Islam and Religious Pluralism

An indepth discussion on the Islamic perspective of Religious Pluralism. This book offers rational answers to questions such as: will the great inventors and scientists, despite their worthy services for humanity, go to Hell? Will the likes of Pasteur and Edison go to Hell whilst indolent people who have spent their lives in a corner of the Masjid go to Heaven?

Author(s): Ayatullah Murtadha Mutahhari

Translator(s): Sayyid Sulayman Ali Hasan

Publisher(s): Islamic Publishing House (Canada)

Table of Contents

Foreword 3

Introduction 5

Notes 14

Biography of the late Ayatullah Murtadha Mutahhari 16

Notes 24

Good Deeds of Non-Muslims 25

Notes 31

Good Deeds Without Faith 32

Notes 39

Value of Belief 41

Notes 64

Below the Zero Point 65

Notes 73

The Sins of Muslims 74

Notes 82

Summary and Conclusion 84

Foreword

From the frying pan of the ‘Narrow-Minded, Dry, Holy Ones’ “tang nazari khoshk muqaddasan” into the fire of Hick’s Religious Pluralism

Some years ago, in Brampton Canada, my Muharram majālis provoked the question: Where will Mother Teresa go – Heaven or Hell? This was in reaction to my submission challenging the notion of religious pluralism, which seemed to have found favour amongst members of the congregation, who as a result of their intellectual discussions within academia, appeared to have concluded that ‘all roads lead to Rome’.

My deliberations with a number of such academic members of our community revealed their unawareness that the original concept of religious pluralism was a subtle defence to the doctrine of salvation through Christ.

Thereby, providing in Christianity, toleration for other religions. Essentially, the roots of religious pluralism lie in the development of political liberalism in eighteenth century Europe, which was reeling from the horrible tales of religious persecution.

The Enlightened European thinkers of the time were reacting to religious intolerance, which had resulted in the history of sectarian wars to be avoided by all means.

Having witnessed the consequences of religious intolerance, the eighteenth century European Christians were anxious to recover through an ideology that was entrenched in religious principles and thereby securing its permanent effect of ensuring peace and progress in Europe both politically and philosophically - whilst preserving the sanctity of Christianity.

The principal advocate, Professor John Hick, devised the convoluted concept of religious pluralism by incorporating the Christian doctrine of salvation, allowing almost anyone to enter heaven.

Ironically, to make his case, Hick used amongst other arguments Rūmī’s fable of the blind men describing an elephant. Thus suggesting that in our visualization of the ultimate reality, we are in the position of the blind men describing the elephant.

Our ultimate reality is limited by the structures of the various religions. In other words, be it through the trunk, or the leg or the ear, it was sufficient to conceptualize the elephant.

While Rūmī used the parable to demonstrate our limitations in knowing the ultimate reality, Hick expounded religious pluralism by suggesting that the world’s numerous faiths had reconcilable differences in striving for the ultimate reality.

It is indeed a sorry state of affairs that when we are blessed with far more profound answers to the issues of rigid exclusivity, that Muslim intellectuals should be impressed by Hick’s weak defence supported only by marginalised Christian thinkers.

This timely translation of the Persian essay on Islām and Religious Pluralism by Āyatullāh Shahīd Muťahharī is a much needed contribution to further this debate, so as to enable us to better understand the Islāmic perspective on religious pluralism.

This work is yet another example of this deceased scholar’s ingenious foresight, for decades ago, he undertook to address the topical questions that vex Muslim youths exposed to Western academia today.

This book offers rational answers to questions such as: will the great inventors and scientists, despite their worthy services for humanity, go to Hell? Will the likes of Pasteur and Edison go to Hell whilst indolent people who have spent their lives in a corner of the Masjid go to Heaven? Has God created Heaven solely for the Shī`as?

In contrast to Hick’s compromising view, Shī`ī scholars generally agree that God’s damnation does not arbitrarily apply to all who lack faith in His revelations. For instance, exceptions are made for those who are incapable (qāsir) such as children and adults who are intellectually impaired.

The scholars of the school of Ahlul Baīt (as) make a distinction between the incapable (qāsir) and the negligent (muqassir) who have misplaced convictions despite having access to Islām. Shahīd Muťahharī’s enquiry into the problem of religious pluralism elaborates the distinction of these two categories.

What is interesting however, is that he defines the category of the incapable to include those for whom Islām has not been accessible. For instance, a remote residence where Islām has not been propagated or those living in an Islāmaphobic environment which has resulted in ill-founded misconceptions.

Shahīd Muťahharī’s brilliant rationale of the incapable (qāsir) establishes that heaven has not been reserved for a minority within a minority.

Thus, boldly answering the dogmatism actively promoted by those he has identified as “narrow minded dry holy ones” (tang nazari khushk muqaddasan). The impact of such dogmatism is manifested in many superstitions of the Shī`ī masses.

To illustrate, I can do no better than to quote one such example by Āyatullāh Muťahharī:

“Will (we) make a will that a large sum out of the money that we have acquired through wrong means or that we should have spent in our lifetime in good causes – but didn’t – should be given to the caretakers of one of the holy shrines in order for us to be buried near the graves of God’s saints, so that the Angels don’t dare punish us.” Such people should know that they have been blinded and the curtain of negligence has covered their eyes.”

I conclude that to seek other means to satisfy intellect curiosities on this discussion inevitably results in falling from the frying pan of the tang nazari khoshk muqaddasan into the fire of Religious Pluralism.

Hasnain Walji

Plano Texas

May 7th 2004 – 17th Rabiul Awwal 1425

Introduction

By Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi

Is Islām the only right path? Is as-Ŝirātul Mustaqīm (the right path) a single phenomena or are there multiple paths leading to the same destination? What happens to the non-Muslims who live a decent life and do not violate the rights of other people? Do they gain salvation, and go to Paradise or not? These are some of the burning questions of the modern era.

The concept of religious pluralism is not new; it has been discussed in one form or another by past philosophers and theologians of various schools. However, with the increased interaction between followers of different religions and inter-faith dialogues, religious pluralism has taken a new life in the stream of current thought.

When the great philosopher, Āyatullāh Murtadhā Muťahharī, wrote his seminal work, `Adl-e Ilāhī (The Divine Justice) about thirty-five years ago, the debate on religious pluralism had not yet become that popular in Iran.

What you have in your hands is the translation of `Adl-e Ilāhī’s last chapter on “Good Deeds of Non-Muslims”.

The more appropriate place to discuss religious pluralism and its related issues would be under the theme of “nubuwwah - prophethood” when discussing the finality of Prophet Muhammad’s (S) prophethood, however the question “What happens to the good deeds of non-Muslims?” is also connected to the theme of Divine justice; and so Āyatullāh Muťahharī has answered it at the end of his `Adl-e Ilāhī.

Nonetheless, before discussing that question in detail, Āyatullāh Muťahharī has also briefly stated his views on religious pluralism itself. As you will read yourself, he expresses the prevailing view of the Muslim theologians and philosophers that Islām is the only right path.

