfect, holds onto moral standards and societal health.

The Instrumental Use of Women

The statement that “a woman has been able to fully play her crucial individual and social role” is not entirely correct, as a woman can only rediscover her vital social role when, in addition to performing her fundamental and key role within society, she does not become a source of corruption, deviation, and disorder within society and among the people. However, in liberal societies, women are often exploited instrumentally rather than benefiting from their inherent qualities.

The assertion that “a woman must be free and supported by reason and law” is a highly sound and valid statement, one that should be regarded with no distortion or misuse in all human societies. However, it must be understood that the contemporary world has never fully made correct use of this principle. Although in liberal societies, this principle has been applied more functionally, it has often been misused.

The statement “a woman must showcase her abilities in all areas and free herself from the isolation of polytheism, hypocrisy, and the dungeons of reactionary forces” is one of the most appropriate and accurate expressions regarding women. The major problems faced by backward societies stem from the very issues mentioned here, and efforts must be made to resolve them. Of course, just as women should not be burdened with the problems of contemporary women in liberal societies, we should not view the challenges in underdeveloped countries as a consequence of modesty, purity, and the protection of women.

Furthermore, the progress of women in liberal societies should not be attributed to the emergence of sex and nudity.

The claim that “veiled societies have numerous deprivations that are not comparable to the situation in advanced societies” is an unfounded assertion. The deprivation of women in veiled societies is not due to their veiling, nor is the advancement of liberal societies a result of sex and nudity. The situation of each of these two categories must be examined by considering the overall and complex factors in each society, without oversimplification or neglect of the positive and negative causes and effects.

The statement that “even in pious and modest societies, various corruptions, violations, and exploitations exist that are incompatible with claims of sanctity” is correct, but this does not mean that these problems are the result of veiling or modesty. While corruption, decay, and violations are prevalent in many societies today, the nature and position of such corruption differ between societies. Just as veiled societies have their own challenges, liberal societies also face more profound problems. However, none of these problems is the result of veiling, although sex itself is an independent cause for the emergence of social decay.

The claim that “women in veiled societies have access to fewer privileges” is baseless. Although these societies do not operate uniformly, and there are differences between regions, these societies face their own unique problems, the causes of which are multifaceted. Likewise, although liberal societies may not face these particular deprivations, they have their own issues that have become intolerable and seem unsolvable.

While sack-like veils, arbitrary dress codes, and hypocritical moralities may contribute to moral corruption and sanctimonious pretensions, these shortcomings should not lead to a turn towards sex, nudity, and corruption. Therefore, while all of these issues are anti-values and should be avoided, society should not become embroiled in the destructive issues of the liberal world. We should not trade one pitfall for another under the pretext of escaping from the former.

Freedom or Liberation?

The statement “Sex and freedom have been the factors for the growth and advancement of liberal societies, whereas veiling, modesty, and reactionary forces are responsible for the exploitation and backwardness of women in veiled societies” is deeply flawed and baseless. Sex and freedom are two distinct issues, and sex should not be equated with freedom. Sex is a departure from ethics and spirituality, whereas freedom provides the grounds for the development of many virtues and spiritual values. Unless freedom is understood as liberation from spirituality, as in the case where both freedom and sex are misused.

In contrast, veiling, reactionary forces, and modesty each have their own distinct positions. Reactionary forces are indeed the main cause of the backwardness in many parts of the world, whereas veiling may not be observed within these societies. Therefore, the causes of exploitation and backwardness in society and women must be traced to their proper sources, and every factor and result should be carefully examined, without any bias or oversimplification.

From all these discussions, it can be concluded that neither reasonable veiling is incompatible with the nature, freedom, or individual and social position of women, nor does sex and nudity bring personality and greatness to women. Neither excessive or unnecessary veiling brings modesty and purity to women, nor does a reasonable form of veiling cause harm. The deprivations of veiled societies are not limited to women, and the causes of these shortcomings are not due to veiling. Hence, efforts should be made to accurately reconstruct the position of women in all regions of the world, using reason, fairness, and the law, so that women can be freed from their instrumentalized status and considered as complete individuals with an essential role and genuine qualities in the human community.

The Third Reason: Controlling Corruption through Reason and Law

Supporters of sex argue that internal and external deterrent forces prevent the emergence of undesirable actions in society. The internal deterrent force is reason and thought, which prevents both men and women from moral corruption and lapses. The external deterrent force is law, which governs social order and regulates public control within society.

The law is binding in every society and limits acts of transgression and violation, preventing corruption. Therefore, the best and most reliable safeguard for protecting the individual is the law, which protects society from moral degeneration. Hence, in the name of protecting society from moral degradation, women should not be restricted or encumbered with unnecessary veils. Instead, individual and collective reason should be strengthened through education, public moral security should be expanded, and the social system should be made healthy, with human laws strictly enforced to prevent such misdeeds.

Under the guise of protecting society from corruption and prostitution, women cannot be restricted, and even if these two natural deterrents fail to curb societal dysfunction, it is wrong for women alone to bear the brunt of such occurrences. Restricting women in this way is both unnatural and unjust. These limitations not only fail to solve the problem but also lack scientific support, as historical experience shows that such restrictions in various societies with different cultures have led to various individual and social diseases, ultimately threatening the health and well-being of both the individual and society.

Critique of the Third Argument:

A: The Insufficiency of Reason and Law

Undoubtedly, law alone cannot prevent social corruption. Instead, a variety of necessary measures must be implemented to safeguard society’s health. One of the essential factors for the health of society is the appropriate veiling of women, which can help ensure both individual and societal well-being. This is because public culture has never reached the point where social interactions can be managed like familial relationships, and thus these kinds of arguments have more of a motivational, idealistic, and utopian nature.

Moreover, it is impossible to fully prescribe public freedoms without considering the negative consequences of such absolute freedoms. Absolute freedom, in such an understanding, leads to public chaos, subjugation, frivolity, and moral deprivation. Therefore, in order to safeguard society and prevent the exploitation and infringement of women’s rights, modest and appropriate veiling must be observed alongside many other measures to contribute to individual and social purity.

B: The Allure of Women and Male Disarray

Another response to the advocates of sex would be that the existing moral misdeeds in the so-called liberal societies should not be attributed solely to cultural backwardness or weak laws. While these factors are not without impact, the primary moral decay in these societies is due to the absence of spirituality, erosion of faith, intellectual confusion, nudity, sex, and promiscuity. The mere fact of sex and nudity among women and men, as well as the related cultural mindsets, has become a major factor in societal degeneration. Otherwise, liberal societies, with their so-called advanced laws and their enforcement, would not face such high rates of moral decay.

When women abandon necessary veiling and appear freely in society, disregarding their modesty and the sanctity of their privacy, they easily attract men with their superficial and seductive appearances. After a series of unnecessary gazes, voyeurism, and inappropriate interaction between men and women, the conditions for sin and vice multiply exponentially, leading to increasing male disarray and turmoil. Such an atmosphere becomes uncontrollable and unpreventable, as men are repeatedly drawn into the allure of these artificial attractions. This increasingly leads to widespread moral corruption in liberal societies. Therefore, it is incorrect to attribute all social evils to a lack of cultural development or weak laws and enforcement.

Self-Presentation and Visibility: A Natural and Innate Phenomenon

Self-presentation and visibility are natural and inherent traits. However, nature and instinct do not imply filth, impurity, or degradation, and one should not associate these traits with negative qualities. All these matters must be manifested appropriately, harmoniously, and at the right place and time. Islam, for example, provides numerous guidelines on self-presentation, adornment, gestures, flirtation, and the relationship between men and women within the context of marriage.

Loving and truly appreciating beauty, being enamoured with it, and expressing or showcasing it are distinct from promiscuity and vulgarity. Nature itself abhors obscenity and vulgarity, and even those who may not subscribe to the concept of modesty still set boundaries when it comes to displaying beauty. A woman, the epitome of beauty, does not, either consciously or unconsciously, offer her beauty freely to every gaze. Instead, her act of revealing is, paradoxically, an act of concealment. This woman, who refrains from exposing herself and guards her beauty against prying eyes, paradoxically places herself in the line of sight of a gaze that might cause harm. This issue deserves further exploration from a psychological perspective.

However, it is certain that showcasing beauty in any unrestrained or devilish manner brings disorder, ugliness, and corruption. Beauty should inspire beauty, not disgust. What a woman possesses in terms of beauty should be used to foster harmony, tranquility, and emotional wellbeing, not to generate conflicts, strife, or to be tainted by the moral decay that has pervaded the contemporary world.

B: The Petals of Modesty and Beauty in Women

Since women are naturally delicate, beautiful, and sensitive, if they are subjected to misuse or exposed to inappropriate gazes from everyone, they can quickly lose their beauty, sensitivity, and grace, much like a wilting flower. The beautiful blossoms and alluring faces of women cannot withstand the venomous glances and malicious actions of unscrupulous men. A woman must, like a flower, preserve her beauty within the petals of modesty and clothing, offering it only to the man who will cherish and protect it, rather than one who would wilt her beauty. A woman can only truly flourish under the protection of the true love of the man who calls her his beloved wife.

Men must, in turn, protect their wives’ beauty, identity, and delicacy. Besides working to please and bring joy to their wives, men must guard them from harmful looks and unwanted advances, much like a gardener lovingly tends to and protects his plants. Men should not allow their wives to be admired or objectified by others, as this act of protection brings nobility, purifies relationships, and ensures a harmonious and healthy society.

C: Beauty: A Gift Exclusively for the Husband

Loving a woman and her beauty is a natural right of a husband, just as the husband’s authority is a divine gift and a natural right for his wife. From both an ethical and legal perspective, no one has the right to infringe upon the sanctity of another’s relationships. Just as a man’s inappropriate gaze at a woman is forbidden, a woman’s inappropriate gaze at a man is equally wrong.

A woman’s beauty is a divine gift from her to the man she loves, and similarly, a man’s authority is a divine gift to his wife. These two characteristics foster love and closeness in marital life. Therefore, others have no right to ignore the natural rights of the husband and intrude upon his sacred domain, under the pretext of freedom or the expression of beauty. If someone were to covet or tamper with another’s property, it would be condemned and penalized by law. However, when it comes to a woman’s beauty, society often treats it as expendable, and men freely exploit and discard it.

This is why Islam regards looking at a non-mahram with lust as a form of “adultery of the eyes” and considers it one of the “poisoned arrows of Satan,” with serious consequences for those who engage in it, as it represents a breach of another’s privacy and the violation of rights.

D: Women’s Self-Presentation: The Disillusionment of Men

Excessive and inappropriate showcasing of feminine beauty leads to its depreciation and loss of charm over time. Just as continuous exposure to sunlight dries and wilts the skin, continuous and unrestrained display of a woman’s beauty leads to her emotional and physical desensitization. Modesty serves as a protective veil that preserves the woman’s beauty, making it ever more captivating, and preventing society from descending into disillusionment and dissatisfaction.

Constant exposure leads to disinterest and eventually a devaluation of the feminine allure. Men who are constantly surrounded by exposed or immodestly dressed women begin to lose their attraction to the very idea of feminine beauty. Over time, the beauty of their wives becomes mundane, repetitive, and uninspiring, causing a loss of freshness and vitality in their relationships and lives.

In societies that embrace such freedoms, men often face greater psychological turmoil, frustration, and even higher rates of suicide, as evidenced by the increasing suicide rates in affluent, so-called free Western societies.

Women in these societies, under the guise of “freedom” and “the natural expression of beauty,” are often reduced to mere objects for male pleasure, their dignity eroded. They no longer experience genuine affection or real love from men, as they are forced into a cycle of objectification. These women often end their lives feeling empty, unfulfilled, and abandoned, while men frequently exploit them only to discard them afterward, a tragic and shameful reality in many modern cultures.

The Goddess of Love: A Symbol of Honour and True Fulfillment

The reality of women in these so-called “liberated” societies stands in stark contrast to the ideal portrayed in societies that encourage modesty. In societies that value modesty, the woman is a goddess of love, cherished and respected. She thrives in mutual respect and love, and both men and women progress together, nurturing a relationship built on mutual understanding, spiritual fulfillment, and growth.

Islam, for instance, commands that a woman’s beauty be preserved for her husband, and similarly, it restricts men from indulgence in unchecked desires, ensuring the well-being and dignity of both individuals and society. By limiting exposure to beauty, especially in intimate settings, both husband and wife are allowed to cherish each other more deeply, maintaining desire and affection through modesty and restraint.

The beauty of women should be concealed in a way that preserves her dignity, and the natural structure of creation suggests that certain parts of the body remain covered for the sake of modesty. This covering is not merely physical but also protects a woman’s emotional and psychological well-being, allowing her to remain attractive to her partner for life.

In societies that endorse modesty, the foundation of family life remains strong, leading to healthier relationships and a more secure environment for children. Conversely, in communities where there is a lack of modesty and restraint, families are more likely to crumble, leading to broken marriages, emotional distress, and a fractured society.

Critique of the Fifth Argument: A Comparative Review

The claim that “modesty creates more psychological problems than the shortcomings found in free societies” is an unsubstantiated assertion without evidence. It is suggested that modesty forces men into a state of ignorance and curiosity, which might provoke negative emotional responses. However, this argument neglects the fact that modesty, rather than fostering ignorance, serves to protect and preserve both parties from unnecessary emotional distress and moral decay.

The true issue lies in the inability of individuals to control their desires and actions, not in the modesty itself. The suggestion that modesty leads to curiosity and negative emotions in men ignores the role of self-discipline and respect within a marriage. Instead of decrying modesty, efforts should focus on addressing the underlying issues of emotional immaturity and selfish desires.

In summary, modesty serves as a protective shield for both women and men, maintaining the sanctity of relationships and preventing the psychological and moral decline seen in societies where such protection is disregarded.

The topic of human beings, especially women—who represent the grace and beauty of humanity—has been the subject of numerous and complex viewpoints, many of which are rooted in selfishness and the exploitation of women. In this context, groups seeking to exploit women have utilized the malevolent triangle of wealth, power, and deception, leading to a variety of divergent opinions.

In the past, women were trapped through these means. These exploitative methods were ethnocentric and individualistic at that time, whereas today they have taken on political, economic, and cultural dimensions, with various slogans and organizations using them to entrap women in modern and novel forms of exploitation. As a result, many vulnerable and weak women, in ordinary circumstances, are unable to regain their dignity and escape these pervasive evils.

Much of these deviations are supported by the demonic forces of tyrants and the resources of opportunistic political figures. Although force is not always visible in many instances, insidious motives are at play, often worse than the tyranny and despotism of the past. Therefore, when addressing issues related to women, particularly those concerning scientific matters, one must not approach them with slogans or speeches, nor adopt political strategies, but rather, a rational and humane perspective should be maintained to avoid evoking painful and outdated notions and preventing similar scenarios from occurring.

Sex and Clothing: A Different Perspective

Opponents of modest clothing argue that since women are free and beautiful, they have the right to showcase their beauty and should not be deprived of this right, as this contradicts the fundamental principle of human freedom. It is reason and law, not clothing, that should safeguard the boundaries of society. Clothing, they argue, not only brings about problems but also creates numerous temptations leading to corruption and immoral behavior, thus denying women their freedom.

In response, it was argued that society’s problems should not be solely attributed to the presence or absence of clothing. Many social ills and moral decay are rooted in traditional societies, exacerbated by ignorance, poverty, and a lack of education. Therefore, clothing itself does not cause mental disorders or corrupt behavior in men and women. Rather, it is emotional, psychological, and material deficiencies, compounded by ignorance, weak will, and a lack of faith, that are to blame. Clothing alone cannot prevent such issues from manifesting.

If moral corruption and wicked inclinations exist in societies that value modest clothing, these problems are not a result of the clothing itself. Just as in the advanced societies of the West, where the corruption of women is not caused by their exposure, but rather by the cultural, social, and economic conditions of those societies. Although it is true that exposure exacerbates many problems in these societies, this should not be equated with the idea that exposure leads to societal progress, nor should it be assumed that societies with modest clothing are immune to such issues.

Indeed, there are numerous positive aspects to women’s lives in free societies, but these benefits have nothing to do with nudity or sexual freedom. Similarly, the stagnation observed in modest societies is not caused by the clothing itself. Modesty in dress merely plays a specific role in safeguarding the dignity of women. Thus, when addressing societal issues, one must consider a broader range of factors than just clothing in order to fully achieve individual and social dignity. Without these underlying conditions, one cannot expect that clothing alone will resolve societal problems.

Therefore, it is clear that the positive or negative aspects of different societies should not be attributed solely to one factor. Clothing is just one of many elements that contribute to the formation of society’s ethos and progression. A lack of material, emotional, or intellectual fulfillment will undoubtedly lead to moral corruption, but it would be wrong to blame clothing for societal ills or to assume that exposing women will somehow resolve issues in less-developed countries, as we see that exposure itself breeds moral decay.

