Islam’s View on the Essence of Human Society

Before examining the reason behind the formation of human society, let me ask: Is man, like the termite or the bee, inherently a social being? Is social living something that man has selected and chosen by himself? There are many views but I shall touch upon two basic views in this regard. One is that social life has an optional humane objective. The second view is that social life has no purpose. For instance, it cannot be said why the bee has a social life and what its purpose in social life is.
Obviously, the bee has a natural and instinctive purpose and that is to produce honey and live. There is no other purpose of the bee’s social life. Of course, God, the Exalted, has a purpose in creating these creatures, one of which is to serve mankind. However, setting aside the creational and divine aspect, the bee is not pursuing a volitional objective in its social life. Is the social life of man also a natural process which has spontaneously arisen without having any purpose? Or, does it have a purpose which necessitates relations which, in turn, require orders?
From the religious point of view, the purpose of social life is human progress under the blessings of social living and getting closer to their objective. Then, you may ask: What is the purpose behind the creation of man? According to the divine perspective, the ultimate goal of man is nearness to God and this is the zenith of human perfection.
If we accept that the purpose behind creation is perfection attained under the auspices of nearness to God, then social life is a means for man to achieve this goal in the best way possible. In the absence of social life, human beings cannot acquire necessary knowledge and perform necessary acts of worship, nor attain ultimate perfection.
Therefore, it is under the blessings of collective life that teaching and learning are done; human beings identify better ways to live; conditions to continue on the way are provided; and as a result, human perfection becomes attainable. Once we accept these preliminary proofs, we can conclude that the objective of social living is to pave the way for human advancement and perfection not only in the material dimension but in all dimensions of man’s existence.
Man is a multi-dimensional being who has diverse facets and dimensions. Therefore, the perfection of all dimensions constitutes true perfection; not only material perfection, industrial advancement, social progress, and economic growth. So, the best law is that which paves the way for the growth of man in all these dimensions and gives priority to the ultimate goal which is nearness to God.
Necessary qualities of the legislator
The Islamic government has to implement laws that encompass all dimensions of man’s existence and ensure his interests in all dimensions, because such laws need perfect awareness of all aspects of man’s existence. Depending on his expertise, each of the human beings that we know is aware of only some aspects of his existence. Earlier the philosophers made such claims, but nowadays, the ignorance of man has become manifest to him. In some cases, economic progress may conflict with spiritual or religious advancement.
Of course, we believe that the great divine system guarantees all human interests. But it is possible that in a certain society at a given time or place, a sort of conflict among the interests of people might emerge. As such, these interests must be categorized so that in case of conflict, the concerned authorities know what needs priority. Thus, it is the duty of the legislator also to identify the priorities, and it is here that the impotence of man to discern such a law manifests itself.
Apart from having a complete knowledge of all dimensions of man’s existence, the more important quality of the legislator is that he should empty himself of all personal and group desires, and give priority to the interests of society over individual, group or factional interests. Nobody can do this. In case of conflict between his and others’ interests, and between his group’s interests and that of others’, any great man would overlook his personal and group’s interests and voluntarily give priority to the interests of society over his personal interests. To find such persons from among members of society is problematic, and perhaps impossible. So, the legislator should also have the capability of giving preference to the interests of society over his own.
It is here that the superiority of divine law over all man-made laws becomes clear because, firstly, God, the Exalted, is the One fully aware of all the interests of human beings. Secondly, God does not acquire any benefit or loss from the actions of human beings for His interest to conflict with that of others. In Islam, however, we say that assuming that all the interests of human beings are ensured in their mundane life and social relations, still that society is not desirable and ideal because the ultimate and loftier perfection is under the auspices of nearness to God. This nearness to God can materialize only through worship, devotion, servitude, and obedience to God.
Physical wellbeing, peace and order of society, defense against enemies, justice, and social rights of individuals are a prelude to man’s communication with God. The essence of humanity lies in this communication with God, and unless it is established, true humanity cannot materialize. Proximity to God is not a mere slogan. Rather, it is the true and spiritual communion of people with God. Human beings pass through different stages of life, traverse and ascend until they attain this station. Common people cannot discern that such a station exists for man, or that they can attain such a spiritual and celestial station.
Now, as God is not in need of our worship, why did He create man for worship and say, “I did not create the jinn and humans except that they may worship Me”?[5][170] The answer is that the ultimate perfection of man cannot be achieved except through the worship of God. So, one should recognize God and obey Him so that man can tread the path toward true perfection. It is through attention to these preliminaries that we say that the law desirable is that which, apart from ensuring the material needs of the active members of society, also guarantees the needs of those who make no contribution to society, such as the impotent, disabled and handicapped for, they also have rights. The Islamic state has to provide their needs for they are also servants of God and born in society. It is for this reason that in addition to justice, the Qur’an mentions kindness:
إِنَّ اللّهَ يَأْمُرُ بِالْعَدْلِ وَالإِحْسَانِ
“Indeed Allah enjoins justice and kindness.”[6][171]
This injunction of God is not only a moral admonition. Rather, it is an obligatory command which must be obeyed. Thus, just as the observance of justice in society is obligatory, so is the observance of kindness because rights are not only established by rendering service. Rather, there is a series of rights that God has considered for every person. Even the one who is in the worst condition, deprived of eyes, ears and mobility has rights for the mere fact that he is alive. And the Islamic state must guarantee these rights.
So, we should not think that the sole responsibility of the state is the thing mentioned by Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and other Western thinkers for, either they have not paid attention to the sublime stations of man, or they have imagined man to be wolf-like or an insect like the bee and termite. According to Islam, however, man is far ahead of such animals though they also live collectively.
Thus, law has to consider all the needs of man along his pursuit of ultimate perfection. Now, if law were to consider all interests, could it give man every kind of freedom? Can man move along any path and achieve this objective? Can those who have not recognized God, denied Him, stood up against Him and His worshippers, attain human perfection? Is not the worship of the One God the way to attain human perfection? If the duty of the Islamic state is to pave the ground for human perfection in all dimensions, the spiritual and religious dimension in particular, then the desires should, in a sense, be regulated, restrained and controlled, and a framework for them determined which does not conflict with sublime human interests.
Author: Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi
Source: Imam reza network

