Home






The social factor i.e. the national, is the driving force of human history. This factor is the bond that binds together different human communities and which unites the family, the clan and the nation. It is the basic key in the progress of history.

Heroes in history are individuals who have made sacrifices for the sake of one cause or another. But what were those causes? They sacrificed themselves for the sake of others. But who are those others? They are those with whom there is a relationship binding them together. This relationship that binds an individual to his community is a social one. It is the relationship between members of a community, the national bond that constitutes the basic component in the make-up of a particular people or nation. Therefore social causes are invariably national in nature, and proceed from the national relationship. The term social derives from the notion of the group, and denotes the relationship between members of a given community. The term national derives from the notion of the nation, and denotes the relationship between members of a given people. As such, the social relationship is the national relationship, and the national relationship is the social relationship. Even if small in number, communities or groups from one nation regardless of the individual relationship amongst its members. The term community here is intended to denote the permanent community by virtue of the national ties that bind its members.

Historic movements are mass movements, i.e. the movement of one community for its own interests, independent of other communities. Mass movements are independent movements seeking to assert the identity of a community oppressed by another.

The struggle for authority is a phenomenon which occurs within a community, even at the level of the family, as explained in Part One of this book: “The Political Basis of the Third Universal Theory”. A group movement is a nation’s movement for its own interests. Because of its national structure, each group has common social needs that must be collectively satisfied. These needs are not in any way individual needs; they are collective rights, demands, needs or objectives, required by a nation bound together by a single ethos. For this reason these movements are called national movements. Contemporary national liberation movements are also social movements, and shall not cease to occur until every group is liberated from the domination of another. The world today is passing through one of history’s natural cycles: the social struggle in support of national identity.

It is universal fact that national struggle - social struggle - is the primary driving force in the movement of history; it is the essential factor, the fundamental factor, and therefore the strongest of all other factors. In the world of mankind, this is the historical reality in as much as it is the social reality. This driving force is part of the nature of nations and human communities, even of life itself. Animals other than humans live together in groups because a community is the basis for the survival of species in the animal kingdom. Similarly, the existence of a national identity is the basis for the survival of nations.

Those nations whose national identity has been destroyed are nations whose very existence has been destroyed. Minorities, one of the world’s main political problems, are caused by a social factor. They are nations whose national identity has been destroyed and which are thus torn apart. The social factor, essential to life, is therefore also a factor of survival. It is the nation’s innate driving force as it strives to survive.

The existence of a national identity in the world of mankind and group instinct in the animal kingdom are comparable to the force of gravity in the mineral kingdom and the domain of celestial bodies. If the sun were to be destroyed, gases would be released and - fundamental to its survival as a planet - its unity would no longer exist. Accordingly, the survival of an object depends on the unifying factor that maintains its cohesion. Similarly, the survival of a community depends on the unifying social factor, namely the existence of a national identity, and this is the driving force behind the struggle of communities to achieve their own national unity and to ensure their survival.

The national factor, the social bond, functions spontaneously to drive a nation to strive to survival, in the same way that the gravity of an object works to sustain the cohesion of an object as one mass collected around its nucleus or central part. In the theory of the atomic bomb, atomic diffusion results from the explosion of the nucleus, the source of gravity that sustains the mass around the atom. When this unifying element is destroyed, the gravitational pull is lost and all atoms are diffused and the bomb explodes away into particles releasing the powerful destructive energy. This is the nature of matter. Life is undermined if this confirmed natural law were to be disregarded or opposed. Similarly, an individual’s life is undermined once the national bond, the social bond, is disregarded or opposed, for it is the gravitational pull of the group that is the secret of its survival. Except for the religious factor, there is no other factor that matches the social factor in the influence it exerts on the unity of a particular community. Religion may divide a nation and may also unite communities of diverse nationalities. Nevertheless, it is the social factor that finally prevails. This has been the case throughout the ages. Harmony should prevail when each nation belongs to one religion. However in reality this does not happen and it is diversity that prevails. This diversity has become the real cause of conflict and instability in the lives of the people in all times past and present.

A sound rule is that every nation should have a religion. Any contrary condition is an exception to this rule. Such an exception creates abnormal conditions that become a real cause for the eruption of conflicts within the communities of one national group. This problem cannot be resolved except by following the natural rule which stipulates that every nation should have a religion so that the social factor concurs with the religious factor to create harmony, stabilize and strengthen the life of the communities and ensure their sound development.

Marriage may have a positive or a negative effect on the social factor. It is true that men and women are naturally free to accept or reject a proposed partner in marriage for whatever reason; nevertheless, taking partners from the same community naturally reinforces the cohesion of the community and promotes collective development in conformity with the social factor.