The Importance of Modesty in Islam and Clothing

In the Islamic context, the issue of women’s modesty has always been a subject of discussion. In early Islamic society, women were already using some form of head covering or shawl, but their clothing was often not fully modest. The arrival of Islam brought with it a more comprehensive approach to modesty, correcting previous deviations. Therefore, Islam did not introduce the concept of covering but rather emphasized a proper and meaningful covering that would ensure the dignity and respect of women in society.

It is important to note that Islamic law does not view modest clothing as an inherently oppressive or restrictive concept. On the contrary, modesty in dress, as prescribed by Islam, is meant to protect the individual’s dignity and promote social harmony. The covering, or modesty, prescribed by Islam is not a new or foreign concept, but rather a response to the societal misinterpretations of modesty that were prevalent in pre-Islamic Arabian culture.

Islamic law regarding women’s clothing is not so much concerned with the specific garments or types of coverings such as the headscarf or shawl but with the concept of ‘Aafā’, which refers to the dignity, virtue, and moral purity that the clothing should represent. Thus, the specific form of clothing is not as important as the underlying intention and purpose of modesty.

While some might argue that the exposure of women is liberating or empowering, Islam views this exposure not as empowerment, but rather as a tool that is often exploited to undermine the dignity of women, reducing them to mere objects of sexual desire. This, in turn, creates a cycle of exploitation that damages not only women but the broader social fabric.

Thus, the teachings of Islam on modesty are not only practical but also moral, aiming to preserve the sanctity of human dignity in both the private and public spheres. The proper balance between modesty, empowerment, and freedom lies in the ability of the individual and society to understand and act according to these principles.

Conclusion

In summary, the notion that clothing, in itself, can resolve or exacerbate societal issues is overly simplistic. Neither clothing alone nor the lack thereof can address the complex social, cultural, and economic factors that contribute to societal health or decay. Islamic teachings on modesty provide a balanced perspective on the issue, emphasizing not only the importance of clothing but also the ethical, emotional, and cultural frameworks that should accompany it.

While it is clear that exposing women is not the solution to societal problems, it is equally important to understand that clothing alone cannot resolve societal issues. Rather, a holistic approach, addressing cultural, economic, and educational factors, is necessary to promote true empowerment and progress.

The verse “وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا” (Qur’an, 24:31) addresses the issue of modesty and what women are allowed to reveal publicly. This part of the verse is translated as: “Women should not display their beauty and adornments except what is naturally apparent, such as the face and hands.”

In the second exception, another portion of the same verse adds:

“وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا لِبُعُولَتِهِنَّ…” (Qur’an, 24:31) which means, “Women should not display their adornment except to their husbands…”

These two clauses represent exceptions, yet they introduce three main categories of individuals for whom a woman is not required to cover herself:

1. Non-mahrams: Women are required to cover their body except for the face and hands, which are naturally revealed.
2. Mahram family members: Women are allowed to show more of their body to their mahram relatives (excluding the ‘awra areas).
3. Husbands: The husband has the privilege of seeing the woman’s entire body.

These exceptions clarify the boundaries of modesty, specifying who may or may not see a woman’s body. Of course, the details and specifics of these categories are clarified through further Hadiths and Islamic jurisprudence.

The first exception in the verse defines the boundary of modesty for women in relation to non-mahram men, establishing that only the face and hands can be visible, while the second exception identifies the specific family members (mahrams) to whom a woman can reveal more of her body, excluding the private areas. In the case of a woman’s husband, the rule is more permissive, allowing the woman to reveal her entire body.

Regarding the face and hands, there is no obligation to cover them as these areas naturally expose themselves and cannot be hidden easily. Additionally, the face, along with the hands, is seen as a part of the woman’s identity, helping others to recognize her.

Adornment in Islamic law:
Adornment is broadly interpreted in Islamic jurisprudence to include anything that could attract attention or be considered attractive, from clothing and makeup to facial features and body parts that are usually visible. According to the Qur’an and Islamic teachings, women are encouraged to cover these areas unless the exposure is natural or unintentional. This emphasis on modesty is meant to preserve the dignity of women, ensuring that they are not objectified.

As for the debate over the niqab (face covering), there is an Islamic viewpoint against its compulsory use. One Hadith reported by Munee’ah, a woman who approached the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) while wearing a niqab, highlights the Prophet’s objection to it. He told her: “Unveil your face; uncovering the face is the way of Islam, and the niqab is a sign of corruption.”

In the Hajj context, women are specifically instructed not to wear the niqab, as the act of unveiling during Hajj and prayer (Salah) is seen as spiritually significant.

Clarification of the Niqab:
The niqab, often mistaken for the general concept of modest clothing, specifically refers to a garment that covers the face while leaving the eyes exposed. The distinction between the niqab and other forms of face coverings, like a full-face veil or chador, lies in the purpose and cultural context. The niqab’s potential for creating social or spiritual harm is considered a form of self-display, contrary to the idea of modesty prescribed by Islamic law.

Conclusion:
The overall theme surrounding the issue of modesty in the Qur’an is one of balance: women are encouraged to cover themselves to maintain dignity and avoid attracting undue attention, but their face and hands, as necessary elements of personal identity and social interaction, are exempt from these strictures. The discussion on the niqab also illustrates a broader concern with women being recognized as individuals, not obscured or reduced to mere objects of desire, which in turn serves as a test for men’s integrity and respect toward women.

This nuanced perspective ensures that Islamic teachings on modesty can be applied in a manner that aligns with the ethical treatment of both women and men, avoiding extremes and encouraging natural, respectful interactions.

Response to the Second Question:

As for the second question, it should be noted that the mere discussion and reconstruction of ethical matters, as well as the promotion of religious culture and values, will never cause harm. Rather, these issues should be pursued in a healthy and accurate manner so that the necessary religious and scientific knowledge can be made available to the members of society.

By concealing these matters and preventing the community from accessing the religious truths, no positive result will be achieved. On the contrary, the health of both the community and individuals will be placed in serious jeopardy.

Therefore, the claim that discussing such matters causes greater deviation and provides an excuse for corrupted individuals is not correct, especially as such individuals are not in search of religious discussions or the application of religious rulings. If the necessary social and ethical groundwork is established, these discussions will only serve to raise awareness and help individuals avoid extremism in social interactions, while also denying excuses to corrupted individuals and critics.

Visitation of a Non-Mahram Man by a Woman:

Narrated by al-Haddad ibn Miskin: “Saeedah and Minah, the sisters of Muhammad ibn Abi ‘Amir, the vendor of the Sabri tribe, narrated: ‘We visited Abu Abdullah (Imam Sadiq) and asked: Can a woman visit her brother? He replied: Yes. We asked: Can she shake hands with him? He answered: Yes, but only through a garment. One of the women said: My sister visits her brothers. Imam (a.s.) said: When you visit your brothers, do not wear brightly coloured garments.'”

From this hadith, it is clear that the exchange, interaction, and visits between men and women, especially from the side of the woman, are permissible even in the absence of a Mahram relationship. Imam (a.s.) does not reject the visitation of a Muslim woman to a Muslim man; rather, he approves of it. More importantly, Imam (a.s.) does not forbid a woman from shaking hands with a Muslim man, provided a barrier such as clothing exists.

In this authentic narration, the Imam (a.s.) emphasises that the covering of the body with clothing is sufficient to maintain modesty. There is no need for an additional covering such as a separate outer garment, provided the clothing itself is not provocative or excessively colourful.

The Oath of Allegiance by Women to the Prophet (PBUH):

Mufaddal ibn Umar narrated: “I asked Abu Abdullah (Imam Sadiq): How did the Prophet (PBUH) take the oath of allegiance from women? He replied: He ordered a vessel, which he used to perform ablution, to be brought, and then he placed his right hand into it. Whenever he took an oath from each woman, he instructed her to dip her hand into the water, as the Prophet (PBUH) did.”

This hadith clearly shows that the issue at hand is not direct physical contact, but the symbolic gesture of the oath. Imam (a.s.) confirms that as long as a barrier, such as a garment, exists between the hands of non-mahram men and women, shaking hands is permissible. Specifically, the Prophet (PBUH) avoided physical touch with women during the pledge of allegiance.

Imam Ali’s (a.s.) Advice on Women’s Beauty:

Ali ibn Suwayd narrated: “I said to Abu al-Hasan (Imam Musa al-Kadhim): I am affected by looking at beautiful women, and sometimes I admire their appearance. He (Imam) replied: ‘O Ali, there is no harm if Allah knows the sincerity of your intention, but beware of adultery, for it erases blessings and destroys religion.'”

This narration offers profound wisdom. Imam (a.s.) acknowledges that the man’s admiration of women’s beauty is not inherently sinful, as long as his intentions remain sincere. However, he warns against the dangers of adultery and the harm it brings to both material and spiritual aspects of life. The implication is that interactions between men and women can be natural and acceptable as long as they are conducted with sincerity, caution, and respect for boundaries.

Conclusion on the Topic of Modesty and Public Conduct:

As demonstrated in these narrations, covering is a means to ensure the safe and appropriate participation of women in society, unlike the exposure of one’s beauty or excessive sexualisation, which not only hinders free participation but also invites attention from individuals with inappropriate desires in the workplace and society.

Furthermore, the Qur’an, in the continuation of verse 31 of Surah An-Nur, advises women not to display their hidden adornments. The concept of ‘hiding adornment’ includes not drawing attention to jewellery, such as ankle bracelets (khalkhal) that might create sounds when walking, attracting undue attention from men.

Therefore, revealing ornaments or any act that draws undue attention to oneself is forbidden, as it may lead to the provocation of inappropriate desires. While the use of jewellery like rings and bracelets is permissible as long as it is not excessive or provocative, this principle extends to all behaviours that may induce such reactions in society.

Lastly, the Qur’an’s advice to both men and women is to seek repentance, as all humans, regardless of their gender, are susceptible to sin. Thus, repentance remains a fundamental aspect of spiritual growth and societal well-being.

1. Zurarah narrates: “I asked Abu Ja’far (as) about the saying of Allah, the Exalted: ‘Or those who follow but have no desire for women,’ and so on. He said: ‘The fool is one who does not engage with women.'”
   Zurarah says: I asked Imam Baqir (as) about the statement of Allah: “Servant boys who have no interest in women.” He replied: “The intended meaning is a foolish servant who has no sexual desire for women.”
2. Abdulrahman ibn Abi Abdullah narrates: “I asked him (the Imam) about the phrase ‘those who have no desire for women’ in the verse; he said: ‘The fool is the one who does not engage with women.'”
   Abdulrahman ibn Abi Abdullah says: I asked the Imam (as) about the phrase “men who are free from the need for women” in the verse. He replied: “The intended meaning is a foolish servant who has no sexual desire for women.”

Who is a “Fool”?

An important point in these narrations is the term “fool.” According to these narrations, anyone who does not have sexual desires toward women is considered foolish, mentally deficient, and disconnected from normal human reasoning. This is because, as stated by the Imam (as), and by logical implication, “those free from desire” refers to a person who lacks sexual attraction toward women, and this is equated with foolishness.

Therefore, by this reasoning, we can conclude that someone who lacks sexual desire for women is mentally deficient. This indicates that human sexual desire has a direct relationship with intellect and reasoning. The absence of such desires is seen as a sign of lack of intelligence. On the other hand, the abundance and strength of such desires might indicate higher intelligence.

However, the power of these desires is of two types:

1. Excessive desires, which are neither an advantage nor a sign of intellect. Furthermore, excessive lust may reflect weakness or a lack of personal character.
2. Healthy emotional and sexual capabilities and the power of a man to fulfill his desires with his wife in a lawful manner. This is considered an advantage and can correlate with a person’s intellect. For instance, the Prophet (PBUH) had the strength of forty men. Based on this, Islamic law grants him a wider scope in relation to others, indicating the relationship between intellect and sexual desire.

The Direct Relationship Between Intellect and Sexual Power

Now, the question arises: Is this close connection between intellect and sexual desire only present when sexual desire is active, or does it exist even when there is potential or ability for such desires? And does this relationship persist even in cases where there are temporary obstacles, such as sadness or spiritual conditions that cause a stagnation of sexual desires? Can these temporary barriers—like grief or spiritual states—be indicative of intellectual deficiency, or is the correlation between intellect and sexual desire only valid when there are normal, natural conditions?

In response to these questions, it can be said that Imam Sadiq’s (as) interpretation of “those who have no desire” and the lack of sexual desire due to natural obstacles applies to cases where there is an absence of a desire or where natural obstacles exist. However, this does not apply to temporary emotional or spiritual states that cause temporary suppression of desires. For example, if someone, due to an initial closeness to divine truths or spiritual states, becomes less interested in sexual matters, they would not be considered in the category of “those who have no desire.”

Therefore, the absence of such desires due to natural causes or external obstacles is different from a complete disinterest in sexual matters, especially in cases of emotional grief, hardship, or spiritual states.

Conclusion on Sexual Desire and Intellect

It is clear from the above discussion that the presence of sexual desires in a healthy, capable, and rational individual is not only natural but also indicative of love, affection, and emotional health. Such desires do not conflict with purity of the soul, piety, or the avoidance of sin; rather, they reflect a person’s sense of duty toward women and children, showing their emotional and social engagement.

Islam’s Approach to Women’s Freedom

From the previous discussions, it is clear that while Islam places significant emphasis on the chastity and protection of women to avoid harm, this does not imply unnecessary restrictions or limitations on women’s freedom. There are exceptions, as seen in several narrations. For example, Imam Sadiq (as) said:

“It is permissible to look at the hair and bodies of the insane or women of certain tribes or regions, as they do not care about covering their hair. Likewise, it is permissible to look at their hair and body without the intention of sexual pleasure.”

Some scholars extend this ruling to the poor or disadvantaged, suggesting that they might not have the same expectations regarding covering their bodies. Although issuing a definitive legal ruling on this matter is complex, it is evident from this narration that religious laws are not absolute and that the preservation of modesty depends on context.

This brings us back to verse 31 of Surah An-Nur, which states:

“Or the child who has not yet understood the private parts of women…”
This shows that the necessity of covering the body is not absolute for boys who are not sexually mature, whether or not they are aware of the concept of modesty.

The Interrelationship Between Islamic Modesty and Women’s Rights

From the discussion above, it becomes apparent that Islam does not demand that women stay confined to their homes or be prohibited from social, political, religious, or economic activities. Women can, and should, take on their important roles in society while maintaining modesty through simple guidelines.

Thus, covering the body in a way that limits attraction or unnecessary attention from non-mahrams (those who are not closely related) is a crucial social and spiritual requirement. This can be done without imposing unnecessary restrictions on women, acknowledging their societal roles and individual freedoms.

In conclusion, Islamic teachings on women’s modesty, whether in their interactions with men or the type of covering they should use, are based on a balance between freedom and protection. The choice of how women express their modesty is culturally flexible, provided it aligns with the broader principles of maintaining dignity and respect for one’s personal and societal responsibilities.

The Body and Clothing of a Woman: Volume

In this context, there remains a very important and practical discussion that requires thorough examination. Although this issue has been touched upon indirectly and in passing in earlier sections, it requires a complete legal explanation, and that is the matter of covering the volume of a woman’s body.

After it has been established that the entire body of a woman requires coverage and that her skin, shape, and surface must be concealed from non-mahram (those who are not close relatives), and that this is a distinguishing feature between women and men, two further questions arise: First, should the volume and contours of a woman’s body also be covered, or is covering just the skin and the visual surface of the body sufficient? Secondly, if a woman’s clothing is thin, transparent, and form-fitting, does that suffice, or must her clothing be such that her figure is not discernible at all?

This is where it becomes necessary to examine the opinions of jurists, the religious arguments, and to critically assess them. We will first present the fatwas (legal opinions) of some leading jurists and then move on to discuss the evidences of the issue, before ultimately outlining the legal conclusions drawn from these arguments.

The View of the Late Shaykh al-Muhaqqiq

The late Shaykh al-Muhaqqiq in his Sharā’i’ states:

“It is permissible for a man to pray in a single garment, but a woman may not pray unless she wears both a dress and a headscarf, covering her entire body except for the face and hands.”

As can be seen, Shaykh al-Muhaqqiq’s statement focuses solely on the necessity of covering the entire body, and from the generality of his words, it can be inferred that a woman’s clothing should not be thin or transparent.

What emerges from the statement of the late Shaykh al-Muhaqqiq is the requirement for women to wear two garments during prayer. While this view is also found in some hadiths — as mentioned in Wasā’il al-Shī’a —

“A woman prays in a dress and a headscarf if the dress is thick” — it must be noted that the main criterion is the adequacy of the covering, and the number of garments is not a determining factor. If a single garment provides adequate coverage, it suffices. As one hadith reads:

“If the dress is thick,”

which indicates that if a single garment is thick enough, it is permissible. However, if there are multiple garments that are not thick, it is clear that this does not meet the intended religious requirement, as indicated in another hadith in the same chapter:

“It is not permissible for a Muslim woman to wear a headscarf or a dress that does not conceal anything.”

