First Addendum to the Case of Polyandry

Although the discussion on the polyandy has finished, there are two points that are mentioned in the series but are not discussed in detail. However, for the sake of completeness, it is necessary to address them, as well. These points are, one, what is the meaning of the word "mohsanat" that is compatible with all of its instances in the Quran, and two, is stoning to death for adultery Islamic. In the first addendum here, we are going to discuss the meaning of mohsanat.

In order to put a framework for the discussion, I am going to give the various meanings classically associated with this word or its derivatives. The verses containing these meanings are given at the end of this article for reference. Note that these are not the only instances of the word mohsanat or its derivatives, but rather these are representatives of all others.

free unmarried women (mohsanat): (4/25)

free women (mohsanat): (4/25)

married women (mohsanat): (4/24)

chaste (mohsanat/mohsineena): (4/24), (4/25), (5/5), (24/4)

guarded (uhsinna/ahsanat): (4/25)

Now, let's do some critical thinking and make a few remarks about these meanings:

1. The word mohsanat in 24/4 is clearly about chaste women without specifying their status of marriage.
2. The word in 5/5 is included in a verse that starts by talking to "all Muslims" about the permitted status of the food of the people of the book. However, the second half of the verse talks about a group, called mohsanat, from among the woman believers and women of the people of the book. This automatically means that there are those ladies, Muslim or from the people of the book, who are not mohsanat. Classically, this word here is interpreted as chaste, and in that case, it would not carry any implication in regards to the marriage status of those chaste women. Still, due to classical understanding, the meaning "unmarried" is also added. Accordingly, this verse, although it talks directly to all believers initially, suddenly changes its addressees and talks to the Muslim men and says that they can marry unmarried chaste women, Muslim or from the people of the Book. 
3. The first occasion of this word in 4/24 refers to a prohibiton of marriage. In classical understanding, this means Muslim men cannot marry the married women (mohsanat). However, this promptly contradicts what we just said in the second remark, where mohsanat are the ones to marry for Muslim men. To solve this contradiction, if we subtract the "unmarried" stipulation from it and stick to the notion of chastity, we still cannot solve the problem, because 4/24 instructs not to marry them whereas 5/5 allows to marry them.
4. The second occasion of this word in 4/24 refers to a chastity for men, not for women. So, it does not bind us in this discussion, but again makes a point on chastity.
5. The first occasion of mohsanat in 4/25 points at a group among believing women. That is, it talks about marrying the mohsanat among the woman believers. Accordingly, if we again go with the option of unmarried, free, chaste women among the believers, then we are automatically contradicting the very verse just before this one (4/24), which prohibits marrying the exact same group!!!
6. The second occasion in the same verse (4/25) refers to chastity of women, but it goes on to explaining what it is: not committing adultery nor acquiring secret friends.
7. The third occasion involves (uhsinna) a derived form that really means "protected", but is understood as "getting into marriage".
8. The fourth occasion in 4/25 again involves mohsanat. Here, its meaning is rather obvious because it is contrasted with women who are not free. Nevertheless, this contrast brings us to the free status of mohsanat, not to married or unmarried status thereof.

If we collect the meanings that are common to all occasions, we see "free, chaste, guarded". However, the meanings related to the marital status need some brain work. The occasion at 5/5 and 4/25 mentions mohsanat as to be married, whereas the one at 4/24 mentions it as not to marry. At this point, the scholars interpret the first ones as the unmarried case and the latter one as the married case; but remember, this is an addition in order to make sense of the general meaning of the relevant verses. Yet, as you see, this solution does not stand a critical analysis. To resolve this puzzle, we can look at the Arabic phrases that are at the root of the contradiction.

( 5/5 ... al-mohsanatu min al-muminati ... ) : mohsanat among the believing women and mohsanat among the people of the book

( 4/25 ... al-mohsanat al-muminati ) : mohsanat of the believing women

( 4/24 ... al mohsanatu min al-nisa ) : mohsanat among the women

The first one among these three can be linked to the freedom status, because what follows after it has to do with those not free. So, we are left with the latter two, the first allowing and the latter prohibiting marrying the mohsanat. As you can see, the one allowing it (4/25) links it to al-muminat, whereas the one prohibiting it (4/24) links it to al-nisa. That is, the allowing one talks in context of believers but the other one in context of women in general. 

To make better sense, let's put forward the big picture. The believing men are allowed to marry the chaste and free ones among the believing women and women of the people of the book, whereas the believing men are not allowed to marry the chaste and free ones among women!! But this is a contradiction, because women believers are women, first of all. So, if marrying the free and chaste women is prohibited, then marrying the believing ones among women automatically becomes forbidden. This is why and when you feel obliged to interject a meaning to come to a solution, like the scholars have been doing traditionally. But this interjection is an interjection, and is there only because another, more plausible solution have not been found. Also, if we are talking about an interjection, then it comes with its own cultural and historical context, and the conditions of the past cannot bind those who live in another time period.

It seems that the cause of the problem and its solution have to do with the distinction of al-nisa versus al-muminat. Looking through this perspective reveals another problem, which is, in another verse at the beginning of the same chapter (4/3), the men are told about marrying the al-nisa, when the other verse above (4/24) prohibits marrying the mohsanat of the al-nisa. At this point, a fine detail strikes the eye. The chapter 4, named Al-Nisa (The Women) starts with an address to all people. So, when addressing all people, without a regard for believing or not, naturally men are directed to women in general, hence the case in 4/3. However, the addressee of 4/24-25 is only the believing men, and for them, Allah places a restriction for marrying only the Muslim women or women of the people of the book. And this realization brings us to a satisfactory answer.

A woman who is free and chaste is referred to as mohsanat min al-nisa, but without a regard for her religion and beliefs, whereas a woman who is free and chaste and a Muslim is referred to as mohsanat al-muminat. The second goes for the free and chaste women of the people of the book as well. So, the prohibition is there for the believing men not to marry the women who are not chaste and/or who are not among the general group of the believers (also see 2/221).

Consequently, mohsanat as a term on its own can be explained as free and chaste women, and this resolves the problem.

Allah knows best.