To the individual, the family is more important than the state. Humanity recognizes the individual as a human being, and the normal individual acknowledges the family, which is his cradle, his origin and which serves as his social umbrella. Unlike the state, the individual and the family are natural entities. The human race has neither relations nor anything else to do with the state, which is an artificial, political, economic and sometimes military system. The family is precisely like a plant: made up of twigs and leaves and blossoms. Cultivating the natural environment into farms and gardens and the like, is an artificial accomplishment that has nothing to do with the nature of the plant.

The fact that certain political, economic or even military factors tie a number of families in one given state does not in any way link this system with humanity. Therefore, any measure, condition, or circumstance, which throws a family into disorder or leads to its dispersion and ruin is inhuman and goes against nature; it is oppressive and quite similar to an action, a circumstance or measure, which causes a plant to wither or perish, or which destroys its twigs, leaves and blossoms.

Societies, in which family unity and entity are threatened due to certain conditions, are analogous to a field in which plants are threatened by erosion, fire, drought, heat or aridity. A blossoming garden or field is that whose plants grow naturally, blossom, pollinate and take root. The same holds true of the human society.

A thriving society is one in which the family flourishes and the individual grows normally within its bosom, and is established as a member of the human community. But just as the leaf of a branch or the branch of a tree, if severed, loses its value and physical life, an individual severed from his family, i.e. an individual without a family, has no value or no social life. If the human community were ever to become a society without families, it would then become a community of tramps without roots, like artificial plants.




The tribe is an extended family that has grown as a result of procreation. The tribe is in effect a large extended family, and it then follows that the nation is the tribe that has also grown as a result of procreation. The nation is a large extended tribe; and the world is the nation that has diversified into a multitude of nations. The world therefore is an enlarged nation.

The relationship that binds a family together is that same relationship which binds the tribe together, the nation and the world. Nevertheless, the larger the multitude of people the weaker this bond becomes. The essence of humanity is the national bond or nationalism, the essence of nationalism is belonging to a tribe, and the essence of belonging to a tribe is the familial bond. The warmth in this relationship gradually decreases in strength proportionally as it increases in size from the family entity up to the national entity. This is a sociological fact, denied only by the ignorant.

The social bond, cohesion, unity, familiarity and affection are all stronger at the familial level than at the tribal level, they are also stronger at the tribal level than at the national level, and are least strong at the universal level.

The benefits, advantages, values and ideals based on these social bonds exist where these bonds are natural and strong. They are in fact stronger at the family level than at the tribal level, and stronger on the tribal level than on the national level, and are least strong at the universal level. Thus, the social bonds, benefits, advantages and ideals associated with them gradually fade away, whenever the family, tribe, nation and human-kind become weaker or disappear.

This is why it is very important for the human community to preserve the cohesion of the family, the tribe, the nation and the world, in order to profit from the advantages, benefits, values and ideals yielded by the solidarity, cohesion, unity, familiarity and love of the family, tribe, nation and humanity.

Socially, the family is better than the tribal society, and the tribal society is better than the national society, which in turn is better than the world society in terms of kinship, compassion, solidarity and advantage.




As the tribe is a large extended family, the tribe provides its members with the natural benefits and social advantages that the family provides for its members, for the tribe is a secondary family. It is worth mentioning here that an individual may sometimes behave in a dishonourable manner that a family will not condone; yet because the family is relatively small in size, this individual will not be aware of its supervision. In contrast, individuals as members of a tribe cannot be free of its watchful eyes.

The code of ethics enforced by the tribe on its members is a kind of social education better and nobler than any school education. The tribe is actually a social school which people belong to from childhood, and are raised with ideals that take root and instinctively influence their behaviour in life as they grow older. Education and knowledge formally taught in schools gradually recede as individuals grow older, because they are aware that it was formal and compulsory, and because they are aware that they have been indoctrinated.

As a natural social “umbrella” for social security, the tribe, pursuant to its social tribal conditions, provides its members with collective protection and security in addition to collective reparations and collective compensation for bodily injury and revenge. The blood tie is the prime factor in the formation of the tribe, but affiliation is also one of its components recede, leaving the tribe as a single social and physical unit, though it remains fundamentally a unit of blood and descent more than any other.




A nation is the national political “umbrella” for individuals; it is far wider than the social “umbrella” provided by a tribe for its members. Tribalism undermines national identity because tribal loyalty weakens national loyalty and is maintained at its expense. In the same way, family loyalty weakens tribal loyalty and is maintained at its expense. And in so much as nationalist fanaticism is essential to a nation, it is at the same time a threat to humanity.

