GENDER ROLES AND HOMOSEXUALITY
Today, many Western nations are on the verge of dying out, with their dramatically low young populations. Western nations can sustain their economy only by the intake of immigrants. (The intake of immigrants is not a matter of mercy being shown to poor nations unlike what rightists falsely believe; rather, it is a means of sustaining the economy) It is projected that native Western races are going to be minorities in their own homelands in the near future, particularly in Europe and America. So why did Western nations end up in this despicable situation? The core reason for this is that the concept of family in the West has almost vanished. The family is the primary unit of society. Any flimsiness with regards to the family unit would entail the breakdown of the entire social structure. The family is the institution that bears and rears kids who will eventually constitute the future of society; The family is important for the kid’s growth and becoming of a fruitful element of society as much as how important soil is for bearing a vigorous plant. When we look into the backgrounds of criminals, murderers, and thieves; we see that most of them had uneasy and unhappy family lives in their childhood. Now, we will examine some reasons as to why the family institution has collapsed, and evaluate the attacks on Islam over these reasons. Feminism, obscenity, and homosexuality are the leading factors that destroyed the family concept in the West.
Feminism is one of the most blindly and bigotedly defended ideologies of this century. By the term “feminist”, we don’t mean the women who demand their fundamental rights in countries such as Saudi Arabia (Even the life of Aisha (ra) is sufficient to negate those so-called scholars who strive to imprison women.) If this were what we meant by the term feminism, then we would say that the greatest feminist of all time was the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). The man who raised the status of women most in history was the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Prior to his arrival in Arabia, female children were regarded as sources of shame and they were being buried alive in order to eliminate this source of shame. The feminism we are referring to here is the one which constitutes one of the fundamentals of Western civilization, and the one which tries to feminize men and masculinize women, thereby dealing the biggest blow to the family institution.
Feminists hold that men and women are inherently equal, and the contemporary perceptions of genders are products of cultural moldings and impositions. However in every society in history without a single exception, the male gender was the more dominant and influential one over the other. If the difference of gender roles were on account of cultural perceptions, then we would expect gender roles to vary across each society with a different culture; whereas the fact that the male gender has been dominant in every culture of every age proves that this is the inevitable reality entailed by genders' inherent differences. Men and women are not equal; they are two different complementary parts that together constitute the whole. Not a single prominent thinker in history has regarded men and women as equal. Even Charles Darwin, who is considered as the prophet of atheism, had asserted that men are inherently more sophisticated and gifted than women. Aristotle, the most eminent philosopher of all time and the man who is today associated with Western rationalism, had explicitly argued for the superiority of men to women. I don’t say that I agree with these opinions, neither do I say that men are superior to women. I just want to point out that even the irreligious people of the past did not deem two genders equal. Had Aristotle asserted his opinion in today’s Western societies, he would’ve been labeled as sexist and would’ve been an outcast, let alone be the most eminent philosopher of all time.
My psychology professor who had a successful carrier in the US had once told me that it is very difficult to conduct gender and race-based experiments in the US because any result demonstrating a disparity between genders or races were being repressed and scorned by liberals, and blamed for being politically incorrect. There is no doubt that Western civilization is so dogmatic and close-minded in regards to certain matters despite presenting themselves as being rational and inquiring. Women’s position in society is one of these dogmatic matters, questioning the equality between men and women is a taboo in the West where liberal dictatorship is prevalent. Men and women were not equal in the West either until the two great World Wars. Women didn’t have the right to vote or the right to be elected up until this century in the West. As a result of the huge decline in male population during the two great World Wars, the feminism trend has emerged in order to flatter women to fulfill men’s obligations, thus compensating for the decline in male population. This 70-year-old trend that emerged out of mere economic aspirations looks down upon the thousands of years old civil heritage without putting forward a single argument. The Islamic form of society has been working smoothly for 1400 years. Let feminists who object to men’s dominance to some extent show a society that functions well in which men and women are thoroughly equal. They can’t, because in these societies the institution of marriage has perished; people do not marry, even if they marry they get divorced in a short time, even if they don’t get divorced they avoid making children. The sentiment of arrogance is so rampant in the West that they keep criticizing other systems although the problems of their own wretched system remain unsolved. Although the overwhelming portion of those who marry in accordance with Islamic principles are happy with their families, the media only shows the unhappy minority and makes propaganda over them. For example, even though those who marry young are generally happy with their lives, the media only shows young women who were forced to marry much older men, thus presenting marriage in young ages as wicked. Although the majority of secular marriages end up with infidelity and divorce, the media considers this as a norm and doesn’t feel obliged to mention them, thus creating a false perception in society.
First of all, we must differentiate between the terms justice and equality. Justice is not equality, and equality is not just. The identical weight of the vote of an illiterate man and the vote of a professor who has dedicated his life to politics in a political election is equality, but definitely not justice. For instance, communism impairs equitability in order to enforce equality; it causes the worst injustice by equalizing the financial income of a hardworking and money-deserving man with that of a lazy and slack man. Just like that, the equality between men and women would bring about injustice rather than equity since men and women are biologically not equal, they are two different complementary parts that together constitute the whole. The fact that the two genders complement each other’s deficiencies renders them in need of each other and warrants the institution of marriage to fulfill these needs. Equalizing men and women would mean rendering the genders free of needing each other, thus breaking apart this whole that they form together. This is one of the reasons why marriage has become so rare and why people don’t see marriage as necessary and attractive anymore in the West. It is helpful to mention here the saying of the Prophet (pbuh) whereby he describes the End Times: “Approaching the Hour (doomsday) you will find: men imitate women, and women imitate men.” We can even go further to say that feminism is nothing but women trying to emulate men. Many feminists engage in things that they do not want just because men are doing them and they want to feel equal to men. These weak-minded women who can’t even admit the discreteness of the female gender actually despise womanhood by forgoing womanhood and imitating men.
There are numerous biological differences between men and women but most of these differences boil down to this single phenomenon: The female body is designed to bear and raise kids, whereas the male body is designed to manage hard work. Indeed, this division of labor is the primary rationale behind the existence of sexual reproduction. If we were to reproduce asexually, the burden of rearing children, feeding them, and protecting them would all be on the same person, thus entailing numerous difficulties. In sexual reproduction, females are specialized in giving birth to children and raising them while men are specialized in feeding and protecting this family. This collaboration alleviates the burden on both genders.
The male body is physically stronger, more agile and more durable than the female body; and this is because the male body is generally larger and more muscular than the female body. Men are also emotionally stronger than women; namely, they are more successful at withstanding emotional hardship. As women are more emotional than men, they are more prone to the psychological effects of calamities. The fact that the incidence of depression is much higher among women compared to men also stems from women’s emotional weakness.
It can be said that women have better communication skills and are more sociable than men, that’s why it is easier for them to make friends. Two meeting men would have a hard time finding a topic to talk about after ten minutes, whereas women can talk to each other for hours without any sign of boredom. Since men are more individualistic, autonomous and less sociable, they are not influenced by their environments as much as women do. This lets them break the conventions and standards established by their environments, thus making them more unique and creative in comparison to women. Almost all prominent scientists, philosophers, politicians, pioneers throughout history have been males. Even more interesting is that even though cooking has always been perceived as a feminine activity and the number of women who know cooking is much greater than the number of men who know cooking, the most successful and popular chefs are males all around the world. Today, men and women have completely equal rights in the West but nevertheless, those who reach top positions in these societies are males. For instance, 96 % of the top 500 companies in the USA are managed by male CEOs. Also, men generally have a better sense of humor than women due to their more creative intelligence. Another reason why the most successful people of all fields are men is that statistically men’s IQs have more variance than women’s IQs although their averages are somewhat equal. In other words, the most intelligent people are men, but so are the least intelligent people; and the vast majority of women are neither intelligent nor stupid, but around the average.