However, and more importantly, he cautions the readers not to jump to the conclusion that since Islām is the only right path therefore all non-Muslims will go to hell. The exclusivist view of Islām being the right path does not automatically and necessarily lead to the belief that all non-Muslims will go to hell.

In the last one and a half decades, the question of religious pluralism has been passionately debated among the Muslims in the West as well as the East. Some Muslim intellectuals have even tried to impose the concept of religious pluralism onto the Qur’ān itself!

I would like to take this opportunity to briefly present this discussion as a preamble to the writing of the great scholar, Āyatullāh Murtadhā Muťahharī.

While discussing the concept of pluralism in the Islāmic context, it is important to define the term clearly. Pluralism can be used in two different meanings: “Social pluralism” in the sociological sense means a society which consists of a multi-faith or multi-cultural mosaic.

“Religious pluralism” in the theological sense means a concept in which all religions are considered to be equally true and valid.

Social Pluralism

As far as social pluralism is concerned, Islām seeks for peaceful co-existence and mutual tolerance between the people of different religions and cultures. Among the three Abrahāmic religions, it is only Islām which has accorded recognition to Judaism and Christianity. Judaism does not recognize Jesus as the awaited Messiah or the Prophet; and Christianity does not recognize Muhammad (S) as the true Prophet and Messenger of God.

In the Islāmic worldview, God sent many prophets and messengers to guide mankind; the number given in the Ĥadīth is 124,000 prophets. The first prophet was Ādam and the last Prophet was Muhammad - the Prophet of Islām (S). However, not all the 124,000 prophets were of the same rank and status.1

Five of these prophets are given the highest rank in the spiritual hierarchy: and they are Nūh (Noah), Ibrāhīm (Abraham), Mūsā (Moses), `Isā (Jesus), and Muhammad (as). Almighty Allāh says in the Qur’ān:

وَإِذْ أَخَذْنَا مِنَ النَّبِيِّينَ مِيثَاقَهُمْ وَمِنْكَ وَمِنْ نُوحٍ وَإِبْرَاهِيمَ وَمُوسَى وَعِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ .

“And when We made a covenant with the prophets: with you, with Nūh, Ibrāhīm, Mūsā and `Isā, son of Mariam…”2

A Muslim is required to believe in all the prophets, otherwise he cannot be considered a “Muslim”.3 If a person, for instance, says that I believe in Muhammad, `Isā, Ibrāhīm and Nūh but not in Mūsā as one of the prophets of God, then he cannot be accepted as a Muslim; similarly, if a person believes in all the prophets but refuses to accept `Isā as one of the prophets and messengers of God, then he is not a Muslim.

That is why Islām considers the Christian and the Jewish communities as “the People of the Book” or “the People of Scripture” (Ahlul Kitāb). Islām has even allowed a Muslim man to marry a Christian or Jewish woman, but not those from the other faiths.

What is noteworthy is that Islām accorded this recognition to the Ahlul Kitāb fourteen centuries ago when there was absolutely no talk of tolerance among people of different faiths or an ecumenical movement among religions.4

On a socio-political level, a Muslim government would readily sign an agreement with its Christian and Jewish minorities. Imām `Alī Zaīnul `Ābidīn, the great-grandson of the Prophet, writes:

“It is the right of the non-Muslims living in a Muslim country that you should accept what Allāh has accepted from them and fulfill the responsibilities which Allāh has accorded them… And there must be a barrier keeping you from doing any injustice to them, from depriving them of the protection of Allāh, and from flaunting the commitments of Allāh and His Messenger concerning them. Because we have been told that the Holy Prophet said, ‘Whosoever does injustice to a protected non-Muslim, I will be his enemy (on the Day of Judgement).’”5

Although Islām does not accord to followers of other religions the same recognition that it has accorded to Jews and Christians, it believes in peaceful co-existence with them. One of the earliest messages of peaceful co-existence given by the Prophet Muhammad (S) to the idol-worshippers of Mecca is reflected in Chapter 109 of the Qur’ān:

قُلْ يَا أَيُّهَا الْكَافِرُونَ. لاَ أَعْبُدُ مَا تَعْبُدُونَ. وَلاَ أَنْـتُمْ عَابِدُونَ مَا أَعْبُدُ. وَلاَ أَنَا عَابِدٌ مَا عَبَدتُّمْ. وَلاَ أَنْـتُمْ عَابِدُونَ مَا أَعْبُدُ. لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِينِ

Say: “O unbelievers! Neither do I worship what you worship; nor do you worship what I worship. Neither am I going to worship what you worship; nor are you going to worship what I worship. To you shall be your religion and to me shall be my religion.”

(From the historical perspective, the treatment that Muslim societies have given to the minorities under their rule, especially the Christians and the Jews, is comparatively better than the way minorities were treated in Christian Europe.6)

Religious Pluralism

The most famous proponent of modern religious pluralism is John Hick, who abandoned his Catholic exclusivist view and formulated his specific theory in the seventies. Hick’s pluralistic hypothesis claims that each religion in its own way represents an authentic revelation of the Divine world and a fully authentic means of salvation.

He believes that all religions are culturally conditioned responses to the same ultimate reality; and, therefore, are equally valid, and salvation is possible through any of them.

Hick uses the famous story of the Hindu mystics to illustrate his point:

“An elephant was brought to a group of blind men who had never encountered such an animal before. One felt a leg and reported that an elephant is a great living pillar. Another felt the trunk and reported that an elephant is a great snake. Another felt a tusk and reported that an elephant is like a sharp ploughshare, and so on. And then they all quarrelled together, each claiming that his own account was the truth and therefore all the others false. In fact of course, they were all true, but each referring only to one aspect of the total reality and all expressed in very imperfect analogies.”7

There are many flaws in Hick’s hypothesis. The most serious problem is of reconciling the conflicting truth-claims of various religions: for example, monotheism of Islām as opposed to polytheism of Hinduism; death and resurrection of Islām and Christianity as opposed to reincarnations and reaching the state of nirvana of Buddhism; salvation through Trinity as opposed to Tawhīd (Monotheism), etc.

In order to resolve the problem of conflicting truth-claims, Hick suggests that religious traditions differ on three issues:

(1) on historical facts;

(2) on trans-historical facts;

(3) on conceptions of the Real.

Then he proposes the solution for these differences.

For the disagreements on historical facts, Hick suggests that they are minor issues and they could be resolved by application of the historical method.

As for differences on trans-historical facts (i.e., matters that cannot be established by historical or empirical evidence such as “is the universe temporal or eternal” or “death and then resurrection versus reincarnations”), he says that the resolution of such differences are not necessary for salvation and that religions need to dialogue more in order to modify their beliefs.

For differing conceptions of the Real, Hick assumes that all religious traditions are authentic manifestations of the Real and that each tradition’s deity is an authentic face of the Real.8

Finally, Hick believes that any religious belief that would conflict with, and if literally true, falsify another religious belief, must be treated as mythological.

The end result of this theory is that in order to make it workable, Hick would have to redefine many religious beliefs in ways that the founders and followers of those religions would strongly protest! Take the example of the historical status of Jesus from Islāmic, Christian and Jewish perspectives:

Apart from the two first items (and that also only between Islām and Christianity), all three Abrahamic religions have conflicting views on Jesus. According to John Hick’s theory, the first two common beliefs would be considered as “facts” (at the least in Christianity and Islām) whereas the other points of disagreements must be treated in two possible ways: Either these conflicting views should be resolved by historical/empirical inquiry or they should be put in the category of “mythology”!