A nation in the international community is similar to a family in the tribe. The more partisan sentiments and internecine feuds afflict families of a single tribe, the more threatened the tribe becomes. A family is also threatened when its individual members feud and pursue only their personal interests. Similarly a nation is also threatened if partisan sentiments and internecine feuds erupt among its tribes. Nationalist fanaticism and the use of national force against a weaker nation, or national prosperity attained by a nation as result of overpowering another, is evil and detrimental to humanity. However, a strong individual, aware of his own responsibilities is important and an advantage to his family; a solid, self-respecting family, aware of its significance, is socially and materially an advantage to the tribe; and the civilized, well-advanced and productive nation, is in turn, beneficial to the whole world. Nevertheless, the national and political structure is corrupted if it were to stoop down to the social level, i.e. the familial and tribal levels, to interact with, and be influenced by their particular considerations.

A nation is a large extended family that passed through the tribal stage - the tribe, then a plurality of tribes, that have branched out from one common source. It also includes members who affiliated themselves with its destiny. The family likewise grows into a nation after going through the tribal stage from which it branches out into a further stage, the melting pot of commingling between various communities in society. This is a very slow but inevitable social evolution. Nevertheless, as new nations emerge with the passage of time, so old nations disintegrate. Common origin and common destiny, through affiliation, are the two historic bases for of any nation, though origin is the primary and affiliation comes second. A nation is not only an entity defined by its origin. It is also an entity that evolved from the accumulation of historical human activity to become the homeland for the multitudes who make its particular history, singular heritage and face a common destiny. Therefore, regardless of the blood tie, a nation, in the final analysis, is formed through a sense of belonging and a shared destiny.

But why has the world map witnessed the emergence and disappearance of great powers and the emergence and disappearance of other states? Is the reason political and unrelated to the social cornerstone of the Third Universal Theory or is it social and therefore relevant to the concerns of this part of The Green Book?

Let us see. The fact that the family is a social and not political entity is an irrefutable truth. The tribe too is a social entity because it was originally a family that procreated and multiplied into subdivisions, then expanded into clans, which eventually transformed into many other tribes. As such, a nation is a social entity whose people are bound by national identity, and the tribe is a social entity whose members are bound by tribal ties, and the family is also a social entity whose members are bound by familial bonds, and the nations of the world constitute a social entity bound by the bonds of humanity. These facts are all self-evident. There is then the political structure of state that forms the political map of the world. But why should changes occur in this world map from one era to another? The reason has to do with the political structure and whether or not it conforms to the social structure of the state. When the political structure is in conformity with the social structure of a nation it endures and does not change. When it changes or declines as a result of colonial domination it re-emerges eventually as a result of national struggle, national awakening or national unity. When a political structure comprises more than one nation then the map of the state is ripped apart as each nation obtains its separate national independence. Such was the fate of past empires because they were comprised of many nations that were awakened and driven by nationalist sentiments to demand their independence. Thus political empires were ripped apart, and the nations reverted to their original social structures. The evidence is clearly there for examination through history.

But why are empires formed of several nations? The answer to this is found in the structure of the state that is not a social structure like the family, the tribe or the nation. Rather the state is a political entity created by several factors, the simplest and foremost of which is national identity. The national state is the only political structure in keeping with the natural social structure. Moreover, it is this state that endures, unless it is subjected to the tyranny of another more powerful nation, or its political structure as a state is affected by its social structure in the form of tribes, clans or families. When subjected to and influenced by a familial, tribal or sectarian social structure, the political formation of the state becomes corrupted.

Religious, economic and military factors also contribute to form a state that differs from the basic national state. A common religion may create a state that embraces several nations. Economic imperatives and military conquests may do the same. Thus the world can witness the existence of a state or empire in one particular historical period, but then witnesses its fall and disappearance in another. When the spirit of nationalism is more powerful than the religious spirit, conflict intensifies among the various nationalities bound by the ties of one religion. Such conflicts eventually culminate in the independence of each nation that reverts to its own social structure and the empire finally disappears. Religion resurfaces when the religious spirit emerges stronger than the spirit of nationalism. Consequently the various nationalities eventually unite under the banner of religion until the time when once again the national factor again overrides the religious factor.

All states made up of diverse nationalities for religious, economic, military or ideological reasons will eventually be ripped apart by national conflict until every nationality gains its independence. The social factor will inevitably triumph over the political factor.

Despite the political imperatives which necessitate the establishment of the state, the family remains first and foremost the basis of the life of individuals extending then to the tribe, then to the nation and finally, to all humanity. The social factor is the basic and constant factor. It is imperative to concentrate on the social reality by first attending to the family in order that the normal, well-bred individual may emerge, then moving on to the tribe, as a “social umbrella” and a natural social school which further educates the individual raised by his family, and finally, to the nation. This plan is necessary as it stems from the need for individuals to learn the worth of social values from both family and tribe, the two naturally formed social structures which evolve without the deliberate interference of man. The social factor, i.e. the national factor, is the real and constant driving force of history.