This simple fact which has been proven by multiple scientific studies also demonstrates that homosexual emotions depend a lot on one's upbringing: Children who are adopted and raised by homosexual couples are more likely to become homosexual compared to those raised by heterosexual couples. For instance, the chance of becoming homosexual/bisexual can be as high as 50% for daughters raised by lesbian couples. Homosexual couples are not genetically related to their adopted children. Despite this, their children start to develop homosexual urges over time since they witness homosexual norms in their family throughout their upbringing.
It is known that sexual orientation is not rigid, rather, one can have different orientations in different periods of his/her life thanks to his/her constantly changing psychology. There are lots of examples of people who used to be homosexual but later became straight, and who used to be straight but later became homosexual. This shows that nobody is born homosexual, instead, their psychology leads them to these feelings.
The even stronger evidence as to why homosexuality is not genetic and innate is that it would be impossible to pass on this gene to next generations even if we assumed its existence. Homosexuals cannot pass their genes on to next generations because they don’t engage in reproduction with the opposite gender. Even if there had been a gene responsible for homosexuality, it would’t have reached successive generations and would’ve disappeared completely. In other words, natural selection would’ve long eliminated a gene that makes one unable to reproduce by removing its desire for the opposite gender. Now, let’s inspect the reasons why homosexuality has recently proliferated in the West, which is actually one of the heralds of the doomsday narrated by our Prophet (pbuh).
1-) The human perception is shaped and conditioned by the norms of the society wherein one lives. For example, in a society where the blue color is associated with masculinity and the pink color is associated with femininity, one would automatically perceive anything that is colored blue as masculine and anything that is colored pink as feminine, and he would find it strange when he saw a man wearing pink. Just like this, the human brain perceives homosexuality as normal in societies where homosexuality is manifest and a norm, and it is more likely to have homosexual tendencies; in contrast, the human brain perceives homosexuality as strange and immoral in societies where homosexuality is not popular and totally dismissed, and it is unlikely to have homosexual tendencies in these societies. The Quran says that homosexuality was first practiced in the tribe of Lot (pbuh), nobody had homosexual tendencies up until Lot’s tribe because it hadn’t been a norm in any society. Whereas in Lot’s tribe, almost everybody had become homosexual because the norms and moral principles of his tribe would stimulate the brain to have such desires. The phenomenon mentioned here is dubbed “social learning” in psychology. For example, since vegetables have the potential of being poisonous, it is thought that humans inherently dislike vegetables to alleviate that risk. This is thought to be the reason why almost all children dislike eating vegetables. Well, how do we overcome this aversion over time and end up liking vegetables when we become adults? Let’s quote an article that discusses this issue: “So how do we get that bitterness aversion to tolerate, and even enjoy, eating our greens? Mostly, by just eating them. Part of it is social learning: We hate vegetables as kids, we see adults eating vegetables, we become adults and learn to like them, too.” Let’s apply the same logic to homosexuality. All people are born with an innate aversion to homosexuality; however, as they witness other people engage in homosexual behavior, they start liking it too as a consequence of social learning.
In conclusion, it can be said that homosexuality is contagious; the prospect of having homosexual desires is in right proportion with the popularity of homosexuality in society and the amount of these practices one witnesses during the course of his/her life. This is why homosexuality is more rampant in Western societies than those in the East. The remedy for this disease is completely rooting out this practice from society, not keep feeding it.
2-) Why is the favorite color of some people red while it is blue for many others? Why do some people like cats and others prefer dogs? Why do some people love apples while others love oranges? Why are some people attracted to blondes while others are attracted to brunettes? It is not right to search for the source of these complications in genetic differences only; the main source of our varying preferences is psychology which is shaped by our past experiences. Our brain records every experience in our subconscious mind and our sentiment towards newly encountered events is involuntarily retrieved from among the data thus collected. For instance, someone who suffers a dog attack will form the proposition “Dogs are dangerous” in his subconscious mind and will involuntarily harbor negative feelings towards dogs. This feeling can also occur by indirect means. For example, someone who is wounded by a horse may form the proposition “Big animals are dangerous” in his subconscious mind, which may automatically cause the hatred of dogs when coupled with the perception “Dogs are big animals”. An example from my own life is that when I was a kid, I had watched a butcher butchering an animal and was deeply disturbed by it. When I ate a liver bought from that butcher in the evening of that day, I associated these two incidents in my subconscious mind and developed a strong aversion to the liver. I still cannot even tolerate the smell of a liver, let alone eating it due to this incident in my childhood. As you see, our past experiences profoundly influence our subconscious mind, which in turn influences our sentiments. We often cannot even remember these incidents themselves, we can only feel the traces that they leave behind in our subconscious mind. Given all of these, I cannot help but think that the reason why many people end up becoming homosexual is the series of events that they experience in the past which are involuntarily engraved on their subconscious minds.
3-) In Western societies, homosexuality is presented as nice and attractive. A gay character is presented as a good role model in almost all Western TV series. Exalting and displaying the female body in each sector contributes to lesbian urges (Keep in mind that one of the most important reasons why gayness was very rampant in Ancient Greece was their excessive exaltation and display of the male body.) Especially the porn industry presents gay, lesbian and incest practices as pleasurable experiences that everybody should try. One does not lust over his/her sibling in normal circumstances. But if the sexual aspect of his sibling were constantly being mentioned to him, his possible intercourse with her were to be told him in a lustful way, and if the similar experiences of others were to be recounted to him as enjoyable experiences, wouldn’t his feelings towards his sibling finally change? Of course it would, he would look at his sibling sexually after enough propaganda. This is exactly what is being done it the West regarding homosexuality. Placing homosexuality at the center of focus, its continuous mention in the media, in schools and among friends change our view of members of our sex, whom we begin to evaluate from the sexual angle. Under the title “The Interaction between Men and Women", I had talked about how the sentiment of curiosity leads us to depraved actions and how we as humans gradually grow an addiction to them over time. People give harmful things like cigarette, alcohol, drugs, fornication, and gambling a try for the first time merely out of curiosity and end up becoming addicted to them. This is exactly the case for homosexuality too. Homosexuality's perpetual existence on the agenda evokes people's curiosity about how homosexual experience would feel like. Those who indulge in this curiosity grow an addiction to this over time and end up becoming the captives of their own minds.
4-) The reactions of human psychology during the times of widespread epidemics are a nice analogy to homosexual urges. During the times of widespread epidemics, this disease and its symptoms occupy a huge portion of what people see in the media and in other communication channels. Many of the people who are exposed to this constant mention of the disease start developing its symptoms automatically without contracting the disease just because their minds are always preoccupied with this disease and the doubts about whether they too have contracted it. These symptoms surely are not caused by the virus, they are the reflections of a disease-obsessed psychology on the body. It is well-known that the reactions of the human body are profoundly influenced by one’s psychology; if a healthy person constantly thinks that he is sick, his brain will automatically simulate the disease and the person will really feel sick. This is the case in homosexuality too. The constant mention and propagation of homosexuality in the media make people question whether they too are homosexual. This doubt that influences their psychology eventually shows its effect on their body and their brain really starts creating homosexual urges. The best and the easiest way to prevent this psychological state is to stop the perpetual mention, propagation, and normalization of homosexuality.
5-) The negligence and elimination of gender traits, feminizing men and masculinizing women as a result of the feminist movement in the West is one of the core reasons why homosexuality has become so rampant. The attraction between the genders declines as the differences between them vanish and the line that separates them blurs. Islam is quite sensitive about this; it firmly opposes the resemblance of the genders to each other both physically and socially. For example, Islam advises men to grow a beard so that they don't resemble women, whereas growing beard is not favored in the West. Men like women who are chaste, loving of their husbands and obedient; whereas women like those men who are masculine, protective of their wives and loyal to them. In Western societies, all these attributes are considered sexist and all distinctive traits of the genders have been repressed, that’s why the genders who normally find attractive the features that they lack and only possessed by the opposite gender are no longer attracted to the opposite gender. Since the chemistry of Muslims is not tainted by feminism, they can still retain their attractive gender attributes. That’s why in Western countries Muslim women who are modest, chaste, moral and fond of their husbands draw the attention of Western men; Muslim men who are loyal, masculine, mature and tied deeply to their families draw the attention of Western women.
