|
Man in the State of Nature
By: Sayyid Hasan Islami
One of the questions that preoccupy the thinkers’ mind is this: In essence, what is man—angelic or devilish? Assuming that there had been no powerful institution to administer and control human beings, in such a case what would have been the people’s behaviour toward one another? Would they have mutually respected and observed their rights, or would they, like wolves, have fallen on and torn one another apart?
Any sort of answer to this question necessitates the existence of a specific political and educational system. If we say that the human being is intrinsically wicked, in that case we will inevitably need to perpetually control individuals. If we declare that man is innately angelic, it follows that we have to remove all restrictions and limitations, and set him free.
In this context, in order to comprehend the Imām’s viewpoint well, we cannot help but embark on the subject by touching on the views of other thinkers as well, and to study their historical circumstances. Hence, we will deal initially on the viewpoint of Thomas Hobbes[56] on this issue as well as his famous statement, “Man is the wolf of other man.” Subsequently, we will explore the view of Jean-Jacques Rousseau,[57] and then examine the Imām’s point of view. As such, we will approach the discussion from the following three (3) angles:
• Hobbes’ view;
• Rousseau’s view; and
• Imām Khomeinī’s view.
Hobbes’ view
Thomas Hobbes was one the greatest English political thinkers. He was a skeptic philosopher. As he failed to present exact and fixed foundations for ethics, he resorted to cynicism and accepted relativism in ethics. With the denial of the exact foundations of ethics, he had no alternative but to present a principle for it in society.
It is owing to this that he arrived at the conclusion that for the appearance of morality in society, we are in need of a centralized and resolute authority that would maintain and promote public morality. In the political realm, he was anti-democracy and a partisan of absolute monarchy. He believed that only in the presence of a centralized authority could the morals of society be preserved. His beliefs were greatly influenced by the events of those days in England as well as the civil wars there.
One of the key concepts of Hobbes is the expression, ‘man in the state of nature’. What is meant by ‘the state of nature’ is a hypothetical state wherein there is no political institution and administrative organization existing in the society, the people being left to their own business and to do whatever they like.
Since the instinct of love and defense of one’s self is very strong in everybody, the people would be at each other’s throats and would destroy one another: “In the state of nature in which everybody is his own master, one is at odds with the others concerning the nomenclature of things, and it is these differences that give rise to disputes and conflicts.”[58]
Life in such a society is very difficult, laborious and perilous; in the words of Hobbes it is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”[59] According to Hobbes, in no way is this kind of living to one’s benefit and advantage. Therefore, members of society themselves come to the conclusion that they have to choose a person or persons and give them enough and complete prerogatives to maintain security and so prevent individuals from assailing one another. ‘Civil society’, ‘commonwealth’, ‘civitas’ and ‘country’ are all born of this.
According to Hobbes’ view, civil society is the opposite of the state of nature, the latter being nothing but life in the jungle and even worse, for it is possible for the animals to have rules and regulations for themselves and to respect one another’s domain; yet human beings in the state of nature are not like that.
Such an approach to human beings draws Hobbes toward absolute monarchial rule, totally centralized authority and the creation of powerful and commanding supervisory organizations, drags him totally away from populism, and makes him conclude, thus: “It is, therefore, clear that so long as there is no government over the people to compel them to obey, they will exist in a state, which they have named ‘a state of war’, this war pitting every individual against another.”[60]
Hobbes’ views on ethics, human beings and politics are highly controversial. Many are those who have repudiated or endorsed them, have uncovered their inner contradictions and shown his contradictory statements one by one. In the words of Richard Tock,
Even during his life time Hobbes was reputed to have conflicting thoughts. He was regarded as a stubborn debater and an irascible dogmatist; yet, he would vigorously assail any kind of dogmatism. He was strongly against the notion of the authority of the Church as was, for example, exerted over the universities; yet, he wanted his philosophical works to be adopted as textbooks in them. While extolling and commending liberalism, he used to support absolute rule that exercises complete authority over intellectual activities.[61]
The most important criticism leveled against his pessimistic view on man is that if human beings, as what he says, are so bloodthirsty, how did they arrive at the conclusion that they themselves should create an establishment that would prevent them from transgressing against others? Hobbes replies that they had come to this conclusion through their sound reasoning. In that case, it is the same sound reasoning, which is superior to their instincts and directs them toward a life devoid of want and hostility; this, however, is not meant to be a critique of Hobbes’ outlook.
Rather, we are after articulating this perspective on man. It was an outlook that deeply influenced later thinkers who showed each of these influences in one way or another. The interesting point on the works of Hobbes is that he gave the title, Leviathan, to his most important political writing; what he meant by Leviathan was the same centralized ruling authority. Leviathan means a legendary sea-monster that devours everything. It is this oddity and irony that the government’s position can possibly annihilate its citizens and, at the same time, its existence is necessary.
Anyhow, Hobbes’ standpoint on the human being has its roots in the older tradition of Judeo-Christian faith. In fact, according to both the Old and the New Testaments, man is sinful and innately impure. It is this legacy that reaches Hobbes and which he theorizes, and on the basis of which he lays the foundation of his ideal political system. According to the Book of Genesis,[62] Adam and Eve ignored the commandment of God not to go near the forbidden tree, and due to the temptation of the serpent, they ate the fruit of the tree. As a consequence, they earned the wrath of God; they were expelled from heaven and were sent down to the accursed world.[63]
The sin that was committed by Adam and Eve, according to the Judeo-Christian tradition, did not embroil only them; rather, this sin passes down from generation to generation of humankind, and is deemed as being part of man’s nature. Accordingly, man is inherently sinful and, by nature, evil. This sinfulness is not only restricted to human beings for “even the heavens are not pure.”[64] According to the ancient Psalms of David, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”[65]
Paul, the greatest official exponent of the Christian Church and the promoter of Christianity, in his epistle to the Roman Christians thus claims,
“What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written: ‘There is no-one righteous, not even one; there is no-one who understands, no one who seeks God’.”[66]
Elsewhere,he concludes that “the whole world is a prisoner of sin.”[67]
At any rate, sin is among the rudimentary concepts in the Judeo-Christian tradition. The human being is said to be inherently imprisoned in its clutches; he will be born with it and it has a place in his natural disposition [fit*rah]. Only through faith is it possible for him to absolve himself. Such an approach to the nature of mankind, regarding sin to be at one with man’s nature, provided fertile ground for the emergence of pessimistic and anti-democratic notions of persons such as Hobbes. As a result, we come up against a theory that reckons man as wolf unto another, regards him as innately evil, and believes that there must always be an authority to control him by forcible means.
Rousseau’s view
Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s (1712-1778) view is diametrically in opposition to that of Hobbes. His thoughts had a positive influence on the Great Revolution of France. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, on which his famous statement has left its imprint, owes him too much. In the beginning of his celebrated book, The Social Contract, Rousseau writes, “Man is born free; but he lives everywhere in slavery.”[68] Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights thus also states: “All human beings are born free and equal in…rights.”[69]
In contrast to Hobbes’ view and the traditional notion of the Church based on the sinful nature of man, Rousseau believed that man in the state of nature is decent, well-mannered, free-minded, and peace-loving, and that it is the society which corrupts him. In his opinion the debasement of man commences when he joins the civil society and relinquishes his own freedom. A human being left to himself would never resort to attacking others and waging war against anybody:
Man is by nature amiable and timid; he runs away from the least danger. He acquires a pugnacious temperament by virtue of habits and experience. Pride, interest, prejudgments, vengeance, and all yearnings that can draw man to welcome the risk of death do not exist in nature. It is only when man enters human society that the thought of assaulting others enters his mind. After becoming a citizen he changes into a soldier. Therefore, man, by nature, has no inclination to wage war against his fellow human beings.[70]
So long as man lives in the lap of nature and is not a captive of society, he is in harmony and intimacy with all the constituent parts of nature. His needs are limited and can easily be met. Neither is there any sign of avarice and covetousness, nor envy and the killing of one another:
We see him eat his fill under the oak, drink water from the first spring that is within reach and quenches his thirst. He spreads out his bedding under the same tree that provided him with food. In this manner; all his needs are satisfied. The earth is absorbed in its natural productive processes, and a substantial part of it is covered with vast expanses of forest.[71]
It is regrettable that this state of affairs does not last long. It is not clear why man abandons this comfort and serenity, and decides to establish a human society. This act is tantamount to forfeiting one’s own natural freedom and destroying one’s own pure nature and natural disposition; for “it is the society that corrupts and defiles human beings… the more human beings gather together, to the same extent will they be further corrupted.”[72]
The source of human wars and conflicts is the desire to own, which in turn is an offshoot of society. It is this longing for possession that drives human beings to kill one another, and causes so much bloodshed:
The first person who erected a wall around a plot of land and said, ‘This is mine,’ thinking the people to be so naïve as to believe him, was the actual founder of civil society. If someone had pulled out the wooden stakes around the above-mentioned land… and had shouted to his fellowmen, ‘Do not listen to this swindler; land belongs to everybody,’ the world might have possibly been safe from crimes, wars, homicide, rancor, vengeance, and suffering.[73]
In short, Rousseau’s views which are mainly found in The Social Contract and Desire and Discourse on the origin of the lack of equality, gave rise to different and conflicting reactions and his naturalist understanding became highly controversial. One of the fiercest oppositions was expressed by Voltaire,[74] another one of the enlightened philosophers. Rousseau, who had much attachment to him, sent him in 1755 a copy of the book, Discourse, on the origin of the lack of equality. While expressing gratitude to him, Voltaire replied, thus:
I have received the book that you have written against the human race, and wish to thank you for it. Such intelligence had never been applied to fool us people. By reading your book, people would like to walk on their two hands and two feet. But for me, since I abandoned such a habit sixty years ago, I feel, with all regret, that to begin it again is beyond me. To search for the savage people of Canada is also not possible. The ailments with which I am afflicted have put me in need of European surgeons. Moreover, there is a war going on in those regions, and copying our actions has also made the savages corrupt like ourselves.[75]
As such, contrary to Hobbes, Rousseau puts emphasis on the pure nature of man and regards the civil society as its demolisher. In view of the fact that there is no possibility of perpetuating the state of nature and, in effect, such a state has never existed, being more hypothetical than real, Rousseau’s solution is the acceptance of civil society provided that it is based on the social contract and guarantees individual liberties. Yet, in practice, Rousseau’s idea stems from either the negation of government and attacking society or results in a self-centered government. It is this point that thinkers have seriously dealt with but is beyond the ambit of our discussion.
