Cost-benefit analysis of piracy

To begin, I want to analyze piracy free from any ethical or normative judgments. Piracy is an act, and like any other act, it has costs and benefits. A utility calculation or a cost-benefit analysis shows that the material benefits far outweigh the minimal material costs of piracy. Entertainment media usually has a monetary price that must be paid in order to consume it, like buying tickets to watch a movie at the theater. On the other hand, given that the individual possesses the technical knowledge, the individual can receive the same entertainment for free if he chooses to pirate the media instead of buying it. While some individuals who pirate are caught and do pay fees, the probability of these negative consequences are very small. Given no other external factors, this cost-benefit analysis indicates that the materialistic benefits outweigh the materialistic costs.

Additionally, from a behavioral perspective, piracy makes sense. When a person commits piracy, they are immediately presented with the benefit of entertainment or utility. The behavior is immediately rewarded and reinforced. The costs are not immediately evident, and can be easily overlooked, because the probability of being caught and punished for pirating is very small. In contrast to the act of physically stealing the DVD of a movie, the act of illegally downloading the movie is much less risky and only entails the seemingly innocent pressing of buttons. When contemplating whether to physically steal another DVD of a movie, the person would weigh whether the entertainment benefit is really worth suffering the stress and energy as well as the high risk of being caught and punished by the law. When contemplating whether to illegally download a movie, the person would only need to weigh whether the entertainment benefit is greater than pressing some buttons. With such low risks and such immediate gratification, the behavior of piracy is easily engrained.

This cost-benefit analysis in a vacuum free from any external forces like ethics, morality, and religion sufficiently shows why piracy is so prevalent. It is easy and rewarding. However, people do not live in a vacuum.

The ethical factor

If piracy is theft, then it is unethical, immoral, and wrong. And it is indeed theft. All digital media whether film, music, ebooks, or games are products of another’s hard work. Just like a farmer’s crops or an author’s book, digital media would not exist but for the producer. Thus, similarly, the producer has taken ownership of digital media by production. Modern copyright and digital rights laws are evidence of this societal norm. So, if it is wrong, why do some people pirate digital media anyway?

When a person is given the choice between paying for the entertainment and consuming it for free, ethical principles clash with desire. In order to resolve cognitive dissonance, the discomfort caused by the clash of conflicting inner-beliefs, individuals will attempt to justify their actions and alter their beliefs (1). In the case of piracy, an individual might conclude that the producers of the entertainment media are already wealthy and do not need more money. Alternatively, the individual may decide that his financial circumstances do not allow him to pay for the products, forcing him to illegally obtain them. Ultimately, these justifications allow the individual to live more comfortably with their decision to pirate the product.

Justifying piracy

In addition to common justifications for any other ethical violations, piracy has a unique justification due to the unique nature of digital media. This unique justification is that the illegal downloading of digital media does not harm the producer, because it does not represent a loss of revenue for the producer of the game, movie, or song. Given the digital nature of entertainment media, a pirated copy of a game does not directly mean a loss of revenue equal to the price of the game. For example, when an item in the physical world, such as a watch, is stolen from a store, the store loses money that is equal to the sum of the cost of the watch and the profit from the sale of the watch. If the thief had not stolen the watch, the store could have sold it to someone else. In contrast, when an individual obtains a pirated copy of a digital media, the ability of the producer to sell a copy of the digital media to someone else is not inhibited in anyway. In other words, the benefits or entertainment experienced by the individual who chooses to pirate does not result in a loss for the producer. Those who have this justification would then conclude that piracy only has positive consequences.

This justification, unique to digital products, has two main deficiencies. First, piracy can lead to loss of revenue to the producer if a person who would have otherwise purchased the product chooses to pirate it. Aggregating all the individual acts of piracy can lead to a cumulative loss of revenue of many millions of dollars. Second, loss of revenue is not the only reason piracy is immoral. The primary reason why piracy is unethical is because it constitutes a taking of another property, violating another’s fundamental property rights. If a producer chooses to share its property with only those who pay for it, then the taking of that property without paying for it is a violation of fundamental property rights. An independent showing of damage or loss of revenue is not necessary to prove its wrongness.

Habit

Another possible explanation for the prevalence of piracy is habit. Once an individual has committed piracy, despite ethical prescriptive to the contrary, the individual experiences the benefits and joys of that piece of entertainment. As previously mentioned, this immediate reward can lead to a cycle that constantly reinforces the behavior until it has become habitual. The case study of the video game, Proun, can provide some insight.

Proun, a low budget game, was released under the pay-what-you-want pricing method which allows consumers to legally obtain the product at whatever price they decide to pay including for zero dollars. In other words, people could legally get the game for free from the developer’s official website. Essentially, the developer removed monetary concerns from the utility calculation. According to the released statistics, approximately 40% of used copies were pirated (2). Individuals chose to pirate the game, despite being able to obtain the game legally for free.

The implication of the Proun case study is that price may not be the sole determinant for pirating behavior. A possible explanation for the observed pirating behavior could be that obtaining entertainment media through illegal means has become habitual to a significant portion of the population. Due to the low risks associated with piracy, individuals who have chosen to pirate media experience no consequences that would deter their actions, making piracy their normal means of acquiring any form of software, irrelevant of whether or not the software is free. In other words, habitual piracy has become legitimate in their eyes. After the initial act, the individual no longer considers the ethicality of their actions. Every subsequent act merely reinforces the habit.

References

1. See also Yerli, Selnur Hatice. “Cognitive Dissonance and the Psychology of Sin.” The Fountain 80, March-April 2011.
2. van Dongen, Joost. “Proun sales data revealed: Proun is a big success! Pay What You Want is not!.” <http://joostdevblog.blogspot.com/2011/10/proun-is-big-success-pay-what-you-want.html>

All over the vast Islamic world, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, various services that are fundamentally important to society have been financed and maintained through charitable trusts.

Godliness and virtue is not that you turn your faces towards east or west; but godliness and virtue is to believe in God and the Last Day, the angels, the Book, and the Prophets; to spend of your substance out of love for Him for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the liberation of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer and practice regular charity; to fulfill the contracts you have made; and to be persevering and patient in hardship and disease, and throughout all periods of stress. Such are the people who are true (in their faith), and those are they who achieved righteousness, piety, and due reverence for God. (Qur’an 2:177)

All cultures and religions instruct their followers to help the poor and leave behind an everlasting source of good deeds (Dallal 2004, 13-43). Originating from a desire to improve others’ well-being, charity is an altruistic behavior (Becker 1974, 1063-1091) of gift exchanges between individuals that encourages social order and stability (Mauss 1950). This essential principle comprises two main categories in Islam: Zakat, obligatory alms for Muslims with a certain level of wealth, and sadaqa, highly recommended voluntary donations, one of the most popular forms of which are philanthropic foundations.

A philanthropic foundation is “a nongovernmental, nonprofit organization, with assets provided by donors and managed by its own officials, and with income expended for socially useful purposes. Foundation, endowment, and charitable trust are terms used interchangeably to designate these organizations, which can be traced far back in history. They existed in the ancient civilizations of the Middle East, Greece, and Rome. Plato’s Academy (c. 387 BC), for example, was established with an endowment that helped to sustain its existence for some 900 years” (Britannica Online Encyclopedia). Considering that the first shrine on Earth, the Ka’bah, was built by Adam, peace be upon him, and was named the House of God (Qur’an 3:96), the earliest example of such foundations was given by the very first person (Akpinar 2004).

Moroccan traveler Ibn Battuta (d.1369) was struck by the dedication of the inhabitants of Damascus to all forms of countless foundations, such as legacies devoted by people who could not travel to Mecca to pay others’ pilgrimage; foundations providing girls from poor backgrounds with all the requirements for their marriage; foundations devoted to purchasing the freedom of Muslim prisoners; others for paying the maintenance of roads, and many more (Ibn Battutah 2006). Once, he saw a young boy drop a porcelain plate, which broke. The passer-bys told the boy to take the pieces to the foundation for utensils. Consequently, the boy got a refund, equal to the value of a new plate. The residents, in their great numbers, also provided endowments for schools, hospitals and mosques. It was a city, Ibn Battuta tells us, where the social spirit was at its optimum.

The word waqf (plural awqaf), means to cause a thing to stop and stand still, to withhold, or to prevent; and the word applies “to endow the property rights of a good [while dedicating its benefits] to the public service perpetually, and to prevent others from obtaining its property rights” (Akgunduz 1996, 77). Awqaf are considered an expression of piety, not because their activities are inherently religious, but because they are governed by a law considered sacred (Kuran 2001, 841-897). In Islamic terminology, waqf is described as the detention of an entity from ownership forever, by considering it as the property of God, while devoting all its possible gifts of income to some charitable purpose for the community (Bilmen 1969, 294).

However defined, waqf institutions stand out as one of the greatest achievements of Islamic civilization. Although this was not a new concept introduced by Islam, the system to allocate, administer, and dispense the usufruct was unique. All over the vast Islamic world, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, various services that are fundamentally important to society have been financed and maintained through awqaf, some of which have even survived for more than a millennium (Cizakca 2000), providing the needy with basic needs such as food, education, and shelter, and improvements like lighthouses, cemeteries, public baths, drinking fountains, mosques, bridges, roads, aqueducts and so on, enhancing peace and harmony (Yalawae and Izah).

The first component of waqf is hayrat, the establishments under waqf property, dedicated to the public; the second is akarat, the revenue resources allocated to facilitate perpetuity (Yediyildiz 1996); the third, waqfiya, is the court-ratified and preserved deeds that specify the uses of income, the beneficiaries, the priorities of expenditure, the people authorized for administration and their powers. The last is the mutawalli (board of directors), responsible for the foundation functioning in accordance with the donors’ intentions, and in charge of maintenance, treasury, administration, and supervision (Baskan 2002). Local characteristics of mutawalli allowed for competition and control, which were keys to efficiency (Kahf).

Once established, the public aims of a waqf become binding, cannot be altered or revoked, even by the founder, and everyone, even the head of state, has to obey these deeds. Eliminating the waqf character of a property entails a complicated process, and is restricted to an exchange of another property of equivalent value and equivalent service to the community, in addition to a local court’s approval. Diverting waqf revenues to other purposes is not within the authority of the waqf administration or a supervisory court. Should a waqf purpose becomes unfeasible, its revenue is spent on the closest purpose available, both conceptually and geographically; and if this is not workable, the benefits go to the needy, which is assumed as the default intent (Kahf).

Some examples

Historical data suggest that foundations were first observed as religious establishments where people worshipped together, followed by other applications in society; some believe that some awqaf were founded by Prophet Abraham, peace be upon him, about 1860 BCE (Dallal 2004, 2). The first waqf in Islam is the Mosque of Quba in Medina, built in 622 AD, upon arrival of God’s Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, who demonstrated the primary examples of awqaf in Islam. He had first donated seven orchards in Mukhairiq, then his share from date gardens in Fadak and Khaibar, all for charitable purposes (Canan 2004, 275-281).

Following these exemplary actions, his Companions, may God be pleased with them all, and followers have continuously given to many various, worthy causes. For instance, many wells were bought from individuals, and were designated for public service. As Uthman ibn ‘Affan reports, “The Prophet, peace be upon him, arrived in Medina and realized that the city had very little drinking water, except the water of Bi’r Ruma (Ruma Well). He asked, ‘Who will purchase Bi’r Ruma to equally share the water drawn therefrom with his fellow Muslims and shall be rewarded with a better well in the Garden (of Eden)?’ Then I bought it from my own money.”

Another circulated tradition in Bukhari and Muslim, the two most authenticated collections of hadith, refers to what is considered the first Islamic land waqf. Upon his request, Umar ibn al-Khattab is advised by the Prophet, to retain the corpus [of the land] but dedicate its fruits [in the way] of God. Consequently, he dedicated the land, indicating that it should not be sold, given away as a gift, or inherited; and the revenue from the land should be used as charity for the poor, for emancipating slaves, for wanderers, and for other social needs. Later, during Umar’s caliphate, Bilal suggested to divide the conquered villages and take the fifth for the treasury. Umar, however, refused and decided to make them waqf for the sustenance of warriors and for all Muslims (Gil 1998, 125-140).

Having been advised about its benefits, the Prophet’s Companions never stopped putting their wealth in bequests; they did this to such a degree that Jabir, another Companion, said, “Any of the Prophet’s Companions who could afford it made endowments” (Isesco.org). It is remarkable that the Prophet advised one of his Companions, Abu Zarr, who did not have any belongings at all, to ‘add some more water in [his] soup, and offer'” (Muslim, Birr, 142).

Since then, awqaf have been one of the pillars of Islamic society. The establishment of different kinds of awqaf that serve as institutions of social cooperation and solidarity were utilized, which supported an array of activities from scientific movements to the protection of inlets, and they became a financial source for many socioeconomic sectors and for the beneficence of the needy. They were a model for the contemporary nonprofit sector.

To elaborate an illustration of the services offered, awqaf ensured that diverse services were supplied for free (Bakir and Basagaoglu, ishim.net). Awqaf also allowed for huge innovations, such as mobile hospitals, which moved from village to village, as well as emergency teams (Subai 1998). The revenue of certain bequests, which could include shops, mills, caravanserais, or even entire villages, would pay for the maintenance and operating costs, and sometimes would supply a small stipend to the patient upon dismissal (Husain 1992). An example deed states that, “The hospital shall keep all patients until they completely recover. All costs are to be borne by the hospital, whether the people are residents or foreigners, rich or poor, employed or unemployed, physically or mentally ill… There are no conditions of consideration and payment: none is objected to or even indirectly hinted at for non-payment. The entire service is through the magnificence of Allah, the generous one” (Yalawae and Izah).

Motivations behind awqaf

Though the word waqf is not used in the Qur’an, there are many verses that constitute a foundation for its actions, such as “to lend willingly,” “to spend in the cause of God,” “to spend of your substance out of love for Him for your kin, for orphans, for the needy,” “to feed the poor,” “to give for charity,” and especially, “to compete in building hayrat (charitable acts).” Due to the extreme emphasis upon charity within Islam, as an act of devotion to God, foundations have flourished, displaying an exceptional development and performing comprehensive services to society (Canan 2004, 275).

It is stated in a heartening saying of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, that, “The most auspicious person is the one who is of assistance of others.” Hence, a contribution toward the welfare of the community is considered an act that brings a person closer to God. Another hadith declares that launching an establishment for social gain would be beneficial for the founder, even after death: “Once a son of Adam dies, none of his deeds will be of him except an ongoing charity, a useful knowledge, or a pious child who prays for him.” The ongoing charity here is interpreted as waqf.

The Islamic law of inheritance tends to fragment property into large numbers of small shares, whereas awqaf tends to preserve large amounts of wealth (Dallal 29). Yet, awqaf, whose benefits were confined to family members, were extremely rare. Notably, only 7% of the foundations registered during the 18th century delivered service to the founders’ families. As many as 75% devoted significant resources to serving outside constituencies, and the remaining 18% were strictly charitable awqaf. These figures confirm that sheltering wealth through a waqf was not the normal aim. Philanthropists founding these institutions believed that this world was a temporary residence, and it was necessary to spend one’s earnings for the happiness of other people in order to secure the felicity of the eternal life when returned to God (Yediyildiz 1996).