 

Verses from the Quran containing some of the instances of "mohsanat" or its derivatives:

And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise. (4/24)

"And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women, then [he may marry] from those whom your right hands possess of believing slave girls. And Allah is most knowing about your faith. You [believers] are of one another. So marry them with the permission of their people and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable. [They should be] chaste, neither [of] those who commit unlawful intercourse randomly nor those who take [secret] lovers. But once they are sheltered in marriage, if they should commit adultery, then for them is half the punishment for free [unmarried] women. This [allowance] is for him among you who fears sin, but to be patient is better for you. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." (4/25)

"This day [all] good foods have been made lawful, and the food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them. And [lawful in marriage are] chaste women from among the believers and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture before you, when you have given them their due compensation, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse or taking [secret] lovers. And whoever denies the faith - his work has become worthless, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers." (5/5)

"And those who accuse chaste women and then do not produce four witnesses - lash them with eighty lashes and do not accept from them testimony ever after. And those are the defiantly disobedient," (24/4) 

Perfect Creation

One of the topics that is used both by atheists and believers is the perfection in creation. Believers point at the perfection in the universe and nature, they highlight the stable order in the continuation of the processes at scales from the very small to the very big as an evidence for the existence of a creator. Atheists, on the other hand, point at the growing number of diseases due to genetic or developmental causes, they highlight the heart wrenching disasters that happen without a regard for who or what as evidence for the non-existence of a creator. Listening to these opposing views can leave us bewildered about what to believe and how much to trust.

There are several ways one can analyze both views, but I am going to suffice with those relevant to the perfection issue. First let's start with if there is perfection in creation, but let's stay away from linking the result to the existence of a creator. This stipulation here may seem redundant, but on the contrary, it is extremely important in finding an unbiased answer to our question. Let me explain what I mean.

If there was no religion as we know it, if the one and only purpose of our intellectual inquiry was to figure out if there is someone out there who is responsible for what we observed around us, be them overwhelming or fascinating, humanity could be more unified than ever in solving this puzzle. At first, when science and technology was not developed enough, people would feel an urge to take shelter in the mercy, compassion and power of a supreme being. Since there is no religion putting people under any obligation, nobody would see a problem about this attitude. Later on when science and technology are more developed as today, the exquisite order that is subtly revealed in the mathematics and visually witnessed at all scales of existence would strengthen this positive view about a creator, since that creator is not demanding anything from people and not threatening or challenging them in any way. So, in this scenario, all of humanity could potentially be deists without a problem.

"And they did not become divided until after knowledge had come to them - out of jealous animosity between themselves..." (42/14)

Now let's rewind the film and replay it with religion in it. That is, this time we are considering a scenario where the creator communicates with humans and demands certain things from them and challenges them with an eternal punishment or reward. As before, we start with the same state, everybody feels fascinated and overwhelmed by what they observe and experience. However, history tells us that humans did two major things with what was communicated to them from the creator. One, they modified the original divine message. Two, they portrayed their interpretations as divine will and went even so far as to kill others in the name of god. 

"So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah ," in order to exchange it for a small price..." (2/79) 

In short, religion has become a means of evil in the hands of people. So, in this scenario, we see a god that is giving instruments to people by which they can commit evil. Furthermore, the god in this scenario remains silent in the face of evils committed in his name. Clearly, this image does not match the image of a creator that displays order and beauty all around. Furthermore, this god demands things that limit freedom and he challenges humans with punishment and reward. 

This is when people divide into groups. Some continue to believe with their own reasons, but others turn around and take a route where they try to explain things in a different way not involving a creator. That is, they go into a selective perception mood, by which they focus on things that strengthen the view against the existence of a creator. If, for example, beauty and order points at a designer, than they meticulously pick and highlight the instances of disorder and imperfection. If order and purpose implies a creator, then they build an impression upon the natural disasters and devastations that annihilate all the beauty and order. So, whatever you observe of beauty and order becomes a temporary, but lucky, coincidence carrying no meaning at all.

"Indeed, Allah is not timid to present an example - that of a mosquito or what is smaller than it. And those who have believed know that it is the truth from their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, they say, "What did Allah intend by this as an example?" He misleads many thereby and guides many thereby. And He misleads not except the defiantly disobedient," (2/26)

Reading the last paragraph, you may have had the idea that the believers, too, are selectively looking at the instances of beauty and order to support their view, and yes, this is true. This is similar to asking "is a zebra white with black stripes or black with white stripes." The truth is, a zebra has both colors, in whatever geometrical naming you prefer. The creation contains both instances of beauty and order, and devastation and disorder. How you interpret all of this depends on your choice. But you have to know one thing: in the end, it is your subjective truth, not an objective one. That is, believing in god or not are both matters of faith. Neither one is more scientific or more objective. Nevertheless, disregarding an entity that has demands from you gives you more freedom, while acting upon a sense of belonging to a creator provides more peace of mind.

Determining this state of the matters is necessary, because many people out there, be them atheists or believers, discuss the "perfect creation" issue through a zero-one mentality. Having delved into the psychological and intellectual aspects of the argument and pointed at the subjectivity of the issue, I am going to change gears and take a believer's approach from this point on.

First of all, the existence of imperfections does not negate the fact that there are perfections around us. Plus, what we call imperfect really depends on the criteria we use to select things. Not matching up to our mental, psychological or physical comfort does not mean imperfection in the real sense. However, there are still imperfections that are observed beyond those, such as genetic and developmental issues. These are rare in numbers, and they point at the fact that innumerable things could go wrong in our bodies. If we have good health, that means we are experiencing perfection at every instant of it. Diseases and other troubles are reminders of this fact. 

Second, imperfections caused by human activity, be them intentional or unintentional, cannot be ascribed to God. So, if our industrial remains are causing corruption in the human body and psyche, it is our responsibility to figure it out and correct ourselves. And the fact that we are able to conduct such research and take corrective action is another level of perfection displayed both at the individual and at the collective level of humanity.

Third, free will is a concept that is still under scrutiny by the scientific circles. It is even at the level of being denied. In the religious parlance, on the contrary, free will is the first step in all discussions. Without free will, all religious discussions fall to nothing. Here, I am not going to discuss the issue, but I should say that actions of the individuals reflecting their free will is a matter that needs to be handled accordingly. For example, the flaws that originate from domestic violence, greedy behaviors and alike are imperfections that bind their actors, not the Creator. This is why there is a judgment day, in the first place.

Fourth, the entire body of scientific knowledge and technology is there owing to those apparent "imperfections". That is, our insufficiencies, shortcomings, weaknesses and our unending search for meaning since the day we appeared in history led to the powers, richess, knowledge base and abundance we have today. In fact it is these gains that empower the atheists to make their claims against a creator. Can you see an atheist who is poor and ignorant? The example of the atheists is a chicken that looks at the pieces of egg shell from which it hatched and denies its connection to it. In short, when you consider the humanity as a whole, the challenges actually become keys unlocking the hidden treasures. Then, the transient question marks in our lives or in the life of humanity cannot be declared as imperfections.

