THE GREEN BOOK (Part Three) by Mu`ammar al-Qadhafi.


This file contains the complete text of


by Mu`ammar al-Qadhafi.

This translation was published by the
Public Establishment for Publishing,
Advertising and Distribution in Tripoli,

Absolute fidelity to the original has
been maintained, including page and line

Text which appears in green print in the
original is marked in this version by
enclosure within asterisks (*). Text which
appears in italics in the original is
marked in this version by enclosure
within plus signs (+).


1. The Social Basis of the
Third Universal Theory
2. The Family
3. The Tribe
4. The Nation
5. Woman
6. Minorities
7. The Blacks
8. Education
9. Melodies and Arts
10. Sport, Horsemanship and Shows


Muammar Al Qathafi


Part Three



of the

Third Universal Theory


The social, i.e. national, factor is the
driving force of human history. The
social bond which binds together each
human group, from the family through
the tribe to the nation, is the basis for
the movement of history.
Heroes in history are persons who
have made sacrifices for causes. But
for what causes? They have made
sacrifices for others. But which
others? They are those who have a
relationship with them. The relation-
ship between an individual and a group
is a social relationship, i.e. the re-
lationship between the members of a
nation. For nations are founded on
nationalism. Those causes, therefore,
are national causes and national re-
lationship is the social relationship.
The social relationship is derived from
society, i.e. the relationship between
the members of a society, just as
nationalism is derived from the nation,
i.e. the relationship between the mem-


bers of a nation. The social relation-
ship is, accordingly, the national re-
lationship and the national relationship
is the social relationship. For the group
is a nation and the nation is a group
even if they differ in number, leaving
aside the extended definition of the
group which means the provisional
group regardless of the national rela-
tions of its members. What is meant by
the group here is the group which is
permanent by virtue of its own nation-
al relations.
Besides, historical movements are
mass movements, i.e. group move-
ments for its own interests … for its
independence from a different group.
Each group has its own social struc-
ture which binds it together. Group
movements are always movements for
independence in order that subjugated
or oppressed groups may attain self-
realisation. As for the struggle for
power, it occurs within the group itself
down to the family level, as expounded
in Part One of the Green Book, which
deals with the Political Basis of the
Third Universal Theory. A group
movement is a nation’s movement for


its own interests. By virtue of its na-
tional structure, each group has com-
mon social needs which must be collec-
tively satisfied. These needs are in no
way individualistic. They are collec-
tive needs, rights, demands, or objec-
tives of a nation which is bound by a
single nationalism. That is why these
movements are called national move-
ments. Contemporary national libera-
tion movements are themselves social
movements. They will not come to an
end before every group is liberated
from the domination of another group,
i.e. the world is now passing through
one of the regular cycles of the move-
ment of history, namely, the national
struggle in support of nationalism.
In the world of man, this is the
historical reality, as it is a social real-
ity. That means that the national strug-
gle — the social struggle — is the basis
of the movement of history, because it
is stronger than all other factors since
it is the origin … the basis … it is in
the nature of the human group … the
nature of the nation. It is the nature of
life itself. Other animals, apart from
man, live in groups. Indeed, the group


is the basis for the survival of all
groups within the animal kingdom. So
nationalism is the basis for the surviv-
al of nations.
Nations whose nationalism is des-
troyed are subject to ruin. Minorities,
which are one of the main political
problems in the world, are the outcome
of a social cause. They are nations
whose nationalism has been destroyed
and torn apart. The social factor is,
therefore, a factor of life … a factor of
survival. It is the nation’s natural in-
nate momentum for survival.
Nationalism in the world of man and
group instinct in the animal kingdom
are like gravity in the domain of min-
eral and celestial bodies. If the mass of
the sun were smashed so that it lost its
gravity, the gases would blow away
and its unity would no longer exist.
Accordingly, the unity is the basis for
its survival. The factor of unity in any
group is a social factor, i.e. national-
ism. For this reason a group struggles
for its own national unity, because its
survival lies in that.
The national factor, which is the
social bond, works automatically to


impel the nation towards survival, in
the same way that the gravity of an
object works to keep it as one mass
around the nucleus. The diffusion and
dispersion of atoms in the atomic bomb
are the result of the explosion of the
nucleus which is the focus of gravita-
tion for the atoms around it. When the
factor of unity in those components is
broken into pieces and gravity is lost,
every atom is dispersed. This is the
nature of matter. It is an established
law of nature. To disregard it or collide
with it is damaging to life. Thus man’s
life is damaged when he begins to
disregard nationalism … the social
factor … the gravity of the group …
the secret of its survival. There is no
rival to the social factor in influencing
the unity of one group except the reli-
gious factor, which may divide the
national group or unite groups with
different nationalisms. However, the
social factor will eventually gain sway.
This has been the case throughout the
ages. Originally, each nation had one
religion. This was harmony. In fact,
however, differences arose which be-
came a genuine cause of conflict and


instability in the life of the peoples
throughout the ages.
The sound rule is that every nation
should have a religion. The contrary to
that is the abnormal. Such an abnor-
mality creates an unsound situation
which becomes a real cause for dis-
putes within a national group. There is
no other solution but to be in harmony
with the natural rule that each nation
has one religion. When the social factor
is compatible with the religious factor,
harmony is achieved and the life of
groups becomes stable and strong and
develops soundly.
Marriage is a process that exercises
negative and positive effects on the
social factor though both man and
woman are free to accept whom they
want and reject whom they do not want
as a natural rule of freedom. Marriage
within a group, by its very nature,
strengthens its unity and brings about
collective growth in conformity with
the social factor.