This demonstrates that no clothing, however many garments there are, will suffice if it does not meet the requirement of providing proper coverage. Therefore, the view of the late Shaykh al-Muhaqqiq, which states that a woman must wear two garments for prayer, should not be interpreted to mean that it is impermissible for her to pray in one garment. The key criterion is ensuring that the covering is adequate, as the hadiths indicate.

The View of Allama al-‘Amili (al-Jawāhir)

In this regard, the late Allama al-‘Amili in his Jawāhir states:

“It is necessary to cover the ‘awra (private parts) specifically, without requiring the number or type of garment. The covering must be adequate to conceal the ‘awra without the need for multiple garments.”

He further clarifies in his discussion:

“It is understood from the texts and fatwas that the only requirement is the covering of the private parts, without any additional conditions regarding the number of garments or other specifications. The essence is that the covering must be complete, regardless of whether the garment is one or more.”

Therefore, the statement of the late Shaykh al-Muhaqqiq, which insists on wearing two garments during prayer, should not be seen as prohibiting prayer in a single garment. As long as the garment ensures adequate coverage, it is sufficient, regardless of whether it is one or more garments.

The View of Sayyid al-Sīstānī

Sayyid al-Sīstānī, in his book ‘Urwat al-Wuthqā on the issue of covering, states:

“The obligatory covering is the concealment of the skin, and it is recommended to also cover the body’s shape visible through thin clothing. However, the volume or contour of the body does not necessarily need to be covered.”

Yet, in his rulings regarding takhallī (relieving oneself), he states:

“It is necessary to cover the skin’s colour, not the body’s volume. Although it is recommended to cover the volume as well, the concealment of the body’s shape is required when the garment is thin, as this does not meet the standard of proper coverage.”

Contradictions and Considerations

In reviewing the views of Sayyid al-Sīstānī, a few important points need to be considered:

1. Consistency of the Opinions: In both of his statements, Sayyid al-Sīstānī maintains consistency in his views on covering the skin, the body’s shape, and the surface. However, his opinions on volume and shape vary between his rulings on covering and his ruling on takhallī. In his ruling on covering, he states, “It is recommended to cover the body’s shape, and the clothing should not be thin and form-fitting,” but in his ruling on takhallī, he states, “It is not obligatory to cover the volume, but it is recommended to cover the shape.”
2. Lack of Absolute Clarity: While his fatwa suggests that it is obligatory to cover the skin’s surface, he does not make a decisive ruling on the necessity of covering the volume of the body. His statements present a level of hesitation, marking it as a recommended action but not an absolute obligation.
3. Differences in Juridical Contexts: Even though Sayyid al-Sīstānī’s discussion pertains to a man’s ‘awra, it is essential to recognize that the ruling is essentially the same for women, as the issues of covering apply similarly to both genders.

The View of Shaykh al-Narāqī

It is beneficial to include the words of the late Shaykh al-Narāqī, whose position on this matter is well-defined:

“The essential criterion for a valid covering is the concealment of the skin’s colour. If the covering is thin enough to reveal the shape or volume of the body, the coverage is invalid. However, if the garment is thick enough that the body’s contours are not discernible, this does not affect the coverage.”

In this regard, he provides a distinction between seeing the shape through thin clothing (which invalidates the coverage) and seeing only the garment itself, which is acceptable. Thus, it is clear that revealing the shape or volume does not constitute a valid covering, but the form-fitting nature of the clothing, as long as it does not reveal the skin’s colour, is permissible.

Conclusion

From the various views of the jurists, it becomes evident that covering the volume of a woman’s body is not obligatory. The essential requirement is that the surface of the body, including the skin, must be covered, and that the clothing must not be transparent or form-fitting to the extent that it reveals the body’s contours. As demonstrated by the narrations, it is sufficient for the clothing to conceal the skin, and there is no further requirement to hide the volume or shape of the body as long as the coverage is adequate and does not reveal the body’s surface.

The Body and Clothing of Women: A Critical Analysis

From these narrations and the words of the jurists, it is clearly inferred that a woman’s clothing should not be body-revealing, transparent, or such that it makes the hidden parts of the body visible. It suffices that the clothing prevents the skin from being seen; it is not obligatory for a woman to cover the volume of her body or to obscure the contours of her form from the gaze of non-mahrams.

The only noteworthy counterpoint found among the narrations and statements against this view is the Marfu’ah narration of Ahmad ibn Hammad, which should be addressed here.

Issues with the Hadith Saf (The Hadith of the Dress)

• ‘Aḥmad ibn Ḥammād narrates from Abū ‘Abd-Allāh (7), who said: “Do not pray in clothes that are transparent or form-fitting.”

This narration, attributed to Imam Ṣādiq (7), states: “Do not pray in a garment that reveals the body or mimics the shape of the body.”

After quoting this hadith, the late Shaikh al-Ḥurr al-‘Āmilī in Wasā’il al-Shī‘a comments:

“This refers to thin, form-fitting garments” and further adds: “Shaykh al-Ṭūsī, in his Al-Tahdhīb, records it as: *‘Or it can be written with a single ‘waw’, signifying a garment that portrays the body’s shape or contour.’”

However, there are several significant issues in this narration, which can be summarized as follows:

1. Weakness of the Sanad: This narration is marfū‘ah (raised, meaning reported through a chain not directly reaching the Prophet) and thus has a weak chain of transmission. As such, it is unreliable. Furthermore, no similar narration exists for the terms ṣaff or waṣf (either singular or plural).
2. Potential Manuscript Error: In the version found in Wasā’il al-Shī‘a, the phrase waṣf contains an extra waw. The correct version should be ṣaff, which means “smooth” or “polished.” The late scholar himself interprets it as “a smooth, thin garment,” consistent with the notion of a garment that is thin or translucent. The other version, with the extra waw, might imply a garment that shows the body’s shape, but this is not supported by the context of the narration.
3. Ambiguity in Textual Transcription: The statement by Shaykh al-Ḥurr al-‘Āmilī that in Shaykh al-Ṭūsī’s Al-Tahdhīb “it was written ṣaff without the waw,” indicates a discrepancy in manuscript versions. If ṣaff is written without the waw, it cannot be understood to refer to the body’s shape or volume. In contrast, if it is written as waṣf, it could imply a garment that reveals the body’s contours, but this reading conflicts with the interpretation of the ṣaff as a garment that merely covers without revealing. Given these inconsistencies, the most reliable interpretation would be that the narration refers to a “smooth” or “polished” garment that does not reveal the body’s shape.
4. Problematic Interpretations: Even assuming the narration is authentic and unambiguous, it still does not provide conclusive evidence. The word waṣf may refer to a thin garment that only suggests the body’s shape, not its volume. Furthermore, other narrations that address garments being thin (or shaf) support the interpretation that it is the transparency or thinness of the garment that is critical, not the portrayal of body shape or volume.

For instance, in a narration from *‘Alī (7) in the Arba’ūn collection, it is stated: “Wear thick clothes, for those who wear thin clothes have weak faith, and no one can stand before the Lord in a thin garment.”

This narration confirms that the shaf (thin) garment refers to something that reveals the body and weakens a person’s faith, supporting the conclusion that garments should be thick enough to conceal the body fully.

Women’s Responsibility and the Healthy Society

From the above discussions, it is clear that a woman’s religious duty regarding clothing is merely to avoid wearing thin, revealing garments in public that expose her body’s hidden parts. There is no obligation to cover the body’s volume unless it leads to unnecessary attention, provocation, or temptation. Therefore, a woman’s clothing should not be excessively tight or form-fitting in a way that invites attention or temptation, potentially leading to sin.

It is also important to note that many of the societal problems and issues of attraction are due to the moral, spiritual, and social deficiencies of individuals and communities. Some people struggle to align their behavior with divine laws, leading to an increase in problematic behaviors. These issues have led to the rise of extreme interpretations that are wrongly attributed to Islam and Shari‘ah. Therefore, in a healthy, thriving Islamic society where the individuals’ spiritual, ethical, economic, and psychological shortcomings are addressed, it would be easier to live in a harmonious, secure environment free from undue restrictions.

Part Two: Marriage and Matrimony

Chapter 1: The Nature and Necessity of Marriage
Denial of Marriage as a Social Institution

In today’s world, some individuals, particularly those in the so-called “civilized” world, not only question the concept of modesty and the need for covering but also raise numerous objections to the very institution of marriage itself. They claim that nature has wronged women in both their creation and daily lives, often voicing their grievances loudly. In this section, we will address these objections, analyzing and responding to them in several parts.

Scientific Explanation or Political Rhetoric?

In responding to these criticisms, it is essential to keep two fundamental points in mind: First, academic discussions should avoid turning into political rhetoric or emotional speeches. They should be examined rationally, with an understanding of both intellectual and human emotional considerations, to present the facts in their pure, unembellished form.

Second, it is vital to acknowledge that while men and women share many similarities in creation and law, they each possess unique characteristics and responsibilities that cannot be denied. For example, while both men and women share the ability to reproduce and partake in physical pleasures, their experiences differ. Men cannot become pregnant or give birth, just as women cannot impregnate someone or fulfill the active role in reproduction.

Marriage as a Limitation for Women

Critics of traditional marriage claim that while companionship between men and women is a natural and social reality that should not be denied, marriage should not be seen as a limiting factor for women. They argue that women’s freedom is paramount and should be the foundation of all other rights, with other principles interpreted in light of this.

Coexistence and Conjugality Between Men and Women:

The coexistence and union between a man and a woman is a principle that should not be denied. However, this should not result in isolation, seclusion, fear, or anxiety for women, nor should it endanger their fundamental freedom. Such intimacy and companionship should occur naturally, without marriage or legal ties imposing limitations, and, even if marriage and formal union take place, the woman should still be able to enjoy complete freedom just like the man. In a marriage, both partners should live together without causing limitations or disturbances for one another.

Thus, it is possible for intimacy and marriage to occur without the formal institution of marriage. Reason and intellect do not accept any necessity beyond this, as anything beyond it, which cannot be understood by reason, is not worthy of attention by the discerning mind, even if many people support it. This is because many superstitions that have spread among humans are rooted in such uncritical support.

If intimacy and marriage are referred to as “nikah” (marriage), and it is regarded as a universally accepted tradition with no room for denial, then even in this case, it should not result in restrictions or the deprivation of a woman’s freedom. The woman should have the same freedom as the man and be able to engage in relationships, friendships, or emotional connections with other men as she desires, either with her husband’s presence or in his absence. Just as the man is not prohibited by Islamic law from having such relationships.

The restriction of a woman’s freedom due to marriage lacks logical justification and stems from religious customs or tribal and sectarian prejudices. Just as there is no requirement for a man’s monogamy in marriage, there should be no such requirement for women. Just as a man can engage in relationships with other women, whether formally or informally, even while married, the woman should also be able to form relationships with other men in peace and security, and experience both physical and emotional pleasure.

In other words, the marital bond between a man and a woman is a rational and natural tradition, and the essence of the relationship is companionship and intimacy. There is no necessity for this relationship to be formalised as a marriage, and even if it is, it should not negate its essence (companionship) or cause discomfort, fear, or prohibition for the woman.

The principle of natural companionship and intimacy, whether formalised through marriage or not, should not create unwarranted limitations for the woman, nor should it interfere with her freedom. A woman’s freedom is an absolute principle that governs all other principles, and she should have full autonomy in the same way a man does, even when accepting marriage. Thus, just as monogamy is not necessary for the man in marriage, it should not be a condition for the woman.

Response to Objections Regarding Marriage

Defining Marriage
Marriage: Beyond Physical Intimacy

Now, in response to the above, it can be said that the passionate statements made by some are filled with confusion, disorder, and clear incoherence. Every part of these arguments presents significant flaws. To provide a detailed answer would require extensive logical and philosophical reasoning, which can only be briefly touched upon here.

From the statements made, it is clear that some view marriage merely as physical intimacy or companionship between a man and a woman. Although they regard intimacy as a natural tradition, they fail to accept any restrictions on women, seeing a married woman as essentially no different from an unmarried woman.

This misunderstanding stems from a failure to comprehend the true meaning of marriage and the concept of union, leading to the erroneous belief that intimacy alone constitutes marriage. However, marriage is far more than just physical intimacy, and its significance transcends mere companionship. The essence of marriage includes the woman’s emotional attachment to a particular man, and without this attachment, marriage cannot be realised on the woman’s side. While men may differ in certain respects, they also experience this type of emotional attachment.

This fundamental understanding of marriage is shared universally by all cultures, communities, and religious traditions. Hence, every nation and group, regardless of their religious or cultural background, accepts the marriages of others as legitimate and worthy of respect.

Marriage is, at its core, an emotional attachment of the woman to a particular man, and physical intimacy is merely one of the natural consequences of this bond. In Islam, the “proposal” (or initiation) of marriage is carried out by the woman, while the man’s role is to accept this proposal. The proposal signifies the woman’s conscious and voluntary decision to commit to a particular man, and her acceptance is considered an essential part of the marriage contract. Thus, in the institution of marriage, the woman holds a greater degree of autonomy in expressing her will and desires, while the man’s role is simply to accept her proposal.

Marriage: The Call of Humanity’s Awareness

These individuals must either reject the concept of marriage entirely and oppose the natural order, the divine tradition, and the beliefs of all cultures, or they must admit their error and reconsider many of their claims. They should not compare the title of “husband” for a woman to that of a “wife” for a man and should not negate both terms simultaneously. Instead, they should recognise the inherent differences between these two roles.

Therefore, we must examine whether the issue lies in their “conceptualisation” of marriage or their “acceptance” of it, or whether their denial stems from a lack of belief, secular influences, or political motivations. Although this issue is of importance, the fundamental point remains that these individuals, as deniers of an obvious truth, hold an erroneous and flawed position.

They may argue that while marriage is universally accepted, they can still deny its very concept. However, this argument is without merit, as any consensus is not without reason. Even if some universal agreements lack firm foundations, marriage is not one of them. Marriage has deep philosophical, scientific, and psychological roots, and it arises from the conscious awareness of humanity. Therefore, there is no room for doubt or misunderstanding in its true nature. Although societal acceptance strengthens ordinary people’s belief in marriage, this is not its true foundation; rather, it is the result of sound rational reasoning and the natural order inherent in humanity.

At this point, the discussion can continue from various perspectives, providing both rational and narrational arguments for marriage, which will be briefly examined.

Chapter Two: Rational Reasons for the Principle of Marriage

First Reason: The Security and Tranquillity of the Woman

The unity of a woman’s emotional attachment to a particular man—which we identify as the essence of marriage—is an intrinsic characteristic and a clear indicator of her identity. Psychologically, this phenomenon does not manifest in the same way for men.

Through this unity of emotional attachment, the woman regains her sense of security, experiences tranquillity, and obtains her natural source of support. Thus, marriage does not restrict a woman’s freedom; rather, it liberates her mind and soul from attachments to strangers, providing her with peace and freeing her from the confusion and fragmentation of loneliness or promiscuity.

In this context, the husband is a strong refuge for the woman’s security and tranquillity, protecting her from every harm and mental distress, preventing her from corruption and immorality, strengthening her will, and empowering her to endure life’s challenges.

Just as a woman cannot live alone or without a husband and maintain a natural, calm, and healthy life, she equally cannot achieve peace of mind or a natural and wholesome life through multiple men and impure, toxic relationships.

The pure and clear essence of a woman only reveals itself in the presence of one specific man. Without such unity of attachment, a woman loses her identity and her position becomes vulnerable; ultimately, with the loss of her identity and dignity, various psychological and physical consequences ensue.

The tangible manifestation of this bitter and tragic reality can be observed in the lifeless bodies of corrupt and identity-less prostitutes: their polluted and dark souls are so engulfed in confusion and fragmentation that their faces show little sign of purity, sincerity, freshness, or unity. They offer only their dry, soulless shells to lustful men, who exploit them in the most violent and degrading ways.

Understanding this truth about the meaning of marriage, with all its evident clarity and self-evidence, involves a subtlety that renders scientific definition and analysis somewhat challenging.

Great care is required to clarify that the reality of marriage for a woman is realised through a specific unity, which is a distinctive characteristic unique to her. For men, although there is unity and emotional attachment to their spouse, this particular unique unity and personal attachment do not exist in the same way, and no confusion should arise in this regard. Thus, while marriage is a shared reality, its specific attributes differ between women and men, just as—for example—the roles of women and men in reproduction or child-rearing are not identical.

Second Reason: Marriage as the Residence of the Man and Woman

Marriage is not only a refuge for the woman and a means to gain the man’s support—and thereby the woman’s tranquillity—but also brings about the man’s inner peace. When a man senses that a kind wife, who has turned her heart away from strangers and devoted it solely to him, is by his side, he loves her and regards her as the source of peace for his heart and soul.