The first solution will force the Jews, the Christians and the Muslims to reject many verses of their respective scriptures while the second solution will place many statements from the Bible and the Qur’ān into the category of “mythology”. None would be acceptable to any of the three faiths.

I think this one example (that also of Islām vis-à-vis Christianity and Judaism which are closer to one another than Islām vis-à-vis Hinduism and Buddhism) suffices to show that Hick’s theory of religious pluralism is not workable.

Based on Hick’s solution for meta-historical facts (issues related to death and after), Muslims will be forced to consider more than five hundred verses of the Qur’ān on death, resurrection and afterlife as part of “mythology”!

Coming to the third type of differences on conceptions of the Real, Dr. John Hick wants us to believe that the Trinity of Christians, the multiples idols of Hindus, and the Tawhīd (Monotheism) of Muslims are equally valid and true! This hypothesis weakens the faith in one’s religion and pushes one towards agnosticism if not atheism.

Using Immanuel Kant’s view of dualistic categories, Hick says that there is a difference “between an entity as ‘it is in itself’ and as ‘it appears in perception’.”9

Something could be completely true “in itself” but when it is perceived by others, it is relatively true. Based on this idea, Hick wants all religions to accept all differing conceptions of God as equally authentic because none of them are absolutely true, all are only relatively true.

The way Hick has used the story of the blind men and the elephant, he has assumed all religious people to be blind and that they lack the ability to know the complete truth. Unfortunately, he has missed the moral of the same story as given by Mawlānā Rūmī:

Some Hindus have an elephant to show.

No one here has ever seen an elephant.

They bring it at night to a dark room.

One by one, we go in the dark and come out

saying how we experience the animal.

One of us happens to touch the trunk.

“A water-pipe kind of creature.”

Another, the ear. “A very strong, always moving

back and forth, fan-animal.”

Another, the leg. “I find it still,

like a column on a temple.”

Another touches the curved back.

“A leathery throne.”

Another, the cleverest, feels the tusk.

“A rounded sword made of porcelain.”

He’s proud of his description.

Each of us touches one place

and understands the whole in that way.

The palm and the fingers feeling in the dark are

how the senses explore the reality of the elephant.

If each of us held a candle there,

and if we went in together,

we could see it.10

These men were groping in darkness and, therefore, they came with wrong description of the elephant; if they had used a “candle”, they would have seen the light! In Islām, God does not let a searcher for truth grope in darkness:

للٌّهُ وَلِيُّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا يُخْرِجُهُمْ مِنَ الظُّلُمَاتِ إِلَى النُّورِ

“Allāh is the Protector of the believers, He brings them forth from the shadows into the light.” 11

The Qur’ān and Religious Pluralism

Some Muslim intellectuals have attempted to read the theory of religious pluralism into the Qur’ān itself. The most famous argument used by them is that the term “Islām,” in the Qur’ān, should not be taken as a noun but just as a verb.

Sometimes they differentiate between “islam” (the act of submission) and “Islam” (the religion); and say that the main message of God and the basis of salvation is submission to God, and that it does not matter whether the submission takes place through Ibrāhīm, Mūsā, `Isa or Muhammad (as).

This is nothing new; even Āyatullāh Muťahharī, in the present work, writes, “If someone were to say that the meaning of ‘Islām’ in this verse is not our religion in particular; rather, the intent is the literal meaning of the word, or submission to God, the answer would be that undoubtedly ‘Islām’ means submission and the religion of Islām is the religion of submission, but the reality of submission has a particular form in each age. And in this age, its form is the same cherished religion that was brought by the Seal of the Prophets (Muhammad). So it follows that the word ‘Islām’ (submission) necessarily applies to it alone.

“In other words, the necessary consequence of submission to God is to accept His commandments, and it is clear that one must always act on the final Divine commandments. And the final commandments of God is what His final Messenger [Muhammad] has brought.”12

“Islām” in the Qur’ān [3:19-20]

When the Qur’ān says, for example:

إِنَّ الدِّينَ عِنْدَ اللٌّهِ الإِسْلاَمُ

“Surely the religion with Allāh is al-Islām,”13,

some Muslim intellectuals say that it does not mean “Islām” the religion that started in the seventh century by Prophet Muhammad (S). They say it means “islām,” submission to God through any of the Abrahamic religions.

In their attempt to read a politically correct idea into the Qur’ān, they even ignore the context of the verse. Let us read the whole passage together:

إِنَّ الدِّينَ عِنْدَ اللٌّهِ الإِسْلاَمُ وَمَا اخْتَلَفَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ إِلاَّ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا جَاءَهُمْ الْعِلْمُ بَغْياً بَيْنَهُمْ وَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِآيَاتِ اللٌّهِ فَإِنَّ اللٌّهَ سَرِيعُ الْحِسَابِ

“Surely the religion with Allāh is al-Islām. And those who have been given the Book [i.e., the Christians and the Jews] did not show opposition but after knowledge had come to them, out of envy among themselves. And whoever disbelieves in the verses of Allāh, then surely Allāh is quick in reckoning.”

فَإِنْ حَاجُّوكَ فَقُلْ أَسْلَمْتُ وَجْهِي لِلٌّهِ وَمَنْ اتَّـبَعَنِي

“But if they dispute with you, say: “I have submitted myself entirely to Allāh and (so has) everyone who follows me.”

وَقُلْ لِلَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ وَالأُمِّـيِّينَ أَأَسْلَمْتُمْ فَإِنْ أَسْلَمُوا فَقَدْ اهْـتَدَوا وَإِنْ تَوَلَّوا فَإِنَّمَا عَلَيْكَ الْبَلاَغُ وَاللٌّهُ بَصِيرٌ بِالْعِبَادِ

“And to those who have been given the Book [i.e., the Christians and the Jews] and to the idol-worshippers [of Mecca], say: “Do you submit?” If they submit, then they are rightly guided; but if they reject, then upon you is only the delivery of the message. And Allāh sees the servants.”14

This passage clearly states the following:

“Al-Islām” mentioned in this verse is the message of submission as brought by Prophet Muhammad (S).

The People of the Scripture (i.e., Christians and Jews) are in opposition of this version of submission to God.

The Prophet Muhammad (S) and his followers are followers of the Islām which was brought by him.

The People of the Scripture are being asked to submit to God through Prophet Muhammad (S) even though they already are followers of Prophets Mūsā (as) and `Isā (as).

The same message is given to the idol-worshippers of Mecca.

If the People of the Scripture do not submit (as Prophet Muhammad (S) and his followers have submitted), then they are not “rightly guided”.

So the term al-Islām, in this verse, refers to “submission to God” through His final message brought by Prophet Muhammad (S) and not through previous prophets.