To disregard the social bond of human communities, and to establish a political system counter to social reality is to create a temporary structure which will collapse because of the movement of the social factor i.e. the national.

These are not interpretations of concepts; they are all facts in the life of mankind. Every individual should recognise these so that his or her actions may be worthwhile. To avoid deviation, disorder and corruption in the life of human groups that are a result of lack of understanding and respect of the principles of human life, it is essential to know these confirmed truths.




Women, like men, are human beings. This is an incontestable truth. Therefore as humans, it is a fact that women are equal to men and to discriminate between them is a glaring inexcusable injustice. Like men, women eat and drink, love and hate. They can equally think, learn and comprehend, and they equally need shelter, clothing and means of transportation, and like men, they feel the bite of hunger and thirst, and they also live and die.

But why are there men and women? Human community is not made up solely of men or women; it is naturally both sexes. Why is it then that both sexes were created? Why didn’t creation exclude one of the two? Why was it decreed that both sexes come into being? The existence of both men and women implies that there’s a natural necessity for the existence of both, rather than man only or woman only. It follows then that each is not exactly like the other, and therefore, there is a natural difference between man and woman. This in turn signifies an assigned role for each that differs in accordance with the difference between the two sexes. Each is to have his or her own prevailing conditions in order that they might live and perform their assigned roles.

In order to understand this role we must understand the natural difference between the two sexes. Women are female and men are male. According to gynaecologists women, unlike men, menstruate each month. This menstrual cycle is a natural ailment that women must experience every month; if they cannot experience this, they are barren. When a woman becomes pregnant, due to her pregnancy, she becomes less active for about a year because her pregnancy inhibits her natural vitality until she delivers the baby. After delivery or miscarriage, a woman is in a state of confinement. Since men cannot be impregnated they do not experience the ailments that women do. Afterwards, a woman nurses the infant she gave birth to. She breastfeeds her baby for nearly two years, and this means that mother and child are necessarily inseparable for the duration of nursing. Hence, the woman whose activity has already been diminished is also directly responsible for another human being who needs to be aided with all his biological functions, or else will not survive. Men are naturally exempt from all this.

These natural characteristics from the essential differences between women and men. They illustrate the essential for the existence of both male and female. Each sex has its own particular life role or function and these are different and irreplaceable - neither can ever assume the function of the other. In this context, it should be noted that these biological functions constitute a heavy burden on women and cost them a considerable amount of effort and pain. Nevertheless, human life would cease without these female functions which are neither mandatory nor optional but simply essential, and without which human life would cease altogether.

Deliberate interventions against conception constitute an alternative to human life. Also there exists partial deliberate intervention against conception, as well as against breastfeeding. All these are links in a chain of actions in contradiction to natural life, the ultimate of which is murder as when a woman kills herself to avoid pregnancy, to avoid giving birth and breastfeeding. Although they vary in degree, these are not unlike other artificial interventions employed against the natural processes of life such as pregnancy and breastfeeding, marriage and motherhood.

Dispensing with the normal function of the woman as a mother by allowing day nurseries to replace the mother’s care, is the first step towards dispensing with the human society and turning it into a merely biological society with an artificial way of life. To separate children from their mothers and cram them in nurseries is to treat them just like chicks in chicken coops, and it is only natural motherhood that is appropriate and right for the children of mankind. Children are to grow up in a family where motherhood, fatherhood and comradeship of brothers and sisters prevail and not in an institution resembling a poultry farm. Clearly, poultry need a mother’s care at certain stages, just like the rest of the young in the animal kingdom. Breeding these birds on farms, which are in a way similar to nurseries, is counterproductive to their normal growth. Their meat is more like processed meat; they are not tasty and may not even be nutritious because they do not grow naturally. As for children who are orphans and homeless, society is their guardian. Only for them should society establish nurseries, orphanages and the like to accommodate them. They are better off as charges of society than as charges of individuals who are not their natural parents.

If a test were carried out to discover the natural propensity of a child, the child would choose his mother rather than the nursery. As a child is naturally disposed towards his mother, the mother is the natural and proper person to give the child the protection of nursing. Placing a child in a day nursery, is coercive and tyrannical and a violation of the child’s free and natural disposition.

