Mostafa Malekian's Revised View on Marriage: Fidelity Is a Qualitative, Not Quantitative, Matter

The gist of my argument is that fidelity must exist in marriage, but I used to say that fidelity is a qualitative matter, not a quantitative one. Fidelity cannot be measured by the quantity of my life with my spouse; rather, it must be measured by the manner of my life with my spouse. That is, if I told you that Ali and Zahra had sixty years of shared life together, and on the other hand, I told you that Houshang and Shokoufeh had six months of shared life together, in our culture you would immediately say that those who lived together for sixty years were more faithful to each other. Those who could only live together for six months were not faithful people.

Question: Regarding what was quoted from Mr. Ghotbi about marriage, I wanted to see what you told Mr. Ghotbi that was not written down, or, for example, what is the generally unethical aspect of marriage?

Answer: I cannot fully state that because it would become very lengthy...

I have said time and again that I said what Mr. Ghotbi has written, but Mr. Ghotbi has not written everything I said. That is, out of an hour and a half of my talk, he wrote ten minutes of it, and of course, in these ten minutes, he has not attributed any falsehood to me and has written exactly what I said, though he has sometimes changed the phrasing, and because the text has been taken out of its context, it has become a source of misunderstanding.

The gist of my argument is that fidelity must exist in marriage, but I used to say that fidelity is a qualitative matter, not a quantitative one. Fidelity cannot be measured by the quantity of my life with my spouse; rather, it must be measured by the manner of my life with my spouse. That is, if I told you that Ali and Zahra had sixty years of shared life together, and on the other hand, I told you that Houshang and Shokoufeh had six months of shared life together, in our culture you would immediately say that those who lived together for sixty years were more faithful to each other. Those who could only live together for six months were not faithful people.

That is, it seems you are measuring fidelity by what? By the quantity of years these two shared together. I say, always remember that the quality of fidelity cannot be measured by its quantity. Fidelity is a particular quality or manner of life; this manner of life is called fidelity, even if this manner of life lasts 24 hours, and other manners of life are called unfaithful, even if those other manners of life last 80 years.

Because our culture is one that has come to measure one of the most important qualities of life by quantity, and therefore a lifelong life is considered more valuable than lives that last five years, one year, or two months. This has caused permanent marriage to be assigned a value and sanctity, and the result of this is that when Ali says "Yes" to Zahra, and Zahra says "Yes" to Ali, both of them have it in their minds: we said "Yes" for how long? For eternity, until one of us departs this world.

Just as in Christianity, and especially in Catholic Christianity, when the priest recites the marriage formula, the two (that is, the bride and groom) must repeat: We will be together in poverty and wealth, in sickness and health, in youth and old age, in fame and obscurity, until death parts us.

I say this is wrong. This is an unsound foundation that has been laid, which has led to the sanctification of dragging out a life. They say if a life lasts 15 years, 16 years is better, and if 16 years, 17 years is better, and if 17 years, 20 years is even better, and if 20 years, 60 years is truly a source of pride. Now, when they want to do this, they fall into five ethical corruptions (1). But I was not saying that marriage itself has five corruptions; I was saying that if you want to measure fidelity in marriage by quantity, not as a qualitative matter, then you will always want to prolong it, and this creates these five ethical corruptions for the wife, the husband, or both.

Therefore, my proposal was that the institution of marriage, just as it has changed four times throughout history, must change a fifth time as well. Initially, it was polyandry and male monogamy, then it transformed into polyandry and polygyny, then it transformed into polygyny and female monogamy, and then it transformed into male monogamy and female monogamy. It has reached this point. I say we must go one phase further. And so, marriage was not like this from the beginning for you to say it has sanctity and must remain as it is. I say, through historical inquiry, why was it polyandry? Why did humans not stop at polyandry and male monogamy, but moved towards polygyny and polyandry, and then moved towards polygyny and female monogamy, and then moved towards male and female monogamy?

Why? Because the accumulation of historical experience showed that this form of marriage has corrupt consequences. For this reason, they want to move towards a marriage that has fewer of these corrupt consequences. And now we must arrive at this historical experience that this type of marriage also has corrupt consequences, and we must move towards a marriage that possesses the virtues of our current marriage but lacks its vices. And that is this:

Malekian's Proposed Plan for Marriage

A boy and a girl enter into a shared life with four conditions (2): If one of the two, not even with certainty but with doubt, suspects that one of these four conditions is being violated, they should immediately consider the marriage terminated. This means that even if they live together for only two months, their life has been faithful, and there should be no stigma attached to either the woman or the man.