To the individual man the family is
of more importance than the state.
Mankind acknowledges the individual
man and the individual man acknow-
ledges the family which is his cradle,
his origin and his social ‘umbrella’.
Mankind, as a matter of fact, is the
individual and the family, not the
state. The state is an artificial econo-
mic and political system, sometimes a
military system, with which mankind
has no relationship and has nothing to
do. The family is exactly like an in-
dividual plant in nature which is
composed of branches, leaves and
blossoms. However, adapting the natu-
ral environment with farms and gar-
dens, and the like is an artificial proce-
dure which has nothing to do with the
actual nature of the plant. The fact is
that political, economic or military
factors have organized groups of fami-
lies into a state which has nothing to do
with mankind. Equally any position,
condition or measure resulting in the


dispersal, decline or loss of the family
is inhuman and unnatural. Indeed, it is
an arbitrary condition, exactly like
any action, condition or measure
which leads to the destruction of the
plant, the breaking of its branches, the
fading of its blossoms and leaves.
Societies in which the existence and
unity of the family are threatened, in
any circumstances, are similar to
fields whose plants are in danger of
being swept away or threatened by
drought or fire, or of withering away.
The blossoming garden or field is that
whose plants grow, blossom, pollinate
and root naturally. The same holds
true for human society.
The flourishing society is that in
which the individual grows naturally
within the family and the family itself
flourishes in the society. The indi-
vidual is linked to the larger family of
mankind like the leaf to the branch or
the branch to the tree. They have no
value or life if separated. The same is
the case for the individual if he is
separated from the family, i.e. the
individual without a family has no
value or social life. If human society


reached the stage where man existed
without a family, it would become a
society of tramps, without roots, like
artificial plants.



A tribe is a family which has grown
as a result of procreation. It follows
that a tribe is a big family. Equally a
nation is a tribe which has grown
through procreation. The nation, then,
is a big tribe. So the world is a nation
which has been ramified into various
nations. The world, then, is a big na-
tion. The relationship which binds the
family is that which binds the tribe, the
nation and the world. However, it
weakens with the increase in number.
The concept of man is that of the
nation, the concept of nation is that of
the tribe, and the concept of the tribe is
that of the family. However, the degree
of warmth involved diminishes as the
relationship moves from the smaller
level to the larger one. This is a social
fact only denied by those who are
ignorant of it.
The social bond, cohesiveness, unity,
intimacy and love are stronger at the
family level than at the tribal level …
stronger at the tribal level than at that


of the nation, and stronger at the level
of the nation than at that of the world.
The advantages, privileges, values
and ideals, which are based on social
bonds, exist where those bonds are
natural and undoubtedly strong, i.e.
they are stronger at the family level
than at that of the tribe, stronger at the
tribal level than that of the nation and
stronger at nation’s level than that of
the world. Thus these social bonds and
the benefits, advantages and ideals
associated with them are lost where-
ver the family, the tribe, nation or
mankind vanish or are lost. * It is, there-
fore, of great importance for human
society to maintain the cohesiveness of
the family, the tribe, the nation and the
world in order to benefit from the
advantages, privileges, values and
ideals yielded by the solidarity, cohe-
siveness, unity, intimacy and love of the
family, tribe, nation and humanity. *
In social terms, the family society is
better than that of the tribe, the tribal
society is better than that of the nation
and the society of the nation is better
than world society as regards fellow-
ship, affection, solidarity and benefit.



Since the tribe is a large family, it
provides its members with the same
material benefits and social advan-
tages the family provides for its mem-
bers. For the tribe is a secondary
family. What needs to be emphasized
is that the individual might sometimes
act in a disgraceful manner which he
would not dare to do in front of his
family. But since the family is smaller
in size he can escape from its supervi-
sion, unlike the tribe whose supervi-
sion is felt by all its members. In view
of these considerations the tribe forms
a behaviour pattern for its members
which will be transformed into a social
education which is better and more
human than any school education. The
tribe is a social school where its mem-
bers are brought up from childhood to
absorb high ideals which are trans-
formed into a behaviour pattern for
life. These become automatically
rooted as the human being grows,
unlike education with its curricula,
formally dictated and gradually lost
with the growth of the individual. This


is so because it is formal and ruled by
tests and because the individual is
aware of the fact that it is dictated to
The tribe is a natural social ‘umbrel-
la’ for social security. By virtue of
social tribal traditions, the tribe pro-
vides for its members collective pay-
ment of ransom, collective fines, col-
lective revenge and collective defence,
i.e. social protection.
Blood is the prime factor in the
formation of the tribe but it is not the
only factor because affiliation is also a
factor in the formation of the tribe.
With the passage of time the difference
between the factors of blood and affi-
liation disappears, leaving the tribe as
one social and physical unit. But it is a
unit of blood and origin more than any



