Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Third Lecture: An Example Of The Day Of Resurrection within Our Souls

Since the issue of the afterlife and the great court of the Resurrection would seem strange for someone who has lived inside the prison in this world, God has established a small court inside each one of us which is called the court of conscience.

To explain in more detail: A person will be tried in many courts for the crimes he has done the first court is the usual courts in this world with all its shortcomings.

Although the very presence of such courts would lessen the number of crimes, they are based on such feeble foundations that nobody expects them to act in complete accordance with justice.

If wrong laws are enforced in a court, if judges are busy taking bribes and are subject to nepotism and partisan influences, then we could not expect justice to prevail in such a court.

Even if some courts might be presided over by pious judges, there are still those clever criminals who could escape punishment.

The second type of court, which functions better than the first one, is the court of the consequences of our own deeds. Our acts have consequences which affect us sooner or later.

We have seen many governments that were engaged in tyranny and engaged in all forms of injustice, but were soon caught up in the traps they had made for themselves. They collapsed as a result of their wrong actions, caught in the consequences of what they had done earlier.

Such a court has the shortcoming that it is neither public nor universal. Therefore, it could not make us feel that we do not need the court of the resurrection.

The third court, which is more elaborate than the preceding one is the court of the conscience. In the same way that the solar system, with its wonderful system can be observed in the tiny structure of an atom, we could claim that the court of our conscience is a tiny example of the court of the resurrection.

This is because there is a mysterious force inside our inner self which is called “practical wisdom” by the philosophers, “the reproaching soul” by the Holy Qur’an and “conscience” by others.

As soon as man does a good or bad act, this court starts to operate immediately and issues its verdicts in the form of mental punishments or mental rewards.

This court of conscience at times beats the wrongdoer inside with such a force that he or she would prefer death to this life. Such a person would write in his will “if I commit suicide it was because I wanted to get rid of the tortures of my conscience.”

This court of conscience at times encourages man for his good work to the extent that he becomes extremely delighted. He then feels at ease in his soul, and he could never find such a source of delight anywhere in the world.

Such a court has its own characteristics:

1. In this court, the judge, the witness, the officer to carry out the court’s verdict, and the audience are the same person. It is the force of conscience that acts as a witness, that judges and finally carries out the verdict.

2. Contrary to normal judicial procedures which would sometimes take years to complete, the trial here at this court is momentary; it does not take time. Occasionally some time is needed to remove the obscurities from the eyes of the beholder, however, as soon as the documents are in, the verdict will be issued.

3. The verdict of such a court does not require one to go to a court of appeal; it only has one stage.

4. This court will not only punish; it will also reward those who perform their duties. In such a court, both the good-doers and the wrongdoers are tried and receive rewards or punishment accordingly.

5. The punishment of such a court does not have anything in common with ordinary punishment in the sense that they do not require prisons, whips, or executions. However, at times they are so torturous for a person’s soul that no punishment could compare to it.

In sum, such a court does not resemble any worldly court; it rather resembles the court of the Resurrection. The greatness of the court of conscience is so tremendous that the Holy Qur’an swears by it, associating it with the court of the Resurrection:

لاَ أُقْسِمُ بِيَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ * وَلاَ أُقْسِمُ بِالنَّفْسِ اللَّوَّامَةِ * أَيَحْسَبُ الإِنسَانُ أَلَّن نَجْمَعَ عِظَامَهُ * بَلَى قَادِرِينَ عَلَى أَن نُّسَوِّيَ بَنَانَهُ

Nay! I swear by the Day of Resurrection. Nay! I swear by the self-accusing self. Does man think that we shall not gather his bones? Yea! We are able to make complete his very fingertips. [Qur’an 75:1-4]

Naturally, such a court, due to its material nature, does not make us feel that we do not need the court of the Resurrection. This is because:

1. The sphere of human conscience is not all-inclusive; rather, it is based on one’s way of thinking.

2. At times, a treacherous man could deceive even his own conscience.

3. At times, the call of a wrongdoer’s conscience is so weak that he cannot hear it.

Here, the significance of the fourth court, i.e., the court of the Resurrection will become clear.

THINK AND ANSWER

In how many courts is man tried?

What are the characteristics of the first court and what is it called?

What are the characteristics of the second court?

What are the characteristics of the third court?

Mention the weak points and the strong points of the court of conscience.

Fourth Lecture: Resurrection with Respect to Innate Nature

It is said that theism resides deep inside man’s inner being or nature and if we study the unconscious and sub-conscious aspects of the mind, we will find an interest in a super-natural being who has created the universe.

But this is not true only of Monotheism and Theism. All the major and minor principles of religion should also reside within man’s soul or else the necessary coordination between divine legislation and creation would not occur.

If we examine our hearts and the very depths of our souls and inner being, we will definitely find our conscience telling us that life here does not end with death; rather, death is a window towards the land of eternity.

To uncover this truth, let us observe the following:

1. Love for Survival

If man was created for extinction, he should have been in love with extinction and loved death as the end of his life. However, we see that the face of death (in the sense of extinction) has never been tolerable to man: rather, he has been escaping from it with all his energy.

To chase after a longer life and to search for the elixir of life are signs of this truth. This very love for survival shows that we have been created to be eternal. This love would have been baseless if we had been created to die.

All the basic loves inside us are created to complete our beings; the love to survive is of the same sort.

Remember that we embark on the discussion of resurrection only after we have accepted the Being of God. We believe what He has put inside us has been placed there for a reason. For the same reason that our love of immortality has been given to us, however, this love would not exist without a belief in the other world.

2. Resurrection in History

The history of mankind attests to the fact that in the same way that religion has always existed even among ancient peoples, the belief of a life after death has always been in existence.

The evidence left behind by ancient peoples in pre-historic times, the way they constructed their graves and the way they buried their dead all indicate the fact that they had a firm belief in life after death.

This deeply rooted belief cannot be taken as an easy matter; neither could it be interpreted as simple habitual behavior.

When we observe a deep-rooted belief in a nation of the past, we should look for it in the innate disposition of the people of that nation. This is because it is only man’s nature which could stand against the passage of time, thought and social changes and remain intact; otherwise these customs, rites and indoctrinations would have been forgotten with the passage of time.

Wearing a special mode of dress is a habit; therefore, it changes with time, but a mother’s love towards her baby is an instinct, it is innate nature so it does not change with time, neither will it be forgotten or neglected. Any such force within the human soul has roots within the innate nature of man.

When a scientist says: “In depth research has shown that early man believed in a sort of religion because of the fact that they buried their dead under certain rules and put their vocational instruments beside them, this shows their belief in the existence of the other world,” [The Sociology of Kenning, P 192], we easily become convinced that these peoples had believed in life after death despite the fact that they erroneously assumed that that life resembled this one and that the same vocational instruments would be needed then.

3. The existence of man’s internal court, called conscience, is another way to prove that the concept of resurrection is innate to man.

As we have already discussed, all of us have this convincing feeling that there is a court inside our souls and minds which evaluates our acts, either punishing us for what wrongs we have done, or rewarding us for what good things, we have performed, making us so delighted in this way that we have no means to express it.

It has happened that some people who had committed capital crimes, such as murder, and had escaped, voluntarily submitted themselves to be tried and executed so that they could escape the pangs of conscience.

By observing this innate court, man could ask himself the following question: I am a small, tiny being with a court inside me, how is it therefore possible for the universe and the world of creation to lack such a court?

Therefore, we could prove that our belief in the resurrection and life after this one has its roots in our innate nature in three ways:

1. By way of our love for immortality;

2. By the existence of such a belief in the history of mankind;

3. And through the belief that there exists inside us a small example of the resurrection.

THINK AND ANSWER

How could we distinguish innate acts from acquired ones?

Why does man love to be immortal and how can this love for immortality be an indication of the innate nature of the resurrection?

Did past nations believe in the Resurrection?

How does the court of conscience punish us or reward us? Why? Provide some examples.

What is the relation between the court of conscience and the great court of the Day of Resurrection?

Fifth Lecture: Resurrection in the Scale of Justice

A cursory look at the system of creation will reveal to us that everything is systematic and governed by rules.

In the body of man, this system is so delicate that any imbalance would lead to either sickness or death.

For instance, in the structure of the eyes, heart, and brain this order is readily noticeable. The same order, systematization, and justice prevail over all of creation.

بِالْعَدْلِ قَامَتِ السَّمَاوَاتُ وَالأَرْضُ

Through justice, the skies and the earth have been erected.

An atom is so tiny that millions of them could be located in the point of a needle. Such an atom must be extremely precise and ordered in its structure to allow it to exist for millions of years.

This happens because of the justice and exact calculations that are employed in the construction of an atom.

Is man such an exceptional being as to be free to do what he pleases? Is he free? Or is there something hidden here?

Free will and Freedom in Decision-Making

One distinctive feature that distinguishes man from all other creatures is that he possesses freedom of action. Why has He created him free and given him the freedom of will to carry out what he wants?

The reason rests in the fact that if he were not free he would never develop. This freedom has ensured man’s spiritual and ethical development.

Suppose one is forced at gunpoint to help and assist the needy and carry out those acts which are beneficial to the community. Even though his acts would be naturally useful to everyone no ethical or human perfection or maturity would have taken place. Whereas, if he had carried out these actions voluntarily and he only did one hundredth of what he could have done, he still would have taken a big stride towards his perfection and development.

Thus, the first condition for spiritual and ethical perfection is to have a free will; man should do good things on his own and not through force. This great asset has been given to man just for this purpose.

Of course, this great asset is like a beautiful flower which is accompanied with thorns which represent the misuse of this free will.

Naturally, it would be quite easy for God to punish a man for his unjust deeds, to inflict him with all sorts of miseries, to make him blind, or dumb, or paralyzed altogether.

Under such circumstances, nobody would dare to do wrong things. But this abstention and piety then would be by force and could never be counted as a point of honor for man, for this piety would have been due to his fear of a great punishment.

Thus, man should be free. He should be exposed to God’s different trials and not be threatened by immediate punishment so that he could show his true worth.

But there remains one issue to be solved. If each person could be free to do whatever he desires, this could negate God’s Justice which governs the world.

That is why we become convinced that there should be a court for mankind in which everyone should be present and be tried to receive punishments if they had wronged others or given rewards if they have been just in their deeds.

Is it possible for Nimrods, Pharaohs, Genghis khans and korahs to commit atrocities carry out all sorts of unjust acts and then go away with no punishment whatsoever?

Could criminals and pious people be equal on God’s scale of justice?

Regarding this, the Holy Qur’an says:

أَفَنَجْعَلُ الْمُسْلِمِينَ كَالْمُجْرِمِينَ * مَا لَكُمْ كَيْفَ تَحْكُمُونَ

What! Shall We then make those who submit as the guilty? What has happened to you? How do you judge? [Qur’an 68:35-36]

Regarding this, the Holy Qur’an says elsewhere.