In other words, through marriage, a woman and man provide each other with tranquillity and become a balm for each other’s wounds and fatigue. Such an institution brings about the pinnacle of perfection and happiness for the spouses and their children, as well as the stability of the family. By contrast, if a woman is emotionally attached to multiple men, or if there is intimacy between a man and woman without marriage, these effects of mutual understanding and solidarity will never arise.

The Holy Qur’an, in consideration of this truth, introduces women and men as garments for one another and as sources of mutual tranquillity, stating:

“They are clothing for you and you are clothing for them…” [Qur’an 2:187]

Women are clothing and covering for you (men), and you are clothing for them.

Man and Woman as Garments for Each Other

In the Qur’an, the term ‘clothing’ appears repeatedly in various contexts, symbolising covering, dependence, necessity, and protection between man and woman.

Likewise, night is described as clothing [Qur’an 25:47], and piety is portrayed as the best garment for a person [Qur’an 7:26].

The clothing referred to in the verse “They are clothing for you and you are clothing for them” denotes the dependence, necessity, mutual protection, and covering that man and woman provide one another. When God begins the verse with:

“Permitted to you, on the night of fasting, is sexual intercourse with your wives…” [Qur’an 2:187]

He subsequently introduces this foundational principle—symbolising the identity of marriage and the relationship between man and woman—as clothing:

“They are clothing for you and you are clothing for them.” [Qur’an 2:187]

This verse conveys, in a comprehensive and serious manner, the mutual dependence, necessity, and protection that spouses have for each other.

The scope of this divine statement (the phrase “They are…”) is expansive, encompassing the entirety of the identity, attributes, actions, motives, goals, and purpose of life of both women and men. It also implies a subtle interweaving where separation, alienation, division, and fragmentation are impossible. Indeed, this concept in the Qur’an possesses a highly refined scientific and philosophical elegance, and is one of the best examples where the Qur’an refers equally to both men and women as garments—placing the woman first: “They are clothing for you…” followed by “and you are clothing for them.”

A subtlety present in this blessed verse—relevant to our understanding—is that God mentions the woman first with a third-person feminine pronoun (“they”), in a concealed form, whereas the man is second and addressed directly and openly. This precedence highlights the importance of the woman in realising this concept and portrays the woman as embodying chastity and sanctity in the Qur’an. Conversely, although the man is also clothed with the garment, his overt presence (“for you”) clarifies his role in life.

From this verse, it becomes clear how men and women complement each other: the woman is a domestic-social being, and the man is a social-domestic being. As will be discussed in subsequent sections, this relationship between men and women relative to family and society is presented according to an overarching, sound social framework.

Tranquillity and Peace in the Divine Word

Another term the Qur’an uses regarding marriage is the garment of tranquillity—the calm and peace a man experiences in the company of his wife. Unlike the metaphor of clothing, this notion does not imply opposition or addition but is uniquely ascribed to the woman, although both spouses possess it in some form.

Before citing the relevant verses, it is necessary to outline the Qur’anic viewpoint on the concept of tranquillity generally. The term “tranquillity” is applied in various contexts, some of which are briefly mentioned here:

• “And He made the night for you to rest therein…” [Qur’an 78:10]
• “Indeed, your prayer is tranquillity for them…” [Qur’an 26:218]
• “And Allah has made for you from your homes a place of rest…” [Qur’an 16:80]
• “And made for you of the skins of the animals tents…” (thus these skins also provide rest and shelter)
• “Indeed, the sign of a truthful ruler is when the Ark comes to you containing tranquillity from your Lord…” [Qur’an 28:16]
• “He it is Who sent down tranquillity into the hearts of the believers…” [Qur’an 48:4]
• “Good dwellings in the Gardens of Eden…” [Qur’an 25:75]

This concept applies to animals as well, as in the verse where a ant advises its fellow ants:

“O ants, enter your dwellings…” [Qur’an 27:18]

Here, the dwelling is a place of safety and tranquillity even for ants.

Thus, when the Qur’an speaks of man and woman, it states that the woman is the source of tranquillity for her husband. Night, prayer, supplication, home, friendship, and inner security all embody rest and peace. Spiritual tranquillity and divine grace, paradise, eternal peace, and the pure dwelling free from harm are all sanctuaries for the human soul. Even an insect such as an ant recognises tranquillity and views the home as a refuge from hardship. Ultimately, the woman is the embodiment of all peace, rest, calm, and refuge—a safe harbour, a lifeboat, a stronghold, and a fortress that protects the man from all deficiencies and disorders.

The question then arises: Why does the Qur’an attribute clothing and tranquillity—and other sources of peace such as prayer, supplication, and night—to both men and women, but in discussing mutual peace, explicitly describe the woman as the cause of the man’s tranquillity, even though both provide peace to one another?

To begin addressing this, we turn to the Qur’an itself, which recognises the woman as the equal and counterpart of the man; a being about whom it speaks frequently and with reverence, never omitting mention of the woman—the mother of creation. Despite the Qur’an’s veiling of women in modesty, it openly and explicitly refers to their names and attributes.

Different Aspects of Woman in the Qur’an

The Qur’an mentions women under various titles and aspects—far too numerous to list here. For instance, the term “nisa” (women) alone appears 38 times, in phrases such as “rules pertaining to women” [Qur’an 4], “wives of the Prophet” [Qur’an 33:6], *“ and “witnesses among women” [Qur’an 2:282].

In addition to these terms, the Qur’an refers to the woman as soulmate, companion, helper, and covering—a unique combination that no other creature possesses.

The woman’s role in establishing peace and tranquillity in the family and society is irreplaceable. The creation of the woman as a garment and a source of peace for the man is thus a significant element of the divine social design, indispensable for the stability of human life.

Although the fundamental concept of “clothing” is based on the relationship between man and woman, and these two subjects actualise it, the value of man and woman is also realised through this very concept, and their perfection is connected to the identity of this clothing. As previously mentioned, the precedence and absence of the woman, alongside the delay and presence of the man in the aforementioned verse, highlight the oppositional status of these two adjectives.

Woman and Tranquillity: Why?

Now, we shall address the first question raised earlier, which is presented in two aspects. The question was posed: what is the difference between the concepts of tranquillity and clothing, given that both are truly in the form of mutual adjectives? How can it be proven that tranquillity and calmness given to the man are among the characteristics of the woman’s creation, while the man does not possess such a description? And why is tranquillity an attribute solely of the woman, even though both man and woman find their own specific tranquillity alongside each other?

The first answer: external discomforts outside the home

In response, it must be said: although both man and woman provide tranquillity to each other, the man, by nature, more frequently leaves the home and strives and labours for the functioning of his own life and society, inevitably encountering greater challenges and hardships outside the home. Therefore, the man’s tranquillity is experienced upon returning home, and this tranquillity and calmness within the home depend on the presence of the woman.

Hence, the woman brings tranquillity to the man within the home, whereas the woman generally spends more time at home and does not face continuous and serious external conflicts. Accordingly, the creation of tranquillity for the man is, by nature, the role of the woman, and such a position does not generally, universally, or permanently exist for the man.

This explanation clarifies why the concept of clothing encompasses both woman and man, whereas the concept of tranquillity primarily involves the woman.

Yesterday’s Woman and Today’s Woman

At this point, an objection may arise: this explanation was correct in the past but is less applicable today, as now both men and women pursue work and effort outside the home. Furthermore, many women have more difficult positions because working women must also undertake household tasks, and housewives must perform many external tasks that the man is unable to accomplish.

In response to this objection, it must be stated that, as will be discussed further, the fundamental social structure in a healthy and advanced society should be such that the woman is regarded as a domestic-social being, and the man as a social-domestic being. Although men and women must each have their essential roles at home and in society and pursue their respective necessary tasks, it is not appropriate for women to endure as much labour, hardship, and social disorder as men. If, in our society, some women experience this, in the future, serious consequences and harm should be expected. This is because women have distinctive differences from men, which must be acknowledged. The primary role of women is in the home, and in social work, their role is participatory. That is, men should exert all efforts in society to provide tranquillity for their wives and children, while women should prepare the home for them, with their help.

Imitating Men

Indeed, women should not work in society like men or keep pace with them full-time in exhausting and strenuous tasks, because in such a case, our women would suffer from excessive fatigue, anxiety, distress, decline, premature ageing, and early mortality. Ultimately, they would lose their characteristic tranquillity — a unique subtlety and attribute exclusive to their gender — and be left abandoned and rejected by everyone. They would become ineffective and outdated remedies for society. Unfortunately, this disorder is noticeably evident in our society today.

Truly, what necessity is there for women to proceed outside the natural, rational, and healthy emotional path? How beautiful it is that both men and women maintain their appropriate and logical spheres. When modern Islamic jurisprudence states that imitating women to men and men to women is forbidden, it means this prohibition is not limited to clothing or dress but applies in all aspects of life.

How is it that when a woman wears her husband’s shoes or clothes, it is said to be forbidden as “women imitating men,” causing an outcry, but if a woman engages in difficult social tasks suitable for men’s abilities, it is not considered imitation or forbidden, and no such commotion arises?

Indeed, one must not, under the guise of terms such as “women’s freedom,” ruin the lives of women, the historically oppressed. Women — the dear mother, the noble sister, and the valuable wife — should not be forced into unemployment by contaminated and toxic words, nor should this goddess of love, the epitome of affection, the embodiment of heavenly beauty, the dance of light, the exercise of love, the truth of kindness, and the beautiful face of goodness be dragged onto the stage of major historical crimes.

Today’s Woman and Two New Problems

Today, aside from fundamental problems in our society, at least two significant and temporary problems face women: first, the ugly, secular, and superficial portrayals of women that cause corruption, deviation, and misconduct among some women; and second, the severe poverty and destitution that afflicts many families, causing turmoil and instability in life and leading to feminine disorders.

Although life management problems are abundant, and exhausting systems have caused the position of home, family, and especially women to enter crises — to the extent that ethical and economic issues have gripped many social classes in various parts of the world — this should not justify further injustice and oppression against women.

A woman who accepts a social job should initially work part-time, and her husband must assume part of the household chores. Housewives should not undertake all the housework or all the shopping outside the home, claiming the heavy social activity of men. Rather, all matters should be distributed and performed based on justice, cooperation, and mutual support. Naturally, men’s work outside the home will be greater, and women’s work inside the home, as it is their duty to provide tranquillity and calm to the man within the home. With this method, men and women together can fully facilitate a healthy society.

From the foregoing, it can be concluded that the health of society depends on a correct method and proper social arrangement, which hinges on the proportionate distribution of work and responsibilities. Therefore, if women undertake excessive or unsuitable social work for any reason, this will not only disrupt the workforce but also cause psychological disorders. If men do not perform their share of household duties, women become servants in their own homes, and ultimately sacred concepts such as home, woman, lady, mother, and wife will lose their concrete meaning.

From this statement, three key points can be clearly inferred:

1. Based on gender, the characteristics of women and men may differ in certain respects — as in this case — although they are identical in essence.
2. The essence (type) of a matter is distinct from its entirety or individuality, and the essence signifies the possibility of multiplicity, not the necessity of its occurrence for all individuals. Therefore, it is possible that a group of men may lack the competence or religious permission for such an act; thus, it is not the case that any man can undertake such a serious matter without the necessary capabilities and fulfilment of conditions.
3. The wisdom behind this religious ruling is not merely lust or sensual gratification; as the fruitful lives of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the Pure Imams (peace be upon them) testify. Despite numerous responsibilities and challenges, these dignitaries possessed the necessary authority for plural marriage, and their objectives were certainly not driven solely by carnal desires — a point that will be elaborated on in subsequent volumes.

Accordingly, a man may, provided he possesses the requisite conditions and authority, select multiple wives without committing injustice against women or violating religious law, and without selfishness or lustful motives. Rather, with such authority, motivation, and objectives, it can be said that multiple wives contribute to the vitality, peace of mind, and intellectual and practical balance of both man and woman — though this requires considerable effort and diligence. Conversely, a woman practising polygamy is, apart from being religiously forbidden, intellectually improper, as previously explained: such an arrangement distances her from her ultimate desirability, wounds her emotions, and renders her inner self hollow and meaningless.

One of the wisdoms behind the ‘iddah’ (waiting period) in the sacred religion of Islam for a woman who has lost her husband — whether through death or divorce — is precisely this: a woman cannot quickly forget the bitter and sweet memories of her past life and requires time to prepare herself for accepting another man within her personal sphere, whereas no such attribute or ruling applies to men. Men, due to their physical and psychological strength, foresight, and emotional resilience, can adapt more swiftly to any difficulty or circumstance. [149] It is worth noting that this Islamic ruling exists across various nations and cultures with their specific variations and is not exclusive to Islam.

From these points, three other general matters, beneficial to both women and men throughout life, can be derived:

1. Marriage provides stability and permanence in life, opposing loneliness, and establishes a collective position for both women and men.
2. Marriage is not limited to sexual or material pleasure, although it encompasses these effects fully.
3. Although the essential differences between women and men are a reality, they should not serve as a pretext for injustice, oppression, or abuse by men, nor should these differences justify selfish motives or hidden forms of injustice. The status of women must be approached with balance, proportionality, love, and kindness, and such qualities should naturally and reasonably manifest.

Many inappropriate and unethical behaviours by individuals, especially men, have no relation to religious laws or Islamic rules, despite unfounded and opportunistic references to these laws.

Patriarchy and bullying, combined with physical and financial power, have historically perpetuated the oppression of women. History has rarely seen justice regarding women’s rights and empowerment, except in rare instances where a man, motivated by compassion or fairness, has acted justly towards a woman. Nonetheless, widespread violations and oppression against women — personal and societal — have occurred. Yet, despite this bitter reality, it has never been absolute, and many righteous, worthy, and family-loving men have existed among believers and virtuous people worldwide.

On the Nature of a Woman’s Zeal Compared to a Man’s

According to this statement, the correct understanding of a woman’s zeal in relation to a man is as follows: A woman is not indifferent to finding her desired man or failing to reach him. She directs attention, effort, and sorrow towards this matter until she finds her ideal man, at which point she attains natural tranquillity and fully realises her human existence.

Here, a difficulty arises: zeal is not exclusive to women; men also exhibit such zeal towards women, as referenced in the Holy Qur’an:

“And indeed, she [Zulaikha] was zealous for him, and he was zealous for her.”[152]

Hence, in the presence of zeal, there is no difference between men and women.

The response to this is that although the man is the seeker and the woman the sought after — and indeed the man pursues a suitable spouse with even greater endeavour — the term ‘zeal’ is not properly applicable to men in the same manner. Due to his strength, courage, authority, and greater freedom of action, a man pursues this quest without fear or sorrow. Conversely, a woman, by virtue of being the sought, conceals her intention and cannot openly express her desire, especially given the historical social constraints throughout human history. Consequently, a woman hides her grief, anxiety, and fervour alongside her zeal and desire. This modesty, concealment, and inability to express openly uniquely align the term ‘zeal’ with her and render it truthful in her case.

For men, the situation differs. As evidenced in the Qur’anic narrative of Joseph (peace be upon him), Zulaikha’s zeal is absolute and primary, whereas Joseph’s zeal is secondary and conditional. The Qur’an states:

“She was zealous for him” (Zulaikha initially and absolutely desired Joseph), but Joseph’s zeal is qualified by:
“He was zealous for her, but if not that he saw the proof of his Lord.”[153]

This proof was indeed established through divine favour. Thus, Joseph’s intention was contingent, secondary, and conditional, whereas Zulaikha’s was absolute and primary. As Imam Sadiq (peace be upon him) remarked, this verse should not be read in an entirely absolute manner on both sides, but rather Zulaikha’s zeal is absolute, and Joseph’s is accompanied by “if not that he saw the proof of his Lord.”[154]

Therefore, zeal in relation to women is more explicit and truthful; a woman mostly relies on her husband and depends on him more than on her parents or siblings, as illustrated in the narration of Mu’awiyah ibn Wahb, where a woman’s lament for her husband’s martyrdom surpasses that for her father or brother.[155] Similarly, when a woman learned of her husband’s martyrdom, she exclaimed, and the Prophet (peace be upon him) affirmed that nothing equals a woman’s attachment to her husband.[156]

Though the woman’s zeal is active, because she is the sought after, this desirability motivates and completes the man’s quest. Both sexes are reciprocally seekers and sought; the difference lies primarily in the man’s predominance as seeker and the woman’s predominance as sought.

A motherless eye loses a special light, and when compounded with fatherlessness, it becomes delicate. An eye without a father is an orphan’s eye, and a child without both parents is fragile, for it has been hurt.