Natural growth for all living things is free and healthy growth. To substitute a nursery for a mother is a coercion that runs counter to the freedom of proper growth. Children who are shipped off to nurseries are led with compulsion as gullible simple-minded babies, and for purely material reasons rather than compelling social reasons. Without the constraints and the gullibility of innocence, children would choose to stay close to their mothers and reject nurseries as an abnormal and inhuman alternative. The only justification for such an unnatural and inhuman process is the fact that the woman is in a position unsuitable to her natural role; she is required to perform duties other than social obligations, which are in conflict with the duties of motherhood.

A woman, to whom nature assigned a natural role other than that assigned to men, must be in an appropriate position to perform her natural role.

Motherhood is the female’s function, not the male’s. Consequently it is in the natural order that children should not be separated from their mothers, and any measure taken to do so is tyrannical, oppressive and dictatorial. Also, any mother who forsakes her duties towards her children goes against her natural role in life. A woman should not be subjected to tyranny and oppression, and should be given rights and provided with adequate conditions which would allow her to perform her natural role in normal conditions. The contradiction arises when necessity obliges women to forsake their natural function of childbearing and motherhood. This necessity indicates that they are subject to oppression and dictatorial treatment, since a woman in need of work, which would restrict her ability to perform her natural function, is not free and is compelled to work by need and in need no freedom indeed.

To perform their natural female function, women need the conditions appropriate to an ailing person overburdened by pregnancy, bearing the load of another human life, and thus physically unable to perform other roles with efficiency. It is unfair for a woman passing through this stage of motherhood, to be placed in a situation that disagrees with her pregnant condition, i.e. to be required to exert physical effort. This would be tantamount to a punishment inflicted upon her for her betrayal of her maternal role; it is a tax imposed on her for entering the realm of men, which is naturally alien to their own.

Those who believe that women voluntarily perform work that requires physical effort are in error. The grim reality indicates otherwise. They do such work because they were unwittingly led by the merciless materialistic society into compelling circumstances in which they have no alternative but to yield to social conditions in the mistaken belief that they are working of their own free will. In fact the alleged basis that maintains that women and men are in every respect not different from each other, deprives the woman of her freedom.

The phrase “in every respect” is the grand deception that ensnares women. This idea destroys the appropriate and necessary conditions that women need and are unquestionably entitled to, to the exclusion of men by virtue of their distinctive natural role in life.

To consider women capable of carrying equal burdens as men while pregnant is unjust and cruel; and to consider them as capable in times of hardship and fasting while breastfeeding is equally unjust and cruel. It is even more so if they are considered capable of doing a disagreeable job that disgraces and taints their femininity. It is also equally unjust and cruel to have women study a discipline that would lead them to jobs incompatible with their nature. However, there is no difference whatsoever between men and women as human beings. Both are not to be forced into marrying against their will and both are not to be divorced without the due process of law or without mutual agreement outside the courtroom, or even to be married without prior agreement on divorce. Moreover, the woman is the rightful owner of the house, because a home is necessary to women who become pregnant, who give birth, experience confinement and perform the duties of motherhood. Even in the world of other animals, the female whose natural duty is motherhood is the rightful owner of her home - the shelter of motherhood. It would thus be unjust to deprive children of their mother and to deprive mothers of their homes.

The different biological nature of females bestows upon women characteristics different from those of men, in both form and intrinsic nature. Women are different from men in form because they are females, just as all females in the kingdoms of plants and animals, differ from the males of their species. This is an undisputable fact of nature. The male in the plant and animal kingdoms is born naturally strong and striving, while the female in both kingdoms is naturally born beautiful and gentle. According to these diverse characteristics and the laws of nature, the male voluntarily performs the role of the strong, striving being because he was born as such, while the female performed the role of the beautiful gentle being spontaneously, because she was born as such. This natural rule is just: on the one hand, because it is natural, and on the other, because it is the basic rule for freedom. All living things are created free, and any interference with this freedom is coercion. When these natural rules are breached or scorned, the values of life itself are abused and corrupted. Nature has been so designed so as to be in harmony with the inevitability of life from what is being to what will become. When a creature is born to life it is a living being and shall inevitably be so until it dies. Survival between the beginning and the end is thus based on the natural law of creation, a state of neither compulsion nor choice, just nature taking its course; it is natural freedom.