Islam’s Position towards Freedom and Social Assurance

We have come to know, from the above con­tents, that freedom is the central point in the capital­ist thinking, and the concept of "insurance" (rather, assurance) is the basic revolving point in the socialist and communist systems. For this purpose we will be studying, com­paratively, the position of Islam and capitalism from freedom, comparing thereafter between the "insurance" according to Islam and according to the Marxist creed. When we say "freedom", we mean thereby its general meaning; that is, rejection of others' domi­nation, for this concept is the one which we can find in both civilizations, even when its frame and intellec­tual base vary in both[11][7].
When we start comparing freedom according to Islam with freedom according to the democratic capitalist system, basic differences appear to us between the freedom which has been lived by the capi­talist society and advocated by capitalism, and the freedom whose banner Islam has borne and adopted by the society which Islam has created, providing its own experience on history's stage. Each of these norms of freedom bears the stamp of civilization to which it belongs and with whose concepts of the cosmos and life it agrees, expressing the intellectual and psychological state which civilization created in history.
Freedom, in the capitalist civilization, has start­ed as a bitterly overwhelming doubt, and this doubt changed, in its revolutionary expansion, into a doctrinal belief in freedom. Contrarily to this is freedom in the Islamic civilization, for here it is but an expression of a firm central conviction (i.e., belief in God) from which freedom derives its revolution.
According to the firmness of this conviction and the depth of its implication in man's life do the revolutionary powers in that freedom multiply. Capitalist freedom has a positive connotation. It considers man to possess his own self, faring with it as he pleases, without surrendering in that to any external authority.
For this purpose, all social insti­tutions, which affect man's life, derive their legal right to control every individual from the individuals themselves. Freedom, according to Islam, maintains the revolutionary aspect of freedom: man’s emancipation from the slavery of idols' control, all idols from whose yoke humanity has been suffering throughout history. But it erects this great task of liberation on the basis of a submission purely for Allah, and for Allah alone.
Therefore, man's submission to God in Islam (instead of possessing his own self, according to capitalism) is the tool through which man breaks all other norms of submission or slavery, for this sort of submission, in its sublime meaning, makes him feel that he, together with all other sorts of power with which he coexists, stands on the same grounds before one Lord. Therefore, no power on earth has the right to fare with his destiny as it pleases or to control his existence and life. Freedom, according to the precepts of capitalist civilization, is a natural right for man, and he may give his right up whenever he pleases. But it is not so according to Islam. Freedom according to Islam is essentially tied to submission to Allah. Islam does not permit man to yield, to be enslaved or to give up his freedom: Do not be a slave of others, since Allah created you free.[12][8]
Man, according to Islam, is to account for the use of his freedom, and freedom is not a state of irresponsibility.
This is the difference between both norms of freedom in their general characteristics. Now we are going to explain this concept with more details:
Freedom According to the Capitalist Civilization
Freedom was initiated in the capitalist civiliza­tion under the shades of an overwhelmingly bitter doubt which dominated the mainstreams of the entire European thought as a result of the intellectual revol­utions which succeeded each other at the dawn of modern Europe, shaking all the Western intellectual pillars. The idols of European thinking started falling down one after the other due to the revolutionary discoveries in the world of science which cast their light at the Western man with new concepts of the world and life, and with theories completely in contradiction to the accepted precepts of the past, those which formed the cornerstone of his intellectual entity, intellectual and religious life.
Western man started, across those successive ­intellectual revolutions, to look at the cosmos through new eyes, and at the intellectual heritage humanity had left him since the dawn of history with looks of doubt and suspicion. He started to feel that the world of Copernicus, who proved that the earth is but a planet of the sun, differs a great deal from the conventional world which Ptolemy spoke of, and that nature, which started revealing its secrets to Galileo and his peers among the scientists, is a new thing compared to the portrait inherited down from the saints and former thinkers like Saint Thomas Acqu­inas, Dante and others.
Thus does he suddenly, and with a trembling hand, throw his former precepts, trying to be relieved of the frame in which he lived thousands of years. In its escalating revolutionary torrent, doubt did not stop there. Rather, it wiped out all values and precepts common to humanity and on which it depended to check behaviour and regulate relationships. So long as the new cosmos contradicts the old concepts of the world, and as long as man keeps looking at his reality and environment from a scientific angle, rather than from mythology, then there has to be a reassessment of the religious concept and likewise of all goals and principles man has lived before his new outlook of himself and his world crystallizes.
On this basis has the religion of Western man faced the dilemma of "modern" doubt, and it does not really hinge except on an emotional basis which soon started drying up because of the Church's tyranny and might. It was natural, then, that all of these ethical bases melted at the conclusion of this defeat. So were the principles and ideals which check man's behaviour and tolerate his extremism, for ethics have always been linked to religion throughout humanity's existence. When they lose their religious source which provides them with true values and links them to the world of the unknown and of the rewards, they be­come an empty ruin and an unjustifiable tax. History always highlights this fact.
Greek advocates of sophistry disbelieved in deism because of their dependence on a "sophisticated" doubt, so they rejected the ethical restrictions, rebelling against them, and Western man repeated the story anew when "modern" doubt engulfed his religious creed. He revolted against all sorts of disciplinary manners and ethical codes. Such manners and ethics seemed to him to be linked to an ancient phase of man's history.
Western man set out as he willed to behave as he liked, filling his lungs with the fresh air in which "modern" doubt occupied the position of principles and standards, when they used to restrict the internal inclination of man and his behaviour. Here were the ideas of the intellectual freedom and the personal liberty born: The idea of intel­lectual freedom has come as a result of a revolutionary doubt and a mental disturbance which blew up all intellectual precepts.
So much so that there remain no more sublime facts the denial of which is not permissible, as long as doubt extends itself to all spheres. And the idea of personal liberty comes as an expression of the negative results reached by "modern" doubt in its intellectual combat against faith and ethics, for it is natural that the man who conquers his own faith and ethics is to believe in his own personal liberty and reject any authority to check his behaviour and control his will. According to such a sequence, modern man reaches doubt, intellectual freedom and finally "personal liberty". Here comes the role of economic freedom to form a new series of this "civilized" sequence: Having believed in his personal liberty, modern man starts placing his goals and criteria on this basis.
Having practically disbelieved in the religious out­look of life and the cosmos, and their respective relationship to the Creator and to whatever reward or punishment man awaits, life starts to him to seem as a chance to win the largest possible portion of pleasure and materialistic enjoyment which cannot be achieved except through wealth. Therefore, wealth returns as the magic key and the goal towards which modern man labours, the man who enjoys com­plete freedom in his behaviour.
It becomes necess­ary to establish the basis of economic freedom and open all fields before this free being to work for the achievement of this new goal: wealth, which Western civilization puts up as a new idol for mankind, and every sacrifice mankind offers in this respect is now an honest deed and an accepted scapegoat. The economic motive becomes dominating as long as the march of modern civilization becomes more distant from the spiritual and intellectual principles which he has refused in the beginning of the march. The mania for wealth increases to dominate the situation, and the precepts of goodness, virtue and religion disappear, so much so that Marxism, during one of the Western civilization's dilemmas, imagines that the economic motive is the impetus which directs the human history in all ages.
It is not possible that the idea of economic free­dom can be separate from another idea which is: the idea of political freedom, for the essential condition for practising a free activity on the economic stage is the removal of the political obstacles and the con­quest of the difficulties put forth by the ruling auth­ority through the possession and nationalization of the governing apparatus, so that the individual may rest assured that there is no power which can separate him from his achievements and desired goals.
Thus were the general outlooks or basic series, of which Western man composed his civilization, completed. He worked sincerely to establish his life on their basis and adopt a world call of them. In this light can we clearly see this "civilization" in its characteristics to which we have pointed out at the beginning of this chapter, for it is a civilized phenomenon which started as a bitter and disturbing doubt and ended as a doctrinal belief in freedom.
It is an expression of the belief of Western man in his control over himself and his possession of his will after he had refused to submit to any authority. Freedom, according to capitalist democracy, does not only mean the denial of others' control; rather, it means much more than this: It means man's control over himself and the practical separation between himself and his own Creator and destiny.
As for Islam, its position from freedom essen­tially differs from that of Western civilization, for it takes care of freedom in its negative implication or, rather, in its revolutionary output which liberates mankind from others’ control, breaking the chains and shackles which handcuff him. It considers the achievement of this negative implication of free­dom as one of the greatest goals of the Divine Mess­age Itself: And He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are on them... (Qur'an, 7: 157).
But it does not link this concept to its positive implication according to the concepts of Western civilization, for it does not consider man's right to be liberated from others' control and standing by their side on par as a result of man's control over himself and his right to determine his behaviour and conduct in life; that is, what we would label "the positive implication of freedom according to the concepts of Western civilization". Rather, it links freedom and liberation from all idols and artificial shackles to sincere submission to Allah. Man, after all, is a servant of Allah Who does not recognize any submission except to Him, or he yields to any idol­atrous relationship of any colour or shape. Instead, he stands on equal footing in his own sincere sub­mission to Allah with the rest of cosmic creation. The essential basis of freedom in Islam, there­fore, is unity and belief in sincere submission to Allah before Whose hands all idolatrous powers are crushed, the powers which trampled on man's dignity throughout history.
Say: "O People of the Book (Christians and Jews)! Come to common terms between us and you: that we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with Him; that we install none, from among our­selves, as lords and patrons other than Allah." (Qur'an, 3:64) .
He said: "Do you worship that which you have (your­selves) carved?! But Allah has created you and your handiwork." (Qur'an, 37:95-96).
Verily those whom you call on besides Allah are servants like unto you.. (Qur'an, 7:194).
Are many lords differing among themselves better, or the one Allah, Supreme and Irresist­ible? (Qur'an, 12:39).
Thus does Islam base the liberation from all kinds of slavery on the principle of admitting an absolute submission to Allah, making the relationship between man and his Lord the firmly-rooted basis for his liberation in dealing with all people and with all natural things in the cosmos. Islam and Western civilization, although both practicing the operation of man's liberation, differ in the intellectual basis on which this liberation stands.
Islam bases it on the belief in man alone and in his control over himself which has doubted all principles and facts that are lying behind the materialistic dimensions of man's existence. For this purpose has the idea of freedom in Islam been rendered to a believing doctrine which believes in the Unity of God, and to a firm convic­tion in His control over the cosmos. The deeper this belief goes into the Muslim's heart, and the more centralized his unifying outlook to Allah is, the more elevated his soul will be and the deeper his feeling of dignity and liberty, and the more stiff his will to stand in the face of tyranny, corruption and en­slavement by others: And those who, when an oppressive wrong is inflicted on them, (are not cowed but) help and defend themselves. (Qur'an, 42:39).
Contrarily to this is the idea of freedom accord­ing to Western civilization: This is the product of doubt, unbelief and the result of disturbance and rebellion, not of conviction or stability, as we have already come to know. We can classify the democratic capitalist norms of freedom, for the purpose of comparing them with Islam, into two kinds:
1. One of them is freedom in the personal sphere of man, which is what democracy labels "Personal Freedom".
2. The other is freedom in the social sphere. This includes the intellectual, political and economic norms of freedom.
Personal freedom treats man's conduct as an individual, albeit if he lives independently or as part of the society. As for the three other norms of freedom, these treat man as an individual living among the group, permitting him to voice his ideas to others as he likes and granting him the right to choose the kind of ruling authority which he prefers, opening before him the way to all different kinds of economic activity according to his capacity and inclination.
Freedom in the Personal Sphere
Modern Western civilization has tried hard to get the largest possible share of freedom for each individual in his/her personal conduct, the share which does not harm other people's freedom. It is not important, after making this freedom available for all individuals, how they would use it, the outcomes resulting there from, the psychological and intellectual reactions thereof, as long as each individual is free in his/her behaviour and conduct, capable of executing his/her own will in all personal spheres. The drunkard, for example, is allowed to drink as much liquor as he wants and sacrifice the last particle of his consciousness and awareness as long as he does not bother others or become a men­ace to their lives in one way or another.
Mankind has become intoxicated with the tones of this "freedom" and slept therein for sometime, feeling for the first time that he has broken all the chains and that this giant, who has been suppressed within his depths for thousands of years, has set out for the first time and has been permitted to do what­ever he willed in the light, without fear or worry. But this sweet dream did not last long. Man started waking up slowly to gradually realize that he is disturbed, that this freedom has chained him with huge chains, destroying his hopes for a free humane setting out. He found himself being pushed in a carriage running on a planned path without being able to change or im­prove its course.
All his consolation and solace, while looking at his destiny on his planned path, is that there is someone who has said that this carriage is the carriage of freedom, in spite of these cuffs and chains in his hands. But when did freedom change into a chain? And how did setting out lead to those cuffs which pull the carriage along its planned destiny, and in the end man woke up to witness such bitter reality?
This, indeed, is what Islam had predicted fourteen centuries ago when it did not contend itself with providing such superficial meaning for freedom for humanity which has been inflicted with all these contradictions in the modern living experience of Western man. Rather, it went further and brought forth a much deeper concept of freedom. It declared a revolution not only against the chains and shackles as they appear, but, rather, against their psycho­logical and intellectual roots. Thus has it guaranteed man the highest and purest norms of freedom people have ever tasted across the passage of history...
If freedom, according to Western civilization, starts from "liberation" to end in norms of slavery and chains, as we shall explain, then vast freedom, according to Islam, is quite the opposite, for this starts from pure submission to Allah Almighty to end with liberation from all norms of humiliating slavery. Islam starts its operation to liberate man from the inner content of man himself, for it sees that granting man freedom is not by saying to him: "This is the path. We have cleared it for you; so, walk along it in peace."
Rather, man becomes truly free when he can control his path and maintain for his humanity the right to determine his path and portray its char­acteristics and directions. This depends, above all, on man's liberation from the slavery of the desires which occupy his mind so that the desire may turn into a tool which attracts man to what he likes, not a pushing power to exhaust man's will without being able to practice towards it any potential or ability, for if it has been so, man would have lost his freedom in the first place.
It does not change the reality when his hands are free as long as his mind and all his hu­man concepts, which distinguish him from the animal kingdom, are chained and frozen. We all know that the essential thing which distinguishes man's freedom from that of the animals is generally the fact that, although they both act according to their respective will, animals’ will is always subservient to their desires and instinctive inclinations.
As for man, he is equipped with the capacity to control his desires, using his mental logic in their respect. The secret of his freedom, as a human being, then, is confined within this capacity. If we freeze it within him, being satisfied with granting him the superficial freedom in his practical behaviour, providing him with all capabilities and temptations to respond favourably to his desires, as the "modern" Western civilization has already done, then we would gradually de­stroy his human freedom in exchange for the desires of the animal which is confined within his depths, making him a tool to satisfy those desires, so much so that when he looks at himself, during his passage, he will find himself the indicted one, rather than the indicting, one whose affairs and will are over­come.
Contrariwise: If we start with that capacity in which the secret of human freedom is confined, giving it growth and nourishment, remaking man as a human being, not as a beast, making him aware of the fact that his message in life is much more sublime than that abhorred beastly destiny driven to him by those desires, and that his high principle for the purpose of whose achievement he is created, is much, much more elevated than these trivial objectives and cheap gains which he gets through his materialistic pleasures.
I say: If we do all this until man is liberated from the slavery of his own desires, eman­cipating himself from their captivating influence, possessing his own will..., the free man will then be created who can say "Yes" or "No" without his mouth being suppressed or hand chained by this temporary desire or that cheap thrill. This is exactly what the Qur'an has said when it put for the Muslim individual his particular spiritual stamp, developing his criteria and principles, pulling him out of earth and its limited goals to vaster horizons and more sublime objectives: Fair in the eyes of men is the love of things they covet: women and sons; heaped-up hoards of gold and silver; horses branded (for blood and excellence); and (wealth of) cattle and well­-tilled land. Such are the possessions of this world's life; but in nearness to Allah is the best of the goals (to return to). Say: "Shall I give you glad tidings of things far better than those?" For the righteous there are gardens in nearness to their Lord, with rivers flowing beneath; therein is their eternal home; with companions pure (and holy) and the good pleasure of Allah, for Allah is well aware of (all) His servants. (Qur'an, 3:14-15).
This is but the war of liberation in its internal context of man, and it ultimately is the first basis and the head start to liberate mankind according to Islam. Without it, all norms of freedom would become falsehood and deception, and in the end captivity and chains. We see, in the light of this Qur'anic guidance, that the method the Qur'an uses to deliver mankind from the yoke of desires and the slavery of pleasures is the general method which Islam always uses to cultivate humanity in all fields: the method of Tawhid (Unity of God).
Islam, when it liberates man from worldly slavery and its vanishing pleasures, connects him with heavens and its gardens the similitude of which is the Pleasure of Allah, for Tawhid in Islam is the aid for man's inner liberation from all norms of slavery, and it is the aid for the human liberation in all fields. Suffices us here to mention one example which we have left behind in a previous chapter, in order to know the glorious results of this liberation and the extent of the difference between the true freedom of the Qur'anic man and those artificial norms of freedom advocated by the modern nations of the Western civilization.
The nation the Qur'an liberated, when it called it in one word to renounce wine, has been able to say "No" to wine and erase it from its dictionary after it used to be part of its entity and an article of its necessities. It was in pos­session of its own will, free in facing its desires and animal impulses. In short, it enjoyed a true freedom which allowed it to control its conduct. As for the nation which modern civilization has cre­ated, granting it its individual freedom according to its particular method, in spite of this artificial mask of freedom..., it really does not possess any of its own will, nor can it control its own existence, for it has never liberated its inner content.