The nation is the individual’s nation-
al political ‘umbrella’ and it is wider
than the social ‘umbrella’ provided by
the tribe to its members. Tribalism
damages nationalism because tribal
allegiance weakens national loyalty
and flourishes at its expense. In the
same way loyalty to the family
flourishes at the expense of tribal
loyalty and weakens it. National fana-
ticism is essential to the nation but at
the same time it is a threat to hu-
The nation in the world community is
similar to the family in the tribe. The
more the families of one tribe quarrel
and become fanatic, the more the tribe
is threatened. Equally if the members
of one family quarrel and each of them
seeks only his personal interests, the
family is threatened, and if the tribes
of a nation quarrel and seek their own
interests, that nation is threatened.
National fanaticism, the use of nation-
al force against weak nations, or the
national progress which is the outcome


of plundering from other nations, are
evil and harmful to humanity. Howev-
er, the powerful individual who re-
spects himself and is aware of his own
responsibilities is important and useful
to the family, just as a strong respect-
able family, which is aware of its
importance, is socially and materially
useful to the tribe. Equally useful to
the whole world is the progressive,
productive and civilized nation. The
national political structure is damaged
when it descends to the lower social
level, namely the family and tribe, and
attempts to act in their manner and to
adopt their views.
The nation is a large family which
has passed through the stage of the
tribe and also through the ramifica-
tions of the tribes that have branched
out of one origin; it includes as well
those members who affiliated them-
selves with its destiny. The family,
likewise, grows into a nation only after
passing through the stages of the tribe
and its ramifications, as well as
through the stage of affiliation which
comes about as a result of various
types of a social mixture. Inevitably


this is achieved over long periods of
time. Although the passage of time
creates nations, it also helps to frag-
ment old ones. However, the common
origin and shared destiny through affi-
liation are two historic bases for any
nation, though origin ranks first and
affiliation second. A nation is not de-
fined only by origin, even though origin
is its basis and beginning. In addition
to that a nation is formed by human
accumulations through the course of
history which induce a group of people
to live in one area of land, make a
common history, form one heritage
and face the same destiny. Finally, the
nation, regardless of blood bond, is the
sense of belonging and a common des-
But why has the map of the earth
witnessed great nations that dis-
appeared to be replaced by other na-
tions and vice versa? Is the reason
political only, without any relationship
to the social aspect of the Third Uni-
versal Theory? Or is it social and
properly the concern of this part of the
Green Book? Let us see: The family is
indisputably a social structure, rather


than political. The same applies to the
tribe because it is a family which has
reproduced, procreated and become
many families. Equally the nation is a
tribe, after it has grown and its bran-
ches have multiplied and become
transformed into clans, then into
The nation is also a social structure
whose bond is nationalism, the tribe is
a social structure whose bond is tribal-
ism, the family is a social structure
whose bond is family ties; and the
nations of the world are social struc-
tures whose bond is humanity. These
are self evident facts. Then there is the
political structure of states which form
the political map of the world. But why
does the map of the world keep chang-
ing from one age to another? The
reason is that the political structure
may, or may not, be consistent with the
social structure. When it is consistent
in a nation, it lasts and does not
change. If the change is forced by
external colonialism or internal col-
lapse, it reappears under the emblem
of national struggle, national revival
or national unity. When the political


structure embraces more than one na-
tion, its map will be torn up by each
nation gaining independence under the
emblem of nationalism. Thus, the
maps of the empires, which the world
has witnessed, have been torn up be-
cause they were made up of a number
of nations. When every nation clings
fanatically to its nationalism and seeks
independence, the political empire is
torn up and its components go back to
their social origins. The evidence is
crystal clear in the history of the world
if we review all its ages.

But why were those empires made
up of different nations? The answer is
that the state is not only a social
structure like the family, the tribe and
the nation, but rather a political entity
created by several factors, the sim-
plest and foremost of which is national-
ism. The national state is the only
political form which is consistent with
the natural social structure. Its exist-
ence lasts, unless it becomes subject to
the tyranny of another stronger nation-
alism, or unless its political structure,
as a state, is affected by its social


structure in the form of tribes, clans
and families. It is damaging to the
political structure if it is subjected to
the family, tribal, or sectarian social
structure and adopts its characteris-
However, religious, economic and
military factors also contribute to
form a state which differs from the
simple state, the national state.
A common religion, the require-
ments of economics or military con-
quests may constitute a state embrac-
ing several nationalisms. Thus, in one
age the world witnesses a state or an
empire which it sees disappear in
another age. When the spirit of nation-
alism emerges stronger than the reli-
gious spirit and conflict flares up be-
tween different nationalisms which
were brought together, for example,
by one religion, each nation becomes
independent and recovers its social
structure. That empire, then, dis-
appears. The role of religion reappears
when the religious spirit emerges
stronger than the spirit of nationalism.
Consequently the various nationalisms
are unified under the banner of religion


until the national role appears once
again and so on.
All the states which are composed of
several nationalisms for various
reasons — whether of religious, econo-
mics, military power or of man-made
ideologies — will be torn up by the
national conflict until each nationalism
is independent, i.e. the social factor
will inevitably triumph over the poli-
tical factor.
Therefore, despite political factors
which necessitate the establishment
of the state, the basis for the life of
individuals is the family, the tribe,
then the nation, extending eventually
to all humanity. The essential factor is
the social factor. It is the permanent
factor, namely nationalism. Stress
should be laid on social reality and
family care in order to bring up the
integrated well-educated man. Care
should then be given to the tribe as a
social ‘umbrella’ and natural social
school which brings up man at the
post-family stage. Then comes the na-
tion. The individual learns social
values only from the family and the
tribe which form a natural social struc-