The waqf body is intended to prevent the temporary possessions of this world from vanishing, by withholding them in the name, and for the sake of, God as a continuous charity. There is no obligation of any kind behind this action stemming from altruistic behavior, but a sense of responsibility towards humanity, a conscientious sense of serving others, and competing in charity; in other words, such values as compassion, mutual assistance, solidarity, the pleasure of comforting a living thing both materially and spiritually, and the free will of a person embracing these values as principles, have been an element of Islamic culture, motivating a person to transform some or all of his or her personal assets into pious foundations to serve society (Yediyildiz).

Seeking proximity to God has been the main rationale of awqaf. In some cases, the founders named awqaf after themselves in the hope of being remembered by (and thus receiving prayers from) upcoming generations – though in general, anonymity is preferred. For instance, it was a common practice for the rich, especially during Ramadan, to pay debts of people in need, without revealing who they were, asking local shopkeepers to calculate the total balance on randomly picked pages of their records of receivable accounts. The overall purpose has been altruism rather than fame, since it is believed that impurity of intention might spoil the dedication of the gift, whose sole purpose is to please God.

Further influences

English trusts, the basis of Western nonprofits, remarkably resemble Islamic awqaf. Under both systems, the property is reserved and the usufruct is appropriated for a charitable purpose. The corpus becomes inalienable; estates for life in favor of successive beneficiaries can be created at the will of a founder without regard to the law of inheritance or the rights of the heirs, and continuity is secured by successive appointments of trustees (Cizakca 12). The trust was introduced by Crusaders, and influenced by the waqf institutions they came across. In other words, the Islamic waqf system, whose legal parameters have been developed by jurists through centuries, constitutes the origins of English trusts (Kuran 2001, 841-897).

Awqaf have supported a wide variety of life-oriented actions (Jones 1980, 23-36), playing a major role in establishing social justice and solidarity in society, in funding scientific research and arts, and in creating an ecological conscience to protect the environment (Yuksel 1999, 47-54). Moreover, it was thanks to the awqaf that the magnificent architectural heritage of Islamic civilization was financed and preserved throughout the centuries; urban districts could cope with tax burdens; excessive fragmentation of land could be avoided; old age and disability pensions were provided; in an age when insurance, as an institution, was unknown, rudimentary insurance was provided; infrastructure was built and maintained; almost all the assistance one can expect to have in a civilized society was financed, organized, built, and maintained by this system. The awqaf even aided defense efforts by building and maintaining urban walls and fortresses (Cizakca 2006).

“An origin of all revolutions and corruptions, and the spur and source of all base morals, is the saying, ‘So long as I’m full, what is it to me if others die of hunger?’ The only remedy for extirpating this approach is the payment of zakat” (Nursi, 22nd Letter). With their significance rooted in the Islamic principle of charity (Waqf and Islamic Philanthropy 2005), and their central function in sociocultural life, awqaf seem to be the most efficient way of dealing with poverty and income disparity. The government expenditure can be substantially reduced through a well functioning waqf system that creates a permanent, cumulative, and ever-increasing capital base and infrastructure for benevolent activities. This reduction leads to a lower government borrowing, and a reduced rate of interest which then initiates higher private investment, thus growth (Cizakca 2006), as demonstrated at the climax of Ottoman times, which needs to be addressed in another article.

References

• Akgündüz, Ahmet. 1996. “Islam Hukukunda ve Osmanlı Tatbikatında Vakıf Müessesesi.”, 2nd Ed. Istanbul: Osmanlı Araştırmaları Vakfı.
• Akpınar, Ali. 2004. “Vakıf Insanlar ve Din.” Yeni Ümit 17, no. 65)
• Bakır, Betül, and Ibrahim Başağaoğlu. “How Medical Functions Shaped Architecture in Anatolian Seljuk Darüşşifas (hospitals) and Especially in The Divriği Turan Malik Darüşşifa.” https://fountainmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/09-5d7.pdf
• Başkan, Birol. 2002. “Waqf System as a Redistribution Mechanism in Ottoman Empire.” http://cas.uchicago.edu/workshops/mehat/past_conferences/Baskan.pdf
• Becker, Gary S. 1974. “A Theory of Social Interactions.” Journal of Political Economy 82, no. 6.
• Bilmen, Ömer N. 1969. Istılahat-ı Fıkhıyye Kamusu. Vol. 4.
• Canan, Ibrahim. 2004. Kütüb-i Sitte Tercüme ve Şerhi. Vol. 16. Ankara: Akçağ Yayınlar..
• Çizakça, Murat. 2000. A History of Philanthropic Foundations: The Islamic World from the Seventh Century to the Present. Istanbul: Bogazici University Press.
• Çizakça, Murat. 2006 (interviewed by Dr. Shariq Nasir). “Combining Islamic History with Islamic Institutional Economics.” Islamic Business and Finance, March. http://www.cpifinancial.net/v2/Magazine.aspx?v=1&aid=392&cat=IBF&in=5
• Dallal, Ahmad. 2004. “The Islamic Institution of Waqf: A Historical Overview.” In Islam and Social Policy, Stephen P. Heyneman. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
• “Damascus: City of Munificence and Learning.” MuslimHeritage. http://www.muslimheritage.com/topics/default.cfm?ArticleID=500
• Husain Nagamia. 1992. “Islamic Medicine History and Current Practice”, University of South Florida Medical School, Tampa, Florida.
• Ibn Battutah. 2006. “Travel in Asia and Africa”, translated by H.A.R. Gibb London and Rozali Othman.
• http://www.isesco.org.ma/english/publications/WAQF/Chap3.php
• Jones, William R. “Pious Endowments in Medieval Christianity and Islam.” Diogenes (1980): 23-36.
• Kahf, Monzer. 2003. “The Role of Waqf in Improving the Ummah Welfare.” Presented to the International Seminar on “Waqf as a Private Legal Body” organized by the Islamic University of North Sumatra, Medan, Indonesia, Jan. 6-7. https://fountainmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ROLE_OF_WAQF_IN_THE_WELFARE_OF_THE_UMMAH-397.pdf
• Kahf, Monzer. “Waqf: An Overview”. https://fountainmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/WAQF_A_QUICK_OVERVIEW-427.pdf
• Kuran, Timur. 2001. “The provision of public goods under Islamic law: Origins, impact, and limitations of the waqf…” Law & Society Review 35, no. 4.
• Mauss, Marcel, “Essai sur le don. Forme et raison de l’échange dans les sociétés archaïques.” 1923-1924. (Translation: Mauss, M., 1950. The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. New York: W.W. Norton.)
• Mustafa Subai. 1998. Min Rawaie Hadaratina (Marvels of our Civilization), Dar es Salaam, Cairo.
• Nursi, Bediuzzaman Said. 2007. The Letters “22nd Letter.” NJ: The Light, Inc..
• “Philanthropic Foundation.” Britannica Online Encyclopedia.
• “Waqf (endowment) and Islamic Philanthropy.” 2005. In UN-HABITAT Islam, Land & Property Research Series, Paper VII, 8-16: UN-HABITAT,.
• Yalawae, Asming, and Izah M. Tahir. “The Role of Islamic Institution in Achieving Equality and Human Development: Waqf or Endowment.” Universiti Darul Iman Malaysia (UDM). http://www.capabilityapproach.com/pubs/Asming%20Yalawae,%20and%20Izah%20TahirWaqfAsmeng.pdf
• Yediyıldız, Bahaeddin. 1996. Place of the Waqf in Turkish Cultural System. Translated by R Acun and M Oz. Istanbul: Second United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II). http://www.history.hacettepe.edu.tr/archive/waqfkultur.html
• Yüksel, Ahmet T. 1999. “Türk Islam Medeniyetinde Vakıfların Yeri ve Önemi.”

Brown and red algae are salt water organisms. These plants grow on rocky shores or in oceans with a rocky bottom. In quiet areas free of excessive waves they can live for up to 15 years. These can be utilized for the special polysaccharides in their bodies. That’s why they are commercially significant. For example, alginic acid and alginates obtained from brown algae can be used in many fields, from the food industry to the medical field, from cosmetics to paper and textiles. An algae species (Macrocystis Pyrifera) that can be found both in North and South America, New Zealand, Australia, and off the African coast is the primary source for the world’s production of alginic acid and alginate. In 2009, 26500 tons of alginate was produced, primarily by the countries of Scotland, Norway, China, and the USA.

Alginic acid is a macro molecule synthesized from mannuronic and gluronic acid molecules. Because of its hydrophilic property, the Na and K salts of alginic acid are used in providing homogeneity to frozen food during defrosting, preventing food decay related to instant temperature spikes, increasing viscosity, preparing jelly like deserts, and stabilizing fruit juices and ice cream. For similar reasons, Alginates are utilized in paper quality enhancement, and the advanced application of ink in glues and in pressed textile products, where they improve the flow of dye. Alginates are also used in cosmetic products, in production of waterproof or fireproof textiles, and in some synthetic dyes because they improve viscosity..

One of the most important uses of alginates is in the medical field. Many people suffer from stomach burn and acid reflux disease. In these treating these symptoms, the percentage of a prescribed medicine containing alginic acid content is 100 %, because in the case of acid reflux, alginic acid contains a preventive property, and antacids. This antacid neutralizes stomach acid. Alginic acid, however, reacts with saliva and Na Bicarbonate ion to produce foam in the upper stomach. In the case of a reflux, this foam barrier prevents the escape of acidic stomach content into esophagus.

According to a study conducted in England in 2010 about obesity treatments, alginic acid added natural fiber and was found to reduce lipid intake 75% in the intestines.

The absorption and removal of drugs in the stomach and intestines plays an important role in ensuring drugs act as intended. For instance a blood clog in a pulmonary vein can be transported to the lungs and may have fatal consequences (a pulmonary emboli). In order to prevent that, low molecular weight, heparin containing, drugs are used. The polymeric alginate beads in these drugs have been found to improve drug efficiency up to 80-90 %. In this kind of controlled release of drugs and enzymes, the use of polymeric alginate additives provides high efficiency.

A new kind of antimicrobial textile that does not stick to wounds is made from the silver coated fibers of an Alginate-carboxymethyl cellulose mixture. This fabric not only provides protection against infections but also, with its non-stick property, prevents traumas; and its high hydrophillic feature allows open wounds to heal faster.

Everything in the universe is beautiful, either directly, by itself, or indirectly, by its consequences. Algae, which many of us dislike, is in fact a great work of art as it is a source of food, a decoration of the seas, and is used to cure various diseases.

I began my research by reading all the Turkish material I could find on the subject. Most of the works I found were Turkish translations of European travelers’ reports about Ottoman life. Of course, it was necessary to separate fact from fiction, because many travelers, males in particular, described aspects of Ottoman life they had never personally seen-the inside of the harem, for example. But in spite of this, I was able to glean a fairly accurate description of Ottoman women and the harem from a number of different travelers (mostly women) who can be considered as eye witnesses to harem life. The portrait of Ottoman women that emerged reflected a very feminine appearance and demeanor, refined manners and decorum, and a pious and chaste character. Their domestic roles of wife and mother further reinforced this strongly feminine image.

The portrait of Ottoman women I found from my reading was a far cry from the Orientalists’ exotic stereotype. I learned that only approximately ten percent of the young slave girls in the imperial harem were actually royal concubines, and this number included concubines to the princes as well as to the sultan. The rest were groomed and trained for service to the royal family by means of the administrative hierarchy in the imperial harem. Even the belly dance, which is always associated with slave girls in the harem, apparently did not even exist in the imperial harem. That is what we are told by Leyla Saz Hanýmefendi who grew up in the palace from the age of four and who was closely associated with the royal family during the reign of six different sultans during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Armed with the information and knowledge I had gained from many travelers’ reports and secondary sources, I felt ready to challenge the sensationalist myth of the harem. Little did I know at the time, however, that an even greater discovery regarding Ottoman women awaited me in future research.

By a quirk of fate, I found myself spending a year with my daughter who was studying for a master’s degree in Islamic studies at a leading North American university. One of the courses she took was related to the Muslim qadi or judge and Ottoman court records. Much to my amazement I learned that throughout the duration of the Ottoman state (six centuries) women had many significant legal rights, more perhaps during that time than any other women in the world. This was a point that had been somehow overlooked in the many sensationalist books on the harem! Investigating this point further, I learned that Ottoman women had legal agency or, in other words, they could sue and be sued in court independent of their husbands. They could enter into legal contracts like marriage contracts with their husbands, or into business contracts with others. They had the right to own property and to inherit it. They had the right to initiate divorce. They had full control over their own income and property and could do with it as they wished. Ottoman women also had the right to be guardian of their children in case of the death of or divorce from their husband. European women, on the other hand, gained these rights much later, and today in some parts of the world women are still struggling to obtain them. British women, for example, did not have these rights until 1882. Previous to that time they had to turn over any property, inheritance or income to their husband upon marriage. Women did not have legal agency nor were they able to make legal contracts independently. Also they were unable to defend themselves in divorce cases and they could not get legal guardianship of their own children.

Furthermore, I learned that not only did Ottoman women have these legal rights, but that they actively pursued their rights as well. There are thousands of court records that attest to this. By no means were legal rights enjoyed just by a privileged few. They were accorded to Ottoman women of all social and economic strata. For example, one of my favorite cases was taken from early seventeenth-century Kayseri court records. It involves a woman named Teslime who was working on her land when her neighbor’s donkey strayed onto her property. When she seized the animal, her neighbor, who was a man, cursed her. Teslime immediately filed a complaint with the local qadi. Two witnesses were found to support her complaint and she won her case. While reading her case, I could not help but wonder how many women today would take a man to court for cursing them; and if they did so, how many would be taken seriously? There are countless recorded cases of Ottoman women who turned to the courts to get redress for injustices perpetrated against them. Upon review of such cases a different image of the Ottoman woman in the legal arena emerged: a strong and courageous woman who put Haqq (Truth and Justice) above everything else.

It was the discovery of this side of Ottoman women that really clenched my respect and admiration for them, because it enlightened me in regard to how Muslim women should be. They were not only very feminine and refined, but they were also strong defenders of Haqq. Their feminine and masculine natures were amazingly well balanced. As a Muslim convert, I have found the female model I was looking for. Whenever I get into trouble, I first ask myself, “What would an Ottoman woman do?”

Furthermore, I discovered that the spiritual nature of women was honored in Ottoman society.

Ottoman women were honored in the harem, not imprisoned there. Unfortunately, this way of perceiving women has all but been lost today. Much of the time women are perceived mainly as physical beings and, in its lowest form, as sex objects. They are often valued to the degree that they can rival the accomplishments of men. Ottoman women, however, were honored and valued as women.

