Sexual Ethics in Islam and in the Western World
Chapter 6: Love, Sexual Discipline and Chastity. Democratic Morality, Love in Personality Growth
That principles of human liberty and democracy should govern morals,
too, is both right and correct, as in the case of politics. The
intrinsic meaning is that human beings should cope with their inborn
instincts and natural desires, in the same way as a just and democratic
government does in respect of the masses of people.
Islam treats questions concerning sexual behavior on the same ethical
basis as is commonly recognized today in the regulation of political and
economic activities. For, individuals are prone to making genuine and
willful mistakes in ordering their sexual lives on the basis of their
own moral judgment. They may, through misconception, or wantonly, ignore
the need for maintaining a democratic concern for morality, in coping
with their individual problems, arising in circumstances evidencing lack
of any personal restraint and overall chaos.
In principle, any societal regulation of political and economic
activities ought to recognize the relevant human instincts and
tendencies. For, the aggression instinct and tendency to dominate others
can be instrumental in politics. Economic activities may be prompted by
a desire to accumulate wealth. Likewise, sexual aptitude can lead to
indulgence in lustful activities. However, it is not known why the
supporters of the proposed new sexual freedom deem a laissez faire
policy fit for sexual affairs only, while they seemingly accept the
controllability of political and economic activities.
One of the important aspects of sexual ethics concerns the emotion of
love. Since the ancient times, the essence of love has been given
special attention in philosophy. Ibn Sina (in the Islamic millennium)
brought out a treatise on love. Human love has been commonly
acknowledged as a wholesome reality, in terms of its all embracing and
sublime nature. In literature, especially the poetic, love has not only
been eulogized, with a sense of pride (to the extent of proclaiming the
superiority of the heart over the mind), but contrasted with lust's
debasingly animal-like nature.
Mostly in our literature we find that love has been extolled not only
in terms of its Divine connotation, but even in its down-to-earth human
emotional context. In either case, there has been no confusion of love
with any kind of lust.
In contrast, there have been others, who chose to equate love with a
sort of libido, or any persistent metabolic intensity of the sexual
instinct. Evidently, they tended to assume that love is rather incapable
of sublimation even in Divine terms. They treat love as if it has
neither any spiritual origin, nor it is (or ought to be) humane in
quality, nor it can be humanitarian in purpose.
Those who treat love as both Divine and human differentiate between the
animal-like manifestation and the humane accomplishment of love. The
others make no such distinction, so that love and lust become
synonymous.
Today, a third category of thinkers has become evident. They believe
that all kinds of love are sexually prompted, but gradually the carnal
motivation assumes a spiritual or contemplative aspect under specific
conditions. To them, love is primarily sexual, with only occasional
platonic manifestations. However, this dual or two-fold quality of love
is affirmed by them only in terms of its expression, objective and
effects. There is no duality in so far as the origin and causation of
love are concerned.
With regard to the last category of thinkers mentioned above, it is not
a matter of surprise that they believe in a material basis of human
spirituality They see no unsurmountable difficulty in the mutual
transformation of the material and spiritual aspects of human behavior.
In fact, one of them claims that every spiritual affair has a natural
basis and every natural thing has a spiritual extension.[^1]
Be that as it may, we need not discuss the above in any great
psychological and philosophical depth. We can thus avoid going into the
pros and cons of the many ancient and current interpretations of any
basis of love. For the time being, it should be enough to suggest that
love, in effect, can bring about creativity of the human intellect and
spirit, as well as induce artistic and cultural refinements of
sociological importance.
The above suggestion is valid, irrespective of whether or not love
originates in the sexual instinct, and then becomes capable of
expressing itself in physical and also spiritual terms, in an
interchangeable manner. Any sublime effect of love is far different from
its alleged instinctiveness, or simple animal-like concupiscence, which
seeks no more than its physiological gratification.
Love does evidence itself as lust in some circumstances. When lust
overtakes human beings, the latter become self-centered, regarding love
as a mere tool or means of self gratification. However, when human
beings evidence love as a genuine affection, they are no longer
self-centered. On the contrary, their love signifies the most desirable
spirit of self-sacrifice.
In other words, individuals in genuine love are capable of overcoming
their self-centered motivations for the sake of each other.
