Women and Freedom

Women and Freedom:

An Analysis, Review, and Critique of the Book The Rights of Women in Islam by Martyr Morteza Motahhari

This work is an analysis, review, and critique of the book The Rights of Women in Islam written by Martyr Morteza Motahhari, which was originally published as a series of articles in the Zan-e-Rooz magazine in the years 1966 and 1967. The primary motivation behind writing these articles was to respond to suggestions put forward by intellectuals and reformists of the time, aimed at changing civil laws related to family rights and improving the status of women.

Martyr Motahhari’s book, The Rights of Women in Islam, addresses women’s legal status within the Islamic framework, presenting a detailed and scholarly analysis of women’s rights. The author delves into these issues with a combination of philosophical insight and practical reasoning, presenting his arguments in an accessible and comprehensible manner for the general public. The book not only engages with the issue of women’s rights but also tackles the broader issue of gender equality, exploring the nuanced relationship between the natural rights of men and women, and the distinct roles each gender plays according to Islamic teachings.

Overview of Motahhari’s Book

The Rights of Women in Islam by Martyr Morteza Motahhari provides a thorough examination of the position of women within Islamic law and its alignment with human nature and innate principles. In this work, Motahhari strives to demonstrate that Islamic law concerning women is deeply rooted in both the natural disposition of human beings and the divine wisdom of Islamic teachings. He argues that women’s rights, as outlined in Islamic jurisprudence, are in harmony with their nature, and that any actions against this inherent nature would have negative consequences.

Motahhari’s writings hold enduring relevance because they approach the topic in a detailed and systematic manner, exploring the fundamental philosophical and legal aspects of the issue. Despite the difficulties Motahhari encounters when confronting certain jurisprudential elements, his critique remains valuable for understanding the potential for women’s rights within the Islamic framework. This is in contrast to works such as Women in the Mirror of Majesty and Beauty by Ayatollah Javad Amoli, which, while also addressing women’s issues in Islam, often relies heavily on scriptural references without delving into the deeper, more analytical aspects of Islamic law.

The Rights of Women in Islam stands as a critical and scholarly text that provides not just legal perspectives but also philosophical arguments regarding the roles and rights of women, making it an invaluable resource for those interested in the intersection of gender, religion, and law.

This is the Global Change that Has Even Engaged Iranian Traditional and Cultural Society: A Review of Women’s Rights and the Necessity for Scientific Responses and Practical Solutions

This work addresses the global transformation that has not only affected the broader world but has also engaged even the traditional and cultural society of Iran. It underlines that the demands of women, along with public opinion, require scientific responses and practical solutions in this crucial matter. The critique of the two aforementioned books is aligned with achieving this goal and aims to clear away false religious assertions and scientific misconceptions regarding women. It also emphasizes the necessity of revisiting laws that are either ignorant, unjust, or have failed to adapt to changes in the subject matter, resulting in inadequate or inappropriate rulings. While the outcomes of these critiques are elaborately discussed in the book Family, this critique stands as part of a wider, proposed legal framework.

It should be noted that, as Martyr Motahhari pointed out, unscientific, ignorant, and unjust laws are major factors in the disintegration of family systems and the degradation of society, particularly with regard to women. This, in turn, affects society as a whole. This critique aims to address the erroneous philosophical foundations and principles that have led to unjust laws against women. The critique of these two books can be viewed as a critique of the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” as well, a document that emerged after the French Revolution and was incorporated into the “French Constitution” as an inseparable principle.

Finally, it should be noted that whenever the term “book” is mentioned in this text without further specification, it refers to The Rights of Women in Islam by Martyr Morteza Motahhari. It is hoped that this effort will be accepted as truthful and receive attention from the scholarly community.

Section 1: Courtship and Engagement

Courtship and the Physical Strength of Women

Martyr Motahhari begins his book with a discussion on courtship and engagement, explaining his rationale for it:

(p. 49) “I begin my discussion on the forty proposed articles from the point where the discussion begins in these proposals. In these proposals, the Civil Code starts with courtship and engagement.”

He presents the male as the one who is a seeker and desirer, while the woman is portrayed as the sought-after and the one who responds, a description that compensates for the woman’s physical weakness:

(p. 54) “The custom of courtship is a delicate and wise plan to preserve the dignity and respect of women. We said that in the law of creation, men are made to be the embodiment of need and desire, while women are made to be the embodiment of desirability and responsiveness. This is the best guarantee of a woman’s dignity and compensates for her physical weakness in relation to men’s physical strength, and also serves as the best factor in preserving the balance and harmony of their shared life. This is a natural privilege granted to women and a natural responsibility imposed on men.”

Motahhari’s claim of women’s physical weakness lacks scientific evidence. While the female body is delicate, it is not weak. The creation of both men and women is complementary, with each being complete in their own nature and strong in their respective roles. Comparing the two different natures is inherently flawed. For example, women may be more emotional than men, and men may be more rational, but the lesser emotionality in men is not a sign of weakness. Both courage and bravery are qualities shared by both genders, as emphasized in the Qur’anic verse (Surah Al-Ma’idah, 5:54): “O you who have believed, whoever of you reverts from his religion, Allah will bring forth [in place of them] a people He will love and who will love Him.”

A perfect example of this verse is Lady Khadijah (RA), who did not fear the reproaches of others when marrying the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and was cast out by her tribe. Moreover, she used her wealth to support Islam, particularly during the economic boycott at the time, without fearing poverty. Her strength exemplifies the courage of a devout and loving woman.

In our book Family, we discuss the concept of courtship and its legal implications. We define courtship as an expression of desire (not merely a request) and an initial proposal to engage in a reasonable and healthy discussion aimed at mutual understanding and decision-making for a shared future life. Women, like men, have the right to initiate courtship, make choices, and express their feelings. However, if the freedom of choice is denied to women, both men and women will suffer from an inability to make informed and harmonious decisions regarding their potential partners.

Such a culture is not deeply embedded in Islamic jurisprudence, which has a tradition of “women’s autonomy” where the selection of a partner is fundamentally in the hands of both the man and the woman. Although women can initiate courtship and take an active role in the engagement process, the dominant culture in Muslim societies often prevents women from fully exercising their autonomy in choosing a spouse, leading to a lack of legal and institutional protections in this regard.

Gifts in Failed Courtships

In cases where the engagement or marriage is broken, if gifts were exchanged, the law stipulates that the gifts are non-returnable, and the offending party should return the value of the gifts if they are no longer available:

(p. 55) “According to Article 1037, any party that cancels the engagement without a valid reason must return the gifts given by the other party or their parents or other third parties. If the gifts are no longer in existence, their value must be reimbursed, unless the gifts were lost without fault.”

If the courtship or marriage is dissolved, the costs for both parties are as follows:

A. If the goods exchanged were not meant as gifts, but were intended for mutual use, the purchaser retains ownership and must return the equivalent or its value.
B. Consumable items, such as food, are not subject to reimbursement as they have been consumed and are lost.
C. Neither party is liable for the expenses of the wedding ceremony if the breakup was due to one party’s fault or otherwise.
D. If one party destroys the property of the other, they must purchase a replacement.

Section 2: Temporary Marriage

Differences Between Permanent and Temporary Marriage

In Shiite jurisprudence, there are differences between the rights of parents and children in permanent and temporary marriages. However, this distinction is overlooked in the book, where it is claimed:

(p. 62) “The main and essential difference between temporary and permanent marriage is that temporary marriage is free from restrictions, meaning it is entirely based on the will and contract of both parties; even the temporality of the marriage offers a kind of freedom, giving both parties control over the time.”

In permanent marriage, neither party can prevent procreation without the consent of the other. In temporary marriage, the consent of the other party is not required. This is seen as another form of freedom given to the partners.

(p. 63) “The child born of a temporary marriage is no different from one born of a permanent marriage.”

In permanent marriage, the child belongs to the man, but in temporary marriage, if the man denies responsibility for the child, the child belongs to the woman. If the woman refuses the child, the state assumes guardianship. In this way, the Islamic system provides for the welfare of the child, as it does with inheritance issues. The necessity for male consent regarding childbearing is characteristic of permanent marriage, not temporary marriage.

Both in permanent and temporary marriage, men, according to religious law, can prevent procreation even if the woman disagrees. However, women cannot prevent pregnancy if the man desires it, as the custody, upbringing, and care of the child fall under the man’s responsibility. Consequently, the child does not belong to the woman, and custody is given to the father in the case of divorce, ensuring that the mother is not burdened with financial responsibility for a child she cannot support.

Sexual Maturity and Social Maturity

As stated in our book Family, the primary foundation for marriage should be permanent, with individuals encouraged to establish their lives with permanent marriages. Martyr Motahhari, however, holds a different view:

(p. 64) “As we previously understood, permanent marriage entails more responsibilities and obligations for both spouses. This is why it is impossible to find a child who, upon reaching puberty, is ready for permanent marriage. The modern era has extended the time between natural puberty and social maturity, making it impossible for a child to shoulder lifelong responsibilities as they did in the simpler times of the past.”

Is the Youth Willing to Undergo a Period of “Temporary Monasticism” and Subject Themselves to Intense Pressure and Asceticism Until They Are Able to Afford Permanent Marriage?

For example, if a young person were to accept temporary monasticism, would nature refrain from imposing the severe psychological consequences that arise from the suppression of sexual instincts, which psychoanalysis has revealed? Would young men and women, after experiencing numerous, unrestrained relationships during their studies, be capable of becoming responsible husbands and wives?

One alternative is temporary marriage (mut’a) and free marriage. Initially, temporary marriage limits the woman, ensuring that she is not the wife of more than one man at a time. It is evident that the restriction placed on women implies a restriction on men as well. When each woman is dedicated to a specific man, it follows that each man is dedicated to a specific woman, unless there is an imbalance in numbers.

Official and state-supported marriage must be permanent, not temporary, which is a personal matter managed under exceptional circumstances. A young person who cannot marry permanently due to continued studies or other challenges, but does not wish to fall into sin, should not be confined to temporary marriage. Instead, the Islamic state should provide a fundamental and structural solution for these challenges. The solution for such a person is not temporary marriage, but for society to be arranged in such a way that young people can marry permanently while continuing their studies. The issue cannot be solved merely by temporary marriage, although temporary marriage should be engineered and implemented where appropriate.

If financial oppression were lifted from some, and deprivation from others, and society were restructured so that young people could both pursue higher education and marry, just as seminarian students are provided with housing, if young people were given financial support during their studies, they could marry and, once their studies were completed, the financial support could be cut to allow them to pursue work. However, temporary marriage, as a secondary option and after the establishment of permanent marriage, remains one of the means to prevent sin and prostitution. In societies where temporary marriage is not legalised and implemented, the rate of corruption and vice naturally increases.

The Assertion that Limiting Women Necessarily Limits Men
In this section, the claim that the restriction of women necessitates the restriction of men is neither self-evident nor inevitable, as men are not required to be restricted to one specific woman. A man can have multiple wives, even if the number of women is fewer than the number of men, whereas a woman cannot have more than one husband.

Temporary Marriage as an Experiment

In his justification for temporary marriage and its impact on the purification of society, Russell offers the following opinion:

“This necessity is not limited to the period of study. It may arise in other circumstances as well. In principle, a woman and a man who are considering permanent marriage but have not yet gained full confidence in each other might marry temporarily for a limited period. If they find full trust in each other, they continue; if not, they separate. Let me ask you: why do Europeans find it necessary to have a certain number of women involved in regulated and monitored prostitution in every city? Is it not because they consider the presence of unmarried men who cannot marry permanently a significant threat to families?”

What Russell suggests in justifying state-regulated prostitution by assigning certain women to fulfil sexual needs is, in fact, a grave injustice to the women of society. One cannot, for the sake of societal health, degrade and destroy the dignity of women. The societal issue should be solved by one of the following ways:

Society must learn to avoid sin and corruption. While people are generally averse to sin, some still commit transgressions. To safeguard society, first and foremost, the state must support permanent marriage as a primary policy. Additionally, by promoting temporary marriage and ensuring justice, the state can manage the desires and impulses of society, ensuring a healthier and more stable life for the majority of its people.

Objections to Temporary Marriage

The First Criticism
The first criticism brought up in relation to advocating for temporary marriage concerns the idea of replacing permanent marriage with temporary marriage:

“The foundation of marriage should be permanence. When two people enter into a marriage contract, they should consider themselves committed to one another for life, and the thought of separation should never cross their minds. Therefore, temporary marriage cannot provide a stable foundation between the spouses.”

The idea that marriage must be permanent is undoubtedly correct, but this criticism only holds if we attempt to replace permanent marriage with temporary marriage. It is clear that no young man or woman, when a permanent and everlasting marriage is possible, would willingly settle for a temporary arrangement.

Marriage is a pact and a contract. In Islamic law, marriage is considered an agreement, and the essence of a pact is not necessarily permanence. A contract can be either permanent or temporary, and the duration of marriage is governed by the contract’s terms. Even a permanent marriage can end through divorce. Thus, permanent marriage is not an essential characteristic of marriage itself. Permanent marriage serves a different purpose than temporary marriage. The purpose of permanent marriage is to form a family, bear children, and maintain long-term emotional and social connections between spouses, while temporary marriage does not necessarily entail these objectives. Temporary marriage is entered into with the understanding that sexual relations and other intimate acts are either restricted or conditional.

The Second Objection: Social Perception and Lack of Popular Support
Temporary marriage has not been widely accepted by Iranian women, especially among the Shi’a Muslim community, who view it as a form of degradation. Thus, public opinion among Shi’a Muslims has largely rejected it.

The response to this objection is that the disdain for temporary marriage among women stems from the exploitation by lustful men. The law must intervene to prevent such exploitation. Secondly, expecting that temporary marriage will be as widely accepted as permanent marriage is unreasonable, as the rationale for temporary marriage is rooted in the inability or unwillingness of one or both partners to enter into a permanent union.

The Third Objection: The Nature of the Contract in Marriage
A third critique of temporary marriage relates to the issue of the dowry in marriage:

“Temporary marriage, unlike permanent marriage, is contrary to the dignity and respect of women, as it seems akin to renting or selling a human being, thereby degrading a woman’s humanity by offering herself in exchange for money.”

This objection is puzzling. First, what relationship does the temporary nature of marriage have to renting or selling? Does the mere limitation of the duration of marriage render it comparable to a rental agreement? And if it is indeed due to the dowry that this comparison is made, does this mean that without a dowry, marriage would restore a woman’s dignity?

In response, the argument is made that, like any other contract that involves payment or an agreed-upon fee, marriage does not inherently equate to rental or sale. Both permanent and temporary marriages involve financial agreements (e.g., dowries), yet the essence of the marriage contract is distinct from an employment or rental contract. Women, like men, both enjoy and benefit from marriage, making any comparison to renting or selling inappropriate.

Unwanted Children

Contraceptive methods, despite their diversity, cannot completely prevent unwanted pregnancies. One significant difference between temporary and permanent marriage lies in reproduction. In permanent marriages, neither party can avoid the responsibility of procreation without the other’s consent. However, in temporary marriages, both parties are free to avoid pregnancy, particularly with the use of modern contraceptive methods. Temporary marriage, without accounting for the potential of unwanted pregnancies, would not be feasible.

In Western societies, despite having advanced contraceptive technology, unwanted pregnancies remain a challenge. Therefore, the state must establish robust and enforceable laws regarding contraception within the framework of temporary marriage and also assume responsibility for unwanted children. Social welfare systems should be equipped to support and care for such children to prevent them from becoming a societal burden.

The Role of Consent in Marriage

Marriage (Nikah) is a contract and a covenant. The contract of marriage is a matter of affirmation and confirmation, not a creation of the Shari’ah. Religion itself acknowledges that “every people have marriage.” Islam has established specific features, laws, and regulations for the marriage of Muslims. Now, is “verbal expression” a condition for marriage or not? It must be stated that the condition of verbal expression is contrary to the principle, as is the case with other contracts. The martyr Motahhari points out this legal viewpoint in connection with the following legal article:

(p. 75) “Article 1062, which states that ‘marriage is concluded by offer and acceptance through words that explicitly indicate the intent to marry,’ is not exclusive to permanent marriage but pertains to both permanent and temporary marriages.”

As Shaykh Ansari in his book Mu’āṭāt (Acts of Agreement) has declared that the mutual acts of agreement in contracts, like in sales, are valid, so too, mutual acts of agreement in marriage are valid. Any act that expresses the essence and content of marriage suffices. As with other contracts, no specific words are necessary; these actions are declaratory, and sometimes they take the form of deeds, and sometimes they are verbal. In marriage, it can be said that the contract is either verbal or physical, and the condition of using certain words, such as Arabic, requires solid evidence, of which there is none. Consensus or popular opinions cannot serve as evidence because the consensus of later scholars is not binding, and the consensus of earlier scholars is either based on reasoning or not. Non-reasoned consensus lacks credibility, but from the non-reasoned consensus of earlier scholars, it can be inferred that they had evidence that is inaccessible to later generations. Such non-reasoned consensus is also absent. The same reasoning that applies to other contracts, like sale, applies here, and many of the interactions between men and women, which according to the famous scholars of jurisprudence may be considered unlawful, are in fact lawful marriage, and the imposition of punishments for them is unjust and contrary to the law, thus indebting them to people’s and God’s rights.

Harem and Temporary Marriage

Martyr Motahhari, when examining the social causes of harems and whether the law of temporary marriage has influenced the formation of harems, points to two key factors: social discrimination and the fact that many men are unable to establish families or have wives, and some seek to acquire any available single women. He writes:

(p. 76) “The first factor in the formation of harems is the chastity and modesty of women, meaning the moral and social environment should be such that women do not engage in sexual relations with men other than a particular one. In such circumstances, a lustful and wealthy man may decide to form a harem by gathering a group of women around him.”

The formation of harems in the East did not arise from the chastity and modesty of women, but rather from the exploitation of women and the variety of pleasures men could derive from harem women. Similarly, the modern Western world has transformed women into objects of exploitation in a different way. Throughout history, all the selfish and exploitative criminals in every part of the world have transformed their indulgence into different forms of injustice and oppression against women.

The Difference Between Asceticism and Monasticism

The book emphasizes one of the clear and established principles of Islam: the struggle against indulgence in pleasures, including sexual desires and the pursuit of multiple women. It also refutes asceticism and monasticism in Islam. It states:

(p. 79) “What distinguishes Islam from some other religions is that it rejects asceticism and monasticism, not that it deems indulgence permissible. According to Islam, all instincts (sexual and otherwise) should be satisfied within the bounds of nature’s necessity. However, Islam does not allow the nurturing of these instincts in a way that turns them into an insatiable spiritual thirst. Therefore, if something takes on the character of indulgence or oppression and injustice, we must understand that it is not in accordance with Islamic teachings.”