Fifth, the disasters and events that put us through excruciating conditions reveal the benevolent people and also the evil ones. This is part of the wisdom in this life. We are here to reveal who we are. We are here to improve ourselves. We are here to deserve the mercy of God or gain His disapproval.

Sixth, if in the future we find extraterrestrial intelligent life like us, atheists are going to go around saying that life is indeed an accident that can happen anywhere and that there is nothing that we humans owe to God. Believers, on the other hand, are going to  claim that this rare finding in the entire universe is further proof that God is the one with infinite power who is able to execute His will across existence, and that He is certainly able to create the heaven and hell for the continuation of life after this one. On top of this, if we find out that among those intelligent beings, there is a monotheistic religion with a holy book, then we would really have to sit and think again how such parallellism could occur at two distant corners of the universe. But even then, some would go on with their arguments against a god, whereas others would grow in their faith to God. No matter what, this argument would never be established unanimously, because search for perfection is an engine placed in our creation by our Perfect Creator. He wants us to keep going.

 

The Case of Polyandry - 6

One last point to see before we conclude this discussion is the association of the children to their true parents. We had looked into this before, but we had done so without a connection to the Quran. Now, we are going to make that final touch.

"Call them by [the names of] their fathers; it is more just in the sight of Allah. But if you do not know their fathers - then they are [still] your brothers in religion and those entrusted to you..." (33/5)

"O Prophet, when the believing women come to you pledging to you that they will not associate anything with Allah , nor will they steal, nor will they commit unlawful sexual intercourse, nor will they kill their children, nor will they bring forth a slander they have invented between their arms and legs, nor will they disobey you in what is right - then accept their pledge and ask forgiveness for them of Allah. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." (60/12)

Both verses quoted above underline the fact that associating the children with their true lineage is important in the sight of Allah. Then, creating the conditions that are going to lead to the violation of this principle is clearly against the instructions of God. This brings us to the conclusion that a polyandrous family setting before the development of the modern medical technology would not be acceptible. However, with the advent of the genetic testing technologies, such confusion can be eliminated, and so, a proper association of lineage is possible even in case of polyandry. Therefore, from the perspective of these verses, too, one can not claim a prohibiton to polyandry.

And with this, I would like to add my final comment. Throughout this series, my intention was to scrutinize the case of polyandry from a religious perspective, because when criticizing Islam, people say that while allowing men to have 4 women, there is no similar permission to women to have 4 men. As a general rule, if something is explicitly decreed by God, whether the wisdom behind it is obvious or not, whether we like it or not, the believers accept it as is (33/36). However, this attitude does not keep the believers from studying the wisdom therein. So, if the result of my study indicated that indeed only men are allowed to have more than one spouse, I would take a course accordingly. Yet, I saw that the case of "prohibition of polyandry" is more cultural than religious. More so, in our time. Therefore, I am not going to claim that polyandy is allowed, but I am going to say that there is no clear ban of polyandry. When there is no clear ban, the job is on the hearts and minds. It is their duty to show us a path pleasing to Allah, and it is the individuals' job to make to appropriate choice.

Also note that, in the context of Islam, neither polygyny nor polyandry is aimed at idolizing sexual desires. The ultimate aim is conducting a life of dignity and chastity towards God. And doing that inherently requires an honest admission of human nature in its fullest extent. Allah knows best.

The Case of Polyandry - 5

An important point to look at when studying the polyandry-related verses in the Quran is the meaning of the word mohsanat. This word is sometimes translated as "married women", and is offered as evidence against polyandry. Let's study this concept and see if it really involves or implies a prohibition of polyandry.

In the following verses from the Quran, the underlined parts are the ones that are translations of the word mohsanat. 

"And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess... And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse." (4/24)

"And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women, then [he may marry] from those whom your right hands possess of believing slave girls.... [They should be] chaste, ... But once they are sheltered in marriage, if they should commit adultery, then for them is half the punishment for free [unmarried] women. " (4/25)

First, without any critical thinking, let's just look through the perspective of the classical understanding. So, by reading the first verse (4/24), where mohsanat is translated as married women, we see that men cannot marry the married women, hence a prohibition to polyandry. However, if those women fall captive after a war, then they can be married by men. Aside from the direct use of mohsanat, there is also a related usage, mohsinina, which is translated as chaste. 

In the next verse (4/25), mohsanat is used 3 times. In the first case, it is translated as free women, in the second as chaste women, and in the third, free unmarried women. Aside from these direct instances of mohsanat, there is still another form of it used in this verse, and that is translated as sheltered. In defense of these utter differences in meaning, the context is offered as the reason.

Virtually all remaining uses of mohsanat throughout the Quran are interpreted as chaste. One last piece of information that is noteworthy before we embark on an analysis is that mohsanat is derived from a root that means protected, guarded, shielded, which is reflected in one usage in 4/25. According to this original meaning, mohsanat literally refers to a female subject that is protected. Now let's do some critical thinking. 

I am going to start by pointing at some flaws and cultural artifacts that are hidden in the classical interpretations above.

1. In 4/24, it is claimed that mohsanat refers to married women, and that even if these women are already married, when they fall captive somehow, men can marry them. First of all, if these women are referred to by the Quran as married even after falling captive, that means the men who are marrying them are doing polyandry. If it is claimed that falling captive automatically abrogates marriage, then why are they referred to as married in the Quran? Plus, the original word in the Quran, which is translated as captive, does not say captive but is traditionally understood as such. It actually says "whom your right hand possess", and this can mean people who are slaves but not captive. Then, another question arises, if a man has a woman slave that is married, can that master marry her? Does that mean the lady can be married both to her master and to her husband at the same time, i.e. polyandry? Or does it mean her original marriage automatically drops upon marriage with the master? In the latter case, it has to be further established that the master has the right and authority to marry his female slave even if she is already married.
   
   You see, all these questions would not arise if you lived in a time and place where male centered culture is dominant and slavery is the norm. However, Quran is revealed for all times, and how things were interpreted in the distant past does not necessarily bind us. Therefore, either there is much and deep wisdom in the male centered applications and in the master-slave relationships so that we must force our minds to comprehend it, or there is something wrong with the classical interpretation of mohsanat.
   
