FAMILY RIGHTS
This much was about non-domestic society. But what about domestic society? Do all the individuals in a domestic society also have a similar position in regard to their acquired rights, or is the case of the domestic society, which consists of wife and husband, parents and children and brothers and sisters different, and is there a special natural law in respect of domestic or family rights?
In this case there exist two presumptions. One of them is that the relations between wife and husband or between parents and children are like all other social relations. Their co-operation with one another is similar to that of a body of individuals, in national and governmental establishments. Such relations do not mean that some individuals inherently have any special position. It is only due to an acquired position that one is a boss and the other is a subordinate; one gives the orders and the other receives them; one has a higher monthly income and the other a lower. To be a husband or a wife or to be a father, a mother or a child also does not mean that everyone of them inherently holds a special position. It is their acquired status that determines their position in relations to each other.
The theory of the similarity of family rights between man and woman (wrongly called equality of rights) is based on this very presumption. According to this theory, man and woman take part in family life with a similar capacity, similar needs and similar inherent rights. Hence, their family rights also must be organised on the basis of similarity and likeness.
According to another presumption even their natural elementary rights vary. A husband as such has certain rights and obligations and a wife as such has certain other rights and obligations. The same is the case with a father, a mother and a child. In any case, the domestic society is quite different from any other social organisation. It is this presumption, on which the theory of dissimilarity of family rights between man and woman is based and which has been accepted by Islam.
Now let us see which one of the above two presumptions is correct and how we can determine its correctness.
NATURAL POSTULATES OF FAMILY RIGHTS
To arrive at the right conclusion, the readers may keep in mind the following points already discussed in the preceding chapter:
(1) Natural rights have emerged from the fact that nature has a definite aim and, keeping that aim in view, it has invested all living beings with certain capabilities, and has bestowed on them certain rights.
(2) Man as such enjoys certain rights known as human rights, which are not enjoyed by animals.
(3) To know natural rights and their characteristics, reference should be made to nature itself. Every natural capability is an authority for a natural right.
(4) All human beings, as members of a civil society, have equal and similar natural rights, but they differ in regard to acquired rights which depend on their work, accomplishments and participation in the competition of life.
(5) The reason why all human beings in a civil society have equal and similar natural rights is that a study of human nature has made it clear that none of them is born as a boss or a subordinate, as an employer or as an employee, as a ruler or as a subject or as a commander or a mere soldier. The case of man is different from that of such gregarious animals as bees. Formations of life of human beings are not constituted by nature, nor has nature allotted various jobs and posts to individuals.
(6) The theory of the similarity of the family rights of man and woman is based on the presumption that the domestic society is just like any civil society. All members of a family live with similar capabilities and similar needs. Nature has bestowed on them similar rights. The law of creation has not fixed for them any particular formation, nor has it allotted them different duties and different roles.
As for the theory of non-similarity of family rights, it is based on the presumption that the case of the domestic society is different from that of a civil society. Man and woman do not have similar capabilities and similar needs. The law of creation has placed them in dissimilar positions, and has visualised a distinct role for each of them.
Now let us see which of the two theories is correct, and why.
The issue can be decided easily if we use the criterion already mentioned and take into consideration the capabilities and needs of the two sexes, which form the natural authority for claiming natural rights.
IS THE FAMILY LIFE NATURAL OR CONTRACTUAL?
We have mentioned before that there are two views about the social life of man. Some believe that man is social by nature, whereas some others hold that social life is a contractual matter and this life has been chosen by man of his own accord under the influence of compelling factors. But these factors are external and not internal.
Anyhow, as far as the domestic life of human beings is concerned, more than one view does not exist. All agree that the domestic life is purely natural. Man is born domestic by nature. There can be no two opinions about this.
Even certain animals, like pigeons and some insects, which live in pairs, though they lead no social life at all, have a sort of conjugal life.
Hence, the case of domestic life is different from social life. Nature has taken measures to the effect that man and certain animals tend, by instinct, to lead a domestic life, form a family and have children.
The life of the ancient man, whether it has a matriarchal form or a patriarchal one, was always domestic.