I wanted to share these discoveries with others. I began lecturing on the subject of Ottoman women in Turkey, and these lectures eventually led to a small book in Turkish entitled, “Osmanlý Toplumunda Kadýn ve Aile (Women and Family in Ottoman Society).” Later on I began thinking about writing a book on Ottoman women in English-not an academic work, but a book giving a general overview that would appeal to any Western reader interested in the subject of women. Again, I rolled up my sleeves and set to work. As the book took form, so did my concept of how the book should be illustrated. I wanted it to reflect the spirit of the Ottoman woman-the beauty and harmony and refinement of her life. Once Tughra Books (formerly The Light, Inc.) agreed to publish the book and the design concept was agreed upon, members of their graphics design department did an extraordinary job that eventually led to the book being a finalist for the 2008 PMA Benjamin Franklin Award in the category of cover design/large format.

My book was published under the title “Ottoman Women: Myth and Reality” at the end of 2007. In the spring of 2008 I went on a book promotion tour in some major US cities: Los Angeles, New York, Washington D.C., Atlanta, Pittsburg, Rochester and Newark. The people I met and spoke to-men and women, young and old, American and Turkish, Muslim and non-Muslim-all responded positively to the book. Many were surprised to learn about the high social status of Ottoman women, particularly about their legal rights. Some, young Turks in particular, were thankful that the myth of the harem was finally being challenged. Almost all commented on the beautiful design of the book. The highlight of the tour occurred on the evening of the annual PMA publishing awards dinner in Los Angeles. That night my long journey of discovery in regard to Ottoman women was crowned when my book won the PMA Benjamin Franklin publishing award in the category of history/politics.

As a final comment, I would like to mention the great contribution to the book of my now deceased son, Sahin Sancar. He was with me every step of the way, from the signing of the contract with my publisher to the final touches in the design. He was a beautiful person and he contributed greatly to the beauty of the book. May he live eternally in beauty and light.

International Women’s Day is March 8th. In recognition of this event, we present the following article on women’s rights according to the Abrahamic traditions.

Since modern Western thought and paradigms are based on the Western cultural heritage, what is meant by religion has been the Judeo-Christian tradition. Western thinkers, Orientalists, and “Westernized” intellectuals in the Muslim world, all out of their ignorance of Islam, have tended to criticize Islam from the perspective of criticisms directed toward the Judeo-Christian tradition. What follows is of great importance, especially in correcting and clarifying this important matter from the viewpoint of women’s status in Islam.

Introduction

Do Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have the same conception of women? Are they different in their conceptions? Do Judaism and Christianity really offer women better treatment than Islam? What is the truth?

It is not easy to search for and find answers to these difficult questions. The first difficulty is that one has to be fair and objective or, at least, do one’s utmost to be so. This is what Islam teaches. The Qur’an instructs Muslims to say the truth, even if those who are very close to them do not like it: Whenever you speak, speak justly, even if a near relative is concerned (6:152) and: O you who believe, stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even as against yourselves, or your parents or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor (4:135).

Throughout this research, I have striven to approach the Qur’anic ideal of speaking justly. I would like to emphasize that my purpose for this study is not to denigrate Judaism or Christianity. As Muslims, we believe in the Divine origins of both. No one can be a Muslim without believing in Moses and Jesus as great Prophets of God. My goal is only to vindicate Islam and pay a tribute, long overdue in the West, to the final truthful Message from God to humanity.

Eve’s fault?

The Judeo-Christian conception of Adam and Eve’s creation is narrated in detail in Genesis 2:4-3:24. God prohibited both of them from eating the fruits of the forbidden tree. However, the serpent seduced Eve to eat from it and Eve, in turn, seduced Adam to eat with her. When God rebuked Adam for what he did, Adam put all the blame on Eve: The woman you put here with me_she gave me some fruit from the tree and I ate it. Consequently, God said to Eve: I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing. With pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you. He told Adam: Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree …. Cursed is the ground because of you. Through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.

The Qur’an relates the creation account in several places. The Qur’an, contrary to the Bible, places equal blame on both Adam and Eve (7:19:23) and nowhere gives even the slightest hint that Eve tempted Adam to eat from the tree or that she ate before he did. In other words, Eve is not a temptress, a seducer, or a deceiver. Moreover, she is not to be blamed for the pains of childbearing. God, according to the Qur’an, punishes no one for another’s faults. Both Adam and Eve committed a sin and then asked for and received God’s forgiveness.

Eve’s legacy

The Biblical image of Eve as a temptress has had an extremely negative impact on women throughout the Judeo-Christian tradition. All women were believed to have inherited from their mother, the Biblical Eve, both her guilt and her guile. Consequently they were all untrustworthy, morally inferior, and wicked. Menstruation, pregnancy, and childbearing were considered the just punishment for the eternal guilt of the cursed female sex. In order to appreciate the extent of the negative impact that this has had on all of Eve’s female descendants, we have to look at the writings of some of the most important Jews and Christians writers.

Let’s start with the Old Testament. Looking at excerpts from what is called the “Wisdom Literature,” we find: I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare…. while I was still searching but not finding, I found one upright man among a thousand but not one upright woman among them all (Ecclesiastes 7:26-28). In another part of the Jewish literature found in the Catholic Bible, we read: No wickedness comes anywhere near the wickedness of a woman….. Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die (Ecclesiasticus 25:19, 24).

Jewish Rabbis listed nine curses placed upon women because of the Fall: “To the woman He gave nine curses and death: the burden of the blood of menstruation and the blood of virginity; the burden of pregnancy; the burden of childbirth; the burden of bringing up the children; her head is covered as one in mourning; she pierces her ear like a permanent slave or slave girl who serves her master; she is not to be believed as a witness; and after everything–death.”1 Until today, orthodox Jewish men in their daily morning prayer recite: “Blessed be God King of the universe that Thou has not made me a woman.” Women, on the other hand, thank God every morning for “making me according to Thy will.”(2)

The Biblical Eve has played a far larger role in Christianity than in Judaism. Her sin has been pivotal to the whole Christian faith, because the Christian conception of the reason for Jesus Christ’s mission on Earth stems from Eve’s disobedience to God. She had sinned and then seduced Adam to follow her in sin. Consequently, God expelled both of them from Heaven to Earth, which then became cursed because of them. They bequeathed their sin, which had not been forgiven by God, to all of their descendants and, thus, all humans are born in sin. In order to purify human beings from their “original sin,” God had to sacrifice Jesus, who is considered to be the Son of God, on the cross. Therefore, Eve is responsible for her own mistake, her husband’s sin, the sin into which all people are born (Original Sin), and the Son of God’s death. In other words, one woman acting on her own caused the fall of humanity.(3)

St. Tertullian was even blunter than St. Paul. While talking to his “best beloved sisters” in the faith, he said: “Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the Devil’s gateway: You are the unsealer of the forbidden tree: You are the first deserter of the divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert even the Son of God had to die.”(4)

St. Augustine (d. 430) was faithful to the legacy of his predecessors when he wrote to a friend: “What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman…. I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children.” Centuries later, St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) still considered women defective: “As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence.” The renowned reformer Martin Luther (d. d. 1546) saw no benefit in women other than giving birth to as many children as possible regardless of any side effects: “If they become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that’s why they are there.”

When we turn our attention to the Qur’an, we soon realize that the Islamic conception of women is radically different from the Judeo-Christian one. For instance: For Muslim men and women, for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in charity, for men and women who fast, for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah’s praise_for them all has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward (33:35); The believers, men and women, are protectors, one of another: they enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil, they observe regular prayers, practice regular charity, and obey Allah and His Messenger. On them will Allah pour His Mercy: for Allah is Exalted in power, Wise (9:71); And their Lord answered them: “Truly I will never cause to be lost the work of any of you, Be you a male or female, you are members one of another” (3:195); Whoever works evil will not be requited but by the like thereof, and whoever works a righteous deed_whether man or woman_and is a believer. Such will enter the Garden of bliss (40:40); and: Whoever works righteousness, man or woman, and has faith, verily to him/her we will give a new life that is good and pure, and we will bestow on such their reward according to the best of their actions (16:97).

It is clear that the Qur’an views the women in the same way as it does men: Both genders are God’s creatures whose sublime goal on Earth is to worship their Lord, do righteous deeds and avoid evil, and then be judged accordingly. The Qur’an never mentions that woman is the devil’s gateway or a deceiver by nature, or that man is God’s image, for it proclaims that all men and all women are His creatures. According to the Qur’an, a woman’s role is not limited only to childbirth, for she is required to do as many good deeds as a man is required to do. The Qur’an even gives examples of ideal and upright women of the past, such as the Virgin Mary and Pharaoh’s wife, and instructs all believers, women as well as men, to follow their example: God sets forth, as an example to those who believe, Pharaoh’s wife. Behold, she said: “O my Lord, build for me, in nearness to you, a mansion in the Garden. Save me from Pharaoh and his doings, and save me from those who do wrong.” And Mary the daughter of Imran who guarded her chastity. We breathed into her body of Our spirit, and she testified to the truth of her Lord’s words and Revelations and was one of the devout (66:11-13).

Shameful daughters

The Bible states: The period of the mother’s ritual impurity is twice as long if a girl is born than if a boy is (Leviticus 12:2-5). The Catholic Bible states explicitly: The birth of a daughter is a loss (Ecclesiasticus 22:3). In contrast, boys receive special praise: A man who educates his son will be the envy of his enemy (Ecclesiasticus 30:3).

Rabbis made it an obligation upon all Jewish men to produce offspring in order to propagate the race. At the same time, they did not hide their clear preference for male children: “It is well for those whose children are male but ill for those whose are female,” “At the birth of a boy, all are joyful … at the birth of a girl all are sorrowful,” and: “When a boy comes into the world, peace comes into the world… When a girl comes, nothing comes.”5A daughter is considered a painful burden, a potential source of shame to her father: Your daughter is headstrong? Keep a sharp look-out that she does not make you the laughing stock of your enemies, the talk of the town, the object of common gossip, and put you to public shame (Ecclesiasticus 42:11), and: Keep a headstrong daughter under firm control, or she will abuse any indulgence she receives. Keep a strict watch on her shameless eye, do not be surprised if she disgraces you (Ecclesiasticus 26:10-11).

This same idea of treating daughters as sources of shame led pagan Arabs, before the advent of Islam, to practice female infanticide. The Qur’an condemned this heinous practice: When news is brought to one of them of the birth of a female child, his face darkens and he is filled with inward grief. With shame does he hide himself from his people because of the bad news he has had! Shall he retain her on contempt or bury her in the dust? Ah! What an evil they decide on? (16:58-59). This sinister crime would never have ended in Arabia were it not for the power of the scathing terms the Qur’an used to condemn it (16:59, 43:17, and 81:8-9). Moreover, the Qur’an makes no distinction between boys and girls, for it considers the birth of a girl, as well as the birth of a boy, to be a gift and a blessing from God. It even mentions the gift of a daughter’s birth first: To God belongs the dominion of the heavens and Earth. He creates what He wills. He bestows female children to whomever He wills, and bestows male children to whomever He wills (42:49).

In order to wipe out all traces of female infanticide in the nascent Muslim society, Prophet Muhammad promised those who were blessed with daughters a great reward if they would bring them up kindly: “He who is involved in bringing up daughters, and directs benevolent treatment toward them, they will be a protection for him against Hell-Fire” (Bukhari and Muslim), and: “Whoever maintains two girls till they attain maturity, he and I will come on the Resurrection Day like this; and he joined his fingers” (Muslim).

Female education

The difference between the Biblical and the Qur’anic conceptions of women extends far beyond the newly born female. Let’s compare their attitudes toward a woman trying to learn her religion. The heart of Judaism is the Torah (the law). However, according to the Talmud, “women are exempt from the study of the Torah.” Some rabbis firmly declared: “Let the words of Torah rather be destroyed by fire than imparted to women” and: “Whoever teaches his daughter Torah is as though he taught her obscenity”(6)

The attitude of St. Paul in the New Testament is as follows: As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church (I Corinthians 14:34-35).

One short story narrated in the Qur’an concisely sums up Islam’s view: Khawlah was a Muslim woman whose husband, Aws, exclaimed in a moment of anger: “You are to me as the back of my mother.” Pagan Arabs considered this to be a statement of divorce that freed the husband from any conjugal responsibility but did not allow the wife to leave the husband’s home or marry another man. Hearing these words, Khawlah was in a miserable situation. She went straight to the Prophet to plead her case. The Prophet thought that she should be patient, since there seemed to be no way out. Khawla kept arguing with him in the hope of saving her suspended marriage. Shortly thereafter, Revelation descended and her plea was accepted. The Divine verdict abolished this iniquitous custom. Surat al-Mujadilah (The Women Who Argues), the Qur’an’s fifty-eighth chapter, was named after this incident: God has heard the statement of the woman who pleads with you (the Prophet) concerning her husband and carries her complaint to God. He hears the arguments between both of you, for He hears and sees all things (58:1).

A woman in the Qur’anic conception has the right to argue even with the Prophet. No one has the right to tell her to be silent, and she is under no obligation to consider her husband the one and only reference in matters of law and religion.

Unclean and impure women

The Old Testament considers any menstruating woman to be unclean and impure. Moreover, her impurity “infects” others, for anyone or anything she touches becomes unclean for a day: When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening (Leviticus 15:19-23).

Due to her contaminating nature, a menstruating woman was sometimes banished so that there would be no possibility of having any contact with her. She was sent to a special house, the house of uncleanness, until her period ended.7 Furthermore, the husband of a menstruating woman was forbidden to enter the synagogue if he had been made unclean by her, even by the dust under her feet. A priest whose wife, daughter, or mother was menstruating could not recite a priestly blessing in the synagogue.(8)

Islam does not consider a menstruating woman to possess any contagious uncleanness. She lives her normal life with only one restriction: The couple cannot have sexual relations during her menstrual period. Any other physical contact between them is permissible. A menstruating woman also is exempted from some rituals, such as the daily prayers and fasting.

Bearing witness

The Qur’an and the Bible also disagree on the issue of women bearing witness. The Qur’an instructs those believers who are engaged in financial transactions to get two male witnesses or one male and two female witnesses (2:282). However, in other situations the Qur’an accepts the testimony of a woman as equal to that of a man. In fact, sometimes a woman’s testimony can invalidate that of a man. For example, if a man accuses his wife of unchastity, he must solemnly swear five times as evidence of the wife’s guilt. If the wife denies and swears similarly five times, she is not considered guilty. In either case, however, the marriage is dissolved (24:6-11).

In early Jewish society, women were not allowed to bear witness at all,(9) for the rabbis considered this to be one of the nine curses inflicted upon all women because of the Fall (see the section on “Eve’s legacy”).(10) In modern Israel, women are not allowed to give evidence in rabbinical courts.(11) The rabbis justify this by citing Genesis 18:9-16, where it is stated that Abraham’s wife Sara lied. According to the rabbis, this incident is evidence that women are unqualified to bear witness. The Qur’an also narrates this account, but without any hint of Sara lying (11:69-74 and 51:24-30). In the Christian West, both ecclesiastical and civil law debarred women from giving testimony until the late nineteenth century.(12)

If a man accuses his wife of unchastity, the Bible says that her testimony cannot be considered at all. Rather, the accused wife has to be subjected to a trial by ordeal. In this trial, she faces a complex and humiliating ritual that was supposed to prove her guilt or innocence (Numbers 5:11-31). If she is found guilty after this ordeal, she is sentenced to death. If she is found innocent, her husband is considered innocent of any wrongdoing.