Rather, it yielded to its pleasures and desires under the cover of individual freedom until it lost its freedom while satisfying such desires and pleasures. The strongest propaganda campaign against liquor conducted by the government of the United States has not been able to liberate the American nation from the slavery to liquor, in spite of the huge materialistic and spiri­tual potentials the ruling authority and various social institutes used for this purpose.
This fearful failure is but the result of Western man losing his real freedom, for he cannot say "No", whenever convinced, as does the man of the Qur'an. In­stead, he says the word which his desire forces him to articu­late. For this reason, he has not been able to free himself from liquor's entanglement, for he has not, under the shade of the Western civilization, won a real emancipation within his spiritual and intellectual content.[13][9]
This internal emancipation, or inner-building of man's entity, is, according to Islam, the corner­stone in the establishment of a free and happy society. As long as man does not possess his will, is un­able to control his inner situation or maintain his cultivated humanity in determining his conduct, he can never truly free himself social­ly in order to resist temptation, nor can he wage the battle of an external liberation with merits and bravery: Verily, never will Allah change the con­dition of a people until they change it them­selves (with their own souls). (Qur'an, 13:11).
If We will to perish a village, We would order the rich in it who would make corruption therein; then it would be opportune for Our call, and we would totally ruin it. (Qur'an, 17: 16).
Freedom in the Social Sphere
While waging the war of humanity's inner liber­ation, Islam likewise wages another war to liberate man socially. It ruins, in the internal content of man, the idols of desire which rob him of his human free­dom. It smashes, in the field of exchanged relationships among individuals, the social idols as well. It eman­cipates humanity from its slavery. It puts an end to man worshipping man:
Say: "O People of the Book (Christians and Jews)! Come to common terms between us and you: that we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with Him; that we install none, from among our­selves, as lords and patrons other than Allah." (Qur'an, 3:64).
Man's submission to Allah makes all people stand on equal footing before the Hands of the worshipped Creator; there is no nation that has the right to colonize and enslave another nation, nor is there a group of the society allowed to rob another group or violate its freedom, nor is there one human being who has the right to pose himself as an idol to be worshipped by others. Once more do we find out that the second Qur'anic battlefield for the purpose of liberation uses the same method it used in the first, that is, the battle to liberate man internally from the control of his desires, and it is used in all other Islamic epics, which is: Tawhid.
As long as man acknowledges sub­mission to Allah alone, he would naturally reject any idol or fake worship of any person or being. He would lift his head up high with dignity, and he will not feel the humiliation of slavery and sub­missiveness to any power on earth or to any idol. The phenomenon of idol-worship in man's life has been initiated for two reasons: One of them is his slavery to his own desire which makes him surrender his freedom to the human idol which can satisfy and guarantee the fulfilment of that desire. The other is his ignorance of the points of weakness and incapacity that lie behind those idolatrous masks professing deism.
Islam has emancipated man from slavery to desire, as we have come to know above, and from the fakery of those deceitful idolatrous masks: Those whom you call as gods other than Allah are but His servants like your own selves. (Qur'an, 7:194).
It naturally follows that he conquers idol-wor­ship and wipes out from the Muslim minds idolatry in all its various shapes and colours. In the light of the bases on which the liberation of man from the slaveries of desire in the personal field stands, and his emancipation from idol-worship in the social, albeit if the idol is a nation, a group, or an individual, can we know the individual's sphere of practical conduct in Islam.
Islam is different from the modern Western civilizations which do not restrict this practical freedom of the individual but those of others. Islam takes care, first of all, as we have already come to know, of emancipating the individual from the slavery of desires and idols, allowing him to behave as he pleases as long as he does not go beyond Allah's limits. The Qur'an says: It is He Who has created for you all things that are on earth... (Qur'an, 2:29).
And He has subjected to you, as from Him, all that is in the heavens and on earth. (Qur'an, 45:13).
Hence, Islam puts the cosmos in its entirety at the disposal of man of his freedom, but it restricts freedom to the limits which make it congenial with his internal liberation from the slavery of desire and his external liberation from the slavery of idols. As regarding practical freedom in adoring the desire and clinging to earth and all what this implies, re­nouncing human freedom in its true meaning...
As regarding practical freedom in remaining silent about injustice and relinquishing right, worshipping idols and getting closer to them, pursuing their own interests and giving up the real great and true message of man in this life..., all of this is not permitted in Islam: It is nothing but the destruction of the deepest meanings of freedom in man. Instead, Islam understands it to be part of a perfect intellectual and spiritual program on the basis of which humanity must stand.
When we highlight this liberating and revol­utionary aspect of Islam in the social sphere, we do not imply thereby that it agrees with the democratic social norms of freedom in their particular Western framework. While differing from the Western civili­zation in its concept of personal liberty, as we have come to know a short while ago, Islam also differs from it in its concept of the political, economic and intellectual freedom.
The Western concept of political freedom ex­presses the basic idea of the Western civilization which claims that man possesses himself, and nobody has the right to give him directions. Political freedom has been a result of practicing such basic idea in the political field, for as long as the structure, colour and laws of the social life directly affect all members of the society, then everybody has to participate in the operation of social construction as he pleases, and no individual may force another to do what he does not like or subject him by force to a system which he does not accept.
Political freedom starts conflicting with the basic idea as soon as it faces the reality of life, for it is quite natural that the society contains numerous different opinion, and adopting some people's opinion means depriving others of their right to have their own will and control their own destiny. Here has the idea to adopt the majority's opinion come as a collaboration between the basic idea and political freedom.
But it is an incomplete collaboration because the minority enjoys its rights of freedom and self-will similarly to the majority, and the majority's opinion deprives it of using its right; therefore, the principle of the majority is not more than a system through which one group plays havoc with another group's rights, with only a numerical difference.
We do not deny that the majority principle maybe one accepted by all people; therefore, the minority tries hard to execute the viewpoint of the ma­jority as being the one with more followers, even though it spontaneously believes in another view­point and tries to attract the majority to it. But this is an assumption the validity of which cannot be ascertained in all societies. There are many minorities that do not accept any viewpoint other than their own even if such a viewpoint opposes that of the majority.
From this we can come to this summary: The basic idea of the Western civilization, as soon as it functions in the political field, starts contradicting itself and facing the reality, turning to a norm of despotism and individualism in government shown in the best way by the majority ruling the minority. Islam does not believe in this "basic idea" of the Western civilization, for it is based on man wor­shipping Allah, and that Allah alone is man's Master and Sustainer, the only One Who has the right to arrange his life-style: Are many lords differing among them­selves better or the One God, Supreme and Irresistible? The Command is for none but Allah. He has commanded that you should worship none but Him:... (Qur'an, 12:39-40).
And it blames those individuals who yield to others, granting them the right of Imamate in life and Divine upbringing: They take their priests and anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah. (Qur'an, 9:31).
Therefore, neither the individual nor all the individuals combined have the right to monopolize authority other than Allah, directing the social life and establishing curricula and constitutions, etc. Among the outcomes of such "equality" in this life we come to know that man's political liberation is based on the belief in the equality of all society members to bear the burdens of the Divine Trust and their cooperation in enacting Al­mighty Allah's commandments: "Everyone of you is in charge and is responsible for those of whom he is in charge." Political equality in Islam differs in shape from its Western counterpart: It is equality in bear­ing responsibility, not in ruling.
Among the results of this equality is man's emancipation in the political field from the control of others and the eradication of all norms of political exploitation, individualistic and class government.
For this reason do we find the Glorious Qur'an renouncing Pharaoh's rule as well as the society whom he ruled, for he symbolized the control of the individual over the government and the domination of one class over all others: Truly Pharaoh elevated himself in the land and broke up its people into sections, depressing a small group among them... (Qur'an, 28:4).
Any political structure which allows an individ­ual or class to exploit and subjugate other individuals or classes is not accepted by Islam, for it opposes the equality among the society members in bearing responsibility in their absolute submission to Allah Almighty. As for the economic freedom, it is, in its capi­talist concept, only a freedom in appearance which may be summarized thus: allowing every individual to behave as he pleases in the economic field with­out the interference or pressure of the ruling appar­atus.
Having permitted the individual to behave as he pleases, capitalism is not further concerned about securing anything he wants. In other words, it is not concerned with allowing him to want anything. For this purpose do we find out that economic freedom, in its materialistic concept, does not bear any mean­ing to those who were not allowed by opportunities to live, nor were the circumstances of competition and economic racing prepared for them.
Thus does freedom become merely a mirage without being able to grant these people of its meaning except according to the amount of freedom it grants the individuals who are incapable of, say, swimming when we say to them: "You are free to swim as you please, wherever you like."
If we really want to let them swim freely as they choose, giving them a chance to enjoy this sport as those who can swim enjoy it, we would have secured their safety during that and asked the expert swimmers to protect them, watch over them and not abandon them while swimming else they should get drowned; hence, we would have really promoted true freedom and the ability to swim for all in reality, even though we may have restricted a little bit the activity of the expert swimmers for the sake of protecting the life of others.
This is exactly what Islam has done in the econ­omic field: It called for both economic freedom and assurance, incorporating them into a unified structure, for all are free in the economic field, but within certain limits. The individual is not free when the security of other individuals and the maintenance of the general welfare demand that he gives up some of his freedom. Thus have the ideas of freedom and security been coordinated in Islam.[14][10]
As for intellectual freedom, this, according to Western civilization, is permitting any individual to think, declare and propagate his ideas as he pleases, as long as he does not harm the concept of freedom and the bases on which it hinges. For this reason, democratic societies try hard to oppose fascist ideas, limiting their freedom or annihilating them alto­gether, for such ideas fight the very same basic idea and intellectual premise on which the concept of free­dom and the democratic bases stand.
Islam differs from democratic capitalism in this situation as a result of its being different from it in the nature of the intellectual base it adopts which is Tawhid and linking the cosmos to One Lord. It allows the human mind to set out and declare itself as long as it does not revolt against its intellectual base which is the true basis of the availability of free­dom for mankind according to Islam, granting him his free and glorious character which does not dis­solve before temptations, nor does it kneel down before idols.
Both Western civilization and Islam allow intellectual freedom as long as there is no danger resulting from it against the essential base and freedom itself. Among the fruits of the intellectual freedom in Islam is the war it wages against imitation and stagnant thinking, against mental submission to myths or to ideas of others without consciousness or scrutinizing. Islam aims thereby at creating an analytical mind or an experimental one in man.
It is not enough to establish the free mind in man by just saying to him: "You may think as you please", as has the Western civilization done, for this expansion of freedom will be at the expense of freedom itself, and it quite often leads to hues of intellectual slavery symbolized in imitation, fanati­cism and the glorification of superstitions.
Rather, in order to create the free mind, according to Islam, man has to nurture the analytical or experimental mind which does not accept an idea without scruti­nizing, nor does it believe in a doctrine unless it is proved, so that this conscious mind may ensure the intellectual freedom and protect man from misusing it because of imitation, fanaticism or scruples. In fact, this is but the share of the Islamic struggle for the internal liberation of man.
Just as it emanci­pated man's will from the slavery of temptation, as we have already come to know, so has it liberated the human consciousness from the slavery of imi­tation, fanaticism and superstition. In both this and that has man become free indeed in his mind and will.
So announce the god tidings to My servants, those who listen to the word, and follow the best (meaning) of it. Those are they whom Allah has guided; those are men of reason. (Qur'an, 39:17-18).
And We have sent down unto thee (also) the Message; that you may explain clearly to men what is sent for them, and that they may give thought. (Qur'an, 16:44).
These are their (vain) desires. Say: "Pro­duce your proof if you are truthful." (Qur'an, 2:111).
When it is said to them: "Follow what Allah has revealed," they say: "Nay! We shall follow the ways of our fathers." What?! Even though their fathers were void of wisdom and guid­ance?! (Qur'an, 2.170).
Insurance in Islam vs. Marxism
Insurance in Islam differs from socialist insur­ance which is based on the Marxist principles in many respects due to the difference between the two systems of insurance in the foundations, frameworks and ob­jectives.
We cannot attempt here except to display some aspects of such differences, having been sat­isfied with our detailed study of them in our book Iqtisaduna (Our Economy).
1) Social Security in Islam
It is one of the hu­man rights enforced by Allah Almighty. As such, it does not differ according to circumstances or social levels. As for insurance according to Marxism, it is the right of the machine, rather than of man. When the producing machine reaches a particular point, social security becomes an essential condition for its growth and increase of production. Unless the producing powers reach this point, the idea of insurance does not make any sense. For this reason, Marxism considers insurance to belong to particular societies during a limited period of their history.
2) Islamic Concept of Practising Social Security
It is the result of fraternal sympathy which prevails in the Islamic society. Islamic brotherhood is the frame which does the role of insurance therein. The hadith says: "The Muslim is the brother of every Muslim; he neither does him injustice, nor does he abstain from his rescue. He does not deprive him. Therefore, Muslims have to persevere, visit each other, cooperate with each other and console those who are in need."
As for Marxism, it regards social security as nothing but the result of a huge and bitter struggle which must be sparked and widened, so that when the class struggle starts, and one class victoriously wipes out the other, only then shall social security prevail. Insurance according to Marxism is but an expression of a tight unity and overwhelming fraternity; it hinges but on a polar contradiction and a destructive struggle.
3) Insurance, as a Human Right According to Islam
It does not concern one group rather than another. It covers even those who are incapable of par­ticipating in the general production at all. They are, however, insured in the shade of the Islamic society, and the State has to make available for them all means of livelihood. As for Marxist insurance, it derives its existence from the class struggle between the working class and the capitalist class the result of which is a victory for the working class (proletariat) and its cooperation with and participation in that wealth.
For this purpose, there is no Marxist explanation for the insurance of the life of those disabled who live far away from the class struggle because of their affiliation with the working class rather than with the capitalist class, since they have no right to take any gain from the struggle and its booties.
4) Insurance According to Marxism
It is the respon­sibility of the State alone. In Islam, it is the respon­sibility of both individuals and State; therefore, Islam has set two principles: one of them is the prin­ciple of general cooperation, and the other is the principle of social security. The principle of cooperation means that each Muslim individual is responsible for ensuring the livelihood of others according to his capacity.
Muslims should practice this principle even during the cases when they lose the State which practices the legislative injunctions. The hadith states that: "Any believer who denies another believer the use of some­thing which he needs, while he or someone else is able to let him do so, then Allah will resurrect him on the Day of Judgement with a black face, blue eyes, his hands tied up to his neck. It will be said: 'This is a traitor who betrayed Allah and His Messenger'; then he will be thrown into Hell-fire."
The principle of social security determines the responsibility of the State in this respect. It has to ensure a level of honourable prosperity for all citizens from the State and general sources of income, and also from its treasury.[15][11] For the clarification of this principle, the hadith says: "The ruler receives wealth and distributes it, according to the Commandments of Allah, to eight shares: to the poor, the destitute, the tax-collectors, those who do not mind helping Muslims, the slaves, those incapable of paying their debts, in the Way of Allah and to the wayfarers who are unable to buy their journey back home.
Eight shares he distributes among them, each according to his need, without stringency or fear. Whatever remains will be turned back to the ruler. Whatever lacks, and people do not have enough, the State has to finance their need from its own budget according to their need, so that they will all have enough."
Notes:
[16][7] For this reason, the word "freedom", when used in its general sense in genuine Islamic texts, cannot be charged of being influenced by the precepts of the Western civilization. The Commander of the Faithful 'Ali, peace be with him, is quoted as saying, "Do not be a slave to others since Allah has created you free." Imam Ja'far ibn Muhammad as-Sadiq, peace be with him, has said "There are five virtues, one who is without them does not really have much of any interest. The first is faithfulness; the second is good management; the third is shyness (modesty); the fourth is good manners; and the fifth, which com­bines all of these virtues together, is freedom."
[4][3] Among the prevalent beliefs which used to enjoy a high degree of clarity and simplicity, although based neither on an intellectually logical basis nor a philosophical proof, was the belief that earth was the centre of the world. When such beliefs crumbled down in the shade of accurate experiments, the common notion was shaken, and a wave of doubt overtook many intel­lects, causing thereby the resurrection of Greek sophis­try influenced by the doubting spirit just as it was influenced during the Greek period by the spirit of doubt which had resulted from the contradictions of philosophical creeds and the intensity of arguments among them.
[5][4] The Church played a significant role in utilizing religion in a scandalizing manner, making its name nothing but a tool for the achievement of its own aims and objectives, strangulating scientific and social liberties, establishing the Inquisition Courts and granting them wide prerogatives to fare with people's fate, so much so that all of that resulted in people being fed-up with religion altogether and feeling disgusted with it: Crimes were being committed in its name, although in its pure reality and accurate essence it is not less than those grumbling critics in denouncing crimes and in the desire to uproot motives behinds these crimes. I have explained these notions and undertaken a de­tailed scientific study thereof in my book Iqtisaduna.
[12][8] Nahj al-balaghah by Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib, sermon 195, Bihar al-Anwar, v. 77, p.214.
[13][9] See my article “Freedom in the Qur'an” published in the series titled “Ikhtarna Laka” (Dar az-Zahra', Beirut, 1395/ 1975, pp. 43 - 54).
[14][10] For the purpose of elaboration, notice our study of capitalist democracy in Iqtisaduna, pp. 247 -269.
[15][11] For detailed information, see Iqtisaduna (the chapter on “Economical Problems as Islam sees them and their solutions”), p.328 and following pages.

