FAtemeh is FAtemeh Part Two

Fatemeh is Fatemeh by: Dr. Shariati

CHAPTER FOUR

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE?

Islam distributes freedom. People are in love with Islam and

yet, the young intellectuals realize the weakness and

decline of Islam's followers. The main reason for this con-

tradiction is 'not having come to know'. It is coming to know

which has value. Love and faith have no value if they precede

coming to know and precede chose or commitment. If the Koran

is read but not understood, it is no different from a blank book.

The Prophet gave his followers awareness, greatness, chastity

and freedom when they came to know who he was. When one

reads a book mis-stating the Prophet's character or when a book

of his sayings is not given to his longing people, what effect can

loving him, praising and eulogizing him have?

Love and faith follow coming to know something. It is that

which moves the spirit and brings up the nation. This is why

the face of Fatima has remained unknown behind the constant

praise, eulogies, and lamentations of her followers.

In Muslim societies there are three faces of woman. One is

the face of the traditional woman. Another is the face of the new

woman, European-like, who has just begun to grow and intro-

duce herself. The third is the face of Fatima which has no

resemblance whatsoever to that of the ethnically Muslim

woman. The face of the ethnically Muslim woman, which has

taken form in the minds of those loyal to religion in our society,

is as far away from the face of Fatima as Fatima's face is from

the modern woman's.

The crises which we are facing in the world today, in the

East, and in particular in Islamic society, the contradictions

which have appeared are all the result of the break-down of

human qualities. It has come from the agitation which affects

the way a society behaves and thinks. Principally, the changing

human form has produced a particular type of intellectually

educated man and woman, modernists, who contradict the reli-

gious man or woman. No power could have prevented the

appearance of this contradiction.

This is neither to confirm this change nor to deny it. That is

not within the scope of this discussion. Rather, we refer to the

change in society, the change in the dress of man, his thoughts,

his lifestyle and his direction in life. Woman also follow this

change. It is not possible that she remain in her same mould.

In previous generations a son was inclined to fit exactly into

his father's mould. His father had no fear that his son might be

other than him. There was no difference between them. There

were such strong feelings and ties between them that no doubt

or indecisiveness could be heard in their words. But today it is

not like this. One of the peculiarities of our generation, whether

in the East or in the West, is the distance between the older and

younger generations. From the point of view of 'calender time',

their distance is 30 years, but from the point of view of society's

time, 30 centuries.

Yesterday, society was permanent. Values and social charac-

teristics seemed unchangeable. In a period of 100, 200, 300

years, nothing changed. The foundation of society, the forms of

production and distribution, the type of consumption, the social

relationships, the government, the religious ceremonies, the

negative and positive values, the art, the literature, the lan-

guagc and all other things-were the same during the lifetime

of a grandfather and of his grandchild.

THE WORTHY AND TNE UNWORTHY

In such fixed worlds and closed societies, where society's

time stands still, men and women are of a permanent type. It is

perfectly natural that a daughter be an exact copy of her moth-

er. If there is a difference of opinion between a mother and her

daughter, it only relates to extraneous things or it arises from

daily conflicts. In the world today, a girl, without having gone

astray, without having fallen into corruption, creates a distance

between herself and her mother. They are strangers to each

other. An age difference of 15, 20 or 30 years separates them

into two distinct people, two different human beings attached to

two different social cycles, attached to two different histories,

two different cultures, two different languages, two different

visions and two different lives. Their relationship is such that

only their home addresses are the same.

In the external forms of society, we see this same contradic-

tion and historic distance between two generations, two types of

visions. For example, we see flocks of sheep grazing on the

asphalt streets of Tehran, and being milked in front of the con-

sumer-resident of the capital at the same time that pasteurized

milk is available in the stores. Or, we see a camel standing next

to a Jaguar sports car. The distance is the same as that which

separated Cain and Abel from the electronic age and automo-

biles.

We see a mother and daughter, with this distance between

them, walking shoulder to shoulder down the street, one eating

bakhlava and the other chewing gum. When you add these two

together, you do not get a natural, permanent sum. It is obvious

that the mother is beginning the last years of her life. She is

pulled and preserved by habit. The daughter, on the other hand,

is just beginning the first days of her life's journey. It is clear

that the daughter will never become the type who eats bakhla-

va with relish.

Yet the mother and daughter will eventually become identi-

cal. The mother will have the same relationship to her daugh-

ter that she had to her own mother.

The change from this type of mother to the new type of

daughter is inevitable. Only beginners write about this phe-

nomenon of change. They have not sensed the abusive lan-

guage, accusations, anger, punishments, and deprivations.

They have not sensed the chains and irons around the necks.

They have never kicked and screamed or cried out in pain. They

have never fainted from loss of strength.

These observers of change in society are just beginning to

touch upon these issues, but the work has already been done.

They are wasting their efforts. The* results are worth less than

zero. The opposition is strengthened.

Those who act as guides, who give explanations, in the

name of faith, religion and charity are also mistaken in trying

to save forms inherited from the past. They try to preserve old

customs and habits. They are referred to in the Koran as 'tales

of the ancients', 'the ancients,' Segends of the ancients', 'fathers

of old', 'fables of the ancients', and 'stories of yore'.

These words all refer to the first myths and first fathers.

But those who act as guides see old as synonymous with tradi-

tional. As a result, they call every change, including even

change in dress or hair-do, infidelity. They mistakenly believe

that the spiritual source and the belief in submission to God

(islam) can only be preserved through the worship of anything

which is old. They turn away from anything new, from any

change and from any re-birth .

Woman, in their view, must also remain as she is today

because, simply enough, her form existed in the past and has

become part of social traditions. It may be 19th century, 17th

century or even pre-lslamic, but it is considered to be religious

and Islamic. It must, therefore, be preserved. Those who seek to

guide accept this view because it has become part of their way

of life and because it suits their interests. They try to remain

the same and hold onto things of the past forever. They say,

"Islam wanted it to be this way. Religion has taken this form. It

should remain like this until Judgment Day."

But the world changes. Everything changes. Mr. X and his

son change. But a woman must retain her permanent form. In

general terms, their point of view is that the Prophet sealed

woman into her traditional form and that she must retain the

characteristics which Haji Agha, [her husband], inscribed in

her.

This type of thinking tends to lead us astray. If we wish to

keep the forms because of our own inexperience, time itself will

outrun us. We must realize that destruction is also a reality.

Insistence upon keeping these forms will bear no fruit as soci-

ety will never listen. It cannot listen because these are mortal

transient customs.

Those who seek to guide try to explain social traditions

which have come into being through habit, in religious terms.