If a man marries a woman and then accuses her of not being a virgin, her own testimony will not count. Her parents have to prove her virginity to the town elders. If they cannot prove their daughter’s innocence, she is to be stoned to death on her father’s doorstep. If the parents cannot prove her innocence, the husband is to be fined only 100 silver shekels and cannot divorce her as long as he lives (Deuteronomy 22:13-21).

Vows

According to the Bible, a man must fulfill any vow he makes to God and must not break his word. However, a woman’s vow is not necessarily binding, for it has to be approved by her father, if she is living in his house, or by her husband, if she is married. If the father or husband do not endorse his daughter’s or wife’s vows, all of her pledges become null and void: But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand…. Her husband may confirm or nullify any vow she makes or any sworn pledge to deny herself (Numbers 30:2-15).

A woman’s word is not binding per se because she is owned by her father before marriage and by her husband after marriage. Her father’s control over her was so absolute that he could, if he wished, sell her. Rabbinic literature indicates that: “The man may sell his daughter, but the woman may not sell her daughter; the man may betroth his daughter, but the woman may not betroth her daughter.” (13) This literature also indicates that marriage represents the transfer of the father’s control to the husband: “Betrothal, making a woman the sacrosanct possession_the inviolable property_of the husband…” Obviously, if women are considered somebody else’s property, they cannot make any pledges of which her owner does not approve.

History shows that this Biblical instruction concerning women’s vows had negative repercussions on Judeo-Christian women until the early twentieth century. A wife in the Western world had no legal status, none of her acts had any legal value, and her husband could repudiate any contract, bargain, or deal that she had made. Women in the West, the largest heir of the Judeo-Christian legacy, were considered unable to make a binding contract because they were practically owned by someone else. (14)

In Islam, the vow of every Muslim, male or female, is binding upon him or her, and no one can repudiate another person’s pledge. If a man or a woman fail to keep their solemn oath, each of them has to make the proper expiation, as outlined in the Qur’an: He [God] will call you to account for your deliberate oaths. For expiation, feed ten indigent persons on a scale of the average for the food of your families, or clothe them, or free a slave. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths you have sworn. But keep your oaths (5:89).

Male and female Companions of the Prophet would come to him independently and present their oath of allegiance to him personally. O Prophet! When believing women come to you to make a covenant with you that they will not associate in worship anything with God, nor steal, nor fornicate, nor kill their own children, nor slander anyone, nor disobey you in any just matter, then make a covenant with them and pray to God for the forgiveness of their sins. Indeed God is Forgiving and most Merciful (60:12). No man could swear the oath on his wife’s or daughter’s behalf, and no man could repudiate an oath made by any of his female relatives.

A wife’s property

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam share an unshakeable belief in the importance of marriage and family life. Nevertheless, clear differences do exist with respect to the limits of male leadership. The Judeo-Christian tradition virtually extends the husband’s leadership into ownership of his wife. The Talmud describes a wife’s financial situation as follows: How can a woman have anything? Whatever is hers belongs to her husband. What is his is his and what is hers is also his…. Her earnings and what she may find in the streets are also his. The household articles, even the crumbs of bread on the table, are his. Should she invite a guest to her house and feed him, she would be stealing from her husband… (San. 71a, Git. 62a).

In a Jewish family, the daughter’s property was meant to attract suitors. A Jewish family would assign their daughter a share of her father’s estate to be used as her dowry when she got married. This practice made a daughter an unwelcome burden to her father, for he had to raise her for years and then provide a large dowry so that she could get married. Thus, a Jewish girl was a liability instead of an asset. (15)

The dowry was the wedding gift presented to the groom under terms of tenancy. The husband acted as its practical owner, but could not sell it. The bride lost all control it at the moment of her marriage. While the groom had to give her a marriage gift as well, he was its practical owner as long as they were married. (16) Moreover, she was expected to work and give all of her earnings to her husband in return for his maintenance of her, which was his duty. She could regain her property only in the cases of divorce or her husband’s death. If she died first, he inherited her property. If he died first, she could regain her premarital property but could not inherit any of her deceased husband’s property.

Until recently, Christianity has followed the same tradition. Both religious and civil authorities in the post-Constantine (d. 337) Christian Roman Empire required a property agreement as a condition for recognizing the marriage. Under canon and civil law, a married woman in Christian Europe and America lost her property rights until late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. For example, women’s rights under British law were compiled and published in 1632. These “rights” included: “That which the husband hath is his own. That which the wife hath is the husband’s.” (17) In addition to losing her property upon her marriage, the wife also lost her legal personality as well. None of her acts had any legal value, for her husband could repudiate any sale or gift made by her. The person with whom she had made a contract was held as a criminal for participating in a fraud. Moreover, she could not sue, be sued in her own name, or sue her husband.(18) A married woman was practically treated as an infant in the eyes of the law. She simply belonged to her husband and therefore lost her property, legal personality, and family name.(19)

From the beginning of its revelation, Islam granted married women the independent personality denied to them in the Judeo-Christian West until very recently. In Islam, the bride and her family are under no obligation to present a gift to the groom, and so a Muslim daughter is not considered a liability. A woman is so dignified by Islam that she does not need to present gifts to attract a potential husband; rather, the groom must present a marriage gift to the bride. This gift is considered her property, for the groom or her family have no share in or control over it, and she retains it even if she is later divorced. The husband has no share in his wife’s property except what she offers him with her free consent.(20)     

Divorce

The three religions have remarkable differences in their attitudes towards divorce. Christianity abhors divorce altogether. The New Testament unequivocally advocates the indissolubility of marriage based upon the attribution of Jesus’ words: But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery (Matthew 5:32). This uncompromising ideal is unrealistic, for it assumes a state of moral perfection that human societies have never achieved. When a couple realizes that their marriage is beyond repair, a ban on divorce will do them no good. Forcing ill-mated couples to remain together against their wills is neither effective nor reasonable. No wonder the Christian world has been obliged to sanction divorce.

Judaism, on the other hand, allows divorce even without any cause. The Old Testament gives the husband the right to divorce his wife even if he just dislikes her: If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).

The above verses have caused considerable debate among Jewish scholars because of their disagreement over the interpretation of displeasing, indecency, and dislikes. The Talmud records their different opinions: The school of Shammai held that a man should not divorce his wife unless he has found her guilty of some sexual misconduct, while the school of Hillel says he may divorce her even if she has merely spoiled a dish for him. Rabbi Akiba (21) says he may divorce her even if he simply finds another woman more beautiful than she (Gittin 90a-b).

The Talmud has recorded several specific actions by wives that obliged their husbands to divorce them: If she ate in the street, if she drank greedily in the street, if she suckled in the street, in every case Rabbi Meir says that she must leave her husband (Git. 89a). The Talmud also has made it mandatory to divorce a wife who has born no children after 10 years: Our rabbis taught: If a man took a wife and lived with her for ten years and she bore no child, he shall divorce her (Yeb. 64a).

A Jewish wife cannot initiate divorce under Jewish law, but she can claim the right to a divorce before a Jewish court provided that a strong reason exists. Such reasons include a husband who has a physical defect or a skin disease, or who cannot fulfill his conjugal responsibilities. The court might support her request for a divorce, but only the husband can dissolve the marriage by giving his wife a bill of divorce. The court can scourge, fine, imprison, and excommunicate him to force him to deliver this bill of divorce, but he can refuse to do so and keep her tied to him indefinitely.

Even worse, he can desert her without granting her a divorce and thus leave her unmarried and undivorced. He can remarry or live with a single woman out of wedlock, and Jewish law will recognize the children as legitimate. On the other hand, the deserted wife cannot remarry because she is still legally married and will be considered an adulteress if she does so. If she has any children from another man, her children will be considered illegitimate for 10 generations. Such a woman is an agunah (chained woman).(22) In the United States today, there are approximately 1,000 to 1,500 Jewish women in this condition. In Israel, number might be as high as 16,000. Husbands may extort thousands of dollars from their trapped wives in exchange for a Jewish divorce.(23)

Islam occupies the middle ground between Christianity and Judaism, for it views marriage as a sanctified bond that can be broken only for compelling reasons. Couples are instructed to pursue all possible remedies to save their marriages, for divorce is the last resort. In a nutshell, Islam recognizes divorce but discourages it by all means. Let’s focus on the recognition side first. Islam recognizes the right of both partners to end their marriage. Islam gives the husband the right to divorce (talaq) and, unlike Judaism, allows the wife to dissolve the marriage through khula’.(24) If the husband dissolves the marriage, the Qur’an explicitly prohibits his from taking back their marriage gifts, regardless of their value: But if you decide to take one wife in place of another, even if you had given the latter a whole treasure for dower, take not the least bit of it back. Would you take it by slander and a manifest wrong (4:20).

If the wife ends the marriage, she may return the marriage gifts to her husband, for in this case doing so would be a fair compensation for a husband who wants to keep his wife while she chooses to leave him. The Qur’an instructs men not to take back any of the gifts they have given to their wives, unless she chooses to end the marriage: It is not lawful for you (men) to take back any of your gifts except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by God. There is no blame on either of them if she gives something for her freedom. These are the limits ordained by God, so do not transgress them (2:229).

Once, a woman came to the Prophet and asked him to dissolve her marriage. She told him that she had no complaints against her husband’s character or manners, but that she honestly disliked him so much that she could no longer live with him. Prophet asked her: “Would you give him his garden (the marriage gift he had given her) back?” She said: “Yes.” The Prophet then instructed the man to take back his garden and accept the marriage’s dissolution (Bukhari). In some cases, a wife might be willing to keep her marriage but find herself obliged to get a divorce for such compelling reasons as her husband’s cruelty or inability to fulfill his conjugal duties, desertion without a reason, and so on. In these cases, the court dissolves the marriage.(25) In short, Islam offers women some unequalled rights: the rights to end the marriage and to sue for divorce. Thus, a recalcitrant husband can never chain his wife to him.

Let’s now focus our attention on how Islam discourages divorce. The Prophet told the believers that: “Among all the permitted acts, divorce is the most hateful to God” (Abu Dawud). A man should not divorce his wife just because he dislikes her. The Qur’an instructs men to be kind to their wives even in cases of lukewarm emotions or feelings of dislike: Live with them (your wives) on a footing of kindness and equity. If you dislike them it may be that you dislike something in which Allah has placed a great deal of good (4:19). Prophet Muhammad gave a similar instruction: “A believing man must not hate a believing woman. If he dislikes one of her traits, he will be pleased with another” (Muslim). He also emphasized that the best Muslims are those who are best to their wives: “The believers who show the most perfect faith are those who have the best character, and the best of you are those who are best to their wives” (Tirmidhi).(26)

However Islam, being a practical religion, recognizes that there are circumstances in which a marriage is on the verge of collapsing. In such cases, advice to be kind or self-restrained is no longer viable. Given this, then, how can such marriages be saved? The Qur’an offers some practical advice for the spouse (husband or wife) whose partner (wife or husband) is the wrongdoer.

If the wife’s bad conduct is threatening the marriage, the Qur’an gives the husband four types of advice: As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds, and beat them (lightly without slapping their faces). But if they return to obedience, do not seek against them means of annoyance, for God is Most High, Great. If you fear a break between them, appoint two arbiters, one from his family and the other from hers. If they wish for peace, God will cause their reconciliation (4:34-35).

The first three are to be tried first. If they fail in this effort, the help of the families concerned should be sought. In the case of beating the rebellious wife, we should recognize the fact that this is no more than a temporary measure that is to be resorted to only as third in line in cases of extreme necessity in hopes that it might remedy the wife’s wrongdoing. If this measure is successful, the husband must not continue to annoy his wife. If this measure fails, the husband must resort to the final measure: family-assisted reconciliation.

Prophet Muhammad instructed husbands to use these measures only in extreme cases, such as a wife’s open lewdness. Even in these cases the punishment should be slight and, if his wife desists, he must not irritate her: “In case they are guilty of open lewdness you may leave them alone in their beds and inflict slight punishment. If they are obedient to you, do not seek against them any means of annoyance” (Tirmidhi).     Furthermore, the Prophet condemned any unjustifiable beating. Some wives complained to him that their husbands had beaten them. Hearing that, he stated that: “Those who do so (beat their wives) are not the best among you” (Abu Dawud) and: “The best of you is he who is best to his family, and I am the best among you to my family” (Tirmidhi). He even advised Fatimah bint Qais not to marry a known wife-beater: “I went to the Prophet and said: ‘Abul Jahm and Mu’awiyah have proposed to marry me.’ The Prophet (by way of advice) said: ‘Mu’awiyah is very poor, and Abul Jahm beats women” (Muslim).

The Talmud sanctions wife-beating as a method of discipline.(27) A husband can beat his wife even for reasons that are not considered extreme, such as is she refuses to do the housework. In addition, his punishment does not have to be light, for he can whip or starve her if he so wishes.(28)

In the case of a wife who is seeking divorce, the Qur’an offers the following advice: If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband’s part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best (4:128). In this case, she is advised to seek reconciliation with her husband (with or without family assistance). The Qur’an does not advise her to deny sex to her husband or to beat him. The reason for this disparity might be to protect the wife from a violent physical reaction by her already misbehaving husband, for such a reaction would only harm the wife and damage the marriage even further. Some Muslim scholars have suggested that the court can apply these measures on the wife’s behalf. In other words, the court first admonishes the rebellious husband, then forbids him his wife’s bed, and finally executes a symbolic beating.(29)

To sum up, Islam offers married couples much viable advice to save their marriages during times of trouble and tension. If one partner jeopardizes the marriage, the Qur’an advises the other partner to do whatever possible to save this sacred bond. If all measures fail, Islam allows the partners to separate peacefully and amicably.

Mothers

The Old Testament commands the kind and considerate treatment of parents and condemns those who dishonor them. For example: If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death (Leviticus 20:9) and: A wise man brings joy to his father but a foolish man despises his mother (Proverbs 15:20). Although honoring the father alone is mentioned in some places, such as in: A wise man heeds his father’s instruction (Proverbs 13:1), the mother alone is never mentioned. Moreover, there is no special emphasis on treating the mother kindly as a sign of appreciation for her great suffering during childbearing and suckling, and they inherit nothing from their children. (30)

Some New Testament verses can easily be misinterpreted if read literally with respect to the mother’s status (Luke 14:26 and Mark 3:31-35). Jesus was trying to teach his audience the following important lesson: Religious ties are just as important of family ties, and real virtue lies with belief in and servanthood to God.

Islam gives motherhood unparalleled honor, respect, and esteem. The Qur’an places the importance of kindness to parents as second only to worshipping God Almighty: Your Lord has decreed that you worship none but Him, and that you be kind to parents. Whether one or both of them attain old age in your life, do not say to them a word of contempt or repel them, but address them in terms of honor. And out of kindness, lower to them the wing of humility, and say: “My Lord, bestow on them Your Mercy, for they cherished me in childhood (17:23-24).

