There is no question that desire pervades men and women of the East and of contemporary West. It is how desire is regulated and viewed that makes the two different. On the spectrum of love the East and the contemporary West stand on opposing ends. Their vision of love displays their veritable difference. But its important to note that this was not always the case. The vision of love used by the old West, as opposed to the contemporary, was very similar to the vision of love that pervaded the East.
There is a popular (and probably fake) narration attributed to the Prophet that says, "He who loves but remains chaste and dies of longing, achieves the status of a martyr in the Jihad." This seems to suggest that romantic love in Islam is fueled by the tension of separation instead of union. In writing about how to reach "union" in love, Ibn Hazm does not suggest ways in which one can capture the lover's heart. Union, as I said, would be inimical to his conception of Love. Rather, even if you must seek out your lover, all you must do are things from a distance: "drinking the remainder of what the beloved has left in her cup, seeking out the very spot against which her lips were pressed" -- without your beloved knowing. The very language of the East speads of a "beloved" and not of a "lover"; the former represents an object one views from a distance, the latter references something one makes his own. Thus, in the East it occurs that Love is not associated with rapture or delight. Rather, it is as Ghalib – who seems to represent everything about a thousand years of Eastern love – says: "Grief brings a special happiness, and he who seeks it eagerly experiences a joy; unseen by those who watch him as he dies."
The most famous "Eastern" romance is based on seperation – Leyla and Majnoon (or in other traditions known as Rostam and Shirin or Farhad and Laila). In it, Majnoon is not able to acquire Leyla, instead she ends up married to another. Majnoon, in his separation, goes crazy. But something seems to suggest that his madness is not deplorable, but is, instead, something so pure and serene that we should be envious of it. Even contemporary Easterners are maintaining this vision of love. A recent Irani film called Baran tells the story of a poor construction worker who gives up everything, including his life savings for a young refugee girl, all the while making certain that she never discovers that he sacrificed both his future and his present for her.
The old West upheld very similar conceptions of romantic love. So remember, to me the East and the old West is the same thing. You remember the story of King Arthur, Lancelot and Guenivere? The point is that Lancelot is a fallen ideal because he fails to maintain that "chivalric" ideal of love in which separation and distance trump union and consummation. The moral of that story is that Lancelot is not someone to look up to because he is a failure in keeping his distance.
Whenever the new West came about, it brought with it a new conception of love. Where previously infatuation and love brought a certain distant contentment and distant joy, they now brought the notion of "I must possess also" with them. I am fairly convinced that this is a consequence of modern Western philosophy that suggested, led by John Locke, that into anything we put our labor, becomes ours by virtue of our "work" on it. So, if you've "worked" on a tract of abandoned land, possession over it must follow; thus, if you "kick game" towards a woman, possession over her must follow. And, if you are unable to gain the right over the land or the woman you have the right to be angry, to despair, to work even harder, till it or she becomes yours. And when it or she becomes yours, none can take it away. This is the premise behind Romeo and Juliet. Shakespeare considers it a tragedy because the two lovers had to "work" hard and were not able to end up together and thus that was an injustice. To someone from the new West, the greatest tragedy is not being able to lay claim to something for which one has exerted energy. The previous ideal, where even if one exerted energy, even if one gave his life, everything was to be kept secret from the beloved now became transformed. It now became that the littlest thing you do must be known to your lover. Flash forward to today where, for example, modern culture suggests that a prerequisite to the love of marriage is an engagement ring – in other words, something that shows that you've worked for love and thus have a right to it.
Muslims, and many Easterners generally, are caught between these two visions of love; although most of us are leaving the "old" vision and moving onto the new. Baran is not as entertaining for us as Titanic or re-makes of Romeo and Juliet (although to me Baran was a real movie). Frankly, I have no interest in trying to bring a "return" to Ghalib's or Ibn Hazm's vision of love. I do not believe in revolutions. I think the reason that the new West let go of the old West's vision of love is because that vision of love based on "seperation" gave into excess so that no one ever acquired possession – ever. One can see this by looking at some famous "lovers" from the Old West and the East, they are all hermits and ascetics: Rabia of Basra, St. Theresa of Avilla, and Rumi. It is no wonder that in the face of popular asceticism there arose a counter-current which tried to bring love back to the reality of the average person.
On the other hand, the new West of today practices a sort of "excess" of its conception of love so that even the littlest amount of work – buying the girl a drink, or taking her shopping, or getting her one little bouquet of flowers is enough to mean that she should return your feelings. As we know from the history, whenever anything reaches a point of "excess" it is replaced and slowly forgotten. Now that the new West has reached a point of "excess" towards its conception of love, what does the future hold? I am not a prophet. I decline to make predictions. But really though, everything suggests that the needs of people at any given time bring forward philosophic visions – which, in the end, influence conceptions of love. Using that framework you're free to make your own predictions. One thing is certain, for "visions of love" to develop, there has to be freedom from hardship and freedom to think. There has to be a certain "leisure" for people, otherwise people become too busy trying to wring material possessions from life and have no energy or creativity left for love. In short, they end up having sticks up their asses all the time and stink up the whole joint in their constipation.
< < Back to Reflections
...Mufti Maybe