   
   
   
   
2. It is claimed that the Quran is miraculous in its wording and in many literary ways. It is also known that in the Quran there are verses that explicitly state that its content is straightforward (18/1) and easy to understand (54/17) or at least explained in detail (41/3). Then, why are there 4 distinct uses of the exact same word in two consecutive verses, complicating the comprehension? According to the classical view, the word mohsanat is used in a total of four different meanings in 4/24 and 4/25: married women, free women, chaste women, free unmarried women. Plus, there is the extra usage of another form of the same word which means sheltered. In such a situation, an honest scholar would humbly and openly say "this is as good as we can see, but we are by no means claiming that this is the definitive approach", and would remain open to new understandings. However, this has not been the case throughout the history (I apologize if there were any exceptions). How do we know that scholars stuck with their questionnable interpretations and deemed them defintive? Because they permitted the killing of married women who had sex outside of marriage. As a scholar, if you had doubts about the veracity of your injunctions, you would prefer to err on the safe side when the time comes. For example, instead of risking "killing a believing lady unjustly", you would rather risk "not punishing an adulteress".
   
   So, either there is a problem with the miraculousness of the Quran and that it is not easy to understand and apply it, or there is a problem with the classical view.
   
   
   
   
   
3. As a remnant of the Jewish tradition, among the early Muslims, stoning to death was an accepted punishment for the people who committed adultery despite being married. However, the verse (4/16) that instructs the punishment for those people did not explicitly say "stone to death"; rather it said "give them pain or burden them". Still, the interpretations of the verses went with the norm, that is stoning to death for the adulterer and the adulteress. But the problem is, if you take mohsanat as married women, then you cannot apply the punishment to the married slave women mentioned at the end of 4/25. It says, whatever punishment you give to the mohsanat, give half of it to the married slave women if they commit adultery. If you take mohsanat as married free women, the penalty for adultery is stoning to death. Since one cannot divide the death penalty by two, the scholars changed the way they interpreted mohsanat, and they said it must mean free unmarried women. Note that this whole chain of logic starts with ascribing death penalty to married women that commit adultery, which is a cultural rule and which has no basis in the Quran. And instead of trying to develop a better understanding of the Quran, people chose to change the meaning of the word. By doing so, they made Quran become an instrument that is used to justify brutal actions. There can be no room for such merciless and irrational approach in understanding and interpreting the Quran, especially when it comes to producing injunctions that have irreversible consequences.

The above discussion shows that in order to use the verses from the chapter Al-Nur as evidence against polyandry, one has to first establish properly the meaning of the word mohsanat, and then make a case accordingly. As is, such a claim is a difficult stretch.

The Case of Polyandry - 4

After the initial analyses, now it is time to look at the verses of the Quran to see the status of polyandry. We are going to look at if there are any verses that are explicitly contradicting the practice of polyandry or verses whose implications are not compatible with polyandry. In order to keep the discussion brief, I am going to spare the details, unless a request for otherwise is sent.

All arguments against polyandry have child making and a possible confusion about the father as one of their bases. We already discussed this issue before in the first episode, but what I want to focus on here is a different dimension of marriage. All those arguments also introduce marriage exclusively as an institution for child making, as if marriage does not exist without the concept of child making. However, there is nothing that supports this notion in the Quran. Plus, if that was the case, the marriage of the people who cannot have child for biological reasons would become invalid. So, making children is a supplementary concept that comes on top of the concept of marriage. Once we separate these two concepts, i.e. marriage and child making, and realize that marriage comes at a more fundamental level than child making, then it becomes easier to penetrate the millennium long accumulation of information and directly reach the Quran to study the topic with fresh eyes.

Then the very first question we need to answer is what is marriage according to the Quran. In trying to answer this question, we can quickly see both what it is and what it is not.

"Marry the spouseless among you, and your slaves and handmaidens that are righteous; if they are poor, God will enrich them of His bounty; God is All-embracing, All-knowing." (24/32)

Marriage is not an act that is exclusively the right of the wealthy. Furthermore, believers are hereby given the responsibility to help the financially challenged people to get married. Therefore, financial responsibilities cannot be preclusion to marriage. It has to be noted that this superior position of marriage to financial status is due to its power to protect people from the prohibitions of God. Of course in a marriage, at least minimal economic wellbeing is of essence, however this wellbeing for the transient world cannot come before the wellbeing in the eternal world. So, the real condition that makes marriage a priority above other facts of life is that it enables people to lead a life of respect to God. And this condition is valid both for men and women. This is why polygyny is conditionally allowed in the Quran in the first place (4/3). By the same token, if a woman is in need of more than one man, her intention to protect herself from the prohibitions of God through marriage should be compatible with the teachings of the Quran.

To give you a better perspective, let me tell how the situation would be solved according to the existing, classical understanding. So, we are talking about a marriage in which the man is unable to meet the sexual and romantic needs of the woman. The situation is so serious that the woman finds herself in a constant mood of desiring attention from outside. That is, she is in a constant fight against herself in her everyday life in order to guard herself from the prohibitions of God. According to the classical view, she must divorce this husband and find another one that would meet her demands. To do this, she must return the dowry (mahr) that was given to her by her husband and seek divorce from the authorities. Assuming that this process goes through smoothly, without any obstacles due to prejudices and patriarchal culture, she can finally look out. And let's hope that the next person she finds is sexually potent enough, because there is no way for her to measure this, given that pre-marriage sex is not allowed in Islam. 

However, we all know that in reality, the smooth flow of events told above is almost impossible due to economical or cultural reasons. Plus, the husband resists the divorce, because the entire situation is simply unacceptable from a male perspective. And how the authorities would handle the case is another matter. So, the woman is left alone to her fight in her being. And God forbid, if she loses the battle to herself and gets into a secret affair, then she is risking being stoned to death (which is another issue to discuss). All because she is not given the same sexual rights and freedoms that are given to men in the classical understanding.

Is Heaven Optimized for Men? - 3

In the Quran, at several occasions, we are told that believers regardless of gender are going to enter the heaven. And we are told that heaven is the place of best treatment with the generosity and benevolence of God Almighty. Therefore, no matter how confused we may be in comprehending the depictions in the Quran about it, the life in heaven is going to be awesome.

"Allah has promised to the believing men and believing women, - Gardens under which rivers flow to dwell therein forever, and beautiful mansions in Gardens of Eden. But the greatest bliss is the Good Pleasure of Allah. That is the supreme success." (9/72)

In the previous episodes, we looked at the verses from the Quran about the life in heaven, and we produced some questions that were mainly fueled by the gender specific features of the afterlife. In this last episode of this series, I would like to introduce the concepts that might be helpful in resolving these issues.

What would you say if I asked you if the human spirit has gender? That is, our biological bodies have gender, because that is necessary for the creation of progeny, but the spirits don't do that. Spirits do not reproduce, divide into two, etc. Spirit is spirit. Therefore, the gender specific roles and aspects that we experience in our personal lives and in the society are due to the biological dimension of our existence. However, deep within in our spirits, we are all human beings carrying a gender-free spirit.