World literature is replete with love's many-splendored qualities,
including those of a catalyst, teacher and inspirer. From Persian
literature, we may quote a verse from Sa’di, as follows:
هر كه عشق اندر او كمند انداخت
بمراد ويش به بايد ساخت
هر كه عاشق نگشت ، مرد نشد
نقره فائق نگشت تا نگداخت
Whoever falls in love beyond himself,
yields to love but his own self,
Whoever loved not, evolved not manfulness,
Silver unmelted gives not brightfulness.
Another famous Iranian poet, Hafiz, refers to a nightingale's love of
roses and muses as follows:-
بلبل از فیض گل آموخت سخن ور نه نبود,
این همه قول و غزل تعبیه در منقارش
By rose's grace, nightingales do their singing
All those songs and lyrics so pleasing
Beyond what their beaks do improvising!
* *
No doubt, love has been eulogized in many ways, both in the East and
West. Yet, there has come to be a difference between the Eastern and
Western conceptualization of love. To many Westerners, love can be
worthwhile as long as it embodies the sweetness mutually attainable by
lovers. Individuals of opposite sex in the West prefer the desirability
and enjoyability of living together, in mutual love and comfort, to the
constant annoyance and boredom of living as singles. They aim at
maximizing enjoyment of life.
In the East, love is regarded as something inexorably desirable in
itself. For, it lends an overall perspective to the human personality,
while ennobling and inspiring the spirit. No wonder, love has been
described as a catalyst, purifier and in similar other ways. Evidently,
in all these and other attributes, one can hardly discern any implicit
suggestion to the effect that love is no more than an introduction to
the sweet union that usually follows it, or to mere feelings of enjoying
living together in body and spirit.
Even to some impressionable Easterners, love between prospective
spouses may signify something preliminary to their subsequent pleasures
of union and living together only. However, even their preliminary
experience of being loved by each other can (or ought to) progressively
enhance their humaneness. This is not like its becoming something merely
conducive to any anticipation of enjoyments from conjugal relations or
cohabitation.
In either case, if love is construed as a real introduction to union of
man and woman, in terms of becoming one in body and spirit, this is all
the more conducive to the wholesomeness of human achievement.
In short, in love, as in several other matters, Westerners and
Easterners differ in their intellectual. approach. A typical Westerner
is often unable to nurture love within any abstract framework that goes
beyond any mechanical process of coping with problems of routine living.
Eventually, he comes round to distinguishing love from lust, and also to
believing in empathy and spiritual harmony, which it is capable of
breeding.
Otherwise, love comes to him as a handy natural talent, leading to
marriage or cohabitation, according to the social requirements of
living. On the other hand, a typical Easterner seeks to cherish love
beyond the requirements of routine living.
Had love been sexual in origin, quality and effect, probably it would
not have necessitated separate treatment in sexual ethics. Whatever was
discussed earlier concerning the pros and cons of sexual ethics would
have been rather sufficient. However, love's origin or, at any rate, its
psychological quality and social effects can be quite safely construed
as independent of the sexual instinct.
Accordingly, morals concerning nurturing of human inclination to love
can be treated in a manner distinguishable from that of the sexual
instinct. Gratifying the sexual instinct is not the only concomitant of
love. For, sexual gratification is not enough to sustain love, which
needs psychological contentment, too. Moreover, any denial of love can
possibly lead to afflictions, which cannot be remedied by any animal-
like gratification of the sexual instinct, assuming that the former is
derived from the latter.
Bertrand Russell endorses the need for profound love as follows:
Those who have never known the deep intimacy and the intense
companionship of happy mutual love have missed the best thing that life
has to give; unconsciously, if not consciously, they feel this and the
resulting disappointment inclines them towards envy, oppression and
cruelty.[^2]
* *
Sometimes, it is claimed that religion is love's enemy. The usual
reasoning behind the claim is based on a situation, where a religion
fails to distinguish between love and lust. Thus, the wickedness of lust
is ascribed to love, as well. The allegation is not true in the case of
Islam.
Yet, it can be relevant to Christianity. Islam does not treat sexual
passion as wicked in itself, not to speak of considering its direct or
indirect association with love as something bad or undesirable.
Deeply sincere and mutual love between spouses is highly respected in
Islam. Islamic teachings commend realization of love on a sound and
lasting basis.