However, what is interesting for us here is his outlook on the nature of man. He holds it immune from any kind of blemishes and has reckoned even training and education as corrupting this wholesome natural disposition [fit*rah]. In the book, Emile,[76] he suggests that we should completely leave the child to himself to grow in whatever way he likes as in the case of wild pennyroyal, and be one with nature.
If Hobbes used to view the nature of man so pessimistically and regarded the existence of a powerful government to be indispensable for deterring human beings from aggression against one another, Rousseau stands on the proposition that in reality it is the society and government that tarnish the clear nature of man, the best state of man being that very state of nature.
Imām Khomeinī’s view
These two traditions and perspectives have both advocates and antagonists. They have been put to the test time and again and have shown their shortcomings. Doubtlessly, each of these two outlooks possesses a part of the truth.
If human beings are left to themselves and no law or moral principle controls them, certainly egoism would sway them to compete with and, finally, obliterate one another.
Apparently, the cynical outlook of Hobbes is more in consonance with reality than the positive view of Rousseau. In Islamic anthropology, strong threads [of the reality] can be seen from Hobbes vantage point.
According to Qur’anic narration, since God announced to the angels His intention of creating man and appointing him as His vicegerent on earth, they asked all together in protest: “Wilt Thou place therein one who will do harm therein and will shed blood, while we, we hymn Thy praise and sanctify Thee?”[77]
In this objection of the angels, they indicated two points: one, this human creature would be a bloodshedding being; the other, they (the angels) were more deserving than man to be the viceregents of God. What is important for us is the first point. The angels, for certain reasons, used to point to the shedding of blood and cruelties of this creature, perceiving the big and disastrous wars written on his face.
Interestingly enough, God neither rebuffed their views, nor said to them that man will not be murderous. Instead, in various instances, including this one, He put the stamp of approval, and described man as iniquitous and imprudent.[78] God answered them with only a single sentence: “Surely I know that which ye know not.”[79]
This general statement conveyed to the angels the fact that God also knows the other side of the coin of man’s existence while they see only his murderous aspect. In such a way, He told them that though man is murderous and cruel, there is a more important feature in him that justifies his creation and appointment as God’s representative on earth. In this manner, murder and bloodshed have been moulded in the existence of man and he has an inborn inclination to transgress his bounds and perpetrate tyranny.[80]
Of course, this point should be mentioned that this trait has no relation whatsoever to the Christian notion of Original Sin. According to the Glorious Qur’an, both Adam and Eve, too, were recalcitrant and disobeyed God’s commandment; as a consequence, they were expelled from paradise and sent down to earth.
Nevertheless, after realizing their error, they repented and God, in turn, accepted their repentance, and the spiritual taint of that recalcitrance was wiped out. God, the Most High, states that Adam was beguiled by Satan: “And Adam disobeyed his Lord, so went astray. Then his Lord chose him, and relented toward him, and guided him.”[81]
Thus, this point has no bearing at all on the Christian belief on the original sin of man. Such is the nature of man, egoist and self-centered.
This is the truth of the matter. Man possesses a predatory and destructive makeup. This is what Freud[82] called, ‘instinct of annihilation’ and considers it one of the two fundamental instincts of man. It is the same instinct that has been the cause of the ruinous and widespread wars throughout human history, has spawned great tragedies, and been responsible for father killing son, and son killing father. Of course, this instinct is vital in the life of man. If human beings were not egoistic, they would not have been able to contend with other animals and natural disasters, and would have been exterminated.
From this perspective, man is not different from predatory animals and is subject to the law of ‘kill or be killed’. He destroys others in order to provide for himself, and gives priority to himself over others. The Imām describes this aspect of man in the following terms:
It is evident that at the time of his birth, after passing through certain stages, man is no better than a weak animal and has no distinction over other animals, except for his potentiality of becoming a human being. That is, his humanness is potential, not present. Therefore, man is an animal in actuality in the initial stages of his life in this world. No power but the law of animal nature, which governs through the faculties of Desire [shahwah] and Anger [ghadab], rules over him.[83]
Historical observations and reflections of thinkers corroborate and uphold this view and perspective; yet, this is not the end of the story. Man is murderous; yet, his pursuit is not only bloodshed. He is an animal; yet, he does not remain within the bounds of being animal [hayawāniyyah]. It is true that since the moment of his entering the world of existence, man is subject to the logic of animal life and in the words of the Imām:
Though it is not directly relevant to our topic, it is essential to know that the human soul is by nature and instinct inclined to believe not only in the principle of tawhīd [monotheism], but to follow all truthful doctrines also. Yet, since the moment of birth and stepping into this universe, man starts growing and developing along with his natural urges and animal desires.[84]
In spite of this, man can let his other aspect prevail over this aspect. This other aspect of man is evident to God though hidden and concealed to the angels. This aspect of man’s existence is the very fit*rah [natural disposition], which has been given remarkable emphasis in our religious texts. The key solution to this concern is the fit*rah, which have recently been given much attention by Islamic thinkers such as the late ‘Allāmah Tabāt*abā’ī[85] and Mut*ahharī,[86] and on the basis of which they have proved and established a great deal of knowledge and learning.
Fit*rah means natural disposition and origination. In reply to the question concerning the noble āyah [verse], which states: “The nature (framed) of Allah, in which He hath created man,”[87] Imām as-Sādiq (‘a) stated that it meant that God created all the people with a monotheistic instinct.[88]
According to the Imām, fit*rah does not exclusively mean tawhīd [monotheism], as “it includes all the true teachings which God Almighty has ingrained in the nature of His slaves”[89] and these have been moulded in their being and personality.
The Imām elaborates on the role and place of fit*rah in the human instinct, as well as some of its manifestations, in the exposition of the eleventh hadīth in his Sharh-e Chehel Hadīth. The most important principle of man’s fit*rah is his being monotheist; second, belief in the hereafter; and third, acceptance of the principle of prophethood [nubuwwah]. Another decree on man’s fit*rah is:
The natural inclination to seek perfection [that] is so universal [in] that if all the eras of human existence are probed and each of human individuals, no matter to what group or nation he may belong, is questioned, a love of perfection will be found to be part of his nature and his heart will be found to be pulled toward it.[90]
It is possible that owing to the influence of some circumstances or type of upbringing, individuals may have diverse opinions on the meaning and connotation of perfection. In essence, however, nobody holds a dissenting view. Everyone is looking for something which he thinks is better [and] similar is the case of men of science and craft and that of the entire human species. Whatever the activity and field of their concern, their eagerness grows with achievement and is directed toward the higher degrees of perfection. The more they progress and advance, the more their eagerness grows for the higher degrees of perfection; its fire is never extinguished and becomes more intense every day.[91]
It is the same inclination to perfection and excellence that drives forward the caravan of human civilization and learning, and turned the early humans, who were afraid of the fierce and dreadful animals, into masters and rulers of the planets. It is the same penchant for perfection that eclipses man’s murderous nature and makes him determined to overcome his defects and display the excellences in him. It is the same essence of fit*rah that renders possible the founding of communities and civil society. It is the very quintessence that brings to the fore the murderous man’s merit to be the Vicegerent of God and the epitome of divine attributes.
Had it not been for this essence, no social contract—whether in the world of imagination or in that of reality—would have been concluded; human beings would never be willing to give up some of his interests and tolerate others. So, Hobbes in saying that man is the wolf of another man and Rousseau in opining that man is, by nature, pure and peace-loving, are both right. Each of them has seen one facet of man’s being. But if man were only wolf, the establishment of a civil society would not have been possible. On the other hand, if he were only angelic and peaceful in nature, do all these crimes and murders then make sense?