When we equate religion with social or cultural traditions, we

make Islam the guardian of declining forms of life and society.

We confuse cultural and historical phenomena with inherited,

superstitious beliefs. Time changes habits, social relationships,

indigenous, historical phenomena and ancient, cultural signs.

We mistakenly believe the Islamic religion to be only these

social traditions. Aren't these great errors committed today?

Aren't we seeing them with our own eyes?

THREE CLEAR METHODS OF PROBLEM SOLVING

There are three well-known methods of problem-solving.

Conservatism is the method used by the guardians of

Traditions-as interpreted by culture. It is used by leaders who

guard and preserve society so that the guardians have some-

thing to guard.

The logic of the conservative is this: If we change the cus-

toms of the past, it is as if we had separated the roots from the

trunk of a tree. The cultural relationships which are preserved

in custom are connected to the body of society like a hierarchy

of nerves. If the roots are destroyed, so is the rest of the tree.

It is exactly because of this that after a great revolution,

anguish, confusion and/or dictators come into being. Hastily

digging out the roots of social and cultural phenomena in a

quick, revolutionary manner will cause society to face a sudden

void. The unfortunate results of this void will be made apparent

after the revolution subsides.

Revolutionism is a method used by leaders who tear out

things by the roots, believing that all custom is based only on

old superstitions and, is, therefore, reactionary and rotten. The

reasoning of the revolutionary runs like this: by retaining out-

dated cultural customs, we keep society outdated and living in

the past. We stagnate. Thus a revolutionary leader says that all

forms inherited from the past should be eliminated because

these forms are like chains around our wrists, feet, spirit,

thoughts, will and vision. All of our relationships to the past

should be done away with. New rules should replace old.

Otherwise society remains behind, fanatic, stagnant, and bound

to the past.

Reformism is a method used by people who believe in grad-

ual change. These people lay the groundwork for gradual

change in social conditions. Reformism is the middle way

between the other two. The reasoning of the returner is just as

weak as that of the other two methods. He takes a third way,

believing change should be quiet and gradual so that the differ-

ent factions do not oppose each other. If change is gradual,

reformers reason, the foundation of society will not take on a

revolutionary form but rather change over a long period of time.

Thus, programs should be graduated to reach this end.

But the method of reformism or gradual evolution usually

faces negative, strong reactions from internal and external ene-

mies during the long time period this method requires. These

forces either stop it or destroy it.

If, for instance, we wished to change the ethics of our youth,

or if we wanted to enlighten the thoughts of all people, we

would be destroyed before we could reach our goal. Or, perhaps,

corrupt, circumstances would dominate and deceive society and

paralyze us. A leader who tries to gradually bring about change

in society over a relatively long period of time believes that he

used logic in calculating his programs. But such a leader does

not take into account the powers seeking to neutralize change.

One does not always have the time necessary to neutralize pow-

ers which are against change. Reactionary elements do not

always give the time necessary to leisurely implement gradual

changes. Factors considered minor make themselves manifest.

THE PARTICULAR METHOD OF THE

PROPHET STEMMING FROM HIS TRADITIONS

The Traditions of the Prophet (ahadith), so important in

Islam, consist of the words which he spoke, the laws he brought,

the deeds he performed, things he remained silent about or did

not disagree with and deeds he actually performed in his life-

time without telling others that they should themselves per-

form them. The Traditions of the Prophet, then, are his words

and his conduct. These become the rules of Islam which are

divided into two groups: first, those which existed before Islam

but were confirmed by the Prophet (signed rules); second, those

which had not existed previously but were established by Islam

(created rules). Besides these signed and created rules and the

words and deeds of the Prophet, a third principle can also be

perceived. It is my belief that it is the most sensitive. It is the

method that the Prophet used.

The Prophet preserved the form, the container of a custom

which had deep roots in society, one which people had gotten

used to from generation to generation and one which was prac-

ticed in a natural manner, but he changed the contents, the

spirit, the direction and the practical application of customs in

a revolutionary, decisive and immediate manner.

He was inspired by a particular method which he uses in

social combat. Without producing negative results, without con-

taining any of the weak points of the other methods, his method

contained the positive characteristics of the others. Through the

customs of society which apply the brakes, he quickly attained

his social goals. His revolutionary method was this: he main-

tained the container of a social tradition but inwardly changed

the contents.

He used this method in reconciling social phenomena. He

adopted a process and method which is a model for all problem

solving. This method can be applied to two problems or two phe-

nomena which in no way resemble each other. Recognizing how

important this method is, we cannot fully explore it here. We

can only clarify it by a few examples.

Before Islam, there was a custom of total ablution which

was both a belief and a superstition. The pre-lslamic Arabs

believed that when a person had sexual intercourse, he or she

incarnated jinn [spirits which inhabit the earth], thereby ren-

dering both body and soul unclean. Until he or she found water

and performed a total ablution, the jinn could not be exorcised.

Another example is the pilgrimage to Makkah. Before

Islam, it was an Arab custom, full of superstitious ancestor wor-

ship. It was a glorified type of idol worship, holding economic

advantage for the Quraysh tribe. It had gradually come to

assume this form from the time of Abraham. Islam kept the pre-

lslamic custom of pilgrimage, believing that Abraham, the

Friend of God, had built the Kabah which (after a period of

decline) had been purified of its idols and renewed.

The basis of the pilgrimage had been twofold: to protect the

economic interests of the Quraysh merchants in Makkah and to

create an artificial need among the Arab tribes for the Quraysh

nobility. It was revealed to the Prophet of Islam to take this

form and change it into a most beautiful and deep rite founded

upon the unity of God and the oneness of humanity.

The Prophet, with his revolutionary stand, took the pil-

grimage of the idol-worshipping tribes and changed it into a

completely opposite rite. It was a revolutionary leap. As a

result, the Arab people underwent no anguish, no loss of values

or beliefs, but rather, revived the truth and cleansed an ancient

custom. They moved easily from idol worship to unity.

Suddenly, they had left the past. Their society was not aware

that the foundations of idol worship had been torn down. This

leap, this revolutionary social method found within the

Traditions of the Prophet preserved the outer form but changed

its content. It maintained the container as a permanent ele-

ment but changed and transformed the content.

The conservative, at whatever cost, tries, to the last bit of

his strength, to keep his customs-even if it means sacrificing

himself and others. (The revolutionary, on the other hand,

wants to change everything into another form all at once. He

wants to annihilate everything, to suddenly jump-whether or

not society is prepared to leap in that direction.) When the con-

servative senses the possibility of revolution, he turns to anger,

dictatorship, and extensive public murders not only against his

enemies but also against the people themselves. A reformer, on

the other hand, always gives a corrupter the opportunity to

destroy. The Prophet, through the inspired method of his work,

showed us that if we understand and can put his method into

action, we can behave in a most enlightened and correct way.

