The final document of the Cairo international population conference criticized early marriage and urged all states to raise marriage age. This attitude encourages what the document calls elsewhere as “extra marital sexual relations’ and “early sexual activity”, “adolescent pregnancy”, and “unwanted pregnancies.” The document also uses other expressions which were subject to objection by many countries including Iran, Yemen, Pakistan and Libya.
Perhaps it is useful here to quote again from a speech by the World Health Organization’s regional director who says: “When we speak of early marriage, we do not mean premature marriage which occurs in some underdeveloped communities even before puberty. Nor do we mean delaying the marriage indefinitely, which causes much hardship to young men and women, encouraging them to resort to illegitimate sex. What is most singular is to find so-called advanced countries saying absolutely nothing against early sexual activity when it is of the promiscuous type, but they are ready to protest when such activity takes place between the same individuals within a legitimate relation.”
According to the World Health Organization, advocacy of early marriage is essentially linked with advocacy of family planning for health purposes. Back in 1984, the World Health Organization adopted a resolution incorporating the spiritual dimension in its global strategy to ensure health for all by the year 2000. This is a commendable resolution that works hand in hand with the final document of the population conference which must also be implemented within the framework of the religious, moral and cultural values of all states.
When we read the population conference document from an Islamic perspective we must remember that this document neither reflects our culture nor expresses our values. Indeed it does not always agree with the rules of the religions that have most following in the Arab world.
Being an international document, it expresses concepts, values and standards that prevail in different parts of the world. Needless to say, some of these are contrary to religious values. What religious people can do in this regard is to hold fast to their own beliefs, defend their values and adopt a fair attitude to international documents, implementing only what is consistent with their own beliefs and values, leaving the rest to its own advocates. When they reject such parts as contrary to their beliefs, they would have done their duty of stating the truth, making the rest of the world aware of it, and leaving others to do what suits them.
In the midst of the furor that accompanied activities made in support of, or against the conference, an impression prevailed in many sections of society that for the conference to be held in Cairo is unacceptable or at least an unfriendly act. This appeared to be the attitude of people of Islamic or generally religious orientation, which form the majority in Arab countries. It is pertinent to ask whether such an impression was valid at the beginning and whether it remained valid after the conference ended.
Our own view is that this impression was wrong to start with, and it was confirmed to be so after the final document of the conference was issued.
The fact that the population conference was held in Cairo, the seat of Al-Azhar, the world’s oldest seat of Islamic scholarship, and the cradle of the Coptic Orthodox Church, which, by its historical and contemporary position, carries considerable weight on the Christian stage, was particularly beneficial. What happened in practice was that the advocates of faith and morality, Islamic scholars and Christian priests, all pooled their efforts to point out what was objectionable and unacceptable in the draft document presented to the conference. Right from the first moment, it appeared in the plenary and committee sessions that there are common factors bringing together diverse states, groupings and non-governmental organizations which could have never been thought to work together, considering their own local perspectives and the current international situation.
From beginning to end, the conference discussions showed strong commitment to Islamic ideals and values, and to religious heritage and morality. Such commitment was voiced by prime ministers, ministers, heads of delegations from various countries. It was instrumental in the approval of numerous amendments to the draft document. Thus the final document is far more likely to serve human interests and much more respectful of human dignity.
Arab and Islamic delegations were able to point out to the world at large that their peoples will never allow the conference to be used as an excuse to legitimize “immoral practices and trends that undermine religious and moral values.” They also stressed the need that any planning for human life must be consistent with “human nature and man’s position in the universe. It must not overlook religious beliefs and moral values.”
Arab and Islamic forces that took interest in the conference and participated in its activities also discovered the existence of a different “West” other than the one that has always been target for much criticism by Arabs and Muslims, who put the blame for their backwardness at its door. They discovered a “West” that came to Cairo to declare its opposition to free abortion and promiscuity, and to defend the family, morality, cultural traditions and religion. As expressed in a magazine article, it is necessary at this particular juncture that an alliance should be forged between all those who believe in God, religion and man to work together against the overpowering tide of materialism and secularism. In view of the polarization witnessed in the conference, it is imperative to understand that the real conflict is not between Islam and the Christian West. It is a conflict between Islam and Christianity, joined by those who believe in the absolute and in morality, on one side, and the advocates of absolute secularism and inhumane materialism, on the other.
For such reasons I said about the fact that the conference was held in Cairo that we should not think of it in a negative light. It was good for us. In fact we were able to show the world the true attitude of Islamic law to most issues raised in the conference. We were also able to look afresh at questions that we used to take for granted. This has enabled us to discover that such issues have certain aspects which were not readily visible, and causes that have been unknown to us. Moreover, their current importance was, for us, unimaginable. Through the conference we were able to recognize the attitudes of many local and international forces that uphold high moral standards and values and advocate sound moral behavior. All these were gains to mankind as a whole, not only for Islam and Muslims.