Hence, man is both this and that, but at the same time, is [purely] neither this nor that. In this context, the view of the Imām is both realistic and optimistic. He propounds that when man is born, he possesses abundant potentialities for deriving excellences as well as instincts for his security and survival. In fact, since the time he sets foot on earth, man is in need of attributes that could keep him away from dangers.
In this aspect, he is not significantly different from the other animals. Self-love, the need for food and drink, and the need to ward off danger and to reproduce are all attributes common to human beings and other animals. But, man does not remain in that stage as he possesses the capability to go beyond it and attain spiritual perfections while the other animals are devoid of that potentiality and only revolve in the vicious cycle of their instincts.
In view of this, this monotheistic and perfection-seeking disposition is the demarcation line between human being and animal. Nonetheless, it does not necessarily mean that as he enjoys a truth-seeking disposition man is no longer in need of training and education, and that every human being actually possesses all excellences. Man is de facto no less than an animal. It is only through self-edification that he can elevate himself from that position, leave behind him the degrees of existential perfection, and finally reach a station that is beyond imagination.
In short, from the viewpoint of Imām Khomeinī, man in the state of nature is a ruthless and self-centered creature possessing strong egoism, and in the words of the Imām, an adherent of the logic and “law of animal nature.”[92]
However, his monotheistic and perfection-seeking disposition—provided that it constitutes the basis for growth and development—compels him to overcome his self and his animalistic logic, and to tread the path of perfection, and go beyond the stages of Divine Proximity, becoming the vicegerent of God and all-encompassing embodiment of His Attributes. But, this proximity to the Divine Presence is commensurate to the exit from the door of selfishness and self-worship as “the gnostic journey toward God and the spiritual migration does not take place without leaving the dark house of the self and the disappearance of its traces.”[93]
Man as the Arena of Conflict between Good and Evil
Once we accept the previous principle, we can then deduce that the human being has a dual personality; this is part of the well-established Islamic anthropology. According to the Qur’an, God Almighty created man out of odorous black mud, which had been transformed into dry clay, and then He breathed His Spirit upon it; thus, emerged man. In other words, man is a muddy creature, which has the Spirit of God. The Glorious Qur’an describes the creation of man, thus:
“And (remember) when thy Lord said unto the angels: Lo! I am creating a mortal out of potter’s clay of black mud altered. So, when I have made him and have breathed unto him of My spirit, do ye fall down, prostrating yourselves unto him.”[94]
This fact is repeated in the different verses of the Qur’an. The reality must be emphasized that the human being has a twofold personality: heavenly and earthly. This creature has its origin in the earth and his hands are extended toward heaven. While glancing at this transitory world, his eyes are fixed on that everlasting world. This creature is the connecting link between animal and angel. It is this point that distinguishes him from the two, and raises the question—is he superior to the two, equal to, or inferior to them?
One of the companions of Imām as-Sādiq (‘a) asked him as to who is superior, man or angel. The infallible Imām (‘a) replied that the Commander of the Faithful Imām ‘Alī (‘a) had the following answer to the same query:
God created the angels from reason without carnal desire and He created human beings from the combination of these two. Therefore, whoever uses his reason above his desire is superior to the angels and whoever uses his desire above his reason is inferior to the four-footed ones.[95]
While pointing to this hadīth Jalāl ad-Dīn Muhammad Balkhī [ar-Rūmī], a great gnostic and expounder of the subtleties of human existence, recites thus:
It is related in the hadīth that the Majestic God
Created the creatures of the world (in) three kinds.
One class (He made) entirely reason and knowledge and munificence;
That is the angel: he knoweth naught but prostration in worship.
In his original nature is no concupiscence and sensuality:
He is absolute light, (he is) living through (his) love of God.
Another class is devoid of knowledge,
Like the animals (which lives) in fatness from (eating) fodder.
It sees nothing but stable and fodder:
It is heedless of (future) misery and glory (felicity).
The third (class) is Adam’s descendant and Man:
Half of him is of the angel and half of him is ass.[96]
This is the state of human existence. His worldly aspect directs him to the world while his celestial side spurs him to quest and growth.
The spirit unfolds its wings (to) fly) upwards;
The body has stuck its claws in the earth.[97]
Of course, it is stated in the Prophetic narrations that God created man out of His own mold.
God created us in His image:
Our qualities are instructed by[98] (are modeled upon) His qualities.[99]
But this is only one side of the coin. It does not mean that man, as such, is superior to the angels and the representative of God. Rather, it points to the fact that man can, and should, make apparent and nurture his divine aspect, and make himself his Lord’s worthy viceroy.
As such, man has a dual personality and each part of him drives him to its pertinent direction. As a result, an inner conflict arises in man, dichotomizing his being. There is a story about Majnūn, which illustrates well this state of humanity. One day Majnūn decided to pay a visit to Laylā who used to live with her tribe in a distant place. So, he went after a she-camel that he possessed and mounted it. The she-camel had just given birth to an offspring and so was not willing to leave the place. However, it had no choice but to take Majnūn.
But whenever Majnūn used to fall asleep due to fatigue, the halter that was in his hand naturally used to slacken and the she-camel, realizing that its master had fallen asleep, would swiftly change its direction and head hurriedly toward its foal. After a short while, Majnūn would wake up and realize that the she-camel had changed course. So, he would correct his course and, gripping the halter tightly, lead the camel toward Laylā. But after some time, Majnūn would lapse into sleep once again and the camel, with its young mind, would change its direction, so on and so forth. After going to and fro like this many times, Majnūn consequently realized that they have not even covered a half day’s distance and that his actual problem was the rider heading toward his beloved and the animal ridden heading in another direction; he would not be able to reach Laylā so long as this situation was such and the two conflicting aims persisted. Mawlānā relates the story in the following words:
Majnūn’s desire is speeding to the presence of that (beloved) Laylā;
The she-camel’s desire is running back after her foal.
If Majnūn forgot himself for one moment,
The she-camel would turn and go back.
Since his body was full of love and passion,
He had no recourse but to become beside himself.
That which is regardful was (ever) reason:
Passion for Laylā carried (his) reason away.
But the she-camel was very regardful and alert:
Whenever she saw her toggle slack
She would at once perceive that he had become heedless and dazed,
And would turn her back to the foal without delay.
When he came to himself again, he would see on the spot[100]
That she had gone back many leagues.
In these conditions Majnūn remained going to and fro
For years on a three days’ journey.[101]
Yes, this is the condition of man, possessing existential dichotomy. As a result, man is always experiencing the greatest war he can ever imagine. All the great wars in history in reality are echoes of this same inner war. The wildest animals have never been observed to kill and tear up other animals except when they have to eat and cater for their subsistence needs.
No animal ever enjoys killing just for the sake of it or for amusement. However, man is not like this. Rather, at times he sinks so low that if he gets tired of slaying others, he teaches other human beings to rip up and butcher one another in front of him. There was a time in the Roman Empire when physically powerful slaves were given training in warfare.
Then, as gladiators they were brought to the middle of the imperial coliseum and were watched while fighting each other, and then the victorious slaves had to slay those who were overwhelmed. Such is the situation of man who constantly invents new methods for killing his fellow beings. It is enough to recall that during the World War II that lasted for six years, fifty million people lost their lives, though advanced electronically-controlled weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles were not yet invented.
The root of all these crimes is that same animalistic instinct of man, by recognizing which the angels had beforehand protested to or questioned God about the selection of man for the vicegerency [khilāfah]. However, this is not the whole truth. Throughout human history, we have been witnesses to the unprecedented endeavors of some people for the salvation of their fellow beings. Gandhi who was a law graduate, materially well-off, and belonging to the elitist Brahmin caste, had discarded his material comfort, and for the sake of freeing and saving the nation of India from the clutches of colonial rule, he gave up everything he possessed, and lost his life for the sake of equality among the Hindu castes and for guaranteeing the rights of the caste known as the ‘untouchables’. Nelson Mandela, Albert Schweitzer,[102] Mother Teresa, and hundred others—all created immortal epics. In our own religious culture, the movement and uprising of Imām Husayn (‘a) notwithstanding the absence of the least hope for military victory, is a vivid manifestation of that divine quality that is moulded in the natural constitution of man. Imām Khomeinī, in his own characteristic style, portrays human nature as follows:
Let it be known that man is a marvel possessing two lives and two worlds within one existence. That is, apparent life or the outward world, which is this worldly existence, and is associated with his body, and the other is ‘inner life’, the inward world, associated with the hidden, invisible, higher other world, his soul in short, which belongs to the realms of the invisible and celestial world, and consists of several levels and grades… For each one of them is specified host of guardians.