A clear-visioned intellectual, confronted by outdated cus-

toms, ancient traditions, a dead culture and a stagnant reli-

gious and social order, takes up the mandate of the Prophet

rather than submit to prejudices from the past. By this method

one can reach revolutionary goals without the danger of revolu-

tion, on one hand, and without opposing the basis of faith and

ancient social values on the other. By doing so, one does not

remove oneself from people, nor does one become a stranger on

whom people may turn and condemn. This method works

because the Prophet received knowledge from the divine

Infinite, because he asked for the help of revelation and because

he made use of what he received.

REALISM: A MEANS OF SERVING IDEALISM

One of the peculiarities of Islam is that it accepts both

beliefs which are identical to it as well as coercive beliefs of

society. It admits to the existence of both. Here the perception

of Islam is special.

The idealistic schools of thought embrace the highest val-

ues, the absolute and most desirable ideologies. Each and every

fact is categorically rejected if it does not suit them. They have

no patience. They deny unpleasant realities and dig out the

roots of anger. Anger, violence, pleasure-seeking and greed are

realities which do exist. Moral idealism or religious idealism

(i.e. Christianity) ignores these vices and denies their existence.

On the other hand, schools of thought which are based on

realism accept all things as the basis of reality. For instance,

sodomy is not accepted in England or in Christianity due to reli-

gious idealism, not reality. Divorce among Catholics is prohibit-

ed to preserve the family and to re-inforce the sacred nature of

marriage.

But reality is other than this. Some human beings cannot

preserve the first, sacred marriage and remain loyal to each

other. It so often happens that human beings grow apart during

their lifetime. They become strangers. They live together like

two pitiful people. That which has joined them is not love; it is

only the ties of law. They are afflicted. One might even become

lucky with someone else. This reality has existed in the past,

exists in the present and will exist in the future. Civilized and

uncivilized people, the religious and the nonreligious, have felt

it and continue to feel it. Statistics show it, but some Christian

groups deny this reality. They bind marriage to the sacred.

They force a family to stay together even when a real hell is

behind the doors, and the family has become a center of murder,

adultery and corruption. The door of divorce has been closed,

but thousands of windows of swindle and illegality have been

opened.

CONCUBINES

Social realities are such that if we do not open doors to

them, they will spring out from the windows. Forbidding

divorce brings about a type of concubinage. That is, a man who

cannot live with his legal wife separates from her without being

able to get a divorce. The same is true for a woman. She cannot

get a divorce, so she lives separately. They each live for years

separated from each other. Perhaps each finds another man or

woman. The children born out of such a situation are natural

but illegal. Such people often have sick beliefs and complexes.

Their spirit is anti-social.

Suppose a woman and her legal husband become strangers.

They begin opposing each other. They both reach the conclusion

that the relationship of husband and wife is not just sleeping

together. It cannot continue. They cannot even live as neigh-

bors. It is natural that they separate. The man leaves the

household and goes looking for the type of woman he always

wanted. Love, the need for a family life, and the pull of sex (one

way or the other) helps him to find a natural tie. The man and

his new partner find a place and live together. The wife's life fol-

lows exactly the same pattern and the same fate. As a result, we

see that nature and reality build two new families, two incom-

patible types find compatible partners.

But some Christian ideologies do not accept this reality.

Therefore, no one, including that man and woman, is responsi-

ble. People close their eyes so as not to see it. As a result, they

accepts, in legal terms, a decomposed house which has no

external existence. Its materials have all been used to make

another house. It is the former empty marriage which is

acknowledged as official, while these two natural families are

denied.

Here we see the distance between common law, civil law and

religious law, and we see how natural forces, realities and oppo-

sitions arise. As a result, families which are Christian, do not

actually exist, while families which are real and natural are

considered to be corrupt and sinful Christianity, by denying this

reality, causes the family which comes into being to be illegal.

The children which are born of concubinage are also illegal.

>From the point of view of a religious society, they are criminals.

They do not have a share in the kindness of the family nor the

purity of society. Society looks upon them as sinners. Complexes

arise within them. They suffer anger and anguish which is

beyond imagination. They take their revenge on society.

Crimes which occur in Europe and, in particular, in

America, do not exist in backward and underdeveloped coun-

tries. The reason is that in these Western societies (even though

they have civilizations in the sense that they have culture,

ethics, nourished minds, freedom of thought, etc.), there is

something born into this generation which makes them take

revenge upon society in the worst of forms.

An Englishman had built something which resembled a

very small bow and arrow. He had attached this to a box upon

which he had displayed cigarettes, selling them along the

streets and at movie houses. With this device, he shot a tiny poi-

son tipped arrow into a group of people blinding or killing them.

The police could not find the killer. They were looking for a

motive connecting the murderer and the murdered. But the

murderer had no particular reason for murdering those people.

He murdered simply because other people were accepted by

society and he was not.

Such a murder can be explained as the result of complexes

which the church refuses to accept. It thus has had a hand in

bringing misfortune about. Fortunately, we have not yet seen

such complexes here. Because there is divorce in our society,

there are no illegal families. Because there is divorce there is no

family which is a non-entity forced to live with each other under

common law. We do not bind people together through the force

of law.

A child wanted to go out of a room, but a samavar, a teapot

and various dishes were in the way. He closed his eyes and tried

to pass through. He thought all the obstacles were gone.

Idealism is like a child who does not see reality. It does not want

to see reality. It closes its eyes to that which it does not want to

see. Because it does not see obstacles, it thinks they do not

exist.

The opposite of idealism is realism. Its followers see every-

thing, no matter how ugly or unpleasant, simply because it has

an external existence. They accept a thing, attach their hearts

to it and find faith. They oppose and reject, however, all beauty,

truth and correctness simply because these do not record with

existing realities. Through this rejection, they become unbe-

lievers.

One of my students, who was among the pseudo enlightened

of this country, drew only one conclusion from our conversa-

tions. As he was a supporter of dialectical materialism and I

was religious, a believer in Islam, he rejected whatever I said

because of his pre-conceived notions. Even if I said something

which agreed with Marxism (with which he should have agreed)

without attributing the idea, he rejected it.