THEORY OF FOUR PERIODS
In respect of ownership of property this fact is admitted by all that in the beginning the property was vested in the community and individual ownership was a later development. But that has never been the case with sex. The reason why ownership in the beginning had a socialistic aspect is that life at that time was tribal and the whole tribe formed one family. The members of the tribe, who lived together had joint-family sentiments. That is why the property was vested in the whole tribe. In the primitive society of the early periods there existed no law or custom which could determine the responsibility of man and woman to each other. It was only nature and natural feelings which made them adhere to certain duties and to respect certain rights. Even in these circumstances, they never indulged in unrestricted sexual relations. Those animals also which live in pairs, though they have no social and contractual law, observe the natural law of rights and obligations, and as such their sexual life is not unrestricted.
Mrs. Mehr Angiz Manuchehriyan in the preface of her book, "Comments on the Constitution and Civil law of Iran" says:
From a sociological point of view, the life of man and woman in different parts of the world is passing through one of the following four stages:
(1) Natural stage
(2) Stage of the domination of man
(3) Stage of the protest by women and
(4) Stage of the equality of rights between man and woman. She further says that in the first stage man and woman mix with each other without any restriction.
Sociology does not accept this view at all. What sociology recognises, at the most, is that it is customary among certain primitive tribes that several brothers jointly marry several sisters and all the brothers cohabit with all the sisters. The children belong to all of them, jointly. Another custom is that the boys and the girls, before they are married, have no restrictions. It is marriage alone which places restrictions on them. These are only two known customs. Anyhow, if there is any primitive tribe which goes beyond these limits and allows more unrestricted sex relations its case is exceptional and abnormal.
Will Durant in his book, "History of Civilisation", Vol. I, says: "Marriage is an invention of our animal ancestors. Among certain kinds of birds it appears to be a fact that each bird keeps itself confined to its mate. Among gorillas and orangutans contact between a male and a female continues till the new-born grows up. In many respects this contact resembles the relation between a man and a woman. Whenever a female tries to get close to another male, she is severely rebuked by its mate. The orang-utans of Borneo, live in families consisting of a male, a female and the young. It is usual, with the gorillas, that father and mother sit under the trees and eat fruit while their young ones romp on the trees around them. The history of conjugality is older than the appearance of man. There are few societies where conjugality does not exist. Anyhow, if one tries he may find a few of them".
What we mean to emphasise is that the family feelings are natural and instinctive with human beings, and are not a product of civilisation and habit. Many animals also instinctively have such feelings.
That is why, at no time in history have human males and females lived together without any restriction and restraint. Even those who claim the existence of financial communism in the primitive stages do not claim the existence of sexual communism.
The theory of the four periods of relations between man and woman is only a puerile imitation of the four periods of ownership, in which the socialists believe. They hold that in regard to ownership man has passed through four stages: the stages of primitive socialism, feudalism, capitalism and scientific socialism, which is a return to the primitive socialism on a higher level.
It is gratifying that Mrs. Manuchehriyan calls the fourth period of the relations between man and woman the period of equality in rights, and does not call it a return to primitive socialism. Here, she has not followed the example of the socialists, though she maintains that there is much in common between the fourth period and the first period. She says that the fourth period resembles the first period to a great extent, because, in both of them, man and woman live together without either of them exercising any authority or superiority over the other.
We are still unable to understand what she means exactly by saying 'resembles to a great extent'. If she means that during the fourth period all restrictions will gradually disappear and family life will be abrogated, then what she means by equality of rights, of which she is an enthusiastic supporter, is quite different from what the other supporters of equality of rights demand, and the idea may even be disgusting to them.
Now let us turn our attention to the nature of the family rights of man and woman. In this connection, we must keep two points in mind. One is whether or not the nature of woman is different from that of man. In other words, whether the difference between man and woman is confined to their r~ productive system, or goes deeper than that.
The second point is that in case there are other differences also, whether these differences are such that they do affect their rights and obligations, or they are of the kind of difference of race and colour, which have no connection with the nature of human rights.
WOMAN IN NATURE
As for the first point, we do not think that it is debatable. Everybody who has made some study in this respect knows that the differences between man and woman are not confined to their reproductive systems. The only question is whether or not these differences affect the determination of their rights and obligations.
