-
In the name of Allah
Foundations and Principles of Education in Islam
Ayatullah Muhammad Taqi Mesbah
CONTENTS:
Introduction
Theoretical Foundations of Education in Islam
The Practical Principles of Education in Islam
Introduction
Each educational system is based on the idea and vision of its founders about a number of elements: the true nature and the ontological dimensions of human being, the objective(s) they consider for education, and their idea about how human beings develop and advance toward the given objective(s). In fact, these visions and understandings shape the foundations of education in every system of thought, even though they may not be consciously taken into consideration, or may not be explicitly mentioned.
Naturally, Islamic educational system is also based on a series of specific foundations, stemming from an Islamic vision about the aforementioned issues. Therefore, it is necessary for us to first and foremost pay attention to these theoretical bedrocks, and then explain educational practical principles on their basis before trying to elaborate on the Islamic educational system.
By deliberating upon the Islamic idea about the true nature of human beings, their ontological dimensions, the goal of their creation, their ultimate perfection, and the way they move towards this end, one is able to consider the following twelve points as cornerstones of an Islamic education. Of course, the ultimate goal of Islamic education is but preparing the ground for maximal perfection of human beings, and practical aims are understood in this direction.
Theoretical Foundations of Education in Islam
1. The True Nature of Human Being: From an Islamic point of view, human being is not merely a corporeal organism, but rather possesses a celestial element that remains after the dispersion of body, and lives forever, either with perpetual beatitude or eternal misery. In fact, human being is human because of one’s soul, and body serves as a means of activity, or as a vehicle for action and motion; of course, the soundness and strength of an instrument is something that should be taken care of.
2. The Position of Human Being in the World: Human being, from amongst the creatures of this world, is blessed with certain bounties and capacities that differentiates it from others. Subtleties that exist in human exterior and interior organs, especially in the brain and nervous system, and its unique psychological capabilities cannot be found in any other living organism. Due to these same characteristics, human being is able to manipulate natural events and to employ them in the service of its own progress and perfection. Bestowing such privileges upon human beings is a Divine veneration, as mentioned in the Qur’an.
3. Human being on a crossroad (between two infinites): Powers and potentialities, which the Almighty Allah has bestowed upon humankind, are one’s genetic and innate assets for moving forward towards the final goal. Nevertheless, putting these divine resources to work depends on one’s own will, choice, decision, and selection. One can take advantage of these bounties to travel the path to the actual perfection and obtain eternal beatitude, as one can also abuse them and hence, journey toward slump and baseness so much so one becomes less worthy than animals, and buys eternal misery for oneself. Therefore, the human route can be mapped between two infinities, one ascending to infinite perfection and beatitude, and the other crashing into infinite wretchedness and anguish.4 So the ultimate human value and dignity is contingent upon choosing piety5, and hence, not all people would possess absolute and equal value, but rather believers and committed people who act properly, have positive value, and disbelievers who commit improper deeds gain negative value, each of whom have multilevel ranking6.
4. The aim of the creation of humankind (Ultimate perfection): Humankind is created with unique qualities in order to travel the path to perfection with free will and conscious choice7, to be worthy of receiving specific blessings bestowed upon one as a result of one’s discretional move, and to reach the position of proximity to God, accompanied by perpetual beatitude. And since such a journey must be done at one’s discretion, there must be an opposite alternative path culminating in permanent misery and punishment.8
5. Temporal world as a prelude to the hereafter: Considering the aim of human creation, it becomes evident that one’s life in this world is a limited and preparatory transience for self-realization, progress, and the objectification of potentialities. The stable and eternal result of this life appears in the hereafter. If people choose, in this world, the direction of perfection, they will reside in the edifice of everlasting bounty and mercy, and if they choose the opposite, they will go to the place of interminable torment and decay. According to the Qur’an, this world is ‘the stage of trial’, so that the righteous are differentiated from the transgressors, and in the hereafter, all will meet what they deserve.
6. General means of movement: Human ascent towards the summits of perfection and beatitude, or one’s descent into the canyons of decay and destruction are the results of one’s actions and behavior, whether internal (such as remembering God) or external. The most one acts freely and consciously, the most effective they will become upon one’s destiny by accelerating the movement. Such behaviors notwithstanding, no ethical good or evil exists, and hence no reward or punishment is deserved.
7. Conditions for volitional movement: Crystallizing one’s ascending or descending movement, human volitional behaviors stem from one’s instinctive and natural tendencies. Giving direction to such actions depends on knowing specific facts, believing in certain realities, and adopting special values. Moreover, human external actions are contingent upon natural and social possibilities and the availability of outward conditions too.
8. The bare minimum in effective choice: Human primary behaviors (such as those in the age of infancy) stem from innate inclinations, information gathered through simple experiments, and the use of material conditions which are provided without one’s volition. This kind of behaviors though not totally devoid of some sort of decision and choice has no final effect on one’s eternal beatitude or misery because they lack sufficient freedom and awareness. Gradually, behaviors become more complex, and fanning the flames of desires, acquiring knowledge and insights, and bringing about exterior means and conditions are more or less included in the domain of one’s volition and choice. These conditions, therefore, pave the way for taking long and decisive steps, which comes about when a person achieves one’s necessary cognitive development (the age of puberty and duty). At this point, the minimum necessary condition for conscious choice effectual in perpetual beatitude and misery is attained, and an individual becomes subject to serious responsibilities.
9. The relation of individual differences with responsibilities: Human individuals are not on a par regarding their God-given possessions (both physical abilities and psychological capabilities), as they vary in enjoying natural and social bounties as well as means for external activities. Such differences are the results of the cause-effect system that governs the world, and follows the wisely Divine plan. The quantity and quality of responsibilities, and the vastness or narrowness of the scope for ascension or descension differs respectively. The general law is that everyone is responsible before God who has bestowed these bounties upon him/her within the limits of one’s capacity and capability, and according to the scope of one’s available choices and alternatives. Therefore, the extent of one’s possible progress and perfection and the degree of one’s potential relapse and regress would be symmetrical and proportionate.
10. The effect of education (the role of teacher and educator): Human beings have the opportunity to receive help from others in acquiring knowledge, learning values, and actualizing their potentialities in general, as well as correcting their mistakes and misdeeds. Thereof, the important role of teachers and educators become evident, because they are the ones who can broaden the range of one’s knowledge and reasoning by teaching worthy knowledge and providing useful information, and are able to assist their audience in choosing the right option, controlling their selfish desires, achieving moral virtues such as self-devotion and sacrifice, and in sum, to give them a hand to worship God. In this way, they grow to be precious means for applying the Divine goal in creating human beings, as well as taking long steps in the direction of their own perfection.
11. The inevitability of social life and its requisites: People need to cooperate and coexist with their fellow human beings in order to be able to continue their living, meet their life needs, and fight various threats. Social life, on its turn, rests on the division of labor, just distribution of benefits and products, laws and rulings, and an executing system for their implementation. Without such mechanisms, social life will be crippled by anarchy, and people are deprived of resources necessary for their journey toward perfection. On the other hand, the isolation of individuals makes their life miserable, or even impossible, as it leaves society without their cooperation, and both the consequences are against the expediency and rationale of the creation of humankind. Moreover, it is basically in the context of a social life that various efforts and conflicts become possible, and ordeals and decisions in different dimensions are given a chance.
12. Social responsibilities: Since the path an individual travels during one’s life is bilateral, and its direction depends upon the decision and choice made by the individual or community, there are always people who not only take steps against their own expediencies, toward misery and self-destruction, but also obstruct and hinder others from progress. They initiate various forms of injustices and aggressions, and if there is no effectual endeavor aiming at guiding the misled, eliminating the mischief of aggressors, and standing up for the disadvantaged and victims, before long, aggression and misdeed will dominate the world, and there will remain no opportunity for philanthropists and those who are apt to advance towards perfection. As a consequence, different sorts of social responsibilities are respectively determined for individuals, groups, and official departments of the government.
The Practical Principles of Education in Islam
Based on the aforementioned foundations, one can conclude some general points for the quality of education, we call them here, ‘the practical principles of education’, and they are as follow:
1. An accurate appraisal of the material and spiritual needs: The content of education should be arranged in a way that the instructed recognize the essentiality of the psychological and spiritual dimension of human being, and regards material necessities as means (and not ends) At the same time, one has to avoid extremism in ascetic advices which may terminate in bodily harms, or even sometimes psychological abnormalities; one should not forget observing sanity principles, physical education, and rationally calculated recreation.
2. Provoking the sense of self-esteem and self-respect: An educator should stimulate a sense of self-esteem and self-respect due to the unique position of human being amongst creatures, and exceptional bounties the Almighty God has bestowed upon humankind whether physical and psychological, or external and social as well as the dominance He has given to people over nature. A teacher, therefore, should make students cognizant of the fact that engaging in base actions is tantamount to soiling the jewel of humanity, and following selfish desires equals the enslavement and abatement of one’s intellect and heavenly spirit. On the other hand, because bodily organs and psychic forces are trusts of God, the same as the external bounties; therefore, one’s encounter with, and employment of, them has to be in accordance with the consent of their real owner, i.e. the Almighty God, so that His trust is not breached. A teacher and educator should also consider students as trusts of God, entrusted to him/her in order to be taught the best material by the best method and to be trained in the best manner.
3. Struggle against oblivion: As humankind is constantly on a crossing, one leading to infinite advancement and the other to infinite relapse, the instructed should always be made attentive to the significance of his/her situation, so that one is not conceited by the prime blessings of God and the temporal bounties. Such awareness prevents one both from being confused like some humanists who assume these privileges a reason for eternal pride, and from passing one’s time and entire life with negligence and vanity. Educators should also take advantage of the innate instincts of seeking self-interest and self-perfection, and avoiding harms in the process of speeding up one’s move toward perfection, as it is apparent in the teachings of the Holy Qur’an and the tradition of the infallibles (may God’s peace be upon them).
4. Vivifying God’s remembrance: Taking the goal of human creation, i.e. attaining God’s proximity, into consideration, one has to vivify the remembrance of God in the heart of the instructed, so that the student is provided with spiritual peace and serenity, as well as a direction-finder to determine and/or correct one’s itinerary. This also can serve one to enhance one’s actions by injecting into it a divine motivation.
5. Exchange of finite with the infinite: Considering the fact that the temporal life is a prelude to the hereafter, one should conclude two significant results: first, does not think of temporal pleasures and sufferings as cardinal; neither enamored with its joys, nor fear its pains. Secondly, one has to recognize the true value of every moment of one’s life, because by spending them in doing what God desires, one can attain eternal beatitude, as exhausting them in ways antagonist to values will lead to eternal misery. Therefore, every moment of life is priceless, not comparable to the value of tons of gold and diamond.
6. Fighting dependency: Since one’s perfection and eternal beatitude is solely determined by one’s own willful activity, and even liability for intercession (Shafa’at) should also be acquired through proper deeds, so the educator must revive the spirit of self-reliance and independence, reinforce a sense of responsibility and conscience, and struggle against encumberment, subjection, and subordination to others, and remind the instructed this point in all behaviors and encounters (i.e. in writing homework, etc.).
7. Attentiveness toward freedom in action: Considering the role of ‘free choice’ in the human motion toward perfection, the instructed should be given the opportunity for freedom in action, instead of pushing him/her into passivity. An educator has to avoid making an imposition and infliction out of instructions and tutorials; instead, in cases that the expedience of the student necessitates an intervention by the educator, one has to be careful to do the job indirectly, so that the learner does not feel much pressure and limitation. For this reason, obligations should, as far as possible, accompany logical arguments and does not exceed the boundaries of guidance.
8. Observing the principle of graduality: Taking the graduality of human progress and perfection, whether natural or acquired, into account, a teacher and educator should always be mindful about what the students’ age and natural/social factors necessitate. Accordingly, one has to try to elevate the instructed gradually and step by step, without expecting swift and sudden jumps, as he/she must take intelligent measures to prevent them from excessive academic or self-control activities which might result in physical ailment or spiritual disorder.
9. Flexibility and equilibrium: Because of individual and group differences, necessary and rational flexibility should be observed in both programming curriculum and its enforcement. One has to also avoid insistence on rigid and monotonous schedules and those that does not make distinctions between different students, culminating in breaching their rights, and the frustration of most of them. Therefore, one has to take account of equilibrium as a principle.
10. Giving priority to what is more important: Educators/teachers play a significant role in growing young students and cultivating their potentialities. Bearing this in mind, they have to carefully take the expedience of each and every learner into account, as well as what is suitable for the whole of the Islamic society and the human society in general. Both curriculum planners and educators should steer clear of programs and courses that waste time and squander life, or record low compared to superior goals. They should pay more attention to issues more effective regarding human eternal wellbeing (e.g. Islamic beliefs and ethics), and teach them more suitably and more appealingly, and try to set themselves as good role models for the behavior of their students.
11. Natural and social knowledge: Social life is inevitable and has its requirements and obligations. On the other hand, material enjoyment is necessary for providing individual and social needs, and for sustaining the dignity and honor of the Islamic society. These facts reveal the necessity of introducing natural, mathematical, and social sciences to a curriculum, by delineating general and specialized syllabi, carefully taking into consideration students’ age and mental requirements as well as society’s needs and possibilities. It is worth mentioning that in all cases, the main goal, namely, proximity to the Almighty God has to be given special attention and vehemence. A pedagogue should never lose any opportunity for reviving divine motivations and transcendent values, and for removing negligence and fighting egoism. In other words, all goals are to be dealt with as introductions to the ultimate end.
12. Reinforcing a sense of responsibility toward social expediency: The variety of social duties requires the educational system to be directed toward solidarity and altruism. Strengthening such virtues as cooperation, mutual aid, self-sacrifice, disinterestedness, benevolence, and seeking justice; and fighting vigorously such vices as selfishness, and indifference towards social expediencies should be high on the agenda of both those planning curricula and teachers/educators in treating students. Special emphasis has to be put on cultivating in the instructed such morale as chivalry, combating injustice, struggling corruption, taking jihad against tyrants, and supporting the oppressed and the deprived. In this way, qualified and efficient people are trained for building an ideal society who can play their roles in actualizing the divine goals on earth.[mesbahyazdi.org]
THE END
-
Friday, 27 February 2009
Worldview
-
“Importance of the Problems of World View"
By: Ayatollah Mohammed Taqi Misbah Yazdi
CONTENTS:
Introduction
Chapter 1: The Fundamental Problems of World-View
Chapter 2: Evaluating the Fundamental problems
Chapter 3: Spiritual Philosophy and Scientific Truths
Chapter 4: Philosophy and Science
Chapter 5: Scientific Philosophy
Chapter 6: Metaphysics
Introduction
Every activity engaged in by man, whether on the level of individual or social life, is undoubtedly a result of particular psychological drives and inclinations, and is fashioned with the aid of sense perception and bodily skills and powers under different temporal and spaceial conditions. For example, man is driven to eat and drink by his instinct to nourish himself, and is motivated to help the weak and the needy because of his emotions of sympathy for other human beings. Then, by using his sense organs, he identifies the desired foods or identifies the weak and needy to be assisted, and carries out the desired tasks through the use of his bodily faculties.
The above-mentioned activities could be said to possess the specific "human" characteristic when they are guided by his reason, in addition to his instinctive and emotional drives, which man shares with other animals. That is, the eating of food and the drinking of water should be done with the aim of maintaining one's health and strength, and the emotions and instincts must be satisfied within the framework of some rational principles and under the guidance of reason. In many cases, however, reason is overwhelmed by emotion and instinct, and is unable to perform an effective role. When this happens, the activity is considered devoid of any human value.
The practical guidance provided by reason is itself controlled by the general notions and ideas, which constitute the fundamental basis of man's existence as an intelligent being. For example, the belief in the necessity of maintaining one's health, or the urge to make sacrifices for the sake of a higher aim, is based on particular conceptions of the individual and society. It is these general conceptions and basic patterns of thinking that play the major role in giving shape and direction to man's efforts and struggles, and either make them meaningful and worthwhile in the human sense or deprive them of human meaning and worth. These basic patterns of thought are termed as `world-view'. It is on account of the differences in world-view that fundamental divergence in personal behaviour and social outlook takes place.
Just as the guidance provided by reason on practical matters is ignored in acts lacking in the `human' character, when it loses all its effective force, so also the theoretical decrees of reason are not always given the attention they require. Many people never think of the `why' of their actions, and do not build their lives on the basis of well thoughtout ideas. Such people either content themselves with imitating others, or are simply indifferent to fundamental questions, although perceptive observers find their behaviour to conform to a particular type of world-view. For example, the conduct of an individual who thinks of nothing other than enjoyment of transitory pleasures and pursuit of selfish interest is consistent with an individualistic and materialistic world-view, even if he has not accepted materialism consciously as a reasoned philosophical viewpoint.
Therefore, our efforts and activities are `human' and `reasonable' when, firstly, they are performed not merely under the influence of animal instinct but on the basis of understanding and under the guidance of reason; secondly, when they are based on a logical and coherent system of thought and a correct world-view, not on raw adopted notions, or on an illogical and incorrect world-view.
In view of the above-mentioned principle, the necessity for the selection of a reasonable world-view capable of lending itself to rational justification is clear. Moreover, the existence of strong and conflicting currents in the realm of thought and belief, and the vulnerability of indefensible beliefs clearly indicates the need for learning logical arguments which confirm the chosen world-view and the necessity of acquiring the capacity to defend it.
Chapter 1:
The Fundamental Problems of World-View
The world evidently consists of various kinds of phenomena, the study of whose characteristics has given birth to specialized fields of science. Moreover, despite the expansion in different spheres of knowledge and the vast number of wonderful and valuable discoveries made in various disciplines, there still remain, in our immediate surroundings and on this very planet, many things unknown, the effort to solve whose mystery has occupied our inquisitive scientists.
However, as already mentioned, man has always been confronted with a series of fundamental questions. The need to find correct and convincing answers to such questions is a pressing demand of his innermost nature. Furthermore, since these problems concern matters outside the realm of the senses and empirical experience, their solution cannot be expected from the experimental sciences and must be provided by reason and logic alone.
It so happens that the correct solution of the aforementioned problems is of fundamental importance in giving meaning and value to human existence, and directing man's voluntary activities into proper channels. The opposite of this is also true, in that giving wrong answers to these questions makes life empty, meaningless, and devoid of worthwhile goals, dragging man into the abyss of irreparable loss. Nor can man afford to ignore these fundamental questions, since by doing so he would, in addition to having to endure the pain of doubt, perplexity, and anxiety, deprive himself of the opportunity of attaining the ultimate aim of creation: perfection and everlasting felicity.
One of those fundamental questions which man must answer is whether the phenomena we encounter in our world owe their existence solely to material actions and reactions, without any participation or intervention of a nonmaterial power. Is there no nonmaterial power involved either in the emergence of the phenomena or in the existence of matter itself? Or, to put it another way, does matter constitute the totality of being, or does it constitute only a part of existence and relies on something beyond itself for its being?