One day I was speaking about the murders committed by

the Umayyids and the disagreements which existed between

the classes. The Umayyids had a political dictatorship which

dominated religion in order to justify their situation. They

wanted people to believe that whatever happened was God's

will. This, they said, was particularly true about their own gov-

ernment. I spoke about the people who opposed them and

resisted the situation. I saw how my student suddenly became

unhappy. I was opposing the Umayyids. I was praising the

Prophet, the Companions, Fatima, Abu Dharr, Hujr and

Husayn as leaders of a movement for justice and human free-

dom against prejudice, oppression and ignorance. What could

this first class enlightened thinker do? He yelled out, 'The

despot is history!'

According to the Marxist philosophy of history, society must

move through historic phases in a certain predictable sequence.

Ali, Husayn and Abu Dharr were ideologists who opposed the

despotism of history. I said, 'The Mercy of God be upon this

enlightened one.'

I see that I was right in re-iterating the fact that when the

level of thought and vision of a society is transformed, the reli-

gious, non-religious, enlightened, reactionary and ignorant

scholar are all the same. When a religious view prevails, all

unknown and uncomprehended facts are called it calls it fate

and destiny Such a view believes that whatever occurs is the

When a society becomes Marxist, it believes in the despo-

tism of history. It believes that whatever happens is beyond

human will. Whatever exists is accepted because it is a reality

resulting inevitably from the processes of history. I said, 'No

look my friend, the sword is the despot here, not history.'

We see that realists believe that whatever exists should be

as it is! The members of the Parliament in England defend the

laws of homosexuality because homosexuality is an objective

reality which exists in society. Therefore, it must be made legal.

To oppose this realism is to worship idealized fantasies

which form the outlook of politicians and pseudo-intellectuals.

You do not hear them argue that Israel is a reality. The settle-

ment of the Palestinian people in lands occupied by Israel is a

manifestation of someone who worshiped the ideal. Even

though it is wrong, it is a reality which a realist must accept.

Although it goes against the grain of humanity, although it is

murder, it exists. Politicians and intellectuals accept it, and

officially recognize it.

A magazine entitled 'This Week' has recently been published

for young people. All the articles, translations, news items and

photographs are the output of only two or three well-known

writers using pen names. These writers visit whore houses and

then, damn them. They write for our young people giving them

a point by point description of events which take place. One of

the top writers (who is too knowledgeable) is a politician who

offlcially represents Islamic culture! He advises women who are

overweight and unhappy because of it to find an illicit lover as

a solution to their obesity. This is all a reality. Most probably

the writers of "This Week" had first scientifically experienced

this form of weight loss.

Abuse of the weak by the strong is also a reality. Oppression

and suppression of certain classes are also realities. Reality

seekers are completely objective viewers. They see the external

form which is a scientific and sensible reality. Then they judge.

They face no difficulties with imagination, ideology and ideas

which are not translated into real forms.

We see that an idealist, a thinker, a reformer tends towards

mental desires, ideals and sacred values, but denies or rejects

the realities which deviate from his beliefs. It is impossible to

negate them. He turns his back on them, or else, through inex-

perience, rejects them. He pulls. himself away from realities.

He thinks in terms of imagery. He occupies a sacred place but

does not realize that he is in an idealistic environment.

A realist, on the other hand, kills flights of thought, visions,

efforts, mental longings of perfection. A realist keeps everything

as it is. He builds walls around the framework of existing val-

ues and within the existing situation. He paralyzes creative

thought, rebellion and the deep changes of life. His needs and

desires tend only towards the present, external purposes of

mankind. He surrenders to realities and nourishes that which

exists.

NEITHER IDEALISM NOR REALISM: BOTH

Islam is a pure tree which belongs neither to the East nor

the West but has its roots in the heavens and its branches

reaching towards the earth. Contrary to idealism, Islam recog-

nizes the realities of life (in both body and spirit) of the individ-

ual, as well as the realities of community relationships and of

the depths of a society seen only in the motion of history.

Islam like realism only admits to the existence of life's

harsher realities, but unlike realism, Islam does not accept the

status quo but seeks to change. It changes essence in a revolu-

tionary way. It carries the common idea of 'reality' along with its

ideals. It uses such realities as a means to reach its idealistic

goals, its real desires, which are without form by themselves.

Unlike realism, Islam does not submit to realities, but rather, it

causes the realities to submit to it. Islam does not turn away

from realities as idealists do. It seeks them out. It tames them.

Through this means, Islam uses that which hinders the ideal-

ists as raw material for its own ideals.

For example, Islam accepts divorce, a new marriage con-

tract and temporary marriage (in certain very exceptional

cases). Islam accepts divorce in certain social circumstances. If

it did not accept divorce, divorce would still exist, but it would

be outside its control. By accepting an unavoidable, natural

reality, it makes it into a legal form. As a result, one can con-

quer the sense of guilt one has in the eyes of God and society.

Thus, divorce is based upon ethical principles and religion is

preserved. Such people can nourish their environment. Society

does not look upon them as sinners or on their children as ille-

gal and impure.

Islam succeeded the day it admitted the existence of these

social and human realities. Because of this, it can control its

results. It can give realities a corrected legal form. It can bestow

an ethical and religiously accepted form upon amorphous 'facts'

By confirming and admitting the existence of reality, Islam

gains strength. It can then control, guide and dominate any

reality within its framework.

If we deny realities, they will dominate us. Without know-

ing it, we will be pulled wherever they want us to go, and we,

like the realists, will be drowned in existing realities, whether

good or bad. On the other hand, idealists make the mistake of

imprisoning themselves in the chains of useless customs

Realists move along with realities and accept them. Idealists

who do not recognize such realities, deny them through their

ignorance and their attachment to imaginary ideals. Idealists

are then attacked by realities. The idealists fall on their knees

because they are defenseless, inexperienced and weak. They are

destroyed.

We don't see the form that girls who are raised in very strict

religious homes take. We don't see how she covers her face so

that, God forbid, the fish in the courtyard pool do not see her

What happens when she enters the ocean of society? She vigor

ously swims, but she is so afraid that she loses control of herself

and drowns. In order to make up for what she lacks now, she

pays her fine a thousand times over

The same is true for young men who grow up in a pious soci-

ety. The nouveau riche have just moved from the former world

of their idealistic pseudo-religious environment in which they

were prohibited from learning physics or chemistry, and in

which women were forbidden to have a high school or college

education. The men did not shave their beards. They sat in

coaches instead of in buses or in taxis. They wore no neck-tie

They did not let their hair grow long. They did not change the

form of their clothes or their hair-style. They neither bought

radios nor did they spread the word of the Koran through a

microphone! Suddenly, these young people faced the new world

of realities, full of twists and turns.