The host related with the divine and intellectual powers attracts him toward the sublime, heavenly spheres, and summons him to the acts of virtue and goodness. The other host of guardians is the ignoble and satanic, which attracts man toward the baser realms of darkness and shame, and invites him to the acts of villainy and destruction. There is always a state of conflict and strife between these two forces, and human existence serves as the battleground of these two bands.[103]
The late Farīdūn Mashīrī [104] relates this status of man, thus:
A wise man said: ‘A stubborn wolf Is hidden inside every man.
Inevitably, there is a great conflict and war That takes place day and night between the man and the wolf.
Men are at logger head with each other And these wolves lead and direct them.
For, this man is ill and ill-fated;
As such, the wolves rule over them.
Those tyrants are together;
Thus, their wolves are friends to one another.
The wolves are together while men are far from one another.
To whom should we share this amazing condition?[105]
From this principle, ample and valuable teachings can be derived, the most important of which are as follows:
1. Right to choose and select;
2. Necessity of self-cognition; and
3. Combat with the self as the major jihād [struggle].
Right to choose and select
Once we acknowledge that mankind is indescribable (first principle), that man is a combination of the spirit of God and putrid clay (second principle), that the human being is an arena of conflict between these two instincts, then we can proceed to the principle that man is always in the process of choosing and selecting.
Man is not a neutral spectator of his inner war; rather, he is like a commander who, by the choice he makes, acts to the benefit of one of the sides in the war. Man does not only enjoy the right to choose, but is also obliged to choose. In other words, he is compelled to choose, and in the jargon of existentialists, he is condemned to be free. Every movement of us is a form of choosing.
Even if one day we decide not to choose anymore, we have, with this decision, actually undertaken the act of choosing. That is, we have chosen not to choose or, in other words we have decided not to choose. Never for a moment can we ever imagine that we have refrained from choosing. Of course, the scope of this choosing is our conscious and voluntary actions and behaviour; not our genetic and environmental attributes.
For instance, we have not chosen our father, mother, race, or colour beforehand. Nevertheless, in our social behaviour and relations we are always in the state of choosing and selecting. It is through these assorted choices and selections that we build, demolish and rebuild ourselves.
We examine ourselves. We acquire a new description and account of ourselves. We again reject this description and adopt another one. In doing so, we construct and ‘recreate’ ourselves. For, “If indeed existence takes precedence over essence, then humanity is responsible for its own existence.”[106] So long as man is alive this choice exists. So long as man is in the terrestrial plane of existence, this successive self-building and self-demolition is inevitable:
As a portraitist every moment I make a beautiful idol But in the end I destroy all of them under your feet.
I make hundreds of pictures and portraits and mix them with soul But as I see your picture and portrait, I will put all of them on fire.
You are an intoxicated cupbearer, or a wary enemy,
Or that you destroy every house I build.
My soul is filled and mixed with you;
As this soul has your fragrance, I revere and adore it.
Every blood that flows in me says to your dust:
‘I’m synchronous and share with your love and affection.
Without you this heart in this house of water and flower[107] is broken.
O heart! Either go out of this physical house, or build it.[108]
This power to choose is embedded within us, and we are inevitably responsible for ourselves and our choices. In this connection, God, the Most Sublime, says: “Lo! We have created man from a drop of thickened fluid to test him; so We make him hearing, knowing. Lo! We have shown him the way whether he be grateful or disbelieving.”[109]
Elsewhere, while pointing out to the inattentiveness of man with respect to all the things endowed on him, God Almighty states: “Did We not assign unto him two eyes and a tongue and two lips, and guided him to the parting of the mountain ways?”[110]
Accordingly, from the very beginning man is faced with a variety of choices at his disposal. But with respect to these choices, he is neither blind nor compelled to act blindly; rather, he has two eyes that see, two ears that hear, a cogent intellect, and remarkable power to enable him to choose. In this struggle and conflict, man is neither helpless nor unaided; in case he himself wants and chooses, he will be assisted by God. According to the Messenger of God (s), the heart of every human being possesses two chambers: one is the angel’s domain while the other is under the sway of Satan. God renders help and support to the faithful through this angel.[111]
From here we proceed to the next point, which is a prerequisite of choice and indispensable for it; that is, freedom.
Man can only choose if he is free. To be free is latent in the meaning of choice. Once we have the right to choose to be free, we can pick and choose whatever we like. This freedom is not political, social or cultural; rather, it is above all these, and they all emanate from it. This freedom is the natural freedom. Here we do not wish to embark on an extensive and fruitless discussion of freedom, nor of compulsion, predestination and free-will. It is a debate that has engaged philosophers for centuries and millennia.
If we reflect on ourselves we easily observe this state of freedom in us, basically without which, there is no point in talking about education and ethics. The Glorious Qur’an also highlights this innate and intuitive state of ours and on the basis of which it conveys its commendation and praise, or rebuke and chastisement to us. If man were not free, there would have been no need for the sending of prophets and revelation of divine scriptures. Hence, man is free to embrace the faith or deny it.
Even so, there are some people who regard this freedom to be an impediment to deviation and perversion, and by accepting it, have to shoulder their responsibility. They are averse to this assumption of accountability. They try to cast doubt on this principle of freedom and consider themselves compelled, helpless and vulnerable.
When the Messenger of God (s) was appointed to shoulder the mission of messengership [risālah], a group of the polytheists who considered the acceptance of the faith as taking responsibility for, and exercising control over their own carnal desires, claimed: “If God did not want it, we and our forefathers would not have become polytheists and since we have become so, it implies that God has approved it and it is God’s will.” As a result, they became fatalists, and would say that they did not have the right to select and were, perforce, polytheists. In reality, they were juxtaposing the power and will of God vis-à-vis their own power. They would claim that if they were truly free, it implied that God was powerless, and since God had power over everything, it meant that their unbelief and denial of the faith also stemmed from the will of God in the midst of which they had no option. Anticipating this type of argument and reasoning, God told His messenger: “They who are idolaters will say: Had Allah willed, we had not ascribed (unto Him) partners neither had our fathers.”[112]
God presents this attitude as an excuse for not responding to the prophet’s call and for disavowing them. In another place, He considers the same reasoning as the rationale for their freedom. Knowing that His messenger (s) was painstakingly trying and endeavoring to make the idolaters finally submissive and subservient to Islam, God Almighty restrained him from these endeavors and said to him: “If Allah willed, He could have brought them all together to the guidance.”[113] Therefore, the crux of the matter is not whether God has power or not; the point is that God wants to test human beings. For this reason, He says: “Had Allah willed He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which He hath given you (He hath made you as ye are).”[114]
As such, God desires everybody to embrace the faith. But He wants this acceptance of the faith to be done freely and without any compulsion. Otherwise, it would not have been difficult for Him to have created all with identical mental and emotional makeup so that they would be Muslims and faithful en masse.
Renunciation of freedom, then, is in fact the result of mere sophistry and caprice, not attention to esoteric and exoteric realities. The reason is that anyone who is keen on doing something feels a sort of freedom in relation to doing it, whereas if he is not inclined to do something, it gives him a feeling of fatalism. Most of us witness this circumstance in our daily lives. Anybody who is engaged in economic ventures and activities feels himself free and believes in the right to choose, while he or she who is only confined within the four corners of the house experiences a sense of determinism and believes that:
We talk not of poverty and contentment;
Tell to the king that fortune is predetermined.
The fact is that for our sustenance to be predetermined does not mean abandoning economic activities. Mawlānā describes this propensity and morale as follows:
In every act for which you have inclination,
You are clearly conscious of your power (to perform it),
But in every act for which you have no inclination and desire,
In regard to that (act) you have become a necessitarian, saying,
‘This is from God.’[115]
An illustrating story of these fatalists is that of a man who entered a certain garden without permission, approached a tree, and began picking its fruits. When the owner of the garden reproached him for doing so, he claimed predetermination and said that he was an involuntary servant of God, i.e. without control over anything, and he was picking the fruits of a tree belonging to God. The owner of the garden tied him with a rope and beat him on his back and sides with a piece of wood, and when the man objected to him for doing so, he answered:
He answered, ‘With God’s cudgel this servant of His Is soundly beating the back of another servant.
’Tis God’s cudgel, and the back and sides belong to Him:
I am (only) the slave and instrument of His command.
He (the thief) said, ‘O cunning knave, I make a recantation of Necessitarianism:
There is free-will, there is free-will, (there is) free-will!’ [116]
Necessity of self-cognition
As the state within man is in reality an arena of conflict between irreconcilably competing forces, everyone should be well acquainted with this battleground, opposing camps, and the types of weapons used in this conflict. Perhaps one could lead a prosperous life even without a knowledge of mathematics. Maybe one could be felicitous in life even without being familiar with the natural history of the world and geology.
Possibly one could enjoy a blissful life even without familiarity with the history of one’s forebears or geography of the time. But no one could take a step toward perfection and bliss without knowing one’s self.