"Then He fashioned him and breathed into him of His Spirit;" (32/9)

So, if Allah is going to grant a different biological garment to the spirit in the afterlife with properties that might resemble the ones here but are not quite the same, of course He is going to talk about it in ways we can envisage. This new biological garment can be free of gender and may contain the properties of both genders, because there is no more need for a distinction of gender as we know here. Given the fact that the spirit is free of gender anyway, this kind of a pairing between the spirit and the new body would prepare the grounds for enhanced enjoyment for the dwellers of the heaven.    

At this conjunction, I would like to bring a verse that has received several interpretations throughout the history:

"And when the souls are paired" (81/7)

The chapter containing this verse starts with a depiction of the events at the end of time and the establishment of the judgment day. The particular verse simply states that the souls (nufuus; plural of nafs) are paired (zuwwijat), but does not say paired with what. Is it so obvious that it is not told, or is it something beyond comprehension? In any event, the scholars inferred several meanings from here, such as souls uniting with a biological body, or individuals meeting their deeds. In order to extract a meaning in context of this article, I would like to present another verse to your attention:

"It is God Who created you from a single soul and out of it made its spouse to bring it comfort. " (7/189)

In this verse, we see the same word (nafs) out of which other humans are created, and from that same soul, its mate/spouse (zawj) is created. The implication here is on primarily the creation of Adam and Eve. When we compare this verse with the previous one, the two key words in both verses are the same: nafs and zawj. So, a plausible inference about the pairing of a soul on the judgment day is a return to a biological state (nafs) that has both male and female traits, hence free of gender, which is more reflective of the spirit.

In this view, the reason for the apparent male-centered depictions of the life in heaven can be understood, not as a male preference but, as an example to extrapolate from. That is, the attraction for men towards women and the pleasure therein is a key to have an idea of the state of the dwellers of the heaven who are going to be in the company of heavenly friends and spouses that are fit for that world. This image, however, cannot be grasped with the gender-specific mindsets of this world. 

God know best.

The Case of Polyandry - 3

Before we embark on an analysis of the verses from the Quran related to our topic, it is also helpful to look at some proxies that are already before our eyes. What do I mean? There are some issues that are controversial today but were not when the Quran was revealed, such as polygyny and slavery, and Islam did not abolish them but regulated them. On the other hand, alcohol consumption and interest was widespread among Arabs when Islam came, yet Islam abolished them. Coming to our topic, polyandry is generally a controversial topic, although there are a few communities around the world who practice it. Still, we can hypothetically ask "if there had been polyandry in the Arabic society of the 7th century, would Islam abolish it or regulate it?" 

Let's look at polygyny, i.e. one man multiple wives. When Islam came, there was no limit to the number of wives a man could take. There was no ethical regulation in regards to the way women were treated in the family, either. With the relevant verses in the Quran, three things happened. One, a limit to the maximum number of wives was decreed. Two, under what type of conditions this permission could be used was told. Three, the relationship between the spouses was established on mutual love, respect, and fear of God. This last item about fear of God may sound strange to you, but it means that one should be considerate of the fact that they are going to be held accountable for their treatment of their spouse on the Judgment Day. So, the loving atmosphere of the family becomes a manifestation of the love of God, whereas restraining one's anger and avoiding excessive behaviors towards each other becomes a manifestation of fear of God. In short, Islam not only regulated polygyny, but also improved the family life in general. 

Today, although there are communities practicing polygyny, most people consider it as unacceptable. Even the Muslim ladies have a hard time in internalizing the fact that their holy book contains such a permission. Families in a polygyny setting are met with distance even among the Muslims. Tragic thing is people consider cheating as a normal guilt, but polygyny as an out-of-question practice. Yet, polygyny is there in the Quran, no matter what kind of a context you put it in. I am not going to question this psychology, because it has been partially addressed in the previous episode and in another article and because my main goal here is to pave a road towards understanding the Quran. Accordingly, the question is "although, looking from today, we would like Islam to abolish polygyny completely, why did it not do so but sufficed with regulating it?"

When we start questioning the commands and prohibitions of God, the first thing we must remember and keep in mind is that there doesn't have to be a wisdom or reason for any of such instructions. If God wants it, He has the authority to command it. However, once beyond that point, we can investigate the wisdom behind such orders, because Allah is All-Wise, and there is wisdom in all His actions.

With this perspective, when we look at family, society and the mutual roles and responsibilities among the spouses, we see that family is positioned as part of a social security system in Islam. Therefore, abolishing polygyny means breaking this social security system where women and children are going to suffer due to lack of support both economically and spiritually. That break down is destined to have consequences in the moral state of the society, as well. So, institutionalizing a state-regulated social security system can for sure undertake the economical aspect of the issue, but the proper family atmosphere cannot be established only with money. 

Here, I am not trying to defend or offend one type of application, but I am just trying to figure out some of the wisdom behind the permission of polygyny in Islam. And in doing so, instead of trying to look at it through our eyes, I am trying to emphatize with the context set in Islam. And we see that permission of polygyny is linked to avoiding other prohibitions and to fostering the human psyche and body as a whole so that both individually and collectively people can be steadfast on the way of Allah.

Slavery is another proxy we are going to look at. After the dire memories recorded in history, slavery is appalling and cannot even be thought of as an institution in a society. When Islam came to the 7th century Middle East, though, slavery was widespread not only among Arabs but also all around the world. It was both part of the economy and an integral part of the social security. However, slavery is slavery, and people who fell into its grasp could be treated in ways that are not fit for the human honor. When Islam came, although it encouraged freeing the slaves and elevated their social and economic conditions, did not abolish the institution. That is, instead of abolishing it, Islam regulated it.

Again taking on the same respectful attitude, as believers, we accept this situation, but we are free to question and analyze the wisdom behind it so that we can project the same wisdom to other cases if needed. For example today, although we reject even the idea of slavery, the state of the people in the modern work life and environment, the treatment of the working class by the wealthy elite is not too different than the state of the slaves back then. So, modern regulations for taxation and employee rights can benefit from the wisdom that shines from the framework outlined in the Quran considering the slaves. To start with, for example, the slaves are referred to with different names according to the context. Such variable naming can be interpreted as a sensitivity towards the standards of fair treatment for the involved people, because they are still honorable human beings, not perishable commodities. Therefore, from Quran's point of view, slavery is not slavery, but a manifestation of a fundamental component of human social life, albeit one that needs regulation and control.