Motherlessness shapes a child differently than a mothered child. A crying child thirsts for a mother’s affection, and a mother’s embrace is the child’s bed and pillow. What cause would a motherless child have to weep, for no one else can offer the solace a mother provides? The sweetest taste and the most beautiful flower is the mother, who is the masterpiece of creation’s love. A child’s cry is a response to maternal love, and the mother is the child’s mentor and teacher of kindness. Although both father and mother are selfless lovers of their child, it is only the mother whose love makes her the most selfless lover of all time.

Every suffering has pain, but only a mother’s pain is imbued with love. A mother loves her child regardless of pain and hardship. Through her heavenly deeds, a mother creates love for life, journeys the cosmos, teaches her child to soar with love, and with effort, transforms her child’s tears into precious pearls. Maternal love is a philosopher’s stone, the absence of which weakens the very foundation of the child’s existence, for the mother is the root, and the root is the essence of the child’s truth. A woman is only a mother when she has a husband, and a husband is only a husband when there is unity. A woman who follows the sullied desires of her own soul and entrusts the vessel of her heart to strangers can never truly possess maternal love; though she is a woman, she is not a mother. A mother is a woman whose being is filled with a quest for unity towards her husband. A mother is an alchemist who creates not gold, but humanity. Fatherless—and indeed parentless—children are the sticks of resentment and regret that fall upon society and its members. Thus, child and maternal love, maternal love and spousal unity, form the foundation of love and affection in creation, manifesting in every form of existence and not limited to humanity alone.

Multiple fathers for one child!

Another reason for a woman’s need for a husband’s unity is that the costs of raising and caring for a child naturally fall to the father. In cases of plurality, it becomes unclear who the true father is and who bears the responsibility for the family’s welfare, safeguarding the life and supporting mother and child. When a man’s presence in a woman’s life becomes multiple, fatherhood itself ceases to exist; consequently, the woman must become both mother and father, which is unjust to both woman and child.

At this point, the structure of life collapses; children are either abandoned or placed in institutions, which contradicts family life and maternal affection, causing the mother to suffer contamination, distress, and unrest. Moreover, tainted and unhealthy children are never suitable for a healthy society.

It must be noted that the happiness and health of husband and wife in marital life depend on each preserving their faith, respecting each other’s boundaries and sanctities, and society itself maintaining a distance from general deviations. Everyone must approach marriage with sincerity, clear conscience, and pure spirit. When ethical and religious principles—fundamental pillars of society’s thought and culture—are upheld, marital life reveals its importance and sweetness and guarantees the happiness and perfection of both spouses.

The ‘sweetness’ of polygamy for women (!)

One might say here: Women do not inherently desire unity, nor does husband unity yield such effects. A woman’s nature enjoys the plurality of men and varied intimacies, and her pleasure increases with multiple husbands. Like men, she enjoys novelty, and this causes no anxiety or emptiness in her. Therefore, all previous statements about the different natures of men and women are baseless, stemming from ethnic and traditional motivations and lacking rational grounds.

In response, four essential points must be raised:

a) The difference in identity and nature of women

The essence of woman and man relates to conscious instinct and subconscious mind, and the nature of love and affection depends on their identities. Women and men are not alike in this respect, just as their essence is distinct from their carnal nature. Essence is sacred, whereas carnality may be affected by unhealthy upbringing, repetition, habits, problems, deviations, deficiencies, and physical or psychological ailments.

b) Rational judgments versus carnal desires

Human nature and carnality never willingly or fully follow reason unless the intellect, thought, and strong will control the soul. Every person harbours innate urges and may, under certain circumstances, desire unsavoury things, adorn evils, and subject conscience, reason, and will to these desires. Therefore, soul and its commands should not be conflated with the clear truth of human identity.

c) Irrational perceptions and beliefs

Due to social corruption, cultural ailments, and traditional trappings, many women and men are drawn into ideological and practical deviations, consciously or unconsciously adopting improper perceptions, false beliefs, undesirable behaviours, improper judgments, and harmful consequences. None of these desires or judgments proves their correctness; all beliefs must meet rational conditions, be free from internal negative influences and external false impositions, and follow the appropriate intellectual path.

d) Difference between love and lust

Loving something or someone differs essentially from mere liking, desire, pleasure, and carnal urges. Love and lust are different: although lust is a base manifestation of love, when it deviates from the correct and healthy path, it becomes selfish and carnal. Desires differ from lust, which is part of carnal urges. Moreover, love, friendship, and their extensive effects do not equate to intimacy or cohabitation, even though these may manifest love or affection; when deviated, they become lust, rebellion, and selfishness, lacking a direct and strong relationship with true love.

It becomes clear that a woman’s pleasure in contact with multiple men is due solely to her carnal desires, not from pure human love or nature.

A healthy society: the mirror of a woman’s desire for unity

It has been said earlier that husband unity blossoms a woman’s true identity and brings real peace, which should not be confused with carnal matters or impure desires. Likewise, mere pleasure and satanic temptations should not be mistaken for love, nor should every intimacy be considered genuine comfort for the heart.

Scientific research shows that any intimacy outside a lawful marriage and natural boundaries causes anxiety, distress, nausea, and discomfort, while within marriage, intimacy brings spiritual calm, euphoria, and pleasant sleep to both partners.

In a healthy society with correct culture and free from carnal pollution, it is evident that a woman’s true nature desires husband unity, prefers her own husband to all novelties, and does not wander after strangers.

Conclusion:

The aberrant and satanic desires of a woman’s soul differ from her true identity’s desire for unity, rooted in pure and untarnished nature. These must be distinguished carefully.

Truth and Reality; The Third Principle: The Truth of Human Beings and the Range of Differences

Truths are fixed, whereas realities may not necessarily be constant, although they do exist. Truth and reality possess a general and a specific logical position: every truth is a reality, but not every reality is a truth in relation to every matter. For example, oppression is a reality and has an external existence, but it lacks truth and permanence, as wrongful motives are the cause of its occurrence. This is in contrast to the truth of justice, which is a genuine truth and a real reality actualised through the identity of things; its absence brings about complications and difficulties.

The truth of humans, despite having a particular unity, also encompasses a general extent with numerous aspects, states, symptoms, titles, and characteristics. Essential and accidental ranks, fixed and variable attributes, and true and real states represent different levels of a unified identity and the scope of the truth of human beings.

To comprehend a description, state, or matter—especially one present in humans—it is necessary to resort to proof and reasoning; without evidential support, the existing reality cannot be presented or accepted. Although a matter might appear to be proven, it may lack truth, or the evidential proof of reality may be flawed in the eyes of certain individuals or groups, reducing its evidential value. Therefore, the two concepts of “existence” and “proof” can coincide with reality or diverge from it; that is, a matter may indeed exist and be provable, or it may exist but not be provable, or vice versa.

Weak, unhealthy, defective, intellectually limited, impure, and spiritually estranged individuals, as well as others who lack high levels of health and strength, must be reformed. Through health promotion and preventative measures, their problems should be gradually resolved. In the short term, until these issues are addressed, they should be restricted in reproduction, while those with outstanding qualities should be encouraged to procreate. The government must prioritise, at a macro level, resolving the generational problems of society and support distinguished and healthy generations. If necessary, the state should provide subsidies, financial aid, or even full funding to such individuals for the purpose of rehabilitating and nurturing a healthy generation, thus ensuring societal growth and empowerment. A healthy society depends on the qualitative control of generations; unchecked quantitative growth of the population leads only to poverty, misery, and deprivation.

At this point, one might argue that such limitations infringe on individual freedoms. The response is that individual liberties can sometimes be curtailed for the collective good and societal interests.

If unchecked individual freedoms result in a generation that is excessive in number but lacking in substance, producing a population without identity and hungry for resources, public interest justifies such restrictions. What benefit or perfection can arise from a fruitless and futile population? Public welfare must regulate individual freedoms; it is not acceptable for individuals to freely bring defective or incapable offspring into society and expect the state or community to bear the burden of their incapacities.

When a child is unhealthy, all available resources should be devoted to their treatment; a child without aptitude burdens the cultural resources of society; prisons become filled with such individuals, and so forth. It is prudent to control the quality of generations from the outset to cultivate a healthy and strong society.

Today, across the world, testing and evaluation are conducted for the production of all things—from plants to animals. Great care is taken to determine which plants or seeds are suitable for specific regions, which breeds of horses or cattle or types of canaries are optimal for production. Yet, it is only humans for whom the correction and improvement of the lineage is not observed, and this neglect has led to a situation where a billion Muslims fail to play a fundamental role globally, their problems creating deprivation and scarcity that engulf all Muslim states and peoples. Although these issues are not exclusive to Muslims, Islam holds such a high position in thought and practice that Islamic societies should not suffer from such difficulties.

b) Understanding the Individual and Society

Understanding the individual, society, humanity, the world, and their diversity and distinctiveness, as well as their boundless potentials, depends on marriage, the preservation of the lineage, and full recognition of these. Neglecting this matter leads the individual and human society into complete ruin, distorts human knowledge concerning the stages of progress, and prevents ascent to the pinnacle of value and perfection.

Understanding a society depends on recognising the nature of ideological tendencies and scientific attitudes of its members. These ideological tendencies can be examined through the institution of marriage, and many individual and collective behaviours can be traced back to the matter of marriage and sexual relations.

Understanding the social laws and customs of each society is crucial, as their accuracy and stability benefit diverse communities, and achieving this depends on healthy families, which in turn relies on healthy marriages.

If marriage follows divine traditions, natural laws, and innate necessities, it enjoys particular stability. However, if it is based on transient desires and superficial legalities, these laws inevitably lose substance quickly and, besides failing to resolve problems or meet needs, are not observed, face attacks from deficiencies, and their lack of legitimacy and enforcement leads to the instability and decline of the individual and society.

c) Home and Family

The home and family form the most fundamental basis of unity and the most important unit of social organisation. The deepest centre of emotions and values is concentrated within the home, and the growth and guidance of society depends upon it. The home and family are the foundational root and central core of society and the strong link for the survival and existence of humanity. Their health relies on proper marriage and healthy conjugal relations; without achieving this, one should never expect a healthy, harmonious, and balanced society.

Human society without the preservation of this principle takes on its most hideous form, worse than even a natural jungle, because even animals instinctively benefit from this principle and recognise and value the warm nucleus of family, marriage, and regulated intimacy.

The various ethnic, racial, and sectarian unities seen today worldwide exist due to the preservation of home and family foundations. Many existing social disorders are linked to the incomplete observance of home and family principles, marriage, and healthy intimacy, and result from unhealthy relationships. Observing home and family principles can reform society and people, ending many public and ethnic disorders, hostilities, wars, and conflicts worldwide. Class disparities, the deprivation of a large segment of people, and current societal conflicts arise from neglecting proper home and family principles.

The family is a place of peace, tranquility, sincerity, affection, and love, and its existence can resolve many tensions and challenges. The most beautiful concepts and words, all hopes, aspirations, love, and attachments, arise from marriage and its requirements. Terms such as father, mother, sister, brother, wife, husband, honour, dignity, chivalry, courage, affection, love, purity, and many other values derive their life from marriage.

It must be believed that marriage is the source of all beauty, purity, and innate and spiritual values. The father—this sacred and ultimate symbol of life management—and the mother—the embodiment of love and affection—keep the home warm. Human worth depends on these truths and meanings, and the manifestation of virtues, spiritual beauty, and other noble qualities depends on the achievement of marriage, passion, and love. Without it, none of these can attain a proper and complete form.

A human without these meanings and truths is not truly human but is even inferior to animals, falling below the level of wolves or pigs.

d) Child Rearing

In family life and in the small society called ‘home’, concepts of cohesion can be observed: father, mother, sister, and brother form the members of a household.

The child requires a direct responsible guardian to meet their material and spiritual needs during growth, and to benefit from the specific resources under the guardianship of parents.

The direct responsibility for running the household lies with the father, who possesses various capabilities, although the mother is in many respects the most important, if not the sole, factor in the child’s development. Without the presence of both parents, the child cannot have a healthy soul and psyche, and this depends on legitimate marriage, with the husband’s unity directly tied to this. Without a healthy mother and the unity of the husband, one cannot envisage a fixed and constructive position for the child in human society, nor guarantee their material and spiritual protection, or guide them along a proper and clear path.

Marriage: The Sweet Nectar of Love

In conclusion, the health and growth of a society depend on the establishment of homes and families, which in turn depend on marriage. Licentiousness, corruption, debauchery, impurity, and rebellion are the consequences of neglecting or disregarding this institution.

Neglect or avoidance of proper marriage provides the groundwork for every form of immorality. Promiscuity, dishonour, adultery, inappropriate mixing of men and women in society and living environments, nocturnal revelries, illicit and uncontrolled relationships are the greatest factors in the degradation of human society, reflecting the lack of identity of both individuals and the community.

Societies and individuals who disregard the principles of marriage and moral standards in thought and action will never taste the sweet nectar of wellbeing, health, vitality, love, and affection, and will remain devoid of human passion and emotion.

The excesses of the so-called ‘free’ world today—undisciplined individuals in advanced societies and centres of prostitution scattered across the globe—are prime examples of such empty and disastrous lives.

The clearest evidence of a life without restraint, despite corruption, ugliness, deficiencies, and deprivation, amid constant indulgence and intoxication, is the polluted modern world and centres of vice and corruption. Observing such people and witnessing these centres with their particular characteristics is the clearest proof of the condemnation of these individuals and such a culture. No sane person would bring their family to such places or live there for the brief days of this world, nor adopt such unseemly existences.

Therefore, those who promote licentiousness, propagate vice, and support unhealthy socialising, whether knowingly or unknowingly, harm human society. Awareness and observations from such places in free societies indicate numerous injustices unworthy of healthy and virtuous people, and those who incite such matters cannot themselves be considered healthy human beings.

Marriage in the Animal Kingdom

Marriage and sexual union are not exclusive to humans but also occur among animals, who are far from indifferent or unconcerned. The natural instinct of honour and defence, and paternal and filial affection, are strongly present. One might even extend this concept to inanimate objects, asserting that they are not devoid of a specific relationship in their existential constitution and follow a natural process of preservation and continuity rooted in the essence of creation.

Although considerable effort has been made today to understand the animal world and its characteristics, scientific communities must intensify their efforts to identify the properties of plant and animal substances, so that besides better understanding the natural laws governing them, humans can also utilise them in the best possible way.

Two key questions about animals merit attention: firstly, do animals observe marriage and sexual union with the same-sex partner, and do they have reproductive limitations similar to humans? Secondly, assuming this is true, what important role could this play in human life?

Regarding the first question, animals generally follow this principle; same-sex union and preservation of the lineage are accepted and undeniable facts for them. The notion of honour, defending its sanctity, childbearing, and related matters are perceptibly and remarkably present, although exceptions occur. But this principle is recognised in the animal kingdom, and when animals are deprived of these natural relationships, or circumstances are altered, degeneration and natural destruction quickly ensue.

The second question must be carefully studied. What would be the consequences if human society followed animal behaviour in these respects? We must recognise that many aspects of human life and its divine and natural characteristics are analogous to animals. Many virtues and truths have their roots in the animal world, albeit to a lesser degree, and humans excel animals in this realm.

The institution of marriage, its principles, and the fact that most human societies observe this, highlight the necessity and foundational role of marriage in human life. However, the prevalence of deviations, unlawful relationships, and promiscuity demonstrate the current challenges and needs for stronger moral and legal frameworks.

Chapter One: Courtship

Courtship; The Deprivation of Women’s Freedom
Women; Beings Without Autonomy

Another criticism raised regarding marriage concerns the nature of the preliminary conditions and the preceding circumstances to the formation of marital life.

The question arises: Why should the woman be confined to the domestic sphere and initially deprived of the right to express love or interest towards an individual, when the future and the marital life belong jointly to both woman and man? Why is it that boys and men of any age enjoy freedom in choosing a spouse, whereas girls and women are deprived of any initial choice?

Why is the man free to pursue any choice while the woman, without any initial agency or autonomy, must submit to the desires of the man—sometimes out of compulsion by others or due to scarcity of suitors—accepting whomever is presented, without condition or demand? This is especially pressing given that the loss of this opportunity diminishes hope for finding another suitor in the minds of the girl and her family.

In the courtship ceremony, only the man possesses the power of choice, decision-making, acceptance, and rejection, whereas the woman is a powerless entity who cannot initiate or express any opinion regarding her own future, and merely sits in expectation for a man to appear and choose her. One must ask: why should the girl not be able to initiate marriage? What crime or reason dictates that she must sit in prolonged waiting, enduring in silence?

In response to this somewhat valid criticism, we firstly assert that these practices are unrelated to Islamic Sharia. Rather, they are customs and traditions established by societal norms and habits. Although some superficial thinkers consider this method commendable or religious and defend it with arguments, these views and customs are neither religiously grounded nor are they compatible with religion in some instances.

Now, to prove, critique, and examine this issue, we briefly analyse courtship and engagement from the perspectives of reason and religion, hoping to provide some solutions for social problems.