You see what confusion it has caused. The newly rich young

person sees the pretense. He has learned certain airs through

watching Western films and TV. He has learned about showing

off luxury and being silly. He has seen the exaggeration of it all.

It is so exaggerated that even foreigners laugh about it. Why?

Because these pretenses exist side by side with reality whereas

we deny the realities before we even come to know them. This

is why we have been captured by our imagination.

This new civilization has attacked all boundaries toppled all

the watchtowers of the world. The new generation has been

caught in the whirling wind of the Renaissance, the 17th cen-

tury intellectual movements, the French revolution and the

industrialized life style. These historical events changed the

weather of the world. The change of atmosphere of our countrY

is also a reality. It is a most certain reality. It is clear that soon-

er or later lightening will strike. When it does, machines, print-

ing presses, books, newspapers, democracy, electronic mediaX

movies, schools, women's education, new industrial techniques,

new sciences, and many other new things will come and will

change us.

The leaders of the people, those responsible for ethics, those

who have been given the responsibility of guiding lives and

thoughts, those who stand face to face with unavoidable reali-

ties have closed their eyes. They have given their hearts to men-

tal ideologies and to their ancient thoughts. They have tried to

preserve their horse drawn carriages side by side with taxis.

They still light lamps when they have electricity. They cor-

rectly predict the rush to the inferior world. They know it will

bring about the decline of much belief, faith, piety, health and

independence. They know that corruption will find a home deeP

within people's brains. But face to face with this rush towards

modernity (and knowing the relationship which it imposes on

the furthermost points and on the most backward tribes of soci-

ety cven those in the depths of the desert) they only say one

thing and one thing only: Forbidden! Radio? Don't buy one-

Movies? Don't see them. Television? Don't watch. Loudspeaker?

Don't listen. University? Don't go. The new science? Don't studY

it. Newspapers? Don't read them. Vote? Don't do it. Office work?

Don t do it and..woman? Shhh...Don't mention that word!

Face to face with the flood of new technology covering the

globe, face to face with civilization which sells refrigerators to

the Eskimos, they attempt to completely defend the past. Their

total army and strategy consists of only two words: 'Forbidden!'

and 'No!'.

What is the result? What we see is what happens.

Contemporary events and realities break the barriers and tear

down the watch-towers. Realities tears down the bricks of the

walls and destroys the defenders of the past who hide with their

eyes closed and faces averted in disapproval

The force of these modern consumerist realities ruins every-

thing at once. They attack the city's inhabited areas, its

bazaars, mosques and even our homes like wild bulls, wolves or

chained dogs. They plunder everything. But they do not leave.

They come, they kill, they burn and they take, but they do not

leave as the army of Ghengis Khan left. Why?

Because no one even sees them. Our border guards, our

watchmen, don't like them. They are so exasperated that they

dont even bother to look at them. They don't want to go and

separate the good from the bad and correct them. They don't

want to adapt them to the climate and the people of our coun-

try. They don't want to choose among them. They don't want to

shame, control and dominate them. They stand in the middle of

the road facing a driverless car. They are run over and crushed.

This is why the veiled woman who wants to give birth to her

children, screams, aWhy men physicians? Why should women

not be treated by women physicians?" She wants her child to go

to school and to the university. Her cries increasc is this the

faculty of literature or a fashion show? Is this an Islamic uni-

versity? Is this an Islamic society? Does this school smell just a

bit of Islam? Does it contain a bit of ethics and meaning? Is this

the radio of a religious country or just a noise box? What kind

of a translation is this of one culture by another-this full-scale

importation of television, publications, laws, and banks? What

film iS this? What theater? What art? What craft? Really, what

kind of a civilization is this? But then again, as Hafez [the great

poet] has said,

As our destiny has been shaped in our absence

If only a little fails to accord with our wishes, don't worry

And, in our case, we have to say:

If all of this is not according to our wishes, don't worry!

When modernism came and found a place for itself, when it

begin to work, you were absent. You ran away. When you, a

pious man, a religious, ethical Muslim (sensitive to people's

feelings, responsible for the spirits and thoughts of society, pre-

server of the Islamic culture) sulk and retire into a corner, you

allow a Reza Khan to bring a new civilization into effect and to

employ a new industry and science.

It takes great effort to effectively interfere in events which

unfold. Yet it is only through this effort that one can guide the

determined motion of society. People who believe we should pre-

serve that which is incapable of being preserved which is dying

(and who are in a position to advise those who inspire, those

who appease and those who give condolences) do not recognize

the dangers. They create believers from among those who

accept the unacceptable. They delude the majority of society.

They keep them in an unholy state of prostration-silent, weak

and submissive.

Those who seek a flowing, active society and want a better

human life, acknowledge realities. They know pain. They take

their strength from pain in order to heal their wounds. This

group does not include those who, as demigods, defend that

which is incapable of being defended, or those who take the pub-

lic into their own hands, or those who follow the styles of the

day, or those who praise according to what is fashionable, or

those who try to attach themselves to something.

Those who acknowledge realities are people who know time

moves. They know that society has a skin which it sheds. They

feel that the strong forces of the world have turned to us to

make us change. Neither are they sufficiently without pain to

sit down and watch, nor are they, without shame, able to take

whatever job is handed to them. They are not so stupid as one

who sees a flood covering his town but protects only his wife and

children, pulls only his own carpet from the water. They know

that today is not like the past when families were living in a

closed society. Now, even if you hide your daughter in the back

room of your house, national and international television will

follow her, find her and show her the attractions of the outside

world.

CHAPTER FIVE

WHICH MOLD DO THEY FILL?

In reality, in our society, those who ask, 'Who am l?'Who

should I be?' or NVhat is my identity?' are of two types. Onr

type is a person attached to out-dated, existing traditions

hich are called religion and ethics and which that person

wants to impose upon others. He can't. Even though he knoWs

he can't, he still adheres to outdated customs. He still retain

them. He tries to impose them upon young people .

There is another type afraid to act even under the pseud-

name of intellectual, modernist or freedom-seeker because he

thinks, "If I interfere or negate or agree or control the 'ifs', I Will

be condemned as being old-fashioned, eastern, backward and

religious." So against the social changes, the changes in the

types of young men and women, he plays the role of a dead per

son. In other words, his child acts while the mother and father

create possibilities for him. They are called intellectual parents

But their silence and surrender does not stem from their ; intel-

lectual abilities. Nor does it come from their beliefs, but rather

from their impotency and weakness. He says to himself "If I

interfere, I will give up my outer, external strength to this show

and my inner emptiness." He shouts out, "Prestige, Papa!