In fact, what initiated the sequence of events that led to the spread of homosexuality was equalizing men and women before the law. First, all legal regulations that distinguished the genders were eliminated. This equality in terms of legal rights and responsibilities caused the concept of gender to be questioned over time, and finally led to its rejection altogether. The rejection of the genders inevitably led to questioning the norm of heterosexuality; because why should one constrain itself to like only a particular segment of people if there is no such thing as a gender at the end of the day? This domino effect that took place in the West surely reveals how correct Islam is in giving different rights and roles to men and women. Thanks to the proactive solutions of Islam, homosexuality has never been a serious problem for 1400 years in Muslim lands.
6-) Western culture always recommends people to be different and disobedient. In these societies that always promote unusualness, many people try to make themselves different by following the extreme trends for only attracting attention and raising their popularity. Many homosexual/bisexual/transexual individuals act with this intuition. They feel more special, disobedient and popular by opting for homosexuality. One’s being homosexual is an advantage for him when he applies for a university in the USA, the prospect of his getting accepted is more with his homosexual identity because homosexuals are not like anyone, they are different. These ridiculous standards naturally push individuals to follow perverse trends like LGBT. As such, those who identify themselves as the likes of crocodile, dog, and cucumber do this for nothing but to attract some attention.
7-) Since LGBT is one of the building blocks of Western civilization, following this trend is perceived as being more “Western” and “modern” by Western wannabes, who may end up indulging in this practice to prove their modernity. Now, ask yourself sincerely: If homosexuality were popular in the Middle East instead of the West, would our perception of it be the same? Of course not! The media would present it as one of the gruesome practices of backward Middle Eastern nations, shaping its public perception in this way. In this case, many of those who identify as homosexual now would hate this trend as a disgusting practice of backward people, let alone incline towards it.
8-) Language has a profound influence on our subconsciousness as we think with the words of our language. Words that we use to describe sexuality contribute to the development of homosexual feelings in the long run although most people do not realize this. There are lots of words in English that describe sexuality: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transexual, heteroromantic, biromantic, homoromantic, gay, lesbian… Words such as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual give us the perception that these sexual orientations are equally normal. Even the word heterosexual is obnoxious because it creates the impression that this orientation is not the only alternative. In Turkish, we have only two words to describe sexuality: man (erkek) and woman (kadın). Our ancestors had not unnecessarily complicated this simple case, they had not made up weird words and had described every anomaly that goes beyond this simple norm with the word “perversion”. It is very difficult for us to imagine something for which our language has no word, let alone desire it. If there was a popular word like “dogsexual” in English that describes sexual attraction to dogs, there would be lots of people who are sexually attracted to dogs because this word would have placed the concept of sexual attraction to dogs in our minds. We should avoid using unnecessary words that describe sexual anomalies in our language.
9-) People who have had a very bad experience with the opposite gender may harbor a grudge against all members of the opposite gender, and in some exceptional cases, this grudge disposes them to their own gender. This inclination is especially popular among women with low intelligence. It is of the highest levels of perversion for a person to seek becoming homosexual and to force himself/herself to become homosexual.
One of the main arguments of LGBT advocates is that being homosexual is not a choice, and people should not be blamed for their desires that they cannot control. Although it is true that we cannot put all the blame on the individual since there are various parameters that play a role in creating these feelings, it is unrealistic to say that the individual has no part in this and these feelings occur completely regardless of the choices he/she makes. We face this question here: Do our feelings and urges appear completely irrespective of our actions? Of course not, our feelings and urges can be changed by our actions to some degree. For example, everybody has a desire to become rich and live a prosperous life. If someone constantly contemplates the luxurious lives of rich people and watches broadcasts that encourage a lavish lifestyle, his desire for becoming rich will inevitably increase and may even transform into gruesome greed for money. On the contrary, if the same person spends a lot of time with poor people and witnesses their situation, his desire for money will eventually fade away and he will learn to be grateful for what he already has. If the person in the first example said “I have a stronger desire for becoming rich and living a prosperous life than an average human being, and since having this desire is not my choice, there is nothing wrong with me having recourse to illegitimate means to become rich”, would there be any merit in this justification? If one goes after a feeling or an urge of his and keeps feeding it, he can grow it so much as to be overwhelmed by it. If the same person tries to subdue that feeling or urge and abstains from what stirs that feeling, he can dull it and leave it powerless. Islam institutes many rules both at an individual level and at a society level to prevent homosexual urges; societies and individuals who fail to abide by these rules are blameworthy for increasing the probability of homosexual feelings despite not deliberately opting for it. If someone drives a car without paying attention to traffic rules and ends up crashing, can he be considered innocent for crashing unintentionally? If this were the case, there would be no guilty side in any car crash because no car crash happens deliberately and willingly.
Even if we accept the claim that some people are inherently more inclined to have homosexual urges, this doesn’t make a homosexual relationship more legitimate for them. Although men are inherently more violent than women, our legal system doesn’t give less punishment to men than women in case of a crime related to violence, because men’s violent nature doesn’t excuse their violence-related crimes. Although men are inherently more interested in sex and polygamy than women, our legal system doesn’t give less punishment to men than women in case of infidelity, because men’s lustful nature doesn’t excuse infidelity on their part. Just like this, even if some people were inherently more inclined to homosexuality, this wouldn’t make a same-sex relationship more legitimate for them.
Last but not least, what should someone who feels homosexual urges do? Firstly, he/she should know that these urges are not inherently present and should not blame God for having them, it is the influence of his/her society that instills these feelings in him. In other words, he/she should not hate Islam for these urges, rather he should hate Western civilization for infecting him with these urges. Moreover, he should know that having homosexual urges is not haram (sin), rather, acting on these urges is haram (sin). Normally a healthy man is necessarily attracted to beautiful women whom he is not married to, and this attraction is not a sin because it is a natural instinct that he cannot help. What constitutes sin is acting on this urge and commiting fornication. The situation of homosexuals is not different than this. A homosexual shouldn't feel guilty and feel contempt for himself due to his homosexual urges, he should be aware that this is a test from God and he will win a huge prize by God if he manages to restrain his urges. This means that even something abominable like homosexual urges can cause one to enter Paradise if managed properly. The common mistake that Muslims generally do is that they paint all homosexual with the same brush and hate all of them outright; whereas in fact, a homosexual who doesn't appreciate his urges and tries to restrain them as much as possible is head and shoulders above a heterosexual who champions and legitimizes homosexuality.
Is Islam anti-women and anti-homosexual? Let’s debunk this perception created by Western media using a simple example. Think about an ugly woman being an object of ridicule for her physical appearance. The first person says the following to console her: “You are not ugly, those who call you ugly are lying.” The second person says the following to console her: “You are indeed ugly, but being ugly is not a crime and it is not right for people to make fun of your physical appearance.” Which one of these consolations would the ugly lady like more? She would like the statement of the first person more because it is more appealing to her ego despite being untrue. Although the second statement is more accurate and realistic, it is more difficult for the woman to accept. In this example, the first person represents progressives who do not refrain from lying for the sake of benefit, and the second person represents Muslims who uphold the truth even if people don’t like it. Can we say that the second person is an enemy of the ugly woman? Of course not, the second person tries to prevent her from being an object of ridicule by using reasonable arguments instead of lying. Progressives make up the lie “Men and women are equal” in order to protect women who are being mistreated by men; Muslims, on the other hand, say that men are inherently stronger than women, but they must use their strength to protect women instead of tyrannizing over them. Progressives make up the lie “Same-sex relationships are as normal as straight relationships” in order to protect homosexuals who are being alienated by their societies; Muslims, on the other hand, say that homosexuality is a psychological disorder, and we should help those who are infected by it instead of alienating them. Just like the statement of the first person sounds more appealing to the ugly woman than the statement of the second person in the initial example, the statements of the progressives may sound more appealing than those of the Muslims in the other cases we mentioned. However, what is more important than their appeal is their accuracy, and progressives totally fail in this respect.