أَمْ نَجْعَلُ الْمُتَّقِينَ كَالْفُجَّارِ

Shall We make those who guard against evil like the wicked? [Qur’an 38:28]

It is a fact that some of the wrongdoers would be at least partially punished in this world for their devilish acts. It is also a fact that the court of conscience exists. It is also a fact that the consequences of one’s unjust and devilish acts would inflict him later. But if we consider the matter carefully, we will find out that no tyrant or sinner receives a punishment in this world proportional to the degree of his devilish acts. There are some who even escape the consequences of their wrongdoing.

So there should be a universal court in the other world to judge them justly and impartially or else the principle of justice would vanish forever.

Therefore, the acceptance of God and His system of Justice entails the acceptance of the Resurrection and the other world. These two are faces of the same coin.

THINK AND ANSWER

How are the heavens and earth based on justice?

Why is man given the asset of free will?

What would happen if wrongdoers got their punishment in this world?

Why can’t the consequences of one’s wrongdoings, his court of conscience and the consequences of his deeds free him from the court of the Resurrection?

What is the relation between God’s Justice and the issue of the Resurrection?

Sixth Lecture: The Resurrection in This World

The sacred verses of the Holy Qur’an clearly illustrate the fact that idolaters and other unbelievers, not only in the time of the Prophet(s), but in all times have been astonished at the very notion of the Resurrection and life after death and even considered anybody who said it as mad:

هَلْ نَدُلُّكُمْ عَلَى رَجُلٍ يُنَبِّئُكُمْ إِذَا مُزِّقْتُمْ كُلَّ مُمَزَّقٍ إِنَّكُمْ لَفِي خَلْقٍ جَدِيدٍ * أَفْتَرَى عَلَى اللَّهِ كَذِباً أَم بِهِ جِنَّةٌ؟

[And those who disbelieve say]: shall we point out to you a man who informs you that when you are scattered with the utmost scattering you shall then be most surely raised in to a new creation. He has forged a lie against Allah or there is madness in him. [Qur’an 34:7-8]

In those days, due to people’s lack of knowledge, belief in life after death and in the dead coming back to life was considered madness or forging a lie against Allah.

However, the Holy Qur’an uses different kinds of reasoning which can be used by scholars and ordinary people alike, each one to the extent of his or her own capacity.

Although a complete description of the arguments of the Holy Qur’an needs a separate book, here we shall present only some portions of it.

1. Sometimes, the Holy Qur’an tells them: you see with your own eyes daily scenes of the Resurrection: you notice how some creatures die and then come back to life and then you have doubts concerning the issue of the Resurrection.

وَاللَّهُ الَّذِي أَرْسَلَ الرِّيَاحَ فَتُثِيرُ سَحَاباً فَسُقْنَاهُ إِلَى بَلَدٍ مَّيِّتٍ فَأَحْيَيْنَا بِهِ الأَرْضَ بَعْدَ مَوْتِهَا كَذَلِكَ النُّشُورُ

And Allah is He Who sends the winds so they raise a cloud, then We drive it on to a dead country, and therewith We give life to the earth after its death; even so is the quickening. [Qur’an 35:9]

When we look around during winter everything in nature reminds of death; the trees are naked of leaves, flowers and fruits; what has remained is dry wood; there are no flowers; no buds blossom; nor is there any sign of life in the mountains, or in the deserts.

Spring, however, brings a mild climate; the life-giving drops of rain fall; suddenly, there is a magnificent commotion in nature: the flowers blossom, the trees give forth leaves; birds settle themselves on the branches and start their beautiful songs: and life is a commotion of activity.

If life after death did not mean anything, we would never witness this scene each year. If life after death were an improbable or insane act, we would never touch it so vividly every day.

2. Sometimes, the Holy Qur’an points towards the beginning of creation, that is, the first stages of creation. It tells Muhammad how to answer that nomadic Arab who came to him carrying a rotten piece of bone in his hand: “O Muhammad! Who is able to give life to this piece of bone? Tell me who can?” assuming he has offered a convincing argument against the issue of the Resurrection. The Holy Qur’an ordered Muhammad(s) to say:

قُلْ يُحْيِيهَا الَّذِي أَنشَأَهَا أَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ

Say: He shall quicken them Who originated them the first time. [Qur’an 36:79]

What differences should there be between the beginning of creation and its repetition? In the next verses, the Holy Qur’an answers this question succinctly by saying:

كَمَا بَدَأْنَا أَوَّلَ خَلْقٍ نُّعِيدُه

As We originated the first creation, so We shall reproduce it. [Qur’an 21:104]

3. The Holy Qur’an at times mentions God’s Great Power over all of creation:

Is not He Who created the heavens and the earth able to create the like of them? Yea! And He is the Creator of all, the Knower. His command, when He intends anything, is only to say to it: Be, and it is. [Qur’an 36:81-82]

Those who showed their doubts concerning these problems were those whose sphere of understanding was very limited or else they should have known that re-creation and bringing the dead back to life is easier than creation in the first place.

4. Sometimes, by “resurrection” they understand the word "energies” and say: “see, God who is able to make fire out of the green trees is able to give life to the dead.”

الَّذِي جَعَلَ لَكُم مِّنَ الشَّجَرِ الْأَخْضَرِ نَاراً فَإِذَا أَنتُم مِّنْهُ تُوقِدُونَ

He Who has made for you the fire to burn from the green tree, so that with it you kindle fire. [Qur’an 36:80]

Regarding this verse of the Holy Qur’an’ science tells us that when we burn a piece of wood to make a fire, the heat produced is the same energy that the piece of wood had received from the sun for long years and is now emitting it. We used to think that the sun’s energy had died, but now we see it has come back to life again and puts on a new dress of life.

Is it difficult to revive the dead for a God who has stored light and energy inside a tree for years to be released later?[3]

THINK AND ANSWER

Why are the unbelievers shocked by the notion of the Resurrection?

How could we see resurrection in the life pattern of plants every year?

Some verses, of the Holy Qur’an refer to the embryonic life of the child as a sign of resurrection, why?

What is the resurrection of energies?

Why does the Qur’an put emphasis on the expression “green tree”?

Seventh Lecture: The Resurrection and the Philosophy of Creation

Many people might ask: Why did God create us?

Sometimes they go beyond this and ask: What is the philosophy of the creation of this world?

A gardener plants trees to reap their fruits later on. A farmer plows the ground and plants seeds. Why has the Gardener of Creation created us?

Did God have any shortcomings and wanted to make up for them by creating us? If so, He would have been in need of something, however, being in need would not be compatible with God’s magnanimity and infinity.

In answer to such questions, many views have been propounded. Here we will try to give an answer to them in a few sentences:

Our greatest error occurs when we compare God’s attributes with those of ours. Since we are limited beings we engage in a lot of activities to satisfy our needs. We study to compensate for our lack of knowledge. We work hard so that we might not be in need. We practice hygiene and seek medical treatment to ensure our health.

But since God is infinite and without need in every respect, then we must seek the objective for anything He does outside His being. He would not create to His benefit, rather, He wants to show His Generosity towards His servants.

God is a sun with endless rays. He sends out His rays all around Him without being in need of any sort. He desires for everyone to benefit from His rays. It is in His very Nature to help mankind proceed towards perfection.

Our creation from nothing was a step forward to our perfection; the mission of the prophets and the revelation of Divine Books - the Holy Qur’an and others, each had their effect on our perfection. “As Imam `Ali has said in the famous narration called al-Dunya Mazra`at al-akhirah in the Nahj al-Balaghah:

“This world is a great university and we are its students, a ready field and we are its farmers, a lucrative business center and we are its businessmen.”

How could we not imagine an objective for man’s creation when we see that every tiny creature is created for a special function?

In the amazing construction of our bodies, no organ is created without a specific purpose: even our eyelashes and the arch in the soles of our feet have a special aim behind them.

How is it possible for every cell of our being to have an aim, but for our whole body to lack such? Then let us look around ourselves: every system has a specific objective. The sun shines for a specific reason; so does the rain that pours down; how is it possible for the whole world to lack specific objectives?

The fact is that inside this gigantic world it seems there is a big signboard which shows the ultimate objective for its creation; however, due to its huge size we are not able to grasp it at the moment we look at it. These words are written on that board: “education and perfection.”

Now that we are familiar with the objectives behind our creation, let us ask this question: could our short lives, with all their hardships and failures, be the ultimate objective of creation?

Suppose I lived sixty years in this world and worked all day to earn my living and came back home tired and miserable at night and ate several plates of food and drank several liters of water and tried hard to provide myself with a shelter and finally I left all and passed away. Was it worth all these troubles?

Those who do not believe in the Resurrection and life after death would consider life here as absurd and pointless. It is commonly heard in their speech that life here has no specific objectives, some of these people at times try to commit suicide because they are tired with what they call “a boring life.”

What gives life an objective and makes it meaningful is to consider this life as a prelude to another eternal life. If we assume this second life to be true all our endeavors here become meaningful.

We will present here an example we offered in a previous section: If an unborn child were told that there would be no other world than this embryonic life, it would complain, saying, “Why should I be imprisoned here in this dark space? Why should I be confined to this terrible place after which nothing exists? What was the Creator’s objective for this creation?” But if it became certain that this period of nine months was a transitory interval to prepare it for a better world, a world in which there was light and glory, in which there were possibilities of all kinds, it would then be convinced that its embryonic life had a special flavor and then it would be tolerable. The Holy Qur’an, states: regarding this,

وَلَقَدْ عَلِمْتُمُ النَّشْأَةَ الأُولَى فَلَوْلاَ تَذكَّرُونَ؟

And certainly, you know the first growth, why do you not then mind? [Qur’an 56:62]

In sum, this world clearly proclaims that there is another world after it, or else it would be worthless.

Let us listen to the Holy Qur’an for a moment:

أَفَحَسِبْتُمْ أَنَّمَا خَلَقْنَاكُمْ عَبَثاً وَأَنَّكُمْ إِلَيْنَا لاَ تُرْجَعُونَ؟

What! Did you then think that We had created you in vain and that you shall not be returned to Us? [Qur’an 23:115]

This refers to the fact that if the Resurrection which is indicated by the words “a return to Allah” did not exist man’s creation would be an absurdity.

To conclude: the philosophy of creation tells us that there should be a world after this one.

THINK AND ANSWER

Why can’t God’s Attributes be compared with those of man?

Why were we created?

Could the life of this world be the ultimate objective of creation?

What could we learn from a comparison of the embryonic life with this life here on the earth?

How does the Holy Qur’an use the creation of this world to confirm life in the other world?

Eighth Lecture: The Continuity of the Soul as a Sign for the Existence of The Resurrection

Nobody knows when man began to think of his soul. The only thing we might say is that man could see a difference between himself and other creatures from the very beginning of his creation. He could observe himself in comparison to stones, wood, the mountains, the desert and the beasts.

Man observed the status of his sleep and the death of others and noticed that both sleep and death occur to man with no drastic changes. From there he could realize that he had a jewel, called a soul at his disposal.

He could observe, as well, that he was different from the animals in that his decision-making was based on his free will whereas the life of animals was based on instincts and compulsory behavior.

Man could see that there was a mysterious force at work when he dreamt during his sleep and while his organs were silent at night. He then called this mysterious force the “soul.”