Yes, although courtship inherently involves a form of seeking, our fundamental assertion is that this seeking is not a request for marriage per se, but rather a request for the necessary knowledge and awareness to make an informed decision about marriage. This initial seeking—an exploratory and distant inquiry—occurs prior to the actual courtship and its prerequisites. The third stage—decision-making and the marriage itself—is a consequence, either near or distant, of the courtship process. The essence of courtship, therefore, is the second stage: a face-to-face introduction, expression of interest, and proposal. This stage may be realised even without the eventual decision to marry, let alone guarantee marriage itself. Hence, in defining courtship—which is essentially the initial proposal and conversation—there is a form of seeking involved (just as any proposal entails some form of seeking), but this seeking is for acquaintance and introduction, distinct from the seeking of marriage itself.

Thus, although every proposal has an aim and positive conditions motivating it, a proposal does not constitute a definitive request for its object, but rather a consultation to assess the advisability of pursuing that matter.

It should be noted, of course, that while favourable conditions may prompt a proposal, and proposals are never made without reason, courtship understood as a proposal is not a proposal for the desired object itself (i.e., marriage), but a proposal to obtain the prior conditions for that desire—namely, knowledge and acquaintance. Therefore, when it is said that courtship is not a request for marriage, one should not misunderstand this as implying there is no seeking at all or that the desired object holds no value; rather, courtship is a request to enter into discussion and consultation regarding the potential future marriage, which may not necessarily materialise.

Accordingly, it can be stated that marriage—arguably the most important matter in an individual’s life—entails two investigative and evaluative stages:

1. The first stage: external, general, and distant inquiry conducted through others and without direct knowledge of the parties, unless there is close family or acquaintance.
2. The second stage: direct, immediate, intimate, and candid assessment between the parties, free from concealment, which occurs if the first stage yields positive results. This is the face-to-face conversation, courtship, and expression of proposal and intent.

Thus, just as the first stage of investigation ultimately aims towards marriage, the second stage—namely, direct dialogue—is also pursued with the goal of marriage in mind, though neither stage itself constitutes the request for marriage. They are merely the external and scientific preliminary steps. It is therefore essential to differentiate between these three contexts of seeking—the distant inquiry, the face-to-face introduction, and the marriage itself—since seeking knowledge and acquaintance in preparation for a decision about marriage is distinct from seeking marriage itself.

Up to this point, in order to accurately and proportionately outline the discussion of courtship, we first raised an objection to its unilateral interpretation, and in response explained that courtship does not entail a seeking of marriage per se, although we accepted seeking initial investigation and enquiry to inform decision-making about marriage. Now, we go further and state that fundamentally, courtship involves no actual seeking, requesting, or desiring.

It must be understood that some words, while similar in form and close in meaning, differ significantly and often lead to confusion and fallacy. For example, ‘want’ and ‘request’ are lexically similar but semantically distinct. ‘Request’ necessarily involves seeking, whereas ‘want’ does not inherently include seeking; one may have a want without the capacity or motivation to pursue it. For example, a condemned person may desire rescue (want), but has no request because they lack power or hope for salvation.

Similarly, a person might inwardly want something but lack the request or initiative to pursue it, perhaps due to insurmountable differences or hopelessness. In the context of our discussion, someone may want a particular woman but, due to significant familial or personal differences, may have no request or attempt to pursue her. Thus, here ‘want’ exists without ‘request’.

Therefore, the meanings of ‘want’ and ‘request’ differ: want can exist without seeking or request, while seeking and request inherently imply want. These are general and specific terms that are neither synonymous in meaning nor in real-world application. It has become clear that courtship does not, by strict equivalence, represent seeking, but is rather an expression of want which, concomitantly, involves a type of seeking aimed at fulfilment.

As previously explained, there is a clear distinction between the three levels of seeking (distant inquiry, face-to-face introduction, and marriage). If external inquiry and pursuit—effectively a form of seeking—are completed without face-to-face introduction or decision, the want may grow stronger without an actual request or seeking for fulfilment. But if the second pursuit—the direct introduction and verification—results in decision, a reality beyond mere want is realised: actual seeking and request for marriage. Otherwise, want remains without request.

In summary, the conventional meaning of courtship is the expression of a want, not the act of seeking or requesting, although it may lead to seeking and requesting. From this analysis, we conclude, as argued from the outset, that courtship is merely an initial proposal and conversation to clarify whether the expressed want also generates seeking and request. Want is an internal state that may lack active pursuit, while seeking and request involve an added element of desire for the realisation of that want. From a linguistic perspective, the term ‘courtship’ (خواستگاری) derives from ‘wanted one’ (خواسته‌گارى) rather than ‘wanting one’ (خواستن‌گارى).

Hence, it is necessary to provide a clear summary regarding the nature, premises, and outcomes of courtship, free from vagueness or ambiguity.

Once an interest is identified and a person’s opinion is engaged, an external and absent inquiry into acquaintances and relatives begins. This external investigation is a preliminary to courtship and is not part of it; it sometimes occurs alongside indirect observation such as seeing at social gatherings or public spaces.

Following positive external inquiry, direct introduction and expression of want commence courtship, typically initiated by contacting the subject’s family and requesting permission to visit for the purpose of expressing intent—explicitly stating the desire to enter courtship—or sometimes with euphemism and caution around the views of both families. This stage of direct inquiry, introduction, and expression of want constitutes the essence of courtship.

After this stage, through exchange of words, one or both parties may desist, or mutual confidence and suitability may be confirmed so that the marriage is regarded as practically settled and the proposal openly declared. Usually, after initial introduction and negotiation, a formal proposal is made at a subsequent meeting and responses are deferred. A negative response from the man results in cessation; a positive response leads to further inquiry and repeated questioning. If the woman’s response is positive, arrangements for a meeting to discuss practical terms and make marriage preparations follow, and if no problems arise, marriage proceeds.

Therefore, one should not conflate the preliminary external inquiry—which is a precursor to courtship—with courtship itself, nor mistake the primary conditions for marriage—which are the result of courtship—with courtship proper.

Courtship begins only with direct action: face-to-face introduction, direct expression of want, and ends with confidence and decision to proceed with or desist from the union.

Thus, if asked which stage is called courtship, it must be stated that general external inquiry is preliminary, not courtship itself; direct introduction and entry into discussion and expression of want is courtship.

Courtship therefore formally begins with official permission from the family to enter the home for direct introduction and expression of desire, which sometimes occurs with a degree of discretion.

Misconceptions

To correct common misunderstandings about courtship found in literature and social convention, we note that the prevailing public view is that a man must request marriage from a woman because the man is the seeker and the woman the sought. It is said this is natural and traditional, and that a woman proposing would be improper or detrimental to her. For example, the story of Adam and Eve is often cited, with Adam portrayed as the initiator and Eve the responder.

It is also said that the woman is like a flower or a candle and the man like a nightingale or moth—needy and seeker versus delicate and desirable—emphasising a one-sided dynamic.

However, none of these views have a firm scientific basis or authentic religious sanction to justify such unilateral seeking in courtship. In fact, both men and women are simultaneously seekers and sought, differing only in the visibility and manner of expression of their desire. Men’s seeking tends to be more overt; women’s seeking is often more reserved and subtle, while women’s desirability is more apparent and men’s desirability is revealed through feminine subtlety. It is therefore incorrect to claim that only men seek and only women are sought; these roles coexist in a balanced relationship despite differences in form.

Therefore, courtship is an initial proposal expressing a want rather than a request or seeking for marriage, and it may be initiated by either the woman or the man. The dual roles of seeker and sought on both sides provide the active context and ultimate purpose for courtship. It is unfortunate and unfounded that in our society the notion persists that only men should initiate courtship. It is perfectly valid and dignified for a woman to propose marriage with confidence and peace of mind without stigma or disadvantage.

The Melody of Passion and the Song of Love

Women and men should not be conceived as flower and nightingale or candle and moth; the flower is indifferent to the nightingale’s cry, and the candle kills the unwary moth. Rather, both are mutual seekers and sought, fully aware of one another, and love and attachment permeate their souls with knowledge and consciousness, despite significant differences in nature, expression, intent, and goals.

Regarding the common notion that the woman is the sought and the man the seeker, this text has argued that both parties simultaneously seek and are sought. Such mutual seeking and mutual desirability are balanced and complementary, despite divergent expressions and perceptions.

On the Other Hand, If a Man Rejects a Woman’s Proposal

On the other hand, if a man rejects a woman’s proposal, due to the delicate spirit, strong affection, and intense emotions of the woman, she will experience distress and turmoil that are not easily remedied. So, why should a woman herself initiate a proposal that might lead to such disorder?

It should be noted that although this argument may appear persuasive on the surface, proposing does not inherently cause such problems, except when it is misunderstood as a demand or an act of surrendering the woman into the man’s control, rather than a mere proposal. When a proposal is an initial suggestion—which it is—it involves neither humiliation nor disrespect, nor does it imply submission, pity, naivety, or error. Proposing is simply an offer and fundamentally a means of mutual inquiry and awareness, whether made by the woman or the man.

However, the claim that “a man can bear hearing a woman’s refusal, but a woman cannot bear a man’s refusal; therefore, only the man should propose to the woman” is unfounded. The true desire of every girl and woman is freedom, liberation, passion, and love—provided the proposal is understood correctly. How, then, can a girl or woman deprive herself of the divine enthusiasm and love bestowed upon her, and instead of actively pursuing her desired partner by proposing, remain secluded at home, melancholic and waiting for some man to knock on her door? Subsequently, she may accept marriage under any circumstances—willingly or unwillingly—or waste her life deprived of all blessings, enduring the soul-crushing misery of confinement. One must consider which of these two forms of distress is more painful and irreparable: hearing a refusal from a man or enduring a lifetime of regret with an unwanted husband?

How can it be that a woman confined at home cannot tolerate a man’s rejection, while numerous men have come to her house to propose, have seen her, become interested, and then easily left after receiving a refusal? Isn’t this itself a form of refusal?

Men’s Avoidance of the Situation

If it is argued that a man’s failure to act towards marriage after proposing does not count as a refusal to the woman—since the woman did not request him to propose and the man’s rejection is actually a response to his own offer—one must respond that at the second stage of desire, that is, the proposal and expression of interest (without a formal request), the man’s opportunity to express his desire arises only when the woman presents herself visibly, allowing him to decide. This presentation itself is an expression of the woman’s interest, and like the man, she plays a reciprocal role in this process; thus, the man’s refusal naturally pertains to her.

The perception that “a woman has no primary role in expressing her desire” is a societal problem that has caused numerous disorders in our community. Why should a woman have no initial and voluntary role in proposing? Indeed, in our current society, the woman’s role in proposing is minimal and secondary, whereas what is essential is a clear and primary role—the crucial role that a misguided culture has denied her.

Therefore, while the proposal is a demand that must be made by the man, the man’s apparent or hidden avoidance, either by refusal or silence, is not a rejection of himself but a rejection of the woman who has exposed herself to his acceptance or rejection. In this case, what difference does it make whether the man proposes and the woman refuses, or the woman proposes and the man refuses? In either case, it is the woman who becomes the object of the proposal and is subject to acceptance or rejection. According to the correct meaning of proposal, rejection by either party is not a refusal of demand or request but a negative response to the expression of desire, which exists reciprocally in both parties. Hence, if the proposal is two-sided and free from the idea of demand and only implies expression of interest, there is no humiliation or rejection. But if it is a one-sided demand from the woman, any form of refusal will result in the woman’s humiliation.

Addressing Further Concerns

One may object again, saying that even if the woman proposes and the man accepts, the woman might feel humiliated, as in the future the man could claim, “You came to me first, and I accepted you out of pity.”

In response, it should be emphasised that the man’s refusal pertains to rejecting the proposal, not a rejection of marriage demand itself, so this concern does not arise. If the man accepts the proposal under the correct understanding—that it is a vessel of desire, not a request—there is no ground for ingratitude, except under a diseased cultural mindset, in which even a man’s proposal might be met with resentment after marriage. Similarly, the woman might say, “I accepted you out of pity, otherwise I was worthier than you.”

The Proposal: A Mutual Offer

In summary, the principle of proposal as a mutual offer and inquiry does not cause problems, especially as such proposals never occur without prior acquaintance and natural affinity. Just as the man proposes based on natural attraction to his desired woman, so too can the woman. Resistance and obstacles in society to this natural and logical process stem from the entrenched layers of a diseased culture.

Dispelling Misconceptions About Proposals from Women

With this understanding, there is no room for the objection that if the woman proposes, the man will later claim pity or gratitude, since such notions are baseless and only the illusions of diseased minds. Any ill behaviour—such as spiteful words, arrogance, or unnecessary condescension—stems from cultural defects, not from the woman’s initiative to propose. Indeed, such behaviours occur regardless of whether the man or woman proposes.

None of these baseless objections undermine the scientific validity of the proposal being two-sided, nor should our contemporary culture be sacrificed for baseless fears of the future.

Addressing Social Concerns

Some might say that although these objections lack validity, they could cause problems in our society, potentially leading to hardship, conflict, and strife in marriages—problems that exist in many families. Thus, if the woman were to propose, these future issues would devastate her life.

The response is that all such ‘future concerns’ stem from a diseased culture. Why, then, do such issues persist even when men traditionally propose? Social transformation is necessary, and establishing two-sided proposals is a vital step toward this. These worries, whether fantasies of diseased minds or harsh social realities, must be eradicated through the efforts of thinkers and authorities.

All negative concepts such as entitlement, mockery, and frivolity arise from unhealthy mentalities. Through mutual cooperation and empathy between men and women in all spheres of life and social roles, such baseless concerns will dissipate, as awareness and insight smooth over deficiencies. Then it will be irrelevant who initiates the proposal.

Women Should Not Be Passive

It must be clearly stated: it is not right for a girl to remain helpless and regretful, confined in her parental home, passively awaiting a suitor to appear after numerous rejections and acceptances by others. This ‘proposal method’ stems from the seclusion of women at home. What efforts have her parents made to facilitate a suitable marriage while she passively watches the fates of others?

The Dear Daughter

When we say a “girl is confined at home” or “imprisoned in her parental home,” it does not mean she is not cherished by her parents—she is their beloved daughter, a precious gift. However, once the time for marriage passes without her active pursuit, and her parents suffer anxiety and distress, the home becomes a prison, no matter how beloved she is. This honour cannot compensate for the shame of unmet needs. A girl needs a husband; parental affection cannot replace that.

All parties—girls, women, parents—suffer from this passive stance and the misguided tradition of female seclusion. Although more girls leave the home today, societal instability and foundational problems have increased the average marriage age.

Misunderstandings About Modern Society

One might argue that the culture of secrecy or ignorance about one another belongs to the past; today, half of our young population consists of girls familiar with their external environment as much as boys, so these issues have been resolved and no longer require ‘divination’ or ‘occult’ methods to assess suitors, nor concern about female seclusion.

The reply is that although girls have more freedom than before, the acquaintance remains superficial and general. With social expansion, deep and specific knowledge necessary for marriage is rarely attained. Previously, due to limited environments, acquaintance was easier; now, societal expansion, migration, and movement have made mutual knowledge more difficult. The increased mobility of girls does not resolve the fundamental problem of knowing one another sufficiently for marriage decisions. Where formerly small communities allowed close acquaintance, today’s large and shifting societies do not.

A New Proposal

It is undeniable and gratifying that more girls participate in social environments today. However, they are not yet active participants fully integrated into society, limiting practical opportunities for meaningful acquaintance. Family and neighbourhood relations are insufficient for the larger and more mobile society. The seclusion of women in our sick society creates barriers to finding appropriate partners.

If women regain their rightful social status and active roles, pursuing their affairs in cooperation with society and men, understood as social—not merely domestic—beings, such social disorders will no longer occur. Then, there will be no need for girls to sit isolated, relying on chance or superstition to find a suitable partner.

Conclusion

Many suitable men seek good women but cannot find them due to lack of acquaintance; thus, they resort to discreet and secret inquiries through local shopkeepers or clerics, often without success. The seclusion of women—the imagined ‘chastity spell’—has closed off their real opportunities.

If women regain a reasonable and conventional social position participate openly in society, and have the right to express interest and propose, then a natural, respectful, and successful marriage culture will flourish.

A Woman Proposing Marriage to a Man; Why Not?

When a society is governed through the cooperation of all its members — both women and men — and women occupy appropriate social positions, then through reasonable social interactions, proper professional and social relationships, religious gatherings, and cultural-political assemblies, men and women inevitably come to know each other. This occurs without any problem, nor does the sky fall or any divine verse condemn such an act, nor does any hadith cry out “Wadainah!” — that a woman’s proposal to a young man for marriage is contrary to modesty and decency, or that it disrespects the woman herself. Historically, it is recorded that the marriage of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) to Lady Khadijah (peace be upon her), the mother of Lady Fatimah and an exceptional woman of the world, was initiated by Lady Khadijah herself, who expressed her desire for marriage, saying, “I am willing to marry you because of your noble character.”