ture engineered by no particular indi-
vidual. Taking care of the family is for
the sake of the individual just as the
care of the tribe is in the interest of the
family, the individual and the nation,
i.e. nationalism. The social factor,
namely the national factor, is the
genuine and permanent driving force
of history.
To disregard the national bond of
human groups and to establish a poli-
tical system contradictory to social
reality sets up a temporary structure
which will be destroyed by the move-
ment of the social factor of those
groups, i.e. the national movement of
each nation.
All these realities are innate in the
life of man and are not rational con-
junctures. Every individual in the
world should be aware of these reali-
ties and work accordingly, so that his
action may be worthwhile. It is neces-
sary to know these proven realities in
order to avoid deviation, disorder and
damage in the life of human groups
which are the result of a lack of under-
standing and respect for these princi-
ples of human life.



It is an undisputed fact that both
man and woman are human beings. It
follows as a self-evident fact that
woman and man are equal as human
beings. Discrimination between man
and woman is a flagrant act of oppres-
sion without any justification. For
woman eats and drinks as man eats
and drinks … Woman loves and hates
as man loves and hates … Woman
thinks, learns and understands as man
thinks, learns and understands …
Woman, like man, needs shelter, clo-
thing and vehicles … Woman feels
hunger and thirst as man feels hunger
and thirst … Woman lives and dies as
man lives and dies.
But why are there man and woman?
Indeed, human society is composed
neither of man alone nor of woman
alone. It is made up naturally of man
and woman. Why were not only men
created? Why were not only women
created? After all, what is the differ-
ence between man and woman? Why
was it necessary to create man and


woman? There must be a natural
necessity for the existence of man and
woman, rather than man only or
woman only. It follows that neither of
them is exactly the other, and the fact
that a natural difference exists be-
tween man and woman is proved by
the created existence of man and
woman. This means, as a matter of
fact, that there is a role for each one of
them, matching the difference be-
tween them. Accordingly, there must
be different prevailing conditions for
each one to live and perform their
naturally different roles. To compre-
hend this role, we must understand the
differences in the nature of man and
woman, namely the natural differ-
ences between them:
Woman is a female and man is a
male. According to a gynaecologist,
woman menstruates or suffers feeble-
ness every month, while man, being a
male, does not menstruate and he is
not subject to the monthly period
which is a bleeding. A woman, being a
female, is naturally subject to monthly
bleeding. When a woman does not
menstruate, she is pregnant. If she is


pregnant she becomes, due to pregnan-
cy, feeble for about a year, which
means that all her natural activities
are seriously reduced until she deliv-
ers her baby. When she delivers her
baby or has had a miscarriage, she
suffers puerperium, a feebleness
attendant on delivery or miscarriage.
As the man does not get pregnant, he is
not liable to the feebleness which
woman, being a female, suffers. After-
wards woman breast-feeds the baby
she bore. Breast-feeding continues for
about two years. Breast-feeding means
that a woman is so inseparable from
her baby that her activity is seriously
reduced. She becomes directly respon-
sible for another person whom she
helps to carry out his biological func-
tions, without which it would die. The
man, on the other hand, neither con-
ceives nor breast-feeds.
All these innate characteristics form
differences because of which man and
woman cannot be equal. These, in
themselves, are the realities that
necessitate the distinction between
male and female, i.e. man and woman;
they assign to each of them a different


role or function in life. This means that
man cannot replace woman in car-
rying out these functions. It is worthy
of consideration that these biological
functions are a heavy burden, causing
woman great effort and suffering.
However, without these functions
which woman performs, human life
would come to an end. It follows that it
is a natural function which is neither
voluntary nor compulsory. It is an
essential function, whose sole alterna-
tive is that human life would come to a
complete standstill.
There is a deliberate intervention
against conception which is the alter-
native to human life. In addition to that
there is a partial deliberate interven-
tion against conception, as well as
against breast-feeding. All these are
links in a chain of actions against
natural life, culminating in murder,
i.e. for a woman to kill herself in order
not to conceive, deliver and breast-
feed, is within the realm of deliberate
interventions against the nature of life
embodied in conception, breast-
feeding, maternity and marriage,
though they differ only in degree.


To dispense with the natural role of
woman in maternity — i.e. nurseries
replacing mothers — is a start in
dispensing with the human society and
transforming it into a biological socie-
ty with an artificial way of life. To
separate children from their mothers
and to cram them into nurseries is a
process by which they are transformed
into something very close to chicks, for
nurseries are similar to poultry farms
in which chicks are crammed after
they are hatched. Nothing else would
be appropriate for man’s nature, and
would suit his dignity, except natural
motherhood, (i.e. the child is raised by
his mother …) + in a family where the
true principles of motherhood, father-
hood and brotherhood prevail, + rather
than in a centre similar to a poultry
breeding farm. Poultry, like the rest of
the members of the animal kingdom,
needs motherhood as a natural phase.
Therefore, breeding them on farms
similar to nurseries is against their
natural growth. Even their meat is
closer to synthetic meat than natural
meat. Meat from mechanized poultry
farms is not tasty and may not be