Therefore, this is the knowledge from which no one could consider himself not to need. More than two thousand years ago, it was written on the door of the Delphi temple in Athens: “Know thyself.” It seems that this saying will never fade and in no way relinquish its virtue and significance. All the efforts of Socrates were made to apply this maxim in his own case. As such, everybody throughout history has acknowledged his philosophy. Whether man regards himself as the center of the universe—as those in the past did believed—or as a speck of atom in the Milky Way—as people believe nowadays—he cannot escape from self-cognition. In no way can one ignore this cognizance. If man succeeds in drawing everything under his command but is ignorant of himself and unaware of the agitation within him, then he is still subjugated by his self and a prisoner of the forces within him.
Real freedom is not attained through dominance over nature but through recognition of one’s self. But alas! Man drifts away from the path, and as he obtained knowledge of nature as well as mastery over it, he imagines it as the very path to happiness. While the enemy is inside the house, he goes to fight the windmills and so deceive himself in the manner of Don Quixote.[117]
The intention is not to show the knowledge of nature to be unimportant; rather, the point is that if this nature which has been subjugated is placed at the disposal of man who does not yet know himself, not only does it not guarantee his felicity but even provides powerful means for the destruction and massacre of human beings as it has been hitherto. As technology advances, moral decadence and degeneration have also increased. Anyone who is not cognizant of himself but is after the understanding of nature loses the essence of his life’s period, and falling to the level of creatures subjugated by their instincts. This kind of person, according to Mawlānā, is:
He knows a hundred thousand superfluous matters[118] connected with The (various) sciences, (but) that unjust man does not know his own soul.
He knows the special properties of every substance,
(But) in elucidating his own substance(essence) he is(as ignorant) as anass,
Saying, ‘I know (what is) permissible and impermissible’[119] Thou knowest not Whether thou thyself art permissible or (unpermissible as) an old woman.[120]
Thou knowest this licit (thing) and that illicit (thing),
But art thou licit or illicit? Consider well!
Thou knowest what is the value of every article of merchandise;
(If) thou knowest what is the value of thyself, ’tis folly.
Thou hast become acquainted with the fortunate and inauspicious stars;
Thou dost not look to see whether thou art fortunate or unwasted (spiritually foul and ill-favoured).
This, this, is the soul of all the sciences—
That thou shouldst know who thou shall be on the Day of Judgment.
Thou art acquainted with the fundamentals [usūl] of the Religion,
But look upon thine own fundamental [asl] and see whether it is good. [121]
Well, the true essence of wisdom and foundation of true knowledge is self-cognition. This view on man and the true station of self-cognition in the West starts with Socrates and reaches its zenith in the philosophy of existentialism.[122] Søren Kierkegaard,[123] a Christian orator and thinker of Denmark, is regarded as the father and precursor of existentialism.
Although this idea is traced from the thoughts of such personalities as Socrates, Marcus Aurelius, Apectitus, St. Augustine, and Pascal, it is through Kierkegaard that it has been presented systematically. In his short but productive life he produced valuable works, which proved very useful to those that came after him. Even though his contemporaries had not given much importance to his sayings, his thought is being increasingly recognized nowadays. The core of his thought, revolving around the human being, can be mentioned in the following five statements:
1. Be yourself. That is, behave in such a manner that your outer and inner self is in unison, and eschew any sort of pretension.
2. Mind yourself. That is, mind only your own business. Of course, it does not mean that one should be indifferent toward the affairs of others. Rather, the point is that everyone should be concerned first and foremost about himself. If everybody does so, naturally the society could have a brighter future.
3. Know yourself. That is, strive to have a correct picture of yourself which should be identical with reality as much as possible.
4. Know your ideal condition. That is, after acquiring an actual image of yourself, strive to identify the ideal image of yourself.
5. Always move from your present to your ideal condition. That is, after recognizing your real self and obtaining the correct picture of your ideal condition, set out on a perpetual journey and move toward your ideal station.[124] In the language of Mawlānā,
By God, do not tarry in anything (any spiritual position) that thou hast gained,
(But crave more) like one suffering from dropsy who is never sated with water.[125]
Therefore, the core of existentialism, which is one of the most influential contemporary schools of philosophy, is nothing but self-cognition. In this case, “if the fundamental principle of existentialism, in short, is the primacy of knowledge of the soul over knowledge of the world, it appears that it can be said by implication that the proponent of this school, aside from not being an infidel, is [actually] concerned with the spirit of all knowledge and learning.”[126]
Such a judgment is natural since all religions have invited man to self-cognition and “the slogan of primacy of knowledge of the soul over knowledge of the world is a slogan, which stems from the heart of the teachings of Abrahamic faiths, and has abundant manifestations particularly in Islam.”[127]
The truth is that in our religious thought, self-cognition has been recognized as the spirit of all knowledge and learning (i.e., the most profitable of all kinds of knowledge). Imām ‘Alī (‘a) says: “Knowledge of the self is the most beneficial of all knowledge.”[128] Viewing self-cognition as the objective and apogee of knowledge, he (‘a) also says: “The highest degree of knowledge is that man would know his own self.”[129] Elsewhere he (‘a) says: “Whosoever has attained self-cognition has achieved greater victory.”[130]
All these emphases point to the significance and necessity of self-cognition in the discipline of Islamic anthropology. If knowledge of the self is equivalent to knowledge of God,[131] it follows that oblivion of the self means oblivion of God. So, if there is someone who does not know himself and claims to have knowledge of God, then according to Imām ‘Alī (‘a), there is room for distrust and amazement.[132]
It is only through self-cognition that man is able to understand the purpose of creation, know his place in this system, and
realize that the aim of imparting to us all these graces and endowments is something else, superior to and higher than what is visible. This world is a stage of action and its aim is a higher and more sublime sphere of existence. This lower and animal existence is not an end in itself.[133]
If man does not know himself and has no knowledge of the subtleties of his soul, he will then be afflicted with a multitude of destructive moral maladies such as hypocrisy, selfishness, pride, and polytheism. The first step in moral conduct [sulūk-e akhlāqī] is self-cognition. The aim of reckoning [muhāsibah], heeding [murāqibah] and other ethical precepts is this self-cognition and nothing else. To cite an example, whoever does not know himself and is unaware of the real subtleties of his own self, experiences narrow-mindedness, and this in turn, provides the ground for pride to develop in him and “being a person with a narrow mentality, as soon as he beholds any merit in himself he imagines that he has position and status. He thinks he has acquired a high station.”[134]
It can thus be deduced that it is not pride unless it is based on ignorance and feeble-mindedness. Those whose ignorance is more and whose rational faculties are more defective, are more proud of themselves; and those whose knowledge is greater, whose souls are more capacious, and whose breasts are spacious—they are humbler and more modest.[135]
It is through this approach that Imām Khomeinī, may his soul be sanctified, gives preference to reforming the self over reforming others and reckons the interior as more important than the exterior. In this perspective, the essence is the interior and not the external conditions. If man be free from all external entanglements but has a feeling of inner bondage, he is then not truly free. If man possesses the whole world but internally feels indigence, he is still destitute.
He said that the covetous eye of the worldly man is either satisfied
Through contentment, or will be filled with the earth of the grave.[136]
Basically, everything originates internally. So, while quoting a hadīth which expresses, “The freeman is free in all circumstances,”[137] the Imām says:
Let it be known to you that contentment comes from the heart and the absence of neediness is a spiritual state, unrelated to external matters that lie outside the human self. I have myself seen certain persons among rich and wealthy classes who say things which no honorable poor man would say.[138]
This point is not restricted to wealth alone. All other conditions are like that. For this reason, the Imām invites all, particularly the theology students, to begin with and reform themselves, saying that:
The first thing that the learned in religious sciences and the seekers of this perilous road must take into consideration is self-reform during the period of studies, counting it as far as possible to be the foremost of their duties, for this is harder and more obligatory than all the duties and obligations dictated by sharī‘ah and reason.[139]
Non-recognition of the self springs from blindness of the heart and inner loss of sight, which is considered as the origin of all adversities. Hence, “one must be very fearful of this inner blindness of vision which is the main source of all kinds of darkness and wretchedness. The blindness of the heart is the source of all misfortunes.”[140]
Thus, self-cognition is the fountainhead of all human perfection while self-ignorance is the root of all deprivation and humiliation of man. So, knowledge of the self is superior to knowledge of the world, and appears to be even more important than many religious sciences. As such, this knowledge should be accorded its own separate place and be developed and expanded. One should not be unduly confined to collecting and amassing terms of little use; rather, one should think of understanding one’s real self and the intricacies and subtleties of the soul.
Combat with the self as the major jihād {struggle}
The explication of the major jihād [struggle] and combat with the self can be traced from an event which has been narrated from the Messenger of God (s). The story runs as follows: The Messenger of God (s) dispatched a contingent of the army from among the Muslims to a battlefront.
Upon their successful return, he (s) said to them: “Blessed are those who have performed the minor jihād and have yet to perform the major jihād.” They asked, “O Messenger of God, what is the major jihād?”He (s) replied: “The jihād of the self (combat with the self).”[141]
In this manner, combat with the self and the major jihād [struggle] entered our moral culture and attained an eminent status in our religious literature. But, what is meant by this ‘combat with the self’?