Whether she expressed this herself or sent a message, in any case, a proposal from a woman like Khadijah — who had many distinguished suitors and a wise uncle named Warqah — was a matter of great significance. Moreover, the man in question was one for whom Abu Talib (peace be upon him), in the presence of the Quraysh elders and Khadijah’s uncle, declared, “My nephew surpasses every man of Quraysh, even if he has no wealth.”

In another narration, a woman offered herself in marriage to the Prophet (peace be upon him), and God affirmed such a request in the Holy Qur’an, a matter that will be discussed in greater detail later.

Such a request from either a woman or a man is natural and in accordance with human instinct and disposition; although the request from a woman appears as coyness and from a man as need, the man’s need is a form of coyness, and the woman’s coyness is itself a need.

Therefore, a proposal from a young woman is not contrary to creation, nor will it cause the heavens to fall on earth. Marriage — contrary to what some have said — is not the purchase of a connection, nor is that connection a commodity for which one must be buyer or seller, even though the motives for proposal and marriage differ between men and women in both apparent and latent ways.

It must also be understood that, contrary to some beliefs, a proposal is not a duty incumbent on the man — indeed, it is not a duty at all — but rather the manifestation of a desire for union, a sign of yearning and heartfelt passion for the beloved. Although the initiative often appears to be the man’s, and the woman accepts with her consent, the difference in expression does not affect the sincere motivation or the declaration of love. All external forms are symbols of genuine heartfelt intentions and do not contradict the woman’s honour and modesty, nor do they cause her any harm, because a proposal is simply an expression of attention, not an obligation or restriction. Whether the proposal comes from either party and is accepted or rejected, it does not violate freedom of action or the integrity of personal interaction. The premises and assumptions some books present as evidence to the contrary have no scholarly or religious foundation; they are often the result of inattentiveness or uncritical imitation, mistakenly perceived as religious truths — a matter that will be thoroughly addressed with reason and evidence in other comprehensive volumes, aside from this one.

The Fruit of Love

From a broader perspective, both women and men may suitably and legitimately offer themselves to the other, honestly expressing their love and passion, without deceit, hardship, or humiliation. It is possible for a sincere heart to be captivated by love, and in such a case, concealing that love would be insincere and hypocritical. What harm is there if a woman or man, from sincerity and purity, entrusts themselves to their beloved? Is love — that sacred meeting — a crime? Is wanting from the heart, purely and without transgression, a sin? Is desire an act of choice, or is the heart an indifferent entity that can easily dismiss whatever it sees? Here, the sanctity of the heart, the bounds of divine law, and the borders of modesty and purity must be respected, without allowing one to be neglected at the expense of the other.

If a woman, with sincerity, modesty, and purity, offers herself to her beloved, what problem arises? Will the sky fall, will the heavens collapse, or will the heart find peace?

Love is truthfulness itself, and truthfulness is the manifestation of love, which brings about purity, faith, and piety.

A Gift in Love

The Holy Qur’an — the true map and practical manual for the universe — has excellently referred to this very matter in relation to the Prophet:

“And a believing woman who offers herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet wishes to marry her, is lawful for him exclusively, not for the believers.” [Qur’an 33:50]

To clarify this verse and the matter of “gift marriage,” a brief explanation is necessary. The Qur’an states:

“O Prophet! We have made lawful for you your wives whom you have paid their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of what God has granted you, the daughters of your paternal uncles and aunts who emigrated with you, and a believing woman who offers herself to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to marry her exclusively for you, not for the believers. We know what We have prescribed for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess, so there is no blame upon you. And God is Forgiving and Merciful.” [Qur’an 33:50]

From this noble verse, it is understood that seven categories of women were lawful for the Prophet under specific conditions:

1. Those wives whose dowries he paid — referring to regular marriage with a mahr (dowry).
2. Those whom he owned by right of war spoils (such as female captives).

3-6. His paternal cousins — daughters of his uncles and aunts, both paternal and maternal — who migrated with him.

1. A believing woman who offers herself to the Prophet without dowry as a gift marriage, if the Prophet wishes.

This seventh category was a believing woman who offered herself to the Prophet without a dowry. As narrated, this woman came to the Prophet and said she was willing to gift herself to him. God announces that such a gift, if the Prophet consents, is permissible, and thus all parties — God, the woman, and the Prophet — were content. Who then would be displeased?

A’isha’s Objection

As narrated, this woman was Zaynab bint Khuzaymah, Umm al-Masakin (Mother of the Poor), one of the women of the Ansar. When she came to the Prophet offering herself without dowry, A’isha said, “What is this about women offering themselves to the Prophet?” When the verse was revealed, A’isha remarked that God hastened the fulfilment of the Prophet’s desires. The Prophet replied: “If you obey God, your wishes will also be fulfilled.”

Perhaps the Prophet was alluding to A’isha’s childlessness. The meaning here is that if one harbours no envy or malice against the good, God will grant them children. Therefore, her childlessness was not without wisdom.

In the exegesis texts, various reports mention the opposition of A’isha or Hafsa to this woman who offered herself as a gift. In some versions, the verb is singular; in others, plural. It is narrated that A’isha said, “May God disgrace you! Why are you preoccupied with men?” The Prophet defended the woman, saying, “Silence, A’isha! She desired me, while you turned away from me.” Then he prayed for her and the Ansar. The woman was told to go in peace. This incident led to the revelation of the above verse.

In some narrations, this woman was criticised by certain wives of the Prophet for her boldness, with expressions such as “How shameless and audacious you are,” indicating the tension surrounding the matter.

Many narrations confirm that such gift marriages without dowry and formal contract were specific to the Prophet. These are discussed in detail in the exegesis “Burhan,” where three narrations explicitly affirm this.

Seven Points Regarding the Verse of Gift Marriage

1. The verse enumerates the seven categories of women lawful to the Prophet: those with dowry, captive women from war spoils, cousins, and the believing woman offering herself as a gift.
2. Such a gift marriage was a special allowance exclusively for the Prophet, not for other believers, as God fully knows what He has ordained for others regarding marriage and ownership.
3. The gift marriage here was a marriage without dowry or formal contract, akin to “ma malakat aymanukum” (those whom your right hands possess), which nonetheless establishes mahremiyyat (prohibition of marriage due to kinship or marital bonds). Thus, the basis for marital prohibition in Islam is not solely dowry or contract but may arise through other means.
4. It is evident from the verse that if this allowance for gift marriage had been legislated for all believers, such marriages would have occurred in society. However, this was not legislated for others but only for the Prophet to facilitate his mission.
5. The verse explicitly references the formal permissions for the Prophet’s marriages, and the Prophet’s defence of the woman’s proposal demonstrates the openness and honesty within that society. Such a society was pure, free, and observant of divine limits.

The overall conclusion is that there is no objection in principle to a woman proposing marriage to a man, just as a man’s proposal to a woman is unobjectionable, provided  religious and social norms are maintained.

 What is prohibited is the violation of the limits of modesty, honour, and religious guidelines, not the act of proposing itself.

It is hoped that with the transformation of religious culture and the promotion of Islamic free thinking, the conditions for true comfort and peace, along with the purity and chastity of religious life, will be established within the Islamic community. May true scholars and Muslim thinkers strive to bring about the manifestation of religious realities and truths, while removing baseless embellishments.

Chapter Two: Engagement

Following a marriage proposal and prior to the formal marriage contract, many cultures and nations, including certain regions of our country, observe a tradition known as “engagement.” Engagement is, in fact, the subsequent stage after the proposal and the preliminary part of the marriage process. As previously mentioned, a marriage proposal is only an initial suggestion, which may arise from prior acquaintance. Now, we assert that engagement is a customary commitment and an initial condition that carries no legal or religious obligations or consequences, although in practice, non-fulfilment of engagement is regarded as unpleasant and contrary to good manners, and is not fitting for virtuous individuals.

Engagement is merely a preliminary selection, an ordinary custom, and a serious commitment to a future shared life, but it does not by itself establish any legal or religious binding or closeness, despite naturally fostering emotional attachments.

During the engagement period, both the girl and the boy should behave as two acquaintances, without creating any serious bond or deep attachment in their casual interactions. Furthermore, they should approach each other with utmost caution to avoid not only immoral relations but also any physical or emotional harm. Unfortunately, this issue exists among some people, and it should be avoided. One should not begin a shared life with sin and contamination.

Breakdown of Engagement

The bitter reality is that, in some cases, engagements do not lead to marriage, and the boy and girl do not reach a decision. A crucial issue in such failed engagements and the resulting discontinuation is the matter of exchanged gifts and compensation for any losses incurred. Two main points must be considered in this regard:

1. Financial matters are entirely unrelated to the essence of the engagement or its termination. Material exchanges or expenses, as far as religious law is concerned, are a different issue. Religious laws have their own specific rulings, while engagement carries no particular legal or religious obligation.
2. The exchanged items and any losses incurred from the dissolution of the engagement can be categorised under three main types:

• a) Expenses for hosting gatherings and ceremonies associated with the engagement, which may be reasonable or excessive spending. These costs are willingly and knowingly spent at the time of the engagement, and thus, they are not subject to compensation or recovery in kind or value.
• b) Gifts or items that were exchanged but have been irreversibly lost or consumed. These, too, do not warrant compensation or recovery.
• c) Gifts given by the boy, girl, or their families to each other. These items are considered gifts, and if requested by either party, they must be returned. Of course, the details and rulings concerning these matters are extensive, and it is beyond our scope to discuss them fully.

It is important to emphasise that it would be better for actions which do not carry religious or legal obligation not to be adopted as traditions. One such traditional practice, which lacks religious significance and can be quite perilous, is engagement itself. Regrettably, this custom often leads to a closer relationship between the boy and the girl, resulting in unnecessary emotional attachment and sometimes sinful behaviour, gradually increasing the likelihood of conflict. As there is no binding obligation, many problems arise, sometimes leading to separation or dissatisfaction. Therefore, it would be wise to conduct thorough investigations before the proposal, and for both parties to proceed with the intention of a legitimate marriage. Whether the engagement period is short or long, it is advisable that it does not extend for too long, as unforeseen issues might arise, many of which are irreparable.

The First Meeting

The sacred foundation of marriage, this heavenly union, is typically initiated after the first encounter and usually follows a proposal. It is a divine wisdom and act of grace that brings a man and a woman together with freedom and desire, driven by love and the longing for union, thereby manifesting marriage—a creation’s desire—in the life that is neither stagnant nor isolated, but one filled with beauty, joy, and the reflection of divine glory.

The heavenly teachings of Islam, in its care for the perfection and happiness of humanity, consider the moral and physical refinement of both the father and the mother as conditions for the birth of a healthy, worthy child, so that this child may begin life with purity and wellbeing.

The comprehensive and celestial guidelines of Islam in the matter of choosing a spouse provide exact, deep, and yet simple instructions for the man and woman who intend to build a beautiful shared life together—individuals who will eventually become fathers and mothers, bearing witness to another life.

Now, we will address some of these recommendations, which are essential for establishing the unity of two souls. These are crucial for the welfare of children, and parents must give them serious consideration.

• a) A true suitor is one who, out of love and genuine desire, seeks this union without any ulterior motives such as greed, threat, or coercion. The man must genuinely wish for marriage and approach the girl with humility, and both parties must honour each other’s chastity, dignity, and respect.
• b) Never proceed without proper investigation and knowledge about the character, family background, and faith of the prospective spouse. Many marital problems arise from the lack of proper knowledge in these areas. Many individuals, due to negligence or misplaced trust in others’ opinions or out of fleeting emotional attachment, fail to adequately investigate, and later realise their mistake. Therefore, extensive inquiries should be made from all perspectives, and ultimately, one should seek guidance from Allah. After sufficient investigation, if the findings are positive, the two individuals may proceed to meet and get to know each other further.

In Islamic jurisprudence, although much attention is given to the importance of seeing each other, dialogue is permissible if needed. Psychologically, seeing is considered more important than talking because conversations can sometimes be influenced by external factors such as pretence or falsehood, while the eyes always speak the truth—especially in the first meeting, which unveils the truth in a pure way. Neither party should delay responding or deceive each other, but should instead be honest and transparent as soon as possible. This period is crucial, and should not be tainted with delays and trickery.

• c) Material wealth and superficial charms should never be the primary focus. The most important qualities to consider are faith, morals, chastity, and dignity, although material resources and life’s necessities should not be neglected. A reasonable compatibility between the two parties in terms of wealth and lifestyle will resolve many potential problems later on.

Warnings to Men

In this sacred union, negligence and carelessness are wrong. Imam Sadiq (A.S.) advised a man who was considering marriage:

“Look where you place yourself, with whom you will share your wealth, and with whom you will share your secrets and beliefs.”

Marriage involves the reality of where you will place your soul, who you will spend your life with, how you will nurture your children, and whom you will choose to be your companion through both joy and sorrow. This bond is the closest possible relationship between a man and a woman, a closeness even surpassing that between a child and their parents.

The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said: “A woman is like a necklace; consider carefully which necklace you choose for yourself.”

Though this advice is addressed to men, it also applies to women in the same way, since both are equally concerned with matters of faith, chastity, and integrity. When choosing a spouse, wealth and beauty should not be the sole consideration. Instead, the key factors should be integrity, nobility, piety, and the cultural and social qualities of the individual, even though wealth and beauty do hold some importance. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) also said:

“Do not marry a woman for her beauty, for her beauty may ruin her, and do not marry her for her wealth, for her wealth may lead her to arrogance. Marry a woman for her faith.”

While beauty is indeed a virtue, it must not be the sole factor. True beauty lies in character and integrity, and while wealth can be a blessing, it should not be the main attraction, especially if it leads to a disregard for the ethical foundations of marriage.