When thinkers established philosophy, the idea of the “soul” became a significant philosophical issue. Since then all philosophers have been discussing this to the extent that according to some Islamic scholars, there have been a thousand theories concerning the soul and other related issues.

Now, let us try to answer the following: Is the soul material or non-material? In other words: Does it exist on its own or is it a chemical or physical property of the brain or of the nervous system?

Some materialistic philosophers insist that the soul and mental phenomena are material and that it is the function of brain cells. They think the soul dies away as soon as the body dies in the same way that a watch ceases to work as soon as we strike it with a hammer.

Opposed to the material philosophers are the divine philosophers and a small number of materialistic philosophers, as well, who believe in the independence of the soul; for them the soul stands on its own and does not vanish with physical death.

To prove the independence of man’s soul, these scholars have offered numerous complicated reasons. Here we will deal with them, using simple language so that the reader could benefit from them:

1. We Cannot Place a Gigantic World Inside a Tiny One

Suppose you are sitting on the shore of a huge sea surrounded by lofty mountains. The turbulent waves strike at the rocks on the shore and furiously return to the sea.

The blue sky, dominates these mountains and the sea, and shows its glory at nighttime. We look at this magnificent scene closely for a while, and then we close our eyes and try to visualize the scene.

No doubt, such a mental mapping needs a huge storage space because there is no space to store such a huge picture inside the tiny cells of our brain that is to say, a huge map cannot occupy a small dot, nevertheless we do visualize such a huge, magnificent scenery in our minds.

This will show that, besides brain cells, there is a jewel inside us which can reflect any map no matter how huge it might be. For sure, such a jewel should transcend material nature. This is because there could never be such a phenomenon in nature.

2. The Ability of the Soul to Reflect the Outside World

There are many physical and chemical reactions inside us. The functions of the stomach and heart are physical in nature, but the effects of the salvia and the stomach juices are chemical in essence.

Why are our souls and thoughts so different from those other bodily traits that are physical and chemical in nature?

Our thoughts and soul connect us with the world outside our bodies. But the chemical properties of saliva and stomach juices and the physical movements of the eyes, tongue and heart lack the capacity to connect us with the world outside.

In other words, we feel we are connected with the world outside our bodies and are familiar with what goes on there. Is it the outside world that enters our bodies? Definitely not. Then, what is going on?

The map of the world appears to us and through the capacity of our souls to reflect the outside word we are able to recognize the world outside us. This characteristic does not exist in any of the physical or chemical phenomena of our bodies.

Let us look at it another way: In order to recognize items that exist outside our bodies we should have some sort of domination over them. This domination however cannot be exerted by means of the brain cells for brain cells themselves are influenced by external factors, in the same way that other body cells are.

This difference shows there is something other than physical or chemical changes at work in the body which will make us dominate over the external world. This cannot be anything except for our soul, it is a reality beyond the world of matter.

3. Empirical Reasons for the Fundamentality and Independence of the Soul

Fortunately, scientists in recent years have proved the fundamentality and independence of the human soul and have accumulated significant data to fight against those who deny its existence or those who attribute physical properties to it.

1. Hypnotism is one proof that confirms these recent findings. Here we will give a short description of this phenomenon.

By using scientific procedures the hypnotist puts the subject into a trance and the latter becomes susceptible to his suggestions. During this induced sleep, the hypnotist communicates with his patient, and can even engage in a dialogue with him.

The hypnotist could send the subject’s soul to different places to bring back news or become informed of the things he did not know earlier.

Sometimes subjects speak a foreign language they were not familiar with and even solve difficult mathematical problems when under the trance.

2. Clairvoyance or relations with souls after death is another sign of the fundamentality and independence of the soul.

There are now groups of scholars all over the world who are doing research work on the spirit or the soul. According to Farid Wajdi, the famous Egyptian scholar, there are nearly three hundred magazines and newspapers published in the world that deal with this delicate issue. Famous people take part in their sessions and in their presence make connections and communicate with souls as well as see extra-ordinary things occur.

There are, of course, a lot of swindlers who, with no scientific ways to communicate with souls, pretend to know this knowledge and in this way, rob people of their money. But this fraud does not force us to abandon such a branch of knowledge altogether which deals with communication with souls.[4]

3. The dreams we experience while we are asleep, the sceneries we see in our dreams and the predictions of future events which become known to us in advance all refer to the real and independent nature of the soul.

Most people tell us about dreams that have become true and the outer manifestations of those dreams. This shows that our souls connect with other worlds while we are asleep. Under those conditions, we could pre-view coming events.

All these discussions clearly show that the soul is not material, neither is it the result of the physical or chemical reactions of our brains, rather, it is a reality beyond physical nature. It is a supernatural being which does not vanish with the death of the body. Thus, this notion paves the way for the acceptance of the Resurrection and life after death.

THINK AND ANSWER

Concerning the issue of the soul, what is the difference between the divine philosophers and materialistic philosophers?

What is meant by the following expression with respect to the fundamentality of the soul?

“We cannot put something gigantic in a small space.”

What do you know of hypnotic sleep?

What is meant by connecting with souls?

How could real dreams (those dreams which come true) be taken as reasons for the fundamentality and independence of the soul?

Ninth Lecture: Bodily Resurrection and Spiritual Resurrection

An important question regarding the issue of the Resurrection is whether resurrection pertains only to the spirit or whether the human body becomes alive in the other world once more and whether man enters the new life with the same body and soul, of course a little better than before.

Some of the ancient philosophers believed only in a spiritual resurrection and considered our bodies as vehicles which contained our souls. They thought that after death we would no longer need this body; that is to say, at the time of our departure to the other world we would just throw our bodies aside.

However, some great Islamic scholars contend that the Resurrection pertains both to body and soul alike. It is true that death causes our bodies to disintegrate, but the Almighty God will put the tiny particles of our bodies together and dress them with a new life. This is what scholars mean by “the Resurrection of the body.” This is due to the fact that the resurrection of the spirit has been taken for granted by these scholars.

Thus, all the verses in the Holy Qur’an which deal with the Resurrection have in mind the resurrection of the body as well.

Bodily Resurrection in the Holy Qur’an

We have already referred to that nomadic Arab who showed the Prophet(s) a rotten piece of bone, asking him: who can revive this rotten bone? And we saw that the Prophet(s), taking his command from God, answered him in this fashion: The same Being who created this bone for the first time, is the same Being who has created the sky and the earth, He is the same Being who brings out fire from within a green tree. These verses can be read at the end of Surah Yasin.

Elsewhere, of Resurrection the Holy Qur’an says:

On the Day, you shall leave your graves.[5]

And we know that the graves are places where bodies are buried, not souls.

Basically, the unbelievers wondered how it was possible for our bodies which disintegrate and disappear to return to life once again:

وَقَالُوا أَءِذَا ضَلَلْنَا فِي الأَرْضِ أَءِنَّا لَفِي خَلْقٍ جَدِيدٍ؟

And they say: What! When we have become lost in the earth, shall we then certainly be a new creation? [Qur’an 32:10]

And the Holy Qur’an replies: God who created everything for the first time has the Power to do it again.

What! Do they not consider how Allah originates the creation, then reproduces it? Surely, that is easy to Allah. [Qur’an 29:19]

An Arab of the pre-Islamic era had asked:

How could this man promise you that upon your death and after the disintegration of your bodies you would return to life once more? What! Does he threaten you that when you are dead and become dust and bones that you shall then be brought forth? [Qur’an 23:35]

All these interpretations of the Holy Qur’an indicate the fact that the Honorable Prophet of Islam always talked of the Resurrection of the body and the near-sighted unbelievers wondered how this could ever happen. We have seen that the Holy Qur’an presented some examples of the Resurrection of the body, such as the rebirth of the dead plants to let them know of God’s Power to give new life to dead bodies.

It would be therefore impossible for a Muslim who knows even a little bit of the Holy Qur’an to deny the Resurrection of the body. Such a denial would be the denial of the principle of the Resurrection in the eyes of God.

Rational Examples for the Resurrection of the Body

Besides these arguments, our wisdom tells us that our souls and bodies are two different entities related to each other; both nourish and become perfect, and naturally need each other for a later eternal life.

These two entities, during the purgatory or Intermediate state, are separated from each other temporarily. However, this separation for a longer duration would be impossible since the body without the soul is imperfect, and the soul without the body would be defective, as well. Our soul is the commander which forces us to move around, and our body is obedient to the soul. No commander could work without obedient servants.

Since the soul occupies a higher position than it had in this world, the body has to improve proportionally and this happens naturally. In other words, our bodies lack the malformations and defects which they have in this world.

Thus, the body and the soul are like twins, they are a pair so resurrection could not have only a spiritual or bodily manifestation.

Besides, the law of justice says: Resurrection should exist for both the soul and the body since anyone who commits a sin has carried out this sin with his body and soul together; therefore, both should be punished. By the same token, if a man has done anything good, both his body and soul should be rewarded. This view observes the law of justice.

Questions Related to the Resurrection of the Body

Some scholars have raised some questions related to this topic some of which will be dealt with here:

1. According to research by natural scientists, the body of a man changes several times within his lifetime. This resembles a pool of water which changes constantly due to the inflow it regularly receives.

2. The change of body tissues takes place once every seven years. Therefore, we change several times during our lifetime.

Now this question is raised: Which one of these bodies will return to hold our soul?

This is our answer: The last body will return, since in the above verses we saw that God will revive us from our rotten bones. This means that our last body will return. Our rising from the graves, too, embodies the fact that our last body will rise from the grave.

The point to ponder on is that our last body contains all the traits and structural specifications it had during our whole life.

In other words, our decayed bodies or skeletons will preserve all the physical characteristics the body had during its lifetime, because the previous body gives its specific traits to the next one. Therefore, our last body will possess all our necessary traits.

3. Some researchers make the point that since with death our bodies disintegrate and become absorbed in the earth these particles of our bodies become parts of plants or the bodies of other human beings, so what would happen on the Day of Resurrection?

Several answers have been advanced for this important question, we will present a simplified version of them here.

Basically, those particles which have entered the body of another human being would go to the first body from which they have come [the verses in the above sections vividly indicate this fact].

Then this question would arise: Would the second body be now defective? We answer: Not necessarily, since the body from which the particles were taken would be reduced in size.

Thus, neither the first body, nor the second one vanishes. The only thing which happens is that the second body is reduced in size and this does not create any problem, because we are aware that at the Resurrection, our bodies become perfect and that shortcomings and defects vanish altogether in just the same way that a small child grows while his personality remains intact. Defective bodies rise in perfect shape at the Resurrection.

THINK AND ANSWER

What does “The Resurrection of the Body” mean?

What reasons are presented by those who deny the resurrection of the body and how does the Qura’an answer them?

What are the rational arguments in support of the resurrection of the body?

What is the relationship between the resurrection of the body and God’s justice it?

What does the concept “the eater and the eatened” mean and what answer is there for the questions raised thereby?

Bearing Witness

Another issue in which the Qur’an and the Bible disagree is the issue of women bearing witness. It is true that the Qur’an has instructed the believers dealing in financial transactions to get two male witnesses or one male and two females:

“…and call in to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, the second of the two may remind the other…” (2:282).