We can only talk about combat with the self when the preceding principles have been well understood and accepted. Once we acknowledge that man has dual personalities and between which a constant war is taking place, we can then have a proper understanding of combat with the self. What is meant by ‘self’ [nafs] here is not the philosophical sense of the term. Rather, it means the world of carnal instincts and desires. The totality of all existential needs, motives, and sexual impulses is called ‘self’ [nafs].
As such, what is meant by combat with the self is the struggle against these instincts; though this understanding is somewhat premature and fails to convey the exact import of the hadīth. The objective of combat with the self, in a nutshell, is to place all carnal powers, desires and instincts under the dictates of reason and use them for serving God and perfecting the self.
It is from this aspect that Imām Khomeinī describes it as follows: “Thus the jihād of the self… implies overpowering one’s own powers and faculties, and placing them under God’s command, and purging the domain of our body of satanic elements and their forces.”[142]
Combat with the self, in the Imām’s code of ethics has such an esteemed position that he commences his book, Sharh-e Chehel Hadīth [Exposition of Forty Hadīths] with it and the first hadīth he expounds is this very hadīth of ‘combat with the self’, considering it loftier than attaining martyrdom in the way of God: “Thus, the jihād of the self is the jihād of greater importance. This jihād is superior to being killed in the way of God…”[143]
The reason behind the importance of combat with the self in relation to the conventional jihād is obvious.
If somebody abandons (conventional) jihād he has then committed a grave sin and caused the defeat of others while if somebody pulls out of the combat with the self, he, in fact, is vanquished and has caused his own fall. Military combat is not constant. But combat with the self is an arduous and constant activity. In military combat there are others who can help the person. Yet in the combat with the self it is the very person himself who should render the final blow to the enemy and gain victory. In military combat victory is sometimes so apparent and conspicuous that it elicits the applause and eulogy of everybody and gives a boost to one’s pride. However, in the combat with the self nobody is a witness as to what is taking place inside man and victory does not evoke praise and congratulations from anyone.
The story of a mujāhid [combatant] who had been fighting and gaining marvellous victories for years and then, in seclusion, engaged in combat with the self, and the reactions of the self, which Mawlānā has elaborately narrated, is the best example of such differences. In short, these distinctions and many others exemplify the primacy of combat with the self over combat against an adversary—(as combat with the self involves fighting with) an adversary whose killing is not easily possible and who is more powerful than any outer enemy:
O kings, we have slain the outward enemy,
(But) there remains within (us) a worse enemy than he.
To slay this (enemy) is not the work of reason and intelligence:
The inward lion is not subdued by the hare.
This carnal self [nafs] is Hell, and Hell is a dragon (The fire of) which is not diminished by oceans (of water).
It would drink up the Seven Seas, and still The blazing of that consumer of all creatures would not become less.
Stones and stony-hearted infidels enter it,
Miserable and shame-faced.[144]
Of course, it should not be assumed that since combat with the self is superior to that against an adversary, one should abandon the latter and engage only the former. Unfortunately, this understanding had emerged among a group of people and they would replace this one with the other. They were negligent of the fact that combat against an adversary is the preliminary of combat with the self and it is only after triumphing over an outer foe and obtaining the necessary preparedness that one can engage in combat with the self.
Thus, it was only after a contingent of that army had defeated the enemies that the Messenger of God (s) apprised them of the combat with the self, and not prior to (the triumphant return of the contingent). This shows that it is only after the outer jihād has been performed that one can talk about combat with the self.
Anyhow, the quintessence of Islamic morality is this combat with the self, which the Imām also emphasizes so much and reckons it as the touchstone of man’s prosperity or adversity. He describes the arena of this conflict as follows:
The human soul inhabits another realm and another territory also, which is the world of the hidden and the sphere of the sublime world. In that world, the role of the sensual forces assumes graver dimensions. This is the place, where the struggle and conflict between the divine forces and the fiendish ones is more severe and also more significant. Everything that exists in the external or visible world drifts to this hidden world, and is manifested there. Whichever of the forces whether godly or devilish, is victorious here is essentially triumphant there also… it is possible that, God forbid, due to the defeat of heavenly forces, the self is left vacant for the unholy occupation of the vicious and unworthy satanic legions, and hence causing an eternal loss to the human being that cannot be retrieved.[145]
Nevertheless, this combat with the self sometimes brings about questions and ambiguities, which are the subject of the next discussion.
Notes:
[56] Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679): English political philosopher who sought to apply rational principles to the study of human nature. In Hobbes’ view, humans are materialistic and pessimistic, their actions motivated solely by self-interest, thus a state’s stability can only be guaranteed by a sovereign authority, to which citizens relinquish their rights. Leviathan (1651), his most celebrated work, expresses these views. [Trans.]
[57]Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-78): Swiss-born French writer, philosopher, and political theorist. Greatly influenced by Denis Diderot, Rousseau first gained fame from his essay Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts (1750), an attack on the arts as a source for the increased wealth of the rich and an instrument of propaganda. In his Discourse on Inequality (1755), he professed the equality and goodness of ‘natural man’ and asserted that the golden age of humanity occurred before the formation of society, which bred competition and the corrupting influences of property, commerce, science, and agriculture. The Social Contract (1762), influential during the French Revolution, claimed that when human beings formed a social contract to live in society, they delegated authority to a government; however, they retained sovereignty and the power to withdraw that authority when necessary. [Trans.]
[58] Richard Tock, Hobbes, trans. Husayn Bashariyyeh (Tehran: T*arh-e Nū, 1376 AHS), p. 90.
[59] Iain McLean, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 222.
To know the context of the statement, see Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (Oxford: Blackwell, 1946), p. 81-83. [Trans.]
[60] Gerard Shumin, et al. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Qarārdād-e Ijtimā‘ī: Matn va Zamīneh-ye Matn [The Social Contract: Text and Context], trans. Murtadā Kalāntariān (Tehran: Āgāh, 1379 AHS), p. 84.
[61]Hobbes, p. 167.
[62] Book of Genesis is the first book of the Old Testament, in particular, and the Bible, in general, and the first of the so-called Five Books of Moses, Pentateuch. [Trans.]
[63] See Genesis 3:1-19 (i.e., chap. 3, verses 1-19).
[64]Job 15:16. In the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible, it is Job 15:15. [Trans.]
[65]Psalms 51:6. In the NIV it is Psalms 51:5. [Trans.]
[66]Romans 3:9-10. In the NIV it is Romans 3:9-11. [Trans.]
[67]Galatians 3:22.
[68]The Social Contract, p. 56.
[69]Ibid., footnote of p. 52.
Article 1 of the Declaration stipulates in full: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” [Trans.]
[70]Ibid., p. 85.
[71]Goftar-hā-ye dar Bāb-e Mansha’-e ‘Adam-e Musāwāt [Discourses on the Origin of the Absence of Equality] as quoted in The Social Contract, p. 8.
[72]Ibid., p. 9.
[73]Ibid., p. 10.
[74] François-Marie Arouet Voltaire (1694-1778): French author, philosopher, and major figure of the Enlightenment. An enemy of the tyrants, he spent much of his life in exile, including 23 years at his property on the Swiss border. His Letters Concerning the English Nation (1733) extolled religious and political toleration and the ideas of Sir Isaac Newton and John Locke. The satire Candide (1759), a rational skeptic’s attack on the optimism of Gottfried von Leibniz, shows Voltaire’s astringement style at its best. A friend of Frederick II of Prussia, Voltaire contributed to Denis Diderot’s Encyclopedia and wrote his own Philosophical Dictionary (1764). [Trans.]
[75] Bertrand Russell, Tārīkh-e Falsafeh-ye Gharb [History of Western Philosophy], trans. Najaf Daryābandarī (Tehran: Kitāb-e Parvāz, 1373 AHS), pp. 944-945.
[76]Emile is the title of Rousseau’s didactic novel on education, which he published in 1762 together with The Social Contract,his magnum opus in political philosophy, on which he suggested that rather than imparting knowledge, education should build on a child’s natural interests and sympathies, gradually developing his or her potential. [Trans.]
[77]Sūrah al-Baqarah 2:30.
[78] See Sūrah al-Ahzāb 33:72.
[79]Sūrah al-Baqarah 2:30.
[80] For further information on the divine plan in man’s creation from the viewpoint of the Qur’an, see Mīr Ahmad ‘Alī, The Holy Qur’an: Text, Translation and Commentary (Elmhurst, New York: Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an, Inc., 1988), Sūrah al-Baqarah 2:30-39 commentary notes 40-50, pp. 66-94, accessible online at http://www.al-islam.org/quran. [Trans.]
[81]Sūrah T&ā-Hā 20:121-122.
