Ripping History- Regarding Dahir’s Alleged Incest

It is one of the most favourite subjects of official historians in Pakistan.  Their books tell us that Dahir was a brutal and promiscuous ruler who had married his sister.  It is indeed true that he had married his sister but the official historians deliberately leave out two important points.

1. The marriage was never consummated.

As Chachnama states:

It was he who, by the advice of a credulous minister, solemnised his marriage with his own sister, to prevent the working of a prediction. The marriage was not intended to be consummated, and, as a matter of fact, it was not consummated. [1]

2. That the act was socially abominable in that society and Dahir had his brother alienated from him due to this act.

Dahir’s brother Daharsiah wrote the following to Dahir when he learnt of this news:

What you have done is wicked and infamous. Whether you did it through necessity or of your own free will, you can never be excused, and whether you considered it allowable to do such an illegal and detestable act, in order to secure worldly pomp and power, or took the initial step by reason of the temptation of the devil, what you now ought to do is to turn from your evil ways, to forswear year sin, and to grieve (for your transgression), so that you may not be shut off from (the communion of) our religion, and our alliance with you may not be cancelled. If you fail to turn from this sin, in accordance with our suggestion and advice, you will make yourself deserving of opprobrium and will receive (your) punishment. You would have then to thank yourself for the consequences of these ugly deeds. [1]

By leaving these two subtle but important points, official historians create a generalization which implies that incest was a norm of that society. One can easily find such impressions upon conversing with people who have been exposed to such biased version of history. Such intellectual dishonesty helps in creating an image of the promiscuous, immoral, barbarian ‘Other’ that our ruling elites to create in order to produce and sustain hatred against Hindus.

The above lines from Chachnama clearly indicate that Dahir’s act was clearly a deviance and not a norm of that culture.  Though this conclusion does not even require a background in history if one is aware of some basic principles of biology, genetics and evolutionary psychology. The taboo against incest is not only social but it also lies deep within our biology. The abhorrence we feel towards it is embedded into us by the nature. No society or culture could have survived if it had made incest a norm as the biological penalty is extremely high. Nature is a cruel administrator and that we can observe in our society where excessive cousin marriages have led to fatal blood diseases in extreme cases and minor aberrations in others.

Notes

[1] The Chachnama-An Ancient History of Sind

Members, One of Another: Gender Equality and Justice in Islam

By Riffat Hassan

Department of Religious Studies
University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky

[Dr. Riffat Hassan is a theologian and a leading Islamic feminist scholar of Quran. She has taught at Punjab University, Oklahoma State University and Harvard University. This article (source) is being presented for its feminist message.]

Introduction

What I will say may surprise both Muslims who “know” women’s place and non-Muslims who “know” what Islam means for women. It is this: I am a Muslim, a theologian, and a women’s rights activist, and while I am critical in a number of ways of the life that most Muslim societies offer to women, twenty years of theological study, as well as my own deepest faith, convince me that in real Islam, the Islam of the Qur’an, women and men are equals. Liberating ideas lie at the heart of most enduring faiths, and Islam shares in these. Two themes in particular strike me as being of the highest importance. The first is the fundamental equality of humans before God. The other is religion’s revolutionary aim of human liberation. From religion should come freedom to seek understanding of the will of God and life’s purpose, and freedom to honor God’s creation through self-development and striving toward God’s ends.

Unfortunately, most Muslim societies also mirror a fault that has been noted by feminist theologians in cultures shaped by other religions: the gap between rhetoric of equality and the reality of profound inequality between the lives of women and men. While Muslim women continuously hear the refrain that Islam has given women more rights than any other religious tradition, they continue to be subjected to grossly unequal treatment.

Most Muslims — women and men — consider it self-evident that men are superior to women. Going further, they justify many manifestations of inequality as inherent in Islam. In fact, women are regarded in a number of contemporary Muslim societies as less than fully human because it is widely believed that in some contexts (such as inheritance or witnessing to contracts), one man is equal to two women. Most Muslim females, learning their culture’s assumptions even before they learn language, and denied the opportunity to become educated, also internalize this belief.