However, it is also true that the Qur’an in other situations accepts the testimony of a woman as equal to that of a man. Infact the woman's testimony can even invalidate the man's.

If a man accuses his wife ofunchastity , heis required by the Qur’an to solemnly swear five times as evidence of the wife's guilt. If the wife denies and swears similarly five times, she is not considered guilty and in eithercase the marriage is dissolved:

“And (as for) those who accuse their wives and have no witnesses except themselves, the evidence of one of these (should be taken) four times, bearing Allah to witness that he is most surely of the truthful ones.And the fifth (time) that the curse of Allah be on him if he is one of the liars. And it shall avert the chastisement from her if she testify four times, bearing Allah to witness that he is most surely one of the liars; And the fifth (time) that the wrath of Allah be on her if he is one of the truthful.And were it not for Allah's grace upon you and His mercy-- and that Allah is Oft-returning (to mercy), Wise!Surely they who concocted the lie are a party from among you. Do not regard it an evil to you; nay, it is good for you. Every man of them shall have what he has earned of sin; and (as for) him who took upon himself the main part thereof, he shall have a grievous chastisement.” (24:6-11)

On the other hand, women were not allowed to bear witness in early Jewish society.1 The Rabbis counted women's not being able to bear witness among the nine curses inflicted upon all women because of the Fall (see the “Eve's Legacy” section). Women in today's Israel are not allowed to give evidence inRabbinical courts2 . The Rabbis justify why women cannot bear witness by citing Genesis 18:9-16, where itis stated that Sara, Abraham's wife had lied.

“Where is your wife Sarah?” they asked him. “There in the tent,” he replied. One of them said, “I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah will then have a son.” Sarah was listening at the entrance of the tent, just behind him. Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in years, and Sarah had stopped having her womanly periods. So Sarah laughed to herself and said, “Now that I am so withered and my husband is so old, am I still to have sexual pleasure?”But the LORD said to Abraham: “Why did Sarah laugh and say, 'Shall I really bear a child, old as I am?' Is anything too marvelous for the LORD to do? At the appointed time, about this time next year, I will return to you, and Sarah will have a son.” Because she was afraid, Sarah dissembled, saying, “I didn't laugh.”But he said, “Yes you did.”“

The Rabbis use this incident as evidence that women are unqualified to bear witness. It should be noted here that this story narrated in Genesis 18:9-16 has been mentioned more than once in the Qur’an without any hint of lies by Sara :

“And certainlyOur messengers came to Ibrahim with good news. Theysaid: Peace. Peace, said he, and he made no delay in bringing a roasted calf.But when he saw that their hands were not extended towards it, he deemed them strange and conceived fear of them. Theysaid: Fear not, surely we are sent toLut's people.And his wife was standing (by), so she laughed, then We gave her the good news ofIshaq and afterIshaq of (a son's son)Yaqoub . Shesaid: O wonder!shall I bear a son when I am an extremely old woman and this my husband an extremely old man? Mostsurely this is a wonderful thing. Theysaid: Do you wonder at Allah's bidding? The mercy of Allah and His blessings are on you, O people of the house, surely He is Praised, Glorious. So when fear had gone away from Ibrahim and good news came to him, he began to plead withUs forLut's people”. (11:69-74)

“Has there come to you information about the honored guests of Ibrahim? When they entered upon him, theysaid: Peace. Peace, said he, a strange people. Then he turned aside to his family secretly and brought a fat (roasted) calf, so he brought it near them. Hesaid: What! Will you not eat?So he conceived in his mind a fear on account of them. Theysaid: Fear not.And they gave him the good news of a boy possessing knowledge. Then his wife came up in great grief, and she struck her face andsaid: An old barren woman! They said: Thus says your Lord: Surely He is the Wise, the Knowing.” (51:24-30).

In the Christian West, both ecclesiastical and civil law debarred women from giving testimony until late last century3 .

If a man accuses his wife ofunchastity , her testimonywill not be considered at all according to the Bible. The accused wife has tobe subjected to a trial by ordeal. In this trial, the wife faces a complex and humiliatingritual which was supposed to prove her guilt or innocence:

The LORD said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and tell them: If a man's wife goes astray and becomes unfaithful to him by having intercourse with another man, though her husband has not sufficient evidence of the fact, so that her impurity remains unproved for lack of a witness who might have caught her in the act; or if a man is overcome by a feeling of jealousy that makes him suspect his wife, whether she was actually impure or not: he shall bring his wife to the priest and shall take along as an offering for her a tenth of anephah of barley meal. However, he shall not pour oil on it nor put frankincense over it, since it is a cereal offering of jealousy, a cereal offering for an appeal in a question of guilt. “The priest shall first have the woman come forward and stand before the LORD. In an earthenvessel he shall meanwhile put some holy water, as well as some dust that he has taken from the floor of the Dwelling. Then, as the woman stands before the LORD, the priest shall uncover her head and place in her hands the cereal offering of her appeal, that is, the cereal offering of jealousy, while he himself shall hold the bitter water that brings a curse. Then he shall adjure the woman, saying to her, 'If no other man has had intercourse with you, and you have not gone astray by impurity while under the authority of your husband, be immune to the curse brought by this bitter water.But if you have gone astray while under the authority of your husband and have acted impurely by letting a man other than your husband have intercourse with you'-- so shall the priest adjure the woman with this oath of imprecation--'may the LORD make you an example of malediction and imprecation among your people by causing your thighs to waste away and your belly to swell! May this water, then, that brings a curse,enter your body to make your belly swell and your thighs waste away!'And the woman shall say, 'Amen, amen!' The priest shall put these imprecations in writing and shall then wash them off into the bitter water, which he is to have the woman drink, so that it may go into her withall its bitter curse.But first he shall take the cereal offering of jealousy from the woman's hand, and having waved this offering before the LORD, shall put it near the altar, where he shall take a handful of the cereal offering as its token offering and burn it on the altar. Only then shall he have the woman drink the water. Once she has done so, if she has been impure and unfaithful to her husband,this bitter water that brings a curse will go into her, and her belly will swell and her thighs will waste away, so that she will become an example of imprecation among her people.If, however, the woman has not defiled herself, but is still pure, she will be immune and will still be able to bear children. “This, then, is the law for jealousy: When a woman goes astray while under the authority of her husband and actsimpurely, or when such a feeling of jealousy comes over a man that he becomes suspicious of his wife, he shall have her stand before the LORD, and the priest shall apply this law in full to her. The man shall be free from guilt, but the woman shall bear such guilt as she may have.” (Num. 5:11-31)

If sheis found guilty after this ordeal, she will be sentenced to death. If sheis found not guilty, her husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing.

Besides, if a man takes a woman as a wife and then accuses her of not being a virgin, her own testimony will not count. Her parents had to bring evidence of her virginity before the elders of the town. If the parents could not prove the innocence of their daughter, she would be stoned to death on her father's doorsteps. If the parents were able to prove her innocence, the husbandwould only be fined one hundred shekels of silver and he could not divorce his wife as long as he lived:

“If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, 'I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,' then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. The girl's father will say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and saidI did not find your daughter to be a virgin. But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity.' Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginitycan be found , she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of the town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.” (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)

Notes

1.Swinder , op. cit., p. 115.

2. Lesley Hazelton, Israeli Women. The RealityBehind the Myths. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1977), p. 41.

3. Matilda J. Gage, Woman,Church and State (New York: Truth Seeker Company, 1983) p. 142.

Adultery

Adulteryis considered a sin in all religions.

The Bible decrees the death sentence for both the adulterer and theadulteress :

“If a man commits adultery with hisneighbour's wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.” (Lev. 20:10)

Islam also equally punishes both the adulterer and theadulteress :

“(As for) thefornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement.” (24:2)

However, theQur’anic definition of adultery is very different from the Biblical definition. Adultery, according to the Qur’an, is the involvement of a married man or a married woman in an extramarital affair. The Bible only considers the extramarital affair of a married woman as adultery.

“If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel” (Deuteronomy 22:22)

“If a man commits adultery with another man's wife both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.” (Leviticus 20:10)

“To keep you from yourneighbour's wife, from the smooth tongue of the adulteress. Lust not in your heart after herbeauty, let her not captivate you with her glance! For the price of a loose woman may be scarcely a loaf of bread, But if she is married, she is a trap for your precious life. Can a man take fire to his bosom, and his garments not burned?Or can a man walk on live coals, and his feet not be scorched? So with him who goes in to hisneighbour's wife-- none who touches her shall go unpunished.” (Proverbs, 6:24-:29)

According to the Biblical definition, if a married man sleeps with an unmarried woman, thisis not considered a crime at all. The married man who has extramarital affairs with unmarried women is not an adulterer and the unmarried women involved with him are notadulteresses . The crime of adultery is committed only when a man, whether married or single, sleeps with a married woman. In thiscase the man is considered adulterer, even if he is not married, and the woman is considered adulteress. In short, adultery is any illicit sexual intercourse involving a married woman. The extramarital affair of a married man is not per se a crime in the Bible.

Why is the dual moral standard? According toEncyclopaedia Judaica , the wife was consideredto be the husband's possession and adultery constituted a violation of the husband's exclusive right to her; the wife as the husband's possession had no such right to him.1

That is, if a man had sexual intercourse with a married woman, he would be violating the property of another man and, thus, heshould be punished . To the present day in Israel, if a married man indulges in an extramarital affair with an unmarried woman, his children by that womanare considered legitimate.But , if a married woman has an affair with another man, whether married or not married, her children by that man are not only illegitimate but they are considered bastards and are forbidden to marry any other Jews except converts and other bastards. This banis handed down to the children's descendants for ten generations until the taint of adultery is presumably weakened.2

The Qur’an, on the other hand, never considers any woman to be the possession of any man. The Qur’an eloquently describes the relationship between the spouses by saying:

“And among His signs is that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that you may dwell intranquillity with them and He has put love and mercy between your hearts: verily in that are signs for those who reflect.” (30:21)

This is theQur’anic conception of marriage: love, mercy, andtranquillity , not possession and double standards.

Notes

1. Jeffrey H.Togay , “Adultery”, Encyclopaedia Judaica , Vol. II, col. 313.Also see JudithLaskow , Standing Again at Sinai: Judaism from a Feminist Perspective (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1990) pp. 170-177.

2.Swidler , op. cit. p. 141.

Vows

According to the Bible, a man mustfulfil any vows he might make to God. He must not break his word. On the other hand, a woman's vow is not necessarily binding on her. It has tobe approved by her father, if she is living in his house, or by her husband, if she is married. If a father/husband does not endorse his daughter's/wife's vows, all pledges made by her becomenull and void :

“But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself willstand .... Her husband may confirm or nullify any vow she makes or any sworn pledge to deny herself.” (Num. 30:2-15)

Why is it that a woman's word is not binding per se? The answer is simple: becauseshe is owned by her father, before marriage, or by her husband after marriage. The father's control over his daughter was absolute to the extent that, should he wish, he could sell her! It is indicated in the writings of the Rabbis that: “The man may sell his daughter, but the woman may not sell her daughter; the man may betroth his daughter, but the woman may not betroth her daughter.” 1

The Rabbinic literature also indicates that marriage represents the transfer of control from the father to the husband: “betrothal, making a woman the sacrosanct possession -- the inviolable property -- of the husband...” Obviously, if the woman is consideredto be the property of someone else, she cannot make any pledges that her owner does not approve of.