Of course, I have said the ideal is that this doubt never arises for either the woman or the man, but if it does, they should cut off the life. Why do I say even if they doubt? Because even if one has doubt, they endure their own suffering, even if these four conditions are not actually violated.

Therefore, all marriages are potentially temporary—but not in the sense of the usual temporary marriage, because those temporary marriages are the spare tires of permanent marriages, where you take four wives and then have two spare tires as well.

I say all marriages should be assumed temporary. As long as these conditions are met, the life should continue, and if these conditions are not met, the life should be cut off so that neither the wife nor the husband suffers psychologically or ethically. Even if their shared life lasts only one week, it is fine. The man then goes and marries another woman, and the woman marries another man, but in that life too, they are faithful.

So, is it better for a man to have ten shared lives with his wife, and for all ten to be faithful, or to have one shared marriage that is unfaithful from its first day to its last?

My Discussion Is Ethical, Not Legal

I then said that since the law must allow all lifestyles to emerge, this proposal of mine should not be considered the only type of legal marriage; they must say that this type of marriage is also completely legal. Whoever wants to can go and have that traditional marriage; if a man and a woman are content for their marriage to be permanent, well, let them go and have a permanent marriage.

Therefore, my discussion was ethical, not legal. I was not saying the law should say, 'Live whatever kind of life you want.' All lifestyles must have the opportunity to emerge and manifest in a democratic law, but this too must be considered legal.

Now, if after being considered legal, this type of marriage gradually eclipses the other marriages, then one cannot say 'whenever they have doubts'! Because law deals with numbers. At that point, my proposal is that every marriage be for 3 years, and then whenever the husband and wife want, they renew it for another three years, and after the next three years, renew it again...(3)

The ideal is for marriages to endure in this manner

The ideal is that they renew it twenty times for three years. And I have always said, you and I, who come together with 2 million to invest in a business, you say, 'Mostafa, let's make a two-year contract together. If during these two years you prove to be a trustworthy, loyal, and active partner, we will continue our partnership for another two years.' Even though I could make you bear all the damages, I have only caused you a loss of 2 million; you protect yourself for your two million. Now, if after two years he was trustworthy and loyal, you renew for another two years...!

Then for a person to come and stake their entire life, all their youth, all their talents, all their possibilities and opportunities, and say 'this two-year, two-year thing is child's play, this three-year, three-year thing is child's play'—no, do this: if both of them preserve their psychological health and moral virtue, they will renew three years by three years. The ideal is for it to be renewed twenty times for three years, but if their moral virtue is not preserved, both of them must immediately be able to be free.

If it is like this, then those five corrupt consequences will never occur. This was my point.

The outward appearance and inner reality of marriages

The outward appearance of our marriages is that we have uttered four Latin words in the Catholic rite, or Arabic ones, and it appears we go in with a white dress and come out in a shroud, but its inner reality is betrayal upon betrayal. In my view, this is contrary to humanity, and not only contrary to moral virtue but also contrary to psychological health.

Psychological health means that when a woman is resentful of her husband, or a husband is resentful of his wife, they suffer; in truth, this person is no longer themselves. In this person's life, besides the moral problems that arise, there is no longer any joy in their life.

Now, if you consider these four conditions, you will understand that 90 percent of these religiously legal, customary, etc., marriages are not, in truth, marriages. These are the mental abrasion and erosion of the husband and wife against each other, and they are destroying each other.

And, as it happens, it is not at all libertine, and not at all licentious, and is precisely the opposite of that.

.

---

.

[2.] Five Corrupt Moral Consequences of Permanent Marriage (Permanent Marriage in the Traditional Form):

1- The first aspect is that I believe marriage is sustained by feelings, emotions, and passions, and feelings, emotions, and passions are the most involuntary part of our being. Then, within the institution of marriage, we want the most involuntary part of our being to be brought under the spur of law, clauses, and articles, and this is quite meaningless and will have negative moral consequences.