The laws that humans establish, or the legal measures they take, must preserve this distinction for women and this responsibility for men. Laws that treat women and men equally in terms of duties and expectations are detrimental to women, infringe on their rights, and disturb the balance, benefiting men outwardly but harming both parties.

Neither asceticism nor monasticism is identical, nor is monasticism sanctioned for women. Asceticism is like prayer, fasting, and remembrance, whereas monasticism is not. Women in human societies have always faced some form of exploitation or abuse; sometimes they have been pushed into markets, while other times they have been concealed at home. In modern times and the Renaissance period, women were brought into the workforce to become laborers and objects of sexual desire. Through the development of gender psychology and other sciences, people aimed to understand women more fully to exploit them further. The confinement of women within the home originated from ancient exploiters who wanted to monopolize the use of women by keeping them hidden. Islam does not hide women or draw them into monasticism nor does it expose them; rather, it considers women first and foremost domestic beings and then social ones, just as the nature of men is primarily social and secondarily domestic.

The Political Prohibition of Temporary Marriage

The book, citing Allameh Kashif al-Ghita, argues that the second caliph’s prohibition of mut’ah (temporary marriage) was politically motivated and a governmental decree:

(p. 80) “Temporary marriage is specific to Ja’fari jurisprudence; other Islamic schools of thought do not permit it. Muslims are united in agreeing that, in the early days of Islam, temporary marriage was allowed. The second caliph prohibited nikah al-mut’ah during his caliphate… The caliph assumed the right to prohibit it because he believed this issue fell under the jurisdiction of the ruler of the Muslims… In other words, the caliph’s prohibition was political, not religious or legal. It is clear that this was a temporary matter, and the reason why Muslims at that time accepted this prohibition was that they viewed the caliph’s decree as a political expediency, not as a permanent law. Otherwise, it would have been impossible for the caliph to say, ‘The Prophet allowed this, but I forbid it,’ and for the people to accept his words.”

The second caliph’s prohibition of mut’ah was a public act of contradiction against the clear decree of the Prophet, not an action based on political reasoning or governmental rulings, but on the caliph’s personal biases. The recommendation of mut’ah in Shia culture was aimed at preventing immoral behavior and illicit sexual conduct among those unable to engage in permanent marriage. Its purpose was to prevent the spread of immorality, not to promote indulgence. Therefore, temporary marriage is not a vehicle for sexual pleasure; when conducted within its proper conditions, it serves as a preventative measure.

Section Three: Women and Social Independence

The Issue of Parental Consent

Martyr Motahhari discusses the issue of paternal guardianship over an unmarried daughter, defending the law that parental consent is required for a virgin to marry for the first time. He writes:

(pp. 91-92) “One thing is certain: if fathers refuse to consent to their daughters’ marriage without just cause, their right is forfeited, and the daughters, according to the consensus of all Islamic jurists, have complete freedom in choosing their husbands.”

Regarding whether paternal consent is a condition or not, as mentioned, there is a difference of opinion among jurists, and perhaps the majority, especially later jurists, do not consider paternal consent necessary. However, some jurists maintain it as a condition. Our civil law follows the second group—those who are cautious. Since this issue is not a universally established Islamic rule, we do not discuss it from an Islamic standpoint, but from a social perspective, I believe that our civil law has taken the right approach.”

In the jurisprudential discussions, we have noted that there is no solid legal evidence for the requirement of paternal consent for the marriage of a virgin, even though it is a popular opinion. The fact that a daughter marries with the consent of her father is a moral matter and in harmony with respecting him, but if a daughter marries without her father’s consent, the marriage is valid, even if the father disapproves and may curse her. On the other hand, if the father arranges a marriage for his daughter and she disagrees, the contract is void without her consent. Thus, the difference between the consent of the father and the daughter is clear, and the actual condition for the marriage contract is the daughter’s consent. The father’s role is merely to ensure moral integrity, not legal intervention, especially when the father considers the daughter’s best interests. If the father does not consider her best interests, his right is forfeited. If a daughter knows she will suffer misfortune and marries without her father’s consent, the marriage is still valid.

Passion and Love

The book distinguishes between a woman’s restraint in the face of affectionate or lustful intentions and the patience and endurance required for each:

(p. 92) “A man is a slave to his desires, and a woman is a captive of love. What leads a man to falter and fall is his lust, whereas women, according to psychologists, have greater patience and endurance against lust than men. However, what breaks a woman and captivates her is hearing a tune of love, loyalty, and devotion from a man. Women’s gullibility lies here.”

Both healthy men and women have sexual desires. It is possible for a man not to succumb to his desires at all. Sexual desires and attraction are intertwined with many factors, and it is possible for a woman to suppress them without taking any conscious action. What distinguishes this weakness is the lack of control over feelings and desires.

Similarity in Form and Substance, and Equality in Essence:

Similarity refers to equality; that is, similarity is essentially the same as equality. Two equal forms are similar, and beyond similarity, they also share a common essence. Westerners view similarity as equality, whereas Islam neither considers similarity nor equality in this context. Men and women differ in their creation and existence; however, both are human in essence. In Islam, men are the recipients of divine revelation, and it is they who possess the rights to governance, management, judgment, and leadership. All prophets, imams, and infallibles were men, with only a few women, who are exceptionally rare, being considered infallible. Even among leaders, rulers, and monarchs, all have been men.

On the other hand, in terms of physical and societal functions, women have been regarded as being in a subordinate position to men in creation. In the story of Adam, Adam is the first, followed by Eve. In reality, men and women are neither identical nor equal. The hormones that shape men and women are not identical. According to some Western scientists, every cell of men and women is different. Given this, how can it be argued that men and women are equal? When we say that men and women complete each other, we mean they are distinguished by their complementary roles; a man cannot do a woman’s job, just as a woman cannot take on a man’s role. We do not embrace the concept of equality between men and women but rather follow a system of excellence, which should first be discussed philosophically, and then legal discussions should be based on these philosophical foundations — as we have done in our book Fundamental Rights, where we rooted legal matters in a philosophical discourse of existence and manifestation.

In our critique of the book Women in the Mirror of Majesty and Beauty, we extensively address the philosophical and practical differences between men and women, explaining how these differences affect the specific rights and obligations of each gender.

Creation of Women in the Quran

Martyr Mutahhari, in his interpretation of the equality of the nature of men and women in the Quran, considers society to be one of the main subjects of philosophy. While the three main subjects of philosophy are God, the world, and humanity, society cannot be considered as a separate principle from humanity and the world. It is one of their consequences and prerequisites, with part of the discussion related to the world, such as place, and another part related to humanity. The book states:

“The Quran is not a book of philosophy, but it clearly expresses its stance on the world, humanity, and society — the three fundamental topics of philosophy… One of the issues explained in the Quran is the creation of men and women… If we want to understand the Quran’s view on the creation of men and women, we need to focus on the question of the nature of men and women, which is also addressed in other religious books. The Quran does not remain silent on this matter. We must examine whether the Quran considers men and women as having a shared essence or as having distinct natures. The Quran explicitly mentions in numerous verses that women were created from the same essence as men and that their nature is similar to that of men…”

This interpretation contradicts the claims found in some religious texts, where women are considered to be made from a lower essence than men or even that the first wife of Adam was created from his left side. The Quran offers no support for such notions, and therefore, Islam does not hold any degrading view of women regarding their essence and nature.

In the common interpretation of the Quran, it is often stated that in every aspect of creation, women are placed in a secondary position. This is not only in the human realm but also in the animal and plant kingdoms, where the male is considered the primary gender, while the female is seen as the secondary, passive counterpart. However, it must be acknowledged that men and women are both human and complementary to each other, and it is not appropriate to compare or equate them. The passivity of women is a natural characteristic, just as the masculinity of men is. This is the characteristic of a perfect system, without suggesting that one is an “first human” and the other a “second human,” and this natural perfection and difference should not result in discrimination or the creation of a two-tiered society.

The Element of Sin

In the following sections, it must be emphasized that women are not the element of sin; rather, Satan is the one who leads humans to sin. Just as men are not inherently free from sin, Satan directly entered Adam’s life, not through Eve:

“One of the degrading theories that has historically persisted and left its harmful traces in the literature of the world is the idea that women are the element of sin, that from women arise evil and temptation, and that women are small devils. It is said that in every sin or crime committed by men, a woman has been involved. They claim that men are inherently free from sin, and it is women who lead men into sin. They claim that Satan does not enter men directly but rather deceives them through women. They say that the first Adam was expelled from Paradise because of the temptation of Eve. However, the Quran, when discussing the story of Adam in Paradise, never says that Satan tempted Eve and then Eve led Adam astray. The Quran does not name Eve as the sole cause of Adam’s fall, but rather it says that both Adam and Eve were led astray by Satan.”

Spiritual Potential

The notion that women cannot ascend spiritually and reach higher levels of spirituality compared to men is rooted in their natural disposition and potential. This does not imply any inherent inferiority but rather reflects a fundamental characteristic of their nature. Martyr Mutahhari states:

“Another degrading view of women has been their spiritual and moral capabilities. It was believed that women cannot attain the same level of spiritual proximity to God as men, or that they cannot reach the same status in the afterlife. The Quran repeatedly affirms that the reward in the afterlife and proximity to God is not gender-based but dependent on faith and righteous deeds, whether performed by a man or a woman. The Quran mentions great female saints alongside male saints…”

Islam does not make a distinction between men and women in the movement from creation towards God. It is only in the movement from God to creation, in the responsibilities of prophethood and leadership, that men are considered more suitable. This is a key distinction. However, this does not imply that women cannot attain higher spiritual positions. It simply means that historically, and due to specific reasons, the role of prophet was assigned to men, as it is in the case of all the Prophets and Imams. The concept of prophethood is not closed, and women may evolve through scientific and educational advances to eventually be worthy of such positions in the future.

Similarity vs. Equality

The book further raises the issue of similarity and equality, claiming that while the West advocates for “similar rights,” Islam supports “equal human rights” for both men and women:

“We said that Islam has a distinct philosophy regarding the familial and societal relationships and rights of men and women, which does not align with what has been practiced for the past fourteen centuries, nor does it match contemporary approaches. Islam does not pose the question of whether men and women are equal in humanity or whether their familial rights should be valued equally. According to Islam, both men and women are human beings and share equal human rights.”

Islam does not suggest that men and women are similar in many aspects, nor does it attempt to equalize their roles or duties. Their creation and natural dispositions are different, and this difference requires that their rights, obligations, and punishments be distinct. While Western legal systems attempt to create a uniform approach, disregarding the inherent biological and natural differences between men and women, Islam recognizes these differences.

Earlier, we also stated that before delving into legal matters, it is crucial to understand the meaning of “men,” “women,” “equality,” and “similarity.” Equality, in its proper sense, refers to the notion that God has not deprived women of any inherent rights relative to their status and nature, as the second in creation. Similarly, men have not been deprived of rights. Each has been granted what is fitting for their natural roles, and this is the essence of equality. If “equality” refers to this alignment with natural roles, then it is correct. However, if it suggests that God created men and women as identical or equivalent in all aspects, this is not the case.

From a philosophical standpoint, no two entities are completely identical or equal, not even among the individual men or women. Each being, in its essence, is unique. This is a key principle in both philosophical and mystical traditions: “There is no repetition in manifestation.” If two beings were identical, one of them would be redundant. Therefore, equality of rights arises from the equality of essence, and this does not entail absolute sameness but an alignment of rights based on each being’s natural and inherent qualities.

The Difference Between Philosophy and Law

The book here confuses the philosophical discussion of law with the establishment and execution of laws. The philosophical discovery of law is one thing, and the practical implementation of that law in society is another. No law can be implemented or culturally integrated until it achieves public acceptance. A philosopher of law must describe and interpret law in a scientific manner, using clear criteria and standards. By explaining it and making it an intersubjective matter, the philosopher can bring the law to public awareness through knowledge, reasoning, and justification, thereby enabling it to be transformed into legislation and granting it enforceability and impact. Without this process, societal freedoms are at risk. The book, however, disregards the proper legislative process and mixes the stages of discovering and establishing law with its enforcement and execution, thereby making the ideas of legal philosophers seem obligatory:

(P. 143) “Philosophy cannot be proven with a coupon. Even more absurd is when, in addressing women’s human rights, we resort to the opinions of young boys and girls, printing coupons, and trying to determine what human rights are and whether the rights of women and men are the same or different by filling out those coupons.”

Nevertheless, we examine the issue of women’s human rights in a scientific and philosophical manner, based on the inherent human rights of all people. We aim to see whether the same principles that require all humans to have a series of natural and God-given rights also necessitate that men and women have the same rights or not.

… To investigate this, we must first discuss the foundation and root of human rights and then specifically study the rights of men and women.”

Referring to public opinions and the acceptance of laws or polling thousands of young men and women about their own rights provides a philosophy grounded in lived experience; they are in pain and dealing with real struggles, which enables them to better understand and articulate their pain. This is something that legal philosophers, if detached from the realities of society or unaware of the current conditions and issues faced by the youth, may fail to grasp. Although consulting philosophers at the stage of legal discovery is necessary and should occur as part of the legislative process, public opinion and assessing the social acceptance of laws is also an essential part of the process. It is not correct to say that the opinions of young people are worthless and that a philosopher must always dictate their views. While their opinions may be mistaken due to youthful impulsiveness, their perspective is not laughable. As we discussed, human rights have a rational foundation, and the legislature identifies and approves this foundation, starting with the educated and influential class. If young men and women are asked about their own rights and they speak about their problems and rights, it is not absurd. Scholars can also elaborate on or correct their own knowledge. Philosophy must be grounded in society and tangible, and it is wrong to assume that everything young people say is incorrect simply because they are in the throes of youth; they often express truths that philosophers may fail to grasp and experience firsthand. This youthful passion is a part of their reality, which requires guidance and management. Why not ask young people what their fresh pains are? This isn’t merely about surveys and questionnaires, but about listening to the voices of those in pain. It is akin to asking patients in a hospital what pain is. In this case, no one could object by saying, “You must ask the doctors about pain!” The doctor does not feel pain but understands it through science. Similarly, when asking men and women about the differences between them, is this comparable to filling out a questionnaire? This is tangible philosophy. Of course, this does not mean that everything they say is correct; they may need the guidance of a philosopher to review, correct, and refine their beliefs. Consulting the individuals themselves is consulting the rational, and after that, scholars can examine and correct their views. It is neither sufficient to rely solely on philosophers’ opinions nor to exclusively consult public opinion. Both elements are essential parts of the legislative process that must be respected to ensure that the establishment of laws is directly connected to their validation and enforcement. Therefore, neither the philosophers’ theory is paramount, nor is the opinion of the youth irrelevant. Both are necessary in their respective places.

The main issue with Eastern societies is that statistics on education, thought, and intellectualism are lower, and many social scientists do not engage with their societies’ realities; they are disconnected from the culture and do not perceive the social context. Even though they may possess vast knowledge, such scholars are not aligned with their communities and may even lack the patience to connect with people. They may view the masses as ignorant and thus fail to engage with them. Such individuals are not scholars of the people. In the West, however, philosophers and scholars are embedded in their societies and often work alongside professions such as medicine, engineering, or other social occupations, engaging directly with the concerns and issues of their people. Some even use their own pensions to fund their philosophical endeavors or theoretical projects. Eastern scholars are often detached from their societies and, despite being well-versed in knowledge, fail to connect with or understand the masses, which significantly limits their impact. If we want our society to grow, scholars must become experienced and practical in their knowledge, such that if they enter a market, café, or hotel, people will recognize them as experts and not strangers. Scholars must understand public knowledge well before diving into their specialized fields. Without a solid understanding of the general knowledge of society, they cannot lead effectively. Scholars should be arranged in such a way that before they specialize, they must have a strong grasp of societal knowledge and not be strangers to their communities.

If a philosopher, having never learned to distinguish between high and low-quality produce in the market, is tricked or taken advantage of, they should be considered backward. A capable philosopher must understand how to engage in practical matters, including trade. The detachment of scholars from society causes significant harm. An experienced philosopher can bridge the gap between East and West and lead the world, free from animosity, always being alongside and for the people.

However, the book states:

(P. 143) “To investigate this issue, we must first discuss the foundation and root of human rights and then specifically study the rights of men and women.”

The book should trace the root of rights back to philosophical schools of thought, not to legal movements. This research has been presented in our book New Foundations of Law. The legal discussion is foundational, and first, the philosophical bases must be examined to determine whether the nature of the two sexes—man and woman—is fundamentally the same or equal. Only after understanding their nature can the legal discussion begin. We talk about the feminine and masculine natures in the critique of the book Women in the Mirror of Glory and Beauty. The book later confronts the question of “the degradation and fall of humanity in Western philosophies” but does not pursue it in a root and philosophical manner and fails to reach the existential rights of individuals. Martyr Motahari writes:

(P. 150) “Here, once again, we are faced with an ancient philosophical issue: evaluating human beings, their position and dignity compared to other creatures, and the respectful character of human beings. We must ask, what is the intrinsic dignity of humanity that has created legal rights for humans and distinguishes them from horses, cattle, sheep, and pigeons? And this is where a clear contradiction arises between the foundation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on one side and the evaluation of humanity in Western philosophy on the other.”

Martyr Motahari criticizes Western philosophy for its treatment of humanity’s dignity, arguing that Western thinkers have abandoned the concept of the transcendent human and equated humans with animals and machines. Some Western philosophers deny spiritual truths, which form the basis of Eastern thought, and their approach to human nature diverges from that of Eastern philosophers. Western philosophy is human-centered and often rejects the independent essence of existence. Many deny the existence of a pure soul for humanity and reject many dependent truths, though this has no bearing on human rights. They claim that humans, as physical beings, have rights that should be protected in order to maintain a functioning society. Currently, over a hundred countries that have adopted human rights beliefs have diverse religious and philosophical backgrounds, such as Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and many non-theistic beliefs. Their acceptance of rights does not rely on material or metaphysical truths. The book wrongly conflates these concepts:

(P. 152) “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights must be issued by someone who sees humanity as more than a mechanical, material composition, who does not view human motives as purely animalistic or personal, and who recognizes the human conscience. The Declaration of Human Rights must be issued by the East, which believes in the principle (I am placing a vicegerent on earth) and sees divinity manifested in humanity.”