The European scientists and investigators have thrown ample light on the first point, and their deep biological, psycho-logical and sociological studies have not left the least doubt about it. But what has not attracted enough attention of these scholars is the fact that the differences between man and woman affect their family rights and obligations, and place them in dissimilar positions with regard to each other.
The world famous French physiologist, surgeon and biologist, Alexis Carrel, in his very excellent book, 'Man, the Unknown Being' admits that, according to the law of creation, man and woman have been created differently, and that their differences make their rights and obligations different.
In this book he has included a chapter under the heading, Sexual Functions and Genetics". In it he says: "The testicles and the ovaries have vast functions. They not only produce male and female cells, the union of which brings a new human being into existence, but also secrete into the blood those fluids which give male and female characteristics to our feelings and to the tissues and organs of our body. It is the secretion of the testicles that generates boldness, zeal and recklessness. These are the same characteristics which distinguish a fighting bull from an ox. The ovary also affects the woman's being in the same way.
... The difference which exists between man and woman, is not related solely to the shape of their genital organs, or woman's having a uterus and giving birth to children and their special method of education, but is the result of a deeper cause. It emerges from the chemicals which the genital glands secrete into the blood.
It is owing to the disregard of this important point that the supporters of woman's movement think that both the sexes can receive the same kind of education and training and may undertake the same kind of education and training and may undertake the same professions and responsibilities. In fact, woman differs from man in many respects. Every cell of the human body and all the organic systems, especially the muscular system, are stamped with the mark of sex. The physiological laws also, like astronomical laws, are stable and unalterable. Human tendencies can have no effect on them. We have to accept them as they are. The women should try to develop their own talents and should advance in the direction which suits their innate character, without blindly imitating men. It is their duty to make a greater contribution than man, to the development of humanity. They should not take their duties lightly".
Carrel, after explaining the development of spermatozoon and ovum and the way their union takes place, points out that the existence of female is necessary for procreation, but not the existence of a male. He adds that pregnancy completes the body and the soul of a woman. In the end of the chapter he says: "We should not visualise for young girls the same way of thinking, the same kind of life and the same aspirations and ideals as we normally visualise for young boys. The education and training experts must keep in view the organic and psychological differences and natural functions of man and woman. Attention to this basic point is of the utmost importance for the future of our civilisation".
As you may observe, this great scientist lays stress on many differences between man and woman and believes that these differences place them in dissimilar positions.
In the following chapter also, we shall quote the views of the scientists on this point, and then we shall come to the conclusion in what respects man and woman have similar capabilities and needs, and hence should have similar rights and obligations, and in what respects they have dissimilar positions and hence should have dissimilar rights and obligations.
That part of the book will be most important for the study and determination of the family rights and obligations of man and woman.
Disparities Between Man and Woman
This seems to be an odd phrase. It appears that though we are living in the 2nd half of the 20th century, yet there are some people, here and there, who have a medieval way of thinking, and still pursue the outdated idea of disparity between man and woman. Like the people of the medieval ages they are of the view that woman belongs to the inferior sex and that she is not a perfect human being. She is something betwixt and between man and animal. She is not fit to lead an independent life and must live under the supervision and control of man. But we know that all these ideas are outdated and obsolete. Today we know very well that the fake charge of imperfection against woman was concocted by man during the days of his ascendancy over her. Now, the proven fact is that woman belongs to the superior sex and man to the inferior one.
These are the views of some modern Westerners. In actual fact, the wonderful scientific progress of the 20th century has clearly proved the existence of disparities between man and woman. Their existence is not a malicious misrepresentation but a scientific truth, based on observation and experiment. Anyhow, these differences have nothing to do with the superiority or inferiority of either sex. The law of creation has ordained them simply to make the bond of conjugal relations firmer and to lay the foundation of the union between husband and wife deeper and better. Nature wanted to distribute family rights and obligations between them with its own hands. The law of creation has made the disparities between man and woman similar to the difference between the various organs of a body. If it has given a distinctive position to each one of the eyes, the ears, the hands, the feet and the spinal column, it does not mean that it has been unjust or has made any discrimination against any of them.
IS IT PROPORTION OR PERFECTION AND IMPERFECTION?
It is amazing that some people insist that the disparity in the physical and psychological capabilities of man and woman is due to the imperfection of woman and the perfection of man. They hold that, for certain good reasons, woman has been intentionally created imperfect.