“Islām” in the Qur’ān [3:83-85]

Another passage from the same chapter is also relevant for understanding the meaning of “Islām”:

أَفَغَيْرَ دِينِ اللٌّهِ يَبْغُونَ وَلَهُ أَسْلَمَ مَنْ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ طَوْعاً وَكَرْهاً وَإِلَـيْهِ يُرْجَعُونَ

“Is it then other than Allāh’s religion that they seek while to Him submits whoever is in the heavens and the Earth, willingly or unwillingly, and to Him shall they be returned?”

قُلْ آمَنَّا بِاللٌّهِ وَمَا أُنْزِلَ عَلَيْنَا وَمَا أُنْـزِلَ عَلَى إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْمَاعِيلَ وَإِسْحَاقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ وَالأَسْبَاطِ وَمَا أُوتِيَ مُوسَى وَعِيسَى وَالنَّبِيُّونَ مِنْ رَبِّهِمْ لاَ نُفَرِِّقُ بَيْنَ أَحَدٍ مِنْهُمْ وَنَحْنُ لَهُ مُسْلِمُونَ

“Say: “We believe in Allāh, and what has been revealed to us, and what was revealed to Ibrāhīm, Ismā’īl, Ishāq, Ya`qūb, and the Tribes; and what was given to Mūsā and `Isā and to the prophets from their Lord. We do not make any distinction between (the claim of) any of them, and to Him do we submit.”

وَمَنْ يَبْتَغِ غَيْرَ الإِسْلاَمِ دِيناً فَلَنْ يُقْبَلَ مِنْهُ وَهُوَ فِي الآخِرَةِ مِنَ الْخَاسِرِينَ

“And whoever desires a religion other than Islām, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.”

This passage clearly explains basic beliefs of Allāh’s religion:

Among those basic beliefs is the requirement to believe in “what has been revealed to us” (i.e., the Qur’ān that has been revealed to Muslims).

“Islām – submission” only follows when one accepts all the prophets and does not differentiate in the truth of any one of them, including Prophet Muhammad (S).

“Islām” and “Imān “in the Qur’ān [2:135-137]

The following passage in Chapter Two of the Qur’ān further clarifies the meaning of “islām–submission” as well as “imān–belief”:

وَقَالُوا كُونُوا هُوداً أَوْ نَصَارَى تَهْتَدُوا

“And they say: “Be Jew or Christian and you will be guided aright.”

قُلْ بَلْ مِلَّةَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ حَنِيفاً وَمَا كَانَ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ

“Say: “Nay! (we follow) the religion of Ibrāhīm, the sincere, and he was not one of the polytheists.”

قُولُوا آمَنَّا بِاللٌّهِ وَمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْنَا وَمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَى إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْمَاعِيلَ وَإِسْحَاقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ وَالأَسْبَاطِ وَمَا أُوتِيَ مُوسَى وَعِيسَى وَمَا أُوتِيَ النَّبِيُّونَ مِنْ رَبِّهِمْ لاَ نُفَرِّقُ بَيْنَ أَحَدٍ مِنْهُمْ وَنَحْنُ لَهُ مُسْلِمُونَ

“Say: “We believe in Allāh, and what has been revealed to us, and what was revealed to Ibrāhīm, Ismā’īl, Ishāq, Ya`qūb, and the Tribes; and what was given to Mūsā and `Isā and to the prophets from their Lord. We do not make any distinction between (the claim of) any of them, and to Him do we submit.”

فَإِنْ آمَنُوا بِمِثْلِ مَا آمَنتُمْ بِهِ فَقَدْ اهْـتَدَوا وَإِنْ تَوَلَّوْا فَإِنَّمَا هُمْ فِي شِقَاقٍ فَسَيَكْفِيكَهُمْ اللٌّهُ وَهُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ

“If they (i.e., the Jews and the Christians) then believe as you believe, then they are rightly guided; but if they refuse, then they are only in great opposition; and Allāh will suffice you against them. He is the Hearing, the Knowing.”

These two verses clearly define the “imān - faith and belief” of the Muslims as opposed to that of the Jews and the Christians. Central to the imān of the Muslims is belief in the revelation of all the prophets, including the revelation to the Prophet Muhammad (S). They clearly say that if the Jews and the Christians “believe as you believe,” only then will they be rightly guided.

Sūratul Baqarah (2), Verse 285 also confirms this meaning of “imān”:

آمَنَ الرَّسُولُ بِمَا أُنْـزِلَ إِلَيْهِ مِنْ رَبِّهِ وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ كُلٌّ آمَنَ بِاللٌّهِ وَمَلاَئِكَتِهِ وَكُتُبِهِ وَرُسُلِهِ لاَ نُفَرِّقُ بَيْنَ أَحَدٍ مِنْ رُسُلِهِ

“The Messenger (i.e., Muhammad) has believed in whatever that has been revealed to him from his Lord; and the believers all believe in Allāh, His Angels, His books, and His messengers. (And they say:) “We do not differentiate between (the claim of) any one of His messengers.”

A note on “we do not differentiate between any one of the messengers” or “we do not make any distinction between any one of them”: it does not mean that all the prophets and messengers of Allāh (S) are of the same rank and status.

We have already mentioned that there are five prophets who rank highest in the spiritual hierarchy. Rather, this means that we do not make any distinction in the truth of any of the prophets; all are equally true in their claim.

This is unlike the Jews who accept all the prophets but reject `Isā (as) and Muhammad (S) or the Christians who accept all the prophets but reject Muhammad (S).

Prophet Muhammad (S) and Religious Pluralism

Those Muslim intellectuals who preach about religious pluralism in Islām seem to be oblivious of some historical facts of Islāmic history and the Prophet’s life.

If Judaism and Christianity are concurrently valid paths of submission to God, then why did the Prophet Muhammad (S) work so hard to convey his message even to the Jews and the Christians? If they were already on the Right Path (Ŝirat Mustaqīm), then why did the Prophet (S) feel it important to invite them to Islām?

After the peace treaty of Hudaybiyya in 6 A.H., the Prophet of Islām (S) sent emissaries to various rulers and tribes around and beyond the Arabian Peninsula with a distinct purpose of inviting them to Islām. According to historians, around 25 letters were sent by the Prophet (S) to various rulers and tribes.15

Among those who were sent to the Christian rulers and tribes, we see the following names: Dihyah al-Kalbī sent to Heraclius, the Emperor of Byzantine; `Amr bin Umayyah Zamrī to the Negus, the King of Abyssinia; Hāťib bin Abī Baltā‘a sent to the Muqawqis, the King of Egypt; and the tribes of Ghassan and Ĥanīfah (in northern Arabia). Three letters are important and relevant to our discussion.

In his letter to Heraclius, the Byzantine Emperor, the Prophet Muhammad (S) wrote:

“… Peace be upon him who follows the guidance.

I invite you to accept Islām. Accept Islām and you will prosper and Allāh will give you double rewards. But if you refuse, then the sin of your people also will fall upon your shoulders.

O’ People of the Scripture, come to the word common between us and you that we shall not worship anything but Allāh, and that we shall not associate anything with Him, nor shall some of us take others for lords besides Allāh. But if you turn back, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims.”