 Ali bin İbrahim el-Kummi “Tefsir-ul Kummi” C.2, S.303-307
 Zarya, Valentina. "The Percentage of Female CEOs in the Fortune 500 Drops to 4%."Fortune.com. Fortune, 07 June 2016. Web. 27 June 2017
 Burkham et al. 2001; Cooper et al., 1996
 Sunan Abi Dawud, Hadith: 2139
 "Survey Reveals Which European Country Cheats Most." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 3 Mar. 2014. Web. 07 Jan. 2017.
 “HIV and Gay and Bisexual Men.” AIDSinfo, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 5 Apr. 2018, aidsinfo.nih.gov/understanding-hiv-aids/fact-sheets/25/81/hiv-and-gay-and-bisexual-men.
 “Anal Sex Safety and Health Concerns.” WebMD, www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-concerns.
 Schumm, Walter. “Children of Homosexuals More Apt to Be Homosexuals? A Reply to Morrison and to Cameron Based on an Examination of Multiple Sources of Data.” The National Center for Biotechnology Information, 20 July 2010, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20642872/.
 Romm, Cari. "The Complicated Reasons Why You Like Some Foods And Hate Others". The Cut, 2016, https://www.thecut.com/2016/05/the-complicated-reasons-why-you-like-some-foods-and-hate-others.html. Accessed 25 July 2021.
There is a stereotype among the public that women are more successful at multi-tasking, which means being able to do multiple jobs at the same time (We've all witnessed our mothers cooking, looking after kids and watching TV at the same time.) We cannot give a definitive verdict on this topic due to the absence of scientific studies backing this stereotype, we hope that scientists will illuminate this topic in the future. The female body is designed as delicate so as to give birth to babies, and it is made emotional so as to rear kids with due sensitivity. Women's emotional superiority over men furnishes them with the love of kids and with the ability to take care of them with more devotion. Women's sexual desire too is largely dependent upon emotions; they seek to love, be loved and be desired by the opposite gender. By contrast, as far as men are concerned, sexual desire is a physical need stimulated by testosterone.
Why does Islam entrust financial responsibility to men?
In Islam, it is permissible for women to work as long as they are not subject to un-Islamic conditions in their job, but the liability of earning the livelihood is given to men. Women cannot be forced to earn money; even if they earn money, this money is their own due and they cannot be pressured into spending it for the sake of the family. This principle of Islam which intends to financially protect women somehow angers feminists. The core mission God has given women is bearing and raising kids, this is what they are designed for given the maternal hormones they secrete. Though dads find it difficult to care for the kids even for five minutes, moms can do this for hours without complaining and they owe this by and large to their maternal hormones. The urge of becoming a mother is installed in women even before having a kid, and this urge is one of the reasons that induce women to marry. If it wasn’t for the maternal urges of women, they would never tolerate nine-month pregnancy, the painful process of giving birth and all the things they sacrifice by subordinating their own desires and comfort in order to raise their child. Also, God has given women a miracle called breast milk which He produces among liters of blood as the most wholesome and irreplaceable nutrient for humans and which he punctually produces right at the time of birth as a provision for the infant.
Since bringing up the child with proper attention and education is very important in Islam, Islam demands from women to prioritize child caring and relieves them of the stress of having to earn a livelihood by giving this duty to men. Spending time with kids is so important that communication with a child and the attention shown to them result in child’s IQ to be significantly higher than what would it otherwise be, and this has been proven by many scientific researches. Western women refrain from having kids by virtue of prioritizing their careers and Western nations are verging on the ultimate destination of dying out. Despite the fact that a nation must have at least two children per family on average to maintain its population, this number is way lower in Western societies except for immigrant families.
Hiring a babysitter might be a solution for a working mother who wants to raise her kid. However, this solution entails a terrible danger. Babysitters are obliged to do whatever the kid wants without objection and they do not have the authority to punish the kid when the kid acts in an insolent way. These people don’t have any authority over the kids because they fear that they may lose their job if they go against the will of the children. They unintentionally spoil the children and make them feel like they can do whatever they want without being brought to account. Mothers, on the other hand, can educate their children much better because they have the authority to say “no” to their children when needed, and to reprimand and punish them if they do something wrong. I have witnessed numerous times that children who are raised by babysitters end up becoming very spoiled individuals.
Saying that women do not have to work doesn't mean they don't have to get an education. Education widens the perspective from which we look at life and lets us know the world and life more precisely. That's why women have to be well-educated so that they improve themselves and the children they raise. An educated woman who doesn't raise kids will benefit society as much as one educated person; however, if she refrains from working and dedicates herself to raise three kids by imparting her education to them, she will benefit the world as much as three educated people. So her education wouldn't be in vain even if she never worked in a job, spreading this education to the next generation by raising kids is actually more important and beneficial than working in a job. In our age, wealthy and educated families make few children; and poor families make a lot of children, compensating for the deficit created by rich families. This is why the majority of the new generation happen to grow up in poor families with financial inadequacy, thus creating a generation that has no access to proper education due to financial constraints. Successful and intelligent women’s refraining from having children for career concerns impairs the overall gene pool as well, because the genes of intelligent couples fail to be passed onto future generations. Also, the one kid that rich and educated families have inherits a huge heritage alone, while the seven kids of poor families have to share an already small heritage with seven siblings. This cycle increases the gap between the rich and the poor even more in each generation. As a result, rich and educated families’ abstinence from having kids creates an uneducated new generation and causes a wider gap between the rich and the poor.
In workplaces where men and women are together, men may harbor lust over other women, and women may satisfy their need of feeling liked and desired through exposing themselves to other men. A woman who spends her day in that environment would already satisfy her desire for feeling liked, and she wouldn't need her husband for emotional satisfaction. As a result, she won’t desire her husband anymore, and the husband who keeps getting rejected by his wife will likely resort to flirting with other women he interacts with during the day. Therefore it is not permissible for women to work in workplaces where they interact with men in inappropriate clothing. Also unlike men, the female libido is heavily dependent on emotions and the mood she is in. Though men generally are ready for sexual intercourse virtually every time; women scarcely desire sexual intercourse after a long, exhausting and stressful workday. These are the problems for married couples caused by women working especially in workplaces where they interact with the opposite gender.
Female employees are not preferred by employers as they often take maternity leave during when they may get paid for no service rendered. Maternity leaves are a nightmare for companies because they cause a temporary shortage of experienced workforce that is very difficult to fill. Moreover, women work with less efficiency during their periods because on top of being very painful, it causes them to be emotionally unstable. As a consequence, salaries offered to female employees are usually less than salaries offered to male employees. In other words, female employees’ salaries are not always worth the effort they put in for work. Feminists agitate for equal wages between men and women; they demand a decree that mandates companies to pay equal wages to both genders. In fact, the capitalist system gives people what they deserve. If companies were forced to pay women as much as they pay men, then companies would be reluctant to employ female employees for the risk of maternity leave, and this would result in higher unemployment for women.