These are two types, two types of people who can be molded

One is attached to the traditions of the Chahar Bagh in

Isfahan-huge, ugly, crooked and decayed. The second is a prod

uct of European brick kilns-straight, subtle, with

endurance, hollow and absurd.

These are two types and two ways, both of which are lost.

Why? One stands against the roaring flood of realities which is

about to ruin everything. He tries to turn back the waters with

his hands. He tries to stop the flow. He cries out, laments, sobs,

and swears at the flood, but the flood just builds up, flows out

and sinks everything in its way.

The other one stretches himself out next to the flood waters

like a dead person, like a useless observer. This dear man who

has no personality of his own, is quiet and works from morning

until night, committing murder, ripping people off, pickpocket-

ing, and performing a thousand dirty deeds. He tricks people

and then fills his pockets which he, in turn, empties into the

pockets of the foreign companies.

WOMEN WE CANNOT KNOW

There are only some European women whom we have the

right to recognize. It is they to whom we always have to refer.

They are the women introduced through magazines, television

and sexy movies. They are women made sexy by writers. They

are introduced to us as a universal type of European woman.

Let me tell you about the European girl we have no right to

know. At the age of sixteen she went to the deserts of Africa, to

the deserts of Algeria and Australia. She spent all of her life in

wild places. She lived with the threat of sickness, death and

wild tribes. Throughout her youth and old age she studied the

waves emitted from the antennae of ants. When she grew old,

her daughter carried on her work. The second generation of this

European woman returned to France at the age of fifty. At the

university she said, aI discovered the language of the ants and

I learned some of their signs of communication."

Also, we have no right to know Madame Gushan who spent

her whole life finding the roots of philosophical ideas and the

studying the wisdom of Avicenna, ibn Rushd, Mulla Sadra and

Haji Mulla Hadi Sabzevari. She also studied Greek philosophy

and many of the works of Aristotle and compared them with

Islamic material. She showed what our philosophers received

from them. She corrected that which had been badly translated

and incorrectly understood for a 1000 years of Islamic civiliza-

tion.

We have no right to know the Italian Mme. De la Vida. She

edited and completed the 'Science of the Soul' of Avicenna itself

based on the ancient Greek manuscript on the soul written by

Aristotle. We have no right to know Mme. Curie who discovered

radioactivity.

And what about Resass Du La Chappelle who knew more

about the sanctity of Ali than all the Islamic scientists. Resass

Du La Chappelle was a young, beautiful, free Swedish girl, born

far from Islamic culture. She was distant from Muslim behav-

ior and beliefs. From the beginning of her youth, she devoted

her life to knowing that unknown spirit in the structure of

Islam. She followed a man covered by the hatred of his enemies,

caught in traps laid by hypocrites and meaningless friends. She

discovered the most correct manuscripts about Ali. She came to

know the most subtle waves of his spirit, the depth of his feel-

ings and the highest peaks of his ideas. For the first time, she

felt his anger, pain, loneliness, brokenness, fear and needs. Not

only did she 'see' Ali in the Battles of Uhud, Badr and Hunayn,

but she found Ali praying in the mihrab of the mosque in Kufa.

She discovered his nights of complaining at the wells of

Madinah. She gathered together the Nahj al-balaqah to which

the Arab Muslims had access through the literary edition of

Muhammad Abduh, the great Sunni religious leader, but about

which the Jafaris had only lectures of Javad Fazel which had to

be read with the help of the Arabic text!

This girl-a disbeliever destined for hell-gathered all of

the writings of Ali from books, notebooks or manuscripts, hid-

den here and there. She read all of them and translated them

and interpreted them. The most beautiful and deepest writings

ever written about someone flowed from her pen. For forty-two

years she has continued to study, think, work and research Ali.

We have no right to know Angela, the American girl in

prison who is not only the hope of two countries, but of all the

free people of the world, of all the wounded, of all those con-

demned through racial discrimination-in other words, all the

oppressed.

We should not know that foreign women are not just toys of

the Don Juans who take money and jewels-female slaves serv-

ing men as long as they want them, as long as they are inter-

ested. We should believe that they are worthy only of man's

desires and lusts.

The foreign woman has progressed to the point of becoming

the embodiment of an ideology, of a country, of salvation and of

the honor of a generation. But we have no right to know her.

We only have the right to know fashion models and beauty

queens. We have only the right to know movie sex goddesses in

cheap exploitation films, the Queen of Monaco and all of the

seven female guards around James Bond. Such women are the

sacrifices made to European production. of Europe. They are

the toys and wind-up dolls of the wealthy. They are the slaves

of the houses of the new merchants.

We Muslims only have the right to know these examples of

the women of European civilization. I have never seen pho-

tographs from Cambridge, the Sorbonne or Harvard University

telling about female university students who go to the library to

work on 14th and 15th century manuscripts and to research

artifacts from 2500-3000 years ago in China. I have not seen

pictures of those who bend over Koranic manuscripts based

upon Latin. I have not seen pictures of those studying Greek,

Cuneiform and Sanskrit texts without moving and without

allowing their eyes to rove. They don't take their heads out of

their books until the librarian takes their books away or asks

them to leave.

You-men and women, seekers of knowledge, scholars,

researchers-have you ever heard of the famous German schol-

ar, Frau Hunekeh? Have you heard that she has recently writ-

ten a very comprehensive study of Islam and its influence upon

European civilization which has been translated into Arabic

and is entitled, The Arab's Sun Spreads over the West.

These are not today's women and they should not be known.

Why? Because one group is made up of old fashioned, ethnic cul-

tural-bound seekers. The other is superstitious, newly rich and

hidden, but at the same time known and apparent. If they join

hands, they will awaken us. They will destroy everything we

have. So people are obliged to take the form of tamed consumers

and quiet slaves.

These two groups, old-fashioned and newly wealthy, for all

practical purposes, work together to produce a new type. One

does this under the name of ethics and religion while the other

does this under the name of freedom and progress. The old-

fashioned woman is abused by prejudice and fanaticism. They

push her, leaving her without bread and water. They show her

anger. They have no compassion. They treat her so badly that

the woman, half crazy with her eyes and ears closed, throws

herself into the skirts of those with goat-like beards, who wel-

come her, take off their hats respectfully and with correct man-

ners, bend forward politely, smiling, and treating her gently.

The European woman about whom I was speaking, is a

woman of today. She delivered herself, but she is the progeny of

the Middle Ages. She is reacting to the inhuman treatment and

fanaticism of the priests of the Middle Ages, who, in the name

of Christianity and religion, misguided women and cursed and

enslaved them. They even said woman was hated by God and

was the main cause of Adam's fall from Paradise to the earth!