In the general context of religion versus love, there is one point that
is often overlooked. This concerns the tendency for mutual opposition
between human intellect and love. Some moralists have wrongly overlooked
this in indiscriminately excluding love from morality. They only
regarded love as blind and capable of overruling the intellect. They
believed that love is not amenable to reason, inferring wrongly that it
is also least susceptible to conventional and legal, or moral,
disciplining. In other words, they saw nothing but anarchic exuberance
and rebelliousness in love.
Accordingly, religions or social systems, which based their morality on
intellectual considerations alone, were not conducive to any salutary
treatment of love. They treated love as something beyond the scope of
any recommendation or advice. This is notwithstanding the fact that what
is deserving of advice in matters of love can well concern one's
modality of response to any casual manifestation of love in extenuating
circumstances over which one is supposed to have no control. This is in
order to maximize the sublime and beneficial effects of love, while
remaining immune to its harmful consequences, if any.
In the above context, the main question that arises concerns the
mutually inclusive relationship of love and chastity. One may ask
whether or not love can, in its most positive sense, flourish in any
permissive social environments. Or, is it simply a question of whether
or not love's meaningfulness is invariably linked with any social
preference for chastity, envisaging a certain prosaic status for
women?
In his book: The Pleasures of Philosophy, Will Durant acknowledged
that love was generally agreed to be the most fascinating thing in the
course of human life. At the same time, he noted with surprise that very
rarely attention was focused on the origin and growth of love, in the
relevant multilingual, poetic and philosophical works of most
sensational poets and writers on the subject of love.
Will Durant further pointed out that the analytical part of literary
and scientific material concerning love was extremely limited. Typical
coverage ranged from the ordinary reproduction of protozoa to the
self-sacrificing spirit of Dante, or the poetic ecstasies of Petrarch
among similar others. In all these efforts, any thorough investigation
of the astonishing factuality, the natural origin, the factors in
wholesome evolutionary growth and similar other aspects of love were
found by him to be missing.
Earlier herein, we have identified three distinct schools of ancient
arid. modern thought concerning the origin and purpose of love, so as to
deduce its unique or two- sided interaction with the sexual instinct. We
have noted that love, as conceived in the West and the East both, is
distinct from lust. Also, it is universally recognized as praiseworthy
and respectable, although the relevant conceptualizations differ, as
already explained. What remains to be examined now is mainly the
question of love in relation to chastity, specially in order to specify
the areas and conditions in which they can flourish.
With regard to love and chastity, the relevant social regulations can
be either explicit or implicit in moral terms. Where these are
explicitly regulated, women may be assigned an elevated position in
society, so that they are ordinarily not approachable by men. In the
other situation, where love and chastity are implicitly promoted; but
not regulated, women's position is subject to the utter tedium of
placing themselves at the disposal and protection of their men. One may
wonder as to which one of these two sets of conditions are apt to
enhance love and chastity.
Incidentally, it is notable that the so called open or permissive
societies are ipso facto incapable of promoting conditions for any
deep and intense love relationships. Their conditions lead to
waywardness and wantonness, in the process of seeking transient affairs,
if not while indulging in momentary and lustful pleasures. No wonder,
women's position in these so called free environments continues to be
rather prosaic, while both men and women remain liable to miss heartfelt
and genuine mutual love and responsiveness.
Permissive social environments further sensuality and licentiousness.
They are not conducive to beneficial love held in esteem by philosophers
and sociologists, in terms of its intensely evolved, deeply responsive
and unselfish effects. Given appropriate social conditions, love can
indeed enable personalities mellowed by it to concentrate individual
energies for good purposes, render their perceptions clear and keen,
induce empathy towards the beloved, as well as promote genius- like
originality and excellence of thoughts and achievements.
Genuine love's wholesome qualities have been commended not only by the
ancients, but the modern writers, including some who favored the
proposed new sexual freedom. In his magnum opus: History of
Civilization, Will Durant mentioned about both male homosexual
connotation of the traditional Greek depiction of love in their ballads
and the heterosexual love episodes of the Thousand and One Night fame,
dating back to centuries earlier than those of the Middle Ages. He
indicated that interest in the oriental stories of natural love grew to
an extent more than that in the routine. exhortations of the Church
towards promoting chastity and virtue.
