Skip to main content

except from al jahiz paper

The following is an excerpt from a paper I wrote for my history professor, who seemed like a nice guy but was really cold, and merciless. I wrote this section with him in mind. He is about 32ish, and an eligible bachelor, but still a cruel...bastard. I don't really mean that but cruel bastard is a sort of idiom with no adequate substitute.


Not only was Al Jahiz an early ethnographer, he seemed to be a sociologist of sorts as well. He made human observations about emotions, such as envy, jealousy, and of course, love. In his essay, “Love and Women,” he tells us of the difference between men and women, about when women are superior to men and vica versa, what occupations and rights women ought to observe. During this time period, passionate love or eros was distinct from conjugal love, because the eros could only be aroused by professionals, like “singing slave-girls,” a class of prostitutes that are cultured, and educated in specific arts like the geisha. One passage of note describes how women are the most important objects in men’s lives:

Compared with what they give women, men only give each other things of little consequence. It is because of women that men bother to use fragrance, hair-dye, and antimony, shave their beards, cut their hair and wear clean, smart, well-ironed clothes. (Coville, 171)


Thus, men care for their women, and change themselves for the pleasure of their women. Jahiz also writes about how under certain circumstances, women are superior to men. “It is [women] who are desired, courted, loved and pursued. It is they who are ransomed and guarded,” he writes (Coville, 174). Jahiz even asks you to compare the riches to the “joy of sex” and declares that you would “choose lasting poverty coupled with uninterrupted pleasure” (Coville, 174). His candidness on matters of love and sex is surprising given that this is written in eighth century Baghdad.

In fact, Jahiz is the first to discuss sex candidly in Arabic literature, without the dense metaphors or flowery language that characterizes much of love discourse during medieval Islam. He writes a piece titled “The Pleasures of Girls and Boys Compared” in which he describes the habits of men and the pleasures derived from a little “frivolity” (Coville, 202). He writes how there are some seemingly pious men who are against the mention of vulgar words like cock, and hot-box (Coville, 203). These turns of phrases “would have already been removed from the language for reasons of probity and to protect purity” but they were not removed, so they can continue to be used (Coville, 203). In the same passage, there is mention of grunting during sex, and metaphoric reference to a man and woman’s “honey” (Coville, 204). The fact that such candor existed during the high Abbasid period is unbelievable.
Jahiz further explores love and the relationship between the sexes when he writes about “true Arab passion”:

There are two types of men who do not love with true Arab passion. One is the poverty-stricken wretch whose heart is too preoccupied to fall deeply in love and explore love’s furthest limits. The other is the great sultan; for duties of state, maintenance of law and order and the need to ensure the revenue supply take up half of his attention and prevent him, too, from falling deeply in love and being consumed by passion. (Coville, 177)

This seems particularly true today when the furies of work and school leave our hearts isolated and unforgiving. There are far too many eligible investment bankers and doctors and businesspeople, men and women both, who fail to allow themselves the intimate joy of good conversation and company. Rather, it is about the easy, quick, and effortless means of entertainment that preoccupy our lives. But what about the true Arab passion? Al-Jahiz asks. We are not sultans, and we are not wretches, yet our hearts do not find solace in the deeper possibilities of love.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Not Friendship (Revised)- Repost

It is difficult to be merely a friend to a boy who seems more suitable as a husband than a friend. To reduce a potential life partner to a friend is immature and selfish. Friendship is the not the greatest type of relationship, but it is the safest. Friendship allows you to be intimate without the messiness of other things, like physical attraction, etc. Between friends, there is a warm permanence, a fuzziness that can be called appreciation and gratitude. There is also comfort and trust. Friendship is great if only for the possibility that one can know the beauty of another human being. The possibility of that is worth the difficulty of all else. But sometimes friendship is not enough. Sometimes, to reduce someone to friend when he should be much more is an affront to the opportunity God has presented before you. It is like saying to him, I know that we are amazing together, but we should be friends because I am a dumbass. To reduce him to friend also precludes the possibility of love...
Malcolm Gladwell. "Getting In: The Social Logic of Ivy Leage Admissions" http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_10_10_a_admissions.html Major themes: 1. Passion is a significant contributor to success. 2. High intelligence means little without discipline and passion. "Bowen and Shulman write about the characteristics that make athletes more coveted by Ivy League schools: One of these characteristics can be thought of as drive--a strong desire to succeed and unswerving determination to reach a goal, whether it be winning the next game or closing a sale. Similarly, athletes tend to be more energetic than the average person, which translates into an ability to work hard over long periods of time--to meet, for example, the workload demands placed on young people by an investment bank in the throes of analyzing a transaction. In addition, athletes are more likely than others to be highly competitive, gregarious and confident of their ability to work well in groups (on teams). I ...

Re: Your Inquiries

"You confuse yourselves with your actions, even with your thoughts. You barely understand that in order to be, it should not be necessary to act, and that the world changes you far more than you change it." (Malraux, The Temptation of the West, 1961 ) The world consists of wonderful people who enter and exit your life. When you let them enter, your breaths seem more thoughtful, your behaviors more scrutinized, your ideas challenged, and sometimes your brain orgasms from happiness. But when these individuals leave, you experience equally significant things like confusion and hurt. It seems okay to let someone in, someone trustworthy, good, honest, and not concern yourself with the end. As things exist in your mind, there is no harm. Intellectual promiscuity, then, is not so bad. To have intimate, intelligent conversations into the morning is not troubling, either. Sometimes when good people enter, it is not necessary to act, or specifically to resist. When people enter, their ...