If Eastern societies had scientific and intellectual superiority and could reconcile differences through tolerance and understanding, they might be able to issue such a declaration. However, someone who believes humans are vicegerents of God on Earth must also have the power, resources, and system in place to promote this belief into a global cultural norm. Without such political, cultural, and practical means, no one can issue a universal, binding declaration. On the other hand, what Western societies have produced is ineffective for the East, which has its own independent philosophical stance. One cannot discuss divine vicegerency and public authority in opposition to the West without knowledge and power.

Martyr Motahari concludes that the failure of Western philosophy to uphold human dignity is a source of the decline of human rights in the West:

(P. 153) “The important issue is that (humanity) has degraded itself, lost sight of its inner self, and confined its attention solely to the material, sensory world. It sees no goal other than experiencing material pleasures and considers creation purposeless. This flawed perspective has led to much of humanity’s suffering today and threatens to engulf the entire world.”

Gandhi states: “The Westerner deserves the title of the Earth’s god because they own all the earthly resources. However, they are incapable of introspection, and this is enough to demonstrate the falsity of their civilization’s brilliance.”

Martyr Motahari, discussing this philosophical blindness, concludes that the Western approach to human rights, divorced from deeper understanding of the soul, is flawed. The Eastern approach, while more attuned to metaphysical and spiritual truths, still struggles with overcoming its own superstitions and misinterpretations of reality.

Ultimately, both East and West have their flaws, and both must strive toward better understanding and application of human rights in alignment with metaphysical and philosophical truths.

Section Six: The Natural Foundations of Family Rights

This section outlines the natural foundations of family rights. This issue is crucial, content-rich, complex, and has a historical background and a course of discourse that involves various viewpoints and disagreements. Therefore, it requires a more cautious and thorough examination. The fundamental principles of this discussion can be summarised as follows:

1. Nature is purposeful, and natural talents are granted the potential and the ultimate aim of actualisation.
2. Human beings, due to their collective perfection, possess “human rights” that distinguish them from other phenomena.
3. The recognition of natural rights of humans can be found by referring to the existence and laws of creation and the relationships between creations.
4. Humans, in civil society, have equal and similar natural rights. However, when it comes to acquired rights, individuals differ in a civil society.
5. Human life structures are not naturally distinct; nature has not created differences between people in the organisation of their lives.
6. The family rights of men and women are similar. This is because the family structure, similar to a civil society, has not been given any specific organisational design by the law of creation, nor have roles and positions been divided between them. Any difference between them is acquired.

As the text states:

(p. 163): “The hypothesis of the similarity of family rights is based on the premise that the family structure is like civil society. Family members have the same and similar rights. Both men and women participate in family life with similar abilities and needs and have similar natural ‘documents’ in hand. The law of creation has not established specific structures for them, nor has it divided their roles and positions.”

The book also discusses the hypothesis of the dissimilarity of family rights, which is based on the idea that the family structure is distinct from civil society. Men and women do not share the same talents and needs in family life, nor do they hold similar natural ‘documents.’ The law of creation has placed them in different positions and provided each with specific roles:

(p. 163): “The hypothesis of the dissimilarity of family rights is based on the idea that the family structure is separate from civil society. Men and women do not share the same abilities and needs in family life, nor do they have similar natural ‘documents.’ Creation has placed them in different situations and assigned specific roles to each.”

Martyr Motahari identifies the proper criteria for evaluating these two hypotheses as a return to nature and understanding the natural talents and needs of men and women. He considers this the only legitimate source for discovering human rights and states:

(p. 157): “We have said that the spirit and foundation of the Declaration of Human Rights is that humans possess an inherent and respected dignity and personality, and in the essence of creation, they are endowed with certain rights and freedoms that cannot be taken away or transferred. This spirit and foundation are supported by Islam and Eastern philosophies. What makes this declaration appear baseless are the interpretations in many Western philosophical systems about human beings and the essence of their existence. It is self-evident that the only competent authority for identifying the true rights of human beings is the valuable book of creation. By referring to the pages and sections of this magnificent book, we can determine the true, shared rights of humans and the respective legal positions of men and women in relation to one another.”

Earlier, we also mentioned that Western human rights, as a general concept, are acknowledged by Islam, though not all of its articles are accepted. The book explains the first basis for family rights, which is the relationship between natural rights and the purposeful nature of creation, as follows:

(p. 158): “From our perspective, natural and innate rights arise because the creation system, with foresight and an understanding of purpose, directs beings toward the perfections that their inherent talents lead them to. Every natural talent is the basis for a natural right, and it serves as a natural document for it. For example, a human child has the right to attend school and learn, but a lamb does not have this right. Why? Because the potential for learning and acquiring knowledge exists in the human child, but not in the lamb… Similarly, the right to think, vote, and have free will.”

This idea that each natural talent corresponds to a natural right is profound. However, rights that transcend nature are discovered from the relationship between existence and phenomena. While every being that has life possesses the right to actualisation, there is no difference in this regard between humans and animals. All beings have equal and similar rights—not that their rights are identical, but that humans possess human rights, animals have animal rights, and plants have plant rights. Similarly, women have exclusive rights as women, and men have exclusive rights as men, though all share the common foundation of having rights.

In the continuation, Martyr Motahari applies this foundation to family rights in a refined and eloquent manner:

(p. 159): “The root and foundation of family rights—our subject of discussion—should be sought in nature, just like other natural rights. By examining the natural talents of men and women, and the various ‘documents’ that creation has entrusted to them, we can determine whether men and women have similar rights and responsibilities. Remember, as we mentioned earlier, the topic we are discussing is the similarity of family rights between men and women, not their equality.”

By understanding the natural talents of men and women and their ultimate actualisation, we can discern what rights they have. The rights of men and women are defined according to their natural talents and actualisation, and this helps us determine whether their rights are similar.

Critique of the Similarity of Social Rights

The theory of the similarity of men’s and women’s rights in the family equates family rights with social rights, and thus, the next foundational theory is based on the similarity of social rights, as the book explains:

(p. 159): “Human beings, in terms of their non-family social rights—that is, the rights they have in the larger society, outside the family—are in an equal and similar position. Their primary natural rights are equal, and they are entitled to the benefits of creation.”

However, this equality in primary natural rights gradually leads them to unequal positions in acquired rights. While everyone is equally entitled to work and participate in the race of life, when it comes to fulfilling duties and competing, not everyone emerges equally. Naturally, their acquired rights take an unequal form. And if we were to make their acquired rights equal like their primary natural rights, our actions would be nothing short of injustice and violation.”

The theory of the similarity of rights argues that the differences between men and women in society are not natural but acquired through effort. Social rights, according to this theory, are acquired, and each person can surpass others based on their effort and abilities. Hence, men and women are equal in the essence of social existence. Everyone progresses based on their effort, skill, and perseverance, and thus, their responsibilities are also acquired. This makes their social roles both a source of similarity and difference, as their efforts, capabilities, and acquisition of rights establish their ranks.

However, we disagree with this premise. Social rights are not equal, and men and women in society do not share similar rights. They have two distinct natures and, consequently, different social and family rights. Therefore, it is incorrect to assert:

(p. 159–160): “Why do all individuals have equal and similar primary social rights? Because an examination of human conditions proves that no one is naturally born a leader or subordinate, a worker or craftsman, a teacher or officer. These are advantages and characteristics that belong to acquired human rights. That is, individuals must earn these rights based on their abilities, and society, through a contractual law, grants them to its members.”

This Western mindset places all human beings on the same level and disregards the inherent, vertical distinctions between them. It is incorrect to assume that the only distinction among people is through their acquired rights; human beings also differ in their natural endowments.

In social rights, there is no similarity. The quantity and quality of the rights and work of men and women in society are different. Although we do not deny the existence of shared professions between men and women, nature has assigned each gender specific and unique rights. Men and women are distinct, not similar or equal. The management of the household is a right bestowed upon women to preserve and sustain the fundamental social unit—the family. Women can play a vital role as mothers in the family, nurturing and raising children with love, empathy, and care. Women are first caregivers and then social participants, while men are primarily social participants and later caregivers. Nature has removed coercion and oppression from men and women. Yes, both men and women are humans and share equal dignity and worth, but in society and family, they have different rights, duties, and responsibilities. These should not be confused or merged. The division of rights, duties, and responsibilities for men and women is based on their distinct male and female natures, aimed at preserving the warm nucleus of the “family,” which is a key purpose of nature. A healthy family is the foundation and core of society. The dysfunction or well-being of society directly reflects the quality of its families. The West, without a natural basis, is destroying the family structure. If women, a century ago, considered childbearing one of their most significant duties, in the past fifty years, they have reduced the number of children to two, and today, they have even become prone to single-child families, replacing children with pets. These aberrant social behaviours are a reflection of Western philosophy and are incompatible with Islamic teachings. Our argument is that the structure and way of life prescribed by Islam are rooted in the human nature and the natural order. Humans are endowed with essential divine attributes that shape their rights and responsibilities. Moreover, some, beyond their inherent tendencies, possess necessary structures—referred to as “belovedness.” Every human being, from the outset, carries their intrinsic abilities and qualities as a divine gift. This is beyond the natural endowments of talents and achievements, and this divine gift precedes all. The path to worldly health and spiritual well-being is limited to a few, while most remain in lower conditions. Each person, based on their inherent actualities, progresses along a different path. These natural differences should not lead to injustice or class distinctions. The distinction does not always place men first or women second; such comparisons are erroneous. Men and women, according to their respective natures, have different duties and rights. Social and legal contracts must align with these natural foundations. Nature, not arbitrary agreements, is the true foundation of these social structures.

Page 161: “Both men and women, with similar talents and needs, and with the same legal documents that nature provides, participate in family life. Therefore, family rights must be organized based on equality, similarity, and resemblance.”

It would be more accurate to say that society and the family are interconnected through natural differences; although in non-modern societies, nature is more apparent in family life and contracts, and in modern societies, nature remains perceptible and dominant both scientifically and spiritually:

Page 161: “Being a husband entails specific duties and rights because of the nature of being a husband, while being a wife entails different duties and rights because of the nature of being a wife… The hypothesis of (the dissimilarity of family rights between men and women), which Islam accepts, is based on this principle.”

If society’s nature is preserved in accordance with its own essence, unity and spirituality will prevail within society, and the society will evolve into a more advanced and extensive form of the modern family. In both society and family, natural gifts create a system that is both perfect and subordinate, and it is not the case that all advantages of the family and society are acquired. This man, because he is a husband, has certain rights, and the woman, because she is a wife, has other rights; similarly, being a father and a mother, and being a child in the family, gives rise to specific rights, which make the rights of each family member distinct and, in a comparative sense, different from one another. In society, as well, in matters that are not common and where women are regarded as a separate category, just as men and women have distinct natures, they have different rights, but not opposing rights. “Difference” is not the same as “conflict.” “Conflict” requires opposition and struggle, with no room for subordination, harmony, or cooperation; however, “difference” can coexist with subordination and harmony. In conflict, there is difference, but it is not the case that every difference leads to conflict. Body parts like the eyes, ears, and eyebrows differ, yet they do not conflict. The book mistakenly uses the term “conflict” instead of “difference” in several instances.

From the points discussed, it can be concluded that of the six fundamental principles, the fourth and fifth principles are incorrect.

Martyr Motahhari considers family life to be entirely natural and devoid of any social contract, acknowledging the natural differences between men and women in the family, while advocating for equality of rights between men and women. As mentioned earlier, the meaning of equality of rights between men and women was explained. He writes:

Pages 163-164: “Human family life is one hundred percent natural, meaning that humans are naturally created for domestic life. Even if we doubt the naturalness of human civil life, we cannot doubt the naturalness of human family life. Just as many animals, despite not having a natural social life, but rather being completely devoid of social life, possess a type of natural marital life, such as pigeons and some insects that live in pairs. The account of family life is separate from social life. Nature has devised measures by which humans and some animals are naturally inclined towards family life, forming family units and having children… Historical evidence does not show a period when humans lacked family life, meaning that men and women lived separately or engaged in communal sexual relations.”

The book considers family life to be entirely natural, explaining that although ownership of property was communal in earlier periods, the issue of sexual partnership and unrestricted sexual relations has never governed human life in any historical period. However, citing historical periods and the background of a subject that has philosophical, social, and religious sensitivities does not, by itself, prove the correctness, acceptance, or legitimacy of a lifestyle, nor does it convince the reader or lead to practical outcomes. While referring to scientific research related to human sexuality, which pertains to the natural instincts of humans, is worth considering, obtaining such evidence from periods where written records are lacking does not constitute valid research. Moreover, early humans were transitional beings, and their life, due to the leap they made from animals, brings them closer to the animal nature. Family life, like social life, is both natural and potentially subject to contracts and acquisitions, and it is not entirely natural. This is why, in philosophy, just as “civil politics” is discussed, “household management” is also discussed, and laws can be made for the family, which can be managed systematically. Unlike the animal world, where life is purely instinctual, nature in the family is more tangible, and contracts are subordinate and hidden. Nature intervenes in family life, as well as in civil life, through reason, choice, law, and even traditions. Animal life does not possess such characteristics, and the life of animals is purely natural. Humans are naturally domestic and civil, and human civil life is also natural, but the family is a smaller society, and society is a larger family. In addition to nature, other aspects influence both family life and human social life, and humans can be guided to evolve and grow, or regress and decline, both gradually and abruptly through education and acquisitions.

Historically, it has always been the case that men and women could not live separately, and these two classes became accustomed to one another, complementing each other; just as animals can form bonds, humans do so too. Of course, human bonding is a truth with a more vivid and manifest reality. Studying history does not give a clear answer to whether women were communal or exclusive. Contemporary Western life, which results from erroneous upbringing detached from pure law and revelation, does not value marriage and the exclusivity of women, giving both men and women freedom and promiscuity in sexual relations. This issue is leading the family institution to collapse. Meanwhile, humanity has inclined more toward exclusive property ownership and has understood it better, having also discovered that the concept of private ownership leads to a desire for profit, abandoning the use of resources in a cooperative and supportive manner. This is the outcome of the human understanding of the concept of ownership. Therefore, the statement in the book that communal ownership results from familial emotions and tribal sentiment is not correct:

Page 164: “In the matter of ownership, it is universally accepted that in the beginning, it was communal, and only later did it become private. However, in the matter of gender, this is not the case. The reason ownership was communal in the early stages of human life is that at that time, human society was tribal and familial; individuals in the tribe, who lived together, benefited from familial emotions, which is why the ownership situation was communal.”

In the past, humans did not use each other’s resources due to familial or tribal emotions, but rather because in the early stage, humans did not have private ownership, which developed later and became institutionalized. Humans used resources that remained in their possession and then became aware of ownership. Early humans did not have an understanding of ownership, and this can be proven from psychological, historical, and social perspectives. Ownership is a natural concept, just as animals have an instinct for ownership. Animals use resources within their territory exclusively, and some even have territories. A human child does not recognize ownership, which is why a child will take another’s toy until they are taught that it belongs to someone else. Like animals, children have a natural inclination to use resources, but they do not recognize ownership. Thus, human attention to ownership is not inherent, but rather a tendency. Animals behave similarly: their tendencies lead to acquisition, not a belief in ownership. Early humans, like animals, were driven by a natural inclination to possess and use objects. Furthermore, communal or exclusive ownership cannot be proven historically, as the validity of these historical sources is questionable. Ownership based on familial and tribal emotions existed during the second stage of human history, not in the first, and is governed by natural tendencies. The assertion that unrestricted sexual relations and communal sexual partnerships did not exist for early humans lacks valid historical evidence, particularly since early humans were transitional beings who evolved from animals, which later mingled with human descendants. Even among animals, not all of them live in communal sexual relations, nor do all mate with their offspring. Some animals engage in incestuous relationships.

Human’s Early Natural Desires and Sexual Instinct

• The theory presented by Mrs. Menoocheryan in the sociology of men’s and women’s lives has its roots in communist teachings, as Martyr Motahhari mentions:

Page 166: “The hypothesis of the four stages in the relations between men and women is a misguided imitation of the four stages proposed by socialists concerning ownership. They claim that humanity has gone through four stages of ownership: the stage of initial communism, feudalism, capitalism, and socialism and communism, which is a return to the initial communism but on a higher level.”

Early humans lived solely according to their natural desires, preferences, and aversions. The natural man invites the woman to him based on his natural inclination, saying “come to me.” Children and animals behave based on their instincts. Martyr Motahhari writes:

Page 165: “Mrs. Mehrangiz Menoocheryan, in the introduction to the book Criticism of the Fundamental and Civil Laws of Iran, states: From a sociological perspective, the lives of men and women in different parts of the world go through one of these four stages: 1. The natural stage, 2. The male dominance stage, 3. The female protest stage, and 4. The stage of equality between men and women.”

In the first stage, men and women mix and engage in relations without any restrictions…

The Holy Quran, based on the dominance of natural tendencies over humans and the tendency to follow these desires, says: (Indeed, mankind is in loss) [14]. Thus, early human desires were centered around their instincts and desires for possession, with no understanding of ownership or complex laws. There is no evidence to support the idea of communal or private ownership during the era of natural desires, and nothing is proven. However, the stage of “male dominance,” which lacks historical evidence, could, from a philosophical and psychological perspective, be correct. Men had more power and governance, which enabled them to control women, even subjecting them to countless injustices, just as they took ownership of objects. Yet the “female protest stage” can be seen as a natural consequence of the desire for freedom, as women realized they were not weak and had their own natural powers. However, the stage of “equality between men and women” has never been fully realized. Even today, men still dominate women, and women protest against this domination, desiring respect and dignity. However, the widespread protests of women do not signify that they have achieved equality with men; even today, women continue to face exploitation worldwide, and their natural, spiritual, and psychological rights are often ignored. This is the status quo for women. Neither the French Revolution nor the human rights it birthed has been able to grant women a position free from oppression and injustice, nor has the Soviet Communist Revolution or even the 1979 Iranian Revolution been able to achieve this ideal.