The Qur’an also puts special emphasis on the mother’s great role in giving birth and nursing: We have enjoined upon man to be good to his parents. In travail upon travail did his mother bear him and in two years was his weaning. Show gratitude to Me and to your parents (31:14). The Prophet eloquently described the very special place of mothers: “A man asked the Prophet: ‘Whom should I honor most?’ The Prophet replied: ‘Your mother.’ ‘And who comes next?’ asked the man. The Prophet replied: ‘Your mother.’ ‘And who comes next?’ asked the man. The Prophet replied: ‘Your mother.’ ‘And who comes next?’ asked the man. The Prophet replied: ‘Your father’” (Bukhari and Muslim).

Among the few Islamic precepts that Muslims still faithfully observe is the considerate treatment of mothers. The honor that Muslim mothers receive from their sons and daughters is exemplary. The intensely warm relations between Muslim mothers and their children, and the deep respect with which Muslim men approach their mothers, usually amaze Westerners.(31)

Female inheritance

One of the most important differences between the Qur’an and the Bible is their attitude toward female inheritance of a deceased relative’s property. The Biblical attitude has been succinctly described by Rabbi Epstein: “The continuous and unbroken tradition since the Biblical days gives the female members of the household, wife and daughters, no right of succession to the family estate. In the more primitive scheme of succession, the female members of the family were considered part of the estate and as remote from the legal personality of an heir as the slave. Whereas by Mosaic enactment the daughters were admitted to succession in the event of no male issue remained, the wife was not recognized as heir even in such conditions.” (32)

The Biblical rules of inheritance are outlined in Numbers 27:1-11. A wife is given no share in her husband’s estate, while he is her first heir_even before her sons. A daughter can inherit only if no male heirs exist. A mother cannot inherit anything, while the father can. Widows and daughters, in the case of surviving male children, were at the mercy of the male heirs for provision. Christianity followed suit for a long time. Both the ecclesiastical and civil laws of Christendom barred daughters from sharing with their brothers in their father’s patrimony. Moreover, wives were deprived of any inheritance rights. These iniquitous laws survived until the late nineteenth century.(33)

Among the pagan Arabs before Islam, inheritance rights were confined exclusively to the male relatives. The Qur’an abolished all of these unjust customs and gave all female relatives specific inheritance shares: From what is left by parents and those nearest related there is a share for men and a share for women, whether the property be small or large_a determinate share (4:7).

Muslim mothers, wives, daughters, and sisters received inheritance rights 1,300 years before Europe recognized that these rights even existed. Inheritance is a vast subject (4:7, 11-12, 176). The general rule is that the woman’s share is half the man’s, except in cases where the mother receives a share equal to that of the father. If taken in isolation from other related legislation, this general rule may seem unfair. In order to understand the rationale behind this rule, one must consider that in Islam the financial obligations of men far exceed those of women (see the “Wife’s property” section). For example, a groom must provide his bride with a marriage gift, which remains her exclusive property even if she is later divorced. The bride does not have to present any such marriage gift.

Moreover, the husband must maintain his wife and children. The wife is under no obligation to help him do so. Her property and earnings belong to her only, except for what she may voluntarily offer her husband. Besides, one has to realize that Islam strongly advocates family life. It strongly encourages young people to get married, discourages divorce, and does not regard celibacy as a virtue (exceptional cases always exist). In a truly Islamic society, family life is the norm and living a single life is a rare exception. Thus almost all marriage-aged Muslim women and men are married. In light of these facts, one must appreciate that men generally have greater financial burdens than women and that the Qur’an’s inheritance rules are meant to offset this imbalance. As a consequence, the society is not burdened with gender or class warfare. After a simple comparison between the financial rights and duties of women, one British Muslim woman concluded that Islam treats women not only fairly but generously.(34)

The plight of widows

Given that the Old Testament recognizes no inheritance rights for widows, these women were among the most vulnerable members of their societies. The male relatives, who inherited all of a woman’s deceased husband’s estate, were to use that estate to take care of the widow. However, widows had no way to ensure this provision was carried out, and so lived on the mercy of others. They were among the lowest classes in some ancient societies, and widowhood was considered a symbol of great degradation (Isaiah 54:4). But the plight of a widow in the Biblical tradition extended even beyond her exclusion from her husband’s property. According to Genesis 38, a childless widow must marry her deceased husband’s brother, even if he is already married, to produce offspring for him so that his name will not die out: Then Judah said to Onan: “Lie with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother” (Genesis 38:8).

The widow’s consent is not required, for she is treated as part of her deceased husband’s property and her main function is to ensure her husband’s posterity. This Biblical law is still practiced in some places today.(35) For example, a childless widow is bequeathed to her husband’s brother. If the brother is too young to marry, she has to wait until he comes of age. Should the deceased husband’s brother refuse to marry her, she is set free and then can marry any man of her choice.

The pagan Arabs before Islam had similar practices. A widow was considered a part of her husband’s property to be inherited by his male heirs. In addition, usually she was given in marriage to the deceased man’s eldest son from another wife. The Qur’an scathingly attacked and abolished this degrading custom: Do not marry women whom your fathers married, except for what is passed, for it was shameful, odious, and abominable custom (4:22).

Widows and divorced women were so looked down upon in the Biblical tradition that the high priest could not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a prostitute: The woman he (the high priest) marries must be a virgin. He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his own people, so he will not defile his offspring among his people (Leviticus 21:13-15).

According to the Qur’an, however, widows and divorcees have the freedom to marry whomever they choose. Also, the Qur’an attaches no stigma to divorce or widowhood: When you divorce women and they fulfill their terms [three menstruation periods], either take them back on equitable terms or set them free on equitable terms. Do not take them back to injure them or to take undue advantage. If anyone does that, he wrongs his own soul. Do not treat God’s signs as a jest” (2:231); If any of you die and leave widows behind, they shall wait four months and ten days. When they have fulfilled their term, there is no blame on you if they dispose of themselves in a just manner (2:234); and: Those of you who die and leave widows should bequeath for their widows a year’s maintenance and residence. But if they [the widows] leave (the residence) there is no blame on you for what they justly do with themselves (2:240).    

Polygamy

Polygamy, a very ancient practice, is found in many human societies. The Bible does not condemn it; rather, the Old Testament and Rabbinic writings frequently attest to its legality. King Solomon and King David are said to have had many wives and concubines (1 Kings 11:3 and 2 Samuel 5:13). The Old Testament does contain some injunctions on how to distribute the property of a man among his sons from different wives (Deuteronomy 22:7). The only restriction on polygamy is that a man cannot take a wife’s sister as a rival wife (Leviticus 18:18). The Talmud advises a maximum of four wives.36 European Jews continued to practice it until the sixteenth century, while Oriental Jews regularly practiced it until they arrived in Israel, where it is forbidden under civil law. However, it is permissible under religious law, which overrides civil law in such cases.(37)

What about the New Testament? According to Father Eugene Hillman in his insightful Polygamy Reconsidered:<em> “Nowhere in the New Testament is there any explicit commandment that marriage should be monogamous or any explicit commandment forbidding polygamy.” (38) Moreover, Jesus did not speak against polygamy although it was practiced by the Jews of his society. Father Hillman stresses the fact that the Church in Rome banned polygamy in order to conform to the Greco-Roman culture (which prescribed only one legal wife, while tolerating concubinage and prostitution). He cited St. Augustine: “Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer allowed to take another wife.” (39)

The Qur’an also allows polygamy, but with certain restrictions: If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four. But if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with them, then only one (4:3).

The Qur’an limits the number of wives to four under the strict condition that each wife be treated equally and justly. Thus it is not exhorting the believers to practice polygamy or representing it as an ideal, but only tolerates or allows it. For example, there might be times and places during which compelling social and moral reasons make polygamy more acceptable. As the above verse indicates, this issue cannot be understood apart from the Muslim community’s obligations toward orphans and widows. Islam, which is a universal religion suitable for all places and all times, cannot ignore such compelling obligations.

In most human societies, women outnumber men. In the U.S. there are, at least, eight million more women than men. In Guinea, there are 122 women for every 100 men. In Tanzania, there are 95.1 men for every 100 women. (40) What can a society with such unbalanced sex ratios do? There are various solutions: celibacy, female infanticide (which still happens in some societies), or to tolerance of sexual permissiveness (e.g., prostitution, extramarital sex, and homosexuality).

For other societies, like most African societies today, the most honorable outlet is to allow polygamy as a culturally accepted and socially respected institution. People in the West often do not understand that women in other cultures do not necessarily consider polygamy to be a sign of women’s degradation. For example, many young African brides, whether Christians or Muslims or otherwise, would prefer to marry a married man who has proven himself to be a responsible husband. Many African wives urge their husbands to get a second wife so that they do not feel lonely. (41) A survey of over 6,000 women, ranging in age from 15 to 59, conducted in Nigeria’s second largest city showed that 60% of them would be pleased if their husbands took another wife. Only 23% expressed anger at the idea of sharing with another wife. In a survey conducted in Kenya, 76% of the women viewed polygamy positively. In a survey undertaken in rural Kenya, 25 out of 27 women considered polygamy to be better than monogamy and that it could be a happy and beneficial experience if the co-wives cooperate with each other. (42)

Polygamy in most African societies is such a respectable institution that some Protestant churches are becoming more tolerant of it. An Anglican bishop in Kenya declared that: “Although monogamy may be ideal for the expression of love between husband and wife, the church should consider that in certain cultures polygyny is socially acceptable and that the belief that polygyny is contrary to Christianity is no longer tenable.” (43) After a careful study of African polygamy, the Anglican Reverend David Gitari concluded that polygamy, as ideally practiced, is more Christian than divorce and remarriage as far as the abandoned wives and children are concerned. (44) I personally know of some highly educated African wives who, despite having lived in the West for many years, have no objection to polygamy.

The problem of the unbalanced sex ratios becomes truly problematic during times of war. Native American Indian tribes used to suffer highly unbalanced sex ratios after wartime losses. Women in these tribes, who in fact enjoyed a fairly high status, accepted polygamy as the best protection against indulgence in indecent activities. After the Second World War, there were 7.3 milliion more women than men in Germany (3.3 million of them were widows). There were 100 men aged 20 to 30 for every 167 women in that age group. (45) Many of these women needed a man not only as a companion but also as a provider for the household during a time of unprecedented misery and hardship. Many young girls and widows had liaisons with members of the occupying forces in return for cigarettes, chocolate, and bread, and children were overjoyed at the gifts these strangers brought.(46) Today in places where ethnic cleansing has been conducted, like in Bosnia, there is 1 man for every 10 women; in Kosovo, there is 1 man for every 5 women. We have to ask our own conscience at this point: What is more dignifying to a woman? An accepted and respected second wife as in the native American Indians’ approach, or a virtual prostitute due to her and her children’s starvation?

Interestingly, participants in an international youth conference held in Munich in 1948 discussed the problem of Germany’s highly unbalanced sex ratio. When it became clear that no solution could be agreed upon, some participants suggested polygamy. The gathering’s initial reaction was a mixture of shock and disgust. However, after a careful study of the proposal, participants agreed that it was the only possible solution. Consequently, polygamy was included among the conference final recommendations. (47)

Today, the world possesses more weapons of mass destruction than ever before. Father Hillman has thoughtfully recognized this fact: “It is quite conceivable that these genocidal techniques (nuclear, biological, chemical) could produce so drastic an imbalance among the sexes that plural marriage would become a necessary means of survival…. Then contrary to previous custom and law, an overriding natural and moral inclination might arise in favor of polygamy. In such a situation, theologians and church leaders would quickly produce weighty reasons and biblical texts to justify a new conception of marriage.”(48)

Even in our own time, polygamy continues to be a viable solution to some of modern society’s social ills. The communal obligations that the Qur’an mentions in association with the permission of polygamy are more visible at present in some Western societies than in Africa. For example, in the United States today there is a severe gender crisis in the black community. One out of every 20 young black males may die before reaching their twenty-first birthday. For those between 20 and 35, homicide is the leading cause of death. (49) In addition, many young black men are unemployed, in jail, or on dope. (50) As a result, 25% of black 40-year-old women have never married. (51) Moreover, many young black women become single mothers before the age of 20 and find themselves in need of providers.

The end result of these tragic circumstances is that an increasing number of black women are engaged in “man-sharing,” (52) which means that they are involved in affairs with married men. The wives are often unaware of the fact that other women are “sharing” their husbands. Some obser-vers of this crisis in the black community strongly recommend consensual polygamy as a temporary answer to the shortage of black men until more comprehensive reforms in the American society at large are undertaken. (53) The problem of man-sharing in the black community was the topic of a panel discussion held at Temple University in Philadelphia on January 27, 1993.(54) Some of the speakers recommended polygamy as a potential remedy. They also suggested that polygamy should not be banned by law, particularly in a society that tolerates prostitution and mistresses.

In his Plural Marriage for Our Time, Philip Kilbride, a Catholic American anthropologist, proposes polygamy as a solution to some of the ills of American society at large. He argues that plural marriage may serve as a potential alternative for divorce in many cases in order to obviate the damaging impact of divorce on many children. (55)                                                           

In 1987, a poll conducted by the student newspaper at the University of California at Berkeley asked students whether they agreed that the law should allow men to have more than one wife in response to a perceived shortage of marriageable men in California. Almost all of the students polled approved of the idea. One female student even stated that a polygamous marriage would fulfill her emotional and physical needs while giving her greater freedom than a monogamous union. (56) In fact, this same argument is also used by the few remaining fundamentalist Mormon (57) women who still practice polygamy in the U.S. They believe that polygamy is an ideal way for a woman to have both a career and children, since the wives help each other care for the children. (58)

In Islam, polygamy is a matter of mutual consent. No one can force a woman to marry a married man. Moreover, a wife has the right to stipulate that her husband cannot take a second wife.(59) On the other hand, the Bible sometimes resorts to forcible polygamy. For example, a childless widow must marry her husband’s brother, even if he is already married (see the “Plight of widows” section) regardless of her consent (Genesis 38:8-10).

Billy Graham, the eminent Christian evangelist, has recognized this fact: “Christianity cannot compromise on the question of polygamy. If present-day Christianity cannot do so, it is to its own detriment. Islam has permitted polygamy as a solution to social ills and has allowed a certain degree of latitude to human nature but only within the strictly defined framework of the law. Christian countries make a great show of monogamy, but actually they practice polygamy. No one is unaware of the part mistresses play in Western society. In this respect Islam is a fundamentally honest religion, and permits a Muslim to marry a second wife if he must, but strictly forbids all clandestine amatory associations in order to safeguard the moral probity of the community.” (60)

Many Muslim and non-Muslim countries have outlawed polygamy. Taking a second wife, even with the first wife’s free consent, is a violation of the law. But cheating on the wife, without her knowledge or consent, is perfectly legitimate as far as the law is concerned! What is the legal wisdom behind such a contradiction? Is the law designed to reward deception and punish honesty? This is one of the unfathomable paradoxes of our modern “civilized” world.