by Martyr Muhammad Baqir as-Sadr
Source: Imam reza network

Islam and the Social Problem

In order to reach the first circle in analyzing the social problem, we have to question that materialistic individualistic interest established by the capitalist system as a criterion, a pretext, a goal and an objective and ask: "What is the idea which made such a criterion seem to be correct according to the democratic capitalist mentality which inspired it?" This very idea is the real basis of the social tribulation and the failure of democratic capitalism in bringing about man's happiness and safeguarding his dignity. If we can abolish such an idea, we will put a definite end to all conspiracies against social welfare and intrigues against the society's rights and accurate freedom and be successful in utilizing the private ownership for humanity's good, upliftment and advancement in the industrial spheres and production fields.
So, what is this idea?
This idea is summarized according to the limited materialistic interpretation of life on which the West has erected the colossal monument of capitalism. If every member of the society believes that his only field in this great universe is his personal materi­alistic life, believing also in his freedom in using and utilizing this life, and that he can gain nothing from this life except the pleasure made available to him through materialism, adding these materialistic creeds to his egoism, which is essentially inherent within him..., then he will choose the path of materialists and execute all of their methods, unless a mighty power deprives him of his freedom and stops him.
Egoism is the instinct more general or ancient than any other we have come to know. All other instincts are its own branches and divisions, including the instinct of survival. Man's love for his own self, which means his love for pleasure and happiness for his own person, and his hatred of pain and suffering, is the motive which pushes him to make a living and provide himself with his nutritious and materialistic needs. Therefore, he may put an end to his own life by committing suicide if he finds out that the pain of dying is easier than tolerating the pains of which his life is full.
The natural reality, that is, that which hides behind every human life, directing it with its fingers, is egoism which we call "loving pleasure and hating pain". Man cannot be required to willingly tolerate the bitterness of pain without enjoying some pleasure simply in order that others may get their own plea­sure and felicity except when he is robbed of his humanity and is given a new nature which neither loves pleasure nor hates pain.
Even the marvellous norms of self-denial, which we see in mankind and about which we hear throughout history, are, in fact, subject to the same principal motivating power: egoism. Man may be influenced by his son or friend, and he may sacrifice himself for the sake of some ideals and principles, but he would never per­form such heroism unless he derives a particular pleasure from it and a benefit which exceeds the loss he suffers by preferring his son's or friend's benefit to that of his own, or by sacrificing himself for the sake of a principle in which he believes.
Thus can we interpret the general behaviour of man, in the spheres of egoism and sacrifice alike. Man has an inherent readiness to enjoy different things: materialistic, like enjoying eating, drinking, sexual pleasures, etc., or non-materialistic, like behavioural and emotional pleasures, that is, enjoying ethical principles and a spiritual companion, or a particular faith, when man finds such principles or that companion or this faith to be part of his own entity.
This readiness which prepares man to enjoy such different sorts of pleasures differs in degrees among individuals and varies in effectiveness accord­ing to the variations in man's circumstances, natural elements and the upbringing which influences him. When we find out that such readiness matures na­turally in man, such as his readiness to enjoy sex, for example, we find out that the other kinds of readi­ness may not appear during one's lifetime, and that they remain waiting for the natural elements to help them mature and blossom.
Behind all such readi­ness is the egoistic instinct which outlines man's behaviour according to the degree of maturity of such readiness; it pushes a person to prefer one kind of food to another when he is hungry, and it pushes some other person to even give his own food to others. This is so because the first person's readiness to enjoy the ethical and emotional principles which pushes him to self-denial is hidden: The auxiliary elements of upbringing have neither centralized nor matured such readiness. The other person has won such sort of upbringing; therefore, he enjoys ethical and emotional principles, sacrificing his own self for their achievement.
When we want to make a change in someone's behaviour, we have to change his concept of pleasure and benefit, including the suggested behaviour in the general framework of the egoistic instinct.
If the egoistic instinct occupies such a position in man's world, and the "self" means nothing but a limited materialistic energy, and pleasure is nothing but whatever fun and felicity materialism brings, it would be natural for man then to feel that his sphere of gaining is limited, his scope is short, and his objective in it is to get an amount of materialistic pleasure. The way to get that is, of course, confined to life's vein: wealth, which opens the door to man to achieve all of his purposes and desires. This is the natural sequence of materialistic reasoning which leads to a complete capitalist men­tality.
Can you see if the problem can be totally solved if we refuse the principle of private ownership, while maintaining such materialistic concepts of life as those thinkers have tried? Can society be saved from the tragedy of such principles by only abolishing private ownership so that it would gain a guarantee for its happiness and stability? The only guarantee for man's happiness and stability depends to a large extent on ensuring that those charged with respon­sibility will not deviate from their scopes and reform plans in the field of action and execution.
Such res­ponsible persons are supposed to embrace the same purely materialistic concepts of life on which capi­talism stands. The only difference is that they have shaped such concepts in new philosophical structures. Reason would suppose that the personal interest quite often stands in the face of the common interest, and that the individual has to choose between either a loss and a pain which he endures for the sake of others, or a gain and pleasure which he enjoys at their own expense. So, what guarantees the nation and its rights, the doctrine and its objectives, will have during such critical moments through which the rulers go?
The indiv­idual interest is not represented in private ownership only, so that we would rule out our supposition to abolish the principle of private ownership; rather, it is represented in many different manners and forms. A proof for that is the treason of many past rulers discovered today by the advocates of communism who have revealed how those rulers deviated from the same principles which they had professed to adopt.
The wealth controlled by the capitalist group, under the shade of absolute economic and individual liberties, dealing with it according to its materialistic mentality, is given, when the state nationalizes all sorts of wealth and abolishes private ownership, to the state apparatus itself which is composed of a group controlled by the same materialistic concepts of life which oblige them to give priority to their own individualistic interests, according to the egoistic instinct, refusing that man should give up his pleasure and interest without a compensation. So long as the materialistic interest is the dominating power, accord­ing to the materialistic concepts of life, new fields for struggle and competition will be reserved, and the society will be exposed to different dangers and exploitation.
Danger to humanity is all hidden within such materialistic concepts and whatever goals and deeds stem from them. Unifying capitalist norms of wealth, the small or the big, into one huge wealth to be taken care of by the state, without any new development of the human intellect, does not curb such a danger; rather, it turns the entire nation into labourers working for one company, tying their life and prestige to the promoters and owners of that company.
Yes, this “company” differs from the capitalist company: The owners of the capitalist company are the ones who own its profits, spending them according to their own inclinations, while the owners of the other company do not possess any of that, as the system assumes. But the fields of individualistic interest are still open, and the materialistic concept of life, the one that makes such an interest a goal and a justification, still remains
How to Solve the Problem
The world has two ways to avoid the danger and establish the pillars of a stable society:
One is this: Mankind has to be changed, or a new nature be created within him that would make him sacrifice his personal interests and limited materialistic achievements for the sake of the society and its interests, in spite of his own belief that there are no principles except those materialistic ones, and no gains except those of this limited life.
This could be accomplished if egoism were uprooted from his nature's essence and substituted with love for the group; therefore, man will be born not loving his own self except as being part of the society, feeling no pleasure for his own happiness and benefits ex­cept as they represent part of the general happiness and common interest. The "instinct" of loving the group will then guarantee its running after its own interests and the achievement of its own ob­jectives in a mechanical manner and mode.
The other, the one the advocates of communism dream of bringing into man's future, promising the world that they would create it anew, a creation which would make it move mechanically to serve the group and its interests, is this: So that such a great feat is accomplished, we have to trust the world leadership to them, just as the patient is entrusted to the surgeon for surgery in order to chop off his bad parts and adjust the crooked ones. Nobody knows how long such a surgical operation, which puts man at the mercy of the surgeon, will last.
Man's sub­mission to that is but the greatest proof of the extent of injustice which he has suffered in the democratic capital­ist system which has deceived him with the alleged "freedoms", robbing him finally of even his own dignity, sucking his blood in order to present him as an easy drink to the pampered group represented by the rulers. The idea of such an opinion which advocates treating the problem by "modernizing" man and creating him anew, hinges on the Marxist interpretation of egoism.
Marxism believes that self-love (egoism) is neither a natural inclination nor an in­stinctive phenomenon within man's entity but a result of the social condition which is based on private ownership, for the social status of private ownership is what formulates the spiritual and in­nate composition of man, creating in the individual his own love for his personal interests and individual benefits.
If a revolution occurs in the bases on which the social structure stands, and general ownership and socialism substitute private owner­ship, then the revolution will be reflected in all cor­ners of the society and in the inner context of man; so much so that his personal feelings will change to common feelings, and his love for his own interests and individualistic benefits will change to loving the common interest and benefit, according to the equi­librium law between the status of Islamic ownership and the totality of the overall phenomenon according to which they condition themselves.
In fact, this Marxist interpretation of egoism judges the relationship between the self's reality (the egoistic instinct) and the social circumstances in an upside-down manner. Otherwise, how can we believe that the personal motive is the outcome of private ownership and all the class contradictions resulting from it?
If man did not have, before hand, the personal motive, he would not have caused such contradictions, nor could he have thought of private ownership and personal monopoly. Why should man monopolize the system's achievements, placing it in such a way that protects his own inter­ests at the expense of others, if he does not feel the personal motive within the depths of his own self?
The fact is that the social appearances of egoism in the economic and political field are but the result of the personal motive, of the egoistic instinct. This motive is deeper than it is in man's entity; therefore, it cannot vanish, nor can its roots be pulled out by simply removing such effects, for an operation like this is not more than substituting effects for others different than the first in shape or appearance yet similar to them in essence and reality.
Add to this, if we interpret the personal motive (the egoistic instinct) subjectively, as a reflection of the phenomenon of individualism within the social system, such as the phenomenon of private owner­ship, as Marxism has done, would this not mean that the personal motive will lose its subjective and causing factor from the social system by abolishing private ownership because, although it is a phenomenon of an individualistic nature, it still is not unique in kind, as there is, for example, the phenomenon of private management which is kept even by the socialist sys­tem?
Although it abolishes private ownership of the means of production, the socialist system does not abolish the private management by the ruling ap­paratus which practices proletariat dictatorship and monopolizes the supervision over all means of pro­duction and their management. It is not logical to manage the means of production at the moment of their nationalization by a social common manage­ment of all the individuals of the society.
The social­ist system, then, maintains distinguished individual­istic phenomena, and it is natural that such phe­nomena maintain the personal motive, continuously reflecting it in the inner context of man, just as the phenomenon of private ownership used to do.
Thus do we come to know the value of the first way to solve the problem: the communist way which regards abolishing the legislation of private ownership, wiping it out of the law, as the only guarantee to solve the problem and "modernize" man. As regarding the other way, which is stated above, it is the one followed by Islam because of its belief that the only solution to the problem is to develop man's materialistic concept of life.
It has not started with abolishing the concept of private ownership; rather, it assaulted the materialistic concept of life and put for life a new concept, basing on it a system in which the individual is not treated as a machine in the social apparatus, nor is the society a group ready to serve the individual.
Rather, it has given each his rights, and has guaranteed the individual his dignity, spiritual and materialistic. Islam has placed its hand on the real cause of sickness in the democratic social system, and whatever systems branch from it, wiping them out in a manner which harmonizes with the human nature.
The basic hinging point to what the human life has suffered different sorts of miseries and calamities is the materialistic outlook of life which may be summed up thus: the supposition that only man's life on earth is worthy of all consideration. It establishes the indiv­idualistic interest as the criterion to each action and activity.
According to Islam, democratic capitalism is a system doomed to collapse and will certainly fail not because of the allegations of the advocates of communist economy, the self-contradictions of capitalism and the elements of destruction carried inherently by private ownership, for Islam differs in its logical approach, political economy and social philosophy from the concepts of such allegations and their argumentative manner, as I have clarified in my works Falsafatuna (Our Philosophy) and Iqtisaduna (Our Economy), and it guarantees the position of private ownership within a social framework, one free of such alleged contradictions.
The reason for the failure and aggravating situ­ation with which democratic capitalism is afflicted, according to Islam, is rendered to the purely materialistic concepts of democratic capitalism which cannot make people happy in a system that learns its essence from it, deriving its general outlines from its es­sence and direction.
There has to be, thereupon, some other source, other than the materialistic ideas about the universe, from which the social system quenches its thirst, and there has to be an accurate political awareness stemming out of true concepts of life, adopting the greatest of man's issues, attempting to achieve it on the basis of such concepts and studying the world affairs from that angle. When such political aware­ness matures in the world, wiping away any other political awareness, the world will then be able to enter a new life shining with light, full of happiness. This deep political awareness is the true message of Islam in the world, and such a delivering message is, indeed, the eternal message of Islam which has derived its social system, which differs from all the systems we have so far explicated, from a new intel­lectual base for life and the universe.
Through such an intellectual base, Islam has defined the proper outlook of man at his life. It has made him believe that his life stems from the principle of absolute perfection, that it is but a prep­aration for a world free of toil and suffering, hence providing him with a new ethical criterion in his steps and stages. This criterion is: the pleasure of Allah Almighty. Not everything the individual interest imposes is permissible, yet everything causing an individual loss is prohibited and undesirable.
Rather, the goal which Islam has drawn for mankind in his life is Divine Pleasure, and the ethical criterion through which all deeds are weighed is the amount one is able to obtain of such a sacred goal. The straight man is that who achieves such a goal. The complete Islamic character is the one which has made all of its various paces along the guidance of such goal and the light of such criterion and within its general framework.
This change in the ethical concepts, criteria and objectives does not mean changing the human nature and creating it anew, as the communist idea meant. Egoism, that is, man's love for his own self and for the achievement of his personal desires, is natural in mankind, and we do not know of any research in any experimental field which is more clear than that of humanity in its long history which proves the "self" of egoism.
If egoism had not been natural and inherent within man, early man would not have rushed, before forming his social entity, to achieve his needs and defend himself against the dangers and try in his primitive ways through which he protected his life and maintained his existence to get what he de­sired and in the end enter the social life and assimilate in relations with others for the purpose of achieving such needs and avoiding such dangers. Since egoism occupies such a position in the human nature, any definite solution to the great human problem must be based on belief in such a reality. If it is based on the idea of developing or overcoming it, then it will be an idealistic solution which does not have a place in the reality of the practical life man has been leading.
The Religious Message
Here, religion performs its great message the burdens of which no one else can bear, nor its constructive goals and wise objectives can be achieved, except on its bases and principles. It combines the ethical criteria put by man with the egoistic instinct centred with­in his nature. In other words, religion unites the instinctive criteria of working and living; that is, egoism, and the criterion which ought to be the basis for working and living, in order to guarantee (for mankind) happiness, prosperity and justice.
The instinctive criterion demands that man must give preference to his own personal interests over those of the society and the factors which maintain its unity; and the criterion which must preside and prevail is that in the estimation of which all interests equate, and according to the concepts of which all individual and social principles strike a balance. How is it possible, then, to coordinate both criteria and unite both balances so that the human nature might return in the individual to be a factor of goodness and happiness for everyone, after it had been for a long time a factor that caused tragedies which developed selfishness, as it pleases?
The coordination and unification occur in a manner guaranteed by religion for the strayed hu­manity, and this has two styles: The first style is to concentrate on the realistic interpretation of life, propagating its comprehension in its accurate hue, as introductory prelude to an everlasting life in which man achieves an amount of happiness which depends on his endeavour during this limited life in the hope to achieve the Pleasure of Allah.
The ethical criterion, that is, achieving Allah's Pleasure, while winning its great social objectives, simultaneously ensures the achievement of the individual interest. Religion, therefore, leads man to partici­pate in the construction of a happy society and the maintenance of its just issues which, all in all, achieve the Pleasure of Allah Almighty, for that is included in the estimation of his personal gain, so long as every deed and activity in this field will be quite handsomely rewarded.
The society's issue is also the individual's, according to the precepts and concepts of religion regarding life and its comprehension. Such a style of coordination cannot be achieved under the shade of a materialistic comprehension of life, for the ma­terialistic comprehension of life makes man naturally looking at none but his present scope and limited lifespan, contrarily to the realistic interpretation of life presented by Islam. The latter expands man's scope, imposing on him a deeper outlook at his own interests and benefits, turning a quick loss into a real gain within such a deep sight, and the quick gain is turned in the end into a real loss: Whoever does a good deed, it is for his own self, and whoever does wrong, it is against his own self. (Qur'an, 41:46).
And whoever, male or female, does a good deed, while truly believing, shall certainly en­ter Paradise in which he will be sustained without a limit. (Qur'an, 40:40) .
On that Day (of Judgement) shall people be presented in numerous numbers in order to be shown their deeds; whoever does good even the weight of an atom shall receive its reward, and whoever does wrong even the weight of an atom shall receive its punishment. (Qur'an, 99:6-8).
[This is so] because thirst does not afflict them nor fatigue nor hunger in God’s way, nor do they tread a path which enrages the infidels, nor do they receive from the enemy (any injury) but on account of its being reckoned to their credit as a deed of righteousness. Indeed God does not allow the reward of those who do good to go in vain. Nor do they spend anything (in the way of God), be it small or big, nor do they cut across a valley, except that it is recorded to their credit so that God may reward them with better than what they were doing. (Qur’an, 9:120 – 121).
These are but some magnificent portraits our religion presents as an example for the first style, the one it follows for the purpose of coordinating both criteria and the unification of both balances, joining the per­sonal motives with the ways of goodness in life and developing the individual’s interest in a manner that would make him believe that his personal interests and the general matter-of-fact interest, as outlined by Islam, are inter-related.[9][6]
As regarding the other method followed by relig­ion to incorporate the personal motive with the society’s prin­ciples or interests, it is to guarantee to nourish man spiritually and help the growth of humane feelings and ethical inclinations within him. Within the human nature, as we have pointed out before, there are energies and capabilities of different inclinations. Some of them are materialistic the appetites of which open naturally, such as the appetite for food, drink and sex, while others are intellectual inclinations which blossom and grow through culti­vation and care.
Therefore, it is natural for man, if left for himself, to be controlled by the materialistic inclinations, for these blossom naturally, while the intellectual inclinations and their innate readiness remain veiled within the soul. Religion, believing in an infallible leadership supported by God, entrusts the task of cultivating humanity and nurturing the intellectual inclinations therein to this leadership and its branches, creating thereby a group of righteous emotions and feelings, and man starts loving the ethi­cal principles and ideals which religion brings him up to respect and to die for, and it removes from his path all obstacles composed of his own interests and benefits.
This does not mean that egoism is obliterated from the human nature. Rather, it means that the action geared towards the achievement of such principles and ideals is a complete execution of the will of ego­ism, for the principles, because of religious upbring­ing, become loved by man as means of deriving a "special" pleasure from them.
These, then, are the two ways from which results the joining of the ethical issue to the personal matter. One of them may be summarized thus: providing a realistic interpretation of an everlasting life not for the purpose of man turning away from this life, nor is it for his submission to injustice and acceptance of iniquity. Not at all; it is for the sake of checking man through the accurate ethical criterion provided by that interpretation with sufficient assurance.
The other way may be summarized thus: The ethical education resulting in various feelings and emotions within man which guarantee the implementation of the ethical criterion according to the inspiration of the soul. The spiritual comprehension and ethical edu­cation of the soul, according to the Message of Islam, are the coordinating factors in treating the deeper cause behind the human tragedy. Let us describe the comprehension of life as a prelude for a perpetual one, according to the spiri­tual comprehension of life, and let us describe the emotions and feelings, nurtured by the ethical edu­cation, as "the ethical feelings of life".
The spiritual comprehension of life and the ethical feeling thereof are the two bases on which the new ethical criterion put by Islam for humanity stands, and this (criterion) is: achieving the Pleasure of Allah. This Pleasure, the one put forth by Islam as a general criterion for life, is the one which leads the boat towards the shores of righteousness, goodness and justice. The basic characteristic in the Islamic system is represented through its erection on a spiritual comprehension of life and an ethical feeling thereof, and the wide line in this system is: the regard for both individual and society, and ensuring the equi­librium between the individual and the social life: The individual is not the central base in the legis­lation and government, nor is the big social being the only thing the State looks at or for whose sake it legislates.
Every social system which does not stem out of this comprehension and feeling is either a system which follows the individual in his egoistic inclination, thus exposing the social life to the most severe consequences and dire perils, or it is a system which suppresses the individual's instincts and paralyzes in him his own nature for the sake of "protecting" the society and its interests, hence an everlasting bitter struggle starts between the system and its legislations, and the individuals and their inclinations.
Nay! The social existence of the system will always be exposed to failure at the hands of its own promoters, as long as they, too, have their own personal inclinations and instincts, and so long as these instincts find, through suppressing the other "individualistic" instincts and taking charge of strict leadership, a wide scope and a field unmatchable for setting out and utilization.
Both spiritual comprehension of life and the ethical feeling thereof do not only result in a com­plete system of life in which there is high regard for each component of the society, each individual will be granted his liberty which has been cultivated by that comprehension and feeling and which the State re­stricts when there is any deviation from it. I say: Every doctrine which does not produce for mankind this sort of system can never be other than cooling the air off and alleviating woes rather than providing a remedy and a definite eradication of social desires and vices.
The intact social structure is erected on none other than a spiritual comprehension of life and an ethical feeling thereof, one from which both a system is set forth to fill life with the spirit of this feeling and the essence of that comprehension. This is Islam in the most precise and wonderful expression: a spiritual and ethical doctrine from which springs a perfect system for mankind which portrays the clearly marked scope, determining his goal to be even higher than that scope, acquainting him with his achievements there from.
As for its abolishment of the spiritual compre­hension of life, stripping man of his ethical feeling thereof, considering the ethical concepts as pure whims created by the materialistic interests, and that only the economic factor is the criterion for all values and ethics, hoping from all of this to achieve man's happiness and social stability..., this, indeed, is but a hope, a desire, which can never be achieved until man­kind is turned into a mechanical apparatus organized by few mechanical engineers.
Basing man on the basis of that spiritual comprehension of life and the ethical feeling thereof is not a hard or impossible task, for religions during man's history have performed their great message in this respect, and all what the world today contains of spiritual values, ethical awareness, virtuous feelings and emotions do not have an explanation more clear and logical in their pillars and bases other than the great endeavours undertaken by religions to culti­vate humanity and its natural motives and whatever required for living and working.
Islam has carried the torch of bursting light after mankind had reached a certain degree of awareness. It preached the spiritual and ethical base on the widest scales and furthermost scopes, raising thereupon the banner of humanity. It established an intel­lectual State which ruled the world for a quarter of a century, aiming at the unity of all mankind into one intellectual base which portrays the mode and man­ner of life. The Islamic State, therefore, has two functions: One is to lift mankind through the intel­lectual base, stamping his inclination and feelings with its stamp. The other is watching him externally and bringing him back to the base if he practically deviates from it.
Therefore, the political awareness of Islam is not only an awareness of the structural aspect of the social life, but it also is a profound political awareness which stems from an entirely complete outlook towards life, the cosmos, sociology, politics, economics and ethics.
This inclusive outlook is the complete Islamic awareness. Any other sort of political awareness can either be a superficial political awareness which does not look at the world except from a particular angle without basing its concepts except on one particular hinging point. Or it may be a political aware­ness which studies the world from the purely materi­alistic angle which provides mankind with feuds and sufferings of all various shapes and hues.
Notes:
[10][6] Refer to Iqtisaduna, p.307.

