Evolution, Morality, and Islam--an article
Jamal Mubarak
While my previous article on evolution and the Qur'an seems to have
generated some debate on SCP, I would like to go further now and
point out some interesting conclusions that one can possibly reach.
This article deals with sex and morality so should be of interest
to many on this net whether Muslim or not. From my previous art-
icle we need only take note of two things:
i) that evolution is compatible with the Qur'an.
ii) that there is an important concept of separation of the body
and the soul which has its basis in religion and that science
has not been able to refute it.
Copies of my previous article are available through e-mail.
Opinions expressed herein are mine and need not reflect those of
anyone else. In fact, many of these ideas are not likely to be
found anywhere else since they are my own conjecture. Whether you
agree with me or not the article should make interesting reading.
And as you will realize I hold views that one rarely comes across.
_______________________________________________________________
EVOLUTION, MORALITY, AND ISLAM
==============================
Science has had its own impact on philosophy. The twentieth
century, in the field of science, was the century of Physics.
Quantum mechanics and relativity were the frontiers of science.
Elucidating the details of atomic structure led to the revolution
in electronics and enhanced our understanding of the universe by
many orders of magnitude. So Nobel Prize winners in Physics have
been accorded the status of philosophers. I have always had
problems with that. You see however neat string theory may be,
it just falls short of explaining why my roommate broke up with his
girlfriend. The twenty-first century is going to be century of
Biology by all appearances. Test-tube babies, gene therapy for
cancer, cloning, and vaccines against heart disease are only some
of the applications. As opposed to a physicist, if an evolutionary
biologist tells me that evolution has distinct implications for
morality because sex is an important determinant in evolution, I
am willing to listen. What I am writing today is merely what one
will hear more of as the twenty-first century unfolds.
When one talks about survival of the fittest, one must realize
that the individual does not survive. It is only his or her genes
that survive in the next generation and are hence propagated
through the ages. So the individual in the evolutionary sense
needs to protect his genes and ensure their survival. This is the
primary determinant of animal behavior. But it is markedly diff-
erent for the two sexes of any animal species and is related to
morality. Let us see how.
Morality
In the case of the human animal, there is no limit to the number
of offsprings that a male can have. But for the female there is
a finite limit. This is the crux of all morality. For example,
the number of children that a Pakistani female produces in her
entire life on the average is about 5-6. So the female realizes
that it is these 5 or 6 children that will represent her in the
next generation. But each of these children will have only half
of her genes. So she must choose a partner who has strong genes.
If she chooses one with weak genes then her genes may not survive
no matter how strong they may be.
On the other hand, the male can have a large number of offsprings
depending upon how many wives he has. The commitment to him for
producing an offspring may be just as short as 15 min, while for
the female it is at least 9 months. So the male's strategy is
quantity while the female seeks quality. Of course, a male would
also like quality to go with his own genes but once he has had sex
with one woman why not go have it with someone else to maximize his
chances? The more the merrier.
So one finds that the man is all the time ready to have sex while
the woman would rather wait and see how strong the genes of the
man are and then make a commitment. Let us for a moment examine
what happens when a man and a woman kiss for the first time in the
Western society. The woman thinks, "I don't even know him," and
tries to push him away. And what does the man think? "Alright!
I don't even know her!" Most women would not like to have sex on
the first date, but all men would! What have they got to lose?
The woman has certainly got something to lose. Her children may
end up with weak genes and hence may not survive. This is the
basic asymmetry of the animal world which includes humans. Males
and females use different strategies to optimize the chances of
their genes surviving in the next generation. A woman must always
attract. She always likes to be put up on a pedestal. She will
resort to strip tease if necessary. And men have ideas about their
roving virility.
Sometime during the rise of human civilization, human beings real-
ized that there was benefit in pooling resources. It was mutually
advantageous for the man and the woman to enter into some kind of
a contract to ensure that their offspring had better chances of
survival. The man managed to get cheap slaves in the form of wife
and children while the woman could better look after the children
if the man took care of being the provider, esp., at crucial times
in her reproductive cycle. Hence the marriage contract came into
existence and the family laid down the structure of society. By
working together first in families and then in societies, humans
made progress.
But all was not okay. You see the woman knows that her husband
will look after the children she bears because he thinks that
half the genes in them are his. But what has she got to lose if
she was to seek out a stronger male, have sex with him, and pro-
duce stronger children which then her husband would look after?
Similarly, what has the husband got to lose if without letting
his wife know he has sex with another female? Obviously nothing.