In the letter to the Negus, the King of Abyssinia, the Prophet Muhammad (S) wrote:

“… Peace be upon him who follows the guidance.

Praise be to Allāh besides whom there is no other god, the Sovereign, the Holy One, the Preserver of Peace, the Keeper of the Faithful, the Guardian.

I bear witness that Jesus, son of Mary, is indeed a spirit of God and His word, which He conveyed unto the chaste Mary. He created Jesus through His word just as He created Ādam with His hands.

And now I call you to Allāh who is One and has no partner, and to friendship in His obedience. Follow me and believe in what has been revealed to me, for I am the Messenger of Allāh. I invite you and your people to Allāh, the Mighty, the Glorious.

I have conveyed the message, and it is up to you to accept it.

Once again, peace be upon him who follows the path of guidance.”

In the letter sent to the Muqawqis, the King of Egypt and a Coptic Christian, the Prophet Muhammad (S) wrote:

“…Peace be upon him who follows the guidance.

I invite you to accept the message of Islām. Accept it and you shall prosper. But if you turn away, then upon you shall also fall the sin of the Copts.

O’ People of the Scripture, come to a word common between us and you that we shall worship none but Allāh and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him and that none of us shall regard anyone as lord besides God.

And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims.”16

Even the arrival of the delegation from Christian Najranis and how the Prophet (S) invited them to Islām and, finally, the mubāhala with them is in the same spirit of inviting the Ahlul Kitāb to Islām.

All these letters and the meeting with Najranis prove beyond any doubt that if the Ahlul Kitāb (the People of the Scripture) were on Ŝirāt mustaqīm - on the right path that leads to salvation - then the Prophet (S) would not have invited them to Islām.

Important Caution

At the conclusion of this introduction, I would like to reiterate the caution that believing in Islām as the only valid path of submission to God does not automatically and necessarily lead to the belief that all non-Muslims will go to hell.

Neither does this exclusivist view of Islām as the only sirāt mustaqīm prevent us from promoting tolerance and peaceful co-existence among the followers of various religions, especially the Jews and the Christians.

While talking about polytheist parents, Almighty Allāh says:

وَإِنْ جَاهَدَاكَ عَلى أَنْ تُشْرِكَ بِي مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهِ عِلْمٌ فَلاَ تُطِعْهُمَا وَصَاحِبْهُمَا فِي الدُّنْيَا مَعْرُوفًا

“And if they insist on you to associate with Me (someone as on object of worship) of what you have no knowledge, then do not obey them, however interact with them in this world kindly …”17

Thus, a Muslim has to resist the un-Islāmic influence of non-Muslims, but still be kind to them. In other words, although your paths in the hereafter will be separate, that does not prevent you from being kind, merciful, and just to non-Muslims in this world.

Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi

Toronto, Ontario

May 13th, 2004 / 23th of Rabīul Awwal 1425 AH

Notes

1. Al-Qur'ān, Sūratul Baqarah (2), Verse 253; Al-Qur'ān, Sūrat Banī Isrā'īl (17), Verse 55

2. Al-Qur'ān, Sūratul Ahzāb (33), Verse 7; also see Al-Qur'ān, Sūratul Shūra (42), Verse 13:

شَرَعَ لَكُمْ مِنَ الدِّينِ مَا وَصَّى بِهِ نُوحًا وَالَّذِي أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ وَمَا وَصَّيْنَا بِهِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَمُوسَى وَعِيسَى ..

“He has made plain to you the religion that He enjoined upon Nūh, and that which We have revealed to you, and that We have enjoined upon Ibrāhīm, Mūsā, and `Isā…”

3. Al-Qur'ān, Sūrat Āli Imrān (3), Verse 84

4. It took the Catholic Church almost two thousand years to recognize the non-Christians including the Muslims. The Second Vatican Council declared in 1964 that “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his church, but who seek God with a sincere heart, and moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience–those too may achieve eternal salvation.” Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents (Wilmington, Delaware: Scholarly Resources, 1975) p. 367.

5. Imām `Alī Zaīnul `Ābidīn, Risālatul Huqūq, tr. SSA Rizvi (Vancouver: VIEF, 1989) p. 36.

6. Ira Lapidus writes: “The Ottomans, like previous Muslim regimes, considered the non-Muslim subjects autonomous but dependent peoples whose internal social, religious, and communal life was regulated by their own religious organizations, but their leaders were appointed by, and responsible to, a Muslim state.” A History of Islāmic Societies (NY: Cambridge University Press, 1990) p. 323. Also see Marshall Hodgson, The Venture of Islām, vol. 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974) p. 306.

7. Hick, God and the Universe of Faith (London: Macmillan, 1977) p. 140.

8. Hick, An Interpretation of Religion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989) p. 364-365.

9. John Hick, An Interpretation of Religion, p. 241. In other words, we cannot really know God; what we know is our perception of Him. Muslim philosophers do not accept Kant’s theory. For more on the theory of knowledge from the Islāmic perspective in English, see Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Tabā'tabā'ī, The Elements of Islāmic Metaphysic, tr. S.A.Q. Qarā’i (London: ICAS Press, 2003) p. 115-132 and also Part One of S.M. Bāqir as-Sadr, Our Philosophy, tr. Shams C. Inati (London: Muĥammadi Trust, 1987).

10. The Essential Rumi, translated by C. Barks (New Jersey: Castle Books, 1997) p. 525.

11. Al-Qur'ān, Sūratul Baqarah (2), Verse 257

12. See the discussion in this book. Āyatullāh Muťahharī’s comment that “the reality of submission has a particular form in each age” is also key to the proper understanding of Sūratul Baqarah (2), Verse 62.

13. Al-Qur'ān, Sūrat Āli Imrān (3), Verse 19

14. Al-Qur'ān, Sūrat Āli Imrān (3), Verse 19-20

15. Muhammad Ibrāhīm Āyatī, Tārīkh-e Payghambar-e Islām (Tehran: Tehran University Press, n.d.) p. 480-482.

16. Ibid, p. 483- 494.

17. Al-Qur'ān, Sūrat Luqmān (31), Verse 15

Critical Juncture In The Life Of Mankind

Days Of Separation

The days of separation are distinct occasions in history that classify people into two or more groups. The place of these occasions in history is similar to that of crossroads which people come across during their journeys. Roads and highways bring together the travelers till they reach the crossroads where they split into two, three or more groups. In the same way, days of difficulty separate people who were together during days of ease and comfort.

The holy Qur'an named the day of Badr the Day of Separation1 because the people who were hitherto living together in Mecca during peace time were divided into two belligerent parties on that day.

It is not always possible for a person to live a life of civility and pleasant social intercourse with all the people, for God Most High has assigned, in the course of history and the life of mankind, days on which they have to make a resolution concerning what they say or do. They have to take a decision on war or peace; whether to continue their relationships or sever them; whether they will turn towards God or away from Him. These days are the days of separation.

Ashura Is Among The Days Of Separation

The day of Ashura was a day of separation in Islamic history. It divided the people who were living together during peace time into two different groups: one group stood with Husayn (as) and fought the Umayyads, while the other supported the Umayyads and fought Husayn (as). On that day, the people had no choice but to select and decide on which side they would fight, and, there was no other option. This is the feature which distinguishes the days of separation: it forces the people to choose the party to which they will give their loyalty and repudiate the other.