So far we have talked about feminist extremists, the mindset that strives to forcefully equalize the financial position of genders. The other extreme camp is of those who adamantly oppose women’s contribution to the economy by invoking the religious fatwas (decrees) that were given one thousand years ago. Today, women’s participation in the workforce is relatively more convenient when compared with the past. Since most job fields of the past would require physical strength, men were advantageous over women with regards to the value and the amount of work they do. Whereas in our times when desk jobs have gained popularity and prestige, men and women have almost no difference in terms of productivity. Women can contribute a lot to the economy once given the chance in the modern era. In the past, people would grow many kids to compensate for their high mortality rates caused by diseases and wars. Now, growing a few kids is sufficient to retain the population and women don't have to spend as much time as their predecessors did in growing kids. On top of that, thanks to the ease of housework with the advent of technological devices such as washing machines and dishwashers, women now spend less time doing housework and have more time to work in a job. It is beneficial for women to work as long as their ambition for money and building a career doesn’t cause them to neglect their maternity. Islam doesn’t charge women with the responsibility of doing housework and cooking. Had Islam assigned these as the liabilities of women, then it would’ve been impossible for women to work in a job as it would’ve been quite difficult to manage both work and housework at the same time. The fact that Islam doesn’t impose the duty of housework particularly on any gender is a flexibility that allows women to work when conditions are suitable for so.
Some feminists argue as follows: “If a woman does enough training, she might become stronger than a man who never works out. A compassionate man can bring up kids better than a ruthless woman. Although such cases exist, why do we make a generalization and separate the responsibilities of the sexes?” Let me answer this as an industrial engineer: There is a difference between a solution being feasible (possible) and it being optimal. It is possible that a woman can do men’s work and a man can do women’s work, but they would not do these with the optimum efficiency as the work they take on would contradict their predispositions. A person might be successful in every field, but he is very successful in one field. It is not logical for him to incline towards the fields in which he is successful instead of the field in which he is very successful. This is dubbed “comparative advantage”. Suppose that in the university entrance exam, students are divided into either of the two categories based on their disposition and take a separate test: Math (arithmetic) students and literature (verbal) students. This doesn’t mean that all Math students are worse than literature students with regards to the literature; many intelligent mathematicians have actually better literary skills than unintelligent literature students. However, they are waay better than literature students with regards to Math. This is why it is more logical for them to become a math student rather than a literature student. Just like this, a woman might be able to do male work better than most men, but she can do female work waay better than most men. A man might be able to do female work better than most women, but he can do male work waay better than most women. This is why the maximum efficiency is achieved only when men do male work and women do female work, thus utilizing their comparative advantages. Keep in mind that a woman cannot compete with men in masculinity, but she can control men by using her femininity. Her true power lies in her femininity, not in her artificial and bogus masculinity.
It is important that women obey their husbands within the boundaries of Islam for unity and peace in marriage. There is a hierarchy in every part of society and this hierarchy sustains the order in society. If children didn’t obey their parents, if citizens didn’t obey their president/ministers, if workers didn’t obey their bosses, if soldiers didn’t obey their commanders, would there be any trace of order and peace in society? All established institutions would break down and chaos would pervade society. Just like this, the final authority in the family whom other members should obey is the husband. If it wasn’t so, even the slightest disagreement would grow due to stubbornness and cause that marriage to break apart, and there would never be peace and order in that marriage. It is better for the wife to obey even if she disagrees with her husband’s opinion, just like we have to obey the laws enacted by our government even though we sometimes find them wrong and irrational. Well, why did God order wives to obey their husbands and not vice versa? This is because men make more sacrifices in marriage both financially and emotionally, and because men can protect their authority thanks to their physical and emotional strength. It is not realistic to expect a strong man to be subservient to a weak woman because the woman would have no power to enforce her rules on the man in case the man defies them.
Finally, let’s remark on the concept of “economic freedom” that is frequently used for women nowadays. Describing the situation of women who spend most of their days in tiring and boring jobs with no spare time for themselves, and who prefer to become slaves to their bosses after refusing obedience to their husbands as “economic freedom” is a vile distortion of perception. If economic freedom is indispensable for everybody, why don’t Westerners advocate the economic freedom of children and teenagers? Why don’t children/teenagers drop out of school and start working in a job for their “freedom”? Isn’t the impermissibility of child labor an impediment to children’s economic freedom? It is as stupid to associate the emancipation of women with their subordinating motherhood and entering the workforce as it is to associate the emancipation of children with their dropping out of school and entering the workforce.
Does Islam allow men to beat their wives?
Islam permits men to lightly beat their wives in certain situations. “But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand. (Quran 4:34)” Islam confers the right of revenge on people who were wronged although it states that forgiveness is better than seeking revenge. There are five ways of taking revenge for a man who is ill-treated by his wife: psychological punishment by staying away from his wife, physical violence, financial punishment by curtailing her money, cheating on her, and divorcing her.
The option most preferred by Islam among these five is the first option, the Prophet (pbuh) stayed away from his wives and temporarily resided in a different place when his relationship with his wives turned sour. However, this option might be too unsatisfactory for a man who is deeply offended by his wife. In this case, he would incline towards the other alternatives in search of a greater punishment. Let’s evaluate the other alternatives one by one. Islam can never condone a man curtailing his wife’s money and financially intimidating her, it is one of the essential duties of a man to financially take care of his wife and nothing can legitimize his evasion of this core element of the marriage contract. Another option is divorcing. Although Islam permits divorce, it discourages it and prescribes it only as a last resort. Especially if the couple has children who will be the victims of their divorce, the option of divorce should not be on the table unless the situation gets quite dire. All marriages without exception would end in divorce if men opted for divorce in the slightest domestic conflicts, because conflicts are inevitable in every marriage without exception. There are two options left for punishment: cheating and physical violence. The easiest and the most attractive option for a man is cheating on his wife, be sure that most irreligious men take revenge by secretly or openly cheating on their wives. They don’t even feel guilty while committing this act due to the grudge they harbor against their wives; instead, they feel that it is their right to cheat on a wife who ill-treats them. Considering that this option is also charming in terms of pleasure, we see that the most expedient way wherein a man can avenge his wife’s misconduct is cheating on her. However, we have a problem: It is a grave sin in Islam for a married person to cheat on his/her spouse. In order to prevent men from inclining to this option and to funnel their anger to a different alternative, Islam gives leeway to physical violence under certain conditions. There is no doubt that in the absence of the option of physical violence, the option of cheating would be preferred way more often. The damage that cheating inflicts on a relationship is much more severe and permanent than the damage inflicted by physical violence, and this makes physical violence the lesser of the two evils in this case.
The fact that Islam gives leeway to violence definitely doesn’t mean that it encourages it. The Prophet (pbuh) himself would’ve used violence against his wives if domestic violence were encouraged by Islam; but it is known that he never raised his hand to any of his wives, on the contrary, he rebuked those who abuse their wives by saying “Those who beat their wives are not the best of you.” This clearly indicates that a good Muslim shouldn’t beat his wife, Muslims who beat their wives practice Islam only at the minimum permitted level. The best option is forgiveness. The second-best option after this is what we called “the first option” above, namely, temporarily staying away from the wife. Physical violence, being the third option, is a permitted but discouraged option reserved for low-ranking Muslims who cannot restrain their anger.
Islam doesn’t idolize women just like it doesn’t idolize men. In our world, the violence that men have to suffer is more severe than the violence faced by women. Men become soldiers and die in battles, men become police officers and risk their lives, men become miners and construction workers at the expense of losing their health. One of the reasons why men have a shorter life expectancy than women is that they sustain these difficult physical conditions. What is it but pure hypocrisy that people are agitated by women being subject to the tiniest abuse, given that the whole world has taken men’s suffering for granted, and is totally fine with men risking their lives for the sake of the society, and blames men who suffer abuse of being weak instead of trying to protect them?
Why does Islam give two shares to men in inheritance and in testimony with respect to financial affairs?
God gives two shares to men in inheritance because he gives the obligation of financially sustaining the family to men. Men use the two shares they have for the entire family, whereas women keep their single share for themselves. If we assumed that the parents of both spouses hand down the same amount of heritage to the next generation, the wife would have a wealth of x and the husband would have a wealth amounting to 2x. In an average family of four people (with two children), if the husband spends his entire wealth equally for each member of the family, he would spend 2x/4 = x/2 for himself. On the other hand, the wife would not share her own wealth of x and she would utilize the x/2 spent by her husband on behalf of her. So in total, the wealth she saves or utilizes would add up to x + x/2 = 3x/2, which is three times the wealth utilized or saved by the husband. This simple calculation demonstrates that it is the female who ends up more advantageous in an Islamic marriage contract. Also, women’s relative enrichment after marriage (because her expenses will be covered by her husband) is a factor that entices them to marry; and this facilitates the institution of marriage, thereby increasing the number of people who marry.