They both have to gain by cheating or adultery. But the problem
will come when the spouse finds out. The husband would refuse to
look after the children that do not carry his genes while the wife
would be concerned about the husband leaving her children and going
after another woman--her genes are at stake. One is supposed to laugh
at the husband if the wife is unfaithful because he has been fooled
and one is supposed to sympathize with the wife if the husband is
unfaithful since the support for her children is now at stake. This
determines the basic behavior. First the woman must attract males by
beautification and ornamentation. (You see that woman on the street
*wants* me to look at her legs.) Then she must select the one
which looks the strongest and hold on to him so that he looks
after her children.
"I am a woman in love
And I'll do anything
To get you into my world
And hold you within..."
Barbara Streisand, Woman in Love
Of course, she can cheat when necessary.
"Girls just wanna have fun."
Cyndi Lauper
For the man, it is advantageous to have harems full of women to have
sex with.
"Money for nothin' and the chics for free."
In selecting mates one consideration is strong genes as manifested by
beauty or sexiness. But if the mate carries genes that are in commmon
with one's own genes then more of one's own genes will survive in the
next generation. So it is better to marry in the family. Siblings
share half of one's genes while first cousins share one-fourth. Marr-
iage between brother and sister was attempted by some of the Pharoahs.
But there is a high incidence of recessive genetic diseases and the
offsprings don't survive. So incest was outlawed. But first cousins
are fair game as the incidence is acceptably low. So there is often
a conflict in many societies as to whether one should marry in the
family or a beautiful man/woman outside the family. This leads to
family identities and by extension to clans and tribes. According to
existing British Law if one sexually violates the King's consorts,
the wife of the eldest son, or eldest unmarried daughter then one is
liable to be punished with treason. Yes, treason. Of course, racism
is merely a further extension of the same idea for racists do come in
Klans.
A man, or for that matter a family, must closely guard its women.
The family must not be fooled into bringing up children which do not
have their genes and hence will not represent them in the next generat-
ion. Patriarchal families came into existence because of the division of
labor. Man, not burdened with the problems of gestation, childbirth,
and breast feeding, was better suited for being the provider. He
gained economic superiority over women and so used it to exploit them.
He began to dictate the lives of women. The abominable chastity
girdle was an invention of the European man precisely for this purpose.
"Every breath you take
Every move you make
Every vow you break,
Every step you take
I'll be watching you..."
The Police, Every Step you Take.
Men began to own women. Under ancient Roman Law, I am told, women
were considered moveable property. As the man sees it, the women
whom he consorts with are his property. After all he pays for them.
"O can't you see
You belong to me"
Ibid.
Pimps are merely an extension of the same idea of owning women. At
this point it is important to realize that these attitudes and behav-
iors are embedded in our genes and one need not be aware of the con-
sequences of sex. In certain African tribes it was a custom that the
guest should sleep with the host's wife. It was part of the hospital-
ity. Refusing was considered a grave insult. One of the first Europ-
eans to find out about this were missionaries. What a position for a
missionary to be in!
To further enhance the chances of survival of one's own offsprings
the individual tries to secure the best possible upbringing for them.
The law of the jungle dictates that one must be selfish. One must
steal or fight to get whatever food or other provisions are needed
for oneself and one's children. Acquisition of money, land, stocks
and bonds, a higher social status, etc is all part of our instincts
to survive ourselves and more importantly for our offspring to sur-
vive--money for nothin'.
The Problems
Every vice was once a virtue. Why would a behavior be so strongly
embedded in our genes if it did not help us in our struggle for sur-
vival? Cheating, lying, stealing, adultery, etc are all the legacy
of our animal origins. Writes Richard Dawkins in 'The Selfish Gene,'
"I shall argue that the predominant quality to be expected
in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness.... If you
wish to build a society in which individuals cooperate
generously towards a common good; you can expect little
help from biological nature."
Does he remind someone of Ayn Rand and her 'Virtues of Selfishness'?
Using a similar Darwinian justification Hitler equated Jews with
"niggers" and other "subhuman races," and decided to exterminate them.
The argument here is that if these qualities of the Law of the Jungle
helped us fight our way to becoming the dominant species on the globe,
then they must be good. All this has been supported by the trend
towards reductionism in biology--that our behavior can be explained
in terms of the biology of our genes, that the sum total of the human
phenomenon is merely putting together of some genes.