1. Another point to consider is the following: When the Prophet (PBUH) stated that “silence is consent,” it implies that one should not wait for a verbal response. This contrasts with the common practice in our society, where a woman is expected to say “I do” three times aloud during the marriage contract. Additionally, many of the societal stipulations surrounding marriage, apart from lacking rational and religious foundations, have also become the reasons for the difficulty and stagnation of marriage itself.
2. The Role of the Father in the Marriage of His Daughter
3. Although the fundamental decision regarding a daughter’s marriage rests with her, it is required, both religiously and ethically, to consider the father’s opinion. In terms of religious law, according to the majority of jurists, the father’s consent is obligatory. However, if the marriage is carried out without the father’s consent, provided the welfare of the daughter is considered, while it is a transgression, it does not invalidate the marriage contract. In cases where the daughter might suffer harm, the father’s consent is no longer required. Similarly, once the daughter reaches full maturity and intellectual growth or loses her virginity, the requirement for paternal consent is no longer obligatory.
4. It is important to note that the father’s consent is based on certain principles, some of which are outlined here:
5. A: The First Major Decision
   Paying attention to the father’s advice and the requirement for his consent in the marriage of a daughter, beyond showing gratitude towards him and recognising the daughter’s need for him in this critical matter, is a rational necessity. In this regard, the daughter’s need is greater than that of the son, as daughters naturally have less exposure to society and have experienced fewer of its trials and tribulations.
6. B: The Father’s Experience and Insight
   Consulting the father, and even the mother, as previously explained in detail, provides the opportunity to benefit from their experiences for the daughter’s happiness and well-being. A daughter, unlike a son, has had fewer encounters with men in society and is less familiar with social issues such as deceit, trickery, and ill-intentions. Even though the daughter might be wise and thoughtful, she is not sufficiently experienced to distinguish fully between what is beneficial and what is harmful. Therefore, she requires guidance from a wise and caring individual who can lead her towards a happy life. This individual is none other than her father.
7. C: The Emotional Aspect and Acceptance of the Woman
   As previously stated, a woman is a divine gift endowed with deep emotions and affection. She tends to feel more love, warmth, and connection than a man, and is often more responsive to others’ assurances and commitments. While this emotional capacity is crucial for a warm family life, nurturing balanced children, and ensuring peace in the marriage, it also renders her more susceptible to manipulation by individuals who may take advantage of these emotions. Often, certain individuals exploit these emotional vulnerabilities to deceive the daughter, causing her much regret later in life. In such cases, it is the father who, with his life experience, plays a crucial role in guiding the daughter.
8. Marriage of a Virgin Daughter
   The requirement for the father’s consent applies only to a virgin daughter, one who is marrying for the first time. If a daughter has previously been married and, for any reason, has either been widowed or divorced, or if she has lost her virginity through a legitimate or illegitimate relationship, then the father’s consent is no longer a condition for her marriage. This is because she is no longer an inexperienced or naïve individual and is now capable of making rational decisions about her future life, even though consulting the father and benefiting from his experiences is always advantageous.
9. At this point, one might ask whether the loss of virginity necessarily translates to acquiring experience in marriage. Especially since such a loss may occur in a moment and for various reasons, and might not bring with it the wisdom and experience required to make sound decisions. However, in some cases, the loss of virginity may result in valuable experience, such as when a woman’s marriage ends through divorce or widowhood. Therefore, it cannot be said universally that the mere loss of virginity brings experience. Yet, one might argue that it is necessary to adhere to the religiously prescribed framework and accept it based on “the words of the lawgiver.”
10. To respond to this question, several points must be considered briefly:
11. 1. While the loss of virginity does not necessarily bring marriage experience, it is a clear, general, and rational consequence of marriage that the hardships and experiences of life will be encountered. Even if some experience is gained from the marriage, it will help the woman in future decisions.
12. 2. Although the loss of virginity may, in some cases, occur outside of marriage, the law typically focuses on general situations rather than rare, exceptional cases. Legal rulings are based on general principles, and while they may account for special circumstances, these exceptions are not the primary concern.
13. 3. The loss of virginity, irrespective of the cause, distances the individual from the constraints of virginity. The concept of virginity is a symbol of a woman’s untouched and untested state. Once it is lost for any reason, there is no additional complication regarding her future marriage. Therefore, the father’s consent is a rational requirement only in the case of a virgin daughter; once her virginity is lost, there is no longer any need for paternal consent.
14. 4. As previously mentioned, all matters of personal and social life have rational foundations, and religiously prescribed obedience only applies to matters of worship and divine commands. Thus, in situations where the rationale for a law is unclear, faith and adherence to divine instructions are essential.
15. In Islam, the father’s consent in the marriage of a virgin daughter is considered valid as long as his opinion serves the daughter’s welfare and happiness. However, if it becomes clear that the father’s refusal is based on personal reasons, ignorance, or selfish motives that are not in the daughter’s best interest, his consent may no longer be required. In such cases, the daughter’s consent remains the fundamental condition for the marriage. If a father forces his daughter into a marriage against her will, such a contract would be invalid.
16. The Cunning Daughter!
    A daughter once came to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and complained that her father had married her off to her cousin without her consent. The Prophet (PBUH) told her that she should accept it if this marriage had already taken place. However, the daughter responded, saying that she did not wish to marry him, as she had no desire to be with him. The Prophet (PBUH) then informed her that she could choose to marry someone else. When the daughter heard this, she said: “O Messenger of God, I love my cousin very much, and I cannot marry anyone else. But I want you to inform women that fathers should not marry their daughters off without their consent.”
17. From this narration, several points can be deduced:
18. 1. The primary principle in marriage is the mutual consent of both parties, especially the woman, who must offer the proposal, while the man only accepts it.
19. 2. A father cannot impose his own choice on his daughter, and if he does, the marriage is not valid.
20. 3. If a daughter is forced into marriage, the marriage contract is invalid, and she can separate from her husband without divorce and choose to marry someone else.
21. 4. In a fair and open society, women should be able to defend their rights and resist marriage proposals, even from their fathers, without being disrespectful. This resistance should not be considered impolite or contrary to societal values.
22. 5. The phrase “So the Prophet (PBUH) left the matter to her” indicates that the father has no authority in deciding his daughter’s marriage. Even if the father is silent on the matter, it is the daughter’s right to decide. It is clear from the Prophet’s silence that no direct ruling is given for paternal consent, except in cases where it is beneficial for the daughter.
23. 6. Forcing individuals to follow the desires of elders—such as fathers or authorities—can lead to resistance from young people. Creating an environment where young people are allowed freedom of choice will prevent this type of conflict and alleviate the problems of the youth.
24. The tendency to oppose authority is a characteristic of youth, and it should not be encouraged. Forcing such opposition only exacerbates problems.
25. 7. If love and affection are not central to the choice of a spouse, neither the woman nor the man can have a fulfilling and harmonious marriage. Without love, they will struggle to face the challenges of life together, and this could lead to dissatisfaction and negative consequences, which would ultimately affect both the individual and their parents.
26. The Concept of the Marriage Contract and Its Implications in Islamic Jurisprudence
27. Following the two introductory points, in response to the objection, it must be stated that the essence of marriage and its terminology – which is addressed in Islamic law and, in some form, in every other religion or culture – has various dimensions that can be summarized as follows.
28. The core of marriage and its reality – which includes emotional attachment, affection, unity, and its subsequent effects, such as companionship, intimacy, and other results – are all tangible realities with true significance. The words and phrases of the marriage contract, or any other speech or action that signifies the realization of marriage between a man and a woman, are simply indicators of that marriage and external unity, expressing and specifying its tangible essence.
29. When a man and a woman develop a sense of closeness, affection, or interest toward one another, to convey this reality among themselves and to others, there is a need for an indicative term, and these words and expressions narrate this external reality.
30. Thus, when the terms of the marriage contract are uttered with the intention of enactment, accompanied by the necessary external conditions, they signify the realization of the marriage. These words then act as an indicator and external reflection of all the effects and consequences of that external reality, giving voice to the true facts and becoming the language of those realities.
31. Therefore, marriage is not merely a set of words, and these words alone cannot validate an action. Rather, intention, will, and seriousness must accompany them to correctly represent the actual reality and ensure that what is spoken is also realized in practice. While the contract itself may initially exist as a mental designation, it takes an external form in reality.
32. Indeed, without the existence of the man and woman, their desires, and the necessary conditions, the contract itself would be ineffectual. Furthermore, without an indicator or tool to communicate meanings, the desires of the man and woman would not manifest in a specific way, and the marriage would not be realized or understood in accordance with common sense or societal norms.
33. Thus, in any society, every thought and action of a person must have a clear and explicit language and expression. This is why religious law provides specific languages and conditions for the realization of each act, ensuring that people’s actions and behaviors are clear and unambiguous. For example, a marriage contract that is coerced or forced is not valid; a contract without intent or a specific formula is ineffectual; and a marriage that does not meet the necessary external conditions and requirements does not hold any effect.
34. In this sense, a legitimate marriage contract with all its required conditions can serve as a genuine representation of the real marriage and its tangible borders. This matter is neither trivial nor insignificant; there is no valid argument for denying it, nor does proving it require any additional effort.
35. Barter in Marriage Contracts
36. A critical issue here that demands attention is that, generally speaking, every contract or unilateral action – such as buying, renting, marriage, and divorce – is not solely dependent on words. It also involves voluntary action, which can be represented through something other than speech. Words, as a form of expression, are simply tools for conveying meanings, and by themselves, they have no intrinsic legal, social, or rational status in such matters. Hence, from a religious perspective, “barter” in general exchanges, much like words, bears all the same characteristics, consequences, and legal rulings as transactions or contracts.
37. Therefore, one could argue that the marriage contract – whether permanent or temporary – does not necessarily require words. It can be realized without speech and could be valid as an action in itself. The indicator for the realization of marriage is not necessarily confined to verbal expressions; any indicator would suffice. Willingness, realization, and the enactment of marriage can occur through any valid means, though words are generally clearer and more expressive in conveying meanings.
38. Just as barter is valid in transactions or contracts, marriage can also be valid through barter, as long as it meets the necessary conditions and characteristics, and complies with general regulations. Although such expressions may not be explicitly stated in the words and rulings of jurists, I see no ambiguity or hesitation in accepting this view, because in Islamic law and in both the Quran and Hadith, there is no clear evidence necessitating verbal expression in marriage contracts. The existence of “generalities” leaves no room for doubt.
39. The only factor that could lead to caution or the belief in the necessity of words among jurists is “consensus” (ijma). However, due to the lack of scientific or legal grounds for this consensus, it lacks practical utility and cannot be used as proof for the necessity of words in the marriage contract.
40. To further explain the principle of consensus and its ineffectiveness in this case, we can briefly summarize the discussion on consensus.
41. In general, consensus can be of two types: rationally based and non-rationally based. The latter holds no significant weight, and one should refer to its source, as relying on it would be mere imitation of evidence. Non-rational consensus among later jurists also does not serve as a valid argument, and the consensus of earlier jurists only derives its credibility because it was based on sources of Hadith that were lost due to enemy interference. While earlier jurists were close to the time of the infallibles (Ahlulbayt), their consensus can only be understood in light of those lost sources. Proving such a consensus is difficult, especially in this case, where we are certain of its absence. Therefore, relying on consensus in this context is unfounded and should be disregarded.
42. The Relationship Between Barter and Caution
43. An objection may be raised that this ruling contradicts caution.
44. In response, it must be emphasized that endorsing barter in marriage offers greater flexibility in legal rulings, easing the application of laws and reducing religious burdens. While the verbal contract, particularly in Arabic, does not pose a problem and may even be preferable, the important question is whether such conditions are truly obligatory or if there is any valid reason for their imposition.
45. Doesn’t this type of ruling, particularly regarding temporary marriage, lead to unnecessary burdens and disinterest in religious matters, thus creating a barrier for the faithful? Why should we impose unnecessary hardships on people, especially when the application of religion becomes difficult or burdensome?
46. The real question is: what justification exists for imposing such caution? Given the generalities and principles of Islamic law and the customary practices of rational people, there is no need for such restrictions.
47. Another question arises here: if barter is accepted in other areas of Islamic jurisprudence, can we find similar evidence for its use in marriage contracts?
48. Indeed, this is the case. We can cite Hadiths to support this argument, though we will not go into detailed discussion at this moment. However, other evidence supporting barter in marriage can be found.
49. Hadiths on Barter in Marriage
50. The judgment of Imam Ali (A.S.) and the mistake of Caliph Umar
51. Ibn Kathir narrates a story from Imam Sadiq (A.S.), which we will summarize freely: A woman came to Caliph Umar, admitting to adultery and asking him to purify her by administering the prescribed punishment. Without hesitation, the caliph ordered her stoning. When the news reached Imam Ali (A.S.), despite his lack of formal authority, he took the opportunity to address the situation and asked the woman: “How did you commit adultery?”
52. The woman explained the situation in detail: “I was in the desert, extremely thirsty. I asked a man for water, but he refused unless I agreed to surrender myself to him. Initially, I refused, but when I felt that thirst would kill me, I agreed.”
53. When she finished her story, Imam Ali (A.S.) responded: “By God, this is marriage!”
54. This narration clearly shows that marriage can occur through barter. In this case, the exchange was the offering of her body in return for water, without the need for formal verbal agreements.
55. Conclusion
56. It is important to note that in Islamic jurisprudence, there are numerous instances where contracts and actions, such as temporary marriage (Mut’ah), can be valid without a verbal contract. The essential conditions are mutual consent, the determination of a period, and a dowry – all of which can be realized through actions rather than words.
57. Thus, it is vital that the religious community – especially scholars and jurists – embrace a deeper understanding of these issues, removing unnecessary complications from religious practice and promoting a more accessible, practical, and pure form of faith. Religion should not be a source of hardship but should instead facilitate ease and spiritual clarity for all.

The Provisions of the Marriage Contract: The Independence of the Man and the Subordination of the Woman

Some individuals—who are often referred to as “intellectuals”—have raised another objection regarding the marriage contract, arguing that marriage should represent a mutual, balanced, and harmonious relationship. However, they claim that the terms of the marriage contract do not reflect such a relationship because, within the contract’s terms, the woman is presented as subordinate, secondary, and passive. A marital life is a shared existence, where both the woman and the man play essential roles in its realization. This natural life should be characterised by balance and harmony; however, the terms of the marriage contract do not reflect this, as it is only the woman who submits herself to the man, becoming the means through which his pleasures are fulfilled. Why should the terms of the marriage contract not also consider the woman’s independent position?

Response to the Objection: The Position of the Woman in the Marriage Contract

Before addressing this misconception, it is important to clarify the absolute nature of the contract and the bond between the two parties. A contract represents the establishment of a relationship between two entities, and it serves as the language through which this relationship is manifest. Initially, one party plays the role of the offeror (the proposer) and addresses the other party to make the contract, after which the second party either accepts or rejects the contract.

Thus, just as a contract cannot be realised with only one party, both parties are essential in bringing it into effect. A contract is characterised by a reciprocal relationship between the two, and without either the offer or the acceptance, the contract cannot be realized. Specifically, without the offer, the acceptance would have no grounds, and without the acceptance, the offer would remain ineffective.

Therefore, the terms of the contract are mutually coordinated, beginning with one party and culminating in the other. However, it is always the case that the first party to act is the offeror, who sets the stage for the realization of the agreement or gift being exchanged.

In the same way, the person offering a good or gift initiates the transaction, and the other party, through acceptance or rejection, determines the validity of the offer. In this case, either they accept and validate the contract, or they reject it, which nullifies the offer.

From this explanation, it becomes clear that the marriage contract represents the establishment of a relationship that encompasses both the woman and the man. Since the woman is desired and holds a special value, and the man assumes the significant responsibilities of life, the offer is made by the woman, and the man responds by accepting it.

The woman, through her offer, presents herself as a key element of the marriage contract and the shared life, while the man agrees and expresses his consent to it. One could even argue that since the essence of any contract lies in the offer, and acceptance is merely the finalization of the process, in the marriage contract, the woman plays the primary role; she is the offeror, and the man merely accepts her offer—just as any offer is governed by its acceptance. Although the man’s acceptance is, in itself, a type of active acceptance, just as the woman’s offer is a form of consent, it is ultimately the man’s acceptance that brings the offer to fruition.

Marriage Contract: The Harmonious Melody of Two Souls United

The woman places her infinite potential for joy and fulfillment at the disposal of her husband, presenting it as a gift to him. She announces her readiness for cooperation and sacrifice alongside him, and naturally requests his acceptance of this harmonious partnership. Therefore, the terms of the marriage contract are not imposed or coercive; rather, they are a harmonious and beautiful expression of unity between two souls. These terms do not diminish the distinctive aspects of the woman’s or the man’s lives but preserve the unique boundaries of each individual.

Consequently, the marriage contract cannot be considered as implying complete independence for either party. The independence of either the woman or the man would conflict with the unity of the two souls. It is clear that the marriage contract does not seek to negate the individual aspects of the man or woman; rather, it alleviates loneliness and addresses the personal and collective shortcomings, without erasing the unique identity of either party. The marriage contract represents a shared life of complete unity, fostering love, affection, and spiritual connection between two individuals, grounded in a shared human reality.

From this, it is clear that the woman is not merely an instrument for the fulfilment of desires. Although she possesses boundless potential for joy and willingly offers herself for this essential and social role, she does not become an object for use. While the woman is required, within the limits of law and duty, to observe the man’s rights, this obligation is not one-sided. In fact, the marriage contract places more responsibilities on the man. Therefore, if either party fails to uphold their responsibilities, Islamic law has established certain rights and duties to ensure that neither party’s rights are lost.

In this regard, one must not judge the incorrect practices or abuses that sometimes occur in society, often driven by selfishness and injustice from men, and occasionally by women as well. Such misbehaviour is not a reflection of religious principles and should not be attributed to religion. Religion itself strongly condemns such actions. Thus, the marriage contract represents a balanced unity that originates from the union of two souls. In this union, absolute independence does not hold meaning, although it does not harm the personal independence of either party, which remains intact and can be exercised appropriately within its specific context.

While marriage fosters unity and removes discord, it does not damage the personal identity or individual preferences of either the man or the woman.

The Incompatibility of Divine Law with Human Nature?

Now, considering the above arguments, another objection arises: the perceived incompatibility between the divine law of marriage and human nature. This objection suggests that according to the marriage contract, the woman has an active role (as the one who makes the offer), whereas the man is the recipient of that offer (the acceptor). The objection is raised on the grounds that, according to natural tendencies, men are the active seekers (the “tallies”) and women are the passive “objects of desire.” Thus, how can it be explained that, in the legal contract, the woman is the offeror and the man is the acceptor, when their natural roles suggest the opposite?

In response to this query, two points must be considered:

1. The Concept of Mutuality: The terms “seeker” and “desired” are, logically, mutual and oppositional; they do not imply a one-sided relationship. A “seeker” is also a recipient in another sense, and a “desired” object is also a seeker in its own way. This mutuality is clear in the relationship between cause and effect. For instance, a thirsty person (who seeks water) is both the seeker and the one who causes the action, yet water, which is the object sought, is also the cause of the seeker’s movement.
2. The Spiritual and Emotional Balance: Although the man, by nature, is the seeker and the woman the object of his desire, Islamic law assigns the active role to the woman in the legal contract, granting her greater agency in the decision-making process. This recognition is intended as a mark of respect for her emotional and spiritual role, offering her the opportunity to have more control in the choice of her partner. Meanwhile, the man is made the recipient of this offer, reflecting the complementary nature of their relationship.

Thus, there is no fundamental contradiction between the divine law and human nature regarding the roles of men and women in marriage. The roles of “seeker” and “desired” are reciprocal and do not create a dichotomy. The religious framework simply shifts these roles for practical and ethical reasons, ensuring a balance of power and respect within the marriage contract.