Martyr Motehri, in his critique of the statements of Manoocherian and the rejection of the theory of unconditional amalgamation, mentions that the notion of shared ownership and marriage between siblings is enough to demonstrate the sexual communism. However, neither the claims of Manoocherian nor the references made from the history of civilisation in Will Durant’s writings provide conclusive or exclusive inductive evidence. Likewise, the assertions in the book The System of Women’s Rights in Islam are not substantiated. In particular, Manoocherian has acknowledged the existence of sexual communism only in a limited period and in certain regions. This is despite the fact that the relationship between Adam and Eve, and their marriage, occurred during the era of the Nesnas (a mythical human stage). Their children also married the offspring of the Nesnas, and it was not the case that their sons and daughters married as siblings. Human inclinations have never, at any point in history, been of a natural instinct towards marriage with siblings, and sibling marriages have always been prohibited in all religions. Marriage should, wherever possible, avoid familial relationships. The overarching policy of fostering extended kinship is one of the essential rules for managing the family system. Scientifically, inbreeding marriages have been shown to result in deficiencies. The woman, in the second degree, becomes the honour and dignity of humanity, and her marital relationship is entirely exclusive and confined to one man as her husband. Honour is a matter of upbringing and acquisition. Although a woman’s nature is such that she cannot genuinely love more than one man, exclusive ownership is relevant to periods when humanity was evolving, and in the early stages, humans had no understanding of ownership, let alone sharing or exclusive ownership in a philosophical sense.

In the early stages of human history, men lived based on their natural desires, inclinations, and perceptions, which were not yet fully formed. Though they were not devoid of emotion and affection, in the period of human inclinations (related to the Nesnas and the pre-religious era), there was no concept of honour. During the time of Adam, human behaviour was not governed by natural inclinations but by religion and law, with divine prophethood providing governance. The concept of mahram (a non-marriageable relative) and na-mahram (a marriageable relative) was then introduced. Gradually, scientific findings confirmed the honour-based lifestyle, and honour became a truth that was collectively accepted. The shari’a law established the concept of permanent mahram relations, forbidding marriage with a mother-in-law for life, and preventing marriage with a sister-in-law as long as the marriage lasts. Upon divorce, the former husband becomes a na-mahram to the woman, but her father-in-law remains her mahram, and kinship and mahram status persist after the dissolution of the marriage. A cousin is na-mahram to their cousin, but an uncle remains mahram to his niece. Humanity has yet to find a philosophical justification for these distinctions, and Muslims have accepted them through imitation and faith in the law.

If religion had not established these differences between men and women, science and philosophy would not have arrived at these conclusions. Religion advises women to observe full modesty in their attire even when alone at home. No philosophical justification is provided for this either, as it is a religious and educational matter.

However, modern humanity, which has detached itself from past lifestyles, has both familial lifestyles and freedoms in sexual relationships outside marriage. Although the commitment to family life or the freedom in sexual relations with non-spouses varies, it is more stringent in some societies and more relaxed in others, with greater sensitivity in certain areas. In Western societies, prostitutes and promiscuous women are considered a national asset, and their trade is legalised and respected, with such women not viewing themselves as immoral or deserving of reproach or punishment. If anyone refers to them as promiscuous or calls them promiscuous, they consider it an insult to their dignity. This period should be regarded as sexual permissiveness and the dismantling of both natural and religious laws. The Western world has, in practice, led women into various forms of corruption and sexual permissiveness, exploiting them as machines, yet it claims, in theory and law, that women are not national property or sexual commodities. This crime is committed with awareness and political manoeuvring.

On the Nature of Women

The book presents two central principles: firstly, do men and women have natural differences or not? Martyr Motehri uses the term “difference,” although the correct term should be “diversity.” There is no dispute over the fact that men and women are different, as they are created with distinct natures. The second question is whether these natural differences are related to legal nature, making the rights of men and women distinct. This is the main point of contention:

(167) “Now, we must focus on the natural rights of men and women in family matters, considering two things: first, whether men and women have natural differences. In other words, are the differences between men and women only in terms of their reproductive organs, or are they deeper than that? Second, if there are other differences, are they of a nature that affects their rights and duties, or are they like differences in skin colour and race, which do not relate to the natural rights of humans?”

The book states that these natural differences are so vast and profound that they influence the determination of rights and duties, both within the family and the wider social context, making the rights of men and women distinct. Therefore, it is necessary for humans to accept these two different natures as they are, not because they are forced to, but because it is essential.

The book quotes Alexis Carrel, a renowned French physiologist, surgeon, and biologist, from his book Man, the Unknown:

“Women should strive to expand their natural gifts in the direction of their inherent nature, without blindly imitating men. Their role in the progress of humanity is far greater than that of men, and they should not take it lightly or neglect it.”

While Martyr Motehri’s statements here are accurate, the conclusion Carrel draws from his research is incorrect. It is not true that women have a greater responsibility than men in the progress of humanity. Both men and women have distinguished roles in the development of humanity, and alongside the shared human traits, attention must also be given to the specific roles and natural differences of each. It is not accurate to claim that women bear a greater responsibility than men; rather, the comparison of duties and responsibilities in natural terms is flawed. If each were capable of performing the other’s role, they would not complement one another as they do. They cannot realise certain characteristics without each other.

(Page 175) “Plato explicitly claims that women and men have similar abilities and that women can take on the same duties as men and enjoy the same rights as men.

The core of all the new ideas about women that emerged in the twentieth century, even those aspects that seem extreme and unacceptable to the people of the twentieth century, can be found in Plato’s thoughts. This has led observers to marvel at this man, who is called the father of philosophy. In his work The Republic, Book V, Plato even discusses communal sharing of women and children, eugenics, improving the race, and the exclusion of certain women and men from reproduction…”

The theory of the equality of rights between men and women has ignored the different abilities, advantages, and functions of each gender. It is neither entirely correct to deny the similarity between men and women, nor to reject the advantages and distinctions between them. The communal sharing of women and the liberation of women in the public sphere, and the shared parenthood between individuals with such relations, is rejected by religious law, which does not accept such children. Similarly, women can receive military training suited to their nature, but their participation in the front lines of battle is prohibited. Likewise, women’s sports should align with their nature. The philosophical discussion on marriage regulations, reproduction, and the critique of some of Plato’s views by Ibn Sina in his Al-Shifa is followed, just as Aristotle, in his Politics, defended the theory of gender differences and engaged with Plato on this matter. Aristotle was supported by the Greek rulers and based his research on empirical experience and physics, unlike Plato’s metaphysical and non-experiential idealism. For this reason, his views became popular and turned into the dominant cultural mindset. In this debate, the theory of gender difference in rights holds more weight than the theory of similarity.

In Plato’s discourse on eugenics and reproductive management, a very important and correct point is made, which we have elaborated on in the book The Family. For the improvement of the race and the generation, certain women and men must be excluded from reproduction, because due to issues in their genes, diseases, and disabilities, they would produce a defective and disabled generation. A generation that would require hospitals and prisons, the cost of which would be borne by society. The rights of society take precedence over the rights of individuals, and the costs of allowing such individuals to reproduce should not be imposed on society. Although a defective generation also presents a problem for the parents. On the other hand, financial support for reproduction should be given to healthy, strong, beautiful, and intelligent generations, possessing excellent spiritual and physical qualities, so that society can benefit from a healthy, intelligent, and powerful generation. Just as if corrupt individuals are identifiable, their ability to reproduce should be prohibited to prevent society from becoming polluted by those who habitually commit crimes, such as easily committing murder. Preventing the birth of a corrupt child eliminates the need for capital punishment, as corruption in a generation, even in the corrupted soul of a bad offspring, is preventable. The Republic restricts eugenics to the aristocratic class, whereas eugenics is a public, universal matter that must be implemented for all citizens of a nation. Marriage and reproduction require structured management, education, testing, and authorization to prevent dissatisfaction and despair in life, excessive divorce rates, and the crisis of unhealthy and disabled children, or those suffering from mental disorders and negative emotions. We have explained the laws for the implementation of structured family management in the book The Family. Similarly, the regulations regarding women’s work, ensuring that a woman’s work in society does not harm her role in the family and does not prevent her from spending time with her children, and that child-rearing is not solely the responsibility of daycare centers, are elaborated in the book The Family. This book reflects a rethinking of the views of past philosophers, along with new innovations regarding the management of family systems, based on Shia jurisprudence.

The book The Legal System of Women in Islam highlights two points from Plato’s statements:

(Page 176) “However, two points from Plato’s statements stand out: one, that he acknowledges that women are weaker than men both physically and mentally, meaning he admits the difference between men and women in terms of quantity, even though he disagrees with the qualitative difference between them in terms of abilities. Plato believes that the abilities of men and women are similar, but women are weaker in every field than men. This does not mean that each gender is assigned a task that the other cannot perform.

On this basis, since Plato regards women as weaker than men, he thanks God that men, not women, were created. He says: ‘Thank God I was born a Greek, not a non-Greek; I was born free, not a slave; I was born a man, not a woman.'”

As previously stated, comparing two natures and claiming that one is weak and the other strong is a mistake. The nature of each phenomenon, when it becomes actualized, represents the highest potential of that phenomenon. Among the faculties of the female soul, emotions are an area in which women may have a stronger expression than men. Women have more resistance than men in extreme conditions and in facing heat and cold. The quantitative differences between men and women do lead to qualitative differences, and in the case of nature, such quantitative differences result in qualitative distinctions. Therefore, it is correct to say that men and women are neither qualitatively nor quantitatively similar and that they differ from each other. Even in different societies and regions, men and women differ in terms of physical characteristics.

Views of the Modern World:

The book reflects the modern view that the differences between men and women, both physically, psychologically, and emotionally, are a marvel of creation. The natural physical differences between men and women, as mentioned in the book, are a scientific and undeniable fact. However, some of the emotional and psychological differences listed are debatable. It is not correct to accept such differences simply because of references to Western psychology, which is shaped by Western cultural and environmental influences. These theories may be influenced by the fallacy of reductionism in research and cannot be regarded as universally valid. The book begins by stating:

(Page 180) “In terms of emotions (toward each other), men are slaves to their lust, while women are enslaved by their love for men. A man loves a woman whom he has chosen, and a woman loves a man who values her and has expressed his love first. A man seeks to possess a woman, while a woman seeks to win the man’s heart and dominate him through his emotions. A man desires to dominate a woman from above, while a woman seeks to exert influence over a man from within his heart. A man desires to take a woman, while a woman desires to be taken. Women seek courage and bravery in men, while men seek beauty and charm in women. A woman values a man’s protection above all else. Women are more capable than men at controlling their desires. A man’s lust is primary and aggressive, while a woman’s is reactive and stimulating.”

Martyr Motahhari, on page 92 of the same book, had said, “A man is a slave to his lust, and a woman is a prisoner of love.” We critiqued this statement there, saying that both men and women possess lust and desire for the opposite gender, but from a psychological perspective, the difference lies in the fact that women tend to conceal their desires more, while men express them openly. Moreover, women are generally less loyal than men, as their emotional state tends to fluctuate more rapidly than men’s. When a woman experiences something upsetting from a man, her affection for him diminishes, whereas a man remains more constant in his loyalty to his wife. Of course, there are individual differences in this regard. However, just as women have affection for men, men have affection for women, and it is not only driven by lust; although male expressions of lust are more pronounced due to women’s tendency to be more modest and reserved. Some of the expressions mentioned here are more poetic fabrications than accurate psychological findings.

The book cites American psychologist Professor Rick:

(Page 180) “A man’s world is completely different from a woman’s world. If a woman cannot think or act like a man, it is because their worlds are different. He says: ‘The Torah states: ‘Man and woman were created from one flesh.'” Yes, even though they were created from the same flesh, they have different bodies and completely different compositions. Moreover, their feelings will never be the same, and they will never react to events in the same way. A woman and a man act differently according to their respective sexual natures, like two stars moving in two different orbits. They can understand each other and complement each other, but they can never become one. This is why a man and a woman can live together, fall in love, and never tire of each other’s qualities.”

Given that women and men are philosophically two categories of one type, not two distinct types — both being human — it cannot be said that their worlds are fundamentally different. Therefore, one cannot interpret their gender differences in such an absolute way, for in that case, they would be considered two different types. Gender differences in women and men mean that they possess complementary qualities that do not make them identical to one another, as such creation would be superfluous, absurd, and incompatible with divine perfection. Women and men were created from the same essence, and the claims of a distorted and unscientific Torah are incorrect. If women and men were entirely different and distinct, love between them would not occur, because love arises from the recognition of shared essence. Just as one feels affection for a flower because one sees their own beauty in it, men and women love each other because they recognize something of themselves in each other. Even parental love for a child arises because parents see themselves in their offspring. This mutual affection is rooted in the fact that men and women are of the same essence.

The book continues with further examples of the differences between men and women, stating:

(Page 181) “Professor Rick has made comparisons between the spirits of men and women, identifying differences. He says: ‘For a man, it is tiring to spend all his time with a woman he loves, while there is no greater pleasure for a woman than always being with the man she loves.'”

When a man loves a woman, he does not wish to be apart from her, unless he becomes tired, which is not due to his being tired of her presence, but because of physical limitations. Conversely, prolonged or constant presence of a man at home might become tiresome and distressing for a woman.

The book correctly states: “Women always want to remain fresh and new, waking up each morning with a renewed appearance, because no one likes to be withered.”

On page 181, the text states: “When men grow old, they feel a sense of misery because they lose their main source of support—namely, their work. Older women, however, tend to feel content because they possess what they consider the best things in life: a home and several grandchildren.

Happiness for men is derived from attaining a respected position and personality within society. For women, happiness is about winning a man’s heart and keeping him for a lifetime.”

Women who work full-time, like men, may experience dissatisfaction in their old age. Older men feel miserable primarily if they are unable to provide for themselves financially and lack the resources to meet their needs, leading to a loss of respect from others due to their perceived weakness or poverty. It is, in fact, the lack of respect and the sense of being looked down upon that causes their misery. However, if elderly men are wealthy, with children and grandchildren around them, they feel satisfaction rather than misery, especially when surrounded by the respect and affection of their descendants. This shared trait between men and women is significant. If a woman is employed but lacks financial security, and if her husband is also not financially well-off, she will likely feel dissatisfied upon retirement, particularly due to a lack of respect from others due to her weakness, old age, or poverty. Even the presence of grandchildren will not bring her contentment.

For men, attaining a respected position in society is seen as happiness because men are, first and foremost, social beings and their success hinges on their ability to secure social positions. As the book, quoting Professor Rick, explains:

“A man always wishes to convert the woman he loves to his own religion and nationality. For a woman, just as changing her surname after marriage is easy, changing her religion and nationality for the man she loves is also easy.”

Hence, a woman’s emotions are often more powerful and immediate than a man’s. If a woman loves a man, she will also love his religion. Since a woman seeks refuge in a man, she naturally loves both him and his religion. However, a man does not seek refuge in a woman, and while he may love her, he can retain his own religion, even if it differs from hers.

A Bond Higher than Lust

The book distinguishes between lust and compassion. This is an important statement regarding the relationship between men and women. There is a significant difference between illicit and inappropriate lust and healthy, appropriate sexual desire and the mutual love, affection, and above all, the deeper bond of love. A healthy, progressive society should cultivate and promote affection and love rather than an overwhelming and disproportionate accumulation of lust. The book writes:

“It is strange that some individuals cannot distinguish between lust and compassion. They mistakenly believe that what binds couples together is purely desire, a sense of exploitation, and a utilitarian attitude, just as people are bound by their need for food, drink, clothing, and transportation. These individuals fail to recognise that in nature, beyond selfishness and self-interest, there are other kinds of affection. These affections are not rooted in selfishness but arise from a direct interest in the other. It is these affections that lead to sacrifices, self-denial, and the wish for the well-being of others. These are what reflect the humanity of humans and, to an extent, can even be seen in animals regarding their mates and offspring.”

These individuals have misunderstood the nature of male and female bonding, assuming it is solely driven by lust. In reality, there is a bond higher than lust that forms the foundation of the relationship between a couple. This is what the Qur’an refers to as “affection and mercy,” stating: “And among His signs is that He created for you from yourselves mates that you may find tranquility in them, and He placed between you affection and mercy. Indeed, in that are signs for a people who give thought.” (Qur’an 30:21).

It is important to note that compassion is a different and lesser form of love, and the book could have mentioned the highest form of bond between a man and a woman—love and unity. Lust, affection, compassion, and love are all manifestations of love.

The Interpretation of Oppression of Women

Martyr Motahari, in exploring the roots of oppression towards women, attributes it primarily to ignorance. As he mentions, there is no denying the oppression that men have historically inflicted upon women; women have always been victims of oppression. However, the root of this oppression is not merely ignorance or traditional biases, as many claim. Men have committed many injustices against women throughout history, but the source of this oppression lies in the same motives that have led men to commit injustices even towards their children. Men have, at times, oppressed even themselves. This root cause is extreme selfishness, self-love, and the desire to exploit others for personal gain—exactly what Martyr Motahari rejects. The book denies exploitation, ignorance, and prejudice as the root causes of this oppression, stating:

“It is very mistaken to interpret the history of relations between men and women solely through the lens of exploitation, as some have done, and to consider them as constantly in conflict, like two rival classes within society. It is astonishing and saddening when I read such writings, which use only the concept of conflict to explain the history of relations between men and women.”

Martyr Motahari rejects this interpretation, asserting that while men have always been physically stronger than women, nature has not designed men to treat women in the same way they have treated slaves or subordinates. He points out that men would never have subjected their children to such abuses, and similarly, they would not have treated women in this manner, despite their historical dominance over them.

The Nature of Human Selfishness and the Roots of Exploitation

Martyr Motahari argues that the true root of most abuses, exploitation, and injustices lies in human nature itself—the intrinsic selfishness of humanity. He explains that before ignorance, prejudice, or habits, humans are inherently self-interested. The soul of a person is inclined towards self-love and will act to preserve its own interests, even at the expense of others. It is for this reason that human beings are in a state of loss unless they manage to control their selfishness through proper training and self-discipline. The Qur’an reveals this nature of humanity, stating: “Indeed, mankind is in loss” (Qur’an 103:2). The soul constantly urges evil unless it is guided by divine mercy.

Differences in Rights Due to Natural Differences

Martyr Motahari discusses the differences in emotions between men and women and elaborates on the implications of these differences in the rights, duties, and roles of men and women in society. He explores the psychological differences between the sexes and also examines how these differences should be reflected in the legal and moral responsibilities of each gender. The author acknowledges that some of the differences between men and women are the result of social, cultural, and traditional factors. These differences, if not rooted in nature, cannot justify legal inequalities between the sexes. However, some fundamental and inherent differences, derived from the nature of men and women, may lead to different legal rights and responsibilities. These differences are natural, and should be reflected in the rights of each gender.