In the Middle Ages, people asked priests, "If there is a

woman in a house, should a man, who is not related, enter?"

The priests said, "Never. Because if the man is not related

and he enters the house where there is a woman cven if he

does not see the woman-still he has sinned."

In other words, if an unrelated man goes to the second floor

of the house and a woman is in the basement, sin occurs. It

seems that the sins of women spread through the air.

St. Thomas Dakin said, "If God should see the love for a

woman upon a man's face cven if the woman is his wife-he

becomes angry because no love, other than the love of God,

should sit upon his heart. Christ lived without a wife. A man

can be a Christian without having touched a woman. This is

why Christian brothers and spiritual fathers-and even

Christian sisters-never marry. They believe marriage is a tie

which arouses God's anger. We should only join with God

through Jesus Christ because two loves cannot fit into one

heart. Only those who remain unmarried can carry the Holy

Ghost."

In Christianity, the first sin was the sin of woman. Every

man, as the child of Adam, who turns towards a woman, even if

that woman be his wife, as Eve was the wife of Adam, repeats

the first, primordial sin. The sin and disobedience of Adam is

renewed in the memory of God!

Thus one must do something so that God will forget Adam

and his sin! This is why a woman in the thoughts of the people

of the Middle Ages was hated, weakened and held back from the

ownership of anything. Such hatred even extended to the point

that if a woman, owning property, went to her husband's house,

she lost the rights to her own property. Her ownership was itself

transferred to her husband. A woman had no legal status. The

effects of this can still be found in European civilization, which

is completely unacceptable to us.

Even today, if a woman marries, she changes her name. This

is not just for use in her home or unoffficially. Her education cer-

tificates, her identification, her passport-everything is

changed from carrying her father's name to her husband's

name. This means that a woman herself is nothing. She has no

essential existence. A name is significant. A creature who lacks

significance stands through others. In her parent's home, she

uses her father's name. She lives with her first owner. When

she goes to her husband's home, the name of another man (her

new owner) distinguishes her. She does not possess suffficient

value or credit to have a name of her own. Modern Muslims

believe that European tradition has also influenced Muslim

countries. They believe European traditions are better than

ours. Even if it is a tradition from the slave age, even if it is a

detested and ugly action, the very fact that it has a foreign

mark upon it is sufficient for our modernists to attempt to imi-

tate it. This is just an example which our pseudo-foreigners

take from the foreign 'better' race. Whatever that race does is

copied without even knowing its reason, purpose or value. Our

modernists have no common sense.

In imitating, whether by a modernist or by an old-fashion-

ist, choice is impossible. There is no questioning or judgment

about good or bad, no distinction between the useful and the

useless. The basis of all imitation is the principle that

"Whatever defect the king accepts is art." They confirm him

until it reaches the point where if he says, aDay is night," they

add, aYes. I see the moon and the stars."

In the offficial European marriage forms, the two people to

be married are asked, "Name?" Secondly, girl's family name. In

answering the first question, the family name which will be

taken after marriage, that is, the family name of the husband-

to-be is recorded. In answer to the second question, her unmar-

ried family name, the name of her father, is recorded

In other words, a woman belongs to the owner of the house

Even if a house had originally belonged to her, she could not

continue to own it because she was a woman. In her father's

house, it was her father's name and in her husband's house, it

is her husband's name which is used. This is why she offficially

changes her name through marriage.

Only an idiot ridiculously and unconsciously acts and thinks

like a foreigner because he or she cannot distinguish values.

This is why we say pseudo-foreigners have been born into our

modern society who do not resemble foreigners. Pseudo-

Europeans have come into existence for which no example in

Europe exists.

In Islam, from the very beginning, the purest form of Islam,

(not the present composite form of Islam), a woman is com-

pletely independent in respect to woman's rights. She can even

seek payment from her husband for nursing her child. She can

carry on her own businesses without any interference from her

husband. She can work. As to production she can independent-

ly and directly put her capital into effect. She has the most eco-

nomic independence of any member of society.

All of the anti-human and pseudo-religious pressures com-

mitted against European women in the name of religion have

caused a reaction. This reaction is directed against the Middle

Ages. The memory of it has remained with her. In Italy and

Spain where religion is still strong, women are denied many of

their human rights in spite of the signs of freedom and the

emphasis upon human rights.

We are talking about human freedom and social rights, not

sexual freedom and sexual rights. We see with what speed the

latter becomes prevalent. In return for the second world's (the

previous third world's oil, diamonds, rubber gum, copper, coffee

and uranium which inexpensively enter Europe, Europe

exports freedom, ethics, techniques, culture, art, literature and,

in particular, sex, to our hungry, plundered world. All the

means of advertisement, all the means of social, technical,

artistic and educational expertise of an underdeveloped country

are employed to serve propaganda, promotion and distribution.

These things are all other than freedoms and human rights!

Sexual freedom is deceiving. It is part of a new exploitation,

a type of limitless deception, which the impure system of

Western capitalism produces. It causes both the East and West

innocently to reach out towards it-until things get to the point

that the influencing West and the influenced East form a con-

tinuous culture.

The young generation (in particular, those who are rebel-

lious, audacious and have not been stupefied by religious stipu-

lations and the hereditary chains of traditions falls into the

Western trap. At any moment it is possible that, based upon

rebellion, they take up a notion contrary to their interests and

as a result put their heads into a cheap foreign lover's grasp and

thereby, become so drowned and giddy in the artificial freedom

presented by capitalists that they no longer know what the

world is about. They so completely saturate themselves with

materialism that they no longer sense their poverty and slav-

ery. We see to what extent the internal conditions of despotism

in Asia, Africa and Latin America have resulted in an insane

emphasis upon the rights and freedom of sex as advertised by

the Western capitalists. Sexual freedom is emphasized and

strengthened so that the groundwork is laid for its daily

increase.

We can, with a little bit of caution and discernment, come to

know what is behind these attractive forms of thunder-struck,

sexuality. It is none other than the denial of the modern world.

We have to come to know these great idols and the three faces

of the contemporary religious trinity: exploitation, colonializa-

tion and despotism. This trinity makes Freud a prophet. From

Freudism they build a supposedly scientific and human reli-

gion. From sexuality they build an ethical conscience. Finally,

from lust, a blessed temple is built. They build their place of

worship and create a powerful servant class. The first sacrifice

recorded on the threshold of this temple is woman.