In the worlds of man, animals and plants, there must be both sexes, for life to occur and to proceed on its course from being to non-being. This does not happen by the mere existence of male and female, but by the fully efficient performance of the natural roles for which they were created. If this does not happen the course of life is impaired for one reason or another. This is the present state of societies almost everywhere in the world, as a result of the roles of men and women becoming confused by the attempts to transform women into men. In harmony with their particular nature and its purpose, men and women must excel themselves in the roles naturally assigned to them. To resist this situation is regression, a course that goes against nature and destroys the basis of freedom, for it is hostile to both life and survival. Men and women must relentlessly adhere to the role he or she was created for. Abandoning this role implies compelling circumstances that in turn, imply an abnormal situation. The woman who refrains from childbearing, marriage and motherhood, and who forsakes her gentleness and dismisses adornment for health reasons is a woman who relinquishes her natural role in life, because of these compelling health conditions. The woman who refrains from childbearing, marriage or motherhood in favour of work also relinquishes her natural role in life because of compelling circumstances. The woman who abstains from one or all these functions for no substantive reasons, relinquishes her natural role in life because of compelling and morally deviant circumstances. Thus, abandoning his or her natural role in life for a male or female is an indication that he or she is subjected to abnormal circumstances, opposed to freedom and are a threat to survival. Therefore, a world revolution is needed to do away with all the materialistic conditions that prevent women from performing their natural role in life and so drives them to carry out men’s duties in order to achieve equal rights. Such a revolution is inevitable, especially in industrial societies. It is a reaction to the instinct of survival, even without any instigator of revolution, not even from The Green Book.

All societies today look upon women as little more than a commodity. In the East she is looked upon as a personal possession to be bought and sold, and in the West her femininity is not recognized.

Driving a woman to do a man’s work is an unfair aggression against the femininity that is naturally bestowed upon her for a natural purpose essential to life. Man’s work obliterates the beautiful features which creation awarded to women so that they might perform their particular role. It is just like flowers that need to attract pollinators to produce seeds. The role of plants in life would come to an end if we were to obliterate flowers, and it is the same with butterflies, birds and other female animals that are colourfully adorned for this vital natural purpose. To undertake man’s work, women must abandon their role and beauty and become men. A woman has full rights and need not be coerced to turn into a man and forsake her femininity.

There is a natural difference between men and women resulting from the difference in the physical constitution between the two sexes that gives female organs functions different from those of male organs. There is also a difference in disposition, nature, temperament and shape of body. A woman is beautiful, compassionate and emotional. She is easily frightened and is generally a gentle being, while a man is aggressive by virtue of his inbred nature.

It is absolutely uncivilized to ignore these natural differences between men and women. It is against the laws of nature, is destructive to human life, and is a real cause of the wretchedness of human social life.

In the industrial societies of our time, women have adapted themselves in order to perform masculine physical work, at the expense of their femininity and natural function in life, and to the detriment of their beauty, mind and duties of motherhood. It would be stupid, even dangerous to civilization and humanity to imitate such materialistic and uncivilized societies.

This is not a question of whether women should or should not work. It is ridiculous to pose the problem as such. Work and opportunities should be made available by society to all capable and needy individuals, women and men, provided that each individual works in an appropriate domain and is not coerced by oppressive circumstances to go into inappropriate domains. To have children working in adult domains is dictatorial and an outrage, and to have women working in the domain of masculine work is similarly dictatorial and an outrage.

Hence, freedom is to have an individual learn an appropriate discipline to qualify for work befitting to himself, and dictatorship is to have an individual learn an inappropriate discipline and thus be driven to do work unbefitting to himself. Work that befits a man is not always work appropriate for a woman, and knowledge that is suitable for adults is not the knowledge suitable for children.

There is no difference in human rights between men and women or between adults and children. Yet there is no full equality in terms of their duties.




What is a minority? What are the rights and responsibilities of a minority? How can the problem of minorities be resolved according to the solution to the various problems of humanity presented by the Third Universal Theory?

Minorities are of two kinds only: a minority belonging to a nation, and its nation provides it with its social framework; and a minority that has no nation and thus, forms its own social framework. The latter makes historical contributions that accumulate and eventually create a nation by virtue of belonging and destiny.

This minority has its own social rights as we have seen, and it would be unjust of any party or majority to infringe upon these rights. The social characteristics particular to a minority are not transferable or divestible. The political and economic problems of minorities can only be solved within a society controlled by the masses where power, wealth and weapons are in the hands of the people. To look upon a minority as a political and economic minority is dictatorial and unjust.




The last period in history that has known slavery was that which witnessed the white man enslaving the black race. This period shall remain vivid in the minds of the black people until they regain their self-respect.

This tragic historical phenomenon that is painful to remember, and the black people’s psychological search for a satisfactory way to deal with this past and to regain self-respect, is a psychological incentive that cannot be disregarded in the movement of the black race to avenge itself and triumph. In addition, there are inevitable cycles of social history: the yellow race’s domination of the world, when it came from Asia, and the white race’s attempts at colonizing extensive areas of all continents of the world. Now, it is the turn of the black race to re-emerge.