The veil

Finally, let’s shed some light on what is considered in the West as the greatest symbol of women’s oppression and servitude: the veil or the head-covering. Is it true that there is no such thing as the veil in the Judeo-Christian tradition?

According to Rabbi Dr. Menachem M. Brayer, a professor of Biblical Literature at Yeshiva University and author of The Jewish Woman in Rabbinic Literature, it was the custom of Jewish women to go out in public with a head covering that sometimes left only one eye free. (61) He quotes some famous ancient rabbis who said that: “It is not like the daughters of Israel to walk out with heads uncovered” and “Cursed be the man who lets the hair of his wife be seen … a woman who exposes her hair for self-adornment brings poverty.”

Rabbinic law forbids the recitation of blessings or prayers in the presence of a bareheaded married woman, since uncovering the woman’s hair is considered to be nudity.(62) He also mentions that: “During the Tannaitic period the Jewish woman’s failure to cover her head was considered an affront to her modesty. When her head was uncovered she might be fined four hundred zuzim for this offense.” Dr. Brayer also explains that a Jewish woman’s veil was not always considered a sign of modesty. Sometimes, it symbolized a state of distinction and luxury, for it personified the dignity and superiority of noble women. It also represented a woman’s inaccessibility as a sanctified possession of her husband. (63)

The veil signified a woman’s self-respect and social status. Women of the lower classes would often wear it to give the impression of a higher standing. Given that the veil was the sign of nobility, prostitutes were not permitted to cover their hair in the old Jewish society. However, they often wore a special headscarf in order to look respectable.(64) Jewish women in Europe continued to wear cover their hair until the nineteenth century, when their lives became more intermingled with the surrounding secular culture. The external pressures of nineteenth-century European life forced many of them to go out bareheaded. Some Jewish women found it more convenient to replace their traditional head-covering with a wig as another form of hair covering. Today, most pious Jewish women only cover their hair in the synagogue.(65) Some of them, such as the Hasidic (66) sects, still use the wig.(67)

What about the Christian tradition? Catholic nuns have been covering their heads for hundreds of years. But there is even more, as we learn from St. Paul’s very interesting statements about the veil: Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head. It is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head (I Corinthians 11:3-10).

St. Paul’s rationale for veiling women is that the veil is a sign of the authority of man, who is the image and glory of God, over the woman, who was created from and for man. In his famous treatise “On the Veiling of Virgins,” St. Tertullian wrote: “Young women, you wear your veils out on the streets, so you should wear them in the church, you wear them when you are among strangers, then wear them among your brothers…” Among the canon laws of the Catholic Church today is a law that requires women to cover their heads in church. (68) Some Christian denominations, such as the Amish and the Mennonites, still retain a head-covering for their women today. (69)

From all the above evidence, it is obvious that Islam did not invent, but rather endorses, the head-covering. The Qur’an urges believing men and women to lower their gaze and guard their modesty, and urges believing women to cover the neck and bosom: Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty…. And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms (24:30-31).

The Qur’an is quite clear that such covering is essential for modesty, and that modesty is important: O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the believing women that they should cast their outer garments over their bodies (when abroad) so that they should be known and not molested (33:59). This is the whole point: Modesty is prescribed to protect women from molestation or simply, modesty is protection. Thus, its only purpose in Islam is to offer protection. Unlike its status in other traditions, such covering is not a sign of man’s authority over woman, of woman’s subjection to man, or of luxury and the distinction of some noble married women. It is no more than a sign of modesty designed to protect women. The Islamic philosophy is that it is always better to be safe than sorry.

In fact, the Qur’an is so concerned with protecting a woman body and reputation that a man who dares to falsely accuse a woman of unchastity will be severely punished: And those who launch a charge against chaste women and do not produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations), flog them with eighty stripes and reject their evidence ever after, for such men are wicked transgressors (24:4).

Some people, especially in the West, tend to ridicule the whole argument of modesty for protection. Their argument is that the best protection is the spread of education, civilized behavior, and self-restraint. We say “Fine, but that is not enough.” If civilization is enough protection, then why do women in North America dare not walk down a dark street alone or even across an empty parking lot? If education is the solution, then why does a respected Canadian university like Queen’s have a walk-home service mainly for female students on campus? If self-restraint is the answer, then why are cases of sexual harassment in the workplace reported on the news media every day? A sample of men recently accused of sexual harassment includes naval officers, managers, university professors, Supreme Court justices, and even the top officers.

I could not believe my eyes when I read the following statistics, written in a pamphlet issued by the Dean of Women’s office at Queen’s University: “In Canada, a woman is sexually assaulted every 6 minutes; 1 in 3 women in Canada will be sexually assaulted at some time in their lives; 1 in 4 women are at the risk of rape or attempted rape in her lifetime; and 1 in 8 women will be sexually assaulted while attending college or university; and a study found that 60% of Canadian university-aged males said they would commit sexual assault if they were certain they wouldn’t get caught.”

Something is fundamentally wrong in the society in which we live. A radical change in the society’s life style and culture is absolutely necessary. A culture of modesty is badly needed_ modesty in the dress, speech, and manners of both men and women. Otherwise, the grim statistics will grow even worse day after day and, unfortunately, women alone will be paying the price.

Footnotes

1. Leonard J. Swidler, Women in Judaism: The Status of Women in Formative Judaism (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1976), 115.
2. Thena Kendath, “Memories of an Orthodox Youth,” in Susannah Heschel, ed. On being a Jewish Feminist (New York: Schocken Books, 1983), 96-97.
3. Rosemary R. Ruether, “Christianity,” in Arvind Sharma, ed., Women in World Religions (Albany: SUNY Press, 1987), 209.
4. For all the sayings of the prominent saints, see Karen Armstrong, The Gospel According to Woman (London: Elm Tree Books, 1986) 52-62. See also Nancy van Vuuren, The Subversion of Women as Practiced by Churches, Witch-Hunters, and Other Sexists (Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1973), 28-30.
5. Bukhari, “Talaq,” 25, “Adab,” 24; Muslim, “Zuhd,” 42.
6. Denise L. Carmody, “Judaism,” in Sharma, Women in World Religions, 197.
7. Swidler, Women in Judaism, 140.
8. Ibid., 138.
9. Ibid., 115.
10. Louis M. Epstein, The Jewish Marriage Contract (New York: Arno Pres, 1973), 149.
11. Lesley Hazleton, Israeli Women: The Reality Behind the Myths (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1977), 41.
12. Matilda J. Gage, Woman, Church, and State (New York: Truth Seeker Company, 1893), 142.
13. Swidler, Women in Judaism, 141.
14. Gage, Woman, Church, and State, 141.
15. Epstein, Jewish Marriage Contract, 164-65.
16. Ibid., 112-13. See also Sally Priesand, Judaism and the New Woman,(New York: Behrman House, Inc., 1975),p.15.
17. R. Thompson, Women in Stuart England and America (London: Routledge &amp; Kegan Paul, 1974), 162.
18. Mary Murray, The Law of the Father (London: Routledge, 1995), 67.
19. Gage, Woman, Church, and State, 143.
20. El-Sayyed Sabiq, Fiqh al-Sunnah, 11th ed. (Cairo: Darul Fatah li al-&amp;#8216;Alam al-&amp;#8216;Arabi, 1994), 2:218-29.
21. Akiba ben Joseph: (50?-132) a Jewish scholar of religion who had a significant influence on Judaism. (Ed.)
22. Swidler, Women in Judaism, 162-63.
23. The Toronto Star, 8 Apr. 1995.
24. Sabiq, Fiqh al-Sunnah, 2:318-29. See also Muhammad al-Ghazali, Qadayah al-Mar’ah bayn al Taqalid al-Rakidah wa al-Wafidah, 4th ed. (Cairo: Dar al Shuruq, 1992), 178-80.
25. Ibid., 313-18.
26. Tirmidhi, “Rada,” 11; Abu Dawud, “Sunnah,” 15; Darimi, “al-Riqaq,” 74.
27. Epstein, Jewish Marriage Contract, 219.
28. Ibid., 156-57.
29. Muhammad Abu Zahra, Usul al-Fiqh al-Islami (Cairo: al-Majlis al-A&amp;#8216;la li Ri&amp;#8216;ayat al-Funun, 1963), 66.
30. Epstein, Jewish Marriage Contract, 122.
31. Armstrong, The Gospel, 8.
32. Epstein, Jewish Marriage Contract, 175.
33. Gage, Woman, Church, and State, 142.
34. B. Aisha Lemu and Fatima Heeren, Woman in Islam ( London: Islamic Foundation, 1978 ), 23.
35. Hazleton, Israeli Women, 45-46.
36. Swidler, Women in Judaism, 144-48.
37. Hazleton, Israeli Women, 44-45.
38. Eugene Hillman, Polygamy Reconsidered: African Plural Marriage and the Christian Churches (New York: Orbis Books, 1975), 140.
39. Ibid., 17.
40. Ibid., 88-93.
41. Ibid., 92-97.
42. Philip L. Kilbride, Plural Marriage for Our Times (Westport, CT: Bergin &amp; Garvey, 1994), 108-9.
43. The Weekly Review, 1 Aug. 1987.
44. Kilbride, Plural Marriage, 126.
45. Ute Frevert, Women in German History: From Bourgeois Emancipation to Sexual Liberation (New York: Berg Publishers, 1988), 263-64.
46. Ibid., 257-58.
47. Sabiq, Fiqh al-Sunnah, 191.
48. Hillman, Polygamy Reconsidered, 12.
49. Nathan Hare and Julie Hare, eds., Crisis in Black Sexual Politics (San Francisco: Black Think Tank, 1989), 25.
50. Ibid., 26.
51. Kilbride, Plural Marriage, 94.
52. Ibid., 95.
53. Ibid.
54. Ibid., 95-99.
55. Ibid., 118.
56. Jeffrey Lang, Struggling to Surrender (Beltsville, MD: Amana Publications, 1994), p. 172.
57. A member of the religious movement founded in 1830 by Joseph Smith ((1805-1844) in New York. (Ed.)
58. Kilbride, Plural Marriage, 72-73.
59. Sabiq, Fiqh al-Sunnah, 187-88.
60. Abdul Rahman Doi, Woman in Shari&amp;#8216;ah (London: Ta-Ha Publishers, 1994), 76.
61. Menachem M. Brayer, The Jewish Woman in Rabbinic Literature: A Psychosocial Perspective (Hoboken, N.J: Ktav Publishing House, 1986), 239.
62. Ibid., 316-17. Also see Swidler, Women in Judaism, 121-23.
63. Ibid., 139.
64. Susan W. Schneider, Jewish and Female (New York: Simon &amp; Schuster, 1984), 237.
65. Ibid., 238-39.
66. A mystical Jewish movement that first emerged in Poland and neighboring countries in 18th century, based upon prayer, love, and joy. (Ed.)
67. Alexandra Wright, “Judaism,” in Holm and Bowker, ed., op. cit., 128-29.
68. Clara M. Henning, “Cannon Law and the Battle of the Sexes,” in Rosemary R. Ruether, ed., Religion and Sexism: Images of Woman in the Jewish and Christian Traditions (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1974), 272.
69. A group of Christians from The Netherlands and northwestern Germany who were organized in 1540 around an approach to baptism that differed from the mainstream Protestants. They migrated to America in 1540, and are very tolerant toward other religious groups and faiths. (Ed.)

This world and its pleasures are a heavy burden. No one (except the corrupt in spirit) is contented with it. Rather than suffering from dependence on almost the whole universe, being needy of all means and causes, and appealing to contending deaf, dumb, and blind masters, people should seek refuge in a single, All-Hearing, and All-Seeing Master. If they place their trust in Him, He is enough for them.

Fourth truth

Know, O ego, that the scientific inventions woven around your head, the lines of conscious artistry connected to you, and the things put in your hands stretched out in neediness all demonstrate that your Creator, Maker, and Helper hears your sighs of destitution and your cries for help. Having mercy on you, He gratifies all your needs. Seeing that the Creator and Maker answers your tiniest cells’ calls for help, why should He ”the All-Hearing, All-Seeing” not answer your call for help?¹

Know, O spacious cell called ego or selfhood and built up of lesser cells. Say: O God! O Lord! O my Creator! O my Fashioner! O my Owner! O my Master! O my Guardian! Yours is the dominion (of all things) and to You is all praise! I am a guest in this body, Your property that You have entrusted to me.

O selfhood! Why do you claim to own that which you will never own? Give up this false claim that throws you into acute pain. Consider the emotions of pity and affection, which are among the spirit’s exhilarating embellishments: If they were left to your pretended ownership, they would harm and torment the spirit.

For example, the misfortune and calamities striking you or others would cause you to remain in continual pain and go so far as to blame Destiny for them. However, when you see a soldier who has lost his horse or whose residence has been burnt down by mistake working directly under a king, you do not feel much pity for the soldier. If you consider that both the horse and residence belong to the king, you will see that their disappearance does not cause a significant decrease in his property. Nor does the soldier worry about it”indeed, inasmuch as he is poor, it is highly probable that out of pity the king will compensate his losses with something better. In the same way, God is the All-Compassionate and always treats His servants with utmost compassion.² Therefore, compassion for creatures as creatures of God exhilarates the spirit. By contrast, pity arising from supposing that everything owns itself continually suffocates and distresses the spirit.

One with a sound viewpoint based on belief in Divine Unity sees every living being’s body as resembling a hired captain on a king’s ship being controlled by that king, who controls his property as he wills. This viewpoint does not allow one to see an ant or a honeybee as contending with attacking causes. Rather, according to it, the ant controls an earthly vehicle while the other controls an aircraft, the reins of which are in the hands of the Power of an All-Powerful One. Causes do not have much weight in the sight of either animal, which depend on the True Owner (of all things).

By saying: Surely we are God’s and surely we are returning to Him (2:156), when struck by misfortune, one means: All property is God’s and I am under His command, journeying to Him. My relation with my body, which is His property, is like that of a soldier holding something belonging to the king. When robbers attack him, he states: I am responsible for guarding this property entrusted to me. However, I am unable to guard it now. Like this property, I also belong to the king and am going to him. When those with such a viewpoint see a fellow struck with misfortune or suffer personal misfortune, they are relieved of continual distress. Otherwise, they are constantly weighed down with pain and distress.

Footnotes

1. For example, a person equipped with the limited powers of sight, hearing, and learning may conclude that the Creator must be All-Seeing, All-Hearing, and All-Knowing. One’s poverty, helplessness, and mortality may lead one to discover that the Creator is Absolutely Wealthy, Powerful, and Permanent. (Tr.)
2. The best analogy applicable to certain aspects of the relation with God and the creation is that between a monarch and his subjects. Since many immaterial truths, especially those pertaining to the Divine Being, are abstract and difficult to understand, Divine Scriptures usually use parables, metaphors, similes, and analogies. For example, God is sometimes introduced like a monarch or king, having a throne and armies. Another reason why Said Nursi used such analogies may be that he wrote this book in the 1910s, when there was still a sultanate in Anatolia. (Tr.)