“Adam (‘a) was accommodated in the earthly paradise, i.e. in some fertile region on earth with the natural resources of the basic requirements of life and its enjoyment. Had Adam been contented with it, he would have remained there with his issues without being worried for his living, but it was not the purpose of his creation. Adam was endowed with infinite potentiality for progress and rise toward the ultimate. Ambition was latent in his nature, unstimulated. On the other hand, the angels thought themselves as superior to Adam, and Satan too. All the three groups had to be put to test to express their latent attitudes. The order or the command of God acted as a stimulus and each group reacted to it, according to its native tendencies. The angels realized their worth and value and submitted with the due response whereas the furious and the fiery temperament of the satanic character in the angelic garb of the Satan, was exposed. Adam had no idea of the consequences of approaching the Prohibited Tree and had no desire to approach it but there was the ambition in him to march toward the glorious state of the beings with whose holy names he was acquainted. He was happy in the primitive paradise and was not alive to his nakedness as his ambition was not yet stirred. It was the command of God that acted as the stirring factor and it was a nāh-e tahrīsī, i.e. a stimulating warning in the sense to say: ‘Behold: If thou want not worries approach not this tree, lest thou beareth the consequences.’ On the other hand, Satan with his underestimation of Adam as an earthly and passive being with ease and comfort, which caused his fall, thought that he would be able to beguile Adam and wreak vengeance on him and his children. Thus the situation made the two groups to face each other and be prepared for a new development in the transformation of the natural struggle for life into a moral warfare between good and evil or the right and the wrong, de facto and de jure.
“The Prohibited Tree was the one, the approach of which was the start of the new warfare…
“Satan could not bear Adam’s living in comfort and ease and was also helpless to do any harm to Adam without stirring the ambition in Adam, but Adam being cautious due to the warning he had received, Satan had no direct approach to him. Nothing could stir the latent ambition in Adam except through the social instinct of attachment to his other sex (i.e. Eve). It is through the sex medium that man steps out of his individuality into social life and starts feeling wants and develops desire after desire. It was through this medium (Eve) that Satan approached Adam. Both Adam and Eve felt their nakedness and their needs and thus their worries began. Thus Satan drove Adam and Eve out of the state of ease and comfort. Adam felt sorry for the loss, and his ambition began to develop itself. The return to the previous state was impossible because the ease and comfort in that state was due to the absence of the awakening to their nakedness and their need. A child whose social sense has not yet developed does not feel ashamed if it is naked and once the sense is developed the same condition would worry him, and the worry will not be over in him until he covers himself. After the development of the sense it would not be possible for him to remain naked and be happy. The same was to Adam and Eve when they felt their nakedness as they approached the forbidden tree and the social sense was awakened in them. They felt their helplessness as it was not possible for them to remain naked as before and be happy and feel comfortable.
“To regain the happiness, they had to turn toward God through the holy names whose potentiality they carried in them. Driven out of the lower (earthly) paradise the happiness cannot be recovered unless one qualifies for the heavenly paradise by putting all his faculties and the latent energies into work with harmony and moderation under the divine guidance.
“Thus the history of Adam, Eve, the angels, and Satan is a psychological presentation of a new development on earth along with the advent of the first man (Adam). It shows the turning point in the history of the natural development. The natural process of life is to give room for the conventional way of life. Reasoning begins to modify the instincts. The living beings developed up to the fall of Adam, were reacting to the call and the requirements, by their individual instincts to gain the objects of the animal senses and to defend themselves against the forces detrimental to their sensual interest, as the life for them had no other meaning. Adam was ordained to give a new significance to the life on the earth and that was not possible if he would not have fallen out of the Paradise wherein the object of his life as the Holy Qur’an represents was not more than mere eating and enjoying the sensual pleasures. Tempted by Satan, Adam gave up the contentment and his ambition for the higher state was stirred. He desired for the eternal life of heavenly nature, hence the change in the object of life. The immediate objects of the human senses yielded to the distant ones of the human intellect which could not be achieved but through strife, labor and toil. This is the significance of the fall, i.e. the fall from the ease and the comfort of the animal life in the sensual paradise with the desire to gain ease and comfort of the higher order through strife and labor, which means the sense of duty and stepping out of what it is, into what it ought to be, which is the first sense of the moral imperative of the conscience—what should be done and what should not be done. Here, Adam enters into the realm of responsibility. The life now is no more mere meeting the demands of the animal senses but to control the demands and modify them harmoniously, to achieve the higher objects of dominating the higher regions and effecting the expansion of life through space and time. Remoter the object, greater would be the effect and the responsibility, but so long as the object remains within the limitations of time and space the value of life will not be much better than that of the animals. The human life shall have its value distinct from the animal life, if the object be beyond all limitations, i.e. the Ultimate (God). To have this object in the focus of the human consciousness, special guidance from the Absolute is the need.
“Adam with the potentiality he carried and with the names he was acquainted with, stepped out of the Paradise with a clean and a repentant heart and shouldering the responsibility, turned toward the Lord. Hence he was blessed with the guiding revelations. Thus the life of man starts on the earth, clean, pure, blessed, and divinely guided on the path to the Ultimate. With this lofty object in view, if man puts all his senses and the faculties into functions, with which he is endowed and the divine guidance, he is on the right path and will be termed as the blessed one. His desires in the form of greed, lust, hatred, anger, harshness, etc. will be modified and then become subordinate to the intellect guided by the divine inspiration, will be termed as excellence and good. On the contrary, if the object be anything other than God, the same qualities become condemnable and termed as base, evil and mean.
“This interpretation of the history of Adam presented by the Holy Qur’an discards the Christian theory of the fall of Adam as an evil and the original sin, and the dark aspect of the human life, and it also discards the view of Adam being a sinner. The Holy Qur’an has used the word asa and ghawa regarding Adam’s approaching the tree yet taking into consideration that the prohibition was given when Adam was in the Paradise, i.e. before his shouldering the responsibility and the order was not imperative or prohibitive as already stated, and after shouldering the responsibility he is not accused of any disobedience or committing any sin. Hence Adam came on the earth as the Vicegerent of God, sinless, following nothing but the divine guidance as the tradition says: ‘Every human child is born with the nature (of Adam’s origin) [fit*rah]; verily it is the parents (i.e., the environment) that turn it into a Jew, a Christian or Magian’.” Mīr Ahmad ‘Alī, The Holy Qur’an, 80, 82, 84. [Trans.]
[82] Sigmund Freud (1856-1939): Austrian neurologist, author, psychiatrist, and founder of almost all the basic concepts of psychoanalysis. He graduated with an MD from the University of Vienna in 1881, and for some months in 1885 he studied under JM Charcot, whose work in hysteria converted Freud to the cause of psychiatry. Dissatisfied with hypnosis and electrotheraphy as treatment techniques, he evolved the psychoanalytic method, founded on dream analysis and free association. Because of his belief that sexual impulses lay at the heart of neuroses, he was reviled professionally for a decade, but by 1906 disciples like Alfred Adler and Carl Gustav Jung were gathering around him (both were later to break away from the International Psychoanalytic Association, dissenting with Freud’s views on infantile sexuality). For some 30 years he worked to establish the truth of his theories, and these years were especially fruitful. Fleeing Nazi anti-Semitism, he left Vienna for London in 1938 and there spent the last year of his life. [Trans.]
[83]Sharh-e Chehel Hadīth, p. 168.
[84]Ibid.
[85]‘Allāmah Sayyid Muhammad Husayn T+abāt*abā’ī (1904-81) was the Islamic scholar, thinker and philosopher best known for his 20-volume exegesis of the Qur’an, Al-Mīzān fī Tafsīr al-Qur’ān. For his short biography, see Foreword of Al-Mīzān: An Exegesis of the Qur’an, trans. Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi (Tehran: World Organization for Islamic Services, 1983), pp. xxi-xxiv. [Trans.]
[86] Professor Āyatullāh Murtadā Mut*ahharī (1298-1358 AHS) was born on Bahman 13, 1298 AHS in the village of Fariman near Mashhad into a family of clergymen. At the age of 12, he went to Mashhad where he learned the basics of Islamic sciences and then moved to Qum where he attended the class sessions conducted by the great authorities of the theological center. From 1319 AHS Mut*ahharī had taken part in the sessions led by Imām Khomeinī and other famous teachers of the time. Moreover, he himself conducted lessons in subjects like Arabic literature, logic, kalām [scholasticism], jurisprudence, and philosophy. In 1331 AHS Mut*ahhari was transferred from Qum to Tehran and in 1334 AHS he was invited to teach Islamic sciences at the Faculty of Islamic Sciences, Tehran University. He was arrested on the midnight of Khordād 15, 1342 AHS and spent 43 days in prison. After Imām Khomeini’s migration to Paris in France, Mut*ahharī went to meet him and His Eminence assigned him the responsibility of organizing the Revolutionary Council. On the night of Ordībehesht 11, 1358 AHS (May 2, 1979) Mut*ahharī was martyred by an agent of the Furqān terrorist group. He wrote more than 50 books and tens of articles, and delivered scores of speeches. Imām Khomeinī said of Mut*ahharī: “His written and spoken words are, without exception, educational and enlivening… I recommend the students and intellectual group not to let Mut*ahharī’s words be forgotten by un-Islamic tricks…” [Trans.]
[87]Sūrah ar-Rūm 30:30.
[88] See Sharh-e Chehel Hadīth, p. 179.