The black race is at present in a dire and backward social condition. This backwardness is working in the interest of the numerical superiority of this race. Their low standard of living has rendered these people immune from knowledge of methods of birth control and its regulation. Their backward social traditions are responsible for the absence of restrictions in marriage leading to an unchecked and high birth rate. This is at a time when other races are diminishing in number as a result of the practice of birth control and other restrictions in the laws of marriage, as well as a preoccupation with work; this is in contrast to the black people whose lassitude is due to living in constantly hot climate.




Learning and teaching must not merely involve regular syllabuses and specific materials that young people are constrained to learn during specified hours, using printed books and copybooks. This kind of education that prevails throughout the world today is against freedom. Mandatory education which countries of the world are proud to enforce on their youth is a coercive education that suppresses freedom. It forcibly stunts human talents and forcibly directs human choice. It is tyrannical and destroys freedom because it deprives human beings of free choice, and hinders brilliance and creativity. To force a human being to learn a particular curriculum is dictatorial. To impose specific teaching materials is a dictatorial act.

Mandatory learning and regular systematic teaching are in reality a forced stultification of the masses. All countries that determine teaching courses through the implementation of formal curriculums, imposed on their people, formally determining the material and knowledge to be taught, are countries that oppress their citizens. A worldwide cultural revolution must destroy all the prevalent educational systems in the world to liberate the human mentality from syllabuses that nurture fanaticism and the deliberate reshaping of man’s concepts, his tastes and mentality.

This is not - as it may seem to superficial readers - a call to close down educational institutions. Nor is it an invitation to people to shun education. On the contrary, it is a call for society to provide all kinds of education and give the people the freedom of selecting the discipline of their choice. Educational institutions need the capacity to provide all branches of knowledge; otherwise man’s liberty is restricted and he will be forced to learn only the disciples available and thus be deprived of his natural right. Societies that restrict knowledge or monopolize knowledge are reactionary, and ardent adherents of ignorance as well as being hostile to freedom. Societies that monopolize religious knowledge are also reactionary, ardent adherents of ignorance and hostile to freedom. Likewise societies that distort the religious, civilizations and behaviour of others in the process of teaching those subjects, are also fanatic, reactionary and hostile to freedom. Societies that prohibit materialistic knowledge are likewise reactionary societies, biased towards ignorance and hostile to freedom. Knowledge is a natural right for every human being and no one has the right to deprive others of knowledge, unless a person has committed an act that deprives him or her of that right.

Ignorance will come to an end when everything is presented as it really is; it will end when knowledge about everything is made available to every human being in a suitable way.




Humans, being backward, are still unable to express themselves in one common language. Until this human aspiration is realized, which seems impossible, all expressions of joy and sorrow, good and evil, beauty and ugliness, comfort and distress, annihilation and immortality, love and hate, as well as expressions of colours, feelings, tastes and disposition, shall all be expressed in the language spoken spontaneously by each person. Behaviour will result from the reaction to the sense that the language creates in the speaker’s mind.

To learn one language, whatever this language is, is not the solution at present. This problem shall remain unresolved until the process of unifying languages runs its course through time, provided that the hereditary factor loses its effect on subsequent generations. Ancestral and parental feelings, tastes and dispositions, meld the feelings, tastes and dispositions of children and grandchildren. If those ancestors spoke several languages to express themselves, and on the contrary their children spoke only one language to express themselves, their offspring would not necessarily share the same tastes even though they speak a common language. The unification of taste is only achieved when the new language melds together the tastes and feelings inherited from one generation to another.

If a community of people wears white on a mournful occasion and another dresses in black, then each community develops particular attitudes towards these colours; one community would like white and dislike black and the other like black and dislike white. Moreover, this attitude leaves a physical effect on the cells as well as on the genes in the body. This adaptation will be transmitted by inheritance, and the heir would come to dislike the colour disliked by his parents, as a result of inheriting their feelings. Consequently people only relate to their own arts and heritage. Due to the factor of heredity, this feeling of harmony eludes them when they come into contact with the arts of others who differ in heritage and yet speak a single common language.

Such a difference emerges among communities of one people, even if only on a small scale.

Learning one language is not the problem, and understanding the arts of others as result of learning their language is not the problem either. The problem lies in the impossibility of genuine mental adaptation to another people’s language. This shall remain impossible until the time when traces of heredity vanish from the body of the human being.

Mankind is still backward because humans do not yet communicate in one inherited common language. It is only a matter of time before we reach this goal, unless civilization should suffer a relapse.