People are unequal in terms of strength and weakness, courage and timidity, faith and hypocrisy, generosity and niggardliness, and loyalty and repudiation, but these differences do not appear clearly in time of peace and comfort. They meet in the markets, the mosques and other gatherings with nothing to distinguish one from the other and without knowing one another. Sometimes one does not know even oneself! When the days of separation come the people can be distinguished as they differ from one another, for a man’s true worth is known only in a moment of crisis: thus, one's nature which was unknown before, is now revealed to others and, sometimes, even to himself.

The day of Ashura was one such day. It divided the people into three groups. One was seduced by the world so they succumbed to their vain desires and were destroyed. Another group freed themselves from the grip of their desires and managed to weather the test, albeit with great effort and suffering. All the same, they were able to land safely and meet God at the end. A third group hastened to meet their Lord unencumbered by other considerations and without any difficulty, suffering or indecision. They separated themselves from the object of trial as a hair comes out of sour milk.

These three conditions with regard to turning towards or away from God are found at all times and places, although people are not usually differentiated from one another. It is the days of separation that differentiate people.

Now let us ponder upon these three classes of people that the day of Ashura unveiled.

First class

This is the group that failed the test. On analysis we find that:

(i) This class of people did not like to be consumed by tribulation in the initial stage, nor reject the truth, nor disregard God. In fact, they loved God and pursued the truth, as this is something that is implanted by God Most High in the very nature of every human being.

(ii) They desired that God should bestow upon them the good of this world and the next, so that they may enjoy both. This desire is part of the innate nature of mankind and forms part of our psychological reality.

(iii) The drive towards this world was stronger in the minds of these people than the drive towards God, but they were not cognizant of this fact before they reached the crossroads (the point of separation). Others were also not aware of this trait that was found in this group till they also reached the point of separation. The point of separation disgraced them before others and acquainted them with their own reality.

Second class

This group reached the point of safety although with much difficulty. Analysis shows that:

(i) This group desired to enjoy the world and its pleasures and did not hold any aversion to worldly pleasures as relished by all people.

(ii)They hoped that God would give them this world and the next, and save them from any predicament in which they would have to choose one of the two. They hoped that they would always live in peace and keep both their religion and their worldly benefits, so that they might carry out their duties toward God Most High the way He wanted and also enjoy worldly pleasures to their fill.

(iii)They wished that their worldly inclination should not control or rob them of their ability to choose and take decisions. Therefore they wanted to possess a sound conscience that was free to make resolutions despite the fact that they were taking part in worldly matters like the rest of the people and enjoying the world like them.

(iv)They retained the freedom to decide by the time they reached the point of separation, where it became mandatory to select one of the two ways: God or the world. So they disassociated themselves from this world and turned towards the next world, from falsehood towards the truth, from selfish interest and the opponents of God (taghut ) towards God, although with difficulty and much effort, for they were disentangling themselves from the grip of the world.

This is the nature of taking a difficult decision in life. There are two forms of decision making: a difficult one and a simple one. The resolution taken by the people in this class at the point of separation was among the

most difficult things. Nevertheless, they finally succeed in extricating themselves from the grip of the world and move towards God, whatever the cost.

The book of God gives us a picture of this class of people. It is about the companions of the Messenger of God (S) who fought at Badr. These people are still cited as examples of faith, perseverance, loyalty and sacrifice. However, what the holy Qur'an portrays of their excruciating traumatic experience when they attacked their enemies from the polytheists of Quraysh calls for pondering. The Most High Says:"they were being driven towards death as they looked on." 2

Just as a person extricates himself from the world when he is marched to his death, seeing it before his eyes, those righteous ones from among the companions of the Messenger of God disentangled themselves from the world at Badr.

Despite this, they did not hesitate to answer the call of the Messenger of God (S). They came forward, fought and were killed, thus attaining martyrdom. May God be pleased with them and raise them to a high station in paradise with the prophets, the messengers and the righteous. Excellent indeed are those companions!

(v) These people were supported by God as a result of the effort they made in saving themselves from the control of worldly desires. God bestowed on them two important things: He gave them discernment, light and guidance so that they did not deviate from the path and go astray, and, He gave them strength and support so that they did not flag while trying to accomplish the uphill task that is associated with the difficult road.

One does not need more than these two things in his or her actions in order to make the journey towards God. God Most High has assured both to any of His servants who strive in his way. He says:"As for those who strive towards us, we shall surely guide them in our ways, and God is indeed with the virtuous". 3

First comes guidance, which is light and insight, then comes God's support for his servants. When God sees sincerity of purpose in His servant, He bestows His support on him and makes this difficult journey easy for him.

Third class

This group rushes to meet God with great ease. Its members leave the world and its attendant tribulations without difficulty as though they had never entered it, so that the need to exit from it is does not exist. Such people mingle with the people and do not live differently from them. They go along with the people in the markets and other public places but their hearts never get attached to the world.

We shall mention two examples of this group from the young men of the Hashimite clan who were present at Karbala. They are Ali al-Akbar and al-Qasim ibn Hasan (as). These two lads did not hesitate to respond to the call of God, His messenger and his friends - the Imams (as); the love for this world had never entered their hearts; they did not combine worldly gain and religion as the people did; and therefore, they did not face any difficulty at the point of separation.

These people answered the call of Husayn (as) easily and hurried towards God, the way we hurry towards a thing we long for; without hesitation, without having to think, without any difficulty.

Perhaps the period of youth is the best time to prepare for such situations as the mind is not weighed down by anything. Young minds are fresh and not attached to the world. Therefore it is easy for young people to discard worldly things. The more one deals with the world the stronger grows one’s attachment to it.

This is the stage of life in which the Qur'an quickly blends with the hearts and minds of the youth who dedicate themselves to it. It is reported on the authority of Imam Sadiq (as) that: "If a person studies the Qur'an during his youth, it blends with his flesh and blood."4

The Messenger of God (S) is reported to have said: "Seven classes of people will be admitted into the shade by God on the day when there will be no shade apart from His. [They are:] a just ruler, a young person who grows up in the worship of God…"5 He is also reported to have said: "Nothing is more loved by God than a repentant youth."6

From the above we have seen three types of people who were present on the day of Ashura. Below we shall analyse these groups and compare them. First we shall compare the first class with the second. These two people are Umar ibn Sa'ad and al-Hurr ibn Yazid al-Riyahi, may God have mercy on him. Then we will compare the second and third classes. They are al-Hurr ibn Yazid al-Riyahi and Zuhayr ibn al-Qayn, may God have mercy on them.

Comparison Between The First And Second Class

Here we shall consider Umar ibn Sa'ad, who was from the first group and al-Hur ibn Yazid may God have mercy on him, who was from the second group.Both of them were heroes of their camps. The first was from the camp of Husayn (as), while the second was from that of the Umayyads. An amazing similarity existed between the two, and it calls for study, reflection and analysis.

(i) They were both renowned and distinguished generals of the Umayyad army and chiefs of their clans so they had strong worldly tendencies; they wanted comfort, respect and position.