The above question, which itself can be analysed into a number of other questions, is not limited to the properties and characteristics of any particular group of physical creatures, so that it may be answerable by some specific science through its own particular method. It is, on the contrary, a philosophical question, which must be studied by reason through intellectual speculation and analysis, even though the starting point for such speculation is empirical knowledge in its widest sense, which includes inner and direct experience as well.
The answer to the above question, whether in the positive or the negative, constitutes a part of one's world-view, plays an important role in forming a basic aspect of a person's intellectual approach which may be called "ontology".
Another basic question is whether the life of each individual human being is limited to the few years he lives in this world, or whether there is another life for him after he passes away, much longer and probably even an everlasting one. And this question in turn raises another one: Does man, beside possessing a physical body, also possess a soul which can continue to live after the death of the body or not? Then, there is the last question, which is also related to the first ontological question, whether being is equivalent to material existence or is wider than that.
The solution to the above-mentioned problem also, whatever it may be, constitutes another aspect of an individual's world-view, which may be called here `anthropology'.
And finally, the third fundamental issue to be settled before turning one's attention to the details and selecting a particular course for one's life is: What is the most certain way of knowing the best programme for individual and social life? Is there any fool-proof way beside the usual ways commonly adopted by most people which so often lead to contradictory results, which would guarantee the certainty of results?
The importance of the last question becomes more evident when the answer to the second question is in the affirmative; that is, when we conclude that man is immortal and that one must prepare beforehand for the felicity of afterlife through conscious effort during the limited period of this life. When such a belief is accepted, the need for a sure way of determining the relationship between the two lives, and an elaborate plan that would guarantee everlasting felicity becomes clearer. And the more the importance ascribed to the everlasting life, the greater is the significance of the path leading to felicity in it. This issue may therefore be called the problem of "methodology." Accordingly, the fundamental problems of world-view are: ontology, anthropology, and methodology.
Chapter 2:
Evaluating the Fundamental problems
The solution of the aforementioned fundamental problems is of foremost importance, because it plays a basic role in shaping and giving direction to man's personal and social life, and, logically, should be taken up before any other issue. Also, it is of special significance because it involves unlimited gain and loss. In other words, if the answer to the fundamental questions raised is in the affirmative, the possibility is opened up for man of deriving infinite benefit from his life.
If it is proved that being is not coextensive with matter, and that the world has a supreme Creator who is the Maker, Sustainer, and Nourisher of all things, and possesses infinite power, knowledge, and mercy, and if it is proved that man's life is not limited to this short, worldly existence, but that it is followed by an everlasting life accompanied either by felicity or misery, and that our life in this world is a preliminary stage in which we determine the course of our life in the Hereafter through our voluntary actions, and if it is proved that there is a guaranteed method for obtaining the knowledge of a correct life-programme that can take care of our felicity in both the lives, and that this method has been communicated by the Almighty God through His chosen messengers to mankind in general, it will have a tremendous impact on man's life. In fact, the value given to the vital human activities by such a view of reality is incomparably greater than the combined worth of all the advancements made by science and the discoveries and inventions made by man. This is so because however great the value of these inventions and discoveries may be, it is still finite and limited, while the value of this view is unlimited since it makes it possible for man to attain unlimited and everlasting felicity. And it is obvious that the unlimited cannot be compared with the limited.
The objection may be raised here that the probability of the fundamental questions being answered positively is so small that it is not worth considering. It should be kept in mind, however, that however small this probability may be (1/n), it would still retain its positive value since its multiple is infinity; (infinity x n = infinity). To put it in the language of economics, the `expected value' of any investment depends on two factors: (1) the percentage of probability of success, and (2) the estimated amount of the profit. It is the product of these two that determines the `expected value.' For example, if we want to see which of two business ventures is more profitable for investment, it is not enough to take into account the percentage of probability of each one alone. We should also consider the estimated amount of profit each venture is likely to yield. Thus, if the percentage of the probability of success in the first venture is 10%, while that of the second venture is 20%, but if the amount of the profit the first venture is likely to yield is ten times that of the second venture, then we must conclude that the expected profit in the first venture is five times greater than that in the second one, despite the fact that the probability of success in the first venture is half of that of the second one. This is so because the product of the two multiples in the first case (0.1 x 10 = 1) is five times greater than that in the second case (0.2 x 1 = 0.2).
The conclusion that may be drawn from the above example is that it is highly preferable to handle problems whose solution promises unlimited benefit, even if our chances of solving them be very small. Furthermore, the value of insight into such problems cannot be compared to that of any other science, even if the results produced by these sciences be one hundred per cent certain and reliable. Thus, indifference to the various aspects of one's world-view and negligence of its fundamental problems is not a reasonable and rationally justifiable attitude. Answering these fundamental questions in the negative without any sufficient evidence is even more unjustifiable.
SECTION: The Spiritual and Materialist Philosophies
Although the fundamental questions facing man have been answered in different ways and the differences in these answers have created various philosophies and schools of thought, yet by taking into account the positive and negative answers, we can distinguish and divide the various philosophies into the two general categories of materialist and spiritual. Islam is a perfect example of the spiritual schools of thought, whereas the most prominent contemporary example of the materialist schools is Marxism.
The tenets of the Islamic world-view are none other than the well-known threefold doctrines of the faith. These are: the belief in the One true God; the belief in resurrection on the Day of Judgement; the belief in what God has revealed to His Messengers, (in arabic: tawheed, maad, nabowa). In other words, Islam answers in the affirmative to each of the fundamental questions, and considers faith in them to be the real basis of man's happiness and felicity. It undertakes the solution of life's all other problems by relying on these three basic doctrines. In fact, it considers all solutions as the branches of a tree whose roots are these three principal beliefs. On the contrary, the materialist philosophies deny the existence of anything nonmaterial, do not believe that man has any life except this brief earthly existence, and deny the assurance held out by revelation.
Although the fundamental doctrines of the Islamic faith have been expounded and proven throughout the past centuries and on various levels, and there does not remain any doubt or uncertainty about any of them, this does not affect the basic fact that the contemporary strength of any set of beliefs hinges on two sorts of studies: one devoted to proving the validity of those beliefs, and the second, devoted to refuting contrary viewpoints. In other words, a double insight is necessary. In the case of Islam, unless the points of disagreement with other ideologies are identified, the areas that are made the targets of the opponents' criticisms and attacks are pinpointed, and a proper defence consisting of clear and logical answers is provided to the common Muslim individual, we cannot be sure of the stability of the faith on the level of the general public, and be certain of the people's steadfastness in the face of the waves of challenging ideologies. Moreover, just as in the past ideological and theological books were written in accordance with the intellectual challenges of the times and with the aim of answering their prevailing doubts, so must the ideological discussions of today be formulated in accordance with the philosophies and schools of thought now current, and with the aim of repelling their ideological attacks.
What makes defensive discussions specially essential today is that materialist philosophies are not being set forth for the mere purpose of proposing solutions to the fundamental theoretical questions, but are, in fact, being propagated in order to serve the political interests of the superpowers who consider exploitation of the emotions of the world's hardworking and simple people as the best means of attaining their colonialist aims. Thus in order to disarm the people of their deep-rooted, liberating spiritual world-view, they have taken recourse in a philosophy tuned to the shallow understanding of the majority of workers and farmers. At the same time, they have tried to adorn materialism, which is one of the most reactionary and baseless of the ancient dogmas, with scientific embellishments, and pretend that it is a modern and "scientific" philosophy. Nor have they spared the use of all sorts of sophistry, paralogism, and misrepresentation to achieve this end.
The truth of the matter is that the superpowers have used materialism, which is based on empiricism, as a means of attracting the uneducated masses and as an excuse for sanctioning their propensities for improper and unethical conduct. In order to deceive the educated classes, they have borrowed some of the postulates of the experimental sciences and incorporated them into materialism. Moreover, to make sure that the probable rejection of these postulates does not destroy the foundations of their philosophy, they have taken refuge in "dialectical logic," presenting all truths to be relative and variable, so that scientific progress not only would not invalidate their doctrines, but would, on the contrary, appear to support them.
We may maintain, therefore, that defending the positions of Islamic ideology, clarifying any of its ambiguities which may lend themselves to misrepresentation, and exposing all those who have made spiritual philosophy the target of unfair and dishonest accusations, is not only an authentic philosophical and intellectual duty and a divinely ordained obligation in regard to guiding the Muslims and strengthening the foundations of their faith, but is also an Islamic social responsibility in regard to defending Islam and the existence of the Muslim countries, which have become targets of ideological, political, and colonialist attacks by the communist block.
It must be pointed out here that by emphasizing the necessity for `double insight' and `two-faceted defence' we do not mean to say that such insight and understanding is the `sufficient cause' for creating faith and inclination towards the right path, or that the only reason for being drawn towards atheism and other devious paths is ignorance about correct, logical, and convincing answers to criticisms. Our purpose is simply to indicate the importance of defensive arguments alongside the affirmative ones, and to emphasize that these two activities are some of the necessary conditions for creating a stable faith, though are not the sufficient condition for it. There are other conditions necessary for the stability of faith, specially in regard to the masses of people, the most important of which is spiritual readiness and freedom from moral corruption. Just as hedonism and moral irregularities may be caused by belief in materialism, belief in materialist philosophies may also be occasioned by strong attachment to bodily pleasures and moral corruption; since one's love of pleasures and lusts may lead him, unconsciously, to search for and be attracted by philosophies which promote and sanction such conduct, and to avoid all schools of thought which teach abstinence from such endless pursuit of carnal pleasures.
It is, therefore, necessary that the real seeker after truth should cleanse himself of all moral impurities and all selfish and carnal desires, and, relying on nothing except logic and reason for guidance, liberate himself from the bondage of blind imitation of individuals, groups, or nations, simply because they possess some kind of social, political or technical superiority.
Chapter 3
Spiritual Philosophy and Scientific Truths
A glance at the fundamental philosophical questions, to which spiritual and materialist philosophies give contradictory answers, clearly shows that the areas of contention between the two opposing points of view have nothing to do with experimental matters. Whatever the solutions found to scientific problems, they would not in any way affect the way these philosophical questions are answered. For example, accepting or rejecting Euclid's theory of space, holding to the view that mass is absolute or relative, or the validity or invalidity of the theory of mutation in biology, and other conflicting theories in the various sciences-none of these tell us anything about whether the divine or the materialistic philosophies are true; since the subject of discussion in philosophy is not the same as that of the experimental sciences, and the methods of investigation used in the two fields are completely different from each other.
It is wrong to imagine, therefore, that it is materialistic philosophy alone that accepts scientific facts and affirms the validity of the laws governing the transformations and interactions of physical phenomena, while spiritual philosophy denies them and sets forth the theory of creation in their place. The materialists hold that belief in the theory of creation finds its genesis, in the distant past, in man's ignorance of the physical causes of phenomena. Therefore, now, when due to the advances in the experimental sciences, the system of physical causation has been fully discovered, there is no room left for such notions as that of creation or the dependence of phenomena on the will of the Creator .
We know, however, that the dispute between the spiritual and the materialist points of view is not about affirming or denying the relationship between various phenomena, the nature of such relationships, or the laws which govern nature. What the dispute is about is whether the material world, with all the relationships existing between its various parts, be they known or as yet undiscovered by us, depends on a Being which transcends matter or not.
It is obvious that if such a dependence does exist, it would not be of the sort that exists between material bodies, and, therefore, cannot be studied by experimental methods; because just as the nonmaterial Being (if it exists) cannot be known through sense experience, the dependence of material phenomenon on it, also, cannot be studied through laboratory instruments. In order to make this point even clearer, we must briefly discuss philosophy and the experimental sciences, the fundamental differences between the problems with which they deal, and the methodologies which they employ.
Chapter 4
Philosophy and Science
By the way of an introduction we would like to remind the readers that there are many words which have a number of meanings. At times one of them has a wider and more general signification than the others. Sometimes the use of such words may lead to misunderstanding, and it is necessary to make sure that one understands the exact sense in which a word is being used. In philosophy, there are a number of such terms; for example, `potentiality,' `possibility,' `soul,' `reason,' and so on.
Among the terms that share common significations are the words `philosophy' and `science.' In the past the word philosophy (literally. `the love of wisdom') was applied to all branches of knowledge, including the natural sciences, mathematics, divinities, ethics, and politics. Every branch of knowledge had a special methodology of its own, although sometimes it happened that inappropriate methods were used; for example, a problem belonging to the natural sciences was investigated through a purely rationalist approach, whereas it should have been studied through the experimental method.
In the Middle Ages other branches of learning were added to the aforementioned list, until it came to include almost all the thinking of that age.
After the Renaissance, and specially from the seventeenth century onward, those sciences whose method of enquiry was experimental, gradually separated from philosophy, and the term eventually came to be applied exclusively to that branch of learning the problems of which lay outside the realm of experiment and could be solved only through a purely rational, theoretical method. This branch of learning is called "metaphysics" or "the first philosophy". The term "philosophy" is also used to refer to the process of explaining the basic principles necessary for investigating the problems of a particular science, such as the philosophy of science and the philosophy of ethics.
The word "science," which literally means "knowledge," is technically used to mean systematized knowledge of problems dealing with a particular subject. According to this definition, the term "science" could also be applied to metaphysics. In recent centuries, however, the usage of the term has become more limited, and has come to refer to the experimental sciences alone, in opposition to philosophy.
According to the latter definition, philosophy and science each possesses its own distinct subject matter and methodology. That is, philosophy's subject of study consists of the general problems of existence, which are in the main part abstract and are also called, "secondary concepts," and its method is rational and theoretical. Science, on the other hand, is concerned with the study of the accidental properties of particular objects the existence of which is taken for granted; its method is experimental. For example, physics deals with matter and energy and their interactions in the fields of mechanics, acoustics, optics, heat, electricity, magnetism, radiation, atomic structure, and nuclear phenomena; chemistry studies the composition, structure, and properties of substances and the transformations they undergo. Physiology investigates the organic processes and phenomena of living organisms, while psychology discusses mental conditions and characteristics. However, none of these sciences has anything to say about the essential nature of the subject it studies or the fundamental principles underlying its methodology. In other words, neither physics and chemistry express any opinions about the existence of matter, nor physiology and psychology discuss the reality of life and the soul. Nor does any of these sciences examine the principle of causality and its subordinate laws.
What philosophy concerns itself with are general abstract questions such as: cause and effect, permanence and change, the material and the abstract, the contingent and the necessary, etc. And since these issues are not directly connected with sense perception, the problems related to them cannot be settled empirically. The key to their solution must be found in rational investigation and analysis. The way these rational investigations are carried out and the value of their findings constitute the subject matter of an important part of modern philosophy known as "epistemology." It follows then that we cannot expect scientific progress to help us in resolving philosophical disputes, and science to act as a referee in the quarrel between spiritual and materialist philosophies.
Unfortunately, there have been numerous attempts in the history of science and philosophy to invoke scientific laws or theories for help in the solution of philosophical problems, or to tip the scale in favour of a particular metaphysical position. On the contrary, others have sought refuge in the philosophical mode of reasoning and the rational method to help them solve a scientific problem. This, despite the fact that such intrusions are dangerous for both philosophy and science, and keep them from following the paths appropriate to their fields of study and solution of their problems through the use of methods prescribed by the nature of those problems.
As an example of such unjustified intrusion, we can mention the sort of argument some modern physicists have used to "prove" the existence of necessity in the relationship between cause and effect (determinism) by referring to findings in the field of macro-physics, while other physicists have pointed to certain phenomena observed in micro-physics as evidence that no such necessity exists. There is yet a third group that has endeavoured to reconcile the two positions by proposing that determinism is valid in the case of macro-physical phenomena and invalid in the case of micro-physical ones. All this while any philosopher knows that the law of causation is a general philosophical and metaphysical law which is, according to the definitive judgement of reason, fixed and unchanging.
What we must do is to search in nature for cases which would verify the law of causation through experimental investigations. What we definitely shouldn't do is to consider the discovery of a few examples of its applicability as a proof of its validity, or the inability to apply it in few cases as evidence of either its invalidity or lack of generality; since such failure is definitely a result of the inadequacy of our instruments. In fact, it is the self-evident principle of causality that has moved scientists to seek the causes of phenomena and to discover the laws and secrets of nature. To attempt, therefore, to prove this metaphysical principle through reference to physical phenomena and the discoveries of the experimental sciences is like trying to play the flute by blowing through its wrong end.
It should not go unsaid, however, that philosophy and science are related to each other in a number of ways, the most important of which is that philosophy proves the existence of the subject matter and the validity of the fundamental principles of the sciences, while the sciences provide a widening background for philosophical inquiry. In any case, there should be no mixing of either their problems or methods and no expecting of solutions to scientific problems from philosophy or of philosophical problems from science.
Chapter 5
Scientific Philosophy
Admitting the existence of problems that must be investigated on a philosophical plane, Marxism has tried to pretend that these problems can be solved by using the discoveries made by the experimental sciences. The way Marxist writers go about doing this is that they first give an example from nature, and follow it with an example drawn from social or historical phenomena. Their third step is to draw a general conclusion by forcing a connection between these two examples, thereby, in their own imagination, proving the philosophical principle in question. Supposedly, the whole exercise authorizes them to call their philosophy as "scientific" and as based on discoveries made by the experimental sciences. Although this procedure may have some effect on those who are unfamiliar with philosophical problems and scientific methodology and are, therefore, unable to distinguish the weak points and fallacies hidden in this line of reasoning, it has no philosophical value and is considered a form of sophistry and public fraud by those who are knowledgeable in such matters.
We do not deny that there has been a fragmentation in the sciences caused by the extensive specialization of the various fields, and there is, therefore, a need for synthesizing the results of their investigations and bridging the gaps separating the numerous fields of science. Nor do we have any objection to such an endeavour's being called "scientific philosophy," since there is no ethical or legal injunction against coining new terms and names. What we do object to, however, is the abuse of terms and covering up of facts under misleading labels. This, we believe, is reprehensible and must be fought against.
It should be kept in mind that Marxist writers have not created their so-called "scientific philosophy" in order to serve the world of science and scholarship, by making a synthesis of the results of the investigations of the different sciences, and by connecting the endeavours of the diverse fields with one another. Far from such altruistic aims, their real motivation is to provide a justification for their baseless ideology and a philosophical foundation for their immature and inconsistent ideas. Moreover, even though the very notion of relying on scientific findings for finding solutions to metaphysical problems is incorrect and unfruitful, and as it has been stated before, philosophical issues cannot be settled in such a manner; the Marxists are not even loyal to this misguided approach, since they ignore many irrefutable scientific facts, and rely, instead, on weak and unproven theories lacking any scientific value whatsoever. And when the fallacy of these theories is proven, instead of learning a lesson from all the wasted effort and recognizing the futility of their approach, or having recognized it, admitting it, they move on with undaunted courage to grasp at another theory, and through peculiar intellectual acrobatics at which they are so adept, set it forth as further proof of the validity of dialectical materialism.