WHO IS THE CONTEMPORARY WOMAN SERVING ONESELF VS. SERVING OTHERS

In the 15th and 16th centuries (following the Renaissance

and the passing away of customs and ancient religion) the

thought of Descartes and the logic of analytical science replaced

natural sensitivities and religious feelings. According to

Durkheim, individual autonomy in one's dealings with one's

society (family, tribe or country) and serving oneself as an inde-

pendent entity replaced the unity of society and the serving of

others. Utility replaces values. Realism replaces idealism.

Instincts replace spiritual efforts. Welfare and the problems of

life replace the search for perfection, consciousness of God and

self-sufficiency. Intelligent logic is consciously chosen to substi-

tute for the sacred and spiritual which, through an unaccept-

able materialist analysis are related to a kind of eternal plea-

sure.

Finally, known phenomena, capable of analysis and synthe-

sis, are considered to be relative and materialistic. They form

the people, life, culture, all of the dimensions of the earth, the

elements of society and the unlimited attractions of the new

spirit. They replace the essence of inspiration and the compos-

ite truths which are above one's individual will. They do away

with anything which is only understood by the supra-intellec-

tual (spiritual faculty)*that is, everything which is beyond log-

ical science, such as the eternal, hidden Platonic dimensions.

The roots of these dimensions exist in the depths of being.

Since the beginning of humanity, they have poked their heads

through. They are enigmatic attractions from another world.

They are from the essence of fate. They are absolute Their

source is divine destiny. Alas, nature has replaced metaphysics;

science has replaced inspiration; pleasure has replaced chasti-

ty; happiness has replaced perfection; and tranquility has

replaced piety. As Francis Bacon said, aPower has replaced

Truth."

This spiritual and intellectual change in the deep evolution

of human values has changed the main direction of culture,

knowledge and feelings. New means of earning a livelihood,

new view of love and the relationship between men and women,

the place of women in society and their relationship to men

have had revolutionary effects upon the roots of the fabric of our

life, literature, art and sensitivities.

All things are analyzed according to the science and posi-

tivist vision of Descartes. This includes the sacred and ethical

principles always viewed as values above human knowledge-

that is, divine virtues. These are now analyzed as material

things. Among these values are women and love, which had pre-

viously existed together in a halo of sanctity. They were hidden

in the imagination, spirit, and inspiration where they remained

untouched. Now they place them upon the blackboard and the

billboard.

One of the people responsible for this is Claude Bernard who

saw human beings as corpses without a spirit. Freud considered

the spirit to be a sick animal. For the bourgeoisie, life is money.

The result is what we see now.

Opposed to these were the Christian priests. Next to their

laboratories were churches. They had nothing to offer other

than 'excommunication'. They were club wielders whom no one

feared. Compared to materialists who at least reasoned and

gave examples, they simply cried out, 'Religion is dying!' They

issued unreasonable cannon laws. They constantly threw the

fire of hell into the faces of their parishioners but to no avail.

A woman, as far as her life was concerned, was part of a

family. Even though she had no independent human personali-

ty, at least she could easily be dissolved in the family, which was

one spirit. Little by little she became economically independent.

She began working outside of the home. With industrialization

in full swing, with daily progress and improvement in social

occupations, women went to work.

From society's point of view, economic independence has

also made her socially independent. Thereafter she found indi-

vidual existence beside her husband and children. Today, before

marriage and setting up a household, she has individual inde-

pendence. Because she has developed intellectually and logical-

ly, this has of itself altered her relationship with others (her

lover, her father and her family). Family life is no longer based

on sensitive feelings or intuitive attractions or deep, uncon-

scious, spiritual efforts but, rather, upon the linear principles of

intellectual accounting and detailed calculation. She has been

freed from many social, family and religious chains through her

accountant's vision of the situation. She is now capable of see-

ing reality, of being able to analyze and intellectualize, of seek-

ing herself, of finding her own interests and individual profits

and spending for herself. She authentically seeks pleasure,

encounters things, and looks for tranquility, intelligence and

happiness. At the same time, however, many of her deep feel-

ings have been taken away from her. Her hereditary feelings,

which are other than the intellectual, have been removed. Her

humaness has suffered (and has left her lonely). But it has

made her independent.

Durkheim has shown that in the past, the social spirit of

command responsibility was strong. Whenever economics and

individuality grew individuals lost family roots, sensitivities,

traditional ideas and spirit. They became autonomous. This

independence gave them multiple possibilities. The very fact

that an eighteen year old girl can very easily get her own apart-

ment and live alone without any supervision is one of them.

A woman is allowed many freedoms in her home for eco-

nomic reasons. Whenever she becomes angry over life, she can

flee from her situation, as she has individual rights. In her view,

bearing the sorrow of another does not fit with a healthy intel-

ligence; therefore, whenever she must make a sacrifice, or give

in abundance, she closes her eyes.

For peace of mind, pleasure, freedom, and for anything

which affects her own well-being, she opens her eyes. This is

because things like loyalty, sacrifice, generosity, gratitude, and

love are all spiritual and ethical things. They are not capable of

intellectual and logical demonstration.

"Sacrifice your life so that others may live," or "bear sorrow

so that others may have peace," are transactions which do not

pay off, no matter how you account for them.

Then who can answer her question, "Why should I sacrifice

myself for he who needs me? Why should I remain loyal to him?

Why should I remain with this ugly, weak man because of a

promise, an agreement, made when he was handsome, strong,

and the only creature around at that time? I bore him patient-

ly. Why should I now close my eyes to the handsome, strong

man who is available and who understands my spirit and my

goals?"

Sartre presents an example. A woman is the wife of a man

who has no attractive qualities. In comparison to him, there is

an attractive man who loves her. The intelligent way is clear.

Both men need her. One needs her as a wife, the other as a

lover. The woman does not need the first man but rather the

second.

By remaining loyal to her husband, two needs are sacrificed

(those of herself and her lover) and one is satisfied (that of her

husband). In fleeing from him and letting him go, two needs are

satisfied and one is sacrificed. The duty of this woman is clear.

Her intelligence makes the decision a clear mathematical for-

mula. The reason behind why a woman would sacrifice two

needs for one is not simply an intellectual, logical Cartesian or

Freudian one. An intelligent woman thinks and acts logically.

Economic freedom and social rights present her with the possi-

bility of doing it. She does it.

Children come into the world. A child restricts the freedom

of its mother and father. Intelligence cannot accept the fact that

the peace of mind and freedom of two people be sacrificed for

one person. They either do not bring children into the world or

they leave them with a nurse or in an institution. Among all of

these illogical feelings and ethical and traditional bounds,

there is a conscience, a spirit which a woman holds onto. She