So, with the proper paradigms in mind, we see that the Quran did not abolish slavery, because it is a projection of a timeless paradigm onto a society in history. Prohibiting such a thing would be against the nature, because the existence of both rich and poor or influential and unable in a society is God's decree in the first place. This polar state of the affairs necessitates give and take between those poles, which needs to be regulated not blocked.

There are other topics, but to save the extensive discussion, I am just going to mention them and give the gist of the matter that can help us on the way to analyze the situation with polyandry. 

Interest, unlike the two discussed above, is abolished and prohibited explicitly in Islam, although it was widespread among Arabs back then and was part of the economic structure. If you look at it, you see that what is forbidden is gaining without a corresponding work or investment. So, preserving the value of human labor and avoiding the formation of a class that thrives on the work of others is in the forefront. It is this reason that modern Islamic thinkers talk about accepting interest if it is at the same level of inflation, because what is done is the preservation of the value of human labor even if under the label of interest.

Waging wars is an unfortunate but undeniable part of humanity. Claiming to be a religion of peace, Islam did not prohibit wars, but regulated them. Here, again a recognition of the human nature in its entirety and an effort for the protection of the essential values (life, freedom, etc.) is visible. This is how we can distinguish the terrorists, who claim to be fighting in the name of Islam, from those who fight for a true cause. The formers are serving to the formation of a state of affairs where human life is under constant threat and freedoms are inherently violated, whereas the latters are serving to the establishment of a structure that fosters the flourishing of the mentioned rights and values.

Consuming intoxicating materials is another prohibition is Islam. As today, in the 7th century Arabian Peninsula, too, alcohol was used by virtually all. Yet, Islam forbade its use. When we look at the wisdom behind this prohibition, we first see that there are health issues due to alcohol consumption. On top of them, though, suppression of conscience and reason is another detrimental aspect, because one of the aims of Islam is to orient people to a higher level of conscience and more effective use of reason.

After these clearly forbidden, commanded or permitted matters, I would like to bring two other issues that are not explicitly mentioned in the Quran, but were forbidden during the initial times of Islam among the Arabs. The first is idol making. In modern terms, sculpture. Although there is not a single verse in the Quran in this regard, prophet Muhammad (pbuh) strictly prohibited the making of statues and sculptures. Although a significant portion of the Muslims until recent times, and some still, took this as an unconditional ban on sculpture, we today see that this attitude by the messenger of God was there to avoid any triggers of idol worshipping in a society that had idolatry genes in its culture. In order to fortify the unity of God both in minds and in the daily life, old applications linked to idol worshipping had to be abandoned. However, today, we are away from those conditions, and there is no point in continuing the same attitude.

A contrasting issue with the above is the mut'ah. This "temporary marriage" was the norm when needed among the Arabs at the time. However, it is clear that it is a form of prostitution. Some people today claim that it is a form of marriage and so, it is allowed in the context of Islam. However, the framework for marriage drawn in the Quran involves an intention to be together forever. So by definition, Quran outlaws mut'ah, even if it is not spelled out in a verse. Accordingly, prophet Muhammad prohibited it. Therefore, no matter what the conditons are, one cannot talk about mut'ah as a valid form of marriage, because it violates the framework of marriage drawn in the Quran.

Obviously it is impossible to find everything in the Quran in a spelled-out manner. Still, we can use our mind and extract the essence from what is provided to us, and thus, we can make an educated guess on what is pleasing to Allah in the new situations that are not listed openly in the Quran.

Therefore, considering all of the above, if there had been polyandry in the Arabic society of the 7th century, would Islam abolish it or regulate it? I think it is safe to say that if there is not a verse that openly prohibits polyandry, if the application of polyandry does not involve or lead to the violation of the principles and values set by the Quran, Islam would either not say anything about it or regulate it. And so, if we confirm these from the Quran, we, too, must stay tolerant towards the idea, whether we like it or not.

 

The Case of Polyandry - 2

In the first episode, we gave a critical look at people's, - believers', to be more precise - reactions towards polyandry. The last point we arrived was that it is necessary to look at the Qoran in order to determine if there is a conclusive prohibition on the matter. If there isn't one, then it's applicability can depend on the conditions. Experience shows that, as much as you must determine your goals,  you must determine your limits and principles so that you can guard against losing your focus or being misled. So, before we go to the Quran for this matter, it is necessary to pinpoint what we are not trying to do and what we must avoid. In doing so, I am going to make use of the items listed in another article on believers' reactions towards polygyny.

1- Just like in the case of polygyny the purpose is not to justify a situation where men enjoy life while women serve them endlessly, the purpose of polyandry cannot be  the opposite where women exploit men. Such unfair treatments in whatever kind of setting they may be are unacceptable and are not in line with the family life according to the Qoran and the prophet's example.

"They are clothing for you and you are clothing for them." (2/187)

2- From a religious point of view, the purpose of allowing polyandry cannot be maximizing the  satisfaction from the worldly life. Rather, if it is allowed, this can be due to an intention to optimize the worldly conditions in order to prosper in the afterlife. This can only be done by meticulously searching for and abiding by what is pleasing to God, even if people don't necessarily like them. Needless to say, all these also require the committment of the involved people to each other's and the children's happiness in both worlds.

"O you who have believed, whoever of you should revert from his religion – Allah will bring forth [in place of them] a people He will love and who will love Him [who are] humble toward the believers, powerful against the disbelievers; they strive in the cause of Allah and do not fear the blame of a critic. That is the favor of Allah; He bestows it upon whom He wills. And Allah is all-Encompassing and Knowing." (5/54)

3- Having enough financial means is not a prohibitive prerequisite of marriage, just like losing your financial means later on is not a reason for the invalidation of marriage. In a family, the members are committed to each other, and they work for each other, they support each other. If financial situation was a prohibitive prerequisite for marriage, the couples in monogamous marriages would have to end up in divorce if they were to lose their economical well being. The same is valid for polygamy. So, although having large economical means is culturally considered as a prerequisite for polygyny, it is not one religiously.  And similarly, if a lady marries two men when she is rich enough and she faces economical hardship later on, one cannot push the family to divorce. Again, believers establish families in order to accompany and help each other on the way of God, not to secure wealth.

"And marry the unmarried among you and the righteous among your male slaves and female slaves. If they should be poor, Allah will enrich them from His bounty, and Allah is all-Encompassing and Knowing." (24/32)

4- When discussing polygamy, fair treatment and equal treatment are often confused. In the Quran, fair treatment is given as a principle, whereas those who oppose polygamy insist on equal treatment. Equal treatment is by creation impossible, and the believers who argue against polygamy on the grounds of equality know neither the nature nor their holy book. They are simply going with their instincts. Therefore, fair treatment of the spouses in case of polyandry can be a principle from a religious stand point, but equal treatment cannot.