A Short Primer on Secular Ethics

by PAUL KURTZ

Free Inquiry – Volume 29, Number 3

Increasingly, world civilization is becoming secular; that is, it emphasizes worldly rather than religious values. This is especially true of Europe, which is widely considered post-religious and post-Christian (though with a small Islamic minority). Secularist winds are also blowing strong in Asia, notably in Japan and China. The United States has been an anomaly in this regard, for it has suffered a long dark night in which evangelical fundamentalism has overshadowed the public square with its insistence that belief in God is essential for moral virtue. Interestingly, this is now changing, and secularism is gaining ground. Even President Obama recognizes the existence of unbelievers; at least 16 percent of Americans do not belong to a religious denomination. Young people today are more secular, with up to 25 percent nonreligious.

Accordingly, we may ask, what is secular ethics? Although secularists are nonreligious, they may also be good citizens, loving parents, and decent people. Instead of religion, they look to science, the secular arts, and literature for their inspiration. They point out that religious belief is no guarantee of moral probity, that horrendous crimes have been committed in the name of God, and that religionists often disagree vociferously about concrete moral judgments (such as euthanasia, the rights of women, abortion, stem-cell research, homosexuality, war, and peace). As I have pointed out, secular ethics needs to be internalized within the life of a person to be effective.

The ethics of humanism traces its origins back to the beginnings of Western civilization in Greece and Rome, through the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and the scientific and democratic revolutions of the modern world. Secular humanists today affirm that every person should be considered equal in dignity and value and that human freedom is precious. The civic virtues of democracy are essentially humanist, for they emphasize tolerance of the wide diversity of beliefs and lifestyles, and they are committed to defending human rights. The conjunction of secular and humanism brings both of these intellectual and moral forces together.

But “How can you be ethical if you do not believe in God?” protests the believer. Perhaps such a person should enroll in an elementary course in ethics, where he or she would discover a rich philosophical literature dealing with this question. The good is usually defined as “happiness,” though there are differences between the eudemonistic (emphasizing enriched self-development) and the hedonistic (particularly American) brand of intemperate consumption. Perhaps a harmonious integration of the two theories can be achieved. I would call it rational exuberance. Philosophers have emphasized the importance of self-restraint, temperance, rational prudence; of a life in which satisfaction, excellence, and the creative fulfillment of a person’s talents is achieved. It does not mean that “anything goes.” Humanist ethics focuses on the good life here and now.

Secularists recognize the importance of self-interest in a person’s life—many of them are libertarians. Every individual needs to be concerned with his or her own health, well-being, and career. But self-interest can be enlightened. This involves recognition that we have responsibilities to others. There are principles of right and wrong that we should live by. No doubt there are differences about many moral issues. Often there may be difficulties in achieving a consensus. Negotiation and compromise are essential in a pluralistic society.

However, there is now substantial evidence drawn from evolutionary biology that humans possess an innate moral sense. Morality has its roots in group survival: the moral practices that evolved enabled tribes or clans to survive and function. This means that human beings are potentially moral. Whether or not this moral sense is realized depends on social and environmental conditions. Some individuals may never fully develop morally—they may be morally handicapped, even sociopathic. That is one reason society needs to enact laws to protect itself.

There is also of course cultural relativity, but there are, I submit, also a set of common moral virtues that cut across cultures—such as being truthful, honest, kind, keeping promises, being dependable and responsible, avoiding cruelty, etc.—and these in time become widely recognized as binding. Herein lie the roots of empathy and caring for other human and sentient beings. Such behavior needs to be nourished in the young by means of moral education (and cultivated throughout life). In any case, human beings are capable of both self-interested and altruistic behavior in varying degrees.

Secular humanists wish to evaluate ethical principles in the light of their consequences, and they advise the use of rational inquiry to frame moral judgments. They also appreciate the fact that some principles are so important that they should not be easily sacrificed to achieve one’s ends.

To say that a person is moral only if he or she obeys God’s commandments—out of fear or love of God or a desire for salvation—is hardly adequate. Ethical principles need to be internalized, rooted in reason and compassion. The ethics of secularism is autonomous in the sense that it need not be derived from theological grounds. Secular humanists are interested in enhancing the good life both for the individual and society.

Today, a new imperative has emerged: an awareness that our ethical concerns should extend to all members of the world community. This points to a new planetary ethics transcending the ancient religious, ethnic, racial, and national enmities of the past. It is an ethic that recognizes our common interests and needs as part of an interdependent world. It is rather urgent in our global world that we develop morality applicable to the twenty-first century and beyond.

Postscript: Secular ethics, in my view, will not be fully effective unless it can be applied to personal morality.