We shall leave an examination of the fumblings and public deceptions of the Marxists to some future occasion and simply state the fact that the notion of a "scientific philosophy"-in the sense of a philosophy that attempts to solve philosophical problems through the application of the methodology of the experimental sciences with reliance on scientific discoveries alone-is an anomaly unacceptable to any competent thinker. And the adjective "scientific" for philosophy not only does not add anything to its worth, since it ascribes to it a characteristic inappropriate to philosophy, but it simply exposes the bankruptcy of its originators which proves that they were unable to distinguish the boundaries separating science from philosophy and the correct method of tackling philosophical problems. It seems that our Marxist wizards justify this blatant contradiction as an example of "dialectical contradiction," and set it forth as a highly advanced philosophical phenomenon to the credulous devotees of "dialectics."
Another point to be noted here is that just as ascribing the term "scientific" to discussions of philosophical issues is caused either by ignorance, or intentions to deceive the public, to denigrate and condemn them as "unscientific" is also a form of distortion and abuse of the prestige of the word "scientific". And just as being characterized as "scientific" adds nothing to the value of metaphysical investigations, their being labelled as "unscientific" does nothing to bring down their value either. Since, as we mentioned before, being "scientific" means that a subject must lend itself to empirical verification, whereas the quality that purely theoretical problems transcend the realm of sense experience is essential to them, and is not a shortcoming or defect on their part. In other words, just because something is outside the realm of sense experience and cannot be proved through experimental methods, it does not mean that it is worthless or unverifiable. It means, rather, that it should be analysed with the help of the rational method and by the means of the self-evident axioms -of reason. Moreover, as shall be demonstrated later, scientific problems themselves are in need of metaphysical and rational principles.
Chapter 6
Metaphysics
We said earlier that the word "philosophy" has a number of meanings one of which is synonymous with "metaphysics". It should be kept in mind, however, that the word "metaphysics" itself has various meanings-a fact that may give rise to confusion and misunderstanding.
Derived from the Greek term meta physika, [literally, the (works) after the physical (works)], metaphysics is the name given to that part of philosophy which concerns itself with the general principles of existence, and it appears that the ancient philosophers dealt with this subject after the section dealing with the natural sciences (physics) as a matter of didactic convenience. Thus it came to be called "after physics." As we said earlier, when all the other fields of learning separated from philosophy, what was left behind was metaphysics.
Since metaphysics deals with nonmaterial existence, a misunderstanding has arisen that metaphysics deals with supernatural phenomenon, and this misunderstanding has in turn caused spiritual philosophies to be branded as "metaphysical." The fact of the matter is that metaphysical considerations are not limited to theistic philosophies; the materialist schools are in as much need of metaphysics as others. This is the case because anyone who wishes to discuss the general and fundamental principles of existence-principles which do not fall within the exclusive domain of any particular science-must enter the realm of metaphysics, irrespective of the sort of conclusions he might reach. For example, a discussion of the principle of causality is a philosophical and metaphysical one, and although it is considered to be an axiom and used as such by all the experimental sciences, they cannot investigate it through the use of the scientific method and prove its validity. This is so even though their investigations are based upon it, and the formulation of universal scientific laws is possible only because of the law of causation. Even if someone wants to reject the principle of causality or any of its subordinate laws, he would still have to engage in a metaphysical discussion, and as they say, "philosophy can be refuted only through philosophy."
Recently an English philosopher, Robin George Collingwood, has written a treatise on metaphysics in which he has described it as a series of pre-suppositions, which can neither be proved nor disproved. He says that these presuppositions are accepted unconsciously under certain conditions and rejected under a different set of conditions.'
Collingwood's treatise is a jumble of confused ideas, a product, according to one commentator of his works, of his days of illness. It represents a subjective statement or hypothesis devoid of any philosophical value, and cannot be counted as an inquiry into the nature of metaphysics.
Considering what has been said above, it becomes clear that issues of importance in the First Philosophy are also relevant to the physical sciences, and whatever general issues fall outside the framework of science, would be considered as metaphysical. Moreover, even if the doctrine of dialectical materialism should be proven to be true, it would also be a metaphysical principle; since dialectical materialism, as its adherents claim, is not limited to any specific sphere or science, but applies to all natural, social, political, historical, or intellectual phenomena. Therefore, there is no opposition between dialectical materialism and metaphysics. There would, however, be opposition between materialism and metaphysics if the latter is taken to signify the `realm of the supernatural.’ Thus the opposition assumed by the Marxist writers between dialectics and metaphysics is completely groundless and without foundation.
The nature of metaphysical problems is such that they have given rise to differing and even contradictory judgements regarding them. And even though man's nature thirsts for answers to them and, as said before, the human character of man's existence depends on correctly solving some of these problems, yet some European thinkers have judged them as insoluble, while others have considered them useless and even meaningless.
It is obvious that a thorough examination of the aforesaid characteristics of its problems and the numerous opinions expressed on the subject of metaphysics, is outside the scope of this work, requiring far more space. I hope to undertake such an attempt in the future, when I shall examine in detail the misunderstandings that have given rise to such judgements, and explain the issues in simple terms. Here, I shall content myself with mentioning the following points:
A. Since man's immediate and ordinary perceptions are acquired through the medium of the senses, shallow thinking people imagine that there is nothing beyond the perceived world, or, more precisely, beyond the range of our sense perceptions. And if, supposedly, such a thing did exist, it cannot be verified. It was this kind of short sightedness that caused the Children of Israel (Jews) to say to Moses: "We shall never believe in you (as a Divine Messenger) until we see God manifestly (with our own eyes)."(Koran, chapter 2)
The position of those who say that the soul does not exist since we cannot find it through surgery is similar.
In answer to such short sighted views, it would suffice to say that there are many things in this very physical world that cannot be perceived through the senses, such as electricity, electromagnetic waves, and other things, whose existence is considered certain by the concerned sciences. People who deny the existence of anything beyond the range of our senses must either deny all these realities, or admit that knowledge is not limited to that gained through direct sense perception; and that reason can apprehend the existence of the super sensible through the knowledge of its perceptible effects.
B. Exclusive reliance on sense perception (despite its errors and shortcomings) can justify only abstinence from making any judgements regarding the super sensible world. It certainly cannot justify any categorical denial of the super sensible world. It follows, then, that the empiricists have no right to deny the existence of a world lying beyond the range of senses. They must adopt an agnostic attitude towards the subject, allowing the probability of its existence, and act in accordance with such a probability.
C. There is a set of metaphysical principles the validity of which cannot be denied by any reasonable man although they cannot be verified by the senses. The nature of these principles is such that even if someone does try to deny them, he will end up by unconsciously affirming them. For example, the law of contradiction is a metaphysical conception, which cannot be perceived through any of the senses. Not even the individual concepts which constitute it can be apprehended through any of the senses. That is, the idea of contradiction is not `perceived' by the senses. Despite it, however, no reasonable person can deny the validity of this self-evident principle, and even the claim that it is invalid proves its validity.
If someone says that contradiction is possible, can he, at the same time, believe that it is impossible and that it is possible? And if he is told that his claim, although one hundred per cent correct, is also one hundred per cent wrong, would he accept it? Of course not. It is thus proven that the very claim that this principle is invalid proves its validity.
It is clear that all those who have stated the view that contradiction is possible or necessary, either had some other meaning of "contradiction" in mind, or have not understood the meaning of the concept correctly. Otherwise, the impossibility of contradiction-if its meaning is correctly understood-is far too obvious to be questioned by any reasonable person.
The existence of such principles as mentioned above proves that man possesses a faculty of apprehension other than the senses, a faculty that can apprehend certain realities independently. Thus we cannot say that the content of a particular proposition is unknowable or unverifiable just because it is outside the range of perception.
It follows, therefore, that the solution to metaphysical problems must be found through the rational method; that is, through the application of self-evident axioms, solutions to non empirical problems are found. Moreover, if used correctly, this method can lead to results even more definite than those attained in the empirical sciences. In fact, as already pointed out, the certitude of the results attained by the empirical sciences and their generality depend entirely on metaphysical principles.
Every human being, throughout life, perceives things both inside and outside himself. Mostly these perceptions are attained through natural means, and sometimes through artificial devices. In any case, neither an isolated perception nor all of them could be said to constitute a "science," in the sense of a set of general principles. Perception acquires scientific value only when it transcends the limits of the particular and the personal and enters the realm of generality. Moreover, these generalities cannot be in the form of simple concepts, but must take the composite form of postulates consisting of a number of concepts possessing a special relationship amongst them.
For example, the seeing of different colours and shapes, the hearing of various sounds, and other sense-data, give man some knowledge about objects existing in his environment; but this knowledge is not what is meant by the word "science." In other words, the particular bits of information thus obtained do not constitute the science of physics or chemistry, or any other science, even though they are more or less connected with scientific issues. Such postulates, for instance, as "the sum of the angles of a triangle is equal to two right angles," "metals expand when exposed to heat," and "the atoms of one element can be changed into those of another element," etc. are scientific statements. As it can be clearly seen, these notions do not represent particular perceptions of any particular individual, and are not subject to any limitation of time or space. That is, just as they are true of the triangles, metals, and atoms of the past and the present, they are also true of the triangles, metals, and atoms of the future. Nor are these truths in any way affected by spatial considerations. This is the characteristic which distinguishes scientific concepts from particular perceptions.
Now we have to see how man can come to possess the faculty of being able to pass judgement equally on past, present, and future. It is obvious that none of the senses has the ability to look into the past and the future in the manner mentioned above, and the sense perceptions, if they be in accordance with reality, can portray only such phenomena as exist at the time of perception, not those which have long ceased to exist or have not yet come into existence.
There is no doubt that these general postulates, which are based on particular perceptions and are abstracted from them, are transformed through a certain intellectual process into general, definite, and necessary laws. This being so, the next question that presents itself is: how and according to what laws does the human mind extend particular perceptions and turn them into general postulates, and that too in a definitive form, invulnerable to scepticism?
In answer we can say that whenever we perceive two phenomena either together or following one another, we realize that there exists a relationship between them called "the causal relationship," and thus foresee that whenever the cause is present the effect would also be present. For example, whenever heat is produced in metals, their expansion would also follow.
However, without going into meticulous philosophical considerations, it can be said that what we can perceive through the senses is either the simultaneous existence of two phenomena or the fact that one of them follows the other. But by what means do we perceive that the existence of one phenomenon depends on that of another? And, secondly, even if we determine that such a dependence does exist in a particular case, how do we know that such a dependence has existed in the past and will exist in the future, in all locations?
Of course, we admit that all scientists do understand the things just mentioned, and it is on the basis of this understanding that they pursue scientific research and seek for the causes of various phenomena and their interrelationships. We should know, however, that this understanding is not the work of sense organs and the perceptual faculties related to them, -but is the work of another inner faculty called "intellect" which is capable of comprehending fixed realities unconditioned by spatial and temporal limitations. One such unchanging reality is the law of causality and its corollaries to which all scientific laws owe their generality and certainty. Moreover, since these perceptions (rational truths) have not been apprehended through the medium of sense and experience and cannot be verified by any of the experimental sciences, they are therefore metaphysical truths.
In conclusion we can say that not only man's knowledge is not limited to perceptions gained through sense and experience, but the laws of the empirical sciences are themselves in need of non empirical knowledge and metaphysical principles.
-- THE END –
-
“Importance of the Problems of World View"
By: Ayatollah Mohammed Taqi Misbah Yazdi
CONTENTS:
Introduction
Chapter 1: The Fundamental Problems of World-View
Chapter 2: Evaluating the Fundamental problems
Chapter 3: Spiritual Philosophy and Scientific Truths
Chapter 4: Philosophy and Science
Chapter 5: Scientific Philosophy
Chapter 6: Metaphysics
Introduction
Every activity engaged in by man, whether on the level of individual or social life, is undoubtedly a result of particular psychological drives and inclinations, and is fashioned with the aid of sense perception and bodily skills and powers under different temporal and spaceial conditions. For example, man is driven to eat and drink by his instinct to nourish himself, and is motivated to help the weak and the needy because of his emotions of sympathy for other human beings. Then, by using his sense organs, he identifies the desired foods or identifies the weak and needy to be assisted, and carries out the desired tasks through the use of his bodily faculties.
The above-mentioned activities could be said to possess the specific "human" characteristic when they are guided by his reason, in addition to his instinctive and emotional drives, which man shares with other animals. That is, the eating of food and the drinking of water should be done with the aim of maintaining one's health and strength, and the emotions and instincts must be satisfied within the framework of some rational principles and under the guidance of reason. In many cases, however, reason is overwhelmed by emotion and instinct, and is unable to perform an effective role. When this happens, the activity is considered devoid of any human value.
The practical guidance provided by reason is itself controlled by the general notions and ideas, which constitute the fundamental basis of man's existence as an intelligent being. For example, the belief in the necessity of maintaining one's health, or the urge to make sacrifices for the sake of a higher aim, is based on particular conceptions of the individual and society. It is these general conceptions and basic patterns of thinking that play the major role in giving shape and direction to man's efforts and struggles, and either make them meaningful and worthwhile in the human sense or deprive them of human meaning and worth. These basic patterns of thought are termed as `world-view'. It is on account of the differences in world-view that fundamental divergence in personal behaviour and social outlook takes place.
Just as the guidance provided by reason on practical matters is ignored in acts lacking in the `human' character, when it loses all its effective force, so also the theoretical decrees of reason are not always given the attention they require. Many people never think of the `why' of their actions, and do not build their lives on the basis of well thoughtout ideas. Such people either content themselves with imitating others, or are simply indifferent to fundamental questions, although perceptive observers find their behaviour to conform to a particular type of world-view. For example, the conduct of an individual who thinks of nothing other than enjoyment of transitory pleasures and pursuit of selfish interest is consistent with an individualistic and materialistic world-view, even if he has not accepted materialism consciously as a reasoned philosophical viewpoint.
Therefore, our efforts and activities are `human' and `reasonable' when, firstly, they are performed not merely under the influence of animal instinct but on the basis of understanding and under the guidance of reason; secondly, when they are based on a logical and coherent system of thought and a correct world-view, not on raw adopted notions, or on an illogical and incorrect world-view.
In view of the above-mentioned principle, the necessity for the selection of a reasonable world-view capable of lending itself to rational justification is clear. Moreover, the existence of strong and conflicting currents in the realm of thought and belief, and the vulnerability of indefensible beliefs clearly indicates the need for learning logical arguments which confirm the chosen world-view and the necessity of acquiring the capacity to defend it.
Chapter 1:
The Fundamental Problems of World-View
The world evidently consists of various kinds of phenomena, the study of whose characteristics has given birth to specialized fields of science. Moreover, despite the expansion in different spheres of knowledge and the vast number of wonderful and valuable discoveries made in various disciplines, there still remain, in our immediate surroundings and on this very planet, many things unknown, the effort to solve whose mystery has occupied our inquisitive scientists.
However, as already mentioned, man has always been confronted with a series of fundamental questions. The need to find correct and convincing answers to such questions is a pressing demand of his innermost nature. Furthermore, since these problems concern matters outside the realm of the senses and empirical experience, their solution cannot be expected from the experimental sciences and must be provided by reason and logic alone.
It so happens that the correct solution of the aforementioned problems is of fundamental importance in giving meaning and value to human existence, and directing man's voluntary activities into proper channels. The opposite of this is also true, in that giving wrong answers to these questions makes life empty, meaningless, and devoid of worthwhile goals, dragging man into the abyss of irreparable loss. Nor can man afford to ignore these fundamental questions, since by doing so he would, in addition to having to endure the pain of doubt, perplexity, and anxiety, deprive himself of the opportunity of attaining the ultimate aim of creation: perfection and everlasting felicity.
One of those fundamental questions which man must answer is whether the phenomena we encounter in our world owe their existence solely to material actions and reactions, without any participation or intervention of a nonmaterial power. Is there no nonmaterial power involved either in the emergence of the phenomena or in the existence of matter itself? Or, to put it another way, does matter constitute the totality of being, or does it constitute only a part of existence and relies on something beyond itself for its being?
The above question, which itself can be analysed into a number of other questions, is not limited to the properties and characteristics of any particular group of physical creatures, so that it may be answerable by some specific science through its own particular method. It is, on the contrary, a philosophical question, which must be studied by reason through intellectual speculation and analysis, even though the starting point for such speculation is empirical knowledge in its widest sense, which includes inner and direct experience as well.
The answer to the above question, whether in the positive or the negative, constitutes a part of one's world-view, plays an important role in forming a basic aspect of a person's intellectual approach which may be called "ontology".
Another basic question is whether the life of each individual human being is limited to the few years he lives in this world, or whether there is another life for him after he passes away, much longer and probably even an everlasting one. And this question in turn raises another one: Does man, beside possessing a physical body, also possess a soul which can continue to live after the death of the body or not? Then, there is the last question, which is also related to the first ontological question, whether being is equivalent to material existence or is wider than that.
The solution to the above-mentioned problem also, whatever it may be, constitutes another aspect of an individual's world-view, which may be called here `anthropology'.
And finally, the third fundamental issue to be settled before turning one's attention to the details and selecting a particular course for one's life is: What is the most certain way of knowing the best programme for individual and social life? Is there any fool-proof way beside the usual ways commonly adopted by most people which so often lead to contradictory results, which would guarantee the certainty of results?
The importance of the last question becomes more evident when the answer to the second question is in the affirmative; that is, when we conclude that man is immortal and that one must prepare beforehand for the felicity of afterlife through conscious effort during the limited period of this life. When such a belief is accepted, the need for a sure way of determining the relationship between the two lives, and an elaborate plan that would guarantee everlasting felicity becomes clearer. And the more the importance ascribed to the everlasting life, the greater is the significance of the path leading to felicity in it. This issue may therefore be called the problem of "methodology." Accordingly, the fundamental problems of world-view are: ontology, anthropology, and methodology.
Chapter 2:
Evaluating the Fundamental problems
The solution of the aforementioned fundamental problems is of foremost importance, because it plays a basic role in shaping and giving direction to man's personal and social life, and, logically, should be taken up before any other issue. Also, it is of special significance because it involves unlimited gain and loss. In other words, if the answer to the fundamental questions raised is in the affirmative, the possibility is opened up for man of deriving infinite benefit from his life.
If it is proved that being is not coextensive with matter, and that the world has a supreme Creator who is the Maker, Sustainer, and Nourisher of all things, and possesses infinite power, knowledge, and mercy, and if it is proved that man's life is not limited to this short, worldly existence, but that it is followed by an everlasting life accompanied either by felicity or misery, and that our life in this world is a preliminary stage in which we determine the course of our life in the Hereafter through our voluntary actions, and if it is proved that there is a guaranteed method for obtaining the knowledge of a correct life-programme that can take care of our felicity in both the lives, and that this method has been communicated by the Almighty God through His chosen messengers to mankind in general, it will have a tremendous impact on man's life. In fact, the value given to the vital human activities by such a view of reality is incomparably greater than the combined worth of all the advancements made by science and the discoveries and inventions made by man. This is so because however great the value of these inventions and discoveries may be, it is still finite and limited, while the value of this view is unlimited since it makes it possible for man to attain unlimited and everlasting felicity. And it is obvious that the unlimited cannot be compared with the limited.