In the past, the husband was responsible for the wife in all aspects, including her maintenance and dowry, providing her with care, protection, and support. The administration of the woman’s life and the provision of her needs were not only financial matters but also emotional and educational. The man, as the head of the household, took responsibility for all individuals connected to him, whether they were workers, servants, children, or even guests, feeling a sense of duty to manage their affairs. Particularly, the woman would seek refuge in the man, finding solace in his authority, while the man, through his strong management and provision of others’ needs, would display his power to the woman. Of course, the man also sought refuge in the woman’s arms, as he received emotional peace from her. The woman’s dependence on the man was due to both the emotional peace she derived from him and his sense of authority. Similarly, a leader, boss, or ruler feels a responsibility toward those under their care.

Therefore, this ancient arrangement is not just related to the woman and the payment of dowries or maintenance, nor is it simply about financial matters. It also encompasses moral and emotional issues, and it is comprehensive, depending on the man’s authority. The man did not show his authority by demanding money for marriage; instead, his authority was demonstrated through the emotional and loving bond he shared with the woman, which, while financially demanding, is stronger than any legal or social obligation. In light of this, what are the natural rights of men and women in this context, and is it possible to have a marriage based on mutual affection and love, where neither party is obligated to pay a dowry? Rather, if any money is to be paid, it should be in the case of divorce, to support the woman, so that love and affection remain pure in marriage, undiluted by money.

In Islam, the woman offers herself to the man, and he accepts and receives her. If this is the case, why would the man, who plays an active and accepting role, be required to pay a dowry?

In sociological analysis, we cannot rely on historical narratives, many of which are fabricated or lack credibility. The Western world also has a similar culture of gender equality, where the dowry and maintenance are no longer relevant. However, is the payment of a dowry or maintenance consistent with nature, as understood through scientific research and experience, and does it align with justice and, therefore, legitimacy, or does it contradict it? Does legalizing the dowry lead to gender equality or not?

A historical study suggests that the dowry was originally a compensation for the father’s efforts in raising and educating the daughter. The daughter, upon marriage, leaves her family and joins another, with her children taking the name of their new family. The dowry, as a gift, compensated the father for the care he had provided. However, a gift is not the same as a right, and such a payment, which is presented as a gift, cannot be regarded as a natural right of the father. Although Islam changed this practice by giving the right to the dowry to the woman, did it make this payment obligatory? While Islam supports the woman in this matter, if we divide the stages of human development into periods of power, knowledge, and love, the dowry could be considered a product of the power stage, with the woman receiving it during the knowledge stage. However, if the age of love and affection arrives, where the bond between husband and wife finds a stronger foundation than legal pressure, does the dowry still have relevance and harmony with nature and creation?

Nowadays, few societies view women as mere lovers, not as economic tools or instruments for the satisfaction of male desires. In such societies, the woman lacks social and economic independence, and her labor and efforts belong to others, such as her father or husband, in exchange for dowry, maintenance, or other obligations. While men pay dowries and maintenance, they gain in three key areas: economic work, sexual service, and reproduction. Without the dowry and maintenance, it seems the man is not fulfilling his duties toward the woman, especially in cultures where male authority dominates over the family and society, rather than love and affection.

The Dowry in Islamic Legal Systems

Ayatollah Morteza Motahhari identifies five stages of the dowry system: first, the matriarchal period; second, the patriarchal period, which itself includes three subperiods: the abduction of women, the use of women as labor for the father-in-law, and the giving of gifts to the father-in-law for marriage. The fifth period is the Islamic one:

“In this fifth stage, sociologists and commentators remain silent, where the man offers a gift (dowry) to the woman, and neither parent has any claim to it. While the woman receives a gift from the man, she maintains her social and economic independence. First, she chooses her husband voluntarily, not through the will of her father or brother. Second, during her time at her father’s house and when she moves to her husband’s house, no one has the right to exploit her or assign her to tasks. The product of her labor belongs to her, not to anyone else, and in legal matters, she does not need the guardianship of the man.”

This depiction of women’s rights in Islam, as presented by Motahhari, is more emotional and reflects an idealized understanding rather than being scientifically grounded. His statements are wide-reaching and absolute. However, these ideas, as Motahhari defends them, are not entirely accurate in practical, legal, or social terms. Islamic law and culture certainly acknowledge the respect and dignity afforded to women, but Motahhari’s interpretations often lack nuance, especially when discussing women’s legal and social autonomy.

In the commonly accepted jurisprudence, as defended by Motahhari, the dowry is not just a gift; it is a legal right of the woman, enforceable by law. If a man refuses to pay it, his property can be seized to settle the debt. Therefore, dowry cannot merely be described as a gift. It must be precisely defined, as an undefined dowry invalidates the marriage contract.

While Motahhari claims that women are independent in legal transactions, Islamic law imposes certain limitations on a woman’s autonomy. For example, while a woman owns her property, she cannot dispose of it in ways that conflict with the interests of her husband. Furthermore, while a woman may have the right to work, her husband may intervene in her employment, restricting her freedom in this regard.

The True Philosophy of the Dowry

Motahhari provides the following explanation to justify the dowry in marriage:

“In our opinion, the institution of dowry is the result of a wise plan embedded in creation, meant to balance the relationship between man and woman and establish a bond between them. The dowry emerged because the role of each in the matter of love contrasts with the other’s role.”

Love involves a sense of completeness and the desire to possess, as well as the pursuit of what is missing. Love is not exclusive to one gender; both men and women are capable of it, though the form it takes differs between the sexes. This distinction is highlighted in Islamic texts.

In article fourteen of this series of articles, when we discussed the differences between men and women, we mentioned that the emotional responses of men and women towards one another are not identical. The law of creation has placed beauty, pride, and self-sufficiency in women, while placing need, desire, love, and longing in men.

The emotions of men and women are different both qualitatively and quantitatively; that is, a woman’s emotions have a stronger influence on her than a man’s emotions do on him. Moreover, the nature and manifestations of emotions differ between men and women. Each gender has its own unique sensitivities in love, and women experience sensitivities in love that men do not. Furthermore, a woman’s sensitivities are greater than a man’s.

The late Motahari states: “The law of creation has placed beauty, pride, and self-sufficiency in women, and need, desire, love, and longing in men.” However, there is no inherent law of creation that assigns beauty exclusively to women. Rather, creation has made humanity beautiful, a quality that applies to both men and women. The Holy Quran says: (فَتَبَارَکَ اللَّهُ أَحْسَنُ الْخَالِقِينَ) [25] — “Blessed be Allah, the best of creators.” This verse is not specific to women or men, but rather reflects the general beauty of humankind, highlighting that humans possess a collective beauty that makes them the most beautiful of all creatures. Even women are more beautiful and more gracious than the houris of paradise. Beauty originates from the Divine, and all of God’s attributes and manifestations are beautiful, with humans being the most beautiful among them.

The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), Imam Hasan (AS), Imam Qamar Bani Hashim (AS), and Prophet Joseph (AS) were renowned for their physical beauty. However, there is no specific mention of the beauty of Zuleikha. The epitome of beauty is found in Fatimah Zahra (AS). Throughout history, many women have been known for their beauty, but due to their adherence to chastity, their beauty has not been openly acknowledged. Beauty cannot be exclusively or predominantly attributed to women, nor does it mean men are not beautiful. Men are indeed very beautiful in the eyes of women.

The beauty of men and women differs across regions, but it is important to note that women possess graces beyond mere beauty. It is possible for a woman who may not be extraordinarily beautiful to possess greater appeal to a man than a more beautiful woman, due to the tenderness and qualities that this woman has. If a woman is attracted to a man because of his beauty, then a man, for the same reason, is drawn to a woman. A woman, in the same way she admires a beautiful man, does not necessarily admire a beautiful woman, and this holds true for men as well.

The two traits of “pride” and “self-sufficiency” that Motahari attributes to women in a one-sided manner are shared characteristics. Both men and women possess pride, but the object of their pride differs. A woman is not self-sufficient from a man. Women, too, can fall in love and become infatuated, but women tend to be more discreet, whereas men are more likely to openly express their feelings. This difference is attributed to the greater modesty found in women, which is relative: a young woman’s modesty is greater than that of an older woman, and a woman without children is more modest than a woman who is a mother. As women age, their modesty changes. Correspondingly, the degree of discretion in women is relative. Both men and women need each other, complementing one another as different sexes. Motahari later discusses a fundamental error he repeatedly states in this book:

“As we have often said, Islam has always adhered to this principle in its laws that man represents need and deficiency, while woman represents self-sufficiency.”

Such a principle does not exist in the nature of men and women, nor does Islam legislate based on this concept. The book claims that creation has placed need, love, and longing in men. However, women, too, feel love, become infatuated with men, and, therefore, need them. Both men and women seek each other, though the way they express this desire differs. A woman’s desire is intricately bound with modesty and discretion, while a man’s desire is more overt. Thus, it is not accurate to claim that love is inherently associated with men. Love exists in all phenomena, including in human existence and in the Divine. The idea that men are more needy than women (see page 201) arises because men express their feelings, whereas women, due to their patience, discretion, and tenderness, hide their needs. However, women are in fact more needy because they desire both a lover and a protector, whereas men primarily desire a lover. If a woman tells a man she does not love him, he may endure this; however, if a man tells a woman he does not love her, it would devastate her. Therefore, to correct a disobedient woman, it has been advised: (وَاللاَّتِي تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَاهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِي الْمَضَاجِعِ) [26]; “And those women from whom you fear disobedience, advise them; and if they persist, abandon them in their beds.”

If a woman does not respond to advice, she may be distanced (وَاهْجُرُوهُنَّ) in an attempt to prevent further wrongdoing. The Quran does not advise women to ignore men, as men are generally indifferent to women’s neglect, and such neglect would not be effective or impactful. Women, as the epitome of grace, are deeply affected if called ugly or old, whereas men, being more robust, maintain their strength even in old age. Both men and women need each other, but their attributes differ. Although a comparison of men and women is problematic, it is true that women are more needy than men in the context of love, because they desire both a lover and a protector. Men’s needs are lesser, as they primarily seek a lover. A man’s humility before a woman and his expressions of love are not due to his own need but due to his strength. Women, however, are delicate, and while they need love, they do not openly express it. A woman may become infatuated but, unlike men, does not openly declare it. Women are not “weak” but are instead delicate in their mannerisms. If a woman were to exhibit the same ruggedness and assertiveness as a man, she would cease to be a woman.

Regarding the issue of courtship, it is not because men are physically stronger that they seek women, but because men are more open in expressing their emotions. Women, even if they are in love, often conceal their feelings and use various techniques to encourage men to reveal their own feelings. Thus, the reason men court women is due to their ability to openly express their desires, while women rely on their subtlety and discretion. Furthermore, the book claims: “Men are more driven by instinct than women,” but this is not true. In fact, men’s desires are more spontaneous, while women’s desires are more gradual, requiring patience and careful management from men.

Earlier, we discussed the errors in the book regarding the nature of love in women and the incorrect assumption of their self-sufficiency. This mistake is repeated in the following assertion:

“Why have male creatures always competed with each other for the attention of the female, yet female creatures have never exhibited the same eagerness to pursue the male? This is because the roles of the male and female are not the same. The male has always played the role of the pursuer, whereas the female has demonstrated self-sufficiency and independence.”

The modesty and discretion of women mean they do not publicly compete for men. However, women do engage in competition in a more covert manner, guided by their feminine strategies. Women are no less passionate than men; however, their desire is expressed in a more subtle way, hidden behind discretion and modesty. Men, on the other hand, are more open and exhibit their emotions more readily, leading to outward competition. Women, while having the same desires, express them in more discreet ways, often using subtle strategies to attract a man’s attention. Men, in contrast, are more direct and exhibit their desires openly.

(p. 200) “Mahr is a substance of a general regulation, the design of which is woven into the very fabric of creation and prepared by the hand of nature.”

Later, under the title “Mahr and Maintenance (2),” he summarizes his views on Mahr and retreats from attributing weakness to women:

(p. 203) “In the previous section, we discussed the philosophy and main reason behind the emergence of Mahr. It became clear that Mahr emerged because the law of creation assigned each of the two genders a distinct role in their relations. It was revealed that Mahr stems from the gentle emotions and compassionate nature of men, not from their coarse or possessive feelings. What was involved from the woman’s side was not weakness or helplessness, but rather her characteristic self-restraint. Mahr is a provision by the law of creation to elevate the value of women and place them on a higher level. Mahr gives women a sense of identity. The spiritual value of Mahr for women exceeds its material value.”

In nature, the nightingale is in love with the flower, and no exchange of affection takes place. The entire universe and its phenomena are enveloped in love, where the lover and the beloved give their hearts to one another. If love is purer and more genuine, it becomes more selfless, and no material exchange is involved. Mahr, however, is a conventional agreement between humans and does not exist inherently in nature; it is not an invention of creation. Therefore, when Mahr does not have an intrinsic or natural nature, it cannot be said that the Qur’an returns it to its innate state. Rather, could it be said that, just as with the traditions of alcohol consumption or slavery, the Qur’an did not abolish Mahr but instead established it as the woman’s right, so as not to conflict with the common practice of the people and their customs? That is, whatever the custom of people is at any given time, that is what is endorsed.

Ayatollah Mutahhari, under the title “Mahr in the Qur’an,” writes:

(p. 200) “The Qur’an did not create Mahr in the way we described in the fifth stage; Mahr in this form is a creation of nature. What the Qur’an did was to return Mahr to its innate nature.”

The Qur’an accepts Mahr as a social convention and, for the purpose of further protecting women, it legitimizes it and declares it to belong to the woman herself, just as in the case of buying and selling, where it says: (And Allah has made trade lawful and usury unlawful) [27]. The Qur’an has endorsed trade as a human convention and corrected it, stating that usury is not trade and is prohibited.

Mahr in the Qur’an

• The Qur’an says about Mahr: (And give the women their dowries as a free gift) [28].

Ayatollah Mutahhari, explaining this verse, writes:

(p. 200) “In this brief sentence, the Qur’an points to three fundamental matters:

Firstly, it refers to it as ‘Sadaqah’ (with a “d” sound, not “mahr”) rather than ‘Mahr.’ ‘Sadaqah’ comes from the root ‘Sadaq,’ and it is called ‘Sadaqah’ because it signifies the sincerity of the man’s affection. Some commentators, such as the author of Kashshaf, have explicitly mentioned this; as per the definition of Raghib Isfahani in the ‘Mufradat al-Quran,’ the reason it is called ‘Sadaqah’ (with the open “d”) is that it signifies the sincerity of faith.

Furthermore, by attaching the pronoun (هنَّ), it emphasizes that the dowry belongs to the woman, not her parents; it is not the wage for her upbringing, breastfeeding, or feeding.

Lastly, by using the word ‘Nahla,’ it makes it absolutely clear that Mahr has no other title except as a gift, an offering, or a present.”

‘Sadaqah’ has a spiritual and transcendent counterpart, such as gaining the pleasure of Allah or averting misfortune, and does not refer to a gift with an exchange. However, Mahr certainly has a material counterpart, as it is a transactional exchange. In the context of marriage, one can refer to the dowry as either ‘Sadaq’ or ‘Mahr’; however, the Qur’an uses the term ‘Sadaq’ to indicate that the counterpart of Mahr is something higher than the material goods typically involved in transactions — it is the confirmation of a man’s love and affection for a woman by giving her Mahr. This act signifies the man’s sincerity. The better and more valuable the gift a man gives, the more successful he is in demonstrating his sincerity. In common practice, people present gifts to those they love, which is a way of showing respect. Mahr, too, is a gift. Mahr is the counterpart given with skill, mastery, and expertise, paid to the woman.

The man, by giving the dowry, shows his sincere affection for the woman. But how should the woman show her affection for the man, especially when she is more subtle and reserved, not openly expressing her love but rather encouraging the man to pursue her? By giving the dowry, the man signifies his withdrawal from the chase and openly declares his affection for her. Even in the engagement ceremony, when it is still unclear whether the woman will accept him as her husband and partner for life, the man offers her flowers and sweets as a symbol of his sincerity. As the saying goes, the rope always breaks from its strongest part, not its weakest. A man, because he is powerful and rugged, will bend to the woman’s gentleness, whereas she resists and is patient. If she were to give in, she would not only present a gift but also offer herself as a kind of sacrifice to the man.

This social contract ultimately reverts to a natural contract. The winner of any contest or challenge is the one who can endure longer with patience and strategy, not yielding. In wrestling, too, the one who tires last wins. This concept also applies to men and women. Women are the epitome of delicacy and are slow to break, or they break later. The man must offer a gift because, in the battle of love, he becomes exhausted by the separation and is weakened and broken, and he must pay the price for his vulnerability. Through patience and delicacy, the woman draws the man to humbly offer his gift. The man, because of his strength and ruggedness, is like a dry piece of wood: strong, but if pressure is applied, it breaks. It is essential, for the survival and continuation of love, that he submits and surrenders. The woman falls in love quietly, without saying anything. In the confrontation between delicacy and beauty, restraint and power, it is the delicacy that prevails. This is the woman’s power, and she cannot be considered weak. A woman does not lack power, just as a man does not lack delicacy. But the dominance of certain characteristics results in two distinct faces. The humility or offering of the man is because he kneels in the presence of the delicate. It is possible that the woman might also lose the game of love and express her affection for the man, as Zuleikha did. In fact, she even presented herself to Joseph. When a woman loses patience in love, she risks her honor, dignity, and identity, and exposes herself to shame.

Zuleikha sacrificed everything for her love and was so consumed by it that she became the subject of ridicule by other women. Through her display of Joseph, she made the women cut their hands. Even Lady Khadijah, despite her family’s disapproval of her marriage to the Prophet Muhammad, paid the dowry herself. That is, Lady Khadijah had broken from her own self and fallen in love with him. She had found her beloved, and for this reason, she sacrificed for him both before and after the marriage.

The essence of beauty is delicacy. When the thread of delicacy in a woman is severed, she can no longer hide her love and is forced to express it, as Zuleikha’s love led to her public disgrace. She saw Joseph as more delicate than herself. Lady Khadijah also saw in the Prophet a person more perfect and complete than herself and fell in love with him. But the paths of these two loves were different. Lady Khadijah moved with dignity, chastity, and purity, while Zuleikha lost balance in love and neglected the legitimacy of the means to reach her goal, seeking to commit a sin. When the women mocked Zuleikha for her love of Joseph, she drew them into his beauty and magnificently displayed his delicacy to them. The same was true for women in relation to Imam Hassan, who was beloved because he was seen as sweeter and more delicate than themselves. In love, the one who gives in first and breaks is the one who sacrifices for the beloved. The man continues to sacrifice until the woman’s kindness and restraint, to use Mutahhari’s words, reaches its limit, and her love no longer burns her. At this point, someone like Zuleikha not only sacrifices her wealth but even herself, offering herself as a gift.