It is of interest to note that this Biblical instruction concerning women's vows has had negative repercussions onJudaeo -Christian womentill early in this century. A married woman in the Western world had no legal status. No act of hers was of any legal value. Her husband could repudiate any contract, bargain, or deal she had made. Women in the West (the largest heir of theJudaeo -Christian legacy)were held unable to make a binding contract because they were practically owned by someone else. Western women had suffered for almost two thousand years because of the Biblical attitude towards women's position vis-à-vis their fathers and husbands.2

In Islam, the vow of every Muslim, male or female, is binding on him/her. No one has the power to repudiate the pledges of anyone else. Failure to keep a solemn oath, made by a man or a woman, has tobe expiated as indicated in the Qur’an:

“He [God] will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days.That is the expiation for the oaths you have sworn. But keep your oaths.” (5:89)

Companions of the Prophet Muhammad (S), men and women, used to present their oath of allegiance to him personally. Women, as well as men, would independently come to him and pledge their oaths:

“O Prophet! When believing women come to you to make a covenant with you that they will not associate in worship anything with God, nor steal, nor fornicate, nor kill their own children, nor slander anyone, nor disobey you in any just matter, then make a covenant with them and pray to God for the forgiveness of their sins. Indeed God isForgiving and most Merciful.” (60:12)

A man could not swear the oath on behalf of his daughter or his wife. Nor could a man repudiate the oath made by any of his female relatives.

Notes

1.Swidler , op. cit. p. 141.

2. Gage, op. cit., p.141

Wife's Property

The Jewish tradition regarding the husband’s role towards his wife stems from the conception that he owns her as he owns his slave.1

This conception has been the reason behind the double standard in the laws of adultery and behind the husband’s ability to annul his wife’s vows. This conception has also been responsible for denying the wife any control over her property or her earnings. As soon as a Jewish woman got married, she completely lost any control over her property and earnings to her husband. Jewish Rabbis asserted the husband’s right to his wife’s property as a corollary of his possession of her: “Since one has come into the possession of the woman does it not follow that he should come into the possession of her property too?”, and “Since he has acquired the woman should he not acquire also her property?” 2

Thus, marriage caused the richest woman to become practically penniless. The Talmud describes the financial situation of a wife as follows:

“How can a woman have anything; whatever is hers belongs to her husband? What is his is his and what is hersis also his... Her earnings, and what she may find in the streets, are also his. The household articles, even the crumbs of bread on the table, are his. Should she invite a guest to her house and feed him, she would be stealing from her husband...”

(San. 71a,Git . 62a)

The fact of the matter is that the property of a Jewish femalewas meant to attract suitors. A Jewish family would assign their daughter a share of her father’s estate tobe used as a dowry in case of marriage.It was this dowry that made Jewish daughters an unwelcomed burden to their fathers. The father had to raise his daughter for years and then prepare for her marriage by providing a large dowry. Thus, a girl in a Jewish family was a liability and no asset.3

This liability explains why the birth of a daughterwas not celebrated with joy in the old Jewish society (see the “Shameful Daughters” section). The dowry was the wedding gift presented to the groom under terms of tenancy. The husband would act as the practical owner of the dowry but he could not sell it. The bride would lose any control over the dowryat the moment of marriage. Moreover, she was expected to work after marriage and all her earnings had to go to her husband in return for hermaintenance which was his obligation. She could regain her property only in two cases: divorce or her husband’s death. Should she die first, he would inherit her property. In the case of the husband’s death, the wife could regain her pre-marital property but she was not entitled to inherit any share in her deceased husband’s own property. It has to be added that the groom also had to present a marriage gift to hisbride, yet again he was the practical owner of this gift as long as they were married.4

Christianity, until recently, has followed the same Jewish tradition. Both religious and civil authorities in the Christian Roman Empire (after Constantine) required a property agreement as a condition for recognizing the marriage. Families offered their daughters increasing dowries and, as a result, men tended to marry earlier while families postponed their daughters’ marriages until later than had been customary.5

Under Canon law, a wife was entitled to restitution of her dowry if the marriagewas annulled unless she was guilty of adultery. In this case, she forfeited her right to thedowry which remained in her husband’s hands.6

Under Canon and civillaw a married woman in Christian Europe and America had lost her property rights until late nineteenth and early twentiethcenturies . For example, women’s rights under English lawwere compiled and published in 1632 . These ‘rights’ included: “That which the husband hath is his own. That which the wife hath is the husband’s.” 7

The wife not only lost her property upon marriage, she lost her personality as well. No act of her was of legal value. Her husband could repudiate any sale or gift made by her as being of no binding legal value. The person with whom she had any contractwas held as a criminal for participating in a fraud. Moreover, she could not sue orbe sued in her own name, nor could she sue her own husband.8

A married womanwas practically treated as an infant in the eyes of the law. The wife simply belonged to her husband and therefore she lost her property, her legal personality, and her family name.9

Islam, since the seventh century C.E., has granted married women the independentpersonality which theJudaeo -Christian West had deprived them until very recently. In Islam, the bride and her family are under no obligation whatsoever to present a gift to the groom. The girl in a Muslim family is no liability.

A womanis so dignified by Islam that she does not need to present gifts in order to attract potential husbands.It is the groom who must present the bride with a marriage gift. This giftis considered her property and neither the groom nor the bride’s family have any share in or control over it. In some Muslim societies today, a marriage gift of a hundred thousand dollars in diamonds is not unusual.10

The bride retains her marriage gifts even if she is later divorced. The husbandis not allowed any share in his wife’s property except what she offers him with her free consent.11

The Qur’an has stated its position on this issue quite clearly:

“And give the women (on marriage) their dower as a free gift; but if they, of their own good pleasure, remit any part of it to you, take it and enjoy it with right good cheer.” (4:4)

The wife’s property and earnings are under her full control and for her use alone since her, and the children’s, maintenance is her husband’s responsibility.12

No matter how rich the wife might be, she is not obliged to act as a co-provider for the family unless she herself voluntarily chooses to do so. Spouses do inherit from one another. Moreover, a married woman in Islam retains her independent legal personality and her family name.13

An American judge once commented on the rights of Muslim womensaying: “A Muslim girl may marry ten times, but her individuality is not absorbed by that of her various husbands. She is a solar planet with a name and legal personality of her own.” 14

The three religions share an unshakeable belief in the importance of marriage and family life. They also agree on the leadership of the husband over the family. Nevertheless, blatant differences do exist among the three religions with respect to the limits of this leadership. TheJudaeo -Christian tradition, unlike Islam, virtually extends the leadership of the husband into ownership of his wife.

Notes

1. Louis M. Epstein,The Jewish Marriage Contract (New York: Arno Press, 1973) p. 149.

2.Swidler , op. cit., p. 142.

3. Epstein, op. cit., pp. 164-165.

4. Ibid., pp. 112-113. See alsoPriesand , op. cit., p. 15.

5. James A.Brundage , Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987) p. 88.

6. Ibid., p. 480.

7. R. Thompson, Women in Stuart England and America (London:Routledge &Kegan Paul, 1974) p. 162.

8. Mary Murray,The Law of the Father (London:Routledge , 1995) p. 67.

9. Gage, op. cit., p. 143.

10. For example, see Jeffrey Lang, Struggling to Surrender, (Beltsville, MD: Amana Publications, 1994) p. 167.

11.Elsayyed Sabiq ,Fiqh alSunnah (Cairo:Darul Fatahlile’lam Al-Arabi , 11th edition, 1994), vol. 2, pp. 218-229.

12. Abdel-Haleem AbuShuqqa ,Tahreer alMar’aa fi Asr alRisala (Kuwait: Dar alQalam , 1990) pp. 109-112.

13. LeilaBadawi , “Islam”, in Jean Holm and JohnBowker , ed., Women in Religion (London: Pinter Publishers, 1994) p. 102.

14. Amir H.Siddiqi , Studies in Islamic History (Karachi:Jamiyatul Falah Publications, 3rd edition, 1967) p. 138.

Divorce

The three religions have remarkable differences in their attitudes towards divorce. Christianity abhors divorce altogether. The New Testament unequivocally advocates the indissolubility of marriage. Itis attributed to Jesus to have said,

“But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 5:32)

This uncompromising ideal is, without a doubt, unrealistic. It assumes a state of moral perfection that human societies have never achieved. When a couple realizes that their married life is beyond repair, a ban on divorce will not do them any good. Forcing ill-mated couples to remain together against their wills is neither effective nor reasonable. No wonder thewhole Christian world has been obliged to sanction divorce.

Judaism, on the other hand, allows divorce even without any cause. The Old Testament gives the husband the right to divorce his wife even if he just dislikes her:

“If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled.”(Deut. 24:1-4)

The above verses have caused considerable debate among Jewish scholars because of their disagreement over the interpretation of the words “displeasing”, “indecency”, and “dislikes” mentioned in the verses. The Talmud records their different opinions:

“The school ofShammai held that a man should not divorce his wife unless he has found her guilty of some sexual misconduct, while the school of Hillelsay he may divorce her even if she has merely spoiled a dish for him. RabbiAkiba says he may divorce her even if he simply finds another woman more beautiful than she.” (Gittin 90 a-b)

The New Testament follows theShammaites opinion while Jewish law has followed the opinion of theHillelites and R. Akiba1 . Since theHillelites view prevailed, it became the unbroken tradition of Jewish law to give the husband freedom to divorce his wife without any cause at all. The Old Testament not only gives the husband the right to divorce his “displeasing” wife, it considers divorcing a “bad wife” an obligation:

“A bad wife brings humiliation, downcast looks, and a wounded heart. Slack of hand and weak of knee is the man whose wife fails to make him happy. Woman is the origin of sin, and it is through her that we all die. Do not leave a leaky cistern to drip or allow a bad wife to say what she likes. If she does not accept your control, divorce her and send her away.” (Ecclesiasticus 25:25)

The Talmud has recorded several specific actions bywives which obliged their husbands to divorce them:

“If she ate in the street, if she drank greedily in the street, if she suckled in the street, in every case Rabbi Meir says that she must leave her husband”(Git . 89a)

The Talmud has also made it mandatory to divorce a barren wife (who bore no children in a period of ten years):

“Our Rabbis taught: If a man took a wife and lived with her for ten years and she bore no child, he shall divorce her” (Yeb . 64a)

Wives, on the other hand, cannot initiate divorce under Jewish law. A Jewish wife, however, could claim the right to a divorce before a Jewish courtprovided that a strong reason exists. Very few groundsare provided for the wife to make a claim for a divorce. These groundsinclude: A husband with physical defects or skin disease, a husband not fulfilling his conjugal responsibilities, etc. The Court might support the wife’s claim to a divorce but it cannot dissolve the marriage.