“O you who have believed, when you contract a debt for a specified term, write it down. And let a scribe write [it] between you in justice. Let no scribe refuse to write as God has taught him. So let him write and let the one who has the obligation dictate. And let him fear God, his Lord, and not leave anything out of it. But if the one who has the obligation is of limited understanding or weak or unable to dictate himself, then let his guardian dictate in justice. And bring to witness two witnesses from among your men. And if there are not two men [available], then a man and two women from those whom you accept as witnesses - so that if one of the women errs, then the other can remind her. (Qur’an 2:282)” The Holy Quran states that the testimony of men is two times that of women in regards to financial affairs. This is because the economy is controlled by men for the most part and men are generally more knowledgeable about the economy than women. There are surely exceptions to this but the most precise verdicts are given considering the general trend, not the exceptions. Some scholars have extended the scope of this verse's verdict and accepted that the superiority of men's testimony applies to all affairs, not exclusively to financial affairs. However this contention is their own opinion, it is not something that has been derived from the Holy Quran or the Sunnah of the Prophet.
Being emotional is the biggest weakness of women. (The biggest weakness of men, on the other hand, is definitely their sexual desire) Since women are more emotional and they give more weight to their emotions than their intellect while giving verdicts, they weren’t made judges throughout Islamic history. This might be the reason for their deficiency in testimony; they cannot deliver objective and accurate information about events as they are always under the influence of emotions. Even more important is that their testimonies entail pressure exerted on them by defendants. Some defendants may take advantage of women’s physical and emotional weakness by intimidating and pressuring them into altering their testimony. In fact, being a witness in a case is neither profitable nor a privilege; it is only a liability that burdens one with wearisome responsibilities.
Why do men have the right to marry up to four women?
In Islam; polygamy is not recommended, it is a permission granted in case of special situations. “And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one or those your right hand possesses. That is more suitable that you may not incline [to injustice]. (Qur’an 4:3)” This verse stipulates that one must observe justice between his wives for polygamy to be permissible for him. In another verse, it reads: “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 God - then indeed, God is ever Forgiving and Merciful. (Qur’an 4:129)” the latter verse states that it is not possible to observe justice between the wives as the husband will inevitably lean towards the one he has more affection for. The latter verse somewhat annuls the condition stipulated in the former verse, which gives the feeling that it is not permitted to engage in polygamy unless there exists a special situation. We cannot say that Islam bans polygamy altogether though; we can only say that it sanctions it for extreme cases that make polygamy imperative. Now, let’s question why this entitlement is given to men instead of women:
1-) Men are more disposed to polygamy than women both physically and instinctively. A man can impregnate multiple women concurrently but a woman cannot be impregnated by multiple men at the same time. A man can have thousands of children whereas women are quite limited in that sense. That’s why God has created men as instinctively inclined to polygamy, almost no man would refuse to be with multiple women if we set aside financial and social constraints. As for women, this is not really the case. Women generally seek to spend their entire lives with the one man they love without desiring anyone else. If a woman with multiple husbands were to get pregnant, she wouldn’t even know to which husband the child belongs (unless she does lots of DNA tests each time which is practically impossible). Therefore polygamy is biologically impossible and unnecessary for women.
When we look from this perspective, we see that marriage is an institution that is meant to protect women in and of itself. Had God not made marriage mandatory for sexual intercourse, most men would’ve preferred living a polygamous life with as many women as they desire, thereby depriving women of finding a loyal husband. This is the reason why the side that usually solicits marriage is women and the side that usually evades marriage is men in the West. Marriage is an institution that avails women more than men both in terms of the satisfaction of desires and in terms of finance (remember that men are obliged to take care of women financially). For that reason, the rights that a husband has over his wife are more than the rights that a wife has over her husband because men sacrifice more in marriage.
2-) Men’s sexual desire is almost always high due to their stable amount of testosterone. On the contrary, women have fluctuating libidos due to their fluctuating hormones during their menstrual cycle and due to their desires being significantly influenced by emotion. This is why even in the West where women are not stigmatized for their sexual desires; statistics demonstrate that men are the side that demands more sexual intercourse in the majority of relationships. Women also have menstrual periods during which having sex is Islamically impermissible for them although men have no obstacle for sex during these periods. Moreover, it is difficult for women to have sex during pregnancy and they usually abstain from sex towards the last phases of pregnancy. Given all these factors, it is evident that many monogamous men cannot get enough sex in their relationships in comparison to their partners. Polygamy might be a means of compensating for the gap between the genders’ sexual desire and capacity.
3-) Throughout history, the incidence of male deaths has been more than the incidence of female deaths. This is due to wars and heavy work that men were engaged in for a livelihood that took so many men’s lives. Polygamy has been a convenient means of resolving the shortage of men throughout history, and Islam’s permission for polygamy is crucial in resolving this problem. However, the number of men who die due to wars and heavy work is negligible in the 21st century for most countries, and the male population is somewhat equal to the female population. It is safe to say that for most societies today, polygamy has lost its function of offsetting the discrepancy between gender populations. Considering the profound problems created by jealousy between co-wives, I think that it is better for men to refrain from marrying multiple wives. In this age, the problems caused by polygamy outnumber its benefits except in a very few special situations.
The portion of men who are engaged in polygamy in Islamic societies is much less than the portion of men who cheat on their wives in the West. In Muslim states, the percentage of polygamy practice never exceeds 5% among men; in contrast, the frequency of infidelity in Europe is around 50% among men. This proves that it makes no sense to regard polygamy as anti-women; instead, polygamy is an authorization granted to families that would otherwise suffer infidelity. If the number of men and women are approximately equal in society – it is always more or less equal except in extreme situations like wars and immigration –, it is not statistically possible for men to marry multiple wives anyway. The number of women must exceed the number of men substantially in order for polygamy to become popular in a society, but this is not the case for almost any country now. The percentage of polygamous marriages wouldn’t exceed 3% if polygamy were to be made legal in a society where there is no shortage of men.
Why are men going to get female spouses (houris) but women will be given no male spouse in Paradise?
This question has become one of the most popular questions of our time. Firstly, we must say that there is no account in Islamic sources as to whether women will be given male spouses besides their own husbands in Paradise. Throughout the Quran, the term “Gilman” is used for the young men who are created for Paradise. However, we do not know any detail about those young men and do not know for which purpose they are created. It is unnecessary to discuss whether women will be given male spouses or not in Paradise because there is no account in Islamic sources that will clarify this discussion. We must ponder over and discuss the female spouses (houris) because this is what God has preferred to mention in the Quran.
Is the presence of female spouses a reward for men? Of course it is. Well, is the presence of female spouses a bad thing for the women that will go to Paradise? No, because there is no such thing as jealousy in Paradise. "And We will have removed (in Paradise) whatever is within their breasts of resentment (Qur’an 7:43)” Since there is no jealousy in Paradise, the presence of female spouses is not a bad thing for women as they will not feel jealousy over the spouses that their husbands are going to get. Finally, is the existence of female spouses in Paradise a nice thing, so to say a reward for women? Surprisingly yes. The Messenger of God (pbuh) has said in one of his traditions that women who came from the world will be more beautiful in Paradise than female spouses created for Paradise because they’ve successfully passed the test of the worldly life. One of the things that women aspire to most is looking more beautiful than other women. The feeling and pride of looking more beautiful than other women is an unrivaled delight of women all around the world. We can even go as far as to say that women do not dress nicely in order to look beautiful to men, rather they dress nicely in order to look beautiful to other women. In a place where there is no member of the opposite gender; men usually look like cavemen, but women keep themselves well-groomed and elegant. The pleasure of looking more beautiful than the female spouses in Paradise (houris) is a reward for women. As a result, we can say that the existence of female spouses in Paradise (houris) is a prize given to both men and women in Paradise.