The Qur’an narrates Zuleikha’s love story as follows: (And she desired him, and he would have desired her if he had not seen the proof of his Lord) [29]. This verse speaks of the mutual need of both man and woman, but here Zuleikha has broken from her own desires, for Joseph was more delicate than she: (And I do not absolve myself. Verily the soul is prone to evil unless my Lord has mercy) [30]. Women’s natural tendency to love or “surrender” is what makes the woman more potent in her delicacy than the man’s love. In this section, Martyr Motahari presents the criticisms of Mrs. Manoochehrian, but rather than addressing her issues and providing a response, he focuses on the emotions and animosities underlying the critic’s stance. His tone becomes harsh and the language is bold towards the critic’s phrases. The critique he offers is itself flawed and does not adequately respond to the issue of mahr (dowry). In an era where mutual collaboration and income generation are required from both the man and the woman in a shared life, if we accept, as Martyr Motahari did, the equal rights of women and men, how then can the mahr be justified? And why should the woman be the recipient of such grace? This question and critique posed by Mrs. Manoochehrian is a valid and timely one, especially in the context of “friendship marriages” or “white marriages” prevalent in Western culture, to which scholars must respond. Motahari’s response here is not convincing and, in fact, does not constitute a proper answer; it is more of a slogan and ridden with emotion, lacking a rational foundation. Furthermore, it falls into the fallacy of confusing the critique of the motives and ill intent of the author of Chahār Pīshnahād (The Four Proposals)—if such intent can be proven—with the genuine need to critique and assess the truth or falsehood of the argument. Mrs. Manoochehrian later asserts that in Islam, the man is the owner of the woman, and that the obligation of nafaqah (maintenance) is akin to the owner providing food and shelter for an animal, writing: “Just as the owner of a horse or mule must provide food and shelter for them, the owner of the woman must provide the same minimum living conditions.” It cannot be said that such a misrepresentation of Islamic rulings is not born from prejudice or hostility, as the man is never the owner of the woman, and the woman does not become the property of the man through receiving nafaqah.

Martyr Motahari, who had previously believed in the equality of rights between women and men in Islam, here asserts: “Women and men do not have an equal status in their need for one another.” Martyr Motahari writes:

(p. 209) “She has mistakenly assumed that the philosophy of mahr is solely that a woman receives money in exchange for her economic rights being taken away. Would it not have been better if she had briefly referred to the Qur’anic verses regarding mahr and reflected on the interpretations the Qur’an offers on this matter, thereby discovering the true philosophical rationale behind it and being proud of the fact that her holy book contains such a noble logic?”

Such statements do not constitute a critique of the argument or an addressing of the reason behind the criticism. The issue here is:

(p. 209-210) “The author of Chahār Pīshnahād in Issue 89 of the Zan-Rooz magazine, page 71, after mentioning the poor condition of women in the pre-Islamic era and the services Islam provided in this regard, writes: ‘Since men and women are created equal, requiring one to pay a fee or wage to the other has no rational or logical basis; for just as men need women, women are equally in need of men. Their creation has made them interdependent, and in this interdependence, both are in an equal situation, and thus it would be unreasonable to require one to pay the other.’

Later, on page 72, it states: ‘If Article 1133 of the Civil Code, which stipulates that: “A man may divorce his wife whenever he wishes,” is amended so that divorce is not at the sole discretion of the man, the very existence of mahr will lose its philosophical basis.'”

As mentioned earlier, men and women in society and within the household are neither equal nor similar, but rather they are different. These differences are based on creation and nature, not purely contractual or arbitrary. Furthermore, if the critic of this argument harbours ill motives in their presentation of the issue and aims for a broader objective, the discussion must proceed logically, philosophically, and in alignment with the relevant scientific discipline. In such matters, it is inappropriate to invoke sacred personalities, and the major premise should be pursued without reference to specific instances, continuing the discussion at a general level.

Maher is a right that is paid in return, and this does not conflict with its being a form of security. The practice of delayed mahr contradicts both the original principle and the customs of the present time. The right of divorce cannot be waived, but the mahr can be forgiven, and it is not the case that the mahr in the Qur’anic context is intended solely as a security for the man’s right to divorce. Although the right to divorce can be relinquished under certain conditions. Unfortunately, mahr has become a form of security today rather than a genuine gift from the man, demonstrating sincerity in its payment.

In Islamic tradition, the mahr is not necessarily monetary and can, for instance, be something like the teaching of a Qur’anic verse. Mrs. Manoochehrian speaks from the perspective of the actual practice and situation in contemporary society, while Martyr Motahari approaches the issue from the perspective of its foundational principles. For this reason, the two viewpoints do not align with each other. Martyr Motahari later sums up his responses concerning the necessity of mahr and maintenance for marriage:

(p. 238) “Islam considers numerous factors, some natural and some psychological, in determining these matters. On one hand, the numerous physical and emotional burdens faced by women due to childbearing, from which men are naturally free, on the other hand, their lesser ability to generate wealth compared to men, and thirdly, their greater consumption of wealth than men. In addition, the psychological and emotional considerations particular to men and women, and that the man must always play the role of provider for the woman—ultimately, these are all factors that Islam has taken into account in making mahr and nafaqah necessary.”

The Wisdom Behind Nafaqah

Islam has granted women economic ownership and the right to earn wealth in alignment with their husband’s status, without making the husband the owner of the woman or the woman a dependent servant of the man. Rather, women and men are two independent individuals, each with their own dignity and freedom. However, in marriage, a woman becomes restricted in her economic activities. In Islam, a woman is primarily a homemaker with responsibilities and management within the household, though she also plays a social and civic role. Yet Martyr Motahari, failing to grasp this key concept, mistakenly writes:

(p. 214) “But if a specific law were to arise in the world that would relieve women of the responsibility of managing the household and grant them the right to fully independent economic freedom, yet exempt them from participating in the family budget, another philosophical perspective would need to be considered, and reflection should be made around that philosophy.”

As previously noted, managing the household is shared by the woman, and she does not possess absolute and complete economic independence. However, modern life necessitates that women participate in providing for the household and not simply be recipients of nafaqah. If, as Martyr Motahari has suggested, women were to have complete economic and social independence and were simultaneously exempt from financial responsibility for the shared life, this would disadvantage and unjustly burden the man. This is not the case, as marriage brings about economic and social restrictions for a woman. She must allocate part of her time to her husband, which directly affects her ability to accumulate wealth. A woman who is not married enjoys greater independence and freedom to work and earn, but a married woman must take into account her husband’s wishes and act in a manner that does not conflict with his rights. Both men and women work. In the model presented by Martyr Motahari, the man uses his income to cover the costs of the woman and the household. However, since the woman is economically independent and exempt from contributing to household expenses, she is able to save her income, leaving the man poorer and the woman wealthier, which is inconsistent with the principles of equity and social justice. In our model, the man must pay the woman’s nafaqah in compensation for the limitations he places on her freedoms and the freedoms she sacrifices. The woman also has responsibilities both inside the home and in society, and contributes to household expenses voluntarily, not through compulsion or obligation, ensuring that she does not accumulate wealth but has the right to her earnings. Moreover, she retains full control over her personal finances, without any obligation or coercion. This arrangement ensures equality between men and women, creates justice, and fosters a harmonious marital life.

Martyr Motahari presents the idea of women’s absolute economic independence, asserting:

(p. 216-217) “Thus, thirteen centuries before Europe, the Qur’an granted women economic independence, but with the following differences: firstly, the motivation for granting economic independence was solely for humanitarian and justice-oriented reasons in Islam… Secondly, Islam granted economic independence to women, but did not, in the words of Will Durant, ‘destroy the home’… Thirdly, Islam freed women from servitude and slavery to men in homes, farms, and elsewhere, and by obliging men to provide for the family budget, it relieved women from any financial pressure or compulsion.”

Islam does not grant women absolute economic independence or freedom, especially in terms of wealth accumulation and spending, in the same way that Western societies do. In Islam, if a woman lacks a guardian (father or husband) to provide for her, the Islamic system must take responsibility for her economic welfare. The Late Martyr Motahari’s Views on Alimony and Inheritance

Alimony and Its Obligations

Martyr Motahari regards critics of alimony as deceitful individuals who spread blatant lies. He states:

“When the West-oriented critics wish to criticize this law under the guise of defending women, they have no option but to resort to a blatant lie. They claim that the philosophy behind alimony is that men consider themselves the owners of women and assign them as servants. Just as an owner of an animal is compelled to cover the necessary expenses of the animal for it to serve him, alimony is similarly established to ensure the woman receives at least the basic necessities of life.”

In the knowledge of Shia jurisprudence, no human is the property of another, and paying alimony does not imply ownership of the woman. Moreover, the alimony provided to the woman is not merely the minimum for survival but is contingent on her status and the man’s financial capacity.

Alimony in the Context of Childbearing

Another reason Martyr Motahari presents for the obligation of alimony is the woman’s responsibility in childbearing:

“Another reason for the necessity of alimony is that the responsibility and exhausting pains of reproduction are naturally entrusted to women… These physical burdens reduce a woman’s ability to work and earn. If the law were to place men and women in an equal position regarding securing the finances for their lives without supporting women, this would result in the woman’s tragic condition.”

The obligation of alimony from the man is not contingent on childbearing or menstruation. Even if the wife is infertile, if the couple agrees not to have children for a period or permanently, or if the wife reaches menopause, the man is still obligated to provide alimony. Furthermore, men are also involved in procreation, and the entire process of reproduction is not exclusively the woman’s responsibility. After childbirth, the child is the man’s responsibility as well, and he must pay for the child’s living expenses and be involved in their upbringing. The burdens of caring for the child are not solely on the woman, as the man plays an essential role in this, despite women having a natural capacity for enduring difficult situations. These factors do not significantly affect the obligation of alimony.

The Natural Differences Between Men and Women

Martyr Motahari rejects the notion of gender equality in societal contracts and argues that women, due to their natural role in childbirth and menstruation, cannot compete with men in acquiring equal rights and jobs within a legal society. This, he believes, makes it necessary for men to pay alimony in order to establish justice between the sexes. However, earlier in his work, Motahari had claimed that men and women were naturally similar in societal contracts and economic activities:

“Why, in terms of natural social rights, do all individuals have an equal and similar status? Because studies of human conditions prove that none of us are born as superiors or inferiors.”

We previously mentioned that there is neither similarity nor equality between men and women, neither in the family nor society. Natural differences between them dominate, and both nature and religion have assigned different roles to each, which science and commitment to research must uncover and disclose without prejudice. Martyr Motahari frequently discusses the equal status of men and women in his work, but when moving from the realm of theory to that of practical application, he contradicts his earlier statements. For example, earlier he had stated:

“From a social and non-family perspective, all human beings have an equal and similar position, meaning that their primary natural rights are identical. They all have the same right to benefit from the blessings of creation.”

If men and women have equal rights in society, why does Motahari later state that men and women are not created equally in terms of physical labour, and that women cannot match men in these domains? If they share the same nature, why should women not be able to compete on equal terms with men?

“Furthermore, men and women are not created equal in terms of labour and the harsh economic and production activities. If there is a notion of disparity and the man stands up against the woman, telling her that he will not spend a single penny of his income on her, the woman will never be able to catch up with the man.”

It is more accurate to say that men and women have different natural roles and are complementary to each other. Women are symbols of grace, and men are attracted to them because they have the ability to express authority. Neither the dowry nor alimony are in exchange for enjoying a woman, as marriage is not akin to rental or sale. Rather, a man expresses his love through alimony and dowry, demonstrating his affection.

Alimony and the Desire for Luxury

The book also addresses the issue of women’s inherent desire for luxury, adornment, variety, and display, which are seen as natural to their essence:

“Beyond all these, and most importantly, the woman’s need for money and wealth is greater than that of the man. Luxury and adornment are part of the woman’s life and are among her primary needs. What a woman spends on luxury, adornment, and personal care in her ordinary life is equivalent to the expenses of several men. A man’s need for luxury is not the same as a woman’s—while a man can continue to wear the same clothes as long as they are not worn out, for a woman, clothes are only wearable as long as they appear fresh. A single set of clothing or a piece of jewellery may not have any value for a woman after a single use. A woman’s ability to work and earn wealth is less than that of a man, but her consumption of wealth is much greater.”

Women are naturally inclined towards adornment and beauty, and this trait is considered a virtue if it is directed towards their husbands. Women engage in beautification and display to preserve their vitality and freshness for their husbands, ensuring they remain appealing. This natural disposition explains the higher expenses of women. Men, too, adorn themselves for their complementary gender, which emphasizes the mutual dependency of both genders. Neither woman nor man is complete without the other, and neither can achieve a fulfilling life on their own. They are incomplete and need each other.

The luxury and adornment that Martyr Motahari refers to is typically associated with the wealthy, who may feel embarrassed to wear expensive clothing more than once. However, this is not true for all women, particularly those from poorer backgrounds who display their charm and vitality with minimal expenditure.

As Martyr Motahari suggests, “A woman’s ability to work and earn wealth is less than that of a man,” not because nature has made women weak, but because women are primarily domestic beings, while men are first social beings. Therefore, women must fulfil their primary role at home while not being excluded from society. Women should also bear social responsibilities suitable to their nature. It is not in a woman’s best interest to stay at home solely to maintain the family; rather, women, as social beings, must play their roles in society without neglecting their primary responsibilities. Women’s education should be adapted to their nature, and the education of boys and girls should not be identical within the educational system. There are professions suited to women and others suited to men. However, it is incorrect for women to remain at home without an education or job that aligns with their nature. Full-time employment is also not suitable for women, as it undermines the family structure, with adverse consequences for society. Women should have suitable part-time jobs to ensure their well-being, vitality, and peace of mind, which are of great value to men. If a woman works outside the home and gets tired from her job, the man is obligated to assist her in household tasks. Unfortunately, contemporary society’s culture, influenced by Western norms, ignores the natural differences between men and women, pushing women into full-time work, both at home and outside it. Economic cartels exploit the weak and see no distinction between men and women in their pursuit of profit, leading the vulnerable to destruction while falsely claiming success.

Women’s Emotional and Spiritual Needs

If a woman desires a healthy and elevated life, she needs a man. However, her needs are not limited to financial matters, alimony, or dowry. Although women, as a class, generally have financial needs, they also draw men to spend on them out of love. Therefore, it is incorrect to say:

“Women are created for men only in material terms, whereas men are created for women spiritually.”

Even wealthy women, who are financially secure, still need a husband to find emotional peace and inner tranquillity. Wealth and material possessions cannot fulfill all their needs. Motahari had earlier stated that “the criterion for alimony is not the woman’s need.” However, his final words on dowry and alimony are correct when he says:

“The law of creation has made men and women interdependent, so they are both dependent on each other for emotional and material well-being. If the man is the material support for the woman, the woman provides the emotional support for the man. These two different needs bring them closer and unite them.”

The law of creation has made men and women complementary. For both to achieve happiness, they must rely on one another. The man relies on the woman for emotional well-being, while the woman depends on the man’s authority. Their needs for each other are mutual, comprehensive, and harmonious with their nature, not one-sided.

Section Nine: The Issue of Inheritance

Women’s Historical Exclusion from Inheritance

Historically, women were excluded from inheritance. Martyr Motahari attributes this to the prevention of wealth transfer between families by excluding women from inheritance, as men only recognised male offspring as heirs. He attributes this belief to the religious traditions of earlier civilizations:

“In the Vedas of India and the laws of Greece and Rome, it is stated that the power of procreation belongs exclusively to men, which led to the exclusion of women from religious practices, and therefore and therefore inheritance.” Those who have equalized the inheritance shares of men and women: In some countries, military service is compulsory for women. This means that women, just like men, are exposed to the risk of death, captivity, and assault. The proposal for equal inheritance shares and compulsory military service for women constitutes a crime against women. In Islam, with the prohibition of women’s military service, neither the risk of death nor the danger of captivity threatens her, and the dignity of women is preserved. Additionally, due to the greater risk that men face, they are granted a larger share of inheritance, as indicated clearly in the Holy Qur’an: “For the male is the equivalent of the share of two females” (Quran 4:11).

Islam does not discriminate in terms of inheritance between men and women; for instance, when an inheritance is to be divided between a son and a daughter, it is divided into three shares, with the son receiving two-thirds and the daughter one-third. In contrast, the maintenance and support of the woman falls entirely upon the man. The woman does not have significant individual expenses outside of the husband’s obligation to provide for her, and one-third of the inheritance is designated to her out of a concern for her personal, non-essential needs, such as luxury and adornments. Furthermore, the woman has a dowry, which serves to compensate for part of her share of the wealth, without her incurring significant costs.

Regardless of individuals’ financial status, the Islamic law of inheritance ensures a balance in the distribution of wealth and assets. The duration of a man’s military service and the associated risks are not considered here, as military service and national defence are seen as male-specific duties in line with their nature, and this cannot be compared or factored into such calculations.

Section Ten: The Right of Divorce

We first briefly present the Islamic perspective on divorce and then critique the lengthy discussions of divorce presented in the book. Divorce is the act of liberating oneself and dissolving the marital bond, allowing the separation of a man and a woman. Some argue that a marriage should be maintained under all circumstances, and that neither the man nor the woman should have the right to divorce. They assert that a failed beginning requires a failed ending and that one should not interfere with a binding union, as marriage is considered a sacred bond. This view is held by those who are either unaware or have fallen into fear and hopelessness and is ultimately incorrect.

A marriage is stable only when it is entered into consciously, with full knowledge and voluntary choice, ensuring the highest compatibility between the physical, psychological, and emotional states of both the man and the woman. If a marriage is entered into ignorantly, under duress, or without considering compatibility, leading to incompatibility and mutual misunderstanding, it becomes a source of various sinful acts, corruption, hardship, and pressure. Such a marriage, which is plagued by irreconcilable differences between the spouses, should be dissolved through divorce at the earliest, to ensure that both the man and woman experience the ease and comfort they deserve, as the Qur’an states: “And if they separate, Allah will enrich each of them from His abundance, and Allah is ever the Most Expansive, the All-Wise” (Quran 4:130).