The objection may be raised here that the probability of the fundamental questions being answered positively is so small that it is not worth considering. It should be kept in mind, however, that however small this probability may be (1/n), it would still retain its positive value since its multiple is infinity; (infinity x n = infinity). To put it in the language of economics, the `expected value' of any investment depends on two factors: (1) the percentage of probability of success, and (2) the estimated amount of the profit. It is the product of these two that determines the `expected value.' For example, if we want to see which of two business ventures is more profitable for investment, it is not enough to take into account the percentage of probability of each one alone. We should also consider the estimated amount of profit each venture is likely to yield. Thus, if the percentage of the probability of success in the first venture is 10%, while that of the second venture is 20%, but if the amount of the profit the first venture is likely to yield is ten times that of the second venture, then we must conclude that the expected profit in the first venture is five times greater than that in the second one, despite the fact that the probability of success in the first venture is half of that of the second one. This is so because the product of the two multiples in the first case (0.1 x 10 = 1) is five times greater than that in the second case (0.2 x 1 = 0.2).
The conclusion that may be drawn from the above example is that it is highly preferable to handle problems whose solution promises unlimited benefit, even if our chances of solving them be very small. Furthermore, the value of insight into such problems cannot be compared to that of any other science, even if the results produced by these sciences be one hundred per cent certain and reliable. Thus, indifference to the various aspects of one's world-view and negligence of its fundamental problems is not a reasonable and rationally justifiable attitude. Answering these fundamental questions in the negative without any sufficient evidence is even more unjustifiable.
SECTION: The Spiritual and Materialist Philosophies
Although the fundamental questions facing man have been answered in different ways and the differences in these answers have created various philosophies and schools of thought, yet by taking into account the positive and negative answers, we can distinguish and divide the various philosophies into the two general categories of materialist and spiritual. Islam is a perfect example of the spiritual schools of thought, whereas the most prominent contemporary example of the materialist schools is Marxism.
The tenets of the Islamic world-view are none other than the well-known threefold doctrines of the faith. These are: the belief in the One true God; the belief in resurrection on the Day of Judgement; the belief in what God has revealed to His Messengers, (in arabic: tawheed, maad, nabowa). In other words, Islam answers in the affirmative to each of the fundamental questions, and considers faith in them to be the real basis of man's happiness and felicity. It undertakes the solution of life's all other problems by relying on these three basic doctrines. In fact, it considers all solutions as the branches of a tree whose roots are these three principal beliefs. On the contrary, the materialist philosophies deny the existence of anything nonmaterial, do not believe that man has any life except this brief earthly existence, and deny the assurance held out by revelation.
Although the fundamental doctrines of the Islamic faith have been expounded and proven throughout the past centuries and on various levels, and there does not remain any doubt or uncertainty about any of them, this does not affect the basic fact that the contemporary strength of any set of beliefs hinges on two sorts of studies: one devoted to proving the validity of those beliefs, and the second, devoted to refuting contrary viewpoints. In other words, a double insight is necessary. In the case of Islam, unless the points of disagreement with other ideologies are identified, the areas that are made the targets of the opponents' criticisms and attacks are pinpointed, and a proper defence consisting of clear and logical answers is provided to the common Muslim individual, we cannot be sure of the stability of the faith on the level of the general public, and be certain of the people's steadfastness in the face of the waves of challenging ideologies. Moreover, just as in the past ideological and theological books were written in accordance with the intellectual challenges of the times and with the aim of answering their prevailing doubts, so must the ideological discussions of today be formulated in accordance with the philosophies and schools of thought now current, and with the aim of repelling their ideological attacks.
What makes defensive discussions specially essential today is that materialist philosophies are not being set forth for the mere purpose of proposing solutions to the fundamental theoretical questions, but are, in fact, being propagated in order to serve the political interests of the superpowers who consider exploitation of the emotions of the world's hardworking and simple people as the best means of attaining their colonialist aims. Thus in order to disarm the people of their deep-rooted, liberating spiritual world-view, they have taken recourse in a philosophy tuned to the shallow understanding of the majority of workers and farmers. At the same time, they have tried to adorn materialism, which is one of the most reactionary and baseless of the ancient dogmas, with scientific embellishments, and pretend that it is a modern and "scientific" philosophy. Nor have they spared the use of all sorts of sophistry, paralogism, and misrepresentation to achieve this end.
The truth of the matter is that the superpowers have used materialism, which is based on empiricism, as a means of attracting the uneducated masses and as an excuse for sanctioning their propensities for improper and unethical conduct. In order to deceive the educated classes, they have borrowed some of the postulates of the experimental sciences and incorporated them into materialism. Moreover, to make sure that the probable rejection of these postulates does not destroy the foundations of their philosophy, they have taken refuge in "dialectical logic," presenting all truths to be relative and variable, so that scientific progress not only would not invalidate their doctrines, but would, on the contrary, appear to support them.
We may maintain, therefore, that defending the positions of Islamic ideology, clarifying any of its ambiguities which may lend themselves to misrepresentation, and exposing all those who have made spiritual philosophy the target of unfair and dishonest accusations, is not only an authentic philosophical and intellectual duty and a divinely ordained obligation in regard to guiding the Muslims and strengthening the foundations of their faith, but is also an Islamic social responsibility in regard to defending Islam and the existence of the Muslim countries, which have become targets of ideological, political, and colonialist attacks by the communist block.
It must be pointed out here that by emphasizing the necessity for `double insight' and `two-faceted defence' we do not mean to say that such insight and understanding is the `sufficient cause' for creating faith and inclination towards the right path, or that the only reason for being drawn towards atheism and other devious paths is ignorance about correct, logical, and convincing answers to criticisms. Our purpose is simply to indicate the importance of defensive arguments alongside the affirmative ones, and to emphasize that these two activities are some of the necessary conditions for creating a stable faith, though are not the sufficient condition for it. There are other conditions necessary for the stability of faith, specially in regard to the masses of people, the most important of which is spiritual readiness and freedom from moral corruption. Just as hedonism and moral irregularities may be caused by belief in materialism, belief in materialist philosophies may also be occasioned by strong attachment to bodily pleasures and moral corruption; since one's love of pleasures and lusts may lead him, unconsciously, to search for and be attracted by philosophies which promote and sanction such conduct, and to avoid all schools of thought which teach abstinence from such endless pursuit of carnal pleasures.
It is, therefore, necessary that the real seeker after truth should cleanse himself of all moral impurities and all selfish and carnal desires, and, relying on nothing except logic and reason for guidance, liberate himself from the bondage of blind imitation of individuals, groups, or nations, simply because they possess some kind of social, political or technical superiority.
Chapter 3
Spiritual Philosophy and Scientific Truths
A glance at the fundamental philosophical questions, to which spiritual and materialist philosophies give contradictory answers, clearly shows that the areas of contention between the two opposing points of view have nothing to do with experimental matters. Whatever the solutions found to scientific problems, they would not in any way affect the way these philosophical questions are answered. For example, accepting or rejecting Euclid's theory of space, holding to the view that mass is absolute or relative, or the validity or invalidity of the theory of mutation in biology, and other conflicting theories in the various sciences-none of these tell us anything about whether the divine or the materialistic philosophies are true; since the subject of discussion in philosophy is not the same as that of the experimental sciences, and the methods of investigation used in the two fields are completely different from each other.
It is wrong to imagine, therefore, that it is materialistic philosophy alone that accepts scientific facts and affirms the validity of the laws governing the transformations and interactions of physical phenomena, while spiritual philosophy denies them and sets forth the theory of creation in their place. The materialists hold that belief in the theory of creation finds its genesis, in the distant past, in man's ignorance of the physical causes of phenomena. Therefore, now, when due to the advances in the experimental sciences, the system of physical causation has been fully discovered, there is no room left for such notions as that of creation or the dependence of phenomena on the will of the Creator .
We know, however, that the dispute between the spiritual and the materialist points of view is not about affirming or denying the relationship between various phenomena, the nature of such relationships, or the laws which govern nature. What the dispute is about is whether the material world, with all the relationships existing between its various parts, be they known or as yet undiscovered by us, depends on a Being which transcends matter or not.
It is obvious that if such a dependence does exist, it would not be of the sort that exists between material bodies, and, therefore, cannot be studied by experimental methods; because just as the nonmaterial Being (if it exists) cannot be known through sense experience, the dependence of material phenomenon on it, also, cannot be studied through laboratory instruments. In order to make this point even clearer, we must briefly discuss philosophy and the experimental sciences, the fundamental differences between the problems with which they deal, and the methodologies which they employ.
Chapter 4
Philosophy and Science
By the way of an introduction we would like to remind the readers that there are many words which have a number of meanings. At times one of them has a wider and more general signification than the others. Sometimes the use of such words may lead to misunderstanding, and it is necessary to make sure that one understands the exact sense in which a word is being used. In philosophy, there are a number of such terms; for example, `potentiality,' `possibility,' `soul,' `reason,' and so on.
Among the terms that share common significations are the words `philosophy' and `science.' In the past the word philosophy (literally. `the love of wisdom') was applied to all branches of knowledge, including the natural sciences, mathematics, divinities, ethics, and politics. Every branch of knowledge had a special methodology of its own, although sometimes it happened that inappropriate methods were used; for example, a problem belonging to the natural sciences was investigated through a purely rationalist approach, whereas it should have been studied through the experimental method.
In the Middle Ages other branches of learning were added to the aforementioned list, until it came to include almost all the thinking of that age.
After the Renaissance, and specially from the seventeenth century onward, those sciences whose method of enquiry was experimental, gradually separated from philosophy, and the term eventually came to be applied exclusively to that branch of learning the problems of which lay outside the realm of experiment and could be solved only through a purely rational, theoretical method. This branch of learning is called "metaphysics" or "the first philosophy". The term "philosophy" is also used to refer to the process of explaining the basic principles necessary for investigating the problems of a particular science, such as the philosophy of science and the philosophy of ethics.
The word "science," which literally means "knowledge," is technically used to mean systematized knowledge of problems dealing with a particular subject. According to this definition, the term "science" could also be applied to metaphysics. In recent centuries, however, the usage of the term has become more limited, and has come to refer to the experimental sciences alone, in opposition to philosophy.
According to the latter definition, philosophy and science each possesses its own distinct subject matter and methodology. That is, philosophy's subject of study consists of the general problems of existence, which are in the main part abstract and are also called, "secondary concepts," and its method is rational and theoretical. Science, on the other hand, is concerned with the study of the accidental properties of particular objects the existence of which is taken for granted; its method is experimental. For example, physics deals with matter and energy and their interactions in the fields of mechanics, acoustics, optics, heat, electricity, magnetism, radiation, atomic structure, and nuclear phenomena; chemistry studies the composition, structure, and properties of substances and the transformations they undergo. Physiology investigates the organic processes and phenomena of living organisms, while psychology discusses mental conditions and characteristics. However, none of these sciences has anything to say about the essential nature of the subject it studies or the fundamental principles underlying its methodology. In other words, neither physics and chemistry express any opinions about the existence of matter, nor physiology and psychology discuss the reality of life and the soul. Nor does any of these sciences examine the principle of causality and its subordinate laws.
What philosophy concerns itself with are general abstract questions such as: cause and effect, permanence and change, the material and the abstract, the contingent and the necessary, etc. And since these issues are not directly connected with sense perception, the problems related to them cannot be settled empirically. The key to their solution must be found in rational investigation and analysis. The way these rational investigations are carried out and the value of their findings constitute the subject matter of an important part of modern philosophy known as "epistemology." It follows then that we cannot expect scientific progress to help us in resolving philosophical disputes, and science to act as a referee in the quarrel between spiritual and materialist philosophies.
Unfortunately, there have been numerous attempts in the history of science and philosophy to invoke scientific laws or theories for help in the solution of philosophical problems, or to tip the scale in favour of a particular metaphysical position. On the contrary, others have sought refuge in the philosophical mode of reasoning and the rational method to help them solve a scientific problem. This, despite the fact that such intrusions are dangerous for both philosophy and science, and keep them from following the paths appropriate to their fields of study and solution of their problems through the use of methods prescribed by the nature of those problems.
As an example of such unjustified intrusion, we can mention the sort of argument some modern physicists have used to "prove" the existence of necessity in the relationship between cause and effect (determinism) by referring to findings in the field of macro-physics, while other physicists have pointed to certain phenomena observed in micro-physics as evidence that no such necessity exists. There is yet a third group that has endeavoured to reconcile the two positions by proposing that determinism is valid in the case of macro-physical phenomena and invalid in the case of micro-physical ones. All this while any philosopher knows that the law of causation is a general philosophical and metaphysical law which is, according to the definitive judgement of reason, fixed and unchanging.
What we must do is to search in nature for cases which would verify the law of causation through experimental investigations. What we definitely shouldn't do is to consider the discovery of a few examples of its applicability as a proof of its validity, or the inability to apply it in few cases as evidence of either its invalidity or lack of generality; since such failure is definitely a result of the inadequacy of our instruments. In fact, it is the self-evident principle of causality that has moved scientists to seek the causes of phenomena and to discover the laws and secrets of nature. To attempt, therefore, to prove this metaphysical principle through reference to physical phenomena and the discoveries of the experimental sciences is like trying to play the flute by blowing through its wrong end.
It should not go unsaid, however, that philosophy and science are related to each other in a number of ways, the most important of which is that philosophy proves the existence of the subject matter and the validity of the fundamental principles of the sciences, while the sciences provide a widening background for philosophical inquiry. In any case, there should be no mixing of either their problems or methods and no expecting of solutions to scientific problems from philosophy or of philosophical problems from science.
Chapter 5
Scientific Philosophy
Admitting the existence of problems that must be investigated on a philosophical plane, Marxism has tried to pretend that these problems can be solved by using the discoveries made by the experimental sciences. The way Marxist writers go about doing this is that they first give an example from nature, and follow it with an example drawn from social or historical phenomena. Their third step is to draw a general conclusion by forcing a connection between these two examples, thereby, in their own imagination, proving the philosophical principle in question. Supposedly, the whole exercise authorizes them to call their philosophy as "scientific" and as based on discoveries made by the experimental sciences. Although this procedure may have some effect on those who are unfamiliar with philosophical problems and scientific methodology and are, therefore, unable to distinguish the weak points and fallacies hidden in this line of reasoning, it has no philosophical value and is considered a form of sophistry and public fraud by those who are knowledgeable in such matters.
We do not deny that there has been a fragmentation in the sciences caused by the extensive specialization of the various fields, and there is, therefore, a need for synthesizing the results of their investigations and bridging the gaps separating the numerous fields of science. Nor do we have any objection to such an endeavour's being called "scientific philosophy," since there is no ethical or legal injunction against coining new terms and names. What we do object to, however, is the abuse of terms and covering up of facts under misleading labels. This, we believe, is reprehensible and must be fought against.
It should be kept in mind that Marxist writers have not created their so-called "scientific philosophy" in order to serve the world of science and scholarship, by making a synthesis of the results of the investigations of the different sciences, and by connecting the endeavours of the diverse fields with one another. Far from such altruistic aims, their real motivation is to provide a justification for their baseless ideology and a philosophical foundation for their immature and inconsistent ideas. Moreover, even though the very notion of relying on scientific findings for finding solutions to metaphysical problems is incorrect and unfruitful, and as it has been stated before, philosophical issues cannot be settled in such a manner; the Marxists are not even loyal to this misguided approach, since they ignore many irrefutable scientific facts, and rely, instead, on weak and unproven theories lacking any scientific value whatsoever. And when the fallacy of these theories is proven, instead of learning a lesson from all the wasted effort and recognizing the futility of their approach, or having recognized it, admitting it, they move on with undaunted courage to grasp at another theory, and through peculiar intellectual acrobatics at which they are so adept, set it forth as further proof of the validity of dialectical materialism.
We shall leave an examination of the fumblings and public deceptions of the Marxists to some future occasion and simply state the fact that the notion of a "scientific philosophy"-in the sense of a philosophy that attempts to solve philosophical problems through the application of the methodology of the experimental sciences with reliance on scientific discoveries alone-is an anomaly unacceptable to any competent thinker. And the adjective "scientific" for philosophy not only does not add anything to its worth, since it ascribes to it a characteristic inappropriate to philosophy, but it simply exposes the bankruptcy of its originators which proves that they were unable to distinguish the boundaries separating science from philosophy and the correct method of tackling philosophical problems. It seems that our Marxist wizards justify this blatant contradiction as an example of "dialectical contradiction," and set it forth as a highly advanced philosophical phenomenon to the credulous devotees of "dialectics."
Another point to be noted here is that just as ascribing the term "scientific" to discussions of philosophical issues is caused either by ignorance, or intentions to deceive the public, to denigrate and condemn them as "unscientific" is also a form of distortion and abuse of the prestige of the word "scientific". And just as being characterized as "scientific" adds nothing to the value of metaphysical investigations, their being labelled as "unscientific" does nothing to bring down their value either. Since, as we mentioned before, being "scientific" means that a subject must lend itself to empirical verification, whereas the quality that purely theoretical problems transcend the realm of sense experience is essential to them, and is not a shortcoming or defect on their part. In other words, just because something is outside the realm of sense experience and cannot be proved through experimental methods, it does not mean that it is worthless or unverifiable. It means, rather, that it should be analysed with the help of the rational method and by the means of the self-evident axioms -of reason. Moreover, as shall be demonstrated later, scientific problems themselves are in need of metaphysical and rational principles.
Chapter 6
Metaphysics
We said earlier that the word "philosophy" has a number of meanings one of which is synonymous with "metaphysics". It should be kept in mind, however, that the word "metaphysics" itself has various meanings-a fact that may give rise to confusion and misunderstanding.
Derived from the Greek term meta physika, [literally, the (works) after the physical (works)], metaphysics is the name given to that part of philosophy which concerns itself with the general principles of existence, and it appears that the ancient philosophers dealt with this subject after the section dealing with the natural sciences (physics) as a matter of didactic convenience. Thus it came to be called "after physics." As we said earlier, when all the other fields of learning separated from philosophy, what was left behind was metaphysics.
Since metaphysics deals with nonmaterial existence, a misunderstanding has arisen that metaphysics deals with supernatural phenomenon, and this misunderstanding has in turn caused spiritual philosophies to be branded as "metaphysical." The fact of the matter is that metaphysical considerations are not limited to theistic philosophies; the materialist schools are in as much need of metaphysics as others. This is the case because anyone who wishes to discuss the general and fundamental principles of existence-principles which do not fall within the exclusive domain of any particular science-must enter the realm of metaphysics, irrespective of the sort of conclusions he might reach. For example, a discussion of the principle of causality is a philosophical and metaphysical one, and although it is considered to be an axiom and used as such by all the experimental sciences, they cannot investigate it through the use of the scientific method and prove its validity. This is so even though their investigations are based upon it, and the formulation of universal scientific laws is possible only because of the law of causation. Even if someone wants to reject the principle of causality or any of its subordinate laws, he would still have to engage in a metaphysical discussion, and as they say, "philosophy can be refuted only through philosophy."
Recently an English philosopher, Robin George Collingwood, has written a treatise on metaphysics in which he has described it as a series of pre-suppositions, which can neither be proved nor disproved. He says that these presuppositions are accepted unconsciously under certain conditions and rejected under a different set of conditions.'