Only the husband can dissolve the marriage by giving his wife a bill of divorce. The Court could scourge, fine, imprison, and excommunicate him to force him to deliver the necessary bill of divorce to his wife. However, if the husband is stubborn enough, he can refuse to grant his wife a divorce and keep her tied to him indefinitely. Worse still, he can desert her without granting her a divorce and leave her unmarried andundivorced . He can marry another woman or even live with any single woman out of wedlock and have children from her (these childrenare considered legitimate under Jewish law).

The deserted wife, on the other hand, cannot marry any other man since she is still legally married and she cannot live with any other man because she will be considered anadulteress and her children from this union will be illegitimate for ten generations. A woman in such a position is called anagunah (chained woman).2

In the United States today there are approximately 1000 to 1500 Jewish women who areagunot (plural foragunah ), while in Israel their number might be as high as 16000. Husbands may extort thousands of dollars from their trapped wives in exchange for a Jewish divorce.3

Islam occupies the middle ground between Christianity and Judaism with respect to divorce. Marriage in Islam is a sanctified bond that should not be broken except for compelling reasons. Couplesare instructed to pursue all possible remedies whenever their marriages are in danger. Divorce is not to be resorted to except when there is no other way out.In a nutshell , Islam recognizes divorce, yet it discourages it by all means.

Let us focus on the recognition side first. Islam does recognize the right of both partners to end their matrimonial relationship. Islam gives the husband the right forTalaq (divorce). Moreover, Islam, unlike Judaism, grants the wife the right to dissolve the marriage through what is known as Khula’.4

If the husband dissolves the marriage by divorcing his wife, he cannot retrieve any of the marriage gifts he has given her. The Qur’an explicitly prohibits the divorcing husbands from taking back their marriage gifts no matter how expensive or valuable these gifts might be:

“But if you decide to take one wife in place of another, even if you had given the latter a whole treasure for dower, take not the least bit of it back; would you take it by slander and a manifest wrong?” (4:20)

In the case of the wife choosing to end the marriage, she may return the marriage gifts to her husband. Returning the marriage gifts in this case is a fair compensation for the husband who is keen to keep his wife while she chooses to leave him. The Qur’an has instructed Muslim men not to take back any of the gifts they have given to their wives except in the case of the wife choosing to dissolve the marriage:

“It is not lawful for you (Men) to take back any of your gifts except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah. There is no blame on either of them if she gives something for her freedom. These are the limits ordained by Allah so do not transgress them.” (2:229)

Let us now focus our attention on how Islam discourages divorce. The Prophet of Islam told the believers that:

“Among all the permitted acts, divorce is the most hateful to God” (AbuDawood )

A Muslim man should not divorce his wife just because he dislikes her. The Qur’an instructs Muslim men to be kind to their wives even in cases of lukewarm emotions or feelings of dislike:

“Live with them (your wives) on a footing of kindness and equity. If you dislike them it may be that you dislike something in which Allah has placed a great deal of good.” (4:19)

The Prophet has also emphasized that the best Muslims are those who are best to their wives:

“The believers who show the most perfect faith are those who have the best character and the best of you are those who are best to their wives.” (Tirmidhi )

However, Islam is a practical religion and it does recognize that there are circumstances in which a marriage comes to the verge of collapsing. In such cases, a mere advice of kindness orself restraint is no viable solution.So, what to do in order to save a marriage in these cases?

The Qur’an offers some practical advice for the spouse (husband or wife) whose partner (wife or husband) is the wrongdoer. For the husband whosewife’s ill-conduct is threatening the marriage, the Qur’an gives four types of advice as detailed in the following verses:

“As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct,

(1) Admonish them,

(2) refuse to share their beds,

(3)beat them; but if they return to obedience seek not against them means of annoyance: For Allah is Most High, Great.

(4) If you fear a break between them, appoint two arbiters, one from his family and the other from hers;If they wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation.”

(4:34-35)

The first three are tobe tried first. If they fail, then the help of the families concernedshould be sought . It has tobe noted , in the light of the above verses, that beating the rebellious wife is a temporary measure that is resorted to as third in line in cases of extreme necessity in hopes that it might remedy the wrongdoing of the wife.5

If it does, the husbandis not allowed by any means to continue any annoyance to the wife as explicitly mentioned in the verse. If it does not, the husbandis still not allowed to use this measure any longer and the final avenue of the family-assisted reconciliation has to be explored.

Prophet Muhammad (S) has instructed Muslim husbands that they should not have recourse to these measures except in extreme cases such as open lewdness committed by the wife.

It has tobe noted that the Talmud sanctions wife beating as chastisement for the purpose of discipline.6

The husband is not restricted to the extreme cases such as those of open lewdness. He is allowed to beat his wife even if she just refuses to do herhouse work . Moreover, he is not limited only to the use of light punishment. Heis permitted to break his wife’s stubbornness by the lash or by starving her.7

For the wife whosehusband’s ill-conduct is the cause for the marriage’s near collapse, the Qur’an offers the following advice:

“If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband’s part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best.” (4:128)

Notes

1. Epstein, op. cit., p. 196

2.Swidler , op. cit., pp. 162-163.

3. The Toronto Star, Apr. 8, 1995.

4.Sabiq , op. cit., pp. 318-329. See also Muhammad alGhazali ,Qadaya alMar’aa bin alTaqaleed alRakida wal Wafida (Cairo: Dar alShorooq , 4th edition, 1992) pp. 178-180.

5. There is a strict limit to this. Refer to books of jurisprudence for further details.

6. Epstein, op. cit., p. 219.

7. Ibid, pp 156-157.

Bearing Witness

Another issue in which the Qur’an and the Bible disagree is the issue of women bearing witness. It is true that the Qur’an has instructed the believers dealing in financial transactions to get two male witnesses or one male and two females:

“…and call in to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, the second of the two may remind the other…” (2:282).

However, it is also true that the Qur’an in other situations accepts the testimony of a woman as equal to that of a man. Infact the woman's testimony can even invalidate the man's.

If a man accuses his wife ofunchastity , heis required by the Qur’an to solemnly swear five times as evidence of the wife's guilt. If the wife denies and swears similarly five times, she is not considered guilty and in eithercase the marriage is dissolved:

“And (as for) those who accuse their wives and have no witnesses except themselves, the evidence of one of these (should be taken) four times, bearing Allah to witness that he is most surely of the truthful ones.And the fifth (time) that the curse of Allah be on him if he is one of the liars. And it shall avert the chastisement from her if she testify four times, bearing Allah to witness that he is most surely one of the liars; And the fifth (time) that the wrath of Allah be on her if he is one of the truthful.And were it not for Allah's grace upon you and His mercy-- and that Allah is Oft-returning (to mercy), Wise!Surely they who concocted the lie are a party from among you. Do not regard it an evil to you; nay, it is good for you. Every man of them shall have what he has earned of sin; and (as for) him who took upon himself the main part thereof, he shall have a grievous chastisement.” (24:6-11)

On the other hand, women were not allowed to bear witness in early Jewish society.1 The Rabbis counted women's not being able to bear witness among the nine curses inflicted upon all women because of the Fall (see the “Eve's Legacy” section). Women in today's Israel are not allowed to give evidence inRabbinical courts2 . The Rabbis justify why women cannot bear witness by citing Genesis 18:9-16, where itis stated that Sara, Abraham's wife had lied.

“Where is your wife Sarah?” they asked him. “There in the tent,” he replied. One of them said, “I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah will then have a son.” Sarah was listening at the entrance of the tent, just behind him. Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in years, and Sarah had stopped having her womanly periods. So Sarah laughed to herself and said, “Now that I am so withered and my husband is so old, am I still to have sexual pleasure?”But the LORD said to Abraham: “Why did Sarah laugh and say, 'Shall I really bear a child, old as I am?' Is anything too marvelous for the LORD to do? At the appointed time, about this time next year, I will return to you, and Sarah will have a son.” Because she was afraid, Sarah dissembled, saying, “I didn't laugh.”But he said, “Yes you did.”“

The Rabbis use this incident as evidence that women are unqualified to bear witness. It should be noted here that this story narrated in Genesis 18:9-16 has been mentioned more than once in the Qur’an without any hint of lies by Sara :

“And certainlyOur messengers came to Ibrahim with good news. Theysaid: Peace. Peace, said he, and he made no delay in bringing a roasted calf.But when he saw that their hands were not extended towards it, he deemed them strange and conceived fear of them. Theysaid: Fear not, surely we are sent toLut's people.And his wife was standing (by), so she laughed, then We gave her the good news ofIshaq and afterIshaq of (a son's son)Yaqoub . Shesaid: O wonder!shall I bear a son when I am an extremely old woman and this my husband an extremely old man? Mostsurely this is a wonderful thing. Theysaid: Do you wonder at Allah's bidding? The mercy of Allah and His blessings are on you, O people of the house, surely He is Praised, Glorious. So when fear had gone away from Ibrahim and good news came to him, he began to plead withUs forLut's people”. (11:69-74)

“Has there come to you information about the honored guests of Ibrahim? When they entered upon him, theysaid: Peace. Peace, said he, a strange people. Then he turned aside to his family secretly and brought a fat (roasted) calf, so he brought it near them. Hesaid: What! Will you not eat?So he conceived in his mind a fear on account of them. Theysaid: Fear not.And they gave him the good news of a boy possessing knowledge. Then his wife came up in great grief, and she struck her face andsaid: An old barren woman! They said: Thus says your Lord: Surely He is the Wise, the Knowing.” (51:24-30).

In the Christian West, both ecclesiastical and civil law debarred women from giving testimony until late last century3 .

If a man accuses his wife ofunchastity , her testimonywill not be considered at all according to the Bible. The accused wife has tobe subjected to a trial by ordeal. In this trial, the wife faces a complex and humiliatingritual which was supposed to prove her guilt or innocence:

The LORD said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and tell them: If a man's wife goes astray and becomes unfaithful to him by having intercourse with another man, though her husband has not sufficient evidence of the fact, so that her impurity remains unproved for lack of a witness who might have caught her in the act; or if a man is overcome by a feeling of jealousy that makes him suspect his wife, whether she was actually impure or not: he shall bring his wife to the priest and shall take along as an offering for her a tenth of anephah of barley meal. However, he shall not pour oil on it nor put frankincense over it, since it is a cereal offering of jealousy, a cereal offering for an appeal in a question of guilt. “The priest shall first have the woman come forward and stand before the LORD. In an earthenvessel he shall meanwhile put some holy water, as well as some dust that he has taken from the floor of the Dwelling. Then, as the woman stands before the LORD, the priest shall uncover her head and place in her hands the cereal offering of her appeal, that is, the cereal offering of jealousy, while he himself shall hold the bitter water that brings a curse. Then he shall adjure the woman, saying to her, 'If no other man has had intercourse with you, and you have not gone astray by impurity while under the authority of your husband, be immune to the curse brought by this bitter water.But if you have gone astray while under the authority of your husband and have acted impurely by letting a man other than your husband have intercourse with you'-- so shall the priest adjure the woman with this oath of imprecation--'may the LORD make you an example of malediction and imprecation among your people by causing your thighs to waste away and your belly to swell! May this water, then, that brings a curse,enter your body to make your belly swell and your thighs waste away!'And the woman shall say, 'Amen, amen!' The priest shall put these imprecations in writing and shall then wash them off into the bitter water, which he is to have the woman drink, so that it may go into her withall its bitter curse.But first he shall take the cereal offering of jealousy from the woman's hand, and having waved this offering before the LORD, shall put it near the altar, where he shall take a handful of the cereal offering as its token offering and burn it on the altar. Only then shall he have the woman drink the water. Once she has done so, if she has been impure and unfaithful to her husband,this bitter water that brings a curse will go into her, and her belly will swell and her thighs will waste away, so that she will become an example of imprecation among her people.If, however, the woman has not defiled herself, but is still pure, she will be immune and will still be able to bear children. “This, then, is the law for jealousy: When a woman goes astray while under the authority of her husband and actsimpurely, or when such a feeling of jealousy comes over a man that he becomes suspicious of his wife, he shall have her stand before the LORD, and the priest shall apply this law in full to her. The man shall be free from guilt, but the woman shall bear such guilt as she may have.” (Num. 5:11-31)

If sheis found guilty after this ordeal, she will be sentenced to death. If sheis found not guilty, her husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing.