(ii) Each of them wanted worldly gains as well as religion. But this was before they came face to face with the point of separation, which separates religious aspirations from worldly ones, where one has to pick one option and take a decision.

(iii) Both of them were trying to escape the point of separation so that they would not have to select either the world or their religion.

Below are two episodes about how the two men tried to escape the point of separation.

The Story Of How Umar Ibn Sa'ad Tried To Escape Fighting Husayn (As)

Al-Tabari has reported the story of Umar ibn Sa'ad when ibn Ziyad ordered him to march towards Husayn (as).On that day Umar ibn Sa'ad was camping at Hammam A'yan at the head of four thousand men, in preparation

to move to Dustabi7 and Daylam. Ibn Ziyad ordered him to postpone the journey to Dastabi and Daylam and move on to fight Husayn (as).

Ibn Sa'ad requested exemption from this duty. This was the first attempt on his part to avoid the point of separation. When ibn Ziyad threatened that he would take back the document in which he had appointed Ibn Sa'ad as governor of Rayy, the latter applied for a night's respite to think over the issue.8

It should be noted that in his first attempt to avoid the point of separation, Ibn Sa'ad shied away from giving a decisive answer when Ibn Ziyad threatened to revoke his governorship. He could have returned Ibn Ziyad's commission and freed himself from this deadly sin which Ibn Ziyad wanted him to commit. He should have confronted Ibn Ziyad's threat with equal decisiveness. However, Ibn Sa'ad did nothing of that sort; what he did was request a night's respite in order to think and decide!!!

This is the first sign of irresoluteness which Ibn Ziyad promptly took note of. He saw the point of weakness in the personality of the man he intended to send against Husayn (as). In the night, Umar ibn Sa'ad consulted his friends and counselors who strongly warned him against fighting Husayn (as). His nephew Hamzah ibn al-Mughira ibn Shu'bah said to Umar ibn Sa'ad: I adjure you by God, do not set out to fight Husayn (as) lest you sever your kinship ties, and sin against your Lord. I swear by God that it is better for you to relinquish your worldly possessions, your wealth and the power over the whole earth – if it were your own – than to meet God with the guilt of Husayn (as)'s blood on you." "I will do (as you say), by the will of God", replied Ibn Sa'ad.9

The next day, Umar ibn Sa'ad went to Ibn Ziyad and said "You have commissioned me for this work (i.e the governorship of Dastabi and Daylam) and the people have already heard about it. Please implement it and dispatch to Husayn (as) someone who is abler than I am at war.' And he proposed some Kufan nobles. This was Umar ibn Sa'ad's second attempt to escape from the point of separation.

However, since Ibn Ziyad had discovered this man's point of weakness, he despised him. When Ibn Sa'ad mentioned the names of some Kufan nobles that could be sent to fight Husayn (as), Ibn Ziyad reprimanded him saying: "I am not seeking your counsel on whom to send. Either you set out with our army or relinquish our commission."10

Thus, in both attempts, Umar ibn Sa'ad failed to avoid the point of separation. Had he succeeded he would have secured both his religion and his worldly interests. Despite this futile effort, Ibn Sa'ad found himself at the crossroads. Now let us leave Umar and look at al-Hurr (may God have mercy on him) at the point of separation.

The Story Of How Al-Hurr Tried To Escape Fighting Husayn (as)

Let us glance at al-Hurr ibn Yazid al-Riyahi (may God have mercy on him) in a similar situation, and see how this noble general of the Umayyad army attempted to avoid the point of separation and tried to free himself

from the ordeal of having to fight the leader of the youths of paradise without his losing anything of the world, and failed.

The historians record that al-Hurr met Husayn (as) at the station of Dhu Husam11 and requested the latter to accompany him to Ibn Ziyad in Kufa!!

Husayn (as) answered him: " Rather you will die before achieving that". Al-Hurr said: (Then) take a median road between us which will neither lead you to Kufa nor back to Medina, till I am able to write to Ibn Ziyad. Perhaps God may bring about my exemption and save me from your affair." Then he added: "I adjure you by God for your own sake [do not fight] for I am sure that if you do you will surely be killed."12

Al-Hurr was doing all he could so that God would save him from fighting Husayn (as) and committing the most abominable of all sins. To get an outlet, Hur suggested to Husayn (as) to act in a way that would spare him any encounter with the Imam.

If al-Hurr was sincere in this effort then so far he found it difficult to forfeit his worldly position.

(iv)Despite their efforts, both Hurr and Ibn Sa'ad would have to meet the point of separation from which they were running away. It would face them when they would have no option but to choose either this world or the next, with no possibility of having both. This is the point at which one of the men would differ from the other: Umar ibn Sa'ad was irresolute and could not take the brave decision. He answered Ibn Ziyad's request and marched with the army to fight Husayn (as) thereby incurring blame in this world and a mortal sin [to be punished] in the hereafter.

On the other hand, Hurr was able to take the difficult decision at the eleventh hour, save his hereafter and attain honour in both worlds. However, Hurr lost the governorship which Umar ibn Sa'ad coveted.

Let us see how each of these two men behaved at the point of separation.

A Return To Umar Ibn Saad At The Point Of Separation

History reports that at the point of separation Umar ibn Sa'ad spent a whole night in great anxiety and that was after Ibn Ziyad had threatened to revoke his appointment as governor of Rayy. It is reported that Ibn Sa'ad repeated the following two verses all night:

‘Should I forgo the rule over Rayy, the object of my desire or return to God with the blood of Husayn on my hands?

His killing will lead me to hell for sure, but to rule over Ray is my desire.’

These two verses portray the extent of this man's anguish and how his conscience was tormented. But at the end of the day he could not take the bold decision, rather, he succumbed to the temptation of exercising authority over Rayy. So his resolve flagged and in this way he welcomed the torment of inevitable hellfire in order to get that position. His resistance crumbled and he complied with Ibn Ziyad's request.

However, Hurr's situation at the point of separation was different. He found himself in a condition in which he had to choose between paradise and Hell. He knew that if he chose paradise his worldly position would be completely lost. But he must choose! So he chose paradise, thereby

choosing God's pleasure in preference to this world; and he paid the price with his life for it and prospered.

Al-Muhajir ibn Aws said: “On the day of Ashura I saw al-Hurr affected by a sort of tremble. I said to him: Your condition is really amazing. By God, I have never seen such a thing in you before, and if I were asked who the bravest of the Kufans was, I would have said it was you. What then am I seeing in you?”

Al-Hurr replied; "I swear by God, I am selecting one of two things: paradise and hell. By God I will never prefer anything over paradise even if I am to be chopped up and burnt!"13

However, one thing remains clear; this decision of al-Hurr was indeed a very difficult one, hence the shiver, which was a sign of the great effort needed for it.

Comparison Between The Second And Third Class

Now let us compare the second class with the third. This comparison will be more difficult than the previous one. Nevertheless, it is indispensable if our study is to be complete.