Continuing a marriage entered into mistakenly, which brings no joy, peace, or satisfaction, is itself another mistake. These marriages require change and divorce to avoid creating further problems, especially if children are involved. In a religious society based on the Qur’an, divorce should be seen as a legitimate remedy for couples who are incompatible, and the judicial system should not place unnecessary obstacles in the way of those suffering in unhealthy marriages. Divorce is not a curse, but rather a means to alleviate the burden on both partners and to offer them a way out of unresolvable difficulties. It is essential to create awareness so that divorce is recognized as a potential solution, even in seemingly healthy marriages, when it becomes clear that it is the only way to prevent further distress.

Divorce does not solely stem from incompatibility between the partners. There are also social, economic, and cultural factors that contribute to divorce, which must be identified and addressed through systemic solutions within governance structures. It is not sufficient to merely focus on managing the incidence of divorce; we must address the underlying factors contributing to it.

The increasing rates of divorce today are often seen with concern, and some suggest that the future of such a trend is alarming. In the past, divorce was rarely discussed, and the rates were lower. The author of the text writes: “In the past, less attention was given to the causes and consequences of divorce, and as a result, fewer marriages broke down.” (pp. 243–244). However, the rise in divorce rates today is partly due to the fact that societal life has evolved, making separation between couples more frequent.

However, the mere frequency or rarity of divorce is not inherently a value or disvalue. In the past, fewer divorces may have occurred because women had little awareness or power and had to endure harsh living conditions. The lack of understanding about what constitutes a healthy marriage, or the inability to initiate divorce, was a form of enslavement for women, subjecting them to oppression. Continuing such a life, however, is a negative development, and it would be erroneous to glorify or take pride in the low divorce rates of the past.

In Islam, divorce is forbidden if it is initiated by a man without just cause. Divorce is not forbidden in itself but considered a necessary action to prevent further sin. A marriage that causes sin and corruption holds no value and should be dissolved through divorce, which serves to protect both partners from further harm.

Divorce is not inherently disliked, but its improper and inappropriate use is what makes it undesirable. For instance, although a person has the ability to commit sin, that does not mean that committing sin is a reflection of their best state. Divorce, therefore, while permitted, must be treated carefully. Furthermore, divorce should not be viewed as an avenue to seek new relationships or to fulfil personal whims but as a way to bring about liberation from an unworkable marriage.

The Issue of Divorce

We have discussed various issues surrounding divorce in the second volume of the book Women; The Perpetual Victim of History. One such critique is as follows: marriage is a shared life between a man and a woman, and both should play equal roles in it. So, why should the right to divorce be solely in the hands of the man? If a woman wishes to leave the marriage, she should have the ability to do so, as she too has natural desires, inclinations, and difficulties with the marriage. Denying her this right and preventing her from obtaining a divorce may lead to illicit relationships.

Islam grants the right of divorce to the man, not because it is a privilege over the woman, but because men, in their nature, are more rational and less driven by emotional impulses. They are capable of making decisions with consideration for the future and without immediate emotional reaction. In contrast, women, due to their emotional nature, might make hasty, impulsive decisions, which could lead to regrets. By giving the right of divorce to the man, the risk of acting on sudden emotional impulses is reduced, ensuring the decision is made rationally and with a long-term perspective.

Even though the man holds the right to divorce, it is important to note that the consequences of divorce are often more burdensome for him, especially if he must pay the woman’s dowry. Divorce, especially when children are involved, is difficult for men. The woman, having the right to claim her dowry, and potentially remarrying, may not face the same difficulties as the man, who will carry the responsibility of raising the children. Therefore, men are typically more reluctant to divorce and work to preserve the marriage for the sake of their children.

In conclusion, the right to divorce, while formally granted to the man, is intended to prevent impulsive actions and preserve rational decision-making. However, this does not mean that the woman’s perspective and needs are disregarded. It is merely a recognition of the different roles and natures of men and women in marital relationships.

I hope this translation meets your needs. Let me know if you need any further revisions or additions

The Prophet is more deserving of and closer to the believers than they are to themselves. The Prophet (PBUH) is, in principle, more entitled than a husband to a married woman’s rights; however, the Prophet has not used this right, as it may not be fitting for his dignity and status to do so.

The right of divorce stems from the nature of human beings, and it is necessary and essential. If it is not implemented in the appropriate circumstances, society will fall into chaos. With this clarification, it becomes evident that the restriction mentioned by the late Motahhari in the following passage is incorrect. He writes in his section titled “Injustice in Divorces”:

“Islam is strongly opposed to divorce. It seeks, as much as possible, to prevent divorce. Islam has permitted divorce as a solution only when separation is the only available option.” (p. 253)

It is true that divorce is a remedy, but from a legal standpoint, Islam has granted the right of divorce to the man in an unrestricted manner. As for unjust or sinful divorces, Islam does not impose a legal prohibition against them, but it does offer moral guidance for those who execute and carry them out. It recommends avoiding sinful divorces in a non-obligatory manner, rather than declaring them invalid, since even conditional and restricted divorce would contradict the natural order and human nature. The book confuses the status of the theoretical grant of the right of divorce to the man with the practical application of that right.

Today, the judicial system, by delaying and obstructing the issuance of divorce permits, is engaging in sin and, in its mistaken belief, seeks to prevent the occurrence of this detested act. According to the late Motahhari, divorce should not have a judicial dimension because it is not conditional:

“Wouldn’t it have been better if Islam had set conditions for divorce and only allowed a man to divorce his wife upon meeting those conditions? If divorce were conditional, it would take on a judicial aspect, and any man who wanted to divorce his wife would first have to present his reasons to the court. If the court deemed his reasons sufficient, it would grant the divorce; otherwise, it would not…” (pp. 257–258)

In this context, it is asked whether society, represented by the court, has the right to intervene in divorce matters — an act that Islam considers detestable — to the extent of preventing the swift execution of divorce and delaying it to the point that the man might regret his decision or that the court realizes that reconciliation is impossible, and it is better for the marriage to be dissolved.

In our book “The Family,” we have stated that the family is a system, and the execution of the family unit should be managed by the governance system in a systematic manner. Hence, both for the original marriage and for divorce, legal requirements and conditions should be established, and the details of this process are found in that work. The late Motahhari, too, in his discussion on divorce, touches upon judicial divorce.

The man’s right to divorce is absolute in theory and affirmation; however, in practice and execution, it is subject to conditions and requires verification by the court. The conditions for executing divorce are not related to the conditional clause in the divorce document. Just as wealth alone establishes the ability to perform Hajj, but Hajj must occur at a specific time, Islam does not wish to delay the act of Hajj for a capable individual. Instead, it requires that Hajj take place within the designated time. The obligation of Hajj is clear, but the actual performance is due when the time comes. In the same way, in divorce, Islam mandates that the witness must be just, which does not mean delaying the divorce.

The right to divorce is absolute and unlimited in its essence, but its execution requires conditions, and the implementation of this right is delayed until the court verifies these conditions. The late Motahhari, by confusing the two aspects of theoretical and practical divorce, writes:

“It is possible that some people, based on the previous statements, might conclude that we claim there should be no obstacles to a man’s divorce. As soon as a man decides to divorce, the path should be open for him. No, this is not the case.” (p. 272)

This is not true. What we have said about Islam’s view is that the law should not create an obstacle in the way of the man’s decision to divorce. Islam welcomes everything that might dissuade the man from divorcing. Islam has established conditions and rules for divorce that naturally lead to its delay and often cause the man to reconsider.”

Just as marriage is a virtuous act and Islam supports it in theory, but does not make it absolute and unrestricted in practice, imposing conditions and regulations, divorce is the same: conditions for executing the right do not restrict the essence of the right. Every law has conditions for its implementation, even if it is created in absolute terms. In contrast, the late Motahhari answers his own question by saying:

“Does society have the right… to prevent the quick decision of the man to divorce?” The answer is: “Of course, it can do this… The courts, as representatives of society, can prevent the officials of divorce offices from acting on divorce until the court has informed them of its failure to reconcile the couple.” (p. 276)

The position of the arbitrator cannot prevent the man from divorcing, and he is free to ignore the ethical and non-binding advice of the arbitrator. If a man divorces his wife despite the court’s ruling, the divorce is valid, and the court cannot annul it, although it may punish him for disregarding the law.

However, the judicial position, distinct from arbitration, has the authority to intervene, under the authority of the Supreme Jurisprudence and its powers to manage family systems, and can establish conditions for the divorce process in practice. This is because problematic and unhealthy marriages and divorces generate costs and issues for the governing system.

Laws of Nature Regarding Marriage and Divorce

The book describes the marital bond as a form of mating among men, likening it to the predatory behavior of animals, such as wolves attacking sheep. This means that men attack to possess and claim women, while women resist in a way that is meant to allure men:

“The only natural law in civil society is the law of freedom and equality. All social regulations must be based on these two principles, unlike marriage, which, in nature, has other laws, and one must follow these laws… Divorce, like marriage, has its own natural law before any contractual legal laws.” (pp. 260-261)

Marriage represents unity and connection, while divorce signifies separation and disintegration. When nature has established the laws of mating and connection between men and women, where one side seeks possession and the other side retreats in a bid for attraction, the natural emotions associated with such behaviors also govern divorce.

In the fifteenth article, a scholar notes: “Mating is an attack for possession in men, and retreat for allure and deception in women. Since men are naturally hunters, their actions are aggressive and assertive, while women are prizes to be captured. Mating is warfare, and marriage is possession and control.”

The pact based on love and unity cannot be imposed or forced. We previously discussed possession and its relationship with desires and clarified that the possession of a woman by a man is often accompanied by secrecy and complexity. The true nature of marriage, however, is connection, unity, and love.

The Dependency of Family Life on Mutual Affection

The late Motahhari correctly mentions that family life depends on the mutual affection of both parties, not just one side, but he makes a mistake in his interpretation of nature’s assignment of affection. He claims that nature has placed the key to mutual affection in the hands of the man, asserting that the woman responds to the affection and respect shown by the man:

“Family life depends on the affection of both partners, not just one. However, the psychology of men and women in this regard is different… Nature has arranged the affections of spouses such that the woman responds to the affection shown by the man. The affection of a woman toward a man is a reaction to the respect and love the man has for her.” (pp. 262-263)

This assertion is flawed. It is not necessarily true that a woman’s affection toward her husband is always a response to his love. There may be situations where a woman loves her husband, but the man is unaware or indifferent. Furthermore, it is not accurate to claim that a woman’s lack of affection always results from the man’s behavior.

The late Motahhari’s assertion that women are inherently more loyal than men lacks sufficient evidence to support it. There is no definitive research establishing a significant difference in loyalty between men and women.

( Pages 265-266) “Now, consider this: a being that is so dependent on the emotions, affections, and support of another being, cannot endure without those affections. Without the affection and kindness of others, even the concept of having a child loses its true meaning. How, then, could the law enforce a bond between this being and another, who is male, through force?

In general, whenever there is love, devotion, and sincerity involved—where these are the foundation and cornerstones of the matter—there is no room for legal compulsion. While there may be regret, coercion and obligation should not be applied.

The core issue is that we should understand that Islam views family life as a natural society and has prescribed a specific mechanism for it. Observing this mechanism is considered essential and non-negotiable.”

In continuation, Martyr Motahhari uses examples, such as the devotion of followers to an imam or the devotion of the people to a representative who has not won the vote. These cannot be forced by law. For instance, consider the issue of “a woman’s obedience to her husband” or “the acceptance of a religion.” If a woman becomes rebellious (nashiza) and refuses to obey a husband who provides for her needs, the law cannot compel her to comply, nor can it punish her for her disobedience. Obedience is a psychological matter between two individuals, and while a woman may commit a sin or transgression, the judicial system cannot force her into obedience. Islam neither gives a woman to a man through coercion, nor a man to a woman. Love, like the acceptance of a religion, is not something that can be imposed. The Qur’an states: “There is no compulsion in religion” (Qur’an 2:256). The law cannot force a woman and a man to love each other. It cannot compel a man to love his wife, nor can it compel a wife to love her husband. There is no difference in this matter between a woman and a man, though Martyr Motahhari does accept and support forced affection for the wife.

A society remains healthy when it is able to instil general affection and individual sacrifice in itself, so that those willing to sacrifice can repair and compensate for the harm caused by the injustices and aggressions of wrongdoers. The family is also like this; one cannot solve all its issues by merely measuring justice, equity, and the assertion of rights without taking love and the capacity for sacrifice into account. Selfishness, if it leads to aggression, disturbs justice, and it is affection, sacrifice, and love that compensate for it. The assertion of rights and their fulfilment cannot lead to growth and progress in the family and society without sacrifice, forgiveness, and spirituality; for aggressors mar justice and equality, and if there are no sacrificial individuals, the wound does not heal. It festers and spreads, leading to general dissatisfaction. The health of society is not achieved merely by the slogan of social justice; it must also include general affection and individual sacrifice to compensate for the losses caused by the looting and exploitation of wrongdoers. Just as in social life, the slogan of equality and social justice alone cannot guide and govern a society, so too, in family life, the family requires love, affection, and sacrifice from some of its members for its well-being.

Earlier, we also repeatedly mentioned that women and men have different family and social roles, and justice regarding their rights is realised when these differences are respected, and each individual occupies their proper place. Sometimes the woman is ahead, sometimes the man. However, in shared rights, justice is equality. Differences in rights between men and women in non-shared matters do not mean that one has more rights than the other; rather, each has rights proportionate to their natural role.

The Emotions of Marriage and Motherhood

• Women possess a great deal of emotion, and their emotional nature is such that they can impart their feelings to the man. A woman, more than receiving emotions from the man, as she is herself the source of emotions and dominated by them, gives feelings to the man. The man, in turn, imparts his strength and wisdom to the woman, and thus the marital relationship and joint life gain stability. The woman becomes powerful and protected, especially since she is dependent on the man. However, Martyr Motahhari writes, referencing an erroneous statement:

(Pages 269-270) “Islam, in this regard, is against using legal force to prevent a man from divorcing, or to compel a woman to remain in her husband’s home through legal force. This contradicts the position that a woman should hold in the family environment, as the fundamental element of family life is emotions and affections. The one who must receive and absorb the marital emotions to, in turn, spread love and affection to their children is the woman. The husband’s indifference and the extinguishing of his feelings toward the wife make the family environment cold and dark. Even a woman’s maternal feelings toward her children are highly dependent on the emotions her husband has for her. As Mrs Beatrice Mario—whose words we quoted in the previous article—said, maternal feelings are not instinctual; they are not fixed in quantity, but fluctuate and depend heavily on the affection from her husband.”

The result is that a woman’s existence must draw from the man’s affections and emotions in order to nourish her children with the abundant source of her own affections.”

It is not that maternal emotions are not instinctual. Motherhood is indeed an instinct for humans, just as it is in animals. If a girl grows up in a family where love and affection are prevalent, she will naturally have stronger feelings. However, if she grows up in a violent household, her emotions will be weaker and less developed. Maternal emotions are instinctual, but not constant and unchangeable. A mother’s feelings toward each of her children can differ.

A man expresses his love for his wife, and conveys his admiration and delight in having a child, which is supported by the motherly love of the wife. The woman, who is dependent on her husband, becomes steadfast and strong when she sees her husband’s affection. She feels protected and supported by him. The man gives strength to the woman, and when the woman is seen as desired and loved by her husband, she is empowered. That is to say, the man’s strength directly affects the woman’s emotions. Therefore, a woman is more influenced by her husband’s strength than by his affection, although the strengthening of a woman’s emotions is influenced by the desire and affection of the husband. If a man is dissatisfied with his wife and she is no longer dear to him, the woman’s emotions fade. This is because she feels she has become dependent on a man who is not supporting her, and she feels that her emotional foundation has crumbled. A man does not give his wife emotions, because the woman is already the source of emotions, especially when she is pregnant or after childbirth. However, these emotions are deeply dependent on the husband’s strength and affection. A woman’s emotional stability grows when she feels loved and appreciated by her husband, reinforcing her natural source of affection. Hence, the husband’s strength and the woman’s emotions provide harmony and peace in the marital life. In the family, the man is always the pillar of strength, and the woman is the wellspring of emotions. In the example of the iron cutting, it must be repeatedly cooled by water to prevent overheating. Here, the cutting power represents the man’s strength, and the cooling represents the woman’s emotions. The man and woman complement each other—while the man strengthens, the woman nurtures and keeps the family dynamic healthy with her emotions.

(p. 278) “A woman has complete freedom in terms of work and activity, and whatever she does belongs entirely to her. A man has no right to appear as an employer in relation to a woman. Islam has provided women with economic independence, and, in addition, has placed the responsibility for the living expenses of the woman and her children upon the man. This grants the woman ample opportunity to be financially independent and live a dignified life without needing to rely on the man, such that divorce and separation will not cause her concern. Everything that a woman acquires for her own home and household should be considered her own, and the man has no right to take them from her.”

Previously, it was mentioned that a woman does not have complete independence and freedom in terms of work and activity, even though she owns her own wealth. The culture of Muslims (not Islam itself) does not generally allow women the opportunity to accumulate wealth and capital. Nevertheless, a woman’s state of homelessness is not related to the law of divorce. The right of divorce is absolutely granted to the man, and no conditions are imposed upon it. The injustices in divorce arise from the ignorance, oppression, and violence between both parties and are not related to religious rulings or divorce itself. In any case, divorce is legitimate and unconditional, though it is disliked, except in situations where reconciliation is not possible. The book continues:

(pp. 288-289) “The problem of homelessness for a woman is not related to the divorce law, and changing the divorce law will not rectify it. This issue is related to the woman’s economic independence or lack thereof, and Islam has addressed it. The problem arises among us due to some women’s ignorance of Islamic teachings, and the carelessness and naivety of others. If women become aware of the opportunities that Islam has granted them in this regard, and do not show naivety in sacrifice and selflessness for their husbands, this issue would resolve itself.”

Logic of Divorce

Earlier, we critiqued the theory of acquisition and possession in marriage under the title “Laws of Nature Regarding Marriage and Divorce.” Ayatollah Motahhari revisits this idea:

(p. 281) “Divorce is a form of freedom because marriage is a form of possession. If you manage to change the mating law in male and female species and remove the natural possession aspect from marriage, and if you manage to create a role for both the male and female that is equivalent, changing the law of nature, then you may be able to change divorce from a form of freedom.”