Collingwood's treatise is a jumble of confused ideas, a product, according to one commentator of his works, of his days of illness. It represents a subjective statement or hypothesis devoid of any philosophical value, and cannot be counted as an inquiry into the nature of metaphysics.
Considering what has been said above, it becomes clear that issues of importance in the First Philosophy are also relevant to the physical sciences, and whatever general issues fall outside the framework of science, would be considered as metaphysical. Moreover, even if the doctrine of dialectical materialism should be proven to be true, it would also be a metaphysical principle; since dialectical materialism, as its adherents claim, is not limited to any specific sphere or science, but applies to all natural, social, political, historical, or intellectual phenomena. Therefore, there is no opposition between dialectical materialism and metaphysics. There would, however, be opposition between materialism and metaphysics if the latter is taken to signify the `realm of the supernatural.’ Thus the opposition assumed by the Marxist writers between dialectics and metaphysics is completely groundless and without foundation.
The nature of metaphysical problems is such that they have given rise to differing and even contradictory judgements regarding them. And even though man's nature thirsts for answers to them and, as said before, the human character of man's existence depends on correctly solving some of these problems, yet some European thinkers have judged them as insoluble, while others have considered them useless and even meaningless.
It is obvious that a thorough examination of the aforesaid characteristics of its problems and the numerous opinions expressed on the subject of metaphysics, is outside the scope of this work, requiring far more space. I hope to undertake such an attempt in the future, when I shall examine in detail the misunderstandings that have given rise to such judgements, and explain the issues in simple terms. Here, I shall content myself with mentioning the following points:
A. Since man's immediate and ordinary perceptions are acquired through the medium of the senses, shallow thinking people imagine that there is nothing beyond the perceived world, or, more precisely, beyond the range of our sense perceptions. And if, supposedly, such a thing did exist, it cannot be verified. It was this kind of short sightedness that caused the Children of Israel (Jews) to say to Moses: "We shall never believe in you (as a Divine Messenger) until we see God manifestly (with our own eyes)."(Koran, chapter 2)
The position of those who say that the soul does not exist since we cannot find it through surgery is similar.
In answer to such short sighted views, it would suffice to say that there are many things in this very physical world that cannot be perceived through the senses, such as electricity, electromagnetic waves, and other things, whose existence is considered certain by the concerned sciences. People who deny the existence of anything beyond the range of our senses must either deny all these realities, or admit that knowledge is not limited to that gained through direct sense perception; and that reason can apprehend the existence of the super sensible through the knowledge of its perceptible effects.
B. Exclusive reliance on sense perception (despite its errors and shortcomings) can justify only abstinence from making any judgements regarding the super sensible world. It certainly cannot justify any categorical denial of the super sensible world. It follows, then, that the empiricists have no right to deny the existence of a world lying beyond the range of senses. They must adopt an agnostic attitude towards the subject, allowing the probability of its existence, and act in accordance with such a probability.
C. There is a set of metaphysical principles the validity of which cannot be denied by any reasonable man although they cannot be verified by the senses. The nature of these principles is such that even if someone does try to deny them, he will end up by unconsciously affirming them. For example, the law of contradiction is a metaphysical conception, which cannot be perceived through any of the senses. Not even the individual concepts which constitute it can be apprehended through any of the senses. That is, the idea of contradiction is not `perceived' by the senses. Despite it, however, no reasonable person can deny the validity of this self-evident principle, and even the claim that it is invalid proves its validity.
If someone says that contradiction is possible, can he, at the same time, believe that it is impossible and that it is possible? And if he is told that his claim, although one hundred per cent correct, is also one hundred per cent wrong, would he accept it? Of course not. It is thus proven that the very claim that this principle is invalid proves its validity.
It is clear that all those who have stated the view that contradiction is possible or necessary, either had some other meaning of "contradiction" in mind, or have not understood the meaning of the concept correctly. Otherwise, the impossibility of contradiction-if its meaning is correctly understood-is far too obvious to be questioned by any reasonable person.
The existence of such principles as mentioned above proves that man possesses a faculty of apprehension other than the senses, a faculty that can apprehend certain realities independently. Thus we cannot say that the content of a particular proposition is unknowable or unverifiable just because it is outside the range of perception.
It follows, therefore, that the solution to metaphysical problems must be found through the rational method; that is, through the application of self-evident axioms, solutions to non empirical problems are found. Moreover, if used correctly, this method can lead to results even more definite than those attained in the empirical sciences. In fact, as already pointed out, the certitude of the results attained by the empirical sciences and their generality depend entirely on metaphysical principles.
Every human being, throughout life, perceives things both inside and outside himself. Mostly these perceptions are attained through natural means, and sometimes through artificial devices. In any case, neither an isolated perception nor all of them could be said to constitute a "science," in the sense of a set of general principles. Perception acquires scientific value only when it transcends the limits of the particular and the personal and enters the realm of generality. Moreover, these generalities cannot be in the form of simple concepts, but must take the composite form of postulates consisting of a number of concepts possessing a special relationship amongst them.
For example, the seeing of different colours and shapes, the hearing of various sounds, and other sense-data, give man some knowledge about objects existing in his environment; but this knowledge is not what is meant by the word "science." In other words, the particular bits of information thus obtained do not constitute the science of physics or chemistry, or any other science, even though they are more or less connected with scientific issues. Such postulates, for instance, as "the sum of the angles of a triangle is equal to two right angles," "metals expand when exposed to heat," and "the atoms of one element can be changed into those of another element," etc. are scientific statements. As it can be clearly seen, these notions do not represent particular perceptions of any particular individual, and are not subject to any limitation of time or space. That is, just as they are true of the triangles, metals, and atoms of the past and the present, they are also true of the triangles, metals, and atoms of the future. Nor are these truths in any way affected by spatial considerations. This is the characteristic which distinguishes scientific concepts from particular perceptions.
Now we have to see how man can come to possess the faculty of being able to pass judgement equally on past, present, and future. It is obvious that none of the senses has the ability to look into the past and the future in the manner mentioned above, and the sense perceptions, if they be in accordance with reality, can portray only such phenomena as exist at the time of perception, not those which have long ceased to exist or have not yet come into existence.
There is no doubt that these general postulates, which are based on particular perceptions and are abstracted from them, are transformed through a certain intellectual process into general, definite, and necessary laws. This being so, the next question that presents itself is: how and according to what laws does the human mind extend particular perceptions and turn them into general postulates, and that too in a definitive form, invulnerable to scepticism?
In answer we can say that whenever we perceive two phenomena either together or following one another, we realize that there exists a relationship between them called "the causal relationship," and thus foresee that whenever the cause is present the effect would also be present. For example, whenever heat is produced in metals, their expansion would also follow.
However, without going into meticulous philosophical considerations, it can be said that what we can perceive through the senses is either the simultaneous existence of two phenomena or the fact that one of them follows the other. But by what means do we perceive that the existence of one phenomenon depends on that of another? And, secondly, even if we determine that such a dependence does exist in a particular case, how do we know that such a dependence has existed in the past and will exist in the future, in all locations?
Of course, we admit that all scientists do understand the things just mentioned, and it is on the basis of this understanding that they pursue scientific research and seek for the causes of various phenomena and their interrelationships. We should know, however, that this understanding is not the work of sense organs and the perceptual faculties related to them, -but is the work of another inner faculty called "intellect" which is capable of comprehending fixed realities unconditioned by spatial and temporal limitations. One such unchanging reality is the law of causality and its corollaries to which all scientific laws owe their generality and certainty. Moreover, since these perceptions (rational truths) have not been apprehended through the medium of sense and experience and cannot be verified by any of the experimental sciences, they are therefore metaphysical truths.
In conclusion we can say that not only man's knowledge is not limited to perceptions gained through sense and experience, but the laws of the empirical sciences are themselves in need of non empirical knowledge and metaphysical principles.
-- THE END –
-
Gnosis and Wisdom
-
"Islamic Gnosis and Wisdom"
By: Ayatollah Mohammed Taqi Misbah Yazdi
Contents:
Introduction
Gnosis in the Islamic World
Concepts of Gnosis, Sufism, Wisdom and Philosophy
Originality of Islamic Gnosis
Gnosis and Intellect
Gnosis and Religious Law (Tariqa and Sharia)
--
Introduction
In the Name of God, the Kind, the Merciful.
In the cosmic realm, human beings are like balls
released into space which have within them a hidden
potential energy for flight into an infinitely sublime
world. But the gravitational attraction of worldly
pleasures draws them toward the depths of the material
world, as a result of which they fall and become
degenerate; and the selfish tendencies and Satanic
temptations which have become embodied in
materialistic civilizations and cultures increase the
speed of their downfall. Amidst all this, there are a
few individuals and groups of people the eyes of whose
hearts are open to spiritual truths and the ears of
whose souls have become familiar with divine messages
who have the resolution to turn aside from the
pollution of their animalistic desires, who open their
wings to the illuminated horizon of the angelic domain
and in the course of their evolution they begin an
ascent to the origin of all beauties, splendours,
powers, and raptures and the infinite source of
perfections, and in a word, ascend toward God. Like
balls which have bounced down to the ground, they are
disillusioned with the dead?end of materialism and
once again, with the same speed with which they
descended, they move in the opposite direction and
rise toward the sublime world. It is quite likely that
this process will recur repeatedly
This reaction may be well observed, nowadays, among
groups of people who have become disillusioned with
corrupt Western culture and who feel within themselves
a great thirst and longing for spiritual values, and
wander to and fro in order to find the fountainhead of
this lucid water. But, alas, most of them fall into
the traps laid by sorcerers who in place of the nectar
of gnosis pour the poison of perdition down their
throats. They lead them from pitfall to abyss, and
through a rear door to the realm of ruin and
destruction.
The centrifugal motion of materialistic culture and
the turn back toward spiritual culture is not merely
restricted to individual tendencies. We are now
witnessing movements toward Islam in all corners of
the world, even in the most polluted and corrupt of
afflicted lands. These movements have been accelerated
by a great Islamic revolution led by a prominent
gnostic, who, taking advantage of the flourishing
talents of the people, was able to gain victory over
the Satanic forces in the rays of the lights of
Islamic teachings. Despite the great obstacles put in
its way on all sides, it still gallops forward. But,
although this is not the first time that a divine man
and gnostic of the Lord has undertaken the leadership
of a popular movement, it is not easy to find another
example with such scope and depth and with such
firmness and stability.
In any case, this phenomenon, in turn, also can be a
very strong motive for the investigation of the role
of spiritual tendencies, especially the role of
Islamic gnosis, in the positive and desirable changes
in the lives of human beings.
Gnosis in the Islamic World
From antiquity, in the Islamic world there have been
tendencies by the names of gnosis (irfan) and sufism
(tasawwuf), and from the 10th-14th centuries they
reached their summit in many countries such as Iran
and Turkey. Today, there are various sufi sects all
over the world. Similar tendencies also may be found
among the followers of the other religions.
Considering this common aspect, it is natural for the
question to be raised as to whether there really is
any such thing as Islamic gnosis to be found in Islam,
or whether Muslims have taken this from others, so
that what is called Islamic gnosis is really the
gnosis of Muslims, not a truly Islamic gnosis. If
there is such a thing as gnosis in Islam, is this the
very thing which currently exists among Muslims, or
has it been subjected to changes?
In answering these questions, some have absolutely
denied the existence of gnosis in Islam and have
regarded it as heretical innovation to be repudiated.
Others consider it to have come from outside the
context of Islam, while holding it to be compatible
with it. In this line, some have said that sufism is
an acceptable innovation in Islam, like monasticism in
Christianity. In this regard, the Glorious Holy Koran
states:
And as for monasticism, they invented it themselves;
We did not prescribe it for them, except for seeking
the pleasure of God. (57:27)
Finally, there is a group who consider gnosis to be
not only a part of Islam, but the kernel and spirit of
it which comes from the Holy Koran and prophetic
sunnah, just as the other parts of Islam. It is not
that it was adapted from other schools of thought and
trends, and the aspects common to gnosis in Islam and
other religions is no reason to hold that Islamic
gnosis was derived from them, just as the similarities
between the religious law (sharia) of Islam and the
heavenly religious laws of the previous religions does
not mean that the former was derived from the latter.
We approve of the last response to the question, and
we add that the assertion of the originality of
Islamic gnosis is not to condone whatever has been
called gnosis or sufism in Islam. Likewise, it is not
just any sort of creed or conduct found among groups
related to Islam that can be considered truly Islamic
beliefs and practices; otherwise, Islam would
necessarily be a contradictory set of beliefs with a
conflicting set of values, or there would be
conflicting and contradictory Islams! In any case,
with our admission of the originality of Islamic
gnosis, a gnosis whose highest degree was reached by
the Noble Prophet, may the Peace and Blessings of God
Almighty be upon him and his kinfolk, and his true
successors, we do not deny the existence of foreign
elements among the Muslim gnostics and sufis. Many of
the views and manners of behaviour of the sufi orders
are disputable.
The Concepts of Gnosis, Sufism, Wisdom and Philosophy
Before explaining the originality of Islamic gnosis,
in order to avoid confusion and misunderstanding it is
appropriate here to give an explanation of the terms
gnosis (irfan) and sufism.
The term gnosis, like another term of the same family,
gnosticism, literally means knowledge, but its
technical meaning is specific to knowledge of a
certain kind which can be achieved neither through the
senses nor experience, nor through reason nor
narration, but rather is acquired by inner witnessings
and interior unveilings. Then, these are generalized
to some propositions which describe these witnessings
and unveilings. Considering the fact that the
acquisition of such witnessings and unveilings which
depend on special exercises and spiritual discipline
are also called gnosis, it is known with the
qualification of practical, i.e., as practical gnosis, or
the manner of spiritual journeying, just as the
propositions which describe the witnessings are called
theoretical gnosis, and also, like the Philosophy of
Illumination is mixed to some extent with
rational argumentation.
[Notes: The Philosophy of illumination was formulated
by Shihab al-Din Yahya Sohravardi (1153?1191).]
The expression sufism, which, according to the most
likely possibility, is derived from the word suf
(wool), meaning wearing woolen garments, which
symbolizes the hard life far from comforts and
hedonism, is more appropriately used for practical
gnosis, as the term gnosis is more appropriate to
theoretical gnosis. In this way, in the realm of
gnosis, at least three elements can be identified. One
is the specific practical instructions which are
alleged to lead man to intuitive and interior gnosis
and conscious knowledge by presence related to God,
the Exalted, and the Most Beautiful Names and His
sublime attributes and their manifestations. The
second is the specific spiritual and psychic states
and traits of character, and ultimately, the
unveilings and witnessings achieved by the wayfarer.
The third is the propositions and statements
indicating these intuitive direct findings, and even
for those who personally have not travelled the pant
of practical gnosis, can be more or less understood,
although finding their truth and essence is specific
to the true gnostics.
By attending to these explanations it becomes clear
that the true gnostic is the one who follows a
specific practical programme and attains an intuitive
and direct gnosis of God, the Exalted, and His
attributes and actions. Theoretical gnosis is, in
fact, an account and interpretation of this gnosis,
which, naturally, has many shortcomings. If we are not
very exact about the terminology and expand its scope
we can use the term gnosis for all spiritual
journeying (wayfaring), which is undertaken to find
the truth and attain felicity, as well as the
resulting spiritual states and witnessings. In this
way, gnosis will include even the kinds of gnosis
found in Buddhism and Hinduism and the gnosis of some
of the tribes of Siberia and the native tribes of
Africa, just as the term religion may be applied, with
the same sort of extended meaning to Buddhism,
totemism, and the like.
Here it is appropriate to indicate the concepts of
wisdom and philosophy, too.
The expression “wisdom”, which is an originally Arabic
word, means a firm and certain gnosis (enlightment),
and it is often applied to practical gnosis, as the
sense in which it is used in the Glorious Koran
(17:39). However, in current terminology it has the
meaning of divine philosophy as well as practical
philosophy and the science of ethics, and in ethics
itself it is used in the sense of a trait of the soul
related to the use of reason, and as the mean between
the extremes of cunning and stupidity. In any case, it
is not applied to atheistic philosophies or
skepticism, to the contrary of philosophy which is
derived from Greek roots meaning any intellectual or
rational efforts to understand the problems of all
existence, even if this leads to the rejection of
certain and established gnosis, or even the rejection
of objective existence.
The Originality of Islamic Gnosis
Anyone who attends carefully to the verses of the
Glorious Koran, the words of the Noble Prophet, and
the pure people of his household, may the Blessings of
God Almighty be upon them, all of them, without a doubt
will be able to find many sublime and profound
subjects in the realm of theoretical gnosis, as well
as numerous prescriptions and practical instructions
in relation to the spiritual wayfaring of the gnostic.
For example, we can refer to the verses related to the
unicity of the divine essence, attributes and actions
in chapter of Tawhid as well as the beginning of
chapter of al?Hadid, and the last verses in chapter of
al Hashr, and likewise the verses indicating the
divine presence throughout the world of being, and His
comprehension over all existents, and the existential
glorification and prostrations of all creatures for
God, the Exalted.
Likewise, there are verses which include special
prescriptions and manners which can be called the way
of Islamic spiritual wayfaring, such as the verses
pertaining to contemplation and meditation, constant
remembrance and attention, rising in the pre?dawn
hours and remaining awake at night, fasting, prolonged
prostrations and glorifications during nights,
humility and resignation, crying and falling down when
reciting and listening to the verses of the Holy
Koran, sincerity in worship, and the performance of
good deeds out of love and affection toward God in
order to achieve nearness to Him and His satisfaction,
as well as verses pertaining to trust in God, divine
pleasure, and submission before the Lord.
The points which can be found among the narrations
attributed to the Noble Prophet and Pure Imams, may
God Almighty bless all of them, and in their
supplications and intimate devotions related to the
above topics are uncountable.
In view of these explicit verses and dear explications
of the Noble Prophet and his immaculate household, May
God's infinite blessings be showered upon them, two
groups have gone to opposite extremes. One group of
narrow minded and superficial people give a trivial
and simple meaning to these verses, and even consider
God as having mutable states and physical ascent and
descent, and they empty the verses and narrations of
their noble and sublime contents. These are the sort
of people who generally reject the existence of
anything by the name of gnosis in the Islamic texts.
Another group under the influence of various social
factors have discovered and accepted some strange
foreign elements from others, as a result of which
they have come to believe things which one cannot
consider to originate from religious texts and the
contents of the divine Book and Sunnah. Rather, some
of them might be in opposition to the explicit texts
which are not capable of exoteric interpretation.
Likewise, regarding practice, they have invented their
own rites and customs, on the one hand, or have
borrowed them from non?Islamic sects. On the other
hand, they believe in the suspension of duties for the
accomplished gnostic.