Sport is either private, like praying performed by a person alone in the privacy of a closed room, or public practiced collectively in fields and arenas, like praying collectively in places of worship. Public sport is what interests all people. They practice these sports and do not let others practice it in their stead, since this is as inconceivable as having a crowd enter a place of worship to watch one or more worshippers praying, without praying themselves! It is also inconceivable for crowds to enter athletic fields and stadiums to watch one or more players, without practicing the games themselves.

Sports are like praying, eating, and like the comfort of warmth and coolness. It would be foolish for a crowd to enter a restaurant to watch one or more persons eating, or to let one or more persons enjoy warming their bodies in their place. It is unacceptable for a society to permit an individual or a team to monopolize sports to the exclusion of other members of society. Neither is it acceptable for society to bear the expenses of such a monopoly by one individual or team. This is as an unacceptable as having a people democratically allowing an individual, or a group - whether a party, a social class, a sect, a tribe or an assembly - to determine their destiny on their behalf or determine their needs for them.

Privately practiced sport is of no interest to anyone except the person who exercises on his own and at his own expense. However public sports are a common need for people and no one person, or group of persons, can play a game of sports on behalf of the people, neither from the physical nor from the democratic point of view. Physically speaking, this representative player cannot transmit to others what physical benefits he gained from the exercise; and democratically speaking, no individual or team has the right to monopolize sports, power, wealth or weapons, to the exclusion of others.

Sporting clubs which constitute the traditional sports institutions in the world today and are maintained by public funds and other public means of support in every country, are rapacious social instruments, not unlike the dictatorial political instruments which monopolize power to the exclusion of the people, and the economic instruments which monopolize society’s wealth, as well as the traditional military instruments which monopolize weapons, acting as substitutes for society.

The era of the masses that destroys the monopolizing instruments of wealth, power and weapons, shall inevitably destroy the instruments that monopolize social activities such as sports and horsemanship. The masses line up to support a candidate to act as their representative in determining their destiny on the impossible assumption that this candidate shall represent them and uphold their dignity and sovereignty and all related considerations, and are eventually alienated, as they watch a person doing what they should naturally be doing themselves. These same masses are like the crowds that do not play sports themselves, due to their inability to do so because of their ignorance and because they are scorned by the monopolizing instruments that are bent on distracting these numbed crowds that laugh and applaud instead of practicing the sport monopolized by these rapacious instruments.

Sport, like power, should be for the masses, and just as wealth and weapons should be for the people, sport as a social activity, should also be for the people.

Public sport is for all the people. It is the right of all because in addition to entertainment, it is beneficial to health. It is unreasonable to let sport be monopolized by particular groups who obtain its moral and health benefits to the exclusion of others, while the masses offer public sport all the needed facilities and means of support, and pay the expenses to maintain it. The multitude which crowds the stadium to watch a game, laugh and applaud, is a multitude of fools who are incapable of practicing sports themselves; they crowd the grandstands practicing lethargy and applaud those heroes who took the initiative, and who dominated the field and the sporting activities, and exploited all the offered means of supports sustained by the masses. The grandstands of public athletic fields are actually constructed to obstruct access to the fields. These grandstands shall one day be vacated and abolished when the masses march into athletic fields to practice sports in crowds, as they realize that sports are activities to be practiced not watched.

The grandstands shall disappear when no spectators come to fill up the rows and seats. People who are incapable of performing heroic acts in life, and those who are not well read in history and are incapable of visualizing the future, and those who do not take life seriously, are the marginal people who fill up the seats in theatres and other kinds of performances, to watch life events and learn how these events take their course. They are exactly like pupils who fill up the seats in schools because they are uneducated, because they are initially illiterate.

Those who make their own life do not need to see how life takes its course through watching the actors on stage or other theatres. Likewise, horsemen who ride their horses have no place on the sidelines of the racetrack, and if all people owned horses there would be no spectators to watch and applaud. The seated spectators are only those who cannot practice horse riding because they do not ride horses.

Thus Bedouin people are not interested in the theatre and other performances because they are hard working and take life very seriously. They are the makers of the serious life and that is why they look upon acting with scorn. Bedouin people also don’t watch players playing a game; they practice their own games collectively and hold their own festivities, because they feel the spontaneous, inexplicable need for it.

The various kinds of boxing and wrestling are evidence that mankind has not yet purged the tendency to cruel behaviour. But this shall inevitably come to an end when man progresses and becomes more civilized. Gun matches and before that, human offerings were familiar practices in an earlier stage of human progress. But these cruel practices ended hundreds of years ago, and later, man came to look upon those practices with self-derision and distress too because human beings like himself had once indulged in such practices. It shall be the same with the various kinds of boxing and wrestling after decades or maybe hundreds of years. But the more civilized and the more progressive individuals are the only ones able to avoid such cruel practices and refrain from giving encouragement to those who indulge in them.

Home