Adapted from Bediuzzaman’s Epitomes of Light (Mathnawi al-Nuriya)

There are different definitions of euthanasia, each putting the emphasis on different parts of the concept. The word itself is derived from a compound of two Greek words-“eu” and “thanatos”-meaning literally a good death. It is generally understood today as the intentional putting to death by artificial means of persons with incurable or painful disease (Mason & McCall Smith, 1994, p.316). The decision to end a person’s life may involve direct interventions (active euthanasia) or withholding of life-prolonging measures (passive euthanasia). If the decision reflects the person’s own consciously and expressly declared wishes, it is called voluntary euthanasia. Where the person does not know about the decision and has not expressly approved it in advance it is called non-voluntary euthanasia. Another type of euthanasia, namely involuntary euthanasia, occurs whenever such a decision is implemented against the express wishes of the individual. (See Harris, 1985, p.82.)

Those who argue in favour of euthanasia usually presuppose a person’s absolute ownership of his or her body and life; as people are entitled to dispose as they choose of the things they own, the analogy is that they may also choose the circumstances most appropriate for them to ‘dispose’ of ‘their’ life. This is the rationale behind voluntary euthanasia.

However, the ownership (or property right) of humans over their bodies is not a property right in the usual sense of the term. Munzer (1990) defines various types of ‘ownership’, ‘property right’ etc. and concludes: “Most body rights are personal rather than property rights; examples are rights not to be murdered, not to be searched without a warrant or just cause, not to be compelled to testify against oneself, not to be libelled or slandered, to speak freely, and to exclude others from sexual or other physical contacts”. However, he says: “Some body rights are property rights whether weak, such as the right to donate an organ upon death, or strong, such as the right of publicity or the right to sell blood or semen ; but these weak and strong property rights are neither so numerous nor so central as to establish that person’s ‘own’ themselves” (ibid., p.57). Evidently, it is not very easy to propose or prohibit euthanasia by using the ‘property rights’ argument. (Perhaps we can summarise the issue by saying that the language of ‘property rights’ is appropriate only in the context of commercial/contractual transactions. If it ever was, it is no longer thought proper to speak of buying or selling human beings outright; we only speak nowadays of buying or selling an individual’s time or skills.)

Voluntary euthanasia has been likened to suicide in many respects. Therefore almost all religious traditions reject it; they reject the idea of terminating one’s life, and declare it to be one of the greatest misdeeds (Smoker, 1986, p.96). According to this understanding, our lives and our bodies are given by God. We are stewards and not owners of our lives, hence to contrive the ending of our own lives or to harm our bodies knowingly is a sign of disrespect to the ‘real owner’.

Roman Catholic theologians have reflected on matters of death and dying for centuries. The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s 1980 declaration on Euthanasia, approved by Pope John Paul II, states: 1) None can make an attempt on the life of an innocent person without opposing God’s love for that person, without violating a fundamental right, and therefore without committing a crime of the utmost gravity; 2) Everyone has the duty to lead his or her life in accordance with God’s plan. That life is entrusted to the individual as a good that must bear fruit already here on earth, but that finds its full perfection only in eternal life; 3) Intentionally causing one’s own death, or suicide, is therefore equally as wrong as murder; such an action on the part of a person is to be considered as rejection of God’s sovereignty and loving plan. Therefore euthanasia is a violation of the divine law, an offence against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity.

Among the Protestant denominations that oppose voluntary euthanasia are the Lutherans, Mennonites, Methodists, Presbyterians, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Episcopalians, Christian Scientists and Baptists. The rationale for rejecting the option of euthanasia or assisted suicide is based generally on the maxim, “only God can give life and only God should take it”.

The four branches of Judaism-Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist-all forbid active euthanasia. The ancient Torah and Talmud did not address euthanasia or assisted suicide. However, in recent years, rabbis have answered questions about death and dying in “responsa” that have come to be considered authoritative. For example, a responsum from the Reform Jewish tradition addressing euthanasia (Bettam, 1950) declares: “Human life is more than a biological phenomenon; it is the gracious gift of God, it is the in-breathing of His spirit. Man is more than a minute particle of the great mass known as society: “The spirit of God hath made me,” avers Job in the midst of his suffering, “and the breath of the Almighty gives me life” (Job 33:4). Thus, human life, coming from God, is sacred, and must be nurtured with great care. And man is endowed with unique and hidden worth and must be treated with reverence.”

Islam also opposes euthanasia. The Qur’an and Sunnah, the authoritative sources of Islamic law, do not speak specifically about euthanasia. However, according to the Qur’an God is the Creator of life. Consequently, persons do not own their lives and have no right to end them or to ask others to do so. The Prophet Muhammad is reported as saying: “None of you should wish to die because a harm befalls him. If he is so determined, let him pray: ‘Oh God, let me live as long as life is good for me, and let me die if death is good for me’.” This saying might be interpreted as a permission for euthanasia or deliberate termination of life, if the phrasing of the supplication were “let me kill myself” or “let me be killed” rather than “let me die”, which cannot be so interpreted. A contemporary Islamic scholar has argued: “God may deprive an individual of something he or she values, but grant that individual a manifold return for that loss in the Hereafter. By means of that loss, God makes you feel your need, your powerlessness, your poverty in relation to Him. In this way, He makes you turn to Him with a weightier sincerity, a fuller heart, and so makes you worthier of His Blessing and Favour. Thus your apparent loss is in reality a gain” (Gulen, 1994, p.162). One recent study indicated that the degree of religious observance is a factor that influences the desire for maximal medical intervention. It is argued that fundamental beliefs of the more religious elements of society, regardless of which religion, tend towards an approach in which sanctity of life, rather than quality of life, becomes the prime determinant (Hammerman, 1997). Therefore, it is not surprising, among believing people, to come across those who are remarkably contented in spite of circumstances of great hardship, suffering and pain.

One of the primary things that makes euthanasia unacceptable is the involvement of a second party. Since life is inherently valuable, no one should play a part, directly or indirectly, in terminating a life. Since 1961, it is not illegal in Britain to commit suicide, although it is punishable to help an individual to kill himself. However it is claimed that when the life is objectively meaningless, rather than subjectively, the termination of life and help for it can be justified, and in euthanasia cases lives are generally objectively meaningless. Kohl (1987) made the distinction between these two as follows: “A life is subjectively meaningless when an individual earnestly believes he or she cannot possess, can no longer possess, or cannot achieve, any goals. A life is objectively meaningless when any of the aforementioned intersensual and intersubjective conditions exists and is known, or is capable of being known, to be irreversible.” In another article, after stating that meaningful life is a precondition for a good life, Kohl (1979) said: “An ideally good life is like an ideal meal. What most men desire is a splendid meal with a splendid dessert. So, when the dessert is far from splendid, it is good for the person, as well as for those who must take care of that person, to terminate the life. But, as was mentioned in the report by the working party which reviewed the BMA s guidelines on euthanasia, termination of life requires doctors to examine their ethical convictions rather than their scientific ones. And throughout the many shifts of scientific opinion in medicine, one pervasive feature of medical practice has remained unchanged-the conviction that human life is of inestimable value and ought to be protected and cherished (BMA, 1986, pp.l8-19). But nowadays, as with many other things, these convictions are also under discussion, and tend to he challenged.

Although there is a trend toward legalising the practice of euthanasia, strong resistance to it persists. Here are some of the traditional arguments against euthanasia. One concern is that, along with the justifiable cases of terminally ill people asking for and receiving a quick, merciful death, there would inevitably be cases in which euthanasia would be clearly wrong. Another is that, a law legalising euthanasia might well be abused, with some person’s life being ended, against his or her consent, for a motive other than mercy. We also know that diagnoses and prognoses of a disease can be wrong. For instance, predicting how long someone may live with cancer is very difficult at best. Some whom we expected to die in a few months might live on for years, conversely some might live a much shorter time than we, the care-givers, anticipate. Another valid concern is that the right to die may well become a duty to die. For instance, frail, disabled elderly people who are financial and emotional burdens on their families may feel some pressure to ask for euthanasia. Finally, even apart from moral and ethical considerations, legalising euthanasia has the potential to weaken and damage the relationship between patients and physicians. (See Cundiff, 1992.)

Bearing in mind that euthanasia is, all said and done, the termination by one means or another of a human life, the justification for it will always be questionable. It needs to be questioned and debated very closely indeed by the concerned public, as well as by health care professionals, lawyers, theologians and politicians.

References

• Bettarn, I, (1950) Euthanasia, American Reform Responsa, 60, PP. 107-20. [The responsa discussed were drafted in answer to a bill signed by 2000 physicians in New York State in 1948 supporting legalization of euthanasia.]
• BMA [1986) Report of the Working Party to Review the BMA’s Guidance on Euthanasia, London, pp.16-19.
• Cundiff, D. (1992) Euthanasia is not the Answer, Humana Press, New Jersey.
• Gulen, F. (1994) Questions, Truestar Publications Ltd, London.
• Hammerman, C. (1997) Decision-making in the Critically III Neonate: Cultural Background v. Individual Life Experiences, Journal of Medical Ethics, 23, pp.164-9.
• Harris, J. (1985) The Value of Life, Routledge, London.
• Kohl, M. (1979) Voluntary Ending of Life in de Vries, A. & Carmi, A. (edst) The Dying Human, Turtledove Publication, Ramat can, pp. 253-62.
• Kohl, M. (1987) Moral Arguments For and Against Maximally Treating the Detective Newborn, in McMillan, R.C., Engelbardt Jr, H.T. and Spicker, S.F. (eds) Euthanasia and the Newborn, D. Reidel Pub. Comp. Dordrecht, pp.233-52.
• Mason, J.K and McCall Smith, R.A. (1994) Law and Medical Ethics, Butterwortbs, London.
• Munzer, S.R. (1990). A Theory of Property, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1980) Declaration on Eurhanasia, Vatican City.
• Smoker, B. (1986) A Rejoinder to Religious and Non-Consequentialist Objections in Downing, A.B. and Smoker, B. (eds) Voluntary Euthanasia: Experts Debate the Right to Die, Peter Owen, London.

One of the reasons why some people have doubted the truthfulness of the story of his conversion from Christianity is that many Christians (and also Jews) as well as large numbers of Muslims, are reported to have publicly mourned his passing and claimed him as their own. However, this is not a good reason to doubt his conversion to Islam, albeit the details may have been transmitted without sufficient care and exactness. It is only evidence of the universality the saint had realized through his spiritual quest. He had attained so high a level of generality and fullness in his love of God that the essential unity of the religions of the Book, a unity that is real in virtue of the Reality of their Divine Origin, became evident through him. Thus Christians, Jews and Muslims were all equally glad to claim him as their own, though each community fell short to the extent that their claim was exclusive. In this respect Muslims have the better claim as Islam is, of the three religions, the most inclusive and tolerant of the other two.

Ma’ruf al-Karkhi is remembered through a number of anecdotes illustrating (1) his humility; (2) his moral and spiritual insight; and (3) his transcendence of this world, the constraints of time and space. Discussion of he last is deferred to a separate article which will look at that particular subject in more general terms.

His humility

A governor of the city saw Ma’ruf on one occasion eating bread with a dog. He would break off a morsel of bread and put it in his own mouth; then another morsel which he put into the mouth of the dog seated in front of him.

The governor’s sense of decorum was offended. He asked:

‘Are you not ashamed to be eating bread with a dog?’

The saint replied: ‘Should I be ashamed of sharing my bread with the needy? He then looked up and called to a bird flying above him. As if obeying an instruction, the bird came down and settled by his hand. The bird was not, as might be expected, in a state of nervous agitation. On the contrary, it was completely at ease, just as if it were enjoying the safety of its perch on a tree.

Wild birds are normally afraid of people but Ma’ruf had so far transcended his selfhood that he had lost this intimidating character for the birds: they did not see him as a creature to be fearful of. Ma’ruf explained to the governor that who ever is a shamed before God’s creatures, God’s creation is a shamed before him; conversely, whoever is at ease with God’s creatures, God’s creation is at ease with him.

Humility is an essential stage and strategy in self-transcendence. Its goal is perfect servant- hood before God, manifested as an unaffected compassion for all the creatures God has endowed with life, and practised as caring service of them. This kind of caring, done for God’s sake, expresses gratitude, wonder and respect for His creation and is thereby freed of self-interest. It is very different from the sentimental indulgence of animals, particularly dogs, kept in the home as pets. Such pampering of pets is by no means disinterested: it can indicate an emotional lack satisfied by giving food and affection so as to exercise possession and control over the animal.

His moral and spiritual insight

It is reported that on an occasion when Ma’ruf went down to the river to do his ablutions, the prayer mat and Qur’an he had left in the mosque were taken by an old woman. Happening to see her making off with them, Ma’ruf chased and caught up with the woman. In respect for the conventions of modesty, he did not stare at her directly when speaking to her. He did not express any anger or resentment, nor accused her of theft or any other crime. He asked if someone in her family would recite from that Qur’an. The woman said, No. Ma’ruf then asked her to return the Qur’an and keep the prayer mat. The woman was taken aback by his forbearance and wanted to relinquish both the Book and the prayer mat. But Ma’ruf insisted that she take the prayer mat, adding that it was rightfully hers. The woman obeyed and left.

What does this anecdote teach us? Stealing is obviously a wrong, and therefore not to be condoned. But in this instance, it matters what was taken and from where. Possibly, the woman had taken both items with a view to selling them for the little monetary value attached to them. Yet it is a fact that she had entered the mosque, that she did recognize both the Qur’an and the prayer- mat as items of value. Ma’ruf acted as though, behind the woman’s superficial motives, were deeper motives or needs of which the woman herself was unaware, namely to recite from the Book of God and to do the prayers ordained by Him. Ma’ruf did not assume, because she had acquired these things wrongfully that even this act of hers was wrong in all respects, still less that the woman herself was altogether worthless. He made the effort of running after her; he behaved towards her and addressed her as a Muslim of honour; and in the question he put to her he re-awakened her to the true value of the Qur’an. No doubt, if she had answered Yes to his question, he would have given her the Qur’an also. By giving her the prayer mat as rightfully hers, Ma’ruf was restoring to the woman her right/duty to pray and, more important, restoring her to that right/duty. Also, since nothing so dignifies a Muslim as obedience to the Divine injunction to pray, he was affirming the woman’s dignity as a Muslim. It is difficult to think of a response better calculated to deter the woman from stealing again: what Ma’ruf gave her was the desire (and through prayer, the means) not to repeat the offence.

This incident also sheds some light on the teaching, attributed in the Gospels (in various different wordings) to the Prophet Jesus, upon him be peace, whose meaning is: If a thief steals your coat, give him your cloak also. Some people misunderstand this saying to mean that a legal response to such crimes is irrelevant in the light of Jesus’ teaching, or that it is a morally undesirable response. But the teaching certainly cannot mean that it does not matter if someone has stolen something. Nor can it mean that the whole system and apparatus of the law which protects private property is (at best) a necessary evil, whereas the only true good is not to have property or not to care if someone steals it.