nourishing because the chicks are not
naturally bred, i.e. they are not raised
in the protective shade of natural
motherhood. The meat of wild birds is
more tasty and nourishing because
they grow naturally and are naturally
fed. As for children who have neither
family nor shelter, society is their
guardian, only for them should society
establish nurseries and the like. It is
better for those to be taken care of by
society rather than by individuals who
are not their parents.
If a test were carried out to discover
the natural propensity of the child
towards his mother and the nursery,
the child would opt for his mother and
not the nursery. Since the natural ten-
dency of a child is towards his mother,
she is the natural and proper person to
give the child the protection of nursing.
Sending a child to a nursery in place of
his mother is coercion and oppression
against its free natural propensity.
The natural growth for all living
things is free sound growth. To substi-
tute a nursery for a mother is coercive
action against free sound growth. Chil-
dren who are driven to a nursery are


driven compulsorily or by exploitation
and simple-mindedness. They are driv-
en to nurseries purely by material-
istic and not social considerations. If
coercion and childish simple-
mindedness were removed, they would
certainly reject the nursery and cling
to their mother. The only justification
for such an unnatural and inhuman
process is the fact that the woman is in
a position unsuitable to her nature, i.e.
she is compelled to perform duties
which are unsocial and anti-
The woman, whose nature has
assigned to her a natural role different
from that of man, must be in an
appropriate position to perform her
natural role.
Motherhood is the female’s function,
not the male’s. Consequently, it is
unnatural to separate children from
their mother. Any attempt to take
children away from their mother is
coercion, oppression and dictatorship.
The mother who abandons her mater-
nity contradicts her natural role in life.
She must be provided with her rights
and conditions which are appropriate,


non-coercive and unoppressive. Thus
she can carry out her natural role
under natural conditions. Anything
else is a self-contradictory situation. If
the woman is forced to abandon her
natural role as regards conception and
maternity, she falls victim to coercion
and dictatorship. A woman who needs
work that renders her unable to per-
form her natural function is not free
and is compelled to do that by need, * for
in need freedom is latent. *
Among suitable and even essential
conditions which enable the woman to
perform her natural role, which differs
from that of man, are those very condi-
tions which are proper to a human
being who is sick and burdened with
pregnancy, i.e. bearing another human
being in her womb, which renders her
physically incapacitated. It is unjust to
place such a woman in this stage of
maternity into circumstances of phy-
sical work incompatible with her con-
dition. Such work is a punishment of
woman for her betrayal of maternity
and of mankind. It is also a tax she
pays for entering the realm of men who
are not, of course, of her sex.


The belief, including the woman’s
own belief, that the woman carries out
physical labour of her own accord, is
not, in fact, true. For she performs the
physical work only because the
harsh materialistic society has
placed her, without her being directly
aware, in coercive circumstances. She
has no alternative but to submit to the
conditions of that society while she
thinks that she works of her own
accord. However, the rule that ‘there is
no difference between man and woman
in every thing’ deprives her of her
The phrase ‘in every thing’ is a
monstrous deception of woman. This
idea will destroy the appropriate and
necessary conditions which constitute
the privilege which woman ought to
enjoy apart from man in accordance
with her nature on which a natural role
in life is based.
To demand equality between man
and woman in carrying heavy weights
while the woman is pregnant is unjust
and cruel. To demand equality be-
tween them in fasting and hardship,
while she is breast-feeding, is unjust


and cruel. To demand equality be-
tween them in any dirty work, which
stains her beauty and detracts from
her femininity, is unjust and cruel.
Education that leads to work unsuit-
able for her nature is unjust and cruel
as well.
There is no difference between man
and woman in all that concerns hu-
manity. None of them can marry the
other against his or her will, or divorce
without a just trial. Neither the woman
nor the man can remarry without a
previous agreement on divorce. The
woman is the owner of the house be-
cause it is one of the suitable and
necessary conditions for a woman who
menstruates, conceives, and cares for
her children. The woman is the owner
of the maternity shelter, which is the
house. Even in the animal world,
which differs in many ways from that
of man, and where maternity is also a
duty according to nature, it is coercion
to deprive the young of their mother or
deprive the female of her shelter.
A woman is but a female. Being
female means that she has a biological
nature different from that of man. The


female’s biological nature differing, as
it does, from that of the male, has
imparted to a woman characteristics
different from those of a man in form
and essence. A woman’s anatomy is
different from that of a man just as the
female in plants and animals are diffe-
rent from the male. This is a natural
and incontrovertible fact. In the anim-
al and plant kingdoms the male is
naturally created strong and tough,
while the female is created beautiful
and gentle. These are natural and
eternal characteristics innate in these
living creatures, whether called hu-
man beings, animals or plants.
In view of his different nature and in
line with the laws of nature, the male
has played the role of the strong and
tough without compulsion but simply
because he is created in that way. The
female has played the role of the
beautiful and the gentle, not because
she wanted to, but because she is
created so. This natural rule is just,
partly because it is natural, and partly
because it is the basic rule for free-
dom. For all living creatures are cre-
ated free and any interference with