[89]Ibid., p. 180.
[90]Ibid., p. 182.
[91]Ibid., p. 183.
[92]Ibid., p. 168.
[93]Ibid., p. 625. For further familiarity with Imām Khomeinī’s views on this issue, refer to Sharh-e Hadīth-e Junūd-e ‘Aql va Jahl.
[94] Sūrah al-Hijr 15:28-29.
[95]Tafsīl Wasā’il ash-Shī‘ah ilā Tahsīl Masā’il ash-Sharī‘ah, vol. 2, p. 447.
[96]Mathnawī, vol. 4, Book Four, p. 77.
Nicholson, Book Four, vol. 4, p. 171. [Trans.]
[97]Ibid., p. 79.
Nicholson, Book Four under The battle of the reason against the flesh, vol. 4, p. 177. [Trans.]
[98] “Literally, ‘take lessons from’.” Nicholson, Book Four, under The poet and the two viziers, vol. 4, footnote 3, p. 137. [Trans.]
[99]Ibid., p. 79. For information on the ahādīth pertaining to this couplet, see Badī‘ az-Zamān Furūzānfar, Ahādīth va Qisās-e Mathnavī, com. Husayn Dāwūdī (Tehran: Amīr Kabīr, 1376 AHS), p. 365.
Nicholson, Book Four, under The poet and the two viziers, vol. 4, p. 137. [Trans.]
[100] “Literally, ‘to adopt companionship apart from thee’.” Nicholson, Book Four, under the battle of the reason against the flesh, vol. 4, footnote 2, p. 175. [Trans.]
[101]Ibid., p. 79.
Nicholson, Book Four, under The battle of the reason against the flesh,vol. 4, p. 175. [Trans.]
[102] Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965): German physician, theologian, missionary, musician, and philosopher. He abandoned an academic career in theology to study medicine and became a missionary doctor (1913) in French Equatorial Africa (now Gabon). He devoted his life to the hospital he founded there. His many writings include The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1906), and The Decay and Restoration of Civilization and Civilization and Ethics (1923), the first two volumes of his Philosophy of Civilization. Schweitzer won the 1952 Nobel Peace Prize for his inspiring humanitarian work. [Trans.]
[103]Sharh-e Chehel Hadīth, p. 5.
[104]Farīdūn Mashīrī: a contemporary Iranian poet. [Pub.]
[105] Farīdūn Mashīrī, Zībā-ye Jāvidāneh (Tehran: Sukhan, 1376 AHS), pp. 311-313.
[106]Existentialism va Isālat-e Bashar [Existentialism and Human Nature], p. 25.
[107]House of water and flower: the physical body of the human being. [Trans.]
[108] Jalāl ad-Dīn Muhammad Balkhī, Guzīdeh-ye Ghazaliyāt-e Shams, comp. Muhammad-Ridā Shafī‘ī Kadkanī (Tehran: Kitābha-ye Jībī, 1374 AHS), p. 271.
[109]Sūrah al-Insān 76:2-3.
[110]Sūrah al-Balad 90:8-10.
[111] See Sharh-e Chehel Hadīth, p. 401.
[112]Sūrah al-An‘ām 6:148.
[113]Sūrah al-An‘ām 6:35.
[114]Sūrah al-Mā’idah 5:48.
[115]Mathnawī, vol. 1, p. 37.
Nicholson, Book One under How the disciples raised objections against the vizier’s secluding himself, vol. 1, p. 71. [Trans.]
[116]Ibid., vol. 5, p. 149.
Nicholson, Book Five under Another story in answer to the Necessitarian, vol. 5, p. 367. [Trans.]
[117] Written by Miguel de Cervantes (1547-1616), a Spanish novelist, dramatist and poet, Don Quixote is the story of Alonso Quixano, a country gentleman, whose crazed mind leads him to change his name to Don Quixote de la Mancha and to go forth to right the world’s wrongs. Cervantes’ reputation as one of the world’s greatest writers rests almost entirely on this most famous work of his. [Trans.]
[118] “Reading ﻓﻀﻞ.” Nicholson, Book Three, vol. 3, footnote 3, p. 293. [Trans.]
[119] “That is, the science of jurisprudence [fiqh].” Nicholson, Book Three, vol. 4, footnote 3, p. 293. [Trans.]
[120] “‘The religion of old woman’ is synonymous with ignorance and superstition.” Nicholson, Book Three, vol. 3, footnote 5, p. 293. [Trans.]
[121]Ibid., vol. 3, p. 125.
Nicholson, Book Three under Explaining (what is signified by) the far-sighted blind man, the deaf man who is sharp of hearing, and the naked man with the long skirts, vol. 3, pp. 293, 295. [Trans.]
[122] Existentialism: 20th century philosophical current that stresses political responsibility and the relation of the individual to the universe or to God. In general, existentialists emphasize the fear and despair that isolated individuals feel. [Trans.]
[123]Søren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-55): Danish religious philosopher and precursor of existentialism. Opposing GWF Hegel, he emphasized that one has a free will and can pass from the aesthetic (or material) to the ethical point of view and finally, through ‘a leap of faith,’ to the religious. Ignored in the 19th century, he has influenced 20th century Protestant theology and modern literature and psychology. His main works are Either/Or (1843), Fear and Trembling (1843), and Philosophical Fragments (1844). [Trans.]
[124] This discussion is extracted from the lectures of Prof. Must*afā Malikiān in The History of Western Philosophy, vol. 4, pp. 111-112. For further information on the philosophy of existentialism and its rudimentary teachings, refer to vol. 4, pp. 29-189 of the book, which is a versatile and precise introduction to philosophy.
[125]Mathnawī, vol. 3, p. 94.
Nicholson, Book Three under Return to the story of Daqūqī, vol. 3, p. 215. [Trans.]
[126]The History of Western Philosophy, vol. 4, p. 22.
[127]Loc. cit.
[128] Muhammad Muhammadī Reyshahrī, Mīzān al-Hikmah (Qum: Dār al-Hadīth, 1375 AHS), vol. 3, p. 1876.
[129]Loc. cit.
[130]Loc. cit.
[131]Ibid.
[132] See loc. cit.
[133]Sharh-e Chehel Hadīth, p. 7.
[134]Sharh-e Chehel Hadīth, p. 63.
[135]Sharh-e Chehel Hadīth, p. 95.
[136]Golestān-e Sa‘dī, ed. Ghulām-Husayn Yūsufī (Tehran: Khwārazmī, 1374 AHS), p. 117.
Shaykh Muslihuddīn Sa‘dī ash-Shīrāzī, The Gulistan or Rose Garden, trans. Francis Gladwin (London: Alhoda, 2000), chap. 3, On Excellence of Contentment, Tale xxii,p. 197. The whole tale is as follows:
I saw a merchant who possessed one hundred and fifty camels laden with merchandize, and fifty slaves and servants. One night, in the island of Kīsh, he entertained me in his own apartment, and during the whole night did not cease talking foolishly, saying, “I have such and such property in Turkistan, and such goods in Hindustan; these are the title-deeds of such a piece of land, and for this matter, such one is security.” Sometimes he would say, “I have an indication to go to Alexandria, the air of which is very pleasant.” Then again, “No, I will not go, because the Mediterranean Sea is boisterous. O Sa‘dī, I have another journey in contemplation, and after I have performed that, I will pass the remainder of my life in retirement, and leave off trading.” I asked what journey it was. He replied, “I want to carry Persian brimstone to China, where I heard it bears a very high price; from thence I will transport chinaware to Greece; and take the brocades of Greece to India’ and Indian steel to Aleppo; the glassware of Aleppo, I will convey to Yemen, and from thence go with stripped cloths to Persia; after which I will leave off trade, and sit down in my shop.” He spoke so much of this foolishness that at length, being quite exhausted, he said, “O Sa‘dī, relate also of something of what you have seen and heard.” I replied:
“Have you not heard that once upon a time, a chief, as he was traveling in the desert of Ghūr, fell from his camel? He said that the covetous eye of the worldly man is either satisfied through contentment, or will be filled with the earth of the grave.” Ibid., pp. 196-197.[Trans.]
[137] “.Çäø ÇáÍÑø ÍÑø Úáì ÌãíÚ ÇÍæÇáå” Usūl al-Kāfī, vol. 2, p. 89. [Pub.]
[138]Sharh-e Chehel Hadīth, p. 257.
[139]Ibid., p. 379.
[140]Ibid., p. 380.
[141] Muhammad ibn Ya‘qūb al-Kulaynī, Furū‘ al-Kāfī, vol. 5, p. 12. For information on the references of this hadīth and its Sunnī narrations, see Ahādīth wa Qisas Mathnawī, p. 63
[142]Sharh-e Chehel Hadīth, p. 6.
[143]Loc. cit.
[144]Mathnawī, vol. 1, p. 71.
Nicholson, Book One under The jihād against the flesh, vol. 1, p. 149. [Trans.]
[145]Sharh-e Chehel Hadīth, pp. 12-13.
|