We rarely acknowledge the extent to which the property we hold in fact holds us. We are possessed by our possessions. We may not appreciate the extent of our attachment until something goes missing-this is well expressed in the common saying, You do not grasp the value of a thing until it is lost. If a thief steals your coat, you will feel resentment against the thief and distress at the loss of property. In real life, the thief will not be waiting around to see what your reaction is going to be. Therefore, the instruction, ‘Offer him your cloak’, can only be acted upon figuratively. It teaches you to immediately defeat resentment and distress by relinquishing what you still hold (and what still holds you), namely your cloak, to the thief. In this way, the heart is relieved of the burden of rancour, and of the weight of property in this world, leaving it freer to move onward in its spiritual journeying.

Forbearance and forgiveness, before or after due process of law, are better or fairer than the retaliation or compensation the law can demand from a convicted offender on behalf of the victim. That is the Qur’anic teaching. It means that resort to the law is good and fair; it does not mean that resort to the law is bad or unfair or otherwise undesirable. Even a little experience of the realities and necessities of life tells us that only in a very few cases does a crime result in loss for a single individual who would be in a position to choose the better/fairer way of forgiveness. Typically, a single criminal act will have several victims and, insofar as it may encourage other criminal acts, it will also harm the ethos of the community. Therefore, the process of law is desirable. The truth of the teaching attributed to Jesus, and exemplified in the anecdote related of Ma’ruf, is that even after the law is applied, the victim(s) and the community as a whole need to be rid of resentment and rancour against the offender(s). Retaliation and compensation are the public, outward form of the process of recovering the moral equilibirum shaken by the crime; offering to the one who steals from you, as Ma’ruf did, some part of your own goods, is the personal, inward form.

Dearer than our property is our sense of our own worth, and just as our property is possessed as ours by not being somebody else’s, so too our own worth is sometimes defined in contrast to others’ lack of worth. The fight against self- righteousness is correspondingly more demanding than that against possessive attachment to worldly goods. The following anecdote illustrates this:

While Ma’ruf was out walking by the river in the company of some of his young students, a gang of youths, drinking wine and playing music, came by and pestered them. The youths were noisy, boisterous and insulting. Ma’ruf’s students asked him to pray to God to rid them of the youths’ foul behaviour by drowning them in the river. Ma’ruf asked his students to raise their hands and join him in the prayer he would address to God. They did so. We must imagine, at this solemn moment, the boisterous youths falling silent and listening. Ma’ruf said: ‘O God, You have granted to these youths joy and happiness in this life, grant them likewise joy and happiness in the life to come.’ His students protested that they did not understand at all the meaning of this prayer. But the boisterous youths understood it: straightaway repenting, they poured away their wine and broke their lutes, and joined the saint’s company. Ma’ruf commented to his students: ‘You see that your prayer has been answered in full without anyone being drowned or caused to suffer.

The youths became aware, through the words Ma’ruf uttered (we must imagine the spiritual intensity with which he spoke), of Gods care for them, the reaching out of His Compassion. They understood that the disciplines of religious life (which they had mocked by mocking the saint and his students) were not a barren self-denial for its own sake, but the way to true self-fulfillment; indeed, it was their own vulgar pleasures that amounted, in the larger perspective, to self-denial-just as, in typical practice, such pleasures consist of devices for self-abandonment like intoxication.

For Ma’ruf’s students the lesson was harder. It is the severest temptation, having committed oneself to a journey, to believe one has arrived at its destination. Having elected to be in the saints company, to follow his disciplines, the students were blind to the reality that the Compassion of the One God must embrace all His creatures, even those who would deny Him. They willed to be saved themselves but did not desire the same good for those who opposed them on their path. The practice of the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace, and of his Companions, was to continue to desire the guidance of those who made war on the Muslims, before and after battle. Their guidance was more desirable than their defeat at the hands of the Muslims; that is the reason why, so often, their defeat was followed by their guidance, why victory for the Muslims was victory for Islam. So important is this principle that it became a matter of law that enemies must not be engaged in combat until they had first been offered Islam. As we know from the Qur’an, there are occasions, as recounted of the Prophets Noah and Moses, upon them be peace, when the enemies of religion are so inveterate, so utterly determined, in their enmity, that it becomes permissible to pray for their destruction before their guidance. But it may be that such a prayer is only allowed to Prophets, men whose understanding of and commitment to Divine Will is infallible. The general principle is to desire the guidance of ones enemies, not their destruction. Self-righteousness obscures this principle; it narrows the heart and the religion, making both exclusive in temperament and hardening the enmity of ones enemies. Also, wishing the destruction (rather than the guidance) of those who oppose on the path is to wish that path less difficult than it must be.

Technology can be referred to as the systematic knowledge for manufacture of a product, for the application of a process or for the interpretation of a service and the capacity to use such knowledge.1 Today, knowledge or technology is not freely accessible or distributed among nation-states. It is predominantly concentrated in the Western world which is therefore called ‘technologically advanced’. In the industrialized states the majority of knowledge is subject to proprietary rights to prevent the free transfer of technology and sold commercially as ‘intellectual property’.2 Thus, whoever controls technology as an expensive commodity is in a privileged position to influence the international accumulation of wealth. Since the West controls technology, as a solidified form of science, they hold that technology as their most valuable industrial resource and a means to influence other nations’ attempts on the way of development.

For the developing world, technology is an indispensable condition of ecologically sound economic development to catch up with the industrialized world:3 The Third World countries’ backwardness in technology is therefore one of the biggest problems of our time in view of the ongoing ecological destruction. The World Commission on Environment and Development has stated that the promotion of sustainable development requires international exchange of technology – to increase agricultural production, to encourage use of renewable energy systems, and to control pollution.4

Developing countries paid some $ 2 billion in 1980 by way of royalties and fees to industrialized countries who hold 65 per cent of the world patents granted.5 As years pass, the gap in scientific and technological capabilities in, among other things, biotechnology and genetic engineering, new energy sources, new materials and substitutes, and in ecosound technologies, is gradually increasing. Even though the developing countries need the help of the industrialized countries to overcome the economic and ecological problems they face, the latter do not intend to share with the Third World ‘their’ intellectual resources; in other words, they refuse to transfer technology and know-how, however great the need for it.6

What is yours is ours and what’s ours is ours. That would appear to be the philosophy of the technologically advanced states in dealing with the less-developed countries.7 However, as we shall briefly argue below, technology cannot be confined within state boundaries; it is the expression of mankind’s solidarity. It cannot, historically speaking, be the property of a few states; rather, it is the heritage of all mankind which was inherited by our ancestors, regardless of their nationalities.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

A look at the past shows that technology is a blend of knowledge acquired and transmitted by various peoples and scholars of different eras and nationalities. A brief account of the contribution of Islamic scientists will clarify this point about human knowledge as a common inheritance.

In the first part of this millennium, Arab Muslims attained the highest levels in pure and applied science, such as medicine, chemistry, astronomy, geography, history, literature, mathematics, engineering, architecture etc. They educated many great scholars, jurists, philosophers in Cordoba, the capital city of the Arab Andalusian state, from the early eighth century on. In Cordoba, the Arabs built the first university of Europe at that time.8 In those days, the Europeans were ignorant of scientific knowledge. The great Christian clergymen of the time learned with the Arabs – for example, Pope Sylvester, who studied in the University of Andalusia.9 They then carried to Europe and spread more widely the knowledge they had obtained. Technical terms such as chemistry geometry, algebra, among many others, as well as the names of particular products (cotton, sugar, coffee, for example) lacked equivalents in the then European languages and had to be adopted directly from the Arabic. Thus, the names of many constellations are of Arabic origin because the relevant knowledge was introduced to the world by the Arab Muslims.

While the Europeans considered the world flat, the Muslims measured the lengths of longitudinal circles in the Sinjar desert near Mosul, and calculated (with results astoundingly similar to the present estimate) the length of the equator.10 Moreover, Western philosophy owes a profound debt to the Arab Muslims who translated the books of ancient Greek and Roman philosophers which the Church authorities of the Middle Ages proscribed. Even books of medicine passed on by the ancient Greek and Roman scientists were burned by the uneducated Christians of the time; the few that survived did so because they were protected and translated into Arabic by Huseyn ibn Johaq of Baghdad, who also translated the works of Aristotle and Plato.11 In sum, Western philosophy and science came into existence as a result of the efforts of the Arab scholars. As even some Western scholars and historians now have the courage to admit, the Renaissance in fact started in the Muslim world of the Middle Ages.

The Frenchman, Jean Ferrera, is an example.12 He confirms in his article that the works of Ptolemy, Euclid and Archimedes were translated from Greek or Latin into Arabic. He adds that the Muslims also transmitted to Europe the concept, initially discovered in India, of zero (the word cipher in many modern European languages is from the Arabic). It was also the Arabs who taught Europe the science of trigonometry. And how many Europeans know that the logarithms they struggled with through school were the invention of Al-Khwarizmi? Only in Islamic universities was every aspect of scientific or technical development freely taught from the ninth to the twelfth century.

Unfortunately, the Ancient and the Muslim scientific and technological heritage was further developed almost exclusively by Europeans who had a different attitude to knowledge, which therefore became their exclusive property. While the Muslim scholars passed on what they inherited, the Western world takes for granted the real roots of its success. Nevertheless, in the last two decades or so, the developing world is seriously demanding that the West share its accumulated scientific and technological know-how with the technologically less-endowed countries which account for three-quarters of the world population. We shall now survey briefly some of the legal efforts of the Third World to achieve this aim.

LEGAL PERSPECTIVE

By the advent of the New International Economic Order in the mid-1970s, the developing countries had started to project their demands through non-binding international documents. Article 13 of the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, adopted on 12 December 1974 by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3281 (XXIX), is an instance of such an attempt. By the provisions of Article 13: ‘Every State has the right to benefit from the advances and developments in science and technology for the acceleration of its economic and social development’ (para.1). Succeeding paragraphs fully endorse the promotion of international scientific and technological co-operation and the transfer of technology in order to assist the developing countries to accelerate their economic development. Similarly, Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Peoples adopted in Algeria states: ‘Scientific and technical progress being part of the common heritage of mankind, every people has the right to participate in it.’

Another proposal was recently put forward in Germany. According to its Article 1, ‘unprotected knowledge of normal human intellectual activity belongs to the common heritage of mankind’.13 Article 2 states that ‘this free flow is in the interest of the human, scientific, technological and economic development of the entire international community.’ Article 8 accepts ‘the legitimacy of fair access by developing states to modern technology.’ All in all, the key question is how such proposals could be made into binding legal norms in the near future.

Prof. I Seidl-Hohenveldern, on behalf of developed countries, argues that the common heritage approach ‘cannot be extended to assets which, like patent rights, are the property of an inventor or of his successors in title’.14-15 He rejects the idea that the present-day inventor alone should carry the cost of compensating the inequalities between the rich and the poor states; instead, such inequalities should, he says, be borne by states.

As a matter of fact, the developing countries are not demanding that every bit of technology that the West possesses be made freely available to them. They ask that three kinds of technology in particular be given to them at reasonable cost. These are, first, the transfer of adequate technology to exploit the living and non-living resources of the oceans;16 second, the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes;17 and finally, protection and preservation of the environment.18

In the face of continuing global environmental crises, that last demand of the developing countries should be taken on board with some urgency in order to protect the life and dignity of the present and future generations. Under-developed countries need expert assistance and transfer of specific technologies to, for example, prevent tropical forest from becoming deserts; to reduce CFC production and emission to the atmosphere; to decrease CO2 emissions by using alternative environmentally-friendly technologies.

CONCLUSION

We have almost entered the post-industrial era in which knowledge has become the most highly valued commodity. Knowledge, alas is kept only in the industrialized world, only a small minority of the world population have access to it, while the majority suffer from ecological and economic problems because of lack of development. The starvation, environmental pollution and low productivity-which we are accustomed to seeing in the developing world – can only be alleviated by mass technology transfer from the rich countries to the poor. The poor cannot get access to the know-how they need because it is over-priced. Therefore, in practice, the West uses technology as a new way of continuing colonialism. The transfer of technology is carried out in an unequal milieu, in which the receiver of technology pays an unnecessarily high price for technology which is often unsuitable or obsolete.19

If the prevailing norms of international protection of intellectual property continue, the gap between North and South will deepen. As confrontation rather than co-operation between the two hemispheres intensifies, there will be widespread starvation. Drought, deforestation, regional conflicts, etc. To prevent these, intellectual property could (and should) be used as a means to bridge the dangerously growing gap, and do so in a relatively short time.20 In the long run, such a policy will benefit the developed industrialized states as well. Technological colonialism can only result in a politically, economically and environmentally more vulnerable and unstable world. For these reasons, the application of the concept of knowledge as the common heritage of mankind. which demands easy access for all to the intellectual properties of the industrialized world, is very timely and necessary. Allowing easy and sometimes cost-free access to mankind’s technological heritage is also a debt owed by the West to the developing countries: not only because the West inherited the intellectual wealth of others in the past, but also because it attracts millions of intellectuals of the developing world, who represent a brain-drain of enormous scale to the great material advantage of the West.21

References

1. YUSUF, Abdulqawi Ahmed, ‘Transfer of Technology’ in BEDJAOUI, Muhammed (ed.), International law: Achievements and Prospects, Martinus Nijhoff Publ., UNESCO, Paris, 1991, p.691.

2. YUSUF, pp.691-2.

3. ibid.

4. World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1987, p.87.

5. ibid.

6. BEDJAOUI, M., Towards A New International Economic Order, UNESCO, Paris, 1979, p.230.

7. ibid.

8. The second university was established in Oxford, England, in 1215, some four centuries later. See, for the Arab civilization, WAQF IKHLAS, Islam and Christianity, Hakikat Kitabevi, Istanbul, 1989, p.192.

9. WAQF IKHLAS, p.213.

10. It was Muhammed bin Musa Harazmi who calculated the attitude of the sun and the length of equator.

11. WAQF IKHLAS, p.216.

12. FERRERA, Jean, ‘Les Universites du Petrole’ (Jan. 1978), p.724. ‘Science et Vie’ (quoted in WAQF IKHLAS, p.215.)

13. The German ILA NIEO proposal, in BULAJIC, M., ‘International Protection of Intellectual Property in the context of the Right to Development: Comment on the German Proposal’ in CHOWDHURY, S.R; ERIK, M.G.D., PAUL, J.I.M., The Right to Development in International Law, Martinus Nijhoff, 1992, p.298.

14. Quoted in BULAJIC, M. International Development Law, Martinus Nijhoff, London, 1986, p.326.

15. However, he also accepts that modern Western technology ‘owes a great debt to medieval Arab thought transmitting and developing the heritage of Ancient Greece’, ibid.

16. See for example Nyhart, J.D., ‘International Law, Technology, and the Implications for Deep Seabed Mining’ in JOYNER, C.C. (ed.) International Law of the Sea and the Future of Seabed Mining, Accent Publ., Virginia, 1975, p.13.

17. YUSUF, p. 702.

18. See Our Common Future, pp. 4-5, 29, 76.

19. BEJAOUI, p.232.

20. BULAJIC, International Protection of Intellectual Property…, p.297.

21. cf. BULAJIC, p.297.