"And you will never be able to be equal [in feeling] between wives, even if you should strive [to do so]. So do not incline completely [toward one] and leave another hanging. And if you amend [your affairs] and fear Allah - then indeed, Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful." (4/129)

Is Heaven Optimized for Men? - 2

Let me start by a brief summary of the first episode, which is going to help us plan the next steps in our quest. We saw that there are verses in the Quran that tell that the people of the heaven are going to enter there with their spouses. The first and simple issue was the gender related one, and it was solved through the grammatical usage for groups of mixed gender. However, more subtle than this, there are two major discrepancies even without the gender issue. One, there are other verses that present no guarantee of destination due to the spouse (66/10-11), and two, we are explicitly told in the Quran that every individual is responsible of their own.

"That no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another; and that man shall have nothing but what he strives for; and that his striving shall soon be seen;" (53/38-40).

To solve this issue, if one claims that these spouses are those that are going to be given as a reward in the heaven, not those from the world, then there are two problems. One, we are told that the people of the heaven are going to enter there with their spouses, whereas the spouses of the heavens are already there. Two, we would think that the men will have female heavenly spouses and the women would have male heavenly spouses. Now let's work out these issues.

The first one is about the initial location of the heavenly spouses can be overcome by stating that the depiction in the verse is about a welcoming ceremony, and the involved people enter the heaven together, which resolves the complication. However, the weak point of this argument is that in the Quran there are verses that indicate the spouses entering together and there are other verses that explicitly tell about the heavenly spouses.

"But those who believe and do righteous deeds - We will admit them to gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they abide forever. For them therein are purified spouses, and We will admit them to deepening shade." (4/57)

"There will be bashful maidens untouched by mankind or jinn before." (55/56)

"In them are good and beautiful women - So which of the favors of your Lord would you deny? - Fair ones reserved in pavilions" (55/70-72)

Nevertheless, this is only a weak point, and not necessarily a flaw that disqualifies the idea that the spouses mentioned in the relevant verses (36/56, 43/70) are the heavenly spouses.

The second major issue was that the spouses must have opposite genders. That is, the female dwellers of the heaven must be rewarded with male spouses (other than their husband, if he is there, too), and the male dwellers of the heaven must be rewarded with female spouses (other than their wife, if she is there, too). Now, let's look at the Quran to verify this.

"And with them are women of modest gaze, with lovely eyes," (37/48)

"They will have bashful wives of equal age with them." (38/52)

"So; and We shall join them to fair women with beautiful, big, and lustrous eyes." (44/54)

"Indeed, for the righteous is attainment -Gardens and grapevines And voluptuous women of equal age;" (78/31-33)

There are more verses similar to these all mentioning female heavenly spouses. Not a single verse that mentions male heavenly spouses! This finding brings with it several questions or problems. If we think that we have solved the gender issue by the grammatical rule of the Arabic language, how are we going to resolve the gender issue here? Are we going to say that women, too, are going to be rewarded with female spouses? Of course, the lack of verses mentioning male spouses for women does not mean that they are not going to be there. However, when we see so much explanation that focuses on men and not much for women, what are we to think? Are we going to say that Quran's primary addressees are men? And, please don't tell that women don't have sexuality.

If these are not enough to confuse your mind, here is some more food for thought. Putting on ornaments and having too much focus on the garments is a relatively female aspect, rather than male. But when we look at the Quran, we see a sweeping generalization of the dwellers of the heaven in this regard. They are all dressed in jewelry and attractive wears, and they are served by goodlooking male servants.

"Those will have gardens of perpetual residence; beneath them rivers will flow. They will be adorned therein with bracelets of gold and will wear green garments of fine silk and brocade, reclining therein on adorned couches. Excellent is the reward, and good is the resting place." (18/31)

"Indeed, Allah will admit those who believe and do righteous deeds to gardens beneath which rivers flow. They will be adorned therein with bracelets of gold and pearl, and their garments therein will be silk." (22/23)

"There will circulate among them [servant] boys [especially] for them, as if they were pearls well-protected." (52/24)

All these point at the fact that we must build new paradigms to make sense of our Creator's words and to comprehend the life in the heaven. Perhaps these new paradigms may help us resolve some other issues facing us in the contemporary global society.

Is Heaven Optimized for Men? - 1

Although the topic implies a single question, in this series of blogs, I want to address a few more questions that are related to this one. Answering these questions may help us understand some of the explanations in the Quran about the afterlife, and they may shed light on some controversial topics.

The first question to study is whether men's success automatically translates to the success of their wives. Stated differently, if a man is judged by God to enter the heaven, does his wife accompany him? 

"The dwellers of Paradise on that day will enjoy themselves. They and their spouses - in shade, reclining on adorned couches." (36/55-56)

"Enter Paradise with your spouses in delight." (43/70)

The pronoun they and you in these verses are in the male form, which can lead to an interpretation involving the men who deserve heaven and their wives. The quick solution to this is that a group of mixed gender is referred to with male pronouns according to the Arabic grammar. So, instead of an exclusive privilege to men, through this grammatical perspective, we see that both men and women who deserve heaven are going to enter there with their spouses. Although this grammatical solution resolves one aspect of the problem, the main problem is still there. That is, how come a person enters heaven by the deeds of another? Plus, we have counter evidence from the Quran!

"Allah sets forth, for an example to the Unbelievers, the wife of Noah and the wife of Lut: they were (respectively) under two of our righteous servants, but they were false to their (husbands), and they profited nothing before Allah on their account, but were told: 'Enter you the Fire along with (others) that enter!' And Allah sets forth, as an example to those who believe, the wife of Pharaoh: Behold she said: 'O my Lord! Build for me, in nearness to You, a mansion in the Garden, and save me from Pharaoh and his deeds, and save me from those that do wrong'" (66/10-11)

So, it is clear that spouses are judged on their own, and the sucess of one does not translate to the success of the other. Then, how are we going to interpret the first verses that imply the opposite?

One suggestion could be that the spouses mentioned in these verses actually refer to the houris and not the spouses in this world. However, one, the houris are already in the heaven, they don't enter there. Two, if we go with this answer, then the descriptions of heaven in the Quran become exclusively men-centered! As will be seen in the later episodes, there are many other verses that mention the houris explicitly with their various properties. So, on top of those, if we interpret the term spouse here as the houris, then either we are going to have to accept that Quran's primary addressees are the men, or we are going to claim that women are also going to be rewarded with the houris, which brings other questions!

In short, the two verses mentioned in the beginning pose a question about the meaning of the spouses of the people of the heaven, and it cannot be answered straightforward.