Of course, those who have an exceptionally favourable
opinion of all gnostics and sufis have given excuses
and interpretations for all of these issues. But it is
fair to say that at least some of these contentions do
not have an acceptable justification, and we should
not be so over impressed with the scholarly and
spiritual greatness of some figures that we accept
whatever they say or write with closed eyes and ears
and confirm them, and deny others any right to
criticize and inquire into their works. Of course, it
is clear that the acceptance of the right to criticize
does not mean to condone unrefined or ill considered
judgments, or the unfair expression of bias, nor the
failure to pay due heed to positive and valuable
points. In any case, one should seek what is right and
true, and travel the way of justice and fairness and
avoid extreme and unreasonable optimism and pessimism
and seek help from God to recognize the truth and to
be persistent in the way of the Truth.
It is self?evident that to observe all the issues
pertaining to gnosis, sufism, wisdom and philosophy
and their interrelations and each of their relations
with Islam is not a task to be performed within the
confines of a single article. Thus, considering the
summary nature of the remarks, we shall be concerned
with the most significant points, and postpone further
investigation to the occasion of more extensive
discussion.
Gnosis and Intellect
One of the fundamental problems which is a matter of
contention between the supporters and opponents of
gnosis is whether reason can make any judgment about
what is given through gnosis, which is supposedly
acquired by interior unveilings and witnessings, or
whether, for example, reason can refute some of them
or not. The answer to this question is important with
regard to the fact that many gnostics make assertions
which cannot be given any rational explanation. They
claim that they discovered these things through the
esoteric way, and that reason does not have the
capacity to understand them, and naturally, that
reason thus has no right to refute or reject them.
The most important subject of this kind of controversy
is that of the unity of existence (wahdat al-wujud),
which has been propounded in various forms. One is
that, basically, there is nothing, has been nothing
and shall be nothing but God, the Exalted. Whatever
has been called other than Him, is said to be nothing
more than illusions and fantasies. Another form of
this proposition is that nothing exists outside the
essence of God or outside the vessel of His knowledge.
In this way, a sort of multiplicity in oneness may be
accepted. Another form of this claim, which is more
prevalent, is that the wayfarer at the end of his
journey, reaches the station of annihilation (complete
enlightment or fana), and nothing remains of him save
a name. Finally, the most moderate form of the claim
is that the wayfarer reaches a station in which he
sees nothing but God, and all things fade away into
God. In more exact terminology, he witnesses the
fading of all things into the existence of God, the
Exalted, like the fading of a weak light before the
light of the sun.
In such cases, the opponents generally take advantage
of rational arguments, and the proponents eventually
say that these sorts of matters transcend the limits
of reason. In this way they shirk the burden of the
rational explanation of their claims. Considering
these developments, this basic question will be posed:
Are there truths about which reason is incapable of
comprehending and has no right to reject?
What may be said in summary here is that although
reason is concerned with concepts and the function of
reason is not to recognize the truth of the objective
existence or origin of any objective thing, let alone
the divine exalted existence, but the positive and
negative judgments of reason, when they are
self-evident or may lead to self-evidence, are
undeniable and through concepts may be applied to
objective things. The assumption of the error of such
judgments involves contradiction. In other words,
although the function of reason is not knowledge of
the origins of existence, with the above mentioned
qualifications, there can be no doubt about the
validity of judgments about phenomena.
As for the issue of the unity of existence, it must be
said that the denial of existence of things other than
God and the absolute denial of multiplicity not only
imply the denial of the validity of the judgments of
reason, but also involve the denial of the validity of
knowledge by presence belonging to the active and
passive aspects of the soul. In this way, how can we
hold that witnessings and unveilings have any
validity, regarding the fact that the best evidence
for their validity is their being present to
consciousness? So, the unity of existence, on this
interpretation, is not acceptable at all. However, we
may consider an acceptable interpretation which is
propounded in Transcendent Philosophy from which
it is obtained that the existence of creatures in
relation to God, the Exalted, is a relative and
dependent existence, and to be precise it may be said
that they are the very relation and dependence, and
they have no independence of their own. That which is
discovered by the gnostic is this very denial of the
independence of other things [than God], which they
call the denial of their real existence.
[Note: Transcendent philosophy refers to the philosophy of
Sadr al-Din Shirazi, known as Mulla Sadra (1640).]
Here the question may be posed in another form: Can we
consider the judgment of reason prior to intuition and
unveiling? In reply, it should be said that pure
knowledge by presence is in truth the discovery of
reality itself. Thus, it is irrefutable. However,
knowledge by presence is usually accompanied by a
subjective interpretation in such a way that any
distinction between them requires great care. These
subjective interpretations which involve conceptual
knowledge, are fallible. What are rejected by rational
proofs are incorrect subjective interpretations of
observations and knowledge by pretence, not the
objects of knowledge by presence themselves. In the
case of the unity of existence, that which is realized
through witnessings is restricted to the independent
existence of God, the Exalted, which due to
inattention is called true existence, according to
which true existence is denied of other existents.
It is worth mentioning that the great Islamic gnostics
have explicitly claimed that some unveilings are
Satanic, invalid, and may be recognized through some
evidence, and ultimately may be distinguished from
others by placing them under the scrutiny of rational
certain arguments, the God’s Book and the Practices of
Divine Messenger.
It is clear that an investigation into all the kinds
of unveilings and witnessings and the types of
knowledge by presence and the ways in which they are
qualitatively reflected in the mind, the causes for
the incorrectness of some subjective interpretations
and the way to distinguish the correct from the
incorrect, are beyond the scope of this article.
Gnosis and Religious Law - (Tariqa and Sharia)
Another important problem worthy of consideration at the end
of this article is the relation between practical
gnosis and the precepts of religious law, or the
relation between Gnostic Path and God’s Law. A group
has imagined that practical gnosis is an independent
way to discover truths, to be used without regard to
religious law, and that Islam either corroborates it
(by acceptable innovation) or; at the very least,
poses no obstacle to it. And they have continued in
this direction to the point of holding that
basically, they considered it to be unnecessary to be
committed to any religion in order to reach gnostic
stations, and others have considered commitment to any
one of the religions, and in a more moderate form,
commitment to one of the divine religions, to be
sufficient.
However, from an Islamic point of view, gnostic
spiritual wayfaring is not along a way independent of
and aside from that of religious law; rather it is a
more exact and subtle part of it. If we restrict the
term God’s Law to the outward precepts, it must be
said that Gnostic Path is along with God’s Law, or in
its interior, and it may only be realized with the
observation of the precepts of God’s Law. For example,
God’s Law determines the precepts for the ritual
prayer; and Gnostic Path undertakes the ways of
concentration and the presence of the heart in prayer;
and the conditions for the perfection of worship. In
God’s Law the performance of worship in order to avoid
divine chastisement and to reach the blessings of
heaven is sufficient. However, gnosis emphasizes the
purification of intentions of everything other than
God. This is what is known in the language of the Holy
Family, Peace be upon them, as "the worship of the
free." Likewise, idolatry according to God’s Law is
exoteric idolatry by worshipping idols and the like;
however, in Gnostic Path there are more precise types
of hidden idolatry and levels of hiddenness. Having
any hope in anything other than God, fear of other
than God, seeking the help of other than God, and love
for other than Him, if all of these are taken as
fundamental and independent, and not based on
obedience to the divine commands, they will be
considered kinds of idolatry.
Therefore, all kinds of innovations in religion and
arbitrary rites are not only undesirable but may be
obstacles to the achievement of true gnosis, let alone
the use of things which have been explicitly and
definitely prohibited and forbidden. Although it may
be the case that some works may bring about transient
so-called gnostic states, they do not have a good
result. They may be a Satanic trap for ultimate
downfall, and we should not be deceived by them. It is
to be concluded that the way of Truth is the one that
God, the Exalted, has stated:
And what is there after the truth but error? (10:32)
And Peace be upon those who follow the Guidance.
-- The End --
-
"Islamic Gnosis and Wisdom"
By: Ayatollah Mohammed Taqi Misbah Yazdi
Contents:
Introduction
Gnosis in the Islamic World
Concepts of Gnosis, Sufism, Wisdom and Philosophy
Originality of Islamic Gnosis
Gnosis and Intellect
Gnosis and Religious Law (Tariqa and Sharia)
--
Introduction
In the Name of God, the Kind, the Merciful.
In the cosmic realm, human beings are like balls
released into space which have within them a hidden
potential energy for flight into an infinitely sublime
world. But the gravitational attraction of worldly
pleasures draws them toward the depths of the material
world, as a result of which they fall and become
degenerate; and the selfish tendencies and Satanic
temptations which have become embodied in
materialistic civilizations and cultures increase the
speed of their downfall. Amidst all this, there are a
few individuals and groups of people the eyes of whose
hearts are open to spiritual truths and the ears of
whose souls have become familiar with divine messages
who have the resolution to turn aside from the
pollution of their animalistic desires, who open their
wings to the illuminated horizon of the angelic domain
and in the course of their evolution they begin an
ascent to the origin of all beauties, splendours,
powers, and raptures and the infinite source of
perfections, and in a word, ascend toward God. Like
balls which have bounced down to the ground, they are
disillusioned with the dead?end of materialism and
once again, with the same speed with which they
descended, they move in the opposite direction and
rise toward the sublime world. It is quite likely that
this process will recur repeatedly
This reaction may be well observed, nowadays, among
groups of people who have become disillusioned with
corrupt Western culture and who feel within themselves
a great thirst and longing for spiritual values, and
wander to and fro in order to find the fountainhead of
this lucid water. But, alas, most of them fall into
the traps laid by sorcerers who in place of the nectar
of gnosis pour the poison of perdition down their
throats. They lead them from pitfall to abyss, and
through a rear door to the realm of ruin and
destruction.
The centrifugal motion of materialistic culture and
the turn back toward spiritual culture is not merely
restricted to individual tendencies. We are now
witnessing movements toward Islam in all corners of
the world, even in the most polluted and corrupt of
afflicted lands. These movements have been accelerated
by a great Islamic revolution led by a prominent
gnostic, who, taking advantage of the flourishing
talents of the people, was able to gain victory over
the Satanic forces in the rays of the lights of
Islamic teachings. Despite the great obstacles put in
its way on all sides, it still gallops forward. But,
although this is not the first time that a divine man
and gnostic of the Lord has undertaken the leadership
of a popular movement, it is not easy to find another
example with such scope and depth and with such
firmness and stability.
In any case, this phenomenon, in turn, also can be a
very strong motive for the investigation of the role
of spiritual tendencies, especially the role of
Islamic gnosis, in the positive and desirable changes
in the lives of human beings.
Gnosis in the Islamic World
From antiquity, in the Islamic world there have been
tendencies by the names of gnosis (irfan) and sufism
(tasawwuf), and from the 10th-14th centuries they
reached their summit in many countries such as Iran
and Turkey. Today, there are various sufi sects all
over the world. Similar tendencies also may be found
among the followers of the other religions.
Considering this common aspect, it is natural for the
question to be raised as to whether there really is
any such thing as Islamic gnosis to be found in Islam,
or whether Muslims have taken this from others, so
that what is called Islamic gnosis is really the
gnosis of Muslims, not a truly Islamic gnosis. If
there is such a thing as gnosis in Islam, is this the
very thing which currently exists among Muslims, or
has it been subjected to changes?
In answering these questions, some have absolutely
denied the existence of gnosis in Islam and have
regarded it as heretical innovation to be repudiated.
Others consider it to have come from outside the
context of Islam, while holding it to be compatible
with it. In this line, some have said that sufism is
an acceptable innovation in Islam, like monasticism in
Christianity. In this regard, the Glorious Holy Koran
states:
And as for monasticism, they invented it themselves;
We did not prescribe it for them, except for seeking
the pleasure of God. (57:27)
Finally, there is a group who consider gnosis to be
not only a part of Islam, but the kernel and spirit of
it which comes from the Holy Koran and prophetic
sunnah, just as the other parts of Islam. It is not
that it was adapted from other schools of thought and
trends, and the aspects common to gnosis in Islam and
other religions is no reason to hold that Islamic
gnosis was derived from them, just as the similarities
between the religious law (sharia) of Islam and the
heavenly religious laws of the previous religions does
not mean that the former was derived from the latter.
We approve of the last response to the question, and
we add that the assertion of the originality of
Islamic gnosis is not to condone whatever has been
called gnosis or sufism in Islam. Likewise, it is not
just any sort of creed or conduct found among groups
related to Islam that can be considered truly Islamic
beliefs and practices; otherwise, Islam would
necessarily be a contradictory set of beliefs with a
conflicting set of values, or there would be
conflicting and contradictory Islams! In any case,
with our admission of the originality of Islamic
gnosis, a gnosis whose highest degree was reached by
the Noble Prophet, may the Peace and Blessings of God
Almighty be upon him and his kinfolk, and his true
successors, we do not deny the existence of foreign
elements among the Muslim gnostics and sufis. Many of
the views and manners of behaviour of the sufi orders
are disputable.
The Concepts of Gnosis, Sufism, Wisdom and Philosophy
Before explaining the originality of Islamic gnosis,
in order to avoid confusion and misunderstanding it is
appropriate here to give an explanation of the terms
gnosis (irfan) and sufism.
The term gnosis, like another term of the same family,
gnosticism, literally means knowledge, but its
technical meaning is specific to knowledge of a
certain kind which can be achieved neither through the
senses nor experience, nor through reason nor
narration, but rather is acquired by inner witnessings
and interior unveilings. Then, these are generalized
to some propositions which describe these witnessings
and unveilings. Considering the fact that the
acquisition of such witnessings and unveilings which
depend on special exercises and spiritual discipline
are also called gnosis, it is known with the
qualification of practical, i.e., as practical gnosis, or
the manner of spiritual journeying, just as the
propositions which describe the witnessings are called
theoretical gnosis, and also, like the Philosophy of
Illumination is mixed to some extent with
rational argumentation.
[Notes: The Philosophy of illumination was formulated
by Shihab al-Din Yahya Sohravardi (1153?1191).]
The expression sufism, which, according to the most
likely possibility, is derived from the word suf
(wool), meaning wearing woolen garments, which
symbolizes the hard life far from comforts and
hedonism, is more appropriately used for practical
gnosis, as the term gnosis is more appropriate to
theoretical gnosis. In this way, in the realm of
gnosis, at least three elements can be identified. One
is the specific practical instructions which are
alleged to lead man to intuitive and interior gnosis
and conscious knowledge by presence related to God,
the Exalted, and the Most Beautiful Names and His
sublime attributes and their manifestations. The
second is the specific spiritual and psychic states
and traits of character, and ultimately, the
unveilings and witnessings achieved by the wayfarer.
The third is the propositions and statements
indicating these intuitive direct findings, and even
for those who personally have not travelled the pant
of practical gnosis, can be more or less understood,
although finding their truth and essence is specific
to the true gnostics.
By attending to these explanations it becomes clear
that the true gnostic is the one who follows a
specific practical programme and attains an intuitive
and direct gnosis of God, the Exalted, and His
attributes and actions. Theoretical gnosis is, in
fact, an account and interpretation of this gnosis,
which, naturally, has many shortcomings. If we are not
very exact about the terminology and expand its scope
we can use the term gnosis for all spiritual
journeying (wayfaring), which is undertaken to find
the truth and attain felicity, as well as the
resulting spiritual states and witnessings. In this
way, gnosis will include even the kinds of gnosis
found in Buddhism and Hinduism and the gnosis of some
of the tribes of Siberia and the native tribes of
Africa, just as the term religion may be applied, with
the same sort of extended meaning to Buddhism,
totemism, and the like.
Here it is appropriate to indicate the concepts of
wisdom and philosophy, too.
The expression “wisdom”, which is an originally Arabic
word, means a firm and certain gnosis (enlightment),
and it is often applied to practical gnosis, as the
sense in which it is used in the Glorious Koran
(17:39). However, in current terminology it has the
meaning of divine philosophy as well as practical
philosophy and the science of ethics, and in ethics
itself it is used in the sense of a trait of the soul
related to the use of reason, and as the mean between
the extremes of cunning and stupidity. In any case, it
is not applied to atheistic philosophies or
skepticism, to the contrary of philosophy which is
derived from Greek roots meaning any intellectual or
rational efforts to understand the problems of all
existence, even if this leads to the rejection of
certain and established gnosis, or even the rejection
of objective existence.
The Originality of Islamic Gnosis
Anyone who attends carefully to the verses of the
Glorious Koran, the words of the Noble Prophet, and
the pure people of his household, may the Blessings of
God Almighty be upon them, all of them, without a doubt
will be able to find many sublime and profound
subjects in the realm of theoretical gnosis, as well
as numerous prescriptions and practical instructions
in relation to the spiritual wayfaring of the gnostic.
For example, we can refer to the verses related to the
unicity of the divine essence, attributes and actions
in chapter of Tawhid as well as the beginning of
chapter of al?Hadid, and the last verses in chapter of
al Hashr, and likewise the verses indicating the
divine presence throughout the world of being, and His
comprehension over all existents, and the existential
glorification and prostrations of all creatures for
God, the Exalted.
Likewise, there are verses which include special
prescriptions and manners which can be called the way
of Islamic spiritual wayfaring, such as the verses
pertaining to contemplation and meditation, constant
remembrance and attention, rising in the pre?dawn
hours and remaining awake at night, fasting, prolonged
prostrations and glorifications during nights,
humility and resignation, crying and falling down when
reciting and listening to the verses of the Holy
Koran, sincerity in worship, and the performance of
good deeds out of love and affection toward God in
order to achieve nearness to Him and His satisfaction,
as well as verses pertaining to trust in God, divine
pleasure, and submission before the Lord.
The points which can be found among the narrations
attributed to the Noble Prophet and Pure Imams, may
God Almighty bless all of them, and in their
supplications and intimate devotions related to the
above topics are uncountable.
In view of these explicit verses and dear explications
of the Noble Prophet and his immaculate household, May
God's infinite blessings be showered upon them, two
groups have gone to opposite extremes. One group of
narrow minded and superficial people give a trivial
and simple meaning to these verses, and even consider
God as having mutable states and physical ascent and
descent, and they empty the verses and narrations of
their noble and sublime contents. These are the sort
of people who generally reject the existence of
anything by the name of gnosis in the Islamic texts.
Another group under the influence of various social
factors have discovered and accepted some strange
foreign elements from others, as a result of which
they have come to believe things which one cannot
consider to originate from religious texts and the
contents of the divine Book and Sunnah. Rather, some
of them might be in opposition to the explicit texts
which are not capable of exoteric interpretation.
Likewise, regarding practice, they have invented their
own rites and customs, on the one hand, or have
borrowed them from non?Islamic sects. On the other
hand, they believe in the suspension of duties for the
accomplished gnostic.
Of course, those who have an exceptionally favourable
opinion of all gnostics and sufis have given excuses
and interpretations for all of these issues. But it is
fair to say that at least some of these contentions do
not have an acceptable justification, and we should
not be so over impressed with the scholarly and
spiritual greatness of some figures that we accept
whatever they say or write with closed eyes and ears
and confirm them, and deny others any right to
criticize and inquire into their works. Of course, it
is clear that the acceptance of the right to criticize
does not mean to condone unrefined or ill considered
judgments, or the unfair expression of bias, nor the
failure to pay due heed to positive and valuable
points. In any case, one should seek what is right and
true, and travel the way of justice and fairness and
avoid extreme and unreasonable optimism and pessimism
and seek help from God to recognize the truth and to
be persistent in the way of the Truth.