Furthermore, Will Durant regarded a literary compilation, such as the
Thousand and One Night, as a possible source of inspiration for the
subsequent lyrical compositions abroad. He referred to one usually
sarcastic contemporary Western writer's extraordinary remark to the
effect that love meant the same to human carnality as life signified to
human spirituality.
Indeed, as observed by Will Durant, many began to wonder how the
abstraction of human sensuality into the most sensible love can be
explained. People became curious about the intellectual and similar
other factors that transform an animal-like instinctive hunger, such as
evidenced at times by human concupiscence, into serene and tender love.
The curiosity revolved around the point as to how the carnal passion
might become the spiritual compassion.
Will Durant further probed into any introspective sublimation of carnal
desires and the consequent platonic imaginings about a beloved in
various intellectual contexts. He raised a question as to whether or not
the aforesaid sublimation was the conspicuous outcome of the growth of
civilization, involving progressively late marriages!
He apparently believed that an answer to the question he posed might
lie in a human tendency. He pointed out that whatever one sought and did
not find could become dear and extraordinarily valuable. Thus,
appreciation of beauty could vary with the intensity of desire. And,
desire would tend to intensify when inhibited and to diminish when
satisfied.
Will Durant referred to William James contention that female modesty
was riot instinctive, but inculcated by successive generations of women,
out of fear that any behavior to the contrary would attract undesirable
interest or contempt of others. He pointed out that shameless women
could not be of any sustained interest to men. Only women who refrained
from any exuberant gaiety and who abstained from either inviting or
conceding male attention were best oriented to attracting men.
According to Will Durant, any exposure of the intimate parts of the
human body, from their normal state of concealment, might not evoke more
than casual interest on the part of viewers. In any case, it would
seldom lead to any instant arousal of carnal desire. For, even young men
would prefer modesty in young women. In doing so, they might not
necessarily comprehend that the delicateness of female reserve could be
indicative of a high degree of tactful reaction, as well as
tenderness.
Furthermore, modesty in women might be capable of endearing them to men
and awakening mutual love, in anticipation of any subsequent
consummation. Thus, men could be prompted to enhance their capabilities
and resolution towards significant achievements, by drawing on their
otherwise dormant life- oriented energies.
At the same time, Will Durant mentioned the fact that modern young
women would seem to be only too willing to discard conventional
morality, as if it were some old clothes that went out of fashion. He
observed that these women could be audacious not only in displaying
themselves, but in their sartorial tastes. Consequently, diminished
masculine imaginability concerning female appeal was specified by him to
be the only adverse effect of the radical change in the women's outlook
and behavior. He opined that, had it not been for men's residual
imaginability, perhaps there would have remained no visualization of
female beauty.
As for Bertrand Russell's romantic love, we may quote his own words as
follows:
"The essential of romantic love is that it regards the beloved object
as very difficult to possess and as very precious . ... The belief in
the immense value of the lady is a psychological effect of the
difficulty of obtaining her, and 1 think it may be laid down that when
a man has no difficulty in obtaining a woman, his feeling towards her
does not take the form of romantic love." [^3]
Then, Bertrand Russell says:
"From the point of view of the arts, it is certainly regrettable when
women are too accessible; what is most to be desired is that they should
be difficult but not impossible of access . ... In a state of complete
freedom, on the other hand, a man capable of great love poetry is likely
to have so much success through his charm that he will seldom have need
of his best imaginative efforts in order to achieve a conquest." [^4]
Furthermore, he mentions in another context as follows:-
"Among modern emancipated people, love in the serious sense with which
we are concerned is suffering a new danger. When people no longer feel
any moral barrier against sexual intercourse on every occasion when even
a trivial impulse inclines to it, they get into the habit of
dissociating sex from serious emotion and from feelings of affection;
they may even come to associate it with feelings of hatred."[^5]
[^1]: Will Durant, The Pleasures of Philosophy, Simon and Schuster, Inc, New York
[^2]: Bertrand Russell: Marriage and Morals, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London. Paperbacks Ed. 1976, p. 84
[^3]: Bertrand Russell: Marriage and Morals, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London. Paperbacks Ed. 1976, p. 49.
[^4]: Bertrand Russell: Marriage and Morals, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London. Paperbacks Ed. 1976, p. 53-54.
[^5]: Bertrand Russell: Marriage and Morals, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London. Paperbacks Ed. 1976, p. 38.