that freedom is coercion. Non-
commitment to these natural roles and
a lack of concern towards their roles
amount to an act of negligence and
destruction of the values of life itself.
Nature has thus been designed in har-
mony with the inevitability of life from
what is being to what will become. The
living creature is a being who inevit-
ably lives until he is dead. Existence
between the beginning and the end is
based on a natural law, without choice
or compulsion. It is natural. It is natu-
ral freedom.
In the animal, plant and human king-
doms there must be a male and a
female for life to occur from its begin-
ning to its end. They do not only exist
but they have to play, with absolute
efficiency, the natural role for which
they have been created. If their role is
not efficiently performed there must
be some defect in the course of life
caused by certain circumstances. This
is the case of societies nowadays
almost everywhere in the world as a
result of confusing the roles of man and
woman, i.e. as a result of endeavours
to transform a woman into a man. In


harmony with their nature and its
purpose they must be creative within
their respective roles. For the opposite
is retrogressive. It is a trend against
nature, which is as destructive to the
rule of freedom, as it is hostile to both
life and survival. Men and women
must perform, not abandon the role for
which they are created. Abandoning
the role or even a part of it only occurs
as a result of coercive conditions, i.e.
under abnormal conditions. The
woman who rejects pregnancy, mar-
riage, make up and femininity for
reasons of health, abandons her natu-
ral role in life under these coercive
conditions of health. The woman who
rejects marriage, pregnancy or
motherhood etc., because of work,
abandons her natural role under the
same coercive conditions. The woman
who rejects marriage, pregnancy or
maternity etc., without any concrete
cause, abandons her natural role as a
result of a coercive condition which is a
moral deviation from the norm. Thus.
abandoning the natural role of female
and male in life can only occur under
unnatural conditions which are con-


trary to nature and a threat to surviv-
al. Consequently, there must be a
world revolution which puts an end to
all materialistic conditions hindering
woman from performing her natural
role in life and driving her to carry out
man’s duties in order to be equal in
rights. Such a revolution will inevit-
ably take place, particularly in the
industrial societies, as a response by
the instinct of survival, even without
any instigator of revolution such as the
Green Book.
* All societies nowadays look upon
woman as no more than an article of
merchandise. The East regards her as a
commodity for buying and selling, while
the West does not recognise her femi-
ninity. *
Driving woman to do man’s work is
unjust aggression against the feminin-
ity with which she is naturally pro-
vided for a natural purpose essential to
life. For man’s work disguises the
woman’s beautiful features which are
created for female roles. They are
exactly like blossoms which are cre-
ated to attract pollen and to produce
seeds. If we did away with the blos-


soms, the role of plants in life would
come to an end. It is the natural
embellishment in butterflies and birds
as well as the rest of animal females
which is created for that natural vital
goal. If a woman carries out man’s
work, she will be transformed into a
man abandoning her role and her beau-
ty. A woman has full rights to live
without being forced to change into a
man and to give up her femininity.
The physical structure, which is
naturally different between man and
woman, leads to differences in the
functions of their different organs
which lead in turn to differences in the
psyche, mood, nerves and physical
appearance. A woman is tender. A
woman is pretty. A woman weeps easi-
ly. A woman is easily frightened. In
general woman is gentle and man is
tough by virtue of their inbred nature.
To ignore natural differences be-
tween man and woman and mix their
roles is an absolutely uncivilized atti-
tude, hostile to the laws of nature,
destructive to human life, and a
genuine cause for the wretchedness of
human social life.


Modern industrial societies, which
have made woman adapt to the same
physical work as man at the expense of
her femininity and her natural role in
terms of beauty, maternity and peace
of mind — those societies are uncivil-
ized. They are materialistic, uncivil-
ized societies. It is as stupid as it is
dangerous to civilization and humanity
to copy them.
* The question, then, is not whether the
woman works or does not work. For it is
a ridiculous materialistic presentation.
Work should be provided by the society
to all able members — men and women
— who need work, but on condition that
each individual should work in the field
that suits him, and not be forced to
carry out unsuitable work.
For the children to find themselves
under adult working conditions is in-
justice and dictatorship. Equally it is
injustice and dictatorship for woman to
find herself under the working condi-
tions of man. *
Freedom means that every human
being gets that education which qual-
ifies him for work which is appropriate
to him. Dictatorship means that a


human being learns what is not suit-
able for him. That leads him to work
which is not suitable for him. Work
which is appropriate to man is not
always appropriate to woman, and the
knowledge that is proper for the child
is not suitable for the adult.
There is no difference in human
rights between man and woman, the
child and the adult. But there is no
absolute equality between them as re-
gards their duties.



What is a minority? What are its
pros and cons? How can the problem of
minorities be solved in accordance
with the solution presented by the
Third Universal Theory to various hu-
man problems?
There are only two types of minor-
ities. One of them belongs to a nation
which provides it with a social frame-
work, while the other has no nation and
forms its own social framework. The
latter is the one that forms one of the
historic accumulations which even-
tually constitute a nation by virtue of a
sense of belonging and a common des-
It is clear now that such a minority
has its own social rights. Any en-
croachment on these rights by any
majority is an act of injustice. The
social characteristic is personal and is
not to be given or taken away. Its
political and economic problems can
only be solved by the masses in whose
hands power, wealth and arms should


be placed. Viewing the minority as a
political and economic minority is dic-
tatorship and injustice.