Besides, if a man takes a woman as a wife and then accuses her of not being a virgin, her own testimony will not count. Her parents had to bring evidence of her virginity before the elders of the town. If the parents could not prove the innocence of their daughter, she would be stoned to death on her father's doorsteps. If the parents were able to prove her innocence, the husbandwould only be fined one hundred shekels of silver and he could not divorce his wife as long as he lived:

“If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, 'I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,' then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. The girl's father will say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and saidI did not find your daughter to be a virgin. But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity.' Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginitycan be found , she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of the town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.” (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)

Notes

1.Swinder , op. cit., p. 115.

2. Lesley Hazelton, Israeli Women. The RealityBehind the Myths. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1977), p. 41.

3. Matilda J. Gage, Woman,Church and State (New York: Truth Seeker Company, 1983) p. 142.

Adultery

Adulteryis considered a sin in all religions.

The Bible decrees the death sentence for both the adulterer and theadulteress :

“If a man commits adultery with hisneighbour's wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.” (Lev. 20:10)

Islam also equally punishes both the adulterer and theadulteress :

“(As for) thefornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement.” (24:2)

However, theQur’anic definition of adultery is very different from the Biblical definition. Adultery, according to the Qur’an, is the involvement of a married man or a married woman in an extramarital affair. The Bible only considers the extramarital affair of a married woman as adultery.

“If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel” (Deuteronomy 22:22)

“If a man commits adultery with another man's wife both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.” (Leviticus 20:10)

“To keep you from yourneighbour's wife, from the smooth tongue of the adulteress. Lust not in your heart after herbeauty, let her not captivate you with her glance! For the price of a loose woman may be scarcely a loaf of bread, But if she is married, she is a trap for your precious life. Can a man take fire to his bosom, and his garments not burned?Or can a man walk on live coals, and his feet not be scorched? So with him who goes in to hisneighbour's wife-- none who touches her shall go unpunished.” (Proverbs, 6:24-:29)

According to the Biblical definition, if a married man sleeps with an unmarried woman, thisis not considered a crime at all. The married man who has extramarital affairs with unmarried women is not an adulterer and the unmarried women involved with him are notadulteresses . The crime of adultery is committed only when a man, whether married or single, sleeps with a married woman. In thiscase the man is considered adulterer, even if he is not married, and the woman is considered adulteress. In short, adultery is any illicit sexual intercourse involving a married woman. The extramarital affair of a married man is not per se a crime in the Bible.

Why is the dual moral standard? According toEncyclopaedia Judaica , the wife was consideredto be the husband's possession and adultery constituted a violation of the husband's exclusive right to her; the wife as the husband's possession had no such right to him.1

That is, if a man had sexual intercourse with a married woman, he would be violating the property of another man and, thus, heshould be punished . To the present day in Israel, if a married man indulges in an extramarital affair with an unmarried woman, his children by that womanare considered legitimate.But , if a married woman has an affair with another man, whether married or not married, her children by that man are not only illegitimate but they are considered bastards and are forbidden to marry any other Jews except converts and other bastards. This banis handed down to the children's descendants for ten generations until the taint of adultery is presumably weakened.2

The Qur’an, on the other hand, never considers any woman to be the possession of any man. The Qur’an eloquently describes the relationship between the spouses by saying:

“And among His signs is that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that you may dwell intranquillity with them and He has put love and mercy between your hearts: verily in that are signs for those who reflect.” (30:21)

This is theQur’anic conception of marriage: love, mercy, andtranquillity , not possession and double standards.

Notes

1. Jeffrey H.Togay , “Adultery”, Encyclopaedia Judaica , Vol. II, col. 313.Also see JudithLaskow , Standing Again at Sinai: Judaism from a Feminist Perspective (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1990) pp. 170-177.

2.Swidler , op. cit. p. 141.

Vows

According to the Bible, a man mustfulfil any vows he might make to God. He must not break his word. On the other hand, a woman's vow is not necessarily binding on her. It has tobe approved by her father, if she is living in his house, or by her husband, if she is married. If a father/husband does not endorse his daughter's/wife's vows, all pledges made by her becomenull and void :

“But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself willstand .... Her husband may confirm or nullify any vow she makes or any sworn pledge to deny herself.” (Num. 30:2-15)

Why is it that a woman's word is not binding per se? The answer is simple: becauseshe is owned by her father, before marriage, or by her husband after marriage. The father's control over his daughter was absolute to the extent that, should he wish, he could sell her! It is indicated in the writings of the Rabbis that: “The man may sell his daughter, but the woman may not sell her daughter; the man may betroth his daughter, but the woman may not betroth her daughter.” 1

The Rabbinic literature also indicates that marriage represents the transfer of control from the father to the husband: “betrothal, making a woman the sacrosanct possession -- the inviolable property -- of the husband...” Obviously, if the woman is consideredto be the property of someone else, she cannot make any pledges that her owner does not approve of.

It is of interest to note that this Biblical instruction concerning women's vows has had negative repercussions onJudaeo -Christian womentill early in this century. A married woman in the Western world had no legal status. No act of hers was of any legal value. Her husband could repudiate any contract, bargain, or deal she had made. Women in the West (the largest heir of theJudaeo -Christian legacy)were held unable to make a binding contract because they were practically owned by someone else. Western women had suffered for almost two thousand years because of the Biblical attitude towards women's position vis-à-vis their fathers and husbands.2

In Islam, the vow of every Muslim, male or female, is binding on him/her. No one has the power to repudiate the pledges of anyone else. Failure to keep a solemn oath, made by a man or a woman, has tobe expiated as indicated in the Qur’an:

“He [God] will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days.That is the expiation for the oaths you have sworn. But keep your oaths.” (5:89)

Companions of the Prophet Muhammad (S), men and women, used to present their oath of allegiance to him personally. Women, as well as men, would independently come to him and pledge their oaths:

“O Prophet! When believing women come to you to make a covenant with you that they will not associate in worship anything with God, nor steal, nor fornicate, nor kill their own children, nor slander anyone, nor disobey you in any just matter, then make a covenant with them and pray to God for the forgiveness of their sins. Indeed God isForgiving and most Merciful.” (60:12)

A man could not swear the oath on behalf of his daughter or his wife. Nor could a man repudiate the oath made by any of his female relatives.

Notes

1.Swidler , op. cit. p. 141.

2. Gage, op. cit., p.141

Wife's Property

The Jewish tradition regarding the husband’s role towards his wife stems from the conception that he owns her as he owns his slave.1

This conception has been the reason behind the double standard in the laws of adultery and behind the husband’s ability to annul his wife’s vows. This conception has also been responsible for denying the wife any control over her property or her earnings. As soon as a Jewish woman got married, she completely lost any control over her property and earnings to her husband. Jewish Rabbis asserted the husband’s right to his wife’s property as a corollary of his possession of her: “Since one has come into the possession of the woman does it not follow that he should come into the possession of her property too?”, and “Since he has acquired the woman should he not acquire also her property?” 2

Thus, marriage caused the richest woman to become practically penniless. The Talmud describes the financial situation of a wife as follows:

“How can a woman have anything; whatever is hers belongs to her husband? What is his is his and what is hersis also his... Her earnings, and what she may find in the streets, are also his. The household articles, even the crumbs of bread on the table, are his. Should she invite a guest to her house and feed him, she would be stealing from her husband...”

(San. 71a,Git . 62a)

The fact of the matter is that the property of a Jewish femalewas meant to attract suitors. A Jewish family would assign their daughter a share of her father’s estate tobe used as a dowry in case of marriage.It was this dowry that made Jewish daughters an unwelcomed burden to their fathers. The father had to raise his daughter for years and then prepare for her marriage by providing a large dowry. Thus, a girl in a Jewish family was a liability and no asset.3

This liability explains why the birth of a daughterwas not celebrated with joy in the old Jewish society (see the “Shameful Daughters” section). The dowry was the wedding gift presented to the groom under terms of tenancy. The husband would act as the practical owner of the dowry but he could not sell it. The bride would lose any control over the dowryat the moment of marriage. Moreover, she was expected to work after marriage and all her earnings had to go to her husband in return for hermaintenance which was his obligation. She could regain her property only in two cases: divorce or her husband’s death. Should she die first, he would inherit her property. In the case of the husband’s death, the wife could regain her pre-marital property but she was not entitled to inherit any share in her deceased husband’s own property. It has to be added that the groom also had to present a marriage gift to hisbride, yet again he was the practical owner of this gift as long as they were married.4

Christianity, until recently, has followed the same Jewish tradition. Both religious and civil authorities in the Christian Roman Empire (after Constantine) required a property agreement as a condition for recognizing the marriage. Families offered their daughters increasing dowries and, as a result, men tended to marry earlier while families postponed their daughters’ marriages until later than had been customary.5

Under Canon law, a wife was entitled to restitution of her dowry if the marriagewas annulled unless she was guilty of adultery. In this case, she forfeited her right to thedowry which remained in her husband’s hands.6

Under Canon and civillaw a married woman in Christian Europe and America had lost her property rights until late nineteenth and early twentiethcenturies . For example, women’s rights under English lawwere compiled and published in 1632 . These ‘rights’ included: “That which the husband hath is his own. That which the wife hath is the husband’s.” 7

The wife not only lost her property upon marriage, she lost her personality as well. No act of her was of legal value. Her husband could repudiate any sale or gift made by her as being of no binding legal value. The person with whom she had any contractwas held as a criminal for participating in a fraud. Moreover, she could not sue orbe sued in her own name, nor could she sue her own husband.8

A married womanwas practically treated as an infant in the eyes of the law. The wife simply belonged to her husband and therefore she lost her property, her legal personality, and her family name.9

Islam, since the seventh century C.E., has granted married women the independentpersonality which theJudaeo -Christian West had deprived them until very recently. In Islam, the bride and her family are under no obligation whatsoever to present a gift to the groom. The girl in a Muslim family is no liability.