It is self?evident that to observe all the issues
pertaining to gnosis, sufism, wisdom and philosophy
and their interrelations and each of their relations
with Islam is not a task to be performed within the
confines of a single article. Thus, considering the
summary nature of the remarks, we shall be concerned
with the most significant points, and postpone further
investigation to the occasion of more extensive
discussion.
Gnosis and Intellect
One of the fundamental problems which is a matter of
contention between the supporters and opponents of
gnosis is whether reason can make any judgment about
what is given through gnosis, which is supposedly
acquired by interior unveilings and witnessings, or
whether, for example, reason can refute some of them
or not. The answer to this question is important with
regard to the fact that many gnostics make assertions
which cannot be given any rational explanation. They
claim that they discovered these things through the
esoteric way, and that reason does not have the
capacity to understand them, and naturally, that
reason thus has no right to refute or reject them.
The most important subject of this kind of controversy
is that of the unity of existence (wahdat al-wujud),
which has been propounded in various forms. One is
that, basically, there is nothing, has been nothing
and shall be nothing but God, the Exalted. Whatever
has been called other than Him, is said to be nothing
more than illusions and fantasies. Another form of
this proposition is that nothing exists outside the
essence of God or outside the vessel of His knowledge.
In this way, a sort of multiplicity in oneness may be
accepted. Another form of this claim, which is more
prevalent, is that the wayfarer at the end of his
journey, reaches the station of annihilation (complete
enlightment or fana), and nothing remains of him save
a name. Finally, the most moderate form of the claim
is that the wayfarer reaches a station in which he
sees nothing but God, and all things fade away into
God. In more exact terminology, he witnesses the
fading of all things into the existence of God, the
Exalted, like the fading of a weak light before the
light of the sun.
In such cases, the opponents generally take advantage
of rational arguments, and the proponents eventually
say that these sorts of matters transcend the limits
of reason. In this way they shirk the burden of the
rational explanation of their claims. Considering
these developments, this basic question will be posed:
Are there truths about which reason is incapable of
comprehending and has no right to reject?
What may be said in summary here is that although
reason is concerned with concepts and the function of
reason is not to recognize the truth of the objective
existence or origin of any objective thing, let alone
the divine exalted existence, but the positive and
negative judgments of reason, when they are
self-evident or may lead to self-evidence, are
undeniable and through concepts may be applied to
objective things. The assumption of the error of such
judgments involves contradiction. In other words,
although the function of reason is not knowledge of
the origins of existence, with the above mentioned
qualifications, there can be no doubt about the
validity of judgments about phenomena.
As for the issue of the unity of existence, it must be
said that the denial of existence of things other than
God and the absolute denial of multiplicity not only
imply the denial of the validity of the judgments of
reason, but also involve the denial of the validity of
knowledge by presence belonging to the active and
passive aspects of the soul. In this way, how can we
hold that witnessings and unveilings have any
validity, regarding the fact that the best evidence
for their validity is their being present to
consciousness? So, the unity of existence, on this
interpretation, is not acceptable at all. However, we
may consider an acceptable interpretation which is
propounded in Transcendent Philosophy from which
it is obtained that the existence of creatures in
relation to God, the Exalted, is a relative and
dependent existence, and to be precise it may be said
that they are the very relation and dependence, and
they have no independence of their own. That which is
discovered by the gnostic is this very denial of the
independence of other things [than God], which they
call the denial of their real existence.
[Note: Transcendent philosophy refers to the philosophy of
Sadr al-Din Shirazi, known as Mulla Sadra (1640).]
Here the question may be posed in another form: Can we
consider the judgment of reason prior to intuition and
unveiling? In reply, it should be said that pure
knowledge by presence is in truth the discovery of
reality itself. Thus, it is irrefutable. However,
knowledge by presence is usually accompanied by a
subjective interpretation in such a way that any
distinction between them requires great care. These
subjective interpretations which involve conceptual
knowledge, are fallible. What are rejected by rational
proofs are incorrect subjective interpretations of
observations and knowledge by pretence, not the
objects of knowledge by presence themselves. In the
case of the unity of existence, that which is realized
through witnessings is restricted to the independent
existence of God, the Exalted, which due to
inattention is called true existence, according to
which true existence is denied of other existents.
It is worth mentioning that the great Islamic gnostics
have explicitly claimed that some unveilings are
Satanic, invalid, and may be recognized through some
evidence, and ultimately may be distinguished from
others by placing them under the scrutiny of rational
certain arguments, the God’s Book and the Practices of
Divine Messenger.
It is clear that an investigation into all the kinds
of unveilings and witnessings and the types of
knowledge by presence and the ways in which they are
qualitatively reflected in the mind, the causes for
the incorrectness of some subjective interpretations
and the way to distinguish the correct from the
incorrect, are beyond the scope of this article.
Gnosis and Religious Law - (Tariqa and Sharia)
Another important problem worthy of consideration at the end
of this article is the relation between practical
gnosis and the precepts of religious law, or the
relation between Gnostic Path and God’s Law. A group
has imagined that practical gnosis is an independent
way to discover truths, to be used without regard to
religious law, and that Islam either corroborates it
(by acceptable innovation) or; at the very least,
poses no obstacle to it. And they have continued in
this direction to the point of holding that
basically, they considered it to be unnecessary to be
committed to any religion in order to reach gnostic
stations, and others have considered commitment to any
one of the religions, and in a more moderate form,
commitment to one of the divine religions, to be
sufficient.
However, from an Islamic point of view, gnostic
spiritual wayfaring is not along a way independent of
and aside from that of religious law; rather it is a
more exact and subtle part of it. If we restrict the
term God’s Law to the outward precepts, it must be
said that Gnostic Path is along with God’s Law, or in
its interior, and it may only be realized with the
observation of the precepts of God’s Law. For example,
God’s Law determines the precepts for the ritual
prayer; and Gnostic Path undertakes the ways of
concentration and the presence of the heart in prayer;
and the conditions for the perfection of worship. In
God’s Law the performance of worship in order to avoid
divine chastisement and to reach the blessings of
heaven is sufficient. However, gnosis emphasizes the
purification of intentions of everything other than
God. This is what is known in the language of the Holy
Family, Peace be upon them, as "the worship of the
free." Likewise, idolatry according to God’s Law is
exoteric idolatry by worshipping idols and the like;
however, in Gnostic Path there are more precise types
of hidden idolatry and levels of hiddenness. Having
any hope in anything other than God, fear of other
than God, seeking the help of other than God, and love
for other than Him, if all of these are taken as
fundamental and independent, and not based on
obedience to the divine commands, they will be
considered kinds of idolatry.
Therefore, all kinds of innovations in religion and
arbitrary rites are not only undesirable but may be
obstacles to the achievement of true gnosis, let alone
the use of things which have been explicitly and
definitely prohibited and forbidden. Although it may
be the case that some works may bring about transient
so-called gnostic states, they do not have a good
result. They may be a Satanic trap for ultimate
downfall, and we should not be deceived by them. It is
to be concluded that the way of Truth is the one that
God, the Exalted, has stated:
And what is there after the truth but error? (10:32)
And Peace be upon those who follow the Guidance.
-- The End --
-
Quran and Family
--
Hadith al Thaqalayn
The Messenger of Allah - may Allah bestow peace and benedictions upon him and his Progeny - said:
"Verily, I am leaving behind two precious things (thaqalayn) among you: the Book of God and my kindred (ITRAH), my household (AHLULBAYT), for indeed, the two will never separate until they come back to me by the Pond (of alKawthar on the Judgement's Day)."
Founder of the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini, began his will with the mention of this tradition of the Prophet, known as Hadith alThaqalayn. In the prologue to his wasiyyah he pointed out that whatever tragedies and disasters befell the Muslim world during the last fourteen centuries have been mainly due to its estrangement from the Thaqalayn, the twofold legacy of the Prophet in the form of the QURAN and the AHLULBAYT.
Following are four of these sahih narrations of the tradition as recorded by Muslim and alHakim alNayshaburi in their compilations:
(Muslim says:) Zuhayr ibn Harb and Shuja ibn Makhlad narrated to me from Ulayyah that he said: Zuhayr said: narrated to us Ismail ibn Ibrahim, from Abu Hayyan, from Yazid ibn Hayyan, who said: "I, Husayn ibn Sabrah and Umar ibn Muslim went to see Zayd ibn Arqam. When we sat down with him, Husayn said to him, 'O Zayd, you have been greatly fortunate. You have seen the Messenger of Allah, upon whom be Allah's peace and benedictions, heard his speech, fought with him in battles and have prayed behind him. Indeed, O Zayd, you have been enormously fortunate. Narrate to us what you have heard from the Messenger of Allah , may Allah's peace and benedictions be upon him.'
"Zayd said: 'O brother, by God, I have become aged and old and I have forgotten some of what I used to remember from the Messenger of Allah , upon whom be Allah's peace and benedictions. So accept what I narrate to you and as to what I don't, trouble me not regarding it.' Then he said: 'One day the Messenger of Allah , upon whom be Allah's peace and benedictions, addressed us near a pond called Khumm between Makkah and Madinah. He praised God and extolled Him and preached and reminded (us). Then he said, "Lo, O people, I am only a human being and I am about to respond to the messenger of my Lord [i.e. the call of death]. I am leaving behind two precious things (thaqalayn) among you. The first of the two is the Book of Allah. In it is guidance and light. So get hold of the Book of Allah and adhere to it." Then he urged and motivated (us) regarding the Book of Allah . Then he said, "And my AHLULBAYT (family). I urge you to remember God regarding my AHLULBAYT. I urge you to remember God regarding my AHLULBAYT. I urge you to remember God regarding my AHLULBAYT "'" ....
(Sahih Muslim, part 7, Kitab fada'il alSahabah [Maktabat wa Matbaat Muhammad Ali Subayh wa Awladuhu: Cairo] pp. 122-123.)
(AlHakim says:) Narrated to us Abu alHusayn Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Tamim alHanzali in Baghdad, from Abu Qallabah Abd alMalik ibn Muhammad alRaqqashi, from Yahya ibn Hammad; also narrated to me Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Balawayh and Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Jafar alBazzaz, both of them from Abd Allah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal, from his father, from Yahya ibn Hammad; and also narrated to us Abu Nasr Ahmad ibn Suhayl, the faqih of Bukhara, from Salih ibn Muhammad, the hafiz of Baghdad, from Khalaf ibn Salim alMakhrami, from Yahya ibn Hammad; and Yahya ibn Hammad narrated from Abu Uwwanah from Sulayman alAmash, from Habib ibn Abi Thabit, from Abu alTufayl, from Zayd ibn Arqam, may God be pleased with him, who said: "The Messenger of Allah , may God's peace and benedictions be upon him and his progeny, while returning from his last hajj (hijjat alwada') came down at Ghadir Khumm and ordered (us) towards the big trees, and (the ground) underneath them was swept.
"Then he said, 'I am about to answer the call (of death). Verily, I have left behind two precious things amongst you, one of which is greater than the other. The Book of Allah , the Exalted, and my ITRAH (kindred). So watch out how you treat these two after me, for verily they will not separate from each other until they come back to me by the side of the Pond.' Then he said 'Verily, Allah , the Almighty and the Glorious, is my master (mawla) and I am the master of every believer (mu'min).' Then he took Ali, may God be pleased with him, by the hand and said, 'This (Ali) is the master of whomever I am his master. O God, love whoever loves him and be the enemy of his enemy.'"
(AlHakim adds:) "This hadith is sahih in accordance with the conditions of sihhah laid down by the Shaykhayn (alBukhari and Muslim), although they have not recorded it in its full length."
(AlHakim says:) The first tradition (mentioned above) is supported by this one narrated by Salamah ibn Kuhayl, from Abu alTufayl, which is also sahih according to the requirements of alBukhari and Muslim. Narrated to us Abu Bakr ibn Ishaq and Dalaj ibn Ahmad alSijzi, both of them from Muhammad ibn Ayyub, from al'Azraq ibn Ali, from Hassan ibn Ibrahim alKirmani, from Muhammad ibn Salamah ibn Kuhayl, from his father, from Abu al-Tufayl, from Ibn Wathilah that he heard Zayd ibn Arqam, may God be pleased with him, say: "The Messenger of Allah , may Allah 's peace and benedictions be upon him and his progeny, came down at a place between Makkah and Madinah near the trees with five big shades and the people swept the ground under the trees. Then the Messenger of Allah , may God's peace and benediction be upon him and his progeny, began to perform the evening prayer. After the prayer he began to address the people. He praised God and extolled Him, preaching and reminding (us), and said what God wanted him to say. Then he said, 'O people! Verily, I am leaving behind two matters (amrayn) among you if you follow them (the two) you will never go astray. These two are: the Book of God and my AHLULBAYT, my ITRAH.' Then he said thrice: 'Do you know that I have more right over the believers (Inni awla bi almu'minin) than they over themselves?' The people said, 'Yes.' Then the Messenger of Allah , may Allah's peace and benedictions be upon him and his progeny said, 'Of whomever I am his master (mawla) Ali also is his master.'"
(al'Imam al-Hafiz Abu Abd Allah alHakim alNaysaburi, alMustadrak ala al-Sahihayn [Dar alMarifah li alTibaah wa alNashr: Beirut), vol. iii, pp. 109-110).
(AlHakim says:) Narrated to us Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn alHusayn ibn Muslim, the faqih of Ray, from Muhammad ibn Ayyub, from Yahya ibn al-Mughirah alSadi, from Jarir ibn Abd alHamid, from alHasan ibn Abd Allah alNakhai, from Muslim ibn Subayh, from Zayd ibn Arqam, may God be pleased with him, who said: "The Messenger of Allah , may Allah's peace and benedictions be upon him and his progeny, said, 'Verily, I leave behind two precious things amongst you: the Book of Allah and my AHLULBAYT. Verily, the two will never separate until they come back to me by the side of the Pond.'"
(AlHakim says:) This hadith is sahih al'isnad according to the conditions laid down by the Shaykhayn (alBukhari and Muslim), though they did not record it. (alHakim, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 148)
These are four versions of the tradition narrated on the authority of Zayd ibn Arqam. Their sihhah (authenticity) is confirmed by two of the great Sunni Imams of hadith.
The Various Occasions Related to Hadith alThaqalayn:
Hadith al-Thaqalayn as recorded by various traditionists mentions four occasions on which the Prophet (S) proclaimed it publicly.
First of these is the occasion when the Prophet (S) proclaimed it during his last hajj at Arafat. On this occasion, the Prophet (S) was accompanied by more than a hundred thousand Muslims.
The second occasion relates to his proclamation at Ghadir Khumm, during the course of his return journey to Madinah.
The third occasion relates to his proclamation in the Mosque of Madinah.
The fourth one relates to his pronouncement of Hadith alThaqalayn in his chamber during his last illness. All these occasions lie within a period of ninety days and pertain to the Prophet's last days.
1. At Arafat
AlTirmidhi in his Sunan (v, 662, no. 3786) records the following tradition
....Jabir ibn Abd Allah said: "I saw the Messenger of Allah - upon whom be God's peace and benedictions - in the course of his hajj pilgrimage on the day of Arafah. The Prophet was seated on his camel, alQaswa', and was delivering a sermon. I heard him say: 'O people, I am leaving among you that which if you hold on to you shall never go astray: the Book of Allah and my kindred, my household."
AlTirmidhi states that the same tradition has been narrated by Abu Dharr, Abu Said, Zayd ibn Arqam and Hudhayfah ibn Usayd.
2. At Ghadir Khumm:
AlNasa'i in his alSunan alkubra, 96, No. 79, records the following tradition in the chapter "Khasa'is Ali":
AlNasa'i narrates from Muhammad ibn alMuthanna, he from Yahya ibn Hammad, from Abu 'Uwwanah, from Sulayman, from Habib ibn Abi Thabit, from Abu alTufayl, from Zayd ibn Arqam, who said, "When the Messenger of Allah returned from the last hajj and came down at Ghadir Khumm....
"Then he declared: 'I am about to answer the call (of death). Verily, I have left two precious things (thaqalayn) among you, one of which is greater than the other: the Book of God and my ITRAH, my AHLULBAYT. So watch out how you treat them after me. For, indeed, they will never separate until they return to me by the side of the Pond.' Then he said, 'Verily, God is my master (mawlaya) and I am the wali of every believer.' Then he took Ali's hand and declared, 'To whomever I am his wali, this one is also his wali. My God, befriend whoever befriends him and be hostile to whoever is hostile to him.'" Abu alTufayl says: "I said to Zayd, 'Did you hear it from the Prophet?' He replied, 'There was no one in the caravan who did not see it with his eyes and hear it with his ears,'"
3. In the Mosque of Madinah:
Ibn Atiyyah in the introduction of his tafsir, alMuharrar alwajiz, i, 34 records the following narration:
...It is narrated that he (i.e. the Prophet) - upon whom be peace - said in the last sermon that he delivered during his illness: "O people, I leave behind two precious things (thaqalayn) amongst you...: the Book of God - which is a rope between Him and you, whose one end is in His hand and whose other end is in your hands so act according to its muhkamat and believe in its mutashabihat; consider as lawful that which it regards as lawful and consider as forbidden that which it regards as unlawful - and my ITRAH and my AHLULBAYT, who are the second thaql. So don't outstrip them (fa la tasbiquhum ), for then you shall perish."
4. In the Prophet's Chamber During His Last Illness:
Ibn Abi Shaybah, as cited by AlIsami in Simt alnujum al'awali, ii, 502, no. 136, has narrated the following tradition:
The Messenger of Allah said during his last illness: "Soon I am going to pass away and I have extended to you my plea of excuse. Lo, verily I leave behind amongst you two precious things: the Book of Allah , the Almighty and the Glorious, and my kindred (ITRAH)." Then he took Ali's hand and raised it, saying, "This Ali is with the QURAN and the QURAN is with Ali. The two will not separate until they return to me by the Pond. Then I will ask the two as to how they were treated after me."
Since the Prophet has placed the AHLULBAYT by the side of the QURAN, it means that the AHLULBAYT have to be followed, like the QURAN, as the living guides of the Ummah in matters of doctrine, ritual and law.
The words 'thaqalayn' and the command to hold on to them (al-itisam, al-akhdh or alittiba in accordance with the different wordings) unambiguously imply that in the same way as it is obligatory to follow the QURAN, so also it is equally obligatory to follow the AHLULBAYT in the matters of Islamic teachings. Moreover, the inseparability of the QURAN and the AHLULBAYT, as well as the repeated emphasis on holding on to the two and the specific emphasis on adherence to the AHLULBAYT and the observance of their rights clearly establish the obligation to follow the AHLULBAYT as the religious leaders, authorities and guides of the Ummah.
Hadith alThaqalayn also affirms the freedom of the Imams of the AHLULBAYT from sin and error (ismah) because: the hadith commands adherence to them and the QURAN together and since the QURAN is free from every trace of falsehood and error, so is the guidance of the AHLULBAYT; adherence to the two of them is considered as a guarantee against misguidance for the Ummah, which is only possible if the Imams of the AHLULBAYT are free from error and sin.