The latest age of slavery is the white
race’s enslavement of the black race.
The black man will not forget this until
he has achieved rehabilitation.
This tragic and historic event, the
resulting bitter feeling, and the search
for satisfaction derived from rehabili-
tating a whole race, constitute a
psychological motivation in the move-
ment of the black race to vengeance
and domination, which cannot be disre-
garded. Added to that is the inevitabil-
ity of the social historical cycles in-
cluding the yellow race’ s domination of
the world when it marched from Asia
against the rest of the continents. Then
came the role of the white race, when it
carried out a wide-ranging colonialist
movement covering all the continents
of the world. Now comes the black
race’s turn to prevail.
The black race is now in a very
backward social situation. But such


backwardness helps to bring about
numerical superiority of the blacks
because their low standard of living
has protected them from getting to
know the means and ways of birth
control and family planning. Also their
backward social traditions are a
reason why there is no limit to mar-
riage, leading to their unlimited
growth, while the population of other
races has decreased because of birth
control, restrictions on marriage and
continuous occupation in work, unlike
the blacks who are sluggish in a cli-
mate which is always hot.



Education, or learning, is not neces-
sarily that methodized curriculum and
those classified subjects in text books
which youth are forced to learn during
specified hours while sitting on rows of
desks. This type of education, now
prevailing all over the world, is against
human freedom. Compulsory educa-
tion, of which countries of the world
boast whenever they are able to force
it on their youth, is one of the methods
which suppresses freedom. It is a com-
pulsory obliteration of a human being’s
talents as well as a forcible direction of
a human being’s choices. It is an act of
dictatorship damaging to freedom be-
cause it deprives man of free choice,
creativity and brilliance. To force a
human being to learn according to a
set curriculum is a dictatorial act. To
impose certain subjects upon people is
a dictatorial act.
Compulsory and methodized educa-
tion is in fact a forced stultification of
the masses. All countries which set
courses of education in terms of formal


curricula and force pupils to learn
them, coerce their citizens. All
methods of education prevailing in the
world should be done away with
through a worldwide cultural revolu-
tion to emancipate man’s mind from
curricula of fanaticism and from the
process of deliberate adaptation of
man’s taste, his ability to form con-
cepts and his mentality.
This does not mean that schools are
to be closed and that people should turn
their backs on education, as it may
seem to superficial readers. On the
contrary, it means that society should
provide all types of education, giving
people the chance to choose freely any
subjects they wish to learn. This re-
quires a sufficient number of schools
for all types of education. Insufficient
schools restrict man’s freedom of
choice forcing him to learn the sub-
jects available, while depriving him of
natural right of choice because of the
lack of availability of other subjects.
Societies which ban and monopolize
knowledge are reactionary societies
biased towards ignorance and hostile
to freedom. Thus societies which pro-


hibit the teaching of religion as it
actually is, are reactionary societies,
biased towards ignorance and hostile
to freedom. Societies which monopol-
ize religious education are reactionary
societies, biased towards ignorance
and hostile to freedom. Equally reac-
tionary and biased towards ignorance
and hostile to freedom are the societies
which distort the religions, civiliza-
tions and behaviour of others in the
process of teaching those subjects.
Societies which consider materialistic
knowledge as taboo are reactionary
societies biased towards ignorance and
hostile to freedom. Knowledge is a
natural right of every human being
which nobody has the right to deprive
him of under any pretext except in a
case where a person himself does
something which deprives him of that
Ignorance will come to an end when
everything is presented as it actually is
and when knowledge about everything
is available to each person in the
manner that suits him.



Man is still backward because he is
unable to speak one common language.
Until he attains this human aspiration,
which seems impossible, the express-
ion of joy and sorrow, what is good and
bad, beauty and ugliness, comfort and
misery, mortality and eternity, love
and hatred, the description of colours,
sentiments, tastes and moods — all
will be according to the language each
people speaks automatically. Be-
haviour itself will remain based on the
reaction produced by the feeling the
language creates in the speaker’s
Learning one language, whatever it
may be, is not the solution for the time
being. It is a problem that will inevit-
ably remain without solution until the
process of the unification of languages
has passed through various genera-
tions and epochs, provided that the
hereditary factor comes to an end in
those generations through the passage
of enough time. For the sentiment,
taste and mood of the forefathers and


fathers form those of sons and grand-
sons. If those forefathers spoke various
languages and the grandsons speak
one language, the grandsons will not
necessarily share a common taste by
virtue of speaking one language. Such
a common taste can only be achieved
when the new language imparts the
taste and the sense which are transmit-
ted by inheritance from one generation
to another.
If a group of people wear white
clothes in mourning and another group
put on black ones, the sentiment of
each group will be adjusted according
to these two colours, i.e. one group
hates the black colour while the other
one likes it, and vice versa. Such a
sentiment leaves its physical effect on
the cells as well as on the genes in the
body. This adaptation will be transmit-
ted by inheritance. The inheritor auto-
matically hates the colour hated by the
legator as a result of inheriting the
sentiment of his legator. Consequently,
people are only harmonious with their
own arts and heritages. They are not
harmonious with the arts of others
because of heredity, even though those


people, who differ in heritage, speak
one common language.
Such a difference emerges between
the groups of one people even if it is on
a small scale.
To learn one language is not a prob-
lem and to understand others’ arts as a
result of learning their language is also
not a problem. The problem is the
impossibility of a real intuitional adap-
tation to the language of others.
This will remain impossible until the
effect of heredity, which is transmitted
in the human body, comes to an end.
Mankind is really still backward be-
cause man does not speak with his
brother one common language which is
inherited and not learned. However, it
is only a matter of time for mankind to
achieve that goal unless civilization
should relapse.