How wrong can people get! As I pointed out in my earlier article,
there is no evidence to support the contention that our higher mental
faculties are primarily the result of evolution. It is only our
intellect that has been responsible for the rise of the human civil-
ization. It is our consciousness or soul that has led us towards
science, art, compassion, mercy, and nationhood. And what has this
got to do with evolution?
This brings us to the fundamental dilemma of human life--that we are
part animal, part intelligent, and wholly human. Our minds and our
loins often pull us in opposing directions. Somehow we have acquired
dimensions that our not logically related to our origins. The vices in
question are vices now rather than virtues because they retard human
progress. They take us back to the animal world. They undo the
advances of human civilization.
If we are to sufficiently address the problems of human society then
we must distinguish between these forces that drive us in opposite
directions. We must distinguish between what is evolution and what
is not. Or in religious terms we must distinguish between the body
and the soul.
The Solutions
So let us see what solutions have been proposed. The West unfortun-
ately does not offer many solutions. It has based its culture and
society on our animal nature. As a social commentator put it, the
woman in the American society "feels ogled and ignored if she looks
bad and feels ogled and dehumanized if she looks good." Yet the
West insists on designing skimpier dress codes for women and trying
to make them look sexier. Nude bathing beaches are acceptable.
Playboy and Penthouse will use the most expensive German lenses to
milk the female breast. Yet it is not acceptable for a woman to
breast feed in public. She would be busted for indecent exposure.
Indeed Marlene Pennekamp of St Louis was so told by a police officer.
On the other hand, one finds women breast feeding their children
within their burqas in Pakistan while going out for shopping.
Similarly, it was pointed out to me that the West has allowed women
into the workforce because the men wanted to have fun at the work-
place. For the man, the more women he can have access to the better
it is. Similarly, the women try to attract as many men as possible.
But given the preoccupation of women with their appearance it is no
wonder that the proportion of women in executive positions through-
out the West is abysmally low. And given the economic advantage of
men, women continue to be exploited in the West.
To paraphrase a psychiatric joke, a businessman hired a psychiatrist
to select the best secretary for him. The psychiatrist asked the same
question from three applicants: What is two plus two? The first one
replied four, the second said 22, and the third said it could be four
or 22. So the psychiatrist recommended the third one. But which one
did the businessman hire? The blond in the miniskirt of course!
It is really not surprising that "backward" countries like Pakistan,
India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Phillipines all have had female heads
of state but US has not had even one. While attending a church ser-
vice early last year, an American surprised me by saying that he knew
who the Prime Minister of my country was. He said that Benazir was so
beautiful that he would have voted for her just because of that, if he
was a Pakistani. And I thought to myself, few people if any, voted
her into power because of that reason.
Once I went into the office of a female professor at our university.
She was complaining that the heating in the building was adequate for
the men but not for the women because of the dress codes. I wondered
why she couldn't wear more clothes as the men do. But that defeats
the whole purpose of giving secretarial jobs to women doesn't it?
Islam and Christianity
Religions in general have grasped many of the causes of the human
dilemma. But most have offered solutions that are not optimal.
Christianity, for example, realizes correctly that sexual morality
lies at the heart of all morality. But it tries to solve the prob-
lems by trying to do away with sex. Sex is looked upon as a necess-
ary evil for procreation. The priest who is supposed to represent
the ideal in Catholicism is not supposed to marry. He is supposed
to be "above" such things as sex. Similarly, "lust" within marriage
is looked down upon. The Church failed to realized that the sex
drive is one of the most powerful of all human drives. The answer
is to channelize it properly rather than do away with it.
"phool nikaltay haiN sholoN say, chahat aag laga-ay to"
If only the Church understood Urdu poetry! Similarly, another power-
ful drive is looked down upon.
"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go
through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter
the kingdom of God."
Matthew, 19:24
And it is no coincidence that no Christian state which survived has based
its policies on the Sermon of the Mount since Constantine declared Christ-
ianity the official religion of the Roman empire.
The Christian has always been stuck between the practilities of life and
the impracticalities of Christianity. Alexander Pope says it best in his
'Essay on Man':
"Placed on this isthmus of middle state
Is a man darkly wise and rudely great
With too much knowledge for the sceptic's side
With too weakness for the stoic's pride."
In Christianity we are told again and again that Jesus Christ's kingdom
was not of this world. In contrast, Islam us offers both this world and
the hereafter. There is no contradiction between religion and life in
general. Iqbal says it best for the Muslim:
"Khudi ko kar bulund itna, keh har taqdir say pehlay
Khuda bunday say khud poochhay, bata teri raza kiya hai."