Hadith al-Thaqalayn implies the preeminence of the AHLULBAYT within the Ummah from the viewpoint of knowledge (alamiyyah) and excellence (afdaliyyah).
Hadith al-Thaqalayn and Hadith al-Ghadir were proclaimed by the Prophet in the course of a single sermon at Ghadir Khumm.
Some say Hadith alThaqalayn, Hadith al-Ghadir and Hadith al-Manzilah were mentioned in the course of the same sermon at Ghadir Khumm as mentioned by Ibn Hajar.
Some versions of the tradition, such as the one narrated by alQunduzi in Yanabi al-mawaddah, 20, from al-Hasan ibn Ali, contain the following statement of the Prophet which signifies the perpetuity of the Imamate:
O God, You don't let the earth remain devoid of Your Proof over Your creation so that Your proofs should not become invalid or that Your friends should go astray after You have guided them. They (the Proofs of God) are few in number but great in worth near God, Almighty and Glorious. Indeed, I had prayed to God, Exalted and Blessed, to place knowledge and wisdom in my descent and the descent of my descendants, and in my seed and the seed of my seed, until the Day of Resurrection, and my prayer was granted.
Ali also said to his pupil Kumayl ibn Ziyad:
...But the earth is never devoid of him who stands for God with a proof (qa'im li'Ilah bi hujjatin). He is either manifest and well-known or afraid and concealed, so that God's proofs and His clear signs should not become invalid. How many are they and where are they? By God, they are few in number, but great in esteem before God. Through them God maintains His proofs and signs till they entrust them to others like themselves and plant them in the hearts of their likes. Knowledge has led them to the reality of understanding and they have attained the spirit of certitude. That which is hard upon the seekers of comforts comes easy to them. They endear what the ignorant regard with aversion. They live in the world with their bodies, but their spirits are in a higher realm. They are the vicegerents (khulafa') of God in His earth and His callers to His Din. Oh, how much I yearn to see them! (H: 147)
All these references affirm the preeminence of Ali ibn Abi Talib and the Ahl al-Bayt in the Ummah and their claim to the comprehensive leadership of the Ummah after the Holy Prophet.
However, as will be obvious to anyone who studies the history of the Imams of the AHLULBAYT, they were isolated from the Muslim masses by despots and left without support in their struggle against the [terrorism of ] tyrannical regimes. The result was that the most authentic exponents and defenders of the QURAN were put under severe surveillance, exiled, imprisoned, poisoned and martyred, and the masses were deprived of their guidance and leadership.
Having removed the AHLULBAYT from their way, the road was opened by the selfseeking tyrants for making the Holy QURAN itself an instrument for the justification of their ANTIQURAN rule. "They forced," as Imam Khumayni says, "the true exponents of the QURAN... off the stage with various ploys and systematic plans. In this way, they in fact, eliminated the QURAN itself, the QURAN which was the greatest programme for organizing man's material and spiritual life, and rejected its plan of government based on Divine justice, which was and remains one of the ideals of this sacred scripture. Thus they laid the foundations of deviation from the Din and the Book of God, bringing things ultimately to an indescribable extreme."
If today the custodians of American Islam with their petrodollars conspire against the aspirations of the Muslim masses inspired by the genuine Islam, so did once the Umayyad and Abbasid tyrants stand in the way of Islam and seek to isolate and destroy its exponents, the Imams of the AHLULBAYT, and promote a counterfeit version of Islam. But no matter how much they tried they could not extirpate the Prophet's exhortations regarding the AHLULBAYT and conceal the unbreakable link between the Book of God and the Prophet's ITRAH, in the form of Hadith alThaqalayn and scores of other traditions similar to it.
--
Hadith al Thaqalayn
The Messenger of Allah - may Allah bestow peace and benedictions upon him and his Progeny - said:
"Verily, I am leaving behind two precious things (thaqalayn) among you: the Book of God and my kindred (ITRAH), my household (AHLULBAYT), for indeed, the two will never separate until they come back to me by the Pond (of alKawthar on the Judgement's Day)."
Founder of the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini, began his will with the mention of this tradition of the Prophet, known as Hadith alThaqalayn. In the prologue to his wasiyyah he pointed out that whatever tragedies and disasters befell the Muslim world during the last fourteen centuries have been mainly due to its estrangement from the Thaqalayn, the twofold legacy of the Prophet in the form of the QURAN and the AHLULBAYT.
Following are four of these sahih narrations of the tradition as recorded by Muslim and alHakim alNayshaburi in their compilations:
(Muslim says:) Zuhayr ibn Harb and Shuja ibn Makhlad narrated to me from Ulayyah that he said: Zuhayr said: narrated to us Ismail ibn Ibrahim, from Abu Hayyan, from Yazid ibn Hayyan, who said: "I, Husayn ibn Sabrah and Umar ibn Muslim went to see Zayd ibn Arqam. When we sat down with him, Husayn said to him, 'O Zayd, you have been greatly fortunate. You have seen the Messenger of Allah, upon whom be Allah's peace and benedictions, heard his speech, fought with him in battles and have prayed behind him. Indeed, O Zayd, you have been enormously fortunate. Narrate to us what you have heard from the Messenger of Allah , may Allah's peace and benedictions be upon him.'
"Zayd said: 'O brother, by God, I have become aged and old and I have forgotten some of what I used to remember from the Messenger of Allah , upon whom be Allah's peace and benedictions. So accept what I narrate to you and as to what I don't, trouble me not regarding it.' Then he said: 'One day the Messenger of Allah , upon whom be Allah's peace and benedictions, addressed us near a pond called Khumm between Makkah and Madinah. He praised God and extolled Him and preached and reminded (us). Then he said, "Lo, O people, I am only a human being and I am about to respond to the messenger of my Lord [i.e. the call of death]. I am leaving behind two precious things (thaqalayn) among you. The first of the two is the Book of Allah. In it is guidance and light. So get hold of the Book of Allah and adhere to it." Then he urged and motivated (us) regarding the Book of Allah . Then he said, "And my AHLULBAYT (family). I urge you to remember God regarding my AHLULBAYT. I urge you to remember God regarding my AHLULBAYT. I urge you to remember God regarding my AHLULBAYT "'" ....
(Sahih Muslim, part 7, Kitab fada'il alSahabah [Maktabat wa Matbaat Muhammad Ali Subayh wa Awladuhu: Cairo] pp. 122-123.)
(AlHakim says:) Narrated to us Abu alHusayn Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Tamim alHanzali in Baghdad, from Abu Qallabah Abd alMalik ibn Muhammad alRaqqashi, from Yahya ibn Hammad; also narrated to me Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Balawayh and Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Jafar alBazzaz, both of them from Abd Allah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal, from his father, from Yahya ibn Hammad; and also narrated to us Abu Nasr Ahmad ibn Suhayl, the faqih of Bukhara, from Salih ibn Muhammad, the hafiz of Baghdad, from Khalaf ibn Salim alMakhrami, from Yahya ibn Hammad; and Yahya ibn Hammad narrated from Abu Uwwanah from Sulayman alAmash, from Habib ibn Abi Thabit, from Abu alTufayl, from Zayd ibn Arqam, may God be pleased with him, who said: "The Messenger of Allah , may God's peace and benedictions be upon him and his progeny, while returning from his last hajj (hijjat alwada') came down at Ghadir Khumm and ordered (us) towards the big trees, and (the ground) underneath them was swept.
"Then he said, 'I am about to answer the call (of death). Verily, I have left behind two precious things amongst you, one of which is greater than the other. The Book of Allah , the Exalted, and my ITRAH (kindred). So watch out how you treat these two after me, for verily they will not separate from each other until they come back to me by the side of the Pond.' Then he said 'Verily, Allah , the Almighty and the Glorious, is my master (mawla) and I am the master of every believer (mu'min).' Then he took Ali, may God be pleased with him, by the hand and said, 'This (Ali) is the master of whomever I am his master. O God, love whoever loves him and be the enemy of his enemy.'"
(AlHakim adds:) "This hadith is sahih in accordance with the conditions of sihhah laid down by the Shaykhayn (alBukhari and Muslim), although they have not recorded it in its full length."
(AlHakim says:) The first tradition (mentioned above) is supported by this one narrated by Salamah ibn Kuhayl, from Abu alTufayl, which is also sahih according to the requirements of alBukhari and Muslim. Narrated to us Abu Bakr ibn Ishaq and Dalaj ibn Ahmad alSijzi, both of them from Muhammad ibn Ayyub, from al'Azraq ibn Ali, from Hassan ibn Ibrahim alKirmani, from Muhammad ibn Salamah ibn Kuhayl, from his father, from Abu al-Tufayl, from Ibn Wathilah that he heard Zayd ibn Arqam, may God be pleased with him, say: "The Messenger of Allah , may Allah 's peace and benedictions be upon him and his progeny, came down at a place between Makkah and Madinah near the trees with five big shades and the people swept the ground under the trees. Then the Messenger of Allah , may God's peace and benediction be upon him and his progeny, began to perform the evening prayer. After the prayer he began to address the people. He praised God and extolled Him, preaching and reminding (us), and said what God wanted him to say. Then he said, 'O people! Verily, I am leaving behind two matters (amrayn) among you if you follow them (the two) you will never go astray. These two are: the Book of God and my AHLULBAYT, my ITRAH.' Then he said thrice: 'Do you know that I have more right over the believers (Inni awla bi almu'minin) than they over themselves?' The people said, 'Yes.' Then the Messenger of Allah , may Allah's peace and benedictions be upon him and his progeny said, 'Of whomever I am his master (mawla) Ali also is his master.'"
(al'Imam al-Hafiz Abu Abd Allah alHakim alNaysaburi, alMustadrak ala al-Sahihayn [Dar alMarifah li alTibaah wa alNashr: Beirut), vol. iii, pp. 109-110).
(AlHakim says:) Narrated to us Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn alHusayn ibn Muslim, the faqih of Ray, from Muhammad ibn Ayyub, from Yahya ibn al-Mughirah alSadi, from Jarir ibn Abd alHamid, from alHasan ibn Abd Allah alNakhai, from Muslim ibn Subayh, from Zayd ibn Arqam, may God be pleased with him, who said: "The Messenger of Allah , may Allah's peace and benedictions be upon him and his progeny, said, 'Verily, I leave behind two precious things amongst you: the Book of Allah and my AHLULBAYT. Verily, the two will never separate until they come back to me by the side of the Pond.'"
(AlHakim says:) This hadith is sahih al'isnad according to the conditions laid down by the Shaykhayn (alBukhari and Muslim), though they did not record it. (alHakim, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 148)
These are four versions of the tradition narrated on the authority of Zayd ibn Arqam. Their sihhah (authenticity) is confirmed by two of the great Sunni Imams of hadith.
The Various Occasions Related to Hadith alThaqalayn:
Hadith al-Thaqalayn as recorded by various traditionists mentions four occasions on which the Prophet (S) proclaimed it publicly.
First of these is the occasion when the Prophet (S) proclaimed it during his last hajj at Arafat. On this occasion, the Prophet (S) was accompanied by more than a hundred thousand Muslims.
The second occasion relates to his proclamation at Ghadir Khumm, during the course of his return journey to Madinah.
The third occasion relates to his proclamation in the Mosque of Madinah.
The fourth one relates to his pronouncement of Hadith alThaqalayn in his chamber during his last illness. All these occasions lie within a period of ninety days and pertain to the Prophet's last days.
1. At Arafat
AlTirmidhi in his Sunan (v, 662, no. 3786) records the following tradition
....Jabir ibn Abd Allah said: "I saw the Messenger of Allah - upon whom be God's peace and benedictions - in the course of his hajj pilgrimage on the day of Arafah. The Prophet was seated on his camel, alQaswa', and was delivering a sermon. I heard him say: 'O people, I am leaving among you that which if you hold on to you shall never go astray: the Book of Allah and my kindred, my household."
AlTirmidhi states that the same tradition has been narrated by Abu Dharr, Abu Said, Zayd ibn Arqam and Hudhayfah ibn Usayd.
2. At Ghadir Khumm:
AlNasa'i in his alSunan alkubra, 96, No. 79, records the following tradition in the chapter "Khasa'is Ali":
AlNasa'i narrates from Muhammad ibn alMuthanna, he from Yahya ibn Hammad, from Abu 'Uwwanah, from Sulayman, from Habib ibn Abi Thabit, from Abu alTufayl, from Zayd ibn Arqam, who said, "When the Messenger of Allah returned from the last hajj and came down at Ghadir Khumm....
"Then he declared: 'I am about to answer the call (of death). Verily, I have left two precious things (thaqalayn) among you, one of which is greater than the other: the Book of God and my ITRAH, my AHLULBAYT. So watch out how you treat them after me. For, indeed, they will never separate until they return to me by the side of the Pond.' Then he said, 'Verily, God is my master (mawlaya) and I am the wali of every believer.' Then he took Ali's hand and declared, 'To whomever I am his wali, this one is also his wali. My God, befriend whoever befriends him and be hostile to whoever is hostile to him.'" Abu alTufayl says: "I said to Zayd, 'Did you hear it from the Prophet?' He replied, 'There was no one in the caravan who did not see it with his eyes and hear it with his ears,'"
3. In the Mosque of Madinah:
Ibn Atiyyah in the introduction of his tafsir, alMuharrar alwajiz, i, 34 records the following narration:
...It is narrated that he (i.e. the Prophet) - upon whom be peace - said in the last sermon that he delivered during his illness: "O people, I leave behind two precious things (thaqalayn) amongst you...: the Book of God - which is a rope between Him and you, whose one end is in His hand and whose other end is in your hands so act according to its muhkamat and believe in its mutashabihat; consider as lawful that which it regards as lawful and consider as forbidden that which it regards as unlawful - and my ITRAH and my AHLULBAYT, who are the second thaql. So don't outstrip them (fa la tasbiquhum ), for then you shall perish."
4. In the Prophet's Chamber During His Last Illness:
Ibn Abi Shaybah, as cited by AlIsami in Simt alnujum al'awali, ii, 502, no. 136, has narrated the following tradition:
The Messenger of Allah said during his last illness: "Soon I am going to pass away and I have extended to you my plea of excuse. Lo, verily I leave behind amongst you two precious things: the Book of Allah , the Almighty and the Glorious, and my kindred (ITRAH)." Then he took Ali's hand and raised it, saying, "This Ali is with the QURAN and the QURAN is with Ali. The two will not separate until they return to me by the Pond. Then I will ask the two as to how they were treated after me."
Since the Prophet has placed the AHLULBAYT by the side of the QURAN, it means that the AHLULBAYT have to be followed, like the QURAN, as the living guides of the Ummah in matters of doctrine, ritual and law.
The words 'thaqalayn' and the command to hold on to them (al-itisam, al-akhdh or alittiba in accordance with the different wordings) unambiguously imply that in the same way as it is obligatory to follow the QURAN, so also it is equally obligatory to follow the AHLULBAYT in the matters of Islamic teachings. Moreover, the inseparability of the QURAN and the AHLULBAYT, as well as the repeated emphasis on holding on to the two and the specific emphasis on adherence to the AHLULBAYT and the observance of their rights clearly establish the obligation to follow the AHLULBAYT as the religious leaders, authorities and guides of the Ummah.
Hadith alThaqalayn also affirms the freedom of the Imams of the AHLULBAYT from sin and error (ismah) because: the hadith commands adherence to them and the QURAN together and since the QURAN is free from every trace of falsehood and error, so is the guidance of the AHLULBAYT; adherence to the two of them is considered as a guarantee against misguidance for the Ummah, which is only possible if the Imams of the AHLULBAYT are free from error and sin.
Hadith al-Thaqalayn implies the preeminence of the AHLULBAYT within the Ummah from the viewpoint of knowledge (alamiyyah) and excellence (afdaliyyah).
Hadith al-Thaqalayn and Hadith al-Ghadir were proclaimed by the Prophet in the course of a single sermon at Ghadir Khumm.
Some say Hadith alThaqalayn, Hadith al-Ghadir and Hadith al-Manzilah were mentioned in the course of the same sermon at Ghadir Khumm as mentioned by Ibn Hajar.
Some versions of the tradition, such as the one narrated by alQunduzi in Yanabi al-mawaddah, 20, from al-Hasan ibn Ali, contain the following statement of the Prophet which signifies the perpetuity of the Imamate:
O God, You don't let the earth remain devoid of Your Proof over Your creation so that Your proofs should not become invalid or that Your friends should go astray after You have guided them. They (the Proofs of God) are few in number but great in worth near God, Almighty and Glorious. Indeed, I had prayed to God, Exalted and Blessed, to place knowledge and wisdom in my descent and the descent of my descendants, and in my seed and the seed of my seed, until the Day of Resurrection, and my prayer was granted.
Ali also said to his pupil Kumayl ibn Ziyad:
...But the earth is never devoid of him who stands for God with a proof (qa'im li'Ilah bi hujjatin). He is either manifest and well-known or afraid and concealed, so that God's proofs and His clear signs should not become invalid. How many are they and where are they? By God, they are few in number, but great in esteem before God. Through them God maintains His proofs and signs till they entrust them to others like themselves and plant them in the hearts of their likes. Knowledge has led them to the reality of understanding and they have attained the spirit of certitude. That which is hard upon the seekers of comforts comes easy to them. They endear what the ignorant regard with aversion. They live in the world with their bodies, but their spirits are in a higher realm. They are the vicegerents (khulafa') of God in His earth and His callers to His Din. Oh, how much I yearn to see them! (H: 147)
All these references affirm the preeminence of Ali ibn Abi Talib and the Ahl al-Bayt in the Ummah and their claim to the comprehensive leadership of the Ummah after the Holy Prophet.
However, as will be obvious to anyone who studies the history of the Imams of the AHLULBAYT, they were isolated from the Muslim masses by despots and left without support in their struggle against the [terrorism of ] tyrannical regimes. The result was that the most authentic exponents and defenders of the QURAN were put under severe surveillance, exiled, imprisoned, poisoned and martyred, and the masses were deprived of their guidance and leadership.
Having removed the AHLULBAYT from their way, the road was opened by the selfseeking tyrants for making the Holy QURAN itself an instrument for the justification of their ANTIQURAN rule. "They forced," as Imam Khumayni says, "the true exponents of the QURAN... off the stage with various ploys and systematic plans. In this way, they in fact, eliminated the QURAN itself, the QURAN which was the greatest programme for organizing man's material and spiritual life, and rejected its plan of government based on Divine justice, which was and remains one of the ideals of this sacred scripture. Thus they laid the foundations of deviation from the Din and the Book of God, bringing things ultimately to an indescribable extreme."
If today the custodians of American Islam with their petrodollars conspire against the aspirations of the Muslim masses inspired by the genuine Islam, so did once the Umayyad and Abbasid tyrants stand in the way of Islam and seek to isolate and destroy its exponents, the Imams of the AHLULBAYT, and promote a counterfeit version of Islam. But no matter how much they tried they could not extirpate the Prophet's exhortations regarding the AHLULBAYT and conceal the unbreakable link between the Book of God and the Prophet's ITRAH, in the form of Hadith alThaqalayn and scores of other traditions similar to it.
--
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