Sport is either private, like the
prayer which man performs alone by
himself even inside a closed room, or
public, practised collectively in open
places, like the prayer which is prac-
tised collectively in places of worship.
The first type of sport concerns the
individual himself, while the second
type is of concern to all people. It must
be practised by all people and should
not be left to anybody to practise on
their behalf. It is unreasonable for
crowds to enter places of worship just
to view a person or a group of people
praying without taking part. It is
equally unreasonable for crowds to
enter playgrounds and arenas to watch
a player or a team without participat-
ing themselves.
Sport is like praying, eating, and the
feeling of warmth and coolness. It is
stupid for crowds to enter a restaurant
just to look at a person or a group of


persons eating; it is stupid for people
to let a person or a group of persons get
warmed or enjoy ventilation on their
behalf. It is equally illogical for the
society to allow an individual or a team
to monopolize sports while the people
as a whole pay the costs of such a
monopoly for the benefit of one person
or a team. In the same way people
should not democratically allow an
individual or a group, whether party,
class, sect, tribe or parliament, to
replace them in deciding their destiny
and in defining their needs.
Private sport is of concern only to
those who practise it on their own and
at their own expense. Public sport is a
public need and the people should not
be represented in its practice either
physically or democratically. Physic-
ally, the representative cannot trans-
mit to others how his body and morale
benefited from sport. Democratically,
no individual or team has the right to
monopolize sport, power, wealth or
arms for themselves. Sporting clubs
are the basic organizational means of
traditional sport in the world today.
They get hold of all expenditures and


public facilities allocated to sport in
every state. These institutions are only
social monopolistic instruments like
all dictatorial political instruments
which monopolize authority, economic
instruments which monopolize wealth,
and traditional military instruments
which monopolize arms. As the era of
the masses does away with the instru-
ments monopolizing power, wealth and
arms, it will, inevitably, destroy the
monopoly of social activity such as
sports, horsemanship and so forth. The
masses who queue to vote for a candi-
date to represent them in deciding
their destiny act on the impossible
assumption that he will represent them
and embody, on their behalf, their
dignity, sovereignty and point of view.
However those masses, who are rob-
bed of their will and dignity, are re-
duced to mere spectators, watching
another person performing what they
should, naturally, be doing them-
The same holds true of the crowds
which fail to practise sport by them-
selves and for themselves because of
their ignorance. They are fooled by


monopolistic instruments which en-
deavour to stupefy them and divert
them to indulging in laughter and ap-
plause instead. Sport, as a social activ-
ity, must be for the masses, just as
power, wealth and arms should be in
the hands of the people.
Public sport is for all the masses. It
is a right of all the people for its health
and recreational benefits. It is mere
stupidity to leave its benefits to certain
individuals and teams who monopolize
them while the masses provide the
facilities and pay the expenses for the
establishment of public sports. The
thousands who crowd stadiums to
view, applaud and laugh are those
foolish people who have failed to carry
out the activity themselves. They line
up on the shelves of the sports grounds,
practising lethargy, and applauding
those heroes who wrest from them the
initiative, dominate the field and con-
trol the sport, exploiting the facilities
the masses provide. Originally, the
public grandstands were designed to
demarcate the masses from the play-
ing fields and grounds, i.e. to prevent
the masses from having access to the


playing fields. When the masses march
and play sport in the centre of the
playing fields and the open spaces,
stadiums will be vacated and des-
troyed. That will take place when the
masses become aware of the fact that
sport is a public activity which must be
practised rather than watched. The
opposite, which would be a helpless
apathetic minority that watch, would
be more reasonable.
The grandstand will disappear when
no one is there to occupy it. Those who
are unable to perform the roles of
heroism in life, who are ignorant of the
events of history, who fall short of
envisaging the future and who are not
serious enough in their lives, are the
trivial persons who fill the seats of the
theatres and cinemas to watch the
events of life and to learn their course.
They are like pupils who occupy school
desks because they are not only unedu-
cated but also illiterate.
Those who direct the course of life
for themselves do not need to watch it
working through actors on the stage or
in the cinemas. Likewise, horsemen
who hold the reins of their horses have


no seat in the grandstands at the race
course. If every person has a horse, no
one will be there to watch and applaud.
The sitting spectators are only those
who are too helpless to perform this
kind of activity because they are not
Equally, the bedouin peoples show
no interest in theatres and shows be-
cause they are very serious and hard
working. As they have created a se-
rious life, they ridicule acting. Bedouin
societies also do not watch performers,
but perform games and take part in
joyful ceremonies because they natu-
rally recognize the need for these acti-
vities and practise them automatic-
Different types of boxing and wrest-
ling are evidence that mankind has not
got rid of all savage behaviour. Inevit-
ably they will come to an end when
man ascends the ladder of civilization.
Human sacrifice and pistol duels were
familiar practices in different stages
of human evolution. However, those
savage practices came to an end years
ago. Man now laughs at himself and
regrets such acts. That will be the fate


of boxing and wrestling after tens or
hundreds of years. However, the more
the people are civilized and sophisti-
cated, the more they are able to ward
off both the performance and the en-
couragement of these practices.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s