Author: Muhammad Baqir as-Sadr
Source: Imam reza network

Social Classification

Although society enjoys a sort of unity, from within it is divided into various groups and classes, which are sometimes incongruous. At least some societies are so. As society possibly has different and sometimes conflicting polarities, it may be said that it has both unity and plurality. According to the terminology of the Muslim philosophers, societies are governed by a specific sort of 'unity in plurality and plurality in unity'.
In the previous chapters we discussed the nature of the unity of society. Now we propose to take up the nature of its plurality.
In this connection there exist two well-known theories. The first one is based on historical materialism and dialectic contradiction. According to this theory, which we will elaborate later, the question of the unity and the plurality of society hinges on the principle of ownership. The societies in which private property does not exist, such as the primitive social society or the social societies that are likely to come into existence in future, are basically unipolar. But the societies, in which private property holds sway, are bipolar.
As such society is either unipolar or bipolar, there being no third alternative. In a bipolar society all men are divided into two groups or classes, the exploiters and the exploited or the rulers and the ruled, there being no group or camp other than these two groups or camps. This division becomes applicable to all affairs of society, such as philosophy, ethics, religion and art. In other words, in a bipolar society there are two kinds of philosophy, two kinds of ethics, two kinds of religion and so on, each kind having a particular economic character.
If in any case there prevails only one philosophy, one religion or one set of moral rules, that philosophy, religion or morality is always tinted with the colour of that class which has succeeded in imposing its colour on the other class as sometimes happens. There can exist no philosophy, art, religion or morality transcending the economic classes and having no class colour.
According to the other theory the unipolarity or multipolarity of society is not subject to the principle of private ownership. The cultural, social, racial and ideological factors also can make society multipolar. Especially cultural and ideological factors may play a basic role in dividing society into conflicting camps or making it unipolar even without the abolition of private property.
Now let us see what view is held by the Holy Qur'an in regard to the plurality of society. Does it or does it not accept its existence? If it does, does it hold that society is bipolar because of the existence of private property and exploitation or does it forward some other view?
It appears that the best way or at least a good way of ascertaining the Qur'anic point of view in this respect is to pick out the words having social connotation used in the Holy Qur'an and to see what they signify.
The words with social significance used in the Holy Qur'an are of two catagories: Some of them are related to only one social phenomenon. These words are such as Millah (community), Shari'ah (Divine law), Shir'an (law) Minhaj (way of life), Sunnah (traditions) etc. These words are outside the scope of our present discussion.
There are other words which serve as a social designation of all or several groups of men. It is by means of these words that we can determine the viewpoint of the Holy Qur'an. Such words are: Qawm (people), Ummah (community), Nads (men), Shu'ub (nations) Qaba'il (tribes), Rasul (messenger of Allah), Nabi (Prophet), Imam (leader), Wali (guardian), Mu'min (believer), Kafir (unbeliever), Munafiq (hypocrite), Mushrik (polytheist), Muzabzab (wavering), Muhajir (emigrant), Mujahid (warrior), Siddiq (truthful, righteous), Shahid (witness), Muttaqi (pious, God-fearing), Salih (virtuous), Muslih (reformer), Mufsid (corrupter), Amr bil maruf (exhorting to do good), Nahi 'anil munkar (restraining from evil), Alim (scholar, learned), Nasih (admonisher), Zalim (tyrant), Khalifah (deputy), Rabbani (Divine), Rabbi (rabbi), Kahin (sooth-sayer), Ruhban (monks), Ahbar (Jewish scribes), Jabbar (mighty, despot), Ali (lofty, sublime, strong), Musta'li (superior, master), Mustakbir (haughty), Mustaz'af (suppressed), Musrif (extravagant lavish prodigal), Mutraf (affluent, living in luxury), Taghut (oppressor, idols), Mala (notables, chieftains) Ghani (rich), Faqir (pauper, poor, needy), Mamluk (the ruled), Malik (owner, master), Hurr (freeman, librated), Abd (slave, bondman), Rabb (lord, master) etc.
There are certain other words which apparently resemble the above words. They are such as: Musalli (worshipper), Mukhlis (sincere, devoted), Siddiq (truthful, loyal), Munfiq (charitable), Mustaghfir (seeker of Allah's forgiveness), Ta'ib (repentant) 'Abid (adorer), Hami'd (extoller) and the like. The difference is that these words have been used in connection with the description of certain acts, not to denote any groups of people. As such there is no possibility that these words should signify any social divisions.
It is necessary that the verses mentioning the first set of words especially the verses related to social orientation, should be studied carefully so that it may be ascertained whether they cover two or more than two groups of men. Suppose they all can be accommodated to cover two groups, what are the distinguishing features of these groups?
For example, is it possible that all of them be accommodated to cover the two groups of the believers and the unbelievers, on the basis of their religious orientation, or the two groups of the rich and the poor, on the basis of their economic position? In other words, it is to be seen whether or not all divisions and classifications in the final analysis turn to one main division, and all other divisions being merely its ramifications? If they finally turn to one division, then what is the basis of it? Some assert that according to the view of the Holy Qur’an, society is bipolar.
Primarily it is divided into two main groups:
(i) The rulers and the exploiters, and
(ii) The ruled, the exploited and the subjugated.
The group of the rulers is that which has been described by the Holy Qur'an as the 'haughty' and the group of the ruled is that which has been described as the 'oppressed'. Other classifications such as those of the believers and the unbelievers, the monotheists and the polytheists or the virtuous and the corrupt are of subsidiary character. In other words, it is haughtiness and exploitation which lead to disbelief, polytheism, hypocrisy and the like, whereas it is the state of being oppressed that leads to faith, migration, jihad, virtuousness, reformation etc.
In other words the root of all those things which have been denounced by the Holy Qur'an as dogmatic, moral or practical deviation, lies in a particular state of economic relationship known as exploitation. Similarly the root of all the things advocated and supported by the Holy Qur'an from dogmatic, moral or practical point of view, lies in the state of being exploited. The conscience of man is by nature subject to the state of his material life. There is no possibility of a change in man's spiritual, psychological and moral state unless the condition of his material life is changed.
On this basis the Holy Qur'an holds that the basic and proper form of the social struggle is the class struggle. In other words, the Holy Qur’an gives more importance to social struggle than to economic or moral struggle; and it maintains that the' infidels, the hypocrites, the polytheists, the corrupt, the wicked and the tyrants are the offshoots of those groups which it terms voluptuous, extravagant, elite, imperial, haughty and the like. The infidels and the wicked cannot emerge from the class opposite to these groups. The Prophets, the Imams, the saints, the martyrs, the emigrants and the faithful all come out of the oppressed class. There is no possibility of their coming out of the opposite class. It is the state of being the oppressor or being the oppressed that frames social conscience and gives a direction to it. All other qualities are mere manifestations of these two states.
The Holy Qur'an considers all the above mentioned groups to be the various manifestations and ramifications of the two diametrically opposite classes: (i) The haughty, and (ii) The oppressed. It has mentioned a number of good qualities, such as truthfulness, chastity, sincerity, worship, insight, kindness, mercy, manliness, submissiveness, generosity, sacrifice, Allah-fearing, and humility, and a number of bad qualities such as, telling lies, treachery, lewdness, ostentation, licentiousness, obstinacy, hard-heartedness, miserliness, arrogance etc. The Holy Qur'an regards the first set of qualities as belonging to the oppressed and the second set of qualities as belonging to the oppressors.
Therefore the state of being the oppressors and the oppressed is not only a characteristic of the two different and opposite classes, but also gives rise to two sets of contradictory qualities. Being the oppressors and the oppressed is the basis of all orientations, leanings and the choices, and is the root of all cultural and civic phenomena. The ethics, philosophy, art, literature and religion emerging from the oppressor class, depict the orientation of that class, serve to justify the status quo and cause stagnation and fossilization. In contrast the ethics, philosophy, literature, art or religion emerging from the oppressed class are always informative, inspiring, dynamic and revolutionary.
The haughty people by virtue of being oppressors and because they possess social distinctions are not broad-minded. They are the obscurantists, conservative and peace-loving. In contrast the oppressed are tradition-breakers, enthusiastic enterprisers and revolutionaries.
In short, according to the proponents of this theory, the Holy Qur'an supports the view that it is economic condition which makes man, determines as to what class he belongs to, gives him direction and determines his intellectual, moral, religious and ideological foundation. A study of the verses of the Holy Qur'an as a whole indicates that this view is the basis of the Qur'anic teachings.
As such the criterion of everything is the class to which a man belongs. We can judge all claims by this standard. On this basis we can accept or deny the claim of anyone asserting that he is a believer, a reformer or a leader. This criterion can be applied even to the claim of a Prophet or an Imam.
Actually this theory is based on a material conception of man and society. There is no doubt that the Holy Qur'an attaches great importance to the social condition of the individuals. But does it mean that the Holy Qur'an considers it to be the basis of all divisions and classifications of man? In our opinion this conception of society is not in conformity with the Islamic outlook on man, the world and society, and is the outcome of a superficial study of the Holy Qur'an. As we propose to study this question in detail under the heading, Is History Materialistic in Nature? We withhold our further comments at this stage.
Singleness or Multiplicity of Societies
As we pointed out earlier, for every school this question is important, for on it depends
whether all human societies can follow one single ideology or each nation, community and cultural unit must have its separate ideology. We know that an ideology means a scheme that leads a society to prosperity and perfection. We also know that each species in this world has its own characteristics and capabilities, and hence the conception of prosperity and perfection which awaits each other is different. The prosperity and perfection of the horse are not exactly the same as the prosperity and perfection of the sheep or man.
Therefore, if on the basis of the actuality of societies, we presume that all of them have one nature and essence, and their variations are only within the range of individualistic variations of a species, we can safely say that they may have one single living ideology having enough flexibility to be applicable to all individualistic variations. But if the various societies have different natures and essences, naturally they should have multifarious schemes for their well-being and one ideology cannot be applicable to all of them.
There arises exactly the same question in respect of the changes that overtake societies with the passage of time. Does the essence of societies change in the course of these changes? Are these changes of the nature of a change in species or merely of the nature of a change in some members of it while the nature of the species itself remains essentially unaltered, despite all changes.
The first of the above two questions relates to society and the second to history. We now take up the first question and leave the second one till we come to the discussion of history.
A study of sociology can throw a light on the question whether the various societies primarily and fundamentally have some common characteristics, their variations being only superficial and not basic; or they are basically and by nature different from each other, even though they appear to be similar outwardly. This is a philosophical way of ascertaining the singularity and multiplicity of the things in the case of ambiguity.
Here there is a shorter way also, and that is the way of the study of man himself. It is an admitted fact that all men belong to one species. From biological point of view man has not undergone any biological change since he has appeared. Some scientists say that nature after evolving living beings to the level of man has changed its course. It has shifted the process of evolution from biological and physical changes to social and spiritual development.
Earlier while discussing the sociality of man, we came to the conclusion that as men belong to one species not many, they are social by nature. In other words, man's sociality and his collective spirit are his inborn and essential characteristics. In order to be able to attain due perfection befitting his capabilities, man has a social tendency which paves the way for the emergence of a collective spirit, which in its turn is a means of leading him to his ultimate perfection. The fact that he belongs to a particular species, determines the course of man's collective spirit. In other words, man's collective spirit is in the service of his human nature. So long as his human nature lasts, it will continue to perform its function. Hence it may be said that his collective spirit is a by-product of man's individual spirit, and, in other words it is a part of his nature. As all men belong to one species, all human societies also have a single nature.
Just as an individual sometimes deviates from the normal course of his nature, the same is true of society also. The diversity of societies is similar to the moral variety of the individuals, which in no case falls outside the human framework. Thus all societies, cultures and the collective spirits dominating societies, in spite of all the difference in their forms, always have a human colour and their nature cannot be other than human.
Of course, if we accept the fourth theory of the composition of society, regard the individuals as merely receptive matter like empty receptacles and deny the principle of true human nature, only then we can consider the hypothesis of the fundamental diversity of societies. But this theory as propounded by Durkheim is not acceptable by any means for the most important question which remains unanswered by this theory is: If collective spirit does not primarily spring from the individual spirit of man and is not a by-product of inborn human nature, then from where has it come? Has it come into existence out of absolute non-existence? To answer this question, is it enough to say that since man has existed, society also has existed.
Moreover, Durkheim himself maintains that social matters such as religion, moral principles, art etc. have existed and will always be existing in all societies. In his own words, they have temporal permanence and spatial diffusion. This in itself proves that man's collective spirit is of one single type and has one single nature.
According to Islamic teachings there is only one religion. The differences of canonical laws are merely subsidiary, not substantial. We also know that religion is nothing but a scheme of individual and collective evolution. This shows that Islamic teachings are based on the conception of the singleness of the type of societies. Had societies been of many types, their evolutionary goals and the ways to attain them would certainly have differed, and there would have been plurality of religions basically different from each other. But the Holy Qur’an insists that there has been only one religion, not more, in all regions and societies and in all ages and times. From the viewpoint of the Holy Qur'an religions (in plural form) have never existed. What has existed is the religion (in singular form). All Prophets have preached and taught one religion, one way of life and one goal. The Holy Qur'an says:
"He has ordained for you that religion which He commanded to Nuh, and which We revealed to you and which We commanded to Ibrahim, Musa and 'Isa, saying.- Establish the religion and be not divided in it." (Surah al-Shura, 42:13)
Several verses of the Holy Qur'an indicate that during all times and in all places the true Prophets sent by Allah preached the same religion. The idea that fundamentally religion is not more than one is based on the conception that all men belong to one species, not to more than one. Similarly human society as an actuality is basically of one type not of several types.
Future of Societies
We may not admit that modern societies and cultures are basically divergent and dissimilar as far as their nature is concerned, yet it cannot be denied that in regard to their form and quality they widely vary. Now the question is: What is the future of human societies? Will these cultures and civilizations and these societies and nationalities for ever continue to retain their existing position? Or will humanity move towards a single culture, a single civilization and a single society and will all societies one day coalesce and assume a genuine human form? This question hinges on the question of the nature of society and the relation between individual and collective spirits.
It is evident that if we believe in the theory of the fundamentality of human nature and hold that the collective existence of man, his collective life and the collective spirit of society are the means which human nature has chosen to attain its ultimate perfection, it may be said that all societies, cultures and civilizations are marching towards their unification and final amalgamation into each other. The future of human societies is one fully developed world society in which all possible human values will be realized and man will attain true perfection, real well-being and finally genuine humanity.
From the viewpoint of the Holy Qur'an it is an indisputable fact that ultimately truth shall prevail and falsehood shall be totally vanquished and obliterated. Ultimately piety and the pious are bound to succeed.
Allama Tabatabai in al-Mi'zan says: "A deep investigation into the conditions of the world reveals that in future man also as a part of the world will attain his perfection. The Holy Qur'an says that the establishment of Islam in the world, is inevitable. That is another way of saying that man will reach his complete perfection. When the Holy Qur'an says: "Believers, whosoever of you becomes a renegade from his religion, (in his stead) Allah will bring a people whom He loves and who love Him" (Surah al-Ma'idah, 5:54) it actually wants to underline what for creation is necessary and to describe man's final destiny". (Al-Mizan, vol. IV, p. 106)
The Holy Qur'an says: "Allah has promised such of you as believe and do good works that He will surely make them to succeed in the earth as He caused those who were before them to succeed (others) and that He will surely establish for them their religion which He has approved for them, and will give them safety after fear. They worship Me. They ascribe nothing as partner with Me." (Surah an-Nur, 24:55)
At another place the Holy Qur'an says: "Surely My righteous slaves will inherit the earth." (Surah al-Anbiya, 21:105)
The author of al-Mizan under the heading: Belief in the Frontiers of the Islamic World, not its Geographical or Contractual Boundary, says: "Islam has repealed the principle that national divisions have an effective role in forming society. There are two main factors which have caused these divisions. One of them is the primitive tribal life based on racial affinity and the other is the difference of geographical regions. These are the main causes of the division of mankind into nationalities and tribes. They are also the source of the linguistic and colour differences. These two factors at a later stage were the reason why each nation acquired the exclusive control of some region, called it its homeland and undertook its defence".
Though this is a natural process, yet it involves something which is against human nature that requires entire mankind to live as one whole and one unit. The law of Nature is also based on assembling what is scattered and unifying what is separate. It is through this process that Nature attains its goals. The working of this law can be observed if we study natural phenomena and see how primary matter assumes the shape of elements and then of plants, then of animals and finally of man. Though national and tribal divisions unite the people belonging to one country or one tribe, they at the same time place these people in opposition to other human units.
The people of one country regard their fellow-countrymen as their brothers but regard others as aliens, and look at them as if they were lifeless objects only worthy of being exploited. That is the reason why Islam has abolished nationalistic and tribal divisions which split humanity, and instead of race, country- or nationality has declared faith (the discovery of truth which has an equal value to all and to which all are naturally inclined) to be the rallying point of humanity. Even in such matters as marriage and inheritance it declared the fellowship of belief as the criterion". (al-Mizan, vol. IV, pp. 132 - 133)
The same book under the heading: Rightful Religion will Ultimately be Victorious, says:
"Mankind by virtue of its nature collectively seeks to attain true prosperity and perfection. In other words it wants to reach the highest position of material and spiritual life, and one day it will certainly reach it. Islam, being the religion of true monotheism provides a plan for attaining this cherished goal. The deviations which become the lot of man while traversing the long way to this goal, should not be construed to mean the invalidity of true human nature or its death. Man is actually always directed by his nature.
The deviations and errors are-caused by a sort of misapplication of its dictates. Man sooner or later will one day attain that perfection which he seeks by virtue of his nature. This idea may be deduced from Surah ar-Rum, verses 30 to 41. These verses show that the dictates of human nature are immutable, and that man is bound to find his way after making several experiments and going about in different directions gropingly.
Once man finds his way, he will stick to it. One must not listen to those who say that Islam is a stage of human culture which has already completed its mission and now it is nothing more than a historical relic which has outlived its utility. Islam, in the sense in which we know and discuss it, is the ultimate perfection which man must attain one day, because that is a requirement of the law of creation". (al-Mizan, vol. IV, p. 14)
Some assert that Islam in no way advocates the unification of human cultures and human societies. In contrast it supports and recognizes the diversity of cultures and societies. They say that the personality and the identity of a nation are equivalent to its culture, which represents its collective spirit. The collective spirit of a nation is formed by its special history which is not shared by other nations. Nature makes man. History makes man's culture, his personality and his real ego. Every nation has its characteristic and distinctive culture that moulds its personality. The protection of its culture by a nation, actually means the protection of its identity.
We know that the personality and the identity of every individual are his own. To give them up and accept some other identity and personality would amount to stripping oneself of one's self, and becoming alienated from it. To every nation any culture other than the one which has become a part and parcel of its life over its long history is foreign to it.
Every nation has a particular kind of feelings, and sentiments. Every nation has its own outlook and taste. Every nation has its own literature, music, manners and ways. Every nation likes certain things which are not liked by other nations. The culture of a nation is the outcome of its successes and failures over a long period of its history. It reflects its deprivations and endowments, its contacts, the climate of the region in which it lives, the distinguished personalities it has produced and the waves of immigrations that it has received.
The culture of a nation gives a particular shape and a particular dimension to its collective and national spirit. Philosophy, science, literature, religion and ethics are the elements which over successive periods of common history of a human group are so shaped and so combined that they accord a basically distinctive existence to that group in comparison with other groups. This process creates a spirit which forms an organic and vital link between the persons forming that group and converts them into members of a distinct body. It is this spirit which gives this body not only an independent and definite existence but also gives it a sort of life which distinguishes it from all other cultural bodies for ever.
This spirit is clearly felt not only in the collective behaviour and the collective spirit of that body, but also in its reactions to nature, life and all that happens. It may be felt not only in the sentiments, desires and tendencies of that body but also in the works of science and arts which it produces. In short, this spirit can be seen and felt in all spheres of human life, both material and spiritual.
It is said that religion is an ideology, a faith and the sentiments and actions resulting from that faith. As for nationality, it is "personality" and the distinctive features created by the common spirit of the individuals having a common destiny. Hence relation between nationality and religion is the same as exists between personality and faith.
It is also said that the opposition of Islam to racial discrimination and national hegemony does not mean its opposition to the diversity of nationalities in human society. The principle of equality in Islam does not mean the rejection of nationalities. In contrast, it means that Islam does recognize the existence of nationalities as an indisputable fact and an undeniable natural phenomenon. The under-mentioned Qur'anic verse which is often quoted as a proof of Islam's denial and rejection of nationalities, in fact confirms and supports their existence. This verse says: "Men, We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes so that you may know one another. Indeed the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the most pious of you." (Surah al-Hujurat, 49:13)
This verse first mentions the classification of mankind from the viewpoint of sex, which is a natural classification. Immediately thereafter the verse mentions another classification of mankind from the viewpoint of nations and tribes. This shows that the second classification is as natural and appointed by Allah as the division of mankind into males and females.
Hence, it is evident that just as Islam wants a special kind of relationship between man and woman and does not want to abolish sex distinction, similarly it is in favour of the establishment of international relations on the basis of equality and does not call for the abolition of nationalities. The fact that the Holy Qur'an ascribes the making of nationalities to Allah like the creation of sexes, means that the existence of definite nationalities is a natural reality in consonance with the creational scheme. The fact that the Holy Qur'an has mentioned the knowing each other as the philosophy behind the existence of numerous nationalities, indicates that every nation has some special features by means of which it makes itself distinct from other nations and by means of which its personality is crystallized and comes to life.
Thus, contrary to what is generally believed, Islam is not opposed to nationalism as such. In fact it supports nationalism in its cultural sense. What Islam opposes is nationalism in its racial sense. In other words Islam is against racism only.
This theory is again faulty in several respects. It is based on a particular conception of man and a particular view about cultural material, that is philosophy, science, art and ethics. Both these ideas are defective.
It has been presumed that man, from intellectual point of view, that is how he looks at this world and how he perceives it, and from emotional and behavioural point of view, that is what he wants, how he moves and what is his destination, is even potentially devoid of any content and form. All thoughts, sentiments, manners and goals are to him alike.
He is like an empty receptacle having no form or colour. Every side of his personality is conditioned by what is subsequently put in him. In fact he acquires his ego, his personality, his ways and manners and his goals and objects from a subsequent input. This input gives him a form and a personality. Whatever form, colour, quality, personality and goal this input, in fact the first input, gives him that is his real form, real colour, real quality, real personality and real goal, for his 'self' is formed by this input. Whatever change in his personality and colour is brought about by an input he receives later, that is only a borrowed and alien stuff because it remains foreign to him, for it is not in consonance with his original personality.
It is caused merely by some historical accident. This theory is inspired by the fourth theory about the fundamentality of the individual and society, according to which only society is basic. We earlier commented on this theory.
This view about man is not tenable, neither from philosophical nor from Islamic point of view. Man by virtue of his nature has, at least potentially, a fixed personality and a fixed goal based on his Divinely appointed innate character which determines his real 'self'. Any distortion of his basic character and his dehumanization should be adjudged by the standard of his essential and innate qualities and not by historical standards. Any culture, which is consistent with man's human nature and which fosters it, is genuine, although it may not be the first culture imposed on him by historical circumstances. And any
culture which is not in consonance with his nature is foreign to him, is a sort of distortion of his identity, and means falsification of his 'self', although it may be a product of his national history. For example, the idea of duality and the sanctification of fire is a distortion of Iranian humanity, though it is believed to be a product of Iranian history. In contrast, the idea of monotheism and the rejection of the worship of everything other than Allah is a return to the real human identity, although it may not be a product of the homeland of the Iranians.
In regard to human cultural material it has been wrongly presumed that it has no definite form and that its form and quality depend on historical factors. After all philosophy is philosophy whatever may be its form. In the same way, science is science; religion is religion; moral principles are moral principles and art is art, whatever their form and colour may be.
Their quality and form are relative matters which depend on history. The history and culture of every nation give birth to a particular form of philosophy, religion, ethics and art, peculiar to that particular nation. In other words, just as man as such is without any identity or form and it is culture which gives him these characteristics, similarly the principles and the primary material of human culture are also without any shapes, form or colour. It is history which gives them shape and imprints its mark on them. Some sociologists, such as Spengler etc. have in this respect gone forward to the extent that they claim that even "mathematical thinking is influenced by the particular approach of a culture". (Quoted by Raymond Aron, Main Currents in Sociological Thought, vol. 1, p. 107)
It is the same theory which is known as the theory of the relativity of human culture. In the 'Principles of Philosophy' we have discussed the question of the absoluteness and relativity of the ideas, and proved that it is only practical sciences and perceptions that are relative and change with the time and place. Such perceptions do not reflect realities and cannot be a criterion of judging what is right and true and what is wrong and false. In contrast, theoretical perceptions and ideas which are the product of philosophy and theoretical sciences, such as the principles of the religious conception of the world and the primary principles of ethics, are firm, absolute and non-relative. Unfortunately we are unable to pursue this question further.
Secondly, to say that religion is belief and nationality is personal identity, that the relation between these two is that of belief and personality and that Islam confirms and recognizes national personalities as they are, is virtually tantamount to the negation of the most important mission of religion. The mission of religion, especially of a religion like Islam is to impart a world conception based on the correct knowledge of the universal system operating on the principles of monotheism, to build the spiritual and moral personality of man on the basis of that conception, and to bring up the individuals and society on a basis implying the foundation of a new culture, which is human, not national. Islam offered a culture to the world, which is now known as the Islamic culture. It did not do so simply because every religion on coming in contact with the existing culture of the people more or less influences it and is influenced by it.
The reason was that the offering of a new culture was a part and parcel of the mission of this religion. The mission of Islam includes stripping of men of that culture which they have but should not have, furnishing them with that culture which they do not have but should have and confirming to them what they have and should have. A religion that does not interfere in the existing national cultures and is in harmony with all of them, can be of use only once a week in the church.
Thirdly, the verse 13 of the Surah al-Hujurat does not mean to say that Allah created you in two sexes, male and female, so that it may be possible to assert that in this verse first a classification of mankind from the viewpoint of sex has been mentioned and immediately thereafter another classification from the viewpoint of nationality has been given. It cannot be claimed that the verse indicates that the difference in sex being natural, ideologies should be evolved on that basis, not on the rejection of it, and that the same is true of the difference in nationality.
In fact the verse in question means: "We created you from a male and a female". It either signifies that all men are descended from one single male and one single female; or that all men are alike so far as each of them has one father and one mother, and in this respect there is no question of any distinction.
Fourthly, the phrase: "So that you may recognize each other"; which has been mentioned as the aim, does not mean that the nations have been diversified for this purpose. Hence it is wrong to conclude that the nations must stay as independent personalities so that they may be distinguished from each other. Had this been the intention, the phrase used instead of saying: "So that you may recognize each other", should have said: "So that they may recognize each other". This verse which is addressed to all the people, tells them that these divisions have a good reason behind them and the reason is that they may be able to recognize each other by means of the tribes and the nationalities to which they belong. We know that this purpose can be served otherwise also, and it is not necessary that the nations and communities should retain their personalities remaining independent of each other.
Fifthly, what we said earlier about the theory of Islam concerning the singleness and multiplicity of the nature of societies is enough to refute the above theory. There we pointed out that the natural advancement of societies is towards the formation of a single society and a single culture. In Islam the philosophy of Mahdism is based on this idea about the future of Islam, man and the world.
by Martyr Murteza Mutahhari
Source: al-islam.org