Even if we assume that women will not be given any spouse besides their own husbands in Paradise, this is compatible with the sexual urges of both genders. Sexuality is more important to men than to women. Although many women can stay without sex for a long timeb, sexuality is central to men's lives. Also, men who view sex as more of a physical pleasure are eager to have sex with multiple partners. Women who see sex as an emotional pleasure, on the other hand, often want to be attached to a single partner they love and experience everything with him. Considering that men are more interested in sexuality and polygamy than women, it is not surprising that the reward given to men in Heaven includes these concepts.
The interaction between Men and Women
The attraction between men and women is the most powerful of human desires; this attraction is so powerful as to turn people into the slaves of their lust and animalize them. This is why it is imperative that a society keep a stern approach against fornication, and obstruct all means leading to this evil act. In one tradition of the Prophet, it is said that nine-tenths of (sexual) shyness is given to women and one-tenth of it is given to men. God has created women shyer with regards to sexual matters so that they can offset men’s unlimited lust. Had women been created like men with respect to sexual desire, then it would’ve been almost impossible to prevent fornication in society. However, modern societies promote shamelessness and fornication for women in the name of liberating them, urging them to experience totally free and perverse sexuality. Now, women have turned out to be as shameless as men, and this has resulted in a proliferation of fornication, thereby creating societies that are totally directed by lust. On the other hand, many Muslim nations have a distorted and un-Islamic notion that assigns chastity only to women. Unfortunately, many Muslim families concede unlimited sexual freedom to their sons, and they falsely assume that being a male is a valid excuse to violate chastity. If either of the genders remains chaste, the other gender will inevitably be so; if either of the genders promotes shamelessness, the other gender will instinctively follow the other’s footsteps. If a society loses its shame, it will be quite difficult to recover it; so it is paramount that we resolve the issue of fornication and shamelessness before it becomes a chronic disease of our societies.
The institution of marriage in Islam contrasts with how this term is perceived in the West. A person will not be the companion of his/her spouse in this world only, spouses will become companions forever in Paradise. Therefore the bond between spouses is unimaginably powerful in Islam. A person would quite naturally feel attached to his/her spouse, envy him/her from others and wouldn’t consent even to a single lustful glance directed at him/her from others. No honorable, virtuous and dignified men would be OK with a lustful look from a stranger directed at his wife, mom or sister. The lack of jealousy between spouses is an indication of the lack of love between them. In the West, people don’t really envy their partners as they see their partners as merely a means of rejoicing themselves and satisfying their sexual needs for a short time. Many of them take pride in other men’s liking of their wives, and some of them are so open-minded that they think it is their spouses’ freedom to cheat on themselves.
Islam does not approve of dating as it is inevitable that the daters will commit sinful acts with each other. One wouldn’t want his spouse to have had other relationships in the past as this is an impediment for him to emotionally attach himself to his spouse; this is why men have always been captivated by pure and chaste women throughout history. If you are aware that the person you’re having a relationship with has had numerous relationships before you, and he/she is going to have numerous relationships after you, then that person can never be special to you, and the love you feel for him/her is a temporary and phony one. One would find it painful to even imagine that the one he/she is in love with had been in a relationship with someone else in the past. Since Western people think of their girlfriends/boyfriends as mere sources of fun and means of satisfaction for a temporary period of time, they don’t care about the pasts of the people they date.
Moreover, dating is an activity that induces an individual to make wrong decisions about marriage. Once people fall in love, they become blind to the drawbacks and weaknesses of their beloved ones. It is scientifically proven that one cannot logically and objectively evaluate the person (s)he is in love with due to the malfunction of the brain’s evaluation mechanism for the loved one. People marry their beloved ones as blinded by love; but when the love between them fades away over time, they realize how incompatible they actually are. Nowadays this is the primary reason for divorces; many teenagers who are blinded by love even to the extent of struggling against their families for the sake of marriage come to realize after the marriage that their spouse is not as perfect as they’d perceived beforehand. Even though some couples are aware of each other’s drawbacks, they can’t restrain themselves from continuing the relationship out of the love they feel. The decision of marriage must be made rationally with a lucid mind, not based on emotions and the momentary state of mood. Relationships like dating result in wrong marriages as they urge people to make emotional and urgent marriage decisions.
Obscenity has become so rampant in today’s societies that even the things that have nothing to do with sexuality are made attractive by blending with sexuality, and exploiting the sexual urges that are present in every human being has become the easiest source of revenue. The media values people only according to their physical appearances; only the most beautiful women and the most handsome men are shown in the media and everybody is encouraged to be like them. All these manipulations give rise to women who undergo numerous cosmetic surgeries to make themselves acceptable to society, and men who raise their expectations of beauty in women and cease to find their wives attractive. A Western woman already satisfies her need of feeling liked by exposing herself to the strangers outside, thus becoming reluctant to experience sexual intimacy with her husband. A Western man regards his wife as only one name in the long list of the women he interacts with during the day, and he doesn't see his wife as special and avoids paying enough attention to her. His wife who is in need of attention looks for this outside rather than at home, and this endless loop starts over. Is it possible for an average man who sees women that are more beautiful than his wife in streets, televisions, and workplaces every day not to cheat on his wife at least at the imagination level? No, it is not. This infidelity will never cease in his imagination even if it doesn’t reach the physical level.
Man is attracted to what is prohibited, and this attraction is always fueled by his curiosity. The sentiment of curiosity is the inception of most sins, evils, and addictions. The circle of life that God has permitted actually is more than enough to satisfy the needs of man; however, since man is curious about what is going on within the illicit circle, he often stumbles into the pit of sin. Especially making sins explicit and spoken out in society stirs our curiosity about them. People’s encounter with bad habits like fornication, gambling, cigarette, drugs, alcohol is a consequence of their curiosity; otherwise one wouldn’t go after something knowing that it is psychologically and physically harmful. While our father Adam (pbuh) was living happily in Paradise among the thousands of trees and fruits which were permissible to him, he inclined towards the one tree that was impermissible to him; this is because Satan drew Adam’s (pbuh) attention to that single tree and stirred his curiosity about what would happen if he ate from that tree. I was born and grew up in Turkey, and I’d never wondered about the flavor of pork because I’d never witnessed anyone eating pork in Turkey. As soon as I went abroad and witnessed people eating pork, I began to feel an enormous curiosity about how that meat tastes. Although there are numerous kinds of meats which are permissible to me, Satan made me wonder about the only impermissible one among numerous options. What I want to point out that a bad action does not attract our attention when it is not exhibited in front of us; it is only when it becomes a popular subject and is explicitly encouraged that we get curious about them. Sexuality’s being the point of discussion in every moment of our lives, its usage in advertisements, films, TV series, schools, and internet arouses our curiosity about it. This gets even more dangerous as far as singles are concerned, many Muslim single teenagers indulge in fornication just for curiosity despite their awareness that they will regret in the end. Hence it is imperative that sexuality be confined within families and cease being the focus of attention in order to create a society that is not obsessed with lust. Constantly making sexuality the point of discussion is cruelty against singles, by extent against anyone who is committed to keeping himself/herself pure.
The structure of societies where men and women are mixed together is also a cause for the dulling of distinct gender features. People are spontaneously influenced and transformed by what is around them. For instance, men who study fashion design, a female-majority department, usually mimic women in their conducts and turn out to resemble women after a certain amount of time elapsed in that environment. This is the case in almost all nations because we inevitably imitate people we interact with most, even adopting their gestures and tics spontaneously. In Islamic societies where men and women are separated, men become masculine and women become feminine, and the features and attributes of genders do not merge. Today, one of the reasons why men are so feminine and women are so masculine in the West is the structure of society which mingles the two genders in every aspect of their lives.