The notion of the imperfection of woman has been more popular in the West than in the East. The people of the West have given her a raw deal. Sometimes, misquoting the religion, they say that woman should be ashamed of herself. Sometimes they say: "Woman is the being, having long hair and a deficient brain", "Woman is the partition between animal and man" and so on.
It is still more amazing that some Westerners, having taken a 180 degree turn, have lately begun trying to put forward a thousand and one arguments to prove that by creation, man is inferior and imperfect and that woman is superior and perfect.
If you have read the book, 'Woman, the Superior Sex', by Ashley Montague, you may know how its author, by misrepresenting the facts and adducing incongruous arguments, has tried to prove that woman is more perfect than man. As far as the medical and psychological studies and social statistics are concerned, this book is very valuable, but where the author tries to draw his own conclusions to prove his claim, which is the title of the book, he goes to the utmost extent of absurdity. It is not understood why it is necessary that the Westerners should one day disparage woman so much that the next day, to make amends for the past, they are compelled to absolve her from all the defects which they had ascribed to her, and instead debit man with them. What is the necessity of regarding the differences between man and woman as the result of the perfection of one sex and the imperfection of the other, so that we may be compelled sometimes to take man's side and sometimes woman's?
The author of this book insists that woman is superior to man and regards the privileges of man as the product of historical and social factors and not the result of natural causes.
In fact, the differences between man and woman are a question of proportion or suitability and not that of perfection or imperfection. The law of creation has decreed that as man and woman have been created to lead a joint life, they should bear a specific proportion of their capabilities despite all differences. This point will be clarified later.
A PLATONIC THEORY
The subject of dissimilarity between man and woman is not a new question, which might have cropped up during our time. It is at least 2,400 year old. It was discussed, in its present form, by Plato in his book, "The Republic".
He expressly maintains that men and women have the same capabilities, and women can perform the same jobs and enjoy the same rights as men do.
The germs of all ideas about woman, which have emerged during the 20th century and even of that part of these ideas which appears to be odd and unacceptable to the 20th century people, are found in the views of Plato. That is why the people admire him so much and call him the Father of Philosophy. Plato, in the fifth part of his book, "The Republic", has discussed such questions as communism of women and children, improving the breed, sterilisation of some men and women, confining the breeding activity to only those who possess high hereditary qualities, rearing children outside the family atmosphere, and confining procreation to certain years of life, during which vitality is at its peak.
Plato believes that, like man, woman should also be given military training and, as man takes part in athletic competitions, woman should do so as well.
Anyhow, there are two points about what Plato has said. One is that he admits that physically and mentally women are weaker than men. In other words, he considers the disparity between man and woman to be quantitative, though he is opposed to the existence of any qualitative disparity in their capabilities. He believes that both man and woman have similar talents. The only thing is that in certain respects woman is weaker than man, but that is no reason why she should have a separate sphere of activity.
As Plato regards woman weaker than man, he thanks God that he was born a man. He says: "I thank God for my having been born a Greek, not a non-Greek, a free man not a slave, and a man not a woman".
The second point is that all that Plato said about the improvement of breed, equal promotion of the talents of both the sexes, and the communism of women and children, is related only to the ruling class, that is the ruling philosophers or philosopher-rulers, because according to him, only this class is worthy of being rulers. As we know, politically he was an opponent of democracy and a supporter of aristocracy. So what he has said, on the above points, relates to the aristocratic class. As for other classes, he has different views.
ARISTOTLE VERSUS PLATO
Plato's pupil, Aristotle, is the next thinker of the ancient world, whose views are available to us. He has expressed his views on the disparity between man and woman and has strongly opposed the views of his teacher Plato. He believes that man and woman differ not only quantitatively but qualitatively also. He says that the two sexes have talents of different kinds, and the functions which have been entrusted to them by the law of creation and the rights which have been bestowed on them by it differ greatly. According to Aristotle, their rules of morality are also different in many respects. It is possible that a moral quality may be excellent in regard to man, but it may not be so in regard to woman and vice versa.
In the ancient world, the views of Plato were replaced by those of Aristotle. The later intellectuals preferred the views of Aristotle to those of Plato.