2- The second point is that in marriage, since it is morally assumed that one should marry for love, and love is a two-sided affair, therefore, if a characteristic in me changes, or a characteristic in my beloved changes, or in both of us changes, love will undoubtedly wax and wane. Love is sustained by both parties. Where it waxes, no problem arises, but where it wanes, it means that in marriage, if you act upon fidelity, which is your moral duty, you must continue your life with this person, but this is incompatible with "natural inclination," which is also our moral duty. Why should we create an institution that causes a conflict between two of our moral duties? And whichever of these two I choose, I have a problem. So let us not create this conflict between the two from the outset.

3- The third point is that for the very same reason you fell in love with this person, you may fall in love with another person in the future, and that love may intensify over this one. Then, by what reasoning can your right to live with that person be taken away? Why should we do something that makes commitment to a former spouse conflict with love for another person? Let us simply not create an institution that causes this problem. We should not always ask what we must do in the event of a conflict. Why should we undertake something that causes a conflict to arise in the first place?

4- The fourth point is that a person's mental health, the provision of which is a moral duty, requires privacy, and marriage deprives you of privacy. That is, for your mental health, you need to have privacy for yourself. Privacy means that I must, at certain moments, for some instants, be in solitude as I wish, and this abandonment and solitude is always taken away in married life. Of course, the extent to which marriage deprives one of this privacy differs from society to society, but there is no society in which marriage does not take away this privacy at all, and you no longer have that privacy, and this is detrimental to our mental health.

5- The fifth point is the issue that you and the other party are only shared in loving and being beloved, but you differ in all other characteristics. Now, if this difference manifests in practice, what is to be done? Suppose you love cinema and detest theater, and your spouse loves theater and detests cinema, and you want to go out together; this is easy, and if you want to be very reasonable and act morally, you say, you go to your theater and I will go to my cinema. So far, there is no problem, but what if it is a matter where one cannot say, I will go my way and you go yours? For example, we want to buy a house. I want to buy a house in a neighborhood that has clean air but lacks social prestige, but my spouse wants to have a house in a neighborhood that has social prestige but very polluted air. Can one say here, you buy your house and I will buy mine? The problem is precisely that if I want to preserve my spouse's right, I must sacrifice my own right, and if I want to preserve my own right, I must sacrifice my spouse's right. Let us suppose that in buying the house, we resolved the matter like this: come, in buying the house, listen to me, but in buying the car, I will listen to you. But here, although morally the dispute is resolved, you gradually come to the psychological conclusion that I am purchasing this person's love at a high cost. The cost is that I forgo my own desires.

[2.] Four Conditions for Entering a Shared Life:

1. When I enter into a contract with a woman, neither by my doing nor by hers, and a fortiori not by both of ours, should this contract signify the dissolution of a contract that one of us has with a previous spouse—that is, it should not be the case that when I enter this life, it means I have dissolved my contract with the previous woman. In other words, our relationship should not be such that the very nature of this relationship means that each party, through this contract, is trampling upon another contract they have elsewhere.

2. I must not engage in deception to create or maintain this connection—not only deception through speech; most of our deceptions are through action. That is, I know this girl likes a scholarly man, and then I, who know nothing of scholarship, keep saying things like, "The new hermeneuticists say this, contrary to the German idealists..." so that she thinks I am a scholar.

Or, for instance, she wants a generous husband, and I, whose total tips in my entire life haven't amounted to even 10,000 tomans, give 10,000 tomans to this waiter to show that I am a generous person.

3. This connection must not cause harm to the present or future of either party.

4. Treat the other party as a person, not an object; regard them as a "who," not a "what"—that is, recognize them as a human being, and recognizing them as a human being means respecting their rationality in the realm of theory and their freedom in the realm of practice.

Now, with these four conditions, consider the marriages of our fathers and mothers, which were conducted customarily, legally, and socially? They are very rare, and very fortunate, but where is such a thing?

[3.] The Reason for Three Years:

Because, psychologically speaking, no matter how much people love their partner, there is a possibility that after three years, that person will become ordinary to them, and it is then that the person is likely to pursue matters that are contrary to ethics.

.

---

.

Audio of this Q&A (Fidelity Is a Qualitative, Not Quantitative, Matter)

.

---

.