Or in other words according to Iqbal the ideal situation is when God and
Man are in complete concordance so that God asks Man what he would like.
So the question then to ask is what solutions does Islam have to offer and
how do they relate to our animal origins as well as our higher mental fac-
ulties? To begin with, in Islam it is the individual's intellect which is
primarily addressed and salvation is for those whose intellect can control
their will. In other words the soul must be in control of the urges of
the genes. We are told again and again to think for "there are signs in
this for thinking men."
"By (the Token of) Time (through the Ages),
Verily Man is in loss,
Except such as have Faith, and do righteous deeds,
and (join together) in mutual teaching
of Truth, and of Patience and Constancy."
Qur'an, Surah 103 (Time Through the Ages)
That is to say that Man is in loss by default. Left to his own devices
he will degenerate into an animal.
"We have created man in the best of moulds,
Then do we debase him to be the lowest of the low--"
95:4-5
On the subject of morality and marriage, Islam begins by acknowledging
the economic advantage of men over women.
"...And women shall have rights similar to the rights against
them according to what is equitable; But men have a
degree (of advantage) over them."
2:228
Note that since the behavior and strategies adopted by the male and the
female are so different, the solutions must also be different for the two
sexes. Arguing that if the male can do this or that why can't the female
has never made much sense to me. As I see it, in Islam the two sexes
within marriage have responsibilities that have to do with why the marriage
contract arose in the first place. Once these are fulfilled then they
are free to do whatever they like as long as the obvious restrictions are
kept in mind.
Islam does not look down upon "lust" within marriage. To the contrary
impotence on the part of the husband is grounds enough for divorce. The
woman has a right to sexual satisfaction. Islam chooses to use the sex
drive to strengthen the marriage bond. Ornamentation and beauty is fine
on the part of the women but it should not be used to entice other men.
"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 (must ordinarily)
appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over
their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their
husbands...
and they should not strike their feet in order to draw
attention to their hidden ornaments...."
24:31
In other words there is nothing to be gained from making women into sex
objects as has been done in the Western world. The buttress against this
is hijaab or purdah. And of course the men should do their part too.
"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze
and guard their modesty:"
24:30
But what should happen in the case that marriage has to be annulled?
Clearly, a divorce without any obligations engenders a return to the
roving virility for the men--"love 'em and leave 'em fast." One aspect
of marriage is the economic support that the husband extends to the
wife and children. This was why the male and female agreed to the
marriage contract in the first place. So if the husband decides to
withdraw from the contract he must nevertheless fulfill his responsi-
bilities somewhat, i.e., he must pay the meher.
Unlike Christianity, Islam does not look down upon making money. After
all the Prophet was a rather successful businessman. But what is to
be avoided is the unnecessary accumulation of wealth which has often
been used for exploitation.
"The mutual rivalry for piling up (the good things of this world)
diverts you (from the more serious things)"
102:1
The Conclusions
The point of writing this article was not to "prove" anything. It was
just to point out that of all the societal systems that exist today,
only one has made any sense to me. And the considerations that deter-
mine what is right have to do with our origins. That is to say that
Islam is applicable to humans as long as our genes remain the same.
And if we radically change our genes we will cease to be humans.
I was born in a Muslim family but I have never accepted something just
because I have so told. But in the case of Islam I have come to con-
clusions that are there in the Qur'an in the first place, making me look
somewhat sheepish to myself if I may add. Sometimes the answers that
one is looking for are so obvious that one ignores them.
"By the (Steeds) that run with panting (breath),
And strike sparks of fire,
And push home the charge in the morning,
And raise the dust in clouds the while,
And penetrate forthwith into the midst (of the foe) en masse--
Truly Man is to his lord ungrateful;"
100:1-6
_______________________________________________________________________
This has been a pretty long article. However, I have tried to be as
brief as I possibly can. I have left out many things for lack of space.
The subject under consideration is really best discussed in a book. But
I haven't gotten around to writing books as yet.
Questions and comments from all and sundry are welcome. Flames will be
generally ignored.
Khuda Hafiz,
Jamal [the philosopher] Mubarak
Saad Shafqat
So we have yet another gem from Jamal. Excellent job. People may have
skipped his article on morality and biology on account of its length, but
I urge all of you to go through it. It is engagingly written and is quite
provocative. It shouldn't take more than 20 min. to read.
Jamal's thesis is that much of default human behaviour is governed by the
primary goal of procreation and the enhancement of genetic competitiveness.