Society and History

Introduction
The outlook of a school of thought on society and history and the opinion that it forms about these two, plays a decisive role in the ideology of that school. Hence it is essential to find out how Islam looks at society and history in the perspective of its conception of the world.
It is evident that Islam is neither a school of sociology nor a philosophy of history. In its revealed Book no social or historical problem has been dealt with in the language of these two sciences. The Holy Qur'an also has not used the usual terminology of the relevant sciences while dwelling on any moral, juristic or philosophical subject. None the less, Islamic view on a large number of questions pertaining to these sciences can be derived and deduced from the verses of the Holy Qur'an.
Islamic thinking in respect of society and history, being of special importance, it deserves an elaborate study and investigation. Like many other teachings of Islam, its views on these subjects are also a sign of the depth and profoundness, of its precepts and doctrines. For the sake of brevity we propose to deal with Islamic thinking about society and about history together in one chapter and confine our discussion to only those questions which in our opinion are essential for the identification of Islamic ideology.
We shall begin with society and then take up history. In this respect the relevant questions are as under:
(i) What is society?
(ii) Is man a social being by nature?
(iii) Is the individual that is basic and society only a drawn idea, or the other way round? Or is there a third alternative?
(iv) What is the relationship between society and tradition?
(v) Has the individual a free choice of action in the face of society and social environment?
(vi) What are the basic divisions of society?
(vii) Are all human societies on the whole of one and the same nature and essence, the dissimilarities existing between them being like those existing between the individuals belonging to one species? Or have they divergent natures varying according to their rational differences, temporal and spatial conditions and cultural levels? If so, naturally the various societies shall have various sociologies and in that case each of them can have its own peculiar ideology.
We know that all human beings in spite of their regional, racial and historical differences from physical point of view belong to one species, and that is why the same medical and physiological laws apply to all of them. Now the question is whether they form one species from social point of view also and consequently are governed by one moral and social system? Can one ideology be applicable to all mankind or should each society have a special ideology conforming to its special regional, cultural, historical and sociological conditions?
(viii) Are human societies which have been from the dawn of history to the present time scattered, independent of each other and subject to multiplicity and divergence of at least individual nature, advancing towards unity and uniformity? - Is the future of humanity unity of society, uniformity of culture and the disappearance of contradictions and conflicts? Or is humanity doomed to remain culturally and ideologically diverse and divergent?
These are some of the questions about which, from our point of view, it is necessary that the Islamic point of view should be made clear. We propose to discuss these questions one by one briefly.
What is Society?
A group of human beings linked together by certain common systems, traditions, conventions and laws and leading a collective life, forms a society. A collective life does not mean that a group of men should necessarily be living side by side in a particular region and should be utilizing the same climate and consuming the same kind of foodstuffs. The trees of a garden live side by side, utilize the same climate and consume the same type of nourishment. Similarly the herd of deer graze together and move together. But neither the deer of one herd nor the trees lead a collective life nor do they, form a society.
Human life is social in the sense that it has a 'social nature'. Human needs, achievements, enjoyments and activities all have a social nature, for they all are closely linked with certain customs, usages and systems of division of work, division of gains and division of the fulfilment of needs. There are certain dominating thoughts, ideas and habits which keep a particular group of people united. In other words a society is a collection of people who are compelled by certain pressing needs and influenced by certain beliefs, ideas and ambitions, to be amalgamated together and lead a common life.
Common social needs and the special relations of human life so unite people that they become like passengers travelling together in one automobile, in one aeroplane or aboard one boat heading towards a particular destination where either they all reach or none of them reaches. On their way if they face any danger they face it together and have a common destiny.
The Holy Prophet while describing the philosophy behind exhortation to what is good and restraining from what is evil, has used a beautiful similitude. He has said: "A group of people embarked a boat which sailed and cleaved the bosom of the sea. Every passenger was sitting in his own place. One of the passengers on the plea that the place where he was sitting exclusively belonged to him, began to make a hole at his place. If other passengers immediately caught hold of his hand and restrained him from making a hole, they would not only save themselves but would save him also".
Is Man Social By Nature?
The question, what fact ors have made man social, has been under discussion from ancient times. Has man been created social from the very beginning? In other words, has he been created as a part of a whole, and is instinctively inclined, to join its whole? Or is it that he has not been created social, but social life has been imposed on him by external f actors? In other words, is it that man in accordance with his inborn nature tends to be free and is not willing to accept the restriction of collective life, but having learnt by experience that he is unable to lead a lonely life, has perforce acquiesced in the limitations of a collective life?
Another theory is that although man is not social by nature, it is not a factor of compulsion which has induced him to become social. But man through his intellect and reason has discovered that by means of cooperation and collective life he can enjoy the bounties of nature in a better way. According to this theory man has agreed to cooperate with his fellow beings by his own choice. Thus man is social either by nature, or by compulsion or by choice.
According to the first theory the social life of man can be compared to the domestic life of husband and wife. Each of the two spouses is a part of a whole and has a natural tendency to join its whole.
According to the second theory, social life is comparable to the alliance and cooperation between the two countries which feel that they are unable to face the common enemy singly, and hence are compelled to conclude a treaty of alliance and cooperation in their mutual interest. According to the third theory, social life is comparable to the partnership of two capitalists who voluntarily agree to set up a commercial, agricultural or industrial concern in order to earn better and higher profits.
In accordance with the first theory the main factor that has made man social is his inner nature; according to the second, it is some external force; and according to the third, it is his rational and calculation faculty.
According to the first theory to be social is a general goal which human nature instinctively aspires to attain; according to the second, it is something accidental and non-essential or in the terminology of the philosophers, a secondary objective; and according to the third theory it is one of the intellectual objectives and not one of the natural goals.
Some verses of the Holy Qur'an indicate that sociality of man is a part of his creation. The Holy Qur'an says: "0 mankind! We have created you of a mate and a female, and have made you nations and tribes so that you may know one another. Surely the noblest of you in the sight of Allah is the most pious of you." (Surah al-Hujurat, 49:13).
In this verse in the course of a moral teaching the social philosophy of the creation of man has been enunciated. The verse says that man has been created in such a way that various nations and tribes have been formed. People are identified by means of a reference to the nations and the tribes to which they belong. Thus the verse resolves a social problem, for it is an essential condition --of social life that people should be able to know and distinguish each other.
Had there been no national, tribal' and similar other affinities, which are a uniting as well as a distinguishing feature, identification of people would have been impossible and consequently there would have been no possibility of the existence of a social life based on the mutual relations of men. National and tribal affiliations and such other distinctions as those of shape, colour and size fix the identity of each individual. Had all individuals been of the same shape, the same colour and the same features and there had existed no difference of affiliations among them, all individuals would have been identical like the machine-made goods produced by a factory and would have been indistinguishable from one another.
Consequently their identification would have been impossible and as a final result no social life could be established on the basis of mutual relations and the exchange of ideas, goods and services. Therefore man's affiliation to different tribes and communities has a goal and a purpose. This kind of distinction is an essential condition of social life. Anyhow, affiliation to a particular race or family is not a matter of pride or the basis of claiming any superiority. In fact the basis of superiority is nothing but human nobility and individuals piety. The Holy Qur'an says: "And He it is Who has created man from water and has appointed for him kindred by blood and kindred by marriage." (Surah al-Furqan, 25:54)
This verse describes the blood and marriage relationships which bind the individuals to one another and form the basis of their identification, as a creational scheme designed for a sound and wise purpose. At another place the Holy Qur'an says:
"Is it they who apportion the mercy of your Lord? We have apportioned among them their livelihood in the life of the world and raised some of them above others in rank so that some of them may take labour from others; and the mercy of your Lord is better than what they amass." (Surah az-Zukhruf , 43:32)
In the course of our discussion on monotheism (Monotheistic conception of the world) we have already explained the meaning of this verse. Briefly it may be said that the verse indicates that men have not been created alike in regard to their potentialities and talents. Had they been created alike, everybody would have had what the others had and would have lacked what the others lacked. In, that case naturally there would have been no question of reciprocal need of each other and reciprocal service to each other Allah has created men dissimilar to each other in regard to their talents an their physical, spiritual, intellectual and emotional potentialities.
He has made some of them superior to some others in certain respects, while those others are often superior to these in some other respects. In this way all depend on each other and are naturally desirous to join hands with each other. Thus Allah has paved the way for social life of men. The above verse shows that social life is something natural. It has neither been forced upon man, nor has it been adopted by him of his own choice.
Is the Existence of Society Real and Substantial?
Society is composed of individuals. Had there been no individuals, no society could exist. Now let us see what is the nature of the composition society and what kind of relation there exists between society and man. In this respect the following theories have been put forward:
I. Composition of society is only fictitious and not real. In other words, no actual compounding has taken place. Actual compounding occurs only when as a result of the action and reaction of two or more things a new phenomenon emerges with its own characteristics as we see in the case of chemical compounds. For example, as a result of the action and reaction of the two gases, classed oxygen and hydrogen, a new phenomenon called water emerges with its own properties and characteristics.
It is essential that after their combination and amalgamation the original components should lose their individual properties and effects and be totally dissolved into a new compound. In their social life men are never amalgamated in this way, and they are not dissolved into society. Therefore society has not real and substantial existence. Its existence is only fictitious and imaginary. It is individual alone that has a real existence. Therefore, in spite of the fact that human life in society has a social form, the individuals do not make a real compound by the name of society.
II. The second theory is that although society is not a real compound like natural compounds, yet is a synthetic compound. A synthetic compound is also a kind of a real compound, though not a natural one. A synthetic compound is an interconnected whole like a machine, the parts of which are assembled and put together. In a natural compound its component parts lose their identity and their independent effect, and are dissolved in the whole; but in a synthetic compound, the components lose their independent effect but not their identity.
They combine in a particular manner and consequently their effects are also combined. They assume the form of some new effects which are not exactly the total of the independent effects of the components in question. For example an automobile transports goods or persons from one place to another, but this effect neither relates to any part of it, nor to the total of the effects of all the parts in the unassembled state. In a motor vehicle all parts of it are compulsorily interconnected with each other and they all work together. But there is no question of the loss of their identity in the whole. In fact in this case the whole has no existence independent of the parts. The whole vehicle is actually equivalent to the sum-total of its parts plus the special connection existing between them.
The same position is held by society. Society consists of primary and secondary systems and arrangements. The systems and the individuals to whom they are related, are interconnected. Any change in any one of these systems - cultural, religious, economic, legal or educational - bring about changes in other systems also. Thus, social life is the final product of the entire social process. But in this process the individuals do not lose their identity, neither in society as a whole nor in any system of it.
III. The third theory is that society is a real compound like any other natural compound. But it is a combination of minds, thoughts, emotions, desires, wills and lastly of cultures, and not that of physical. Just as the material elements as a result of their mutual action and reaction pave the way for the emergence of a new phenomenon, or as the philosophers say, able to assume a new form, and thus give birth to a new compound, similarly individual human beings with their individual inborn and acquired attainments enter the social life, are spiritually amalgamated and acquire a new spiritual identity known as 'collective spirit'.
This compound is natural but of a unique kind. It is natural and actual in the sense that its component parts mutually act, react, cause a change and become the parts of a new identity. Yet it differs from other natural compounds, because in this case the 'whole' or the compound does not exist as a 'real unit'. In the case of other compounds the combination is real, because their component parts mutually act and react in a real manner and in such a way that the identity of the parts is changed, and the resulting compound appears in the form of a real unit, for the plurality of the parts is changed into the unit of the whole.
But in the case of the combination of individuals into society, though this combination is again real because as the result of their actual action and reaction, the individuals acquire a new identity, yet their plurality is in no way transformed into a unity. Any 'overall man' incorporating all individuals does not exist as a unit. Only the aggregate total of individuals can be called the overall man. But his existence is only imaginary.
IV. According to the fourth theory, society is a real compound and, for that matter, a compound par excellence. In the case of all natural compounds their component parts before being combined have their own identity. Apart from their social existence, men are mere animals having only potential humanity or the feeling of human ego.
Human thinking and human feelings such as human emotions and desires appear only in the wake of the emergence of collective spirit. It is this spirit which fills a vacuum and gives man his personality. Collective spirit has at all times been with man and its manifestations have always been visible in ethics, religion, science, philosophy and art. Men influence each other spiritually and culturally and are influenced through and in the wake of this collective spirit, not at any stage prior to it.
In fact the sociology of man precedes his psychology, contrary to the previous theory which maintains that psychology of man precedes his sociology. This theory holds that if man had not acquired social existence and sociology, he would not have reached the stage of acquiring human psyche and individual psychology.
The first theory is purely of the fundamentality of individual only. According to it, society has neither a real existence, nor any law, norm or destiny. It is only individuals who have actual existence and can be identified. The destiny of every individual is independent of the destiny of other individuals.
According to the second theory also what is basic is the individual. The proponents of this theory do not believe that society as a whole and as a combination of individuals has an actual existence. Anyhow, they maintain that the bond existing between the individuals is real and similar to a physical bond. According to this theory though society has no existence independent of the individuals and it is only the individuals who have an actual existence, yet in view of the fact that the individuals in a society are linked with each other like the various component parts of a factory and all their actions are intertwined in a mechanical chain of causes and effects, these individuals have a common destiny, and society being composed of interconnected components, has also identity independent of that of its component parts, that is the individuals.
As for the third theory, it holds that both the individual and society are basic. It maintains that as the existence of its component parts (individuals) is not dissolved into that of society, and the component parts do not cease to exist, as is the case with the chemical compounds, the individual is basic. But society is also basic for the combination of the individuals from spiritual, intellectual and emotional point of view is similar to a chemical combination.
The individuals in society acquire a new identity, that is of society, though they retain their own identity as well. According to this theory, as a result of the mutual action and reaction of its component parts, a new and living reality emerges in the form of society. In addition to the individual conscience, will, desire and thinking, a new conscience, a new will, a new desire and a new thinking appear which predominate the individual conscience and consciousness.
According to the fourth theory only society is basic. All that exists is collective spirit, collective conscience, collective consciousness, collective will and desire and collective psychic. Individual conscience and consciousness are only a manifestation of collective conscience and consciousness.
As for the Qur'anic verses, they support the third theory. As we pointed out earlier, the Holy Qur'an does not deal with human questions in the same way as a book of science or philosophy would. It deals with these questions differently. Anyhow, it mentions the questions concerning society and individual in a way that substantiates the third theory.
The Holy Qur'an maintains that the peoples (societies) have a common destiny, a common deed-sheet, and an understanding and consciousness. They obey and disobey. It is evident that if a people were to have no actual existence, there would have been no question of their destiny, understanding, consciousness, obedience and disobedience. This proves that the Holy Qur’an believes in some sort of collective and social life. Collective life is not a mere allegory. It is as much a reality, as collective death. The Holy Qur'an says: "Every nation has a term; when it comes, they cannot put it back a single hour, nor can they put it forward." (Surah al-A'raf, 7:34)
The Holy Qur'an says: "Every nation shall be summoned to its record." (Surah al-Jathiyah, 45:28)
This shows that each nation has a record of its deeds, and as a living, conscious and responsible being, shall be summoned to render an account of what it did.
The Holy Qur'an says: "To every nation We have made their deeds seem fair." (Surah al-An'am, 6: 109)
This verse indicates that every nation acquires a special outlook, a special way of thinking and some special standards. Each nation has a special way of looking at things and understanding them. The judgements of each nation are based on the special standards adopted by it. Each nation has its own taste. The acts which seem fair to one nation, appear to be unfair to another. It is the social atmosphere of a nation which determines the taste of its individual members. The Holy Qur’an says:
"Every nation tried to seize their Prophet and argued falsely with a view to refute the truth. Then I seized them, and how awful was My punishment." (Surah al-Mu'min, 40:5)
This verse refers to a shameful collective decision with a view to fight the truth. In it, there is also a mention of a general punishment for this collective offence.
In the Holy Qur'an there are instances in which the act of one individual in society has been attributed to the whole society or the act of one generation has been attributed to the subsequent generations. 1 This is possible only in the cases in which a particular people may be of one collective way of thinking and may be having, so to say, one collective spirit. For example, in the story of the tribe of Thamud, the action of one man who hamstrung the she-camel of Prophet Salih, has been attributed to the whole tribe. The Qur'an says: "They hamstrung her". Thus the whole tribe has been regarded as culpable and deserving punishment. "So your Lord destroyed them".
Explaining this point in one of his sermons Imam Ali says: "Men! The only thing which unites people and provides them with a common destiny is happiness and resentment".
When people collectively feel pleased or displeased with something which might have been done by one single person, they are to be regarded as one man and they have a common destiny. The she-camel of Thamud was hamstrung by one individual, but Allah punished the whole tribe, because they all were pleased with his action. Allah has said: "They hamstrung her and so they had to regret." (Surah ash-Shu'ara', 26:167)
Allah punished them all because they all approved the decision taken by that one man. Hence, when that decision was put into practice it was actually the collective decision of them all. Though hamstringing was the action of one man, Allah has ascribed it to them generally. He said that they hamstrung the she-camel, and not that one of them hamstrung her.
Here there is another point worth-remembering. To be merely pleased with a sin without practically committing it, is not regarded as a sin. If a person feels happy on knowing that some other person has committed or is about to commit a sin, that person himself will not regarded as guilty. Even if a person decides to commit a sin himself, but does not commit it actually, he is not to blame.
The approval of a sin committed by another individual is considered to be a sin only when this approval amounts to some sort of participation in the decision about that sin or in the commitment of it. That is the nature of all collective sins. First the social atmosphere and the collective spirit of people approve the commitment of a particular sin and pave the way for it. Then one member of society whose decision is a part of the decision of other members and whose approval is a part of the approval of others, perpetrates that sin actually. In this case the sin of that individual is the sin of all members of that society. What has been stated by Imam Ali visualizes this kind of situation and inter alia explains the meaning of the above quoted verse. Otherwise mere happiness or resentment not involving participation in the decision and the action of the actual perpetrator is not regarded as a sin.
In the Holy Qur’an occasionally the deeds of one generation also have been attributed to the subsequent generations. For example the past deeds of the Israelites have been attributed to the Jews contemporary to the Holy Prophet. The Holy Qur'an says that these people deserve humiliation and ignominy because they used to kill the Prophets. That was said because from the viewpoint of the Holy Qur'an the Israelites of the time of the Holy Prophet were a continuation and an extension of their predecessors who used to kill the Prophets.
Not only that, but from the point of view of collective thinking they were exactly those people of the past who still continued to exist. The French philosopher, Auguste Comte says: "Human society consists more of the dead than of the living". In other words, in all periods of history the people of the past influence mankind more than the living people. The statement that "the dead more than ever continue to rule over the living", means the same thing. (Vide: Raymond Aron's Main Currents in Sociological Thought, Vol. I, p. 91)
Al-Mizan, the celebrated commentary on the Holy Qur'an, discussing the question that a society having one spirit and one collective thinking assumes the position of just one human being and all its members become as if they are the organs of one person, says that all the members of society become so absorbed into the personality of society that their joys and griefs become the joys and griefs of society and their prosperity and misery become its prosperity and misery. Al-Mizan continues to say: "The Holy Qur'an has expressed this view regarding the nations and societies having a collective thinking as a result of their religious or national bias, by declaring the subsequent generations accountable for the deeds of the preceding generations. The Holy Qur'an blames the present people for the deeds of their fore-fathers. Obviously this is the only correct way of passing judgement on the people having a collective thinking and a collective spirit". (al-Mizan, vol. IV, p. 112)
Society and Tradition
Should society have a real existence, it must also have its own laws and conventions. But if we accept the first theory about the nature of society as mentioned above, and deny its actual existence, we have to admit that society has no laws or conventions. In case we accept the second theory and hold that the combination of society is synthetic and mechanical, society will certainly be having laws and conventions, but only those which relate to the causative system of its component parts and their mutual mechanical effects.
It will not be having any signs or characteristics of life. In case we accept the third theory, society should be having its laws and conventions independent of the laws and conventions of its component parts (individuals), for in this case society enjoys a sort of independent collective life, although not removed from the life of the individuals, but scattered in it. On getting organized into society, the individual human beings lose the independence of their identity only comparatively. Otherwise they retain it to a very large extent.
The individual life and individual endowments and acquirements are not totally dissolved in the collective life. In fact according to this theory man lives with two lives, two spirits and two egos, - one being his human life, human spirit and human ego born of his basic nature and the other his collective life, collective spirit and collective ego born of his collective life and absorbed into his individual ego. That is why man is governed both by psychological and sociological laws. According to the fourth theory, the only laws and conventions that govern man as such are the social conventions.
The first person among the Muslim scholars, who mentioned the laws and conventions governing society and distinguished from the laws and conventions of the individuals, and consequently maintained that society had a personality, a nature and a reality, was Abdur Rahman Ibn Khaldun of Tunis. He in his celebrated Introduction to History has discussed this question in detail. Among the modern scholars the first person who discovered the conventions governing the communities, was the French philosopher of the 18th century, Montesquieu. About him Raymond Aron says: "His purpose was to make history intelligible.
He sought to understand historical truth. But historical truth appeared to him in the form of an almost limitless diversity of morals, customs, ideas, laws, and institutions His inquiry's point of departure was precisely this seemingly incoherent diversity. The goal of the inquiry should have been the replacement of this incoherent diversity by a conceptual order. One might say that Montesquieu, exactly like Max Weber, wanted to proceed from the meaningless fact to an intelligible order. This attitude is precisely the one peculiar to the sociologist". (Raymond Aron, Main Currents in Sociological Thought, vol. 1, p. 14)
The gist of this statement is that behind the so many forms of social phenomena apparently inconsistent with each other, a sociologist discovers such a unity that all the varying phenomena are recognized to be the manifestations of that unity.
In the same way, all the similar social events and phenomena have their origin in a similar sequence of analogous causes. Here is a passage from the observations on the causes of the rise and fall of the Romans: "It is not fortune that rules the world.
We can ask the Romans, who had a constant series of success when they followed a certain plan, and an uninterrupted sequence of disasters when they followed another. There are general causes, whether moral or physical. . . which operate in every monarchy, to bring about its rise, its duration and its fall. All accidents are subject to these causes, and if the outcome of a single battle, i.e. a particular cause, was the ruin of a state, there was a general cause which decreed that that state was destined to perish through a single battle. In short, the main impulse carries all the particular accidents along with it". (Raymond Aron, Main Currents in Sociological Thought, vol. I, p. 4)
The Holy Qur'an declares specifically that the nations and societies as such have laws and norms according to which they progress or decline. When it is said that a nation or a community has a common destiny, that amounts to saying that society has its law. In respect of the Israelites the Holy Qur'an says: '
"In the scriptures We decreed for the Children of Isra'il: Twice you shall create disorder in the land and you shall become great tyrants. When the time of the punishment of your first transgression came, We sent against you, Our slaves of great might who ravaged your country. Thus the prophecy was fulfilled. Then We granted you victory over them. We heaped you with wealth and sons and made you a greater host. (We said to you): If you do good, it shall be to your own advantage; but if you do evil, you yourselves shall suffer. So when the time of the punishment of your second transgression came, (We sent against you other slaves of Ours) to ravage you and enter the Masjid in the same way as had the former army entered it, utterly destroying all that they laid their hand on. (And We said): It may be that your Lord will have mercy on you, but if you repeat (the crime), We shall also repeat (the punishment). We have Hell, a prison for the disbelievers." (Surah Bani Isra'il, 17:4 - 8)
The sentence: "If you repeat (the crime), We shall also repeat the punishment", has been addressed to a community and not to any individual. Hence it clearly shows that the laws governing societies are universal.
Compulsion or Volition
One of the basic questions which have been under discussion among the scholars, especially during the last century, is the question of the compulsion or volition of individual spirit vis-a-vis collective spirit. If we accept the first theory concerning the composition of society, regard its composition as merely imaginary and hold that it is only individual who is basic, then there can be no question of collective compulsion, for in that case there would be existing no collective force or power. Hence if there were any compulsion, that would be on the part of an individual or individuals only. No individual would be compelled by society in that sense in which the supporters of the theory of collective compulsion talk of it.
But if we accept the fourth theory, look at the individual only as raw material and an empty receptacle from the viewpoint of human personality, think in the terms of exclusive basis of society and regard the entire human personality, human intellect and human will, which from the basis of the volition of an individual, as a manifestation of the collective will and intellect and as a guise which the collective spirit has assumed to promote its ends, there will be left no room for a conception of free will of the individual in social matters.
The French sociologist, Emile Durkheim, who believes that society is basic and of prime importance says: "Unlike such things as eating and sleeping which have animal aspect, all social and, in fact human matters are the product of society, and not that of individual thinking or will. These matters have three characteristics: they are external; they are compulsive and they are general. They are external because they are imposed on an individual by society from outside. They actually existed in society even prior to an individual's being born. The individual accepts them under the influence of society.
That is how an individual accepts moral and social customs, religious precepts and the like. The social matters are compulsive in the sense that they impose themselves on the individual and give their own colour to his conscience, judgement, feeling, thinking and sentiments. As these matters are compulsive, they are automatically general and universal also."
However, if we accept the third theory and hold that both the individual and the society are basic, that would in no way mean that the individuals are helpless in human and social matters even if it is conceded that the force of society predominates the force of the individuals. Durkheim believed in compulsion because he ignored the importance of human nature, the development of which is due to basic and substantial human evolution. This human nature gives man a sort of freedom which enables him to resist the impositions of society. That is how a sort of balance exists in the relations between society and the individual.
The Holy Qur'an maintains that society has a nature, a personality and an actuality. It holds that society lives and dies. It has conscience and the power of obeying and disobeying. At the same time the Qur'an also maintains that the individual has enough power to ignore the dictates of society, if he so desires, and bases its doctrine on what it calls (human) 'nature framed by Allah'.
There were some people in Makkah who described themselves as weak and put forward their weakness as an excuse to shirk their responsibility. In fact they said that they were helpless and could not defy society. The Holy Qur'an says that their excuse was not acceptable because at least they could migrate from that social atmosphere: "Was not Allah's earth spacious so that you could have migrated therein." (Surah an-Nisa, 4:97)
At another place the Holy Qur'an says: "Believers, look after your own souls because he who goes astray cannot harm you if you have the right guidance." (Surah al-Mai'dah, 5:105)
In the famous Qur'anic verse there is a reference to a trait of human nature. In that verse of the Holy Qur'an after declaring that He has put the covenant of monotheism in the nature of man, Allah has added: "So that you may not say that our forefathers were pagans and we, being their posterity, had to follow them." (Surah al-A'raf, 7:172 - 173)
Therefore, with this kind of human nature, there can be no question of any compulsion.
The teachings of the Holy Qur’an are based absolutely on, a sense of responsibility - responsibility towards oneself and towards society. Exhortation to what is good and restraint from what is evil are a manifestation of the individual's revolt against the corruption and weaknesses of society. The stories related by the Holy Qur'an mostly represent this element of individual's revolt against the atmosphere of social corruption. The stories of Prophet Nuh, Ibrahim, Musa, 'Isa, the Holy Prophet, the People of the Cave, the Believer of the tribe of Fir'awn, all contain this element. .
The root cause of the misconception about the helplessness of individuals in relation to society and social atmosphere is that it has been wrongly presumed that in the case of a real compound its components are fully dissolved and with the emergence of a new reality their plurality is assimilated to the unity of the whole. It is said that there are only two alternatives: either the existence of the personality, freedom and independence of the individuals be admitted and consequently it should be denied that society is an actuality and it is a real compound; or alternatively it should be admitted that society is a real com
pound. In the case of the first alternative the position will be in conformity with the first and the second theories, and in the case of the second alternative it will have to be denied that individuals have any personality, freedom or independence. That is what the proposition of Durkheim states. Anyway, it is not possible to combine both these alternative theories. As all indications and sociological arguments support the actuality of society, the counter-theory must be regarded as invalid.
As a matter of fact all real compounds are not alike from philosophical point of view. In the lower grades of nature, that is in the case of inorganic matter and lifeless beings, according to the philosophers, each existing thing is governed by one absolutely simple force, and nature has dealt with all of them in a like manner. In their case the component parts are assimilated fully and the existence of the parts is dissolved absolutely into the existence of the whole.
That is what we see in the case of water which is a compound of oxygen and hydrogen. But the more the level of a compound goes up the more its components acquire relative independence of the whole, with the result that a sort of plurality in the unity and a unity in the plurality is established. We find that man in spite of his unity enjoys a wonderful plurality. Not only his faculties and subordinate forces retain their plurality to a great extent, but there also exists a sort of permanent conflict and struggle between his inner forces. Society is the most real being in nature, and its component parts relatively enjoy a great deal of independence.
The component parts of society are human beings, who are equipped with their innate intellect and will. Their individual and natural existence precedes their social existence. In addition, as we said earlier the components of the high grade compounds retain their relative independence. In view of all these facts the individual spirit of man is not helpless against the collective spirit of society.
[16] "Therefore woe to those who write the scripture with their own hands and then say: 'This is from Allah, in order to make some paltry gain. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn thereby!'" (Surah al-Baqarah, 2:79)
"Ignominy shall attend them wherever they are found, except in cases in which they came to terms with Allah and people. They have incurred the wrath of Allah and humiliation has been stamped on them. That is because they used to disbelieve the revelations of Allah and kill the Prophets wrongfully. That is because they disobeyed and used to transgress." (Surah Ale Imran, 3:112)
1. "Therefore woe to those who write the scripture with their own hands and then say: 'This is from Allah, in order to make some paltry gain. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn thereby!'" (Surah al-Baqarah, 2:79)
"Ignominy shall attend them wherever they are found, except in cases in which they came to terms with Allah and people. They have incurred the wrath of Allah and humiliation has been stamped on them. That is because they used to disbelieve the revelations of Allah and kill the Prophets wrongfully. That is because they disobeyed and used to transgress." (Surah Ale Imran, 3:112)
by Martyr Murteza Mutahhari
Source: al-islam.org