A womanis so dignified by Islam that she does not need to present gifts in order to attract potential husbands.It is the groom who must present the bride with a marriage gift. This giftis considered her property and neither the groom nor the bride’s family have any share in or control over it. In some Muslim societies today, a marriage gift of a hundred thousand dollars in diamonds is not unusual.10

The bride retains her marriage gifts even if she is later divorced. The husbandis not allowed any share in his wife’s property except what she offers him with her free consent.11

The Qur’an has stated its position on this issue quite clearly:

“And give the women (on marriage) their dower as a free gift; but if they, of their own good pleasure, remit any part of it to you, take it and enjoy it with right good cheer.” (4:4)

The wife’s property and earnings are under her full control and for her use alone since her, and the children’s, maintenance is her husband’s responsibility.12

No matter how rich the wife might be, she is not obliged to act as a co-provider for the family unless she herself voluntarily chooses to do so. Spouses do inherit from one another. Moreover, a married woman in Islam retains her independent legal personality and her family name.13

An American judge once commented on the rights of Muslim womensaying: “A Muslim girl may marry ten times, but her individuality is not absorbed by that of her various husbands. She is a solar planet with a name and legal personality of her own.” 14

The three religions share an unshakeable belief in the importance of marriage and family life. They also agree on the leadership of the husband over the family. Nevertheless, blatant differences do exist among the three religions with respect to the limits of this leadership. TheJudaeo -Christian tradition, unlike Islam, virtually extends the leadership of the husband into ownership of his wife.

Notes

1. Louis M. Epstein,The Jewish Marriage Contract (New York: Arno Press, 1973) p. 149.

2.Swidler , op. cit., p. 142.

3. Epstein, op. cit., pp. 164-165.

4. Ibid., pp. 112-113. See alsoPriesand , op. cit., p. 15.

5. James A.Brundage , Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987) p. 88.

6. Ibid., p. 480.

7. R. Thompson, Women in Stuart England and America (London:Routledge &Kegan Paul, 1974) p. 162.

8. Mary Murray,The Law of the Father (London:Routledge , 1995) p. 67.

9. Gage, op. cit., p. 143.

10. For example, see Jeffrey Lang, Struggling to Surrender, (Beltsville, MD: Amana Publications, 1994) p. 167.

11.Elsayyed Sabiq ,Fiqh alSunnah (Cairo:Darul Fatahlile’lam Al-Arabi , 11th edition, 1994), vol. 2, pp. 218-229.

12. Abdel-Haleem AbuShuqqa ,Tahreer alMar’aa fi Asr alRisala (Kuwait: Dar alQalam , 1990) pp. 109-112.

13. LeilaBadawi , “Islam”, in Jean Holm and JohnBowker , ed., Women in Religion (London: Pinter Publishers, 1994) p. 102.

14. Amir H.Siddiqi , Studies in Islamic History (Karachi:Jamiyatul Falah Publications, 3rd edition, 1967) p. 138.

Divorce

The three religions have remarkable differences in their attitudes towards divorce. Christianity abhors divorce altogether. The New Testament unequivocally advocates the indissolubility of marriage. Itis attributed to Jesus to have said,

“But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 5:32)

This uncompromising ideal is, without a doubt, unrealistic. It assumes a state of moral perfection that human societies have never achieved. When a couple realizes that their married life is beyond repair, a ban on divorce will not do them any good. Forcing ill-mated couples to remain together against their wills is neither effective nor reasonable. No wonder thewhole Christian world has been obliged to sanction divorce.

Judaism, on the other hand, allows divorce even without any cause. The Old Testament gives the husband the right to divorce his wife even if he just dislikes her:

“If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled.”(Deut. 24:1-4)

The above verses have caused considerable debate among Jewish scholars because of their disagreement over the interpretation of the words “displeasing”, “indecency”, and “dislikes” mentioned in the verses. The Talmud records their different opinions:

“The school ofShammai held that a man should not divorce his wife unless he has found her guilty of some sexual misconduct, while the school of Hillelsay he may divorce her even if she has merely spoiled a dish for him. RabbiAkiba says he may divorce her even if he simply finds another woman more beautiful than she.” (Gittin 90 a-b)

The New Testament follows theShammaites opinion while Jewish law has followed the opinion of theHillelites and R. Akiba1 . Since theHillelites view prevailed, it became the unbroken tradition of Jewish law to give the husband freedom to divorce his wife without any cause at all. The Old Testament not only gives the husband the right to divorce his “displeasing” wife, it considers divorcing a “bad wife” an obligation:

“A bad wife brings humiliation, downcast looks, and a wounded heart. Slack of hand and weak of knee is the man whose wife fails to make him happy. Woman is the origin of sin, and it is through her that we all die. Do not leave a leaky cistern to drip or allow a bad wife to say what she likes. If she does not accept your control, divorce her and send her away.” (Ecclesiasticus 25:25)

The Talmud has recorded several specific actions bywives which obliged their husbands to divorce them:

“If she ate in the street, if she drank greedily in the street, if she suckled in the street, in every case Rabbi Meir says that she must leave her husband”(Git . 89a)

The Talmud has also made it mandatory to divorce a barren wife (who bore no children in a period of ten years):

“Our Rabbis taught: If a man took a wife and lived with her for ten years and she bore no child, he shall divorce her” (Yeb . 64a)

Wives, on the other hand, cannot initiate divorce under Jewish law. A Jewish wife, however, could claim the right to a divorce before a Jewish courtprovided that a strong reason exists. Very few groundsare provided for the wife to make a claim for a divorce. These groundsinclude: A husband with physical defects or skin disease, a husband not fulfilling his conjugal responsibilities, etc. The Court might support the wife’s claim to a divorce but it cannot dissolve the marriage.

Only the husband can dissolve the marriage by giving his wife a bill of divorce. The Court could scourge, fine, imprison, and excommunicate him to force him to deliver the necessary bill of divorce to his wife. However, if the husband is stubborn enough, he can refuse to grant his wife a divorce and keep her tied to him indefinitely. Worse still, he can desert her without granting her a divorce and leave her unmarried andundivorced . He can marry another woman or even live with any single woman out of wedlock and have children from her (these childrenare considered legitimate under Jewish law).

The deserted wife, on the other hand, cannot marry any other man since she is still legally married and she cannot live with any other man because she will be considered anadulteress and her children from this union will be illegitimate for ten generations. A woman in such a position is called anagunah (chained woman).2

In the United States today there are approximately 1000 to 1500 Jewish women who areagunot (plural foragunah ), while in Israel their number might be as high as 16000. Husbands may extort thousands of dollars from their trapped wives in exchange for a Jewish divorce.3

Islam occupies the middle ground between Christianity and Judaism with respect to divorce. Marriage in Islam is a sanctified bond that should not be broken except for compelling reasons. Couplesare instructed to pursue all possible remedies whenever their marriages are in danger. Divorce is not to be resorted to except when there is no other way out.In a nutshell , Islam recognizes divorce, yet it discourages it by all means.

Let us focus on the recognition side first. Islam does recognize the right of both partners to end their matrimonial relationship. Islam gives the husband the right forTalaq (divorce). Moreover, Islam, unlike Judaism, grants the wife the right to dissolve the marriage through what is known as Khula’.4

If the husband dissolves the marriage by divorcing his wife, he cannot retrieve any of the marriage gifts he has given her. The Qur’an explicitly prohibits the divorcing husbands from taking back their marriage gifts no matter how expensive or valuable these gifts might be:

“But if you decide to take one wife in place of another, even if you had given the latter a whole treasure for dower, take not the least bit of it back; would you take it by slander and a manifest wrong?” (4:20)

In the case of the wife choosing to end the marriage, she may return the marriage gifts to her husband. Returning the marriage gifts in this case is a fair compensation for the husband who is keen to keep his wife while she chooses to leave him. The Qur’an has instructed Muslim men not to take back any of the gifts they have given to their wives except in the case of the wife choosing to dissolve the marriage:

“It is not lawful for you (Men) to take back any of your gifts except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah. There is no blame on either of them if she gives something for her freedom. These are the limits ordained by Allah so do not transgress them.” (2:229)

Let us now focus our attention on how Islam discourages divorce. The Prophet of Islam told the believers that:

“Among all the permitted acts, divorce is the most hateful to God” (AbuDawood )

A Muslim man should not divorce his wife just because he dislikes her. The Qur’an instructs Muslim men to be kind to their wives even in cases of lukewarm emotions or feelings of dislike:

“Live with them (your wives) on a footing of kindness and equity. If you dislike them it may be that you dislike something in which Allah has placed a great deal of good.” (4:19)

The Prophet has also emphasized that the best Muslims are those who are best to their wives:

“The believers who show the most perfect faith are those who have the best character and the best of you are those who are best to their wives.” (Tirmidhi )

However, Islam is a practical religion and it does recognize that there are circumstances in which a marriage comes to the verge of collapsing. In such cases, a mere advice of kindness orself restraint is no viable solution.So, what to do in order to save a marriage in these cases?

The Qur’an offers some practical advice for the spouse (husband or wife) whose partner (wife or husband) is the wrongdoer. For the husband whosewife’s ill-conduct is threatening the marriage, the Qur’an gives four types of advice as detailed in the following verses:

“As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct,

(1) Admonish them,

(2) refuse to share their beds,

(3)beat them; but if they return to obedience seek not against them means of annoyance: For Allah is Most High, Great.

(4) If you fear a break between them, appoint two arbiters, one from his family and the other from hers;If they wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation.”

(4:34-35)

The first three are tobe tried first. If they fail, then the help of the families concernedshould be sought . It has tobe noted , in the light of the above verses, that beating the rebellious wife is a temporary measure that is resorted to as third in line in cases of extreme necessity in hopes that it might remedy the wrongdoing of the wife.5

If it does, the husbandis not allowed by any means to continue any annoyance to the wife as explicitly mentioned in the verse. If it does not, the husbandis still not allowed to use this measure any longer and the final avenue of the family-assisted reconciliation has to be explored.

Prophet Muhammad (S) has instructed Muslim husbands that they should not have recourse to these measures except in extreme cases such as open lewdness committed by the wife.

It has tobe noted that the Talmud sanctions wife beating as chastisement for the purpose of discipline.6

The husband is not restricted to the extreme cases such as those of open lewdness. He is allowed to beat his wife even if she just refuses to do herhouse work . Moreover, he is not limited only to the use of light punishment. Heis permitted to break his wife’s stubbornness by the lash or by starving her.7

For the wife whosehusband’s ill-conduct is the cause for the marriage’s near collapse, the Qur’an offers the following advice:

“If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband’s part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best.” (4:128)

Notes

1. Epstein, op. cit., p. 196

2.Swidler , op. cit., pp. 162-163.

3. The Toronto Star, Apr. 8, 1995.

4.Sabiq , op. cit., pp. 318-329. See also Muhammad alGhazali ,Qadaya alMar’aa bin alTaqaleed alRakida wal Wafida (Cairo: Dar alShorooq , 4th edition, 1992) pp. 178-180.

5. There is a strict limit to this. Refer to books of jurisprudence for further details.

6. Epstein, op. cit., p. 219.

7. Ibid, pp 156-157.