While it is true that divorce can bring freedom, it is not necessary to view the man as a hunter and the woman as prey for divorce to be a woman’s liberation from the man. If the foundation of marriage is based on affection and love, not possession and hunting, divorce still holds its meaning, which is freedom, as stated in the book. Islam has granted the right of divorce to the man, and by divorcing, the man frees the woman, just as the woman initially accepted and took the marriage. The man, as the initiator in marriage, can also terminate it, whereas the woman cannot, as divorce is not within her domain.

Furthermore, not every acquisition or collection is an act of hunting. Marriage cannot be understood as hunting or seizing. Sometimes, one might catch a bird only to release it—this is not hunting. However, if the bird is trapped, it is hunting. In marriage, the woman willingly offers herself to the man by expressing consent, and the man accepts her. This does not equate to hunting a woman who has voluntarily offered herself. In marriage, the man says, “I accept the marriage,” and in divorce, he says, “I release the marriage,” meaning he lets go of what he accepted. Therefore, the man is the one who should release and divorce; the woman has nothing to release as she hasn’t received anything. However, if it is stipulated in the marriage contract that the woman has the right to divorce (without revocation), this is a conditional and contractual agreement, which is distinct from the inherent right of divorce, and it does not change the essence of divorce. Additionally, the woman must be granted a mandate for this right by the man, and the man may choose not to grant it. Thus, the right of divorce does not naturally belong to the woman and is solely the man’s right, which is unilateral. Therefore, the author’s claim that:

(p. 284) “It is said that in Islamic jurisprudence and under Iranian civil law, the right of divorce is a unilateral right granted to the man and completely denied to the woman, is not correct. According to both Islamic jurisprudence and Iranian civil law, the right of divorce does not exist as a natural right for women, but it can exist as a contractual and delegated right.”

This right comes as a condition within the binding marriage contract and must be agreed upon by the man. As it is a personal matter, the question here concerns whether the woman has the right to divorce.

Judicial Divorce

Ayatollah Motahhari discusses the intervention of society and the judge, as a representative of society, under the concept of “judicial divorce” and interprets it as follows:

(p. 286) “Natural divorce is akin to natural childbirth, which proceeds in its natural course. However, divorce from a man who neither performs his duties nor agrees to divorce is like unnatural childbirth, which requires the assistance of a doctor to extract the baby.”

Childbirth naturally belongs to the woman, and divorce naturally belongs to the man. The concept of Velayat-e-Faqih (Guardianship of the Jurisprudent), as it extends to societal and familial matters, gives the jurisprudent authority to intervene in unhealthy relationships where the man oppresses the woman or where the woman neglects her marital duties, preventing harm to either party. This is Islam’s solution to family issues, offering support to the oppressed and maintaining societal harmony. This discussion is not related to divorce but to the governance system and the authority of the jurisprudent, which we have explained in the book “Family.” The powers of Velayat-e-Faqih are a legal issue that is governed by legal principles. Emotional appeals regarding the absence of intervention by the jurisprudent or judge have no relevance. Ayatollah Motahhari does not clarify the issue of Velayat-e-Faqih and its authority in this context, nor does he mention the supremacy of the principle of Velayat-e-Faqih over other principles, such as the principle of ownership in disputes over property. Thus, the topic is shifted from judicial intervention to a more flawed interpretation.

(p. 288) “The principle of ownership and the right to control wealth is not respected when it leads to wealth being left unused. In such cases, to prevent the wealth from becoming unproductive, the Islamic ruler or judge may intervene and ensure a proper resolution, even against the wishes of the owners of the wealth.”

… The Islamic ruler should summon the husband who fails to fulfill his marital duties and refuses to grant divorce. If the husband refuses to divorce, the ruler may grant the divorce on his behalf.

Velayat-e-Faqih’s role in divorce does not mean that divorce is inaccessible to the woman. While the man’s path to divorce remains open, the woman’s path may be restricted if the judge, acting with the permission of the jurisprudent, intervenes to resolve disputes or prevent harm. In situations where the court determines that a guarantee can be provided to protect the woman’s rights in marriage, the woman may not be granted the right to divorce, even though her husband remains free to divorce her.

Section 11: Polygamy

Monogamy

– Is the desire for monogamy reciprocal? In other words, does the woman want to have one husband who has no other wife, and does the man want only one wife who has no other husband? In monogamy, it should be noted that the woman also desires to possess the entire man. She wants to win the man’s heart completely. A woman, like a man, has one heart and desires to have only one husband in her heart. The man and woman, like two doves, embrace each other, spreading their wings in harmony, and they do not want any interference. Ayatollah Motahhari defines monogamy as:

(p. 299) “Monogamy is the most natural form of marriage. In monogamy, the spirit of exclusivity — that is, individual and private ownership — prevails, which is of course different from the private ownership of wealth. In monogamy, each spouse considers the sexual and emotional needs of the other as belonging to them, exclusively. The opposite of monogamy is ‘polygamy’ or shared marriage.”

Here, it must be understood that marital bonds are based on mutual connection, dedication, affection, and love. Each partner views the other as their own and unique, and this relationship is not limited to sexual benefits, though it is not defined by ownership. Such exclusivity does not lead to ownership. As the saying goes, “The saddle belongs to the horse,” which implies exclusivity, not ownership. Similarly, humans have a connection with God, but they do not own God. Private ownership is also distinct from the ownership of wealth.

Polygamy

– A woman may have a natural inclination towards polygamy, but this desire is influenced by societal factors. Ayatollah Motahhari does not consider polygamy a natural desire for women, believing the primary issue is the confusion it creates regarding parentage:

(p. 302) “The major issue with polygamy is the confusion of lineage, making the paternal connection to the child unclear.”

It can be said that the primary reason for the necessity of monogamy for women and the prohibition of polygamy is not related to reproduction. Even if a woman is infertile or does not wish to have children, polygamy remains prohibited for her.

Islam did not entirely abolish polygyny in contrast to polyandry, but rather limited and regulated it; that is, on one hand, it removed the unlimited aspect and set a maximum number of four wives, and on the other hand, it imposed certain conditions and restrictions, granting permission to select multiple wives only under specific circumstances.

In the history of Islam, the practice of polygyny and the concept of multiple wives deviated from its intended implementation. The first deviation was the creation of harems by kings and rulers. The harem does not align with the concept of polygyny, as it disregards the conditions stipulated for the practice. The harem system is lawless; it was instead driven by the desires of caliphs, sultans, chiefs, and the wealthy, resulting in the exploitation, oppression, and injustice towards women. This is fundamentally different from the original notion of polygyny in Islam.

The second deviation in the practice of polygyny was the injustice towards women in its application. Men would marry new wives without divorcing their previous ones, nor would they observe the rights of their earlier wives. Such men, due to their social or financial power, or due to misguided upbringing or selfish desires, would often exert their influence and resort to polygyny, even if their first wife was not inclined towards it.

One of the drawbacks of polygyny is that if a man shows affection to one wife in front of another, the latter may develop resentment and engage in disputes. In contrast, in monogamy, a woman tends to view her husband as her own and loves him deeply, persevering through the challenges of life. Women typically “make do” with their husbands because they view them as their own possessions. However, if a woman sees that her husband is visiting another house, she will not stand by him, support him, or show him affection. Instead, she may consistently create conflicts. A woman does not naturally accept her husband’s polygyny, which is in accordance with her instincts. Although women may have desires for polyandry and men may desire multiple wives, both genders also wish to have their spouse exclusively to themselves. These inherent tendencies exist universally in humans, and though polygyny may offer certain benefits to men, those desires must be managed and controlled.

As mentioned, women should not be continuously exploited for sexual purposes, and intercourse during menstruation is forbidden. Men are always ready for sexual satisfaction, and during times when a woman is not prepared, they may commit sin. Polygyny can prevent men from committing such sins. Additionally, factors like lust, male dominance, geography, the limitations of women’s childbearing period, men’s desire for children, clan numbers, and the imbalance in the number of women and men all contribute to polygyny. However, these factors do not justify the argument that, for example, a second woman should be married simply to avoid other women forming families and to ensure they are not deprived of such opportunities. Furthermore, the right to marry does not imply that individuals must marry. The right to polygyny is also not an obligation for men, even if the number of women is disproportionately high.

The late martyr Mutahhari, when discussing the wisdom behind polygyny, has made an error and conditionalised its application. He viewed polygyny as a solution for the excess number of women who remain unmarried, as compared to men. In contrast, polygyny is a right for men, and those who have the conditions for it benefit from it, maintaining their well-being.

Mutahhari writes: “The phenomenon of a relative excess of women has always existed in human history. What has differed, however, is the societal response to this issue—some nations, whose spirit is more closely tied to piety and chastity, have addressed this issue through polygyny, while others, whose spirits are less connected to piety, have turned it into a means of promoting immorality… Nations that have resorted to immorality have caused more harm to monogamy than those who have approved of polygyny.”

Islamic jurisprudence considers polygyny to be, in principle, a right for men, natural, essential, and social, without considering whether a man is sensual or physically driven, and it is not inherently contradictory to spirituality or a quest for truth. In spiritual matters, men are generally stronger than women. While women may experience stronger emotions and feelings, this does not mean men are body-centric. In marital relationships, both physical attraction and spiritual, emotional, and religious matters are of great importance. If a person, whether man or woman, is spiritually and morally corrupt but physically attractive, they are not suitable for marriage.

Human nature is inclined towards unlimited enjoyment and novelty. Both men and women have desires for new experiences. Thus, the question of whether men are naturally inclined towards polygyny or monogamy is misplaced. It is akin to asking whether numbers are even or odd. Monogamy and polygyny are not opposing concepts, but two different manifestations of the same increasing desire. Human nature, regardless of gender, yearns for companionship, and one may be satisfied with one partner, while the other may seek more. The real question should be whether men or women are inclined toward polygyny. A man’s inclination towards it is similar to a person’s varying appetite for food—some may desire more, and others less. Philosophically, polygyny is not in opposition to monogamy but is an extension of it.

As previously stated, while lust and desire may stem from human nature, they should not govern behaviour. Desire and nature must be validated through reason, societal norms, or religion. Even for actions that are lawful or permissible, balance and moderation are important. The attraction to polygyny is not solely restricted to men; women also have tendencies to seek novelty and to appear attractive to others. However, when a woman is properly educated, she does not entertain desires for another man, especially since polyandry is considered sinful in Islam. Furthermore, polygyny is a natural phenomenon that is not contingent upon social or religious circumstances. Islam, in line with human nature, allows men, provided they meet the necessary conditions, to marry more than one wife if required, but it is not an obligation to marry multiple women.

Women, outwardly, appear to strongly oppose multiple sexual relationships, resisting and practicing self-restraint. However, within those who lack religious, spiritual, and moral education, another voice is heard. Unlike men, who often display weakness when confronted with lust, reacting passively and seeking sexual pleasure from women, women tend to exhibit greater restraint and patience in matters of sexual desire. A woman’s nature is one of chastity and concealment, making her more resistant and patient in this regard.

The abundance of sperm is a distant cause for male infidelity, but a woman’s emotions are a more immediate, closer, and stronger cause of her infidelity. The idea that male infidelity is impossible is an incorrect theory. Both men and women are capable of infidelity, and in fact, philosophically and considering the intensity of women’s feelings, infidelity in women is more probable than in men. The world and the human condition, from a philosophical perspective, are complex and interwoven with circumstances, and neither determinism nor impossibility exists in this context. A man’s betrayal is not part of his nature, so it cannot be dismissed as simply a harmless act. Furthermore, infidelity is not inherently tied to gender, as both men and women possess the potential for betrayal. The attraction to infidelity is part of the nature of an uneducated human soul, leading one to gravitate toward it. Humans have the ability to sin, and this capacity is part of their perfection. It is the act of sinning that is unacceptable and should be rejected. As Ayatollah Motehari writes:

(Page 340) “A French husband and wife have resolved the issue of infidelity between themselves, establishing rules and boundaries for it. If a man does not cross these boundaries, his excursions into darkness are of no significance. Can a man remain faithful after two years of marriage? Certainly not, because this goes against his nature. However, in the case of women, there is a degree of difference, and fortunately, they are aware of this difference. In France, if a husband commits infidelity, his wife does not feel dissatisfaction or anger because she reassures herself: ‘He has only taken his body to another woman, not his soul or emotions. His soul and emotions belong to me.’”

Feminist analyses must be based on human nature and considered philosophically, with reference to both men and women, rather than merely looking at promiscuous men from specific regions. The subject of discussion is the nature of human beings and the two sexes—women and men. Such writings that try to comfort superficial women or provide emotional reassurances based on sentiment alone lack logic and are nothing more than manipulation and brainwashing aimed at enabling men’s unrestricted sexual desires. There is no philosophical necessity that if a man interacts with a woman, he should not bring his spirit and emotions to her or surrender them. Nature does not support this notion; rather, it is a specific cultural and social convention that has been institutionalised without philosophical backing. If viewed skeptically, these claims are nothing but fabricated intellectual constructs used to engineer culture in the West. Ayatollah Motehari does not rely on such narratives, as has been discussed. Gender psychology confirms the cognitive fallacy of these narratives. In general, women are dissatisfied with polygamy because men, when exercising this right, have often acted in a cruel and unjust manner.

Ayatollah Motehari notes:

(Page 340) “In our opinion, this description of men’s nature is by no means correct. The inspiration for such thinkers stems from the particular social environment in which they live, not from the true nature of men.”

Criticisms and Drawbacks of Polygamy

Polygamy is suitable for a powerful man—a man who can ward off the risks of multiple marriages without suffering harm. Monogamy is peaceful for the weak, but in polygamy, if the man lacks the political acumen, authority, and sexual prowess to satisfy his wives, the unity between husband and wife is lost.

If a man lacks the skill to control and enjoy sexual pleasure without ejaculation, he will quickly experience fatigue, weakness, and lethargy in polygamy with frequent ejaculations. Although being with multiple women is not devoid of vitality or spiritual pursuits, the drawbacks are evident. However, if the man’s authority remains intact, provided his lifestyle is healthy, the benefits of polygamy outweigh its harms. Unlike women, who become exhausted and weakened over time if they have multiple husbands and do not derive lasting benefit from it. Ayatollah Motehari presents some of the criticisms of polygamy well:

(Pages 347–348) “Marital happiness depends on harmony, sincerity, sacrifice, and unity, all of which are jeopardised by polygamy. Beyond the unhealthy situation of women and children born of multiple mothers, from the man’s perspective, the responsibilities of multiple wives are so heavy and crushing that turning to it is equivalent to turning away from happiness and comfort.

Most men who are content with polygamy are those who have effectively evaded its legal and moral responsibilities. They give attention to one woman and neglect another, leaving her, as the Quran describes, ‘like a suspended woman’. What these individuals call polygamy is actually a form of monogamy mixed with injustice, cruelty, and tyranny.

There is a popular saying among the people, ‘God is one, a woman is one.’ This belief has been held by most men, and if we measure happiness and comfort, it is indeed a correct belief. While it may not apply to every man, it is true for the majority. If a man believes that polygamy, with all the legal and ethical responsibilities it entails, is in his interest and will benefit him in terms of ease, he is gravely mistaken. Certainly, monogamy is preferable to polygamy when it comes to ensuring happiness and comfort.”

God is one, not one in terms of numbers or counting, as He is unique. However, in marriage, a woman is not necessarily limited to one and not suited to be exclusive. A man, if capable, and if he can fulfill the responsibilities and rights of multiple marriages, will find that polygamy is more appropriate and satisfactory than monogamy. A man is one who can bear the heavier responsibilities and possess the authority to expand and extend his family. The benefits of polygamy are so abundant that if a man has the ability and capability to conduct it well, treating all wives justly, his efforts are well worth it. If a man is weak and incapable, polygamy will deprive him of peace and comfort. A good child’s life is the life of his parents. Like a country with a billion people, properly managed, it would be stronger and more advanced than a country with ten million people. If conditions for polygamy are met, then from the standpoint of benefits, happiness, and enjoyment, it is better than monogamy. Polygamy strengthens a man’s faith and spirituality, removes sexual frustration and mental distortion, and allows for spiritual peace and satisfaction. The concept of one God and one woman is not correct. Limiting a woman to one man is not suitable for a capable man with proper conditions, although such men are few. Thus, conditions and proportionality must be considered. It is not true that polygamy does not bring peace or that monogamy necessarily brings happiness. A man can live a painful and troubled life with one woman, while another may find sweetness and happiness in a good life with multiple wives, with all of them supporting him, aiding him, and bringing him joy and perfection. This matter depends on circumstances and is an issue of necessity. Therefore, it is wrong to claim: “Certainly, monogamy is preferable to polygamy when it comes to securing happiness and comfort.” It is true that polygamy entails effort and hardship, but Islam, in permitting multiple marriages, does not intend to burden men; rather, it seeks to relieve him from committing sin and misdeeds, purifying his mind and soul, and ensuring satisfaction. A capable man who requires multiple wives for sexual fulfilment, if he were to settle for one, would continue to carry sexual frustration and mental impurity. Those with unmet desires or mental insecurities may seek out any woman, leading to sexual promiscuity. Mental impurity and sensitivity to gender lead to corruption. In such an unhealthy society, if women are not shielded from polluted environments, they become victims of harassment.

Dividing Emotions

Critics of polygamy argue that love and emotions are indivisible and cannot be divided among several people. Thus, in polygamy, the lives of some wives are devoid of love and emotion, which they find unacceptable. They say:

(Page 349) “Love and worship are exclusive, and they do not tolerate sharing or competition. They are not like grain and wheat that can be measured and distributed among people. Moreover, emotions are uncontrollable. A person is governed by the heart, not the heart by the person. Therefore, what forms the essence of marriage, the human aspect of it, which distinguishes human relationships from mere animalistic and instinctual ones, is neither divisible nor controllable. Thus, polygamy is condemned.”

Ayatollah Motehari critiques this claim as follows:

(Pages 349–350) “In our view, there is some exaggeration in this statement, because it is true that the spirit of marriage lies in affection and emotions; it is also true that emotional feelings are not under a person’s control. However, to claim that emotions cannot be divided is a poetic imagination, rather a fallacy. It is not about dividing specific emotions like a piece of flesh to be shared among people, but rather about the emotional capacity of the human spirit. Certainly, the human spirit is not so limited that it cannot accommodate two affections simultaneously. A father with ten children loves each of them with such intensity that he is willing to sacrifice himself for all of them.”

Yes, one thing is certain: love and emotions will never reach the same intensity in the context of polygamy as they do in monogamy. The highest form of love and emotion is not compatible with polygamy, for it does not cater to the deepest bond that a man has with a single woman. Yet this does not mean that emotions in polygamous marriages are absent; they are simply different.