Islam and Unique Global Society

The most critical issue in the social life is that how we can form a great and powerful unit from the small units?
Man\'s society has been in the form of various small and great units from the beginning days.
Following affairs have caused this variety and scattering.
1- Race
First of all, development of family and branching of different families from one family has been the origin of formation of a race, tribe and consequently a social unit, and in fact the first social color of man is the same color of race and tribe, and at present too, in the retarded societies, the issue of tribe and race forms the foundation of society, and in some cases, it is so strict that mixing of bloods of two tribes is strictly forbidden.
2- Geographical area
Different tribes, which were separated by race and blood, were gradually mingled, and formed the greater social units, being separated by various geographical areas.
At the beginning, geographical borders had a natural aspect, for example, a valley or big river and or high mountains were sufficient for separating two nations. However, it found an arbitrary aspect, and the natural borders were somehow invalidated by different contracts. Although, still in most parts of world, natural borders form the geographical borders, for instance, the separation of Britain from France, and China from Japan, and such like are all caused by natural borders, but surely, the border of all countries are not determined by natural borders.
3- Ideology
Finally, formation of social units was based on belief, mentality, and ideology in the more perfect societies. Man understood soon that the issue of race and tribe could not separate the individuals. It is true that consanguine individuals have more common features in the physical and spiritual aspects, but this is never so critical to avoid their coexistence. And it is easily perceived that difference of geographical areas, either natural or arbitrary, can not cause separation, especially when the issue of geographical distance was totally solved through the facility of communication and transportation means, and all parts became close to each other.
So, little by little the social units changed into belief and ideological units, and mental borders replaced previous ones.
Division of world\'s countries into two communist and capitalist blocks is one of the manifest samples of this sort of classification.
Although, at the beginning it was supposed this classification is an eternal and everlasting one, and the non-possibility of reconciliation between these two doctrines was introduced definite and inevitable, but it was gradually found that the artificial aspect of this division and separation is much more than its real aspect, because there are thousands of common aspects among different classes as compared with aspects of mental and belief disagreement, the source of which is man\'s unity and unity of structure of his spirit and body resulting in sharing of different objectives.
So, different regimes and ideologies supported the murmur of coexistence among social units, and step by step, it was changed from speech to action.
Although, the friction between the profits of nations and insufficient intellectual development for coordinating these interests still prevents these scattered units to be mingled and united, and form a great unit based on unity of mankind, however, it is proved that none of the previous disunity and scattering factors is a real and inevitable one. This perception makes the way more clear and paves it for the future.
And thus, it is proved that all of human societies can be combined in one unit.
The most powerful social relation
Formation of a great social unit, particularly in the global and international scale, primarily requires following affairs:
1- Facility of communication means
This issue is considerably solved today, and surely it will become better and superior in the future through development in different equipment.
2- Unity of ideology
Although, as we told, it is possible to create a unique society without mental unity based on the "unity of vital interests" and "human common aspects", but there is no doubt that collaboration among different classes and wings of such society will be weak, cold, and unstable and mixed with fear, terror and hesitance. And in such conditions, naturally cooperation is limited and precautionary, and such collaboration can not create a fully organized, alive and happy society.
However, if a rooted mental unity relates the society\'s individuals to each other, and joins their hearts through strong connections, a very united society along with an extensive and overall cooperation, with full and everlasting understanding and collaboration will be formed.
3- Perfect mental and moral development
For establishment of such society, a sufficient mental development is required for understanding the interests of merger of all human societies in such a great unit in a wide insight, and also sufficient moral development is required for tolerance and digestion of inevitable disagreement points for agreement in common points, and adapting oneself with it.
Of course, the former that, believes that cooperation of all men is profitable for all is not so difficult, but the latter that is digestion of disagreement points is not very easy and facile.
It should be explained that understanding that if all human units are gathered in the society, their problems will be less and their solution are easier, is not difficult.
In case of scattering and dispersion, a major part of their most active human and economical powers is wasted. It often happens that the amount of wasted powers is even more than half of the total of their powers and facilities.
For example, the present world in which there is an intensive competition among the East and the West, perhaps more than half of their active human powers are consumed as follows:
Army members, reserve members, informative and intelligence services and their affiliated systems, margraves, customs, challenge with smuggle, scientists and workers who work in the war industries and their affiliated branches. Evidently, if there is not an exigency, such consumption is vain and has no positive social efficiency.
Nowadays, half of budgets are spent for such defensive, war and intelligence costs and other competitions.
Yet, this is when a war does not occur in the world. Otherwise, the costs spent for compensation of destructive actions in small scales (local wars) and great scales (world wars) are really amazing.
All of these are the human and economical powers, which are completely wasted, and there is no reason save separation of human societies from each other. It is just like two commercial institutions spending fifty percent of their capital and time for retreating and repressing each other. It goes without saying that it will have no result save loss and damage for both of them.
Therefore, if a perfect unity is formed among all human societies, the "efficiency" of their activities in all aspects of life will be increased twice.
Everybody can understand this issue well, and can find the results of unity.
But, in respect to moral issues, there is no doubt that individuals are different with each other: difference in taste, tact, way of thinking, being advocate of calmness or severity or moderateness, difference in being sentimental or conceptional, difference in subjectivism or objectivism, in being affective or non affective, in regarding formalities and appearance or disregarding them, in degree of tendency to different scientific, economical and affairs.
It is true that we can make changes and modifications in the belief, affections, thoughts, and desires of different individuals, but anyway these differences are neither deniable, nor completely removable.
The people, who want to have a life full of peace and close cooperation in a great global society, should reach that level of "moral development" that after understanding the realities in respect to difference in mental, spiritual, and moral structure can tolerate and digest the difference points of others. They should be able to respect desires of others in case of disagreement in marginal issues, as their own desires, and never expect the others to follow them in all cases, and neither imposes their desires on them, nor changes the marginal issues to the basic ones. Pay attention.
Forgiveness and connivance, heart tolerance, broad-mindedness, tolerance, subtlety, and patience are all the affairs necessary for digestion of these differences in moral view.
Even two persons can not cooperate closely with each other, save they have perceived this reality and are ready for welcoming it.
Certainly, this moral readiness for digestion of disagreement points is not attainable through negotiation. Rather, it is the affair, which is only possible through purification and education causing sufficient development in moral aspects.
Islam and unique global society
Islam has paved the way for formation of a global unique society in different aspects, because:
First,–Islam appeared in a racist society, where the issue of tribe and genes constituted its infrastructure and the issue of race dominated all of its aspects. Even its cities were not a city in a real sense, because the tribes and genes were completely separate from each other.
However, Islam excluded totally the issue of race from the social issues, and devaluated it in general.
Sometimes, it fought with them with the same logic that their racial society originated from it (unity in blood, unity of original forebear of tribe), and made them understood that if you think in a higher level, the human society are all created from two spouses.
So, all should form one unit:
O people, We have created you from one male and female.(1)
And thereby "human brotherhood" replaced "tribal brotherhood" and "mankind\'s blood" replaced "tribe\'s blood".
And sometimes Islam represented them that although the issue of preserving parentage, relation and connection of individuals to tribe as well as gens and forefathers is necessary, but it is not for boasting to the descents. Rather it is for knowing each other through this special social classification.
It is certain that preserving rights of individuals in the societies necessitates that individuals shall be distinguished and recognized from each other, and there is no more natural and correct way than relation to the forefathers, ancestors, nations and tribes, but it should be only a means of knowing, not boasting:
(And We appointed you races and tribes, that you may know one another.(2)
And once Islam notified that "dignity" and "value" of individuals is for their spiritual virtues and carnal habits (virtue and piety), and this is never attainable through heritage, and in other words, if presumably heretical attributes are "beautiful", they are involuntarily beautiful, and can not be a criterion for personality and dignity.
Surely the noblest among you in the sight of God is the most God fearing of you.(3)
And in this manner, Islam has inflicted its final strike on the foundations of racism and the schisms caused by it.
Second, Islam has invalidated the cause of disunion through disregarding geographical borders, either natural or arbitrary, as well as including and expanding its invitation to all countries of world.
We can find this logic of Islam within the numerous phrases in the Holy Quran:
a- Quranic addresses, save what are specialized to believers, are so generalized that include all nations of world, like the addresses of "O people", "O My Servants", "O Children of Adam" and "O man", which are mentioned in different verses of Quran.(4)
In these addresses, all of the world, from any tribe, nation, and country, are included and there is not any trace of different nations in them.
b- Quran assumed all of the earth as God\'s vast territory, as it says:
O My servants who believe, surely My earth is wide; therefore Me do you serve!(5)
and do not surrender to enemies\' pressures.
And somewhere else it instructs to roam all around the earth for observing the remains of annihilated civilizations of the ancestors and taking lesson from their life associated with sin and injustice.
So, journey in the land, and behold how was the end of them that cried lies!(6)
And also it invites people to correction on the earth, and avoiding corruption on it:
Do not corruption in the land, after it has been set right.(7)
And some when else it calls the earth the inheritance of righteous and good doers, who finally will govern on it:
The earth shall be the inheritance of My righteous servants.(8)
c- Holy Quran explicitly instructs Moslems not to bind themselves to staying in a particular point in implementation of their divine obligations, and if they can not implement them in a point, they shall immigrate to the other parts of earth, and it blames and rebukes refraining emigration:
The angels will say, "But was not God\'s earth wide, so that you might have emigrated in it?"(9)
d- Quran has never emphasized on the social units being separated as different territories in such a lot of verses related to the commands, sorts of knowledge and moralities, and this is a clear reason for advocation and defending of Islam from global unique society, and so called "internationalism".
Basically, an ideology based on humanistic principles and human rights should be so.
In other words, there is no geographical classification and border within the Islamic domain, and only outside the domain of Islam too, mental and belief borders separate it from the others.(10)
Third, Islam has made an extensive attempt for establishment of a mental unity point and so called "ideological unity" among mankind through its disciplines and ordinances.
It should be noted the mental and belief unity that Islam is its founder, in contrary with the mental and ideological relations of political parties and such like being formed in recent centuries in the world, is not specialized to a particular class, population and nation. Rather, it is concerned with human society.
And this is assumed as a great privilege for Islamic ideology, which has no regional and classic color.
But most of political parties and groups in the world and their affiliated philosophical doctrines, although have founded the basis of their activity on mental and procedural unity, but all of them are common in this great "defect" that either they have not had a public and global aspect from the beginning or have lost it later.
We are not going to discuss about the correctness or inaccuracy of such doctrines and parties. We only want to explain that all of them have a great common weak point as not being able to create a mental unity among all men from all races and nations.
But the mental and belief unity, which Islam has founded, does not have a private aspect, and even is not restricted to followers of Islam; rather the followers of other religions too can share it.
And so a comprehensive plan is considered in Islam for protecting the rights of religious minorities living in the Islamic territories, as well as defending their interests, which will be clarified through sufficient study in Islamic resources.
How to create a mental unity
Now, we engage in studying a part of Islamic sciences and instructions, which can help us in achieving this great objective (creation of mental unity among men):
The principle of monotheism, which forms the basis of all Islamic sciences: Islam has completely washed out the "scattered lords" as the sign of diversity of thoughts and ideas and also an effective factor for social discords, and even instructs to its followers that there is no disunity and variety in God\'s essence and attributes. His essence is extensive and His attributes are all exactly the same.
We know that one of the factors of disunity among people in old ages has been belief in several lords, and each tribe, nation, race and sometimes city had their own "lord" or "lords", and after their conquest over the other nations, that lord too triumphed and was recognized, and at the time of defeat, it was forgotten!
As Albermaleh writes in the chapter related to religious beliefs of Chaldaeans:
At first, in Chaldea too, like Egypt, each city had its own lord. After formation of great states, worshipping the lords of different territories was generalized, and the lord of capital city became "the Lord of Lords"! And thus, at the time of Hammurabi(11), since Babylon was the capital of Chaldea, the lord of this city which was named "Mardouk", was considered as "the Lord of Lords" through Chaldea, and since at the beginning, capital of Assyria\'s government was Assyria, the lord of this city, which was also called "Assyria" became "the Lord of Lords" of Assyrian people.(12)
And he writes about religion of Egyptians:
"... It was not so that all Egyptians worship several common lords. Rather, each city had a separate lord, but once worship of some lords (of course, only in Egypt) was circulated throughout Egypt.
Whenever a city became more important and creditable, dignity of its lords was increased.(13)
The sample of this dispersion of lords appeared in the origin of Islam, that is Hejaz, and especially Mecca, and it was the source and sign of all types of mental and social dispersion and disunity, and since it is evident, there is no need to any proof.
Islam terminated this situation with its brilliant instructions and sciences, and the motto of all Moslems became monopoly of deity in the unique God, "There is no God, except Allah", and attention to "Allah", the unique God.
Quran says: not only deity on the earth is God; rather He is the only rightful deity throughout the world of creation, where it says:
And it is He who in heaven is God and in earth is God.(14)
And somewhere else it says:
None is there in the heavens and earth but he comes to the All-merciful as a servant.(15)
Islam has also expanded the reality of monotheism to the world of creation in its instructions, and introduces the entire world as a unit, originating from a unique source:
Thou seest not in the creation of the All-merciful any imperfection. Return thy gaze; seest thou any fissure?(16)
And also Quran introduces all living creatures from one single source:
Of water We fashioned every living thing?(17)
And thereby Islam rejects one of the other basic foundations of polytheism and belief in the lords of species. Because this belief mostly originates from the point that they assumed each of the world\'s creatures as an independent and separate unit, and considered an independent creator for each of them.
According to Islamic instructions, the creator and lord of this world is not separate from this world, that is, while it is not the same as them, it is not separate from them too.
And We are nigher him than you, but you do not see Us.(18)
And We are nearer to him than the jugular vein.(19)
He is with everything but not in physical nearness. He is different from everything but not in physical separation.(20)
Spirit of unity in Islamic instructions
The spirit of unity in the Islamic instructions is not restricted to the principle of "Unity of God" as the basis of all Islamic beliefs. Rather, even in the invitation of prophets and messengers and divine books, Islam considers all of them identical in view of principles, which only have some differences in perfection stages.
Of course, this spirit is also visible in the Islamic scientific ordinances, rules and regulations, because the subject of Islamic ordinances and regulations is only man (man on the condition of maturity and intellect), and there is no other condition.
All Islamic sorbs are common in this sense that they are Warner and cause reflection:
And perform the prayer of My remembrance.(21)
And they have a disciplinary effect and lead to simplism and control of rebellious sensual desires, and educating man. This is the unique spirit of all Islamic sorbs.
Islamic sorbs are all performed in one language, and this is the sign of unity, not for being in Arabic language belonging to a particular nation, rather for being the language of inspiration (and in addition to other reasons, the selection of this language may be for its simplicity, extent of words, derivations, compounds and its special tone).
The spirit of unity is apparent in the Islamic sorbs, specially in congregational sorbs, and in particular in pilgrimage which shows the highest manifestation of spirit of unity, and forms a unit in view of mentality, place and slogans which are expressed by different nations far from each other thousands of parasangs in view of body and soul. This situation has a particular splendor like that of unique system of the world of creation. Basically, the color of Islam is the color of creation, and consequently it is in coordination with it.
The arrays of Islamic congregational prayers for a supposed observer, watching the earth from outside, resemble the concentric circles gathering around a center, and this indicates a perfect unity.
Islamic scales have been adopted based on natural scales as far as possible, which are identical for all, and there is no color of a special nationality and for determination of some subjects, for instance, pace, palm and such like are used.
Islamic month and year are focused on the circulation of moon and sun (or more correctly circulation of earth around the sun), and they are identical for everybody, and there is no need to technical specialty for understanding them, and there is no difference in them save in view of difference in horizon, which is the natural property of different parts of the earth.
1- Moral development
The forgotten principles without which the world will not experience peace and tranquility
As we already told, for formation of a real society, especially in a great global scale including all people of world, moral development is required in addition to ideological unity and mental development.
Without a moral development, the people living in a society can never tolerate each other, and solve the opposite sides of different mentalities and dissidences properly.
Like training of other moral aspects, the need of this part to the instructions of prophets and messengers is clearer than any other part, because as we said before, morality without the executive guarantee of belief and the religion of prophets will not have a strong support, and does not exceed a series of inessential perfections and dispensable advices.
Now, we return to the plans prepared in Islam for training and development of social morality in men and preparing them for a social life. Of course, it should be noted that what we refer to hereunder are a part of these widespread instructions, and stating all of them is beyond the capacity of this concise discussion.
Notifying the variation of people in view of creation of body, soul, mentalities and sentiments as it is narrated in the well known tradition:
If people knew how God has created people, no one blamed the other!(22)
And also a reference is briefly made to the variation in creation as it is narrated from Prophet S.A.:
The people are the mines like the mines of gold and silver.(23)
Taking into account that structure of spirit and sentiments, training and level of knowledge and mental backgrounds of individuals are very different, solves a great deal of association problems, and social conflicts.
For example, we have often seen that parents are very disturbed for an improper deed of a child (such as breaking a vessel or making dirty his cloths), and sometimes they make severe punishments for this little deed and blame the child many times. While if we study the matter correctly, we will see that there is not any reason for angriness, or such blame and reproach.
Surely, neither the knowledge of child about the breakable and non-breakable vessels and the manner of keeping them for minimizing the possibility of falling down and being broken, and decreasing their slip and load on the fingers is sufficient, and nor, even if he knows all of these subjects, he has adequate scientific experience on that matter, and supposing that both his science and experience are sufficient, his physical power is little.
Therefore, if at present we are more skillful in keeping these vessels, it is just for the several experiences and examinations of our childhood, because childhood is the period of trial and acquiring knowledge about the environment with which man has no familiarity.
And if we put ourselves instead of that child, with the same little knowledge and skill, most of his deeds being considered as a great sin and offence by us, are neither a sin, nor an offence!
The same is true about the adults. Some habitudes of my friend may be unfavorable in my view, and I may decide on discontinuing my friendship, but when I consider the educational environment of my friend, and attach his spiritual structure to it, and take into account his mental history, I find that I would do the same if I was instead of him.
My neighbour speaks loudly and disturbs me. When I consider the basis of his sciences and structure of his larynx, nerves, and degree of sensibility of his eardrums, I see that although he is blameful, but his fault is not so great that I felt.
It should not be mistaken. We are not going to introduce people faultless in all of their deeds in this way as the predestinarians believe, and consider spiritual, physical and outward factors as the cause of everything.
On the other hand, hereby we are not going to deny necessity of training, and leave the people as they are so that they do whatsoever they want. Rather, if we take into account these realities, we will have more readiness for solving disputes and removing objections, and will easily tolerate each other. If we excommunicate each other for a little dissidence, it is due to not paying attention to these variations.
2- Forgiveness and pardon
There are a few people being infallible and immune from any mistake and sometimes intentional in violation of others\' rights, and if it is to act according to the principle of "vengeance", social conflicts will proceed in a sequential series, and are increasingly intensified, because vindictive attacks are not controllable in view of quality and quantity, and often become more violent.
And supposing that they are controllable and measurable, determination of the degree of first offence is never similar and equal in view of the "wrongِdoer" and "one who has suffered offence". Thus, even if the other party is going to observe equality in quantity and quality during his vindictive attack, still he feels that justice is not observed, and so decides on a new revenge, and so the quarrel is resumed.
The reason why the fire of sedition, war, and quarrel is never extinguished in a lot of tribes and nations in the past and present is that each of them replies the crime of the other with a more vigorous crime, and the battle is progressively continued.
The only thing, which can disconnect this sequential series and extinguish the fire of sedition, is the spirit of forgiveness, pardon and connivance.
It should be mentioned herein that those who cut the series of struggle and conflict through forgiveness and connivance, do not merely serve the other party, but also relieve themselves from the certain losses which they will suffer in the future for continuation of struggle, in addition to understanding a great moral virtue.
Moreover, if we study and note properly, we will see that vengeance has no rational profit for the revenger, save a transitory relief and sometimes an unreal superiority, and he is always waiting for the vengeance of other party, while the soothing effect of "forgiveness" is much deeper and the spiritual and social excellence caused by it, is a real one.
In the Islamic resources, it is referred to this matter with interesting and delicate phrases, and it is encouraged, and called as one of the most critical Islamic obligations.
Following samples prove this claim:
But let them pardon and forgive. Do you not wish that God should forgive you?(24)
Above verse indicates this reality that anyway each of you has committed a sin, and as you like God to forgive your sin, you too should forbear your rights in encounters with your brothers.
Obviously, one who forbears usual vengeance, but remarks the sin of other party through tongue or sulking, has not actually forgiven him. Rather, complete forgiveness is the same forgetting and ignoring completely.
They will question thee concerning what they should expend. Say: abundance (forgiveness).(25)
There is an interesting point that expending is not merely concerned with wealth as you ask so much about it. Rather, forgiving one\'s own rights is more important than financial expending and granting wealth. Certainly, since this forgiveness is against the spirit of seeking vengeance in most people, it is more difficult, while its effect is much more in view of creating discipline and social justice.
This sort of turning from the reply to a question towards another reply is repeatedly observed in Quran, and this is one of the attractive points in Quran that uncommonly it is not bound to the requested question in its replies. Rather, it considers the real requirement of the other party and answers accordingly.
As when it is questioned about the reason for transformation of falcate, instead of replying to it, Quran mentions its advantages and results:
They will question thee concerning the new moons. Say: They are appointed times for the people, and the Pilgrimage.(26)
Islam\'s Prophet S.A. said: By God, Who my soul is on His hand, there are three things that if I was a swearer, I swore by them: no wealth is decreased for alms, so pay alms, no man forgives an injustice for God\'s satisfaction, unless God increases his dignity at the day of resurrection, and no one opens the door of demand to himself, unless God opens a door of poverty to him.(27)
Do not forget forgiveness, because forgiveness increases man\'s honor. So forgive each other; God shall honor you.(28)
Regretting for forgiveness is better and easier than regretting for punishment.(29)
Imam Reza A.S. said: When two groups confront each other, one who pardons more, will be helped.(30)
As it is observed, victory is introduced as one of the direct effects of forgiveness in these traditions.
Its point may signify that vengeance at the time of having power is usually caused by an animal incentive, and so its exact form is observed in the animals too. But forgiveness and pardon is a sign of personality and a sort of self control, majesty and magnificence of spirit which can outshine the burning flame of anger and vindictive, and therefore the more pardon and forgiveness of individuals indicates their higher value and prestige, and so they will be honored.
Furthermore, vengeance has never succeeded to attract people\'s respect and or affections towards the avengers, while forgiveness and pardon has a deep effect in attraction of public opinions and provoking affections and feelings in the favor of the pardoner, and this is considered as one of the effective factors in victory.
3- Replying vice with goodness
In Islamic resources, including Quran and traditions, it is referred to a more significant and higher stage of pardon and forgiveness, that is, replying vice with goodness!
Undoubtedly, this deed is the highest manifestation of humanistic spirit and requires moral education and special spiritual elegance, and has a miraculous effect in humanizing the hearts filled with enmity.
And also it is the best "lesson" which one can give to the aggressors and wrongdoers. On the other hand, it is the only "punishment" which does not cause any undesirable reaction in the wrong doers, and does not invite them to a new aggression.
All of these aspects have resulted in rendering it as one of the most effective ways in ending the enmities and hostilities.
We read in Quran:
Repel with that which is fairer and behold, he between whom and thee there is enmity shall be as if he was a loyal friend. Yet none shall receive it, except the steadfast; none shall receive it, except a man of mighty fortune.(31)
The first verse points to the miraculous effect of "repel with that which is fairer" (replying vice with goodness), thanks to which one can change the greatest enemies to the intimate friends.
Then, in the next sentence, it is emphasized that only those are worthy for attainment to this rank who have a plenty share of belief, piety, and moral virtues, as well as a great share of patience and resistance against sensual desires, and these two are undeniable realities.
In fact, wonderful effect of "repel with that which is fairer" in termination of hostilities originates from this point that aggressors are always waiting for vengeance of the other party, and even they may conscientiously deem themselves deserving for such vengeance, but when, in contrary to this "expectation" and "merit", they see their evil deed is replied fairly, the latent power of their conscience is provoked and embattles them inwardly. Their conscience accounts this for innocence and purity of other party and their own sinfulness and impurity, and super induces them for upturning. This pressure is so vigorous that a few people can ignore it, and continue their old hostile manner, and on this account, most enemies change their course in this way and become flexible.
In the attractive and subtle comments narrated in the traditions of Prophet S.A. and Islamic leaders about this prominent attribute, it is introduced as one of the greatest and highest humanitarian attributes:
The Prophet S.A. told in one of his lectures: Would you like I inform you one of the best moralities of the world and hereafter? Forgiving one who has been unjust with you, and relation with those who have broken their relation with you, and goodness with one who has been unjust with you, and bounty to one who has deprived you.(32)
According to this tradition which Prophet S.A. has expressed it as a public lesson in an assembly of some Moslems (the lecture indicates this sense), the best ethic of this and the other world is "forgiveness" and "repelling vice with goodness". Three out of four phrases mentioned above are concerned with repelling vice with goodness and only one phrase is concerned with forgiveness and pardon.
Imam Bagher A.S. told: There are three things which do not result in anything for a Moslem, save honor: forgiving one who has been unjust with him, bounty to one who has deprived him, and relation with one who has broken his relation with him.(33)
In the above tradition too, three deeds are called the means of honor and power, two of which are concerned with repelling vice with goodness, and one is concerned with forgiveness and pardon.
It should not be mistaken; forgiveness and pardon shall never be confused with submission to an unjust enemy. Rather, submission is the sign of disability and lack of personality and humbleness, but forgiveness is the sign of magnanimity and personality. Forgiveness and pardon are always in personal concerns towards one that a man is able to take revenge on him, not in social concerns and rights of the society. Even if forgiveness in personal affairs and individual rights results in daring of the other party, it is not a proper and correct action.
4- Stopping violence
Resorting to violence in solving social problems, particularly global and international problems, is one of the most important causes of conflicts and hard struggles as well as dangerous and unpleasant events.
Resorting to violence excites the sense of malice in the hearts and lightens the fire of vengeance.
Resorting to violence not only does not have any effect in relieving crises and problems, but also it often intensifies the crises and increases the problems and a lot of problems of present world originate from it.
Resorting to violence is never advisable, and man shall always spend a high cost for it, and those who commit it, should pay a heavy indemnity for it.
However, this deed, despite of all of its ominous defects, risks and consequences is the first solution which sounds to everybody for solving the problems, because resorting to peaceful solutions and stopping violence has an intellectual aspect and applying violence has an emotional aspect, and we know that man\'s intellectual growth and development is the latest stage of his growth, while emotion\'s evolution period is earlier. Most people live in emotional stage and are affected by it.
Childhood is the period of training emotions, and it is clarified through a precise study in situation of present men and societies that people mostly live in childhood ages in intellectual and moral aspect, and for this reason, they often advocate violence and exertion.
Anyway, although in view of common studies, this way is the first one, which attracts the attention, but it is in the last stage in view of value, and resorting to it, is only advised when all other ways are closed.
A brave individual or nation less often resorts to this way for solving his social problems, because most of problems could be solved in peaceful ways and through the power of thinking and ethic.
Islam has put a strenuous emphasis on this critical issue and numerous traditions are narrated from Islamic great leaders about the role of "tolerance"(34) in man\'s life. Citing following traditions may be adequate for realizing Islam\'s logic in this respect.
There is bounty and blessing in tolerance and forbearance, and one who is deprived from forbearance and amenity, will be deprived from goodness.(35)
In this tradition it is explicitly said that any goodness and blessing exists in tolerance and stopping violence, and those who resort to violence, are deprived from any goodness and blessing, and this logic clarifies the significance of the matter in men\'s life.
If tolerance was depicted, there was no creature better than it.(36)
In this tradition, stopping violence is called the most beautiful moral visages, and it means that violence is the ugliest visage that human\'s spirit may have.
From two persons, one whose friendship and tolerance is more than the other, will have more reward and is more favorite before God.(37)
In this tradition, the greatest rewards and most favorite ranks before God belong to those who advocate tolerance and peacefulness and flexibility in life.
One who is granted flexibility, belief is granted to him.(38)
The late Faiz Kashani, in "Vafi" book, in one of the traditions of this chapter, interprets the relation of "tolerance" with "belief" as follows:
Resorting to violence makes man\'s authority and nervous system out of control, and such person may perform any mistake and even say blasphemous words.
We can also interpret this relation in another way, that is, violence is often the source of suspicion and mistrust on God\'s people, and thereby the Creator, and none of these are compatible with belief. In other words, harsh individuals will always have fewer friends, and they will be gradually led to social seclusion, and social seclusion is the source of suspicion on the creature and Creator, and this is not compatible with belief.
Tolerance and flexibility embellish whatever they accompany with, and disfigure whatever they separate from.(39)
According to this wise utterance, tolerance and peacefulness adorns
God has tolerance, and likes tolerance, and whatever He bestows for tolerance, does not bestow for violence and harshness.(40)
In this tradition, tolerance and peacefulness are called as divine attributes.
The important point which should be surely remarked herein is that most of Islam\'s enemies try to give a hostile appearance to Islam, and seek Islamic battles as a pretext, while only studying the procedure of Prophet S.A. in the same battles and his behavior with the enemies who were thirsty to his blood, and had established a dangerous barrier to his invitation, as well as his conduct with the prisoners of war and the defeated nations and the people injured in the battle field, are all of the most brilliant chapters in Islam\'s history as well as the most alive proofs for peace favoritism in Islam and stopping resort to violence.
And more important, some try to attribute violence to Islamic clergymen just like the Christian clergymen in the Middle Ages, and haply the immethodical deeds and severity of some of unknowable people whose social wisdom has not developed in parallel with their scientific wisdom have served as many pretexts for them.
These two aspects necessitate that we, in observance of such a lot of instructions about not resorting to violence, should be exactly careful for our actions in the society, and display the real face of Islam in this respect through our peaceful conduct and our flexibility, and wash out the deposits of poisonous propaganda of the enemies from the brains with our action. We shall explain the philosophy of Islamic battles and wars so that their "defensive aspects" and or in some cases "their liberation challenge aspect" are fully clarified.
Again, it should not be mistaken. Flexibility, mildness and not resorting to violence do not mean submission to injustices and violence of evil doers and the stubborn and bloody enemies and the imperialists. Rather, as Quran has explicitly specified in verse 29 of The Victory sura - Hard against the unbelievers, merciful one to another), we shall adopt a severe method against cruel enemies and be mild with the friends. Moreover, there should be mildness before the enemies who after victory over them, new strokes on their side is unlikely.
References:
1- Chambers sura (49), verse 13
2- The same document
3- Chambers sura (49), verse 13
4-
يا اَيُّهَا النّاسُ اِنِّي رَسُولُ اللهِ اِلَيْكُمْ جَمِيعاً
, "O mankind, I am the Messenger Like, of God to you all", The Heights sura (7), verse 158
يا عِبادِ فَاتَّقُونِ
, "My servants who believe, fear your Lord", The (39), Companies sura verse 16
يا بَنى آدَمَ لا يَفْتِنَنَّكُمُ الشَّيْطانُ
, "Children of Adam! Let not Satan tempt you!", The Heights sura (7), verse 27
يا اَيُّهَا الاِْنْسانُ اِنَّكَ كادِحٌ اِلى رَبِّكَ كَدْحاً
, "O Man! Thou art labouring unto thy Lord laboriously", The Rendering sura (84), verse 6
5- The Spider sura (29), verse 56
6- The Bee sura (16), verse 36
7- The Heights sura (7), verse 56
8- The Prophets sura (21), verse 105
9- Women sura (4), verse 97
10- Refer to the book ``Javaherol Kalam\'\', vol. 21, beginning of ``Warfare\'\' book
11- Hamourabi is a well-known conqueror king who is reputable for the interesting rules, which are left by him as memorial.
12- Albermaleh, History of Eastern Nations, 81/1
13- The same document, page 41
14- Ornaments sura (43), verse 84
15- Mary sura (19), verse 93
16- The Kingdom sura (67), verse 3
17- The Prophets sura (21), verse 30
18- The Terror sura (56), verse 85
19- Qaf sura (50), verse 16
20- Nahjol Balaghe, sermon 1
21- Ta Ha sura (20), verse 14
22- Majlessi, Beharol Anvar, 164/69, tradition 3
23- Kolini, Kafi, 177/8
24- Light sura (24), verse 22
25- Cow sura (2), verse 219
26- Cow sura (2), verse 189
27- Ghazali, Ehyaol Oloum, 182/3
28- Kolini, Kafi 108/2, some narrators of Six Reliable Tradition Collections have mentioned it.
29- The same document
30- The same document
31- Distinguished sura (41), verses 34 & 35
32- Majlessi, Beharol Anvar, 399/71
33- Majlessi, Beharol Anvar, volume 71, page 403
34- Tolerance is the opposite side of violence and harshness.
35- Majlessi, Beharol Anvar 60/75
36- Majlessi, Beharol Anvar 63/75
37- Majlessi, Beharol Anvar, 268/76
38- Kolini, Kafi, 118/2, narration 1
39- Kolini, Kafi, 119/2, tradition 6
40- The same document, tradition 5

by Grand Ayatollah Nasir Makarem Shirazi
Source: Imam reza network

Family In the Society

The family represents the model relationship in society between men and women and between parents and children:
“and (those true servants of the Most Gracious) who pray:
O, Our Lord!
Grant that our spouses and our offspring to be a joy to our eyes, and cause us to be foremost among (model for) those who are conscious of You.” (25:74)

The precedence of a man’s responsibility cannot give him any justification for a general claim of social prominence and leadership everywhere, and does not establish a rule for every social institution:

“Men shall take care of (and full responsibility for) women with what God has bestowed on the former, and with what they spend out of their possessions (on women whom they are responsible for). (4:34)

There are people who try to find a support for restricting woman’s activities to only the family in Qur’anic Verse that addresses the Prophet’s wives, “And abide quietly in your home” (33:33).
But those should not ignore that it was a special rule for the Prophet’s wives because of their special situation, as suggested clearly in the previous verse: “ O wives of the Prophet! You are not like any of the (other) women.” (33:32).
Accordingly, the prophet’s wives could not marry after the Prophet, and they had to observe special restrictions that are not applied to others (e.g. 33:28-30, 50-53).