There is ultimate redemption, however, because not all human behaviour is
by default. In other words, biology is not our destiny. Jamal brings out
this redemption on account of a human distinctiveness not captured by biology:
the soul.
In an elementary form, this argument is not new. Sigmund Freud, after all,
was able to reduce all human behaviour to the need for sexual gratification.
More recently, the emergent discipline of sociobiology has galvanized human
ethology in biological evolution and biological determinism. Anyone
interested in these debates is referred to E.O. Wilson's "On Human Nature" for
the sociobiological stance, and to Kenneth Phillips's "Vaulting Ambition" for
the counter-argument (but see also Gould's "Mismeasure of Man"). The main
crux of this line of thinking is that humans, as a species evolved from
other animals, are constrained in their behaviour, thinking, potential and
achievement by their biology. As far as I am concerned, this is all utter
rot. Naturally, sociobiology has received censure in the west, but the
counter-contention is based on a vindication of human potential through
biological equivalence. Jamal shows that this counter-argument can be
much simpler by arguing that human consciousness transcends proteins and
DNA. In other words, we are not constrained by biology because we are not
of biology. Of course, in scientific terms, this view would be almost
blasphemous today, at a time when atop all the aspirations of the contemporary
life sciences research lab lie mechanistic ideals, and in an age that has
come at least 150 years beyond the last popular proponents of vitalism.
It remains unclear, however, how succesful the mechanistic path will be
in explaining away human self-awareness. At present, any biologist will
concede that the question of the biology of the soul can only rank as an
imponderable. Nevertheless, Jamal shows very clearly how sociobiology and
biological determinism in human behaviour can be summarily dismissed by
the proposition that we transcend our own biology. After all, we have
Allah's word for it.
On a very minor point, though, Jamal has also mentioned at one point that
four female heads of state in the subcontinent indicate some sort of female
emancipation in that region. On the contrary, I believe it only shows the
strength of family connections. Each of these women came to power through
either a husband or a father. Far from showing that the subcontinental
voter has become non-sexist, this shows, rather, that even in democracy
our voters continue to vote for genes rather than for the spirit.
Best wishes,
Saad Shafqat.
Jamal Mubarak
>
>So we have yet another gem from Jamal. Excellent job. People may have
Thanks!
> biological equivalence. Jamal shows that this counter-argument can be
>much simpler by arguing that human consciousness transcends proteins and
>DNA. In other words, we are not constrained by biology because we are not
>of biology.
I couldn't have said it better. I think there is indirect reference to this
in the Qur'an. The angels question God as to what will man do--only shed
blood and spread mischief. But God assures them that He knows what they know
not. There is yet hope for the human race.
>Of course, in scientific terms, this view would be almost
>blasphemous today, at a time when atop all the aspirations of the contemporary
>life sciences research lab lie mechanistic ideals, and in an age that has
>come at least 150 years beyond the last popular proponents of vitalism.
>It remains unclear, however, how succesful the mechanistic path will be
Society propels science and science in turn propels the philosophy which
governs society. The mechanistic ideals I think arose partly because of the
rejection of Christianity. We often take science and technology to be
value neutral. But that is not really so. Interesting isn't it?
>On a very minor point, though, Jamal has also mentioned at one point that
>four female heads of state in the subcontinent indicate some sort of female
>emancipation in that region. On the contrary, I believe it only shows the
>strength of family connections. Each of these women came to power through
>either a husband or a father. Far from showing that the subcontinental
You are quite correct Saad but note that when I criticise the West I do not
automatically praise the East. I should have made this clear in the article
but wanted to restrict its length. Genetics has little to do with success
as a head of state. But at least women in the East have had a chance.
Success in many sports has a genetic factor in them. I think the Khan dynasty
in squash and the Mohammed brothers in cricket are the obvious examples. There
are of course many other examples. And these factors can be confirmed by
genetics. For example, the ratio of fast twitch to slow twitch muscles is
determined in part by heredity. But is BB any match for the intellectual
caliber of her father? Is Neil Bush any good? Of course exceptions are there,
e.g. the Kennedy brothers and the two famous brothers of the Pakistan Move-
ment. But they seem to be far less common than in sports. Of course, for the
monarchs it does not matter for they are all mediocre anyway :-). The
sooner we get out of determining someone's status based on heredity the better
off we will be.
>Best wishes,
>Saad Shafqat.
Wassalaam,
Jamal Mubarak
Asim Jalis
or the wrist-watch on your hand, is any less conscious than you are?
What is your reasoning behind this.
Asim.