"The dwellers of Paradise on that day will enjoy themselves. They and their spouses - in shade, reclining on adorned couches." (36/55-56)

"Enter Paradise with your spouses in delight." (43/70)

Pathogens as Paradigm

Pathogens are unwanted entities that threaten our life and well being. Their prosperity means our peril, and our prosperity means their peril. So, we are in a zero sum game with the pathogens. Yet, they exist! Like it or not, we must live a life of balance with them, in which the victory changes sides through the time. When one side beats the other, other one improves its weapons and gets back to beat the first. But this is not what I want to talk about in this blog. What I want to discuss is how we can use this story to understand some aspects of the interactions among people and make sense of their relationship to God.

"And when We intend to destroy a city, We command its folk who live at ease and afterward they commit abomination therein; so the word proves true against it, and We destroy it with [complete] destruction." (17/16)

This verse from the Quran has drawn some questions due to the presence of the verb command, which implies that as if God is ordering some people to commit evil. Accordingly, if you look at the several translations of this verse, the translators interject their interpretations to avoid any misunderstandings. However, the original text is there, and it is not how they say it is. Nevertheless, in this blog, since my intention is other than resolving this issue, I am going to suffice with saying that in fact the answer to this matter carries the answer to few other important and controversial issues, as well. But that is the topic of another blog. 

Let's return to our original discussion. I started with pathogens but then quoted a verse about the destruction of a city due to the presence of excess evil in it. And I am claiming that I am going to use the pathogens as a paradigm to bring a new understanding to the relationship between humans and God. Don't these look like discrete topics?

Before I get into the discussion, let me share a quick note. While reading the lines below, I know several questions are going to flood your mind, and you may have answers to some of them but not necessarily to all. As I said, I am going to write this blog to make a new point, but if you drop your questions below, I can certainly try to address those as much as I can.

Let's start with an easy and well-known picture. Pathogens secrete chemicals that can upset and even block the working of our bodies. So, when our immune system cannot detect and control the spread of a pathogen on time, it reproduces and reaches a critical population level at which our body cannot maintain its functioning. And death becomes more and more imminent as things continue this way. The death of the body also means death for the pathogen, because their host cannot anymore provide the vital materials to them. As a result, biological recycling agents come to the scene, and they break apart the body in chunks or they digest it at micro level.

If we think of the society as a body, the pathogens would be the people who commit actions for their own interest while endangering the well being of the society. The security forces and the justice system of that society are like the immune system, and if they fail to detect and correct this situation in time, evil acts increase in number and size. All demographic signs of health for the society point down. Soon, the society engages in a fight within itself and it disintegrates. Consequently, external entities get involved in one way or another, and before you know it, the society has lost its independence economically, politically and intellectually.

The analogy above regarding the pathogens and the evil committing people is not new. But, let's now expand our model to include the relationship between people and God. In order to do this, we are going to look at the above depiction at two different layers: indiviudal and social. And we are going to make our observations using perceptions of different wave lengths.

Looking at the picture at the social level, we see a law of nature at work. Just like the body cannot survive with the pathogens at loose, the society cannot sustain with evil doers holding authority and power. Beyond this picture, we know that it is God who executes the laws, so in turn, it is God who is turning the gears of this mechanism. However, this kind of understanding of God does not explain everything, because it only reflects the picture through certain names of God, such as One who puts an order and executes it, One who is all high and above, One who governs. To see a bigger picture of things, we need to look at the events through the lense of other names of God, too. 

But they called him a liar and slaughtered her, therefore their Lord crushed them for their sin and levelled them (with the ground). And He does not fear the consequence thereof. (91/14-15)

The first analysis we made above lacks the closeness of God, because it shows a picture in which God does what He does without a regard for who or what. This is not a wrong or misleading image on its own, however it does not give the full picture about God, either. So, exclusively focusing on it can lead to actions of misguidance or ignorance.

The closeness of God to people starts with the concept of religion. He introduces Himself to us. Thus, religion and its dos and don'ts become a binding agreement between the adherents of that religion and God. Therefore, He pays attention to what the believers are doing. If they are not obeying the orders or are happy with living in an environment where the principles He posed are being violated, then first, He gives respite, He sends warnings of various kinds, and eventually He punishes those believers. That is, believers are expected to live according to their faith not only in their individual lives but also in their social lives. They are responsible of their communities and their societies at large. Otherwise, they face the fact that God is indeed close to them, watching them and is not indifferent to their actions.

If Allah were to punish men according to what they deserve, He would not leave on the back of the (earth) a single living creature: but He gives them respite for a stated term: when their term expires, verily Allah has in His sight all His Servants. (35/45)

However, even the above image does not explain  everything. What about the people who were not aware of what was going on? What about the people who were trying their best but could not return the tide? What about the people on whom the evil people conspired plots? Are they the same as others who were deliberately committing evil or not objecting to it? Is their destruction along with the evil doers fair? Or let's rewind back! Before the punishment from God arrives, how are we going to digest the oppressions the good people are exposed to in the hands of the evil doers? Where is God when the most sincere people are being tormented, slendered or killed? Isn't He close both to the evil doers and to the innocent believers?

These questions arise from the fact that the magnitude and duration of the observed facts push and/or pass the limits of our conscience. This situation has been addressed in various dimensions in previous blogs, so I am going to focus on the topic at hand. That is, in order to make sense of such facts, it is useful to step back and look at things through the paradigm of pathogens.

Or do you think that most of them hear or reason? They are not except like livestock. Rather, they are [even] more astray in [their] way. (25/44)

Let's forget about the evil act for a moment and let's imagine that there is a pandemic. Due to this pandemic, many people are dying: old-young, woman-man, good-evil... When looking at this picture, we think that it is the disease that is ailing these people, although we know that it is in fact God who is creating those pathogens and execucting the laws of life. So, although we feel sad about those we lose during the time of the pandemic, we don't blame God for what happened or feel heart-broken towards Him. It is the pandemic, and hopefully we are going to meet our loved ones in the heaven in eternal bliss. Now, let's project this perspective to our question about the society in which the evil doers have power and authority, and are oppressing the good people.

Similar to the pandemic example, the evil people are the pathogens and those who are impacted by their actions are like those who lose their health or even their lives due to the disease. Then, it is important to regard this situation with acceptance as much as possible, because God is going to unite us in eternal bliss with our loved ones in the hereafter. Also, He is going to punish those pathogens for their actions, because they deliberately chose to do so.

O you who believe! be careful of (your duty to) Allah with the care which is due to Him, and die not save as those who have surrendered (unto Him). (3/102)