Ref: "MUSLIM WOMEN THE FAMILY AND THE SOCIETY", By Dr Mohamed Fathi Osman

Source: ahl-ul-bayt.org

Diversity of Functions

The divine scheme furnishes evidence of divine wisdom in all its aspects.
Men and women are spiritually akin one to another and are equally the recipients of God’s favours and bounties, but their functions are not identical.
In view of this diversity there is a corresponding diversity between their respective faculties and capacities.

This is indicated in the Holy Quran as is said:

“Our Lord is He Who has endowed everything with itsappropriate faculties and then guided it to their proper use.” (20:51)
“God has fashioned mankind according to the nature designed by Him, there is no altering the creation of Allah.” (30:31)

Vain and ruinous are all attempts to convert men into women and to convert women into men. Each has his or her appropriate function, the due discharge of which constitutes the dignity, enjoyment, fulfilment and beauty of life.
A contemplation of the diversity of the faculties of males and females reveals the diversity of their functions as designed by nature.
For instance, woman is well equipped for child bearing, while man is incapable of it.
On the other hand, man is well fitted to command in the field; to appoint a woman to military command in the field would be an invitation to disaster.
This is not a question of superiority or inferiority; it is a question of natural capacity and proper functioning.
The proper discharge of the function of child-bearing imposes certain handicaps upon women, from which man is free; but the glorious honour of the crown of motherhood is reserved for woman, man cannot aspire to it.
The upbringing of children during their early years is primarily the responsibility of the mother; the father’s role at that stage is supplementary to that of the mother.
At that stage the child turns instinctively to the mother rather than to the father for nurture, comfort or security.
When a child is rebuked or disciplined by the mother, it feels no resentment towards her; while it resents being punished by the father.
The bond that nature forges between
mother and child is characterized by far greater tenderness than that which is developed between father and child.
Woman is vulnerable and is in need of man’s strength for support and protection.
A woman may be forced against her will; a man cannot be forced against his inclination.

As wife and mother the primary and normal sphere of woman’s activities is the home; as breadwinner the normal sphere of man’s activities and operations is the outdoors.
A social system, which is based on wisdom and beneficence, brings about and helps to maintain an accord and balance between the two.
Islam claims to do that.

by Muhammad Zafrulla Khan
Source: ahl-ul-bayt.org

The Perseverance of Society

Taking sexual desires from the bounds of the family environment to society has weakened society's capacity for work and activity.
Contrary to the opinion that 'the modest dress results in paralyzing half of the energy potential of the individuals of society', the lack of the modest dress and the gradual development of free relationships has caused the social force to fail.

That which has caused the paralysis of women's power and that which has imprisoned her talents is the lack of the modest dress.
In Islam, there is no question of the modest dress prohibiting a woman from participating in cultural, social or economic activities. Islam neither says that a woman cannot leave her home nor does it say that she cannot seek knowledge and learning.
Rather, men and women must both learn and seek knowledge.
There is no objection to women's economic activities in Islam.
Islam has never wanted women to be useless and unoccupied.
It has never desired that women bring up useless and indifferent children.
The covering of the body, except for the face and hands, is not to prevent any kind of cultural or social or economic activity.
That which paralyses the working force is the corruption of the work environment by the element of seeking the satisfaction of sexual pleasures.

If a boy and a girl study in a separate environment or in one environment where the girl covers her body and wears no makeup, do they not study better?
Do they not think better and listen to the words of the teacher better?
Or is it better when a boy sits beside a girl who has on make-up and is wearing a short skirt which barely reaches her knees?
Will men work better in an environment where the streets, offices, factories, etc., are continuously filled with women who are all wearing heavy make-up and are not covered or in an environment where these scenes do not exist?
Any company or office that is serious about its work and endeavors to produce good products or services, prevents these kinds of inter-mixings.
If you do not believe this, check it out yourself.

The truth is that the disgraceful lack of the modest dress in Iran (he is speaking before the victory of the Islamic Revolution) whereby we were even moving ahead of America, is a product of the corrupt Western capitalist societies.
It is one of the results of the worship of money and the pursuance of sexual fulfillment that is prevalent in Western capitalism.
It is one of the means they use to manipulate human society and stimulate them by this force to become consumers of their products.
If an Iranian woman only wants to put on make-up for her legal husband or only wants to get dressed up for gatherings with women, she will not be a consumer of Western products.
She will not be obliged to unconsciously corrupt the morals of young boys and girls, to weaken them so that they are no longer active members of society which is to the benefit of the exploiters.
by Ayatullah Murtadha Mutahhari, The Islamic Modest Dress
Source: ahl-ul-bayt.org

Man and Evolution

Out of all the natural phenomena with which we are a conversant, the living beings have a comparatively more complex and marvelous mechanism. It may be said that life is the apex of perfection on the scale of natural motion.

Life
No thinker belonging to any school of thought has any doubt about the fact that‑ living beings have characteristics which are not found in the non‑living beings.

The main\' characteristics of a living being are self‑defense, adaptation to the environment, growth and pro­creation. The living beings of higher categories move from one place to another and those of still higher category are gifted with feeling and consciousness. That is why the laws of organic chemistry are different from those of inorganic chemistry, or for that matter of geology.

So far as observation and scientific experiments show, a living being is born only by another living being and not by lifeless matter. Similarly no living being is born suddenly and automatically. At the same time it also cannot be doubted that a living being appeared only at a special stage of the evolution of nature, which was naturally that of the beginning of life. Hence a question arises as to what is the origin of life?

In this respect various theories have been put forward. Some of them are as follows:

a. At first, life came to the earth from some other planet in the form of living cells.

b. The material necessary to form a living cell conse­quent on receiving the required energy under certain conditions, was accidentally transformed into a living being and from that life spread to the whole earth.

c. The first living being appeared suddenly by the will of God. Now all the developed living beings are His progeny.

d. Every species of the living beings appeared on the earth independently. Life to each one of them was granted by God. There are some other theories also.

We do not want to involve ourselves into the discussion as to which of these theories is correct, for a very extensive scientific investigation is necessary to come to a definite conclusion in this respect.

What we would like to point out is that the life of every living being, whether it is the result of any evolutionary process or not, is a sign of Allah. That is what has been emphasized by the Qur\'an.

"There are significant signs in your own selves. Can you not see?"(Surah al‑Zariyat, 51:21).

"Allah sends down water from the sky and it brings the dead earth to life. Indeed in this there is a sign for those who pay attention" . (Surahal‑Nahl 16:65).

Manufacture of living cell
if one day the scientists succeed in manufacturing a living cell, the doctrine of those who believe in Allah will not be affected, just as the flight of man to other planets, the making of artificial rain, the grafting of one man\'s limbs to another, the manufacture of an electronic brain and so many other small and big inventions do not mean a clash or a rivalry with Allah. Such things only mean fructifying the human creative power and exploitation of natural material and its hidden forces. The Qur\'an itself urges to make use of ideas and skills and to utilize the gifts of nature.

As we have repeatedly said, scientific progress is a move­ment in the direction of divine guidance and is not in conflict with it.

Anyhow, it should not be forgotten that human creativity does not mean the invention of a totally new phenomenon or a norm. It only means the exploitation of the material and energy available in nature and the bringing about of the conditions necessary for the utilization of the laws and norms relating to them.

If really there is a possibility of the production of life by combining natural material under certain conditions still not known to man, then he may in future discover the law of the origination of life and the conditions and norms pertaining to it. If that happens, this discovery will‑ not be different from the discovery and utilization of so many other laws already made in the fields other than that of life.

Obviously the discovery of a law and its utilization does not in any way lower the position of the law‑maker.

At a lower level we see that the pair of a male and a female pave the way for the birth of a child. But do they affect Allah as the creator? A farmer cultivates his land. But does he replace Allah as the real creator of the crop?

If it is discovered that life can be produced from matter under certain conditions, that will only mean that matter in its evolutionary motion can go to the extent where it receives life and then can go further to a higher stage.

It is interesting to note that the Qur\'an, describing the birth of man, expressly says:

"One of His signs is that He created you o f clay" . (Surah al‑Rum, 30:20).

In fact clay becomes man, the highest living being, after passing through so many developments.

The Qur\'an also talks of the birth of man from `black clay\' and Mastic clay\'. (Surah al‑Hijr, 15:28 and Surah al-­Saffat, 37:11).

It also says:

" We made every living thing o f water". (Surah al‑Anbiya, 21:30).

When the Qur\'an has such a wide horizon, there is no reason why a Muslim who follows it, should be narrow-­minded.

Life, a Divine phenomenon
It may be pointed out that the Qur\'an expressly ascribes life to Allah.
"It is He who created death and life" . (Surah al‑Mulk, 67:2). "It is He who created you to die". (Surah al‑Hajj, 22:66).

Do such verses mean that no one else can make a living being? In reply it may be said:
Firstly, the Qur\'an ascribes to Allah all natural changes, from coming down of rain and taming rivers and mountains to the birth of a man.

On some other ‑occasions it ascribes these very changes to natural factors also. These two groups of verses are not contradictory, but corroborate each other, because the scientific laws which govern natural changes are simply the norms prescribed by Allah. His will does not mean that He directly brings about all changes and natural events. In fact he has created a system of natural changes. That is His will.

Secondly, if in the case of life we find that the Qur\'an has given special attention to it, that is only a sign of its importance and high value. Allah describes it as the infusion of divine spirit. While discussing man, we will explain what is meant by that.

Thirdly, every evolutionary movement is a manifestation of Allah\'s will and His creative design, especially if the change is such that a material organism reaches a stage where it may receive life, become a living being and may at last attain human life.

Man and Evolution
The theory of evolution on the whole has a long history. Lamarck enunciated certain principles in this connection. But it was Charles Darwin, who carried out extensive studies of the living organisms and the way of their birth, and gathered enough scientific evidence to show that evolution has taken place actually. He held that:

(a) Every living being, wherever it may be, gradually adapts itself to its environment, and meets its natural needs, such as obtaining food and defending itself in accordance with the conditions prevailing in that environ­ment. This effort sometimes causes changes in its body, like the appearance of the web uniting the toes of the duck when it was forced by its environment to swim in order to look for its food in the lakes, or the lengthening of the neck of the giraffe when it was forced to make use of the branches of lofty trees.

(b) Though these organic changes take place gradually over many generations, they later pass from parents to offspring.

(c) Among the living beings there is a severe struggle for the continuation of their life, for procuring food and for selecting a suitable mate. This struggle for existence, that is a clash with the factors of the environment of life and rivalry with other living beings, is a firm principle in the life of the animals and the plants and is one of the factors which lead to the change of their form.

(d) As the result of this struggle only those organisms survive which can adapt themselves better to their environ­ment and can obtain the conditions necessary for their life in their natural abode. The weaker and the less suitable organisms gradually die out.

This way gradually the various species are transformed, and only the fittest ones among them survive. That is how the evolution of the species takes place.

The dissemination of the theory of the development of the living organisms, including man, on the basis of these principles, roused a great deal of controversy during the time of Darwin and afterwards, and views in support of it and against it were openly expressed. At some times the tone of the debate in this connection was scientific but on other occasions it was rooted in religious or anti‑religious prejudices, for it was said that what Darwin had asserted was in conflict with the Biblical account of the beginning of the world and the birth of man as given in the book of Genesis.

Anyhow, with new discoveries in archaeology and the expansion in the field of experiments, the theory of evolution has been considerably modified since the time of Darwin, especially in regard to the questions relating to anthropology.

Many new questions in regard to almost every principle mentioned by Darwin have arisen. For example, it is asked whether the appearance of a new organ or for that matter any other organic change, always results from the use of that organ and the attempt to adapt it to one\'s environment or it may be due to mutation or any other cause?

The acquired qualities are hereditable as a principle or genetic investigations have rejected this theory?

The organic changes, whatever may be their cause, are always aimed at survival and evolution or sometimes they may be due to the inconsistency with the environmental conditions and may culminate in death and extinction?

Natural selection is or is not like artificial selection which leads the existing generation to evolution? We find that the wild animals and plants are alike and of average type, whereas the artificial selection gives the animals and plants more variety and leads them to better evolution.

There are many other questions of this sort.

Anyhow, in spite of all the objections raised to discredit it, the theory of evolution has been accepted by the scientists as an objective principle of natural sciences. At the same time it is also certain that prominent and unbiased naturalists do not consider this theory to be final and incontrovertible. The way to further scientific investi­gation is not closed. All that they say is that the scientific inquiry has not so far discovered any new principles which may take the place of the principle of evolution.

Now it may be said that if an unbiased investigator care­fully examines the results of the observations in regard to the genesis of the living organisms, he will come to the following conclusions:

Principles which may be discovered
(1) The living organisms in accordance with their degree of evolution have a historical succession. In other words, the more developed species have usually appeared over history after the less developed ones.

(2) This historical succession is similar to that found in all other things of the world. The entire cosmos has evolved from a simple state and gradually galaxies. and solar systems have been formed in the environment devoid of all traces of life. Conditions conducive to the appearance of life have developed gradually. Similarly development has taken place successively from the plants to the developed animals. On the whole, the more complex organism have followed the simple ones.

(3) There exists complete organic similarity between the first living organism and the most developed living organism known to us.

(4) The stages through which a human embryo passes during its embryonic development are fully akin to the stages through which living organisms have passed over history.

When we put all this evidence together, we can scientifi­cally presume that the various species of the living organisms are the progeny of one another (transformism) and have not come into existence independently (fixism).

Scientific presumption, not incontrovertible principle
Anyhow, it would be fair to say that the conclusions at which we have arrived are no more than a scientific guess corroborated by some evidence. They cannot be regarded as decisive and final, for if an unbiased investigator looks carefully at the history of the origin of machinery, he will find that the development of various machines is not incongruous with the four conclusions mentioned above, though the origin of the machines was not on the basis of transformism in its modern sense, and the various kinds of machines have not been born of one another.

In fact the scientific study of the origin of machinery also leads to the following conclusions:

(1) The machines in accordance with their evolution have historical succession, for the more developed ones appeared after the less developed.

(2) This historical succession is akin to the origination of all other things of the cosmos.

(3) There is complete organic resemblance between the first machine and the most developed machine.

(4) The stages of the manufacture of the latest developed machine on the whole resemble those of the development of other machines, though in a compressed form.

In spite of all these four points, everybody knows that the origination of the more developed machines in the wake of the simple ones has not come about on the basis of transformism. In other words the more developed machines are not the progeny of the more simple ones.

The evolution of the machines is the result of man\'s initiative, his efficiency and the evolution of his thinking. It is the outcome of the experience he has gained. But the machines of superior kind are not born of those that existed before them.

It is true that in the case of machines basically it is not possible that a more developed one is born of a simpler one, but in the case of living beings such a possibility does exist. But this possibility can only support a scientific guess. It is no proof that such a thing has actually happened, for mere possibility of a thing is not a proof of its actual occurrence.

We come across some other cases of evolution, in which the historical succession of their stages is related to the evolution of the thinking of the maker, and is the result of the gradual increase in an already existing ability.

An example of such an evolution is the gradual attainment of knowledge from childhood to later years.

In contrast, the evolution of the power of learning a foreign language is connected with the development of the capability of him who learns it, and not with that of the person who teaches him.

Conclusion
An unbiased investigator, whether he supports the theory of evolution or opposes it, has to admit that:
(1) As far as we know, all the existing things of the world, including the living organisms, have a historical succession in accordance with the degree of their evolution.

(2) We are aware of many cases in which a more developed organism is the progeny of a less developed one.

(3) There are indications on the basis of which it may be presumed that this is a general rule applicable to all existing things.

(4) But still this is no more than a mere scientific guess, and the way to further investigation on the basis of contrary evidence, as mentioned above, is still open.

(5) On the basis of the doctrine, that the world has an Almighty Creator, who has brought the universe into existence and who manages it, there is a complete possibility that certain developed species might have come into existence independently in the same way as we have described the case of the machines. Of course, in this case the creation of the developed species is not to be the outcome of any mental development of the Creator or His gaining any experience. It is to be only on the basis that evolutionary motion exists in the creative design of the world. In other words, it is the will of Allah that gradually more and more developed species should come into being, in the same way as there exists an evolutionary motion in the development of an embryo.

Emergence of man
According to their general line of thinking, the scientists hold that man has evolved from the primates, which existed before him. We leave the study and evaluation of this evidence and other indications to the anthropologists, and confine ourselves to making a few general remarks in regard to the origin of man.

(1) What we have said about the theory of evolution is also applicable to what has been or is being said on the basis of this theory about the ancestors of the first man, but as we have already pointed out, this theory is no more than a scientific guess. It is still subject to further investi­gation and should not be considered to be one hundred per cent final.

(2) Anyhow, it is important to note that the emergence of man on the basis of evolution from other primates is not in conflict with the teachings of the revealed religions, especially with the belief of an Almighty Creator of the world. We have repeatedly mentioned in Islamic Teachings that Allah, as described by the Qur\'an, is the Creator and Disposer of nature. Therefore the perfect system of nature is one of His signs and not an arrangement parallel to Him or negating Him. All the scientific discussions and efforts are aimed at only finding out this system of nature as it actually exists.

(3) The only point which has given rise to the conception that there is a contradiction between religion and the general principles of evolution is that the book of Genesis of Old Testament and certain verses of the Qur\'an apparently indicate that all men existing on the earth are the progeny of Adam, who was created independently and not evolved from any previous living beings.

In this connection the following points are worth con­sideration:

(a) What, in this respect, is mentioned in the book of Genesis cannot be taken seriously from religious point of view, because the genuineness of many parts of Old Testament is historically doubtful.

(b) The Qur\'anic verses connected with the birth of Adam generally emphasize the point that his birth was an important event and that Divine spirit was infused in his material body made of clay. This kind of birth may only be described as mutation.

Thus a being made of clay came into existence. He was destined to be the master of the earth and no other visible or invisible being could place a total restriction on his leaning towards Allah or towards his base desires.

(c) There is only one verse in the whole Qur\'an which describes the birth of Adam as somewhat miraculous. This verse says:
"Surely Isa is like Adam in the sight of Allah. He created him of clay, then said to hire: `Be! and he was". (Surah Ale Imran, 3: 59)

This verse has come in the wake of other verses relating to the Prophet Isa. The Qur\'an invariably stresses that Isa was created by Allah and that he was not His son. The fact that he was born of Virgin Maryam and had no father is no proof of his being the son of Allah. His birth was a super­natural event, which took place by Allah\'s will, in the same way as another supernatural event, that is the birth of Adam, the living being having Divine spirit, occurred earlier.

It may be observed that this very verse shows that the birth of Adam and that of Isa are alike.

Can anybody claim that what the Qur\'an has said concerning the birth of Isa repudiates the general procedure of the birth of men all over history? Does it deny that they are normally born of father and mother. Not at all.

In dozens of verses the Qur\'an declares the system of reproduction and procreation to be a sign of the power and the wisdom of the Creator of the cosmos.

Hence from the Qur\'anic point of view the miraculous birth of Adam, the first living being gifted with Divine spirit, should not be construed to mean that the Qur\'an is opposed to the theory of the emergence of the existing things of the world or the birth of living organisms on the basis of evolution. All that it means is that the emergence of man in an extraordinary way was a special favor of Allah.

Exceptional Organisms
Irrespective of all that relates to the birth of Isa or Adam, a naturalist may be asked whether it is possible or not that in the course of the emergence of usual organisms, some exceptional ones also come into existence?

We all know that as a rule every hand and foot of a man has five fingers; but we also know that some children are born with six.

Similarly we know that every human child is born with one head, but you must have read in newspapers that there have been some exceptional cases in which children were born with two heads.

When you put up such exceptional cases to the naturalists, they do not deny their existence, but explain them away simply as freaks of nature.

The credulous people easily accept this explanation, but those who have a critical mind ask: If it is true that the evolutionary emergence of the world and man is the result of the domination of the laws of nature over all the particles of this world and if these laws hold good everywhere, what is that factor which disturbs them?

Does an outside factor disturb the working of nature and the system of its laws, or the laws of nature themselves disturb their own working? In the first case, we must acknowledge that there exists some superpower trans­cending nature. In the case of the second alternative, a question arises as to why the possibility of the occurrence of some exceptional events, sometimes called miracles, should be so vehemently denied and considered to be contrary to the system of nature?

The above discussion shows that there is not the least contradiction between the general principle of evolution in respect of the world and man, and the teachings of the revealed religions, and what the Qur\'an says concerning the birth of Adam and man. Incidentally the principles of evolution are still subject to further scientific investigation, for they are faced with much criticism especially as they were enunciated by Darwin.

As we have now finished the discussion of the origin of man, we take up a more basic question. The most impor­tant question, which is being overlooked in our times is: What is the true nature of man, what is his value and what way he should go?

First we refer briefly to the position of man in the West and then we propose to study the man of the Qur\'an, so that keeping in mind the views of the contemporary schools, we may know the approach of Islam in this respect.

Author: Sayyid Muhammad Husayni Beheshti
Source: al-islam.org