The most popular excuse of those who condone mingling with someone of the opposite sex is this: “I see the person x who is of the opposite gender only as a friend; I don’t look at her/him in a sexual way.” Indeed it is not realistic for a man and a woman to be just friends and never sexually desire each other. A man would desire any beautiful woman as long as his hormones are sound. As a male, let me make an earnest confession on behalf of all men: If a man says to a woman that he sees her just as a friend, this is equivalent to saying that he doesn’t find her beautiful and attractive. Let me be more frank, if a man claims to regard a woman just as a friend, this is a confession that he finds her ugly. Women on the other hand love and desire men whom they can trust and with whom they get on well. Even if a woman considers a man just as a friend in the beginning, she will be attracted to him as she builds trust for him over time. So it is not realistic for a woman to avoid looking sexually at someone whom she likes, trusts and gets on well with. Even if someone doesn’t feel attraction towards a member of the opposite sex and sees him/her just as a friend, he/she cannot know for sure the feelings with which his friend looks at him/her. Since you cannot know for sure the feelings of those you interact with towards you, it is more preferable to avoid becoming friends with members of the opposite sex.
Islam’s stern stance against fornication and its subclasses doesn’t mean that Islam regards sexuality as evil. Islam upholds the emotional and physical relationship between married couples and praises the sex in legitimate bounds. If one’s relationship with his/her spouse is not satisfying enough, he/she will look for attention outside the family which will ultimately lead to adultery. One’s lust after his/her spouse is not something to be ashamed of; instead, it should be a source of pride.
God has created humans as two pairs and has given these pairs attributes that complement each other’s deficiencies, and has ordered the institution of marriage for these two pairs to come together and raise offspring. The inherently distinct two genders fit together when they join just like the different pieces of a puzzle fit together when joined, and it is not possible for members of the same gender to join as they will fail to establish this harmony. Arguably the primary component of this harmony is the function of reproduction; a man can only reproduce with a woman, not with a member of the same gender or another species.
In the contemporary age where the distinct inherent attributes of genders are dulled, another dangerous attack on the institution of family in the West is considering the marriage between members of the same sex as legitimate and normal, moreover encouraging it. Liberalism, which regards any action that doesn’t deliberately harm anyone as legitimate and moral, doesn’t refrain from condoning the worst depravities. According to liberals, even the sexual intercourse between a son and his mom would be legitimate as long as both parties consent. In reality, nothing that transgresses the limits of creation can be legitimate and normal. Having sexual intercourse with a member of the same sex, animal or a member of the family is contrary to the creation of God and it is nothing but a sheer perversion. There is no boundaries of perversion, those who today demand same-sex marriage will demand interspecies marriage in the future by proposing the same liberal arguments.
In fact, we don’t need to look at homosexuality through religious lenses to realize its absurdity, purely scientific lenses reveal this fact as well. The purpose of the eye’s existence is vision, we see a doctor and get a treatment if our eyes fail to carry out its function of vision. The purpose of the ear’s existence is hearing, we see a doctor and get a treatment if our eyes fail to carry out its function of hearing. The purpose of sexual urges is reproduction, we should see a doctor and get a treatment if our sexual urges dispose us to people with whom we cannot reproduce, as this is a clear sign of its misfunction. Biologically speaking, homosexuality is even more abnormal than incest, because incest at least has the capability to produce fertile offspring.
Also, another type of perverts called gender-fluids has emerged who claim to be of different genders in various periods of the day. For example, they demand the usage of the pronoun "she" during mornings since they identify as a female during mornings, and they demand the usage of the pronoun "he" during evenings since they identify as a male during evenings. Even funnier is the emergence of people in the West who do not identify as humans, these people want a transition to animals or plants by invoking the legitimacy of transition to the opposite sex. These people even demand special pronouns; they think the pronouns "he, she, it" do not match their identification. Opposing these people is termed bigotry and close-mindedness by liberals. If someone commits a crime and says to the judge "I don't feel like a human, indeed I identify myself as an animal. You cannot punish me for my crime as you do not punish animals for their crimes", would this statement have any judicial value? Just like this, if a man who wants to marry a man says "This marriage is completely legitimate because I feel like a woman", this cannot have any acceptability whatsoever. Feelings cannot change the facts, God has created us as humans in particular gender and no other allegation can override this reality, someone who challenges the reality by invoking his/her feelings is only deluding himself. Seeing that the feelings are important enough to change the reality as far as liberals are concerned, then I feel like the smartest guy on the planet, let all liberals accept my opinions!
In Islamic societies, men and women are separated in most places so that people can guard their purity. Although Western societies are not that sensitive about this, they still have facilities like public toilets, prisons, and dormitories segregated based on gender. So how can we take homosexuals/transgenders into account when making this segregation? For example, if we place homosexuals in prisons of their own sex, they will be attracted to other inmates; if we place them in prisons of the opposite gender; they will attract other inmates. The existence of homosexuals /transgenders is a practical problem for separating men and women in society. Moreover, these people are attracted to a gender that is not attracted to them in return. A gay man who desires or falls in love with another man will not have his love or desire requited because the man he is in love with only desires women. This situation is agony for homosexuals themselves, it forces them to experience unrequited love and desire. It is difficult for bisexuals to have a healthy relationship too, because spousal jealousy will exist in every place and situation. How can a man be sure that his bisexual wife doesn’t cheat on him with her female friends? Is it possible for someone who is jealous of his wife when she is in the company of either gender to continue a healthy relationship?
Homosexuality has serious health risks too. About 67% of the people diagnosed with HIV in 2015 in the United States were gay and bisexual men. This number is scary considering the smallness of the ratio of the gay population to the entire population. The primary factor that renders homosexuals vulnerable to sexually transmitted diseases is anal sex. Anal sex is the most dangerous type of intercourse and the probability of getting HIV through anal sex is thirty times that of vaginal sex. The anus is not created for sexual penetration and it is filled with bacteria. Using this organ for sexual penetration may hurt the flexible muscles surrounding it, thereby causing the receptive partner unable to hold in feces until getting to the toilet. Another reason why sexually transmitted diseases are so common among gay men is that they have sex with many different partners in high quantities. Women normally limit and constrain men in heterosexual relationships as women are more selective and monogamous-oriented, this inherent nature of women doesn’t allow men to have sex with anybody they desire. With the lack of this constraint in homosexual man-man relationships, gays get to have sex with numerous partners in numerous quantities. This behavior undoubtedly invites sexually transmitted diseases to spread quickly.
Some people are born intersex due to a mutation, with the biological features of both genders. This is a biological anomaly and it is outside the scope of our discussion. Homosexuality that we criticize on the other hand is neither biological nor genetic; it is entirely a psychological disposition. If someone has a deficient quantity of sex hormones, he/she will not feel sexual desire for anyone (nonsexual). But if he/she is attracted to his/her own gender, this cannot be explained by hormones; somehow psychology is playing part in this. If homosexuality's cause were genetic, we would expect its likelihood to be almost the same in different eras. Indeed, this is not the case. The graph below shows the percentage of those who identify as LGBT in the USA according to different age groups. You can see that old people are much less likely to identify as LGBT compared to young people. The reason is clear: Old Americans were not as exposed to homosexual propaganda as young Americans because LGBT propaganda peaked in the last couple of decades in America. In other words, the amount of LGBT propaganda is highly correlated with the percentage of those who identify as LGBT. This statistic makes it crystal clear that it is the society that induces people to become homosexuals, and homosexuality is not actually innate. The percentage of LGBT people increases each year. If this trend continues, it is not far-fetched to believe that LGBT people will become the majority in the near future. This scenario implies that a very serious portion of our societies will not be able to reproduce, thereby making it impossible for our societies to retain their population.