(i) Both the two groups succeeded in weathering the trial at the point of separation; they moved towards God; they preferred to meet God rather than covet what the people possessed; they took this decision at the most difficult moment of the point of separation. In fact, a decision is needed when one finds himself at crossroads at difficult moments. Thus these two classes of people possessed the ingredients for taking this decision, so they eventually passed the test safely and arrived in the presence of God. Thus far, the two groups are similar to one another, and this is the most important point here.

(ii) However, the second group passes through this tough part of the process with much difficulty while the third group does so quite easily. Although the two take the same decision, they differ from one another in their way of taking it. Ali Akbar (as) heard his father say: ‘We are from God and to Him we are returning’ as he rode on his horse. Ali Akbar said to him: "May God never make you see any evil, father! Why did you pronounce the return formula?”

"My son" replied Husayn, "I dozed off and saw a rider who said: ‘The people are moving and their death is moving with them.’ So I realized that we were being informed of our imminent death."

Then Ali Akbar added: "Father! Are we not with the truth?"

"Surely, I swear by the One to whom the bondsmen return", replied Husayn (as).

Then Ali ibn Husayn (as) said calmly: "Then we should welcome death as those on the right path."14 Ali ibn Husayn did not encounter any difficulty in accepting this tough reality.

On the night before the tenth of Muharram, al-Qasim ibn al-Hasan (as) who was only an adolescent, asked his uncle, Husayn (as) about his martyrdom on the following day. The latter had informed his companions about getting martyred on the day of Ashura. Husayn said to him: "How do you consider death?" 'Sweeter than honey, Uncle!", al-Qasim replied.

On hearing that, Husayn gave him the good tidings of martyrdom on the day of Ashura.

How different the resolutions of Ali al-Akbar and al-Qasim (as) are from that of al-Hurr ibn Yazid al-Riyahi (may God have mercy on him)! Worldly matters had not entered the hearts of al-Qasim and Ali ibn Husayn at all, nor were their hearts attached to the world for them to find it difficult to extricate themselves from it. On the other hand Hurr's case was different, for he was taken by a shiver when he resolved to join Husayn in meeting God.

The two groups share the quality of moving to meet God although each in its own different way. Now which one of the two ways is better in the sight of God? I do not know. And I don't want to enter into a discussion on it. Each of them will meet God with a set of deeds different from that of the other. Hurr's deeds comprised of great effort and difficulty which he suffered and these are presentations which are loved by God Almighty…. The more the effort and difficulty a particular work involves, the more the person who carries out the work earns the love and pleasure of God Most High. It has been reported that, "The best work is that which involves the most trouble."

The two Hashimite youths, Ali ibn Husayn and al-Qasim ibn al-Hasan (as) would meet God with hearts that did not get attached to the world at all. This is another deed which is loved by God Most High. He says"The day when neither wealth nor children will avail, except him who comes to God with a sound heart." 15 Likewise, God loves that person who takes the trouble to walk along the difficult path. So, both groups meet God with deeds that are liked by Him: effort, striving with difficulty, and a pure heart that is unattached to the world.

(iii) Why does their meeting with God take different forms? Surely a believer has the right to enjoy the good things of this world and he should not forbid himself what God has made lawful to him.

These two principles are fundamental in the law of God. The first one is indicated by the following verse,‘O you who have faith! Eat of the good things we have provided you, and thank God…’ 16 and the second one the following verse:‘O you who have faith! Do not prohibit the good things that God has made lawful to you…’ 17

However a third principle obtains which is no less important than the first two. One should not take from the world, even the good part which is made lawful by God, if it distracts him from His remembrance and lures him towards worldly things, because when one is pleased with the world and takes much of it he easily gets attached to it.

It is because of this that the Messenger of God (S) and the pious servants of God used to strive not to get involved in the good things of this life. It is related that someone gave the Messenger of God (S) sweet candy as a gift but he refused to partake of it. The man said: ‘Do you consider it unlawful?' 'No, however, I would dislike craving for it’, he replied. Then he recited:"You have exhausted your good things in the life of the world" 18 19

This is a fact. When one indulges oneself in the good things of life he craves for them and it takes hold of his heart. Thus the control exercised by the world on the hearts of the righteous is commensurate with their share of worldly things.

It is related that the Commander of the Faithful (as) said: "Whatever you miss of the world is booty (for you)."

God Most High did not prohibit His servants from enjoying good provisions if they came from a lawful source. However, indulging in them leads to a gradual attachment to the world.

As far as the religion of God is concerned, one is not barred from enjoying the good things of life if he can save himself from falling at the zero hour. But how can one assure oneself of escaping the fall when the hour comes, for indeed, the world has brought down many people like him before? It is a risky game in which the player doesn't perform well sometimes and there is no guarantee that he will succeed.

Secondly, attachment to the world leaves irresistible effects on the heart that distract one from the remembrance of God. They deprive the mind of clarity and transparency and turn mental dimensions into a murky lot, even when a person is able to overcome his desires and succeed in taking the correct decision at zero hour. This is the difference between the second and third classes.

To cite an application of the comparison of the second and third classes we shall cite the stand of al-Hurr ibn Yazid al-Riyahi (may God have mercy on him) and that of al-Qasim ibn al-Hasan (as) to depict the difficulty or ease of resolution. Both of them had decided to fight alongside Husayn (as), although al-Hurr took this decision after much trouble and effort, while al-Qasim ibn al-Hasan did so quite easily without any hesitation or delay.

On being asked by his uncle on the night before the tenth of Muharram how he considered death, al-Qasim answered: 'Sweeter than honey, Uncle'. He gave this answer in a relaxed mood without having to contemplate. This reply was similar to that of his grandfather, the Commander of the Faithful (as) when he was asked by the Messenger of God, may God bless him and his family,: 'How patient will you be in the face of martyrdom?' 'O Messenger of God!', he replied, 'Martyrdom is not a situation [that requires] patience, but one worthy of rejoicing and gratitude'.20

This mood of Ali (as) draws the line between the two ways of encountering martyrdom! Extricating oneself from the world with difficulty and dragging of the feet, and instantly freeing oneself from the world. The first one needs patience while the second comes with gratitude, and both, no doubt, are meritorious. Perseverance for martyrdom is meritorious and more so if crowned with gratitude. However, a person who welcomes martyrdom with gratitude, treating it like any other blessing of God, will not find any difficulty in taking a decision. For how can one experience difficulty in deciding to receive a blessing from God? But he who considers martyrdom a trial from God needs much patience and effort in order to pass the test… Both are meritorious.

It is hard to prefer one over the other and distinguish which one is more esteemed before God, but one fact stands clear: The person who takes the second stand is more secure from the danger of falling than the one who takes the first. And, no doubt, this is a big distinction.

Another Comparison Between Al-Hurr And Zuhayr

There was great similarity between the two men. Both were chiefs of their people. Al-Hurr was a general of the Umayyad army while Zuhayr was a partisan of the Umayyads (an Uthmani), as related in historical reports.

Both of them were avoiding Husayn (as). The reason for Zuhayr's attitude towards Husayn was an opinion based on a misunderstanding and not due to worldly desires. As soon as the truth dawned on him and his mistake became clear to him he did not hesitate at all to change the course of his life. This change was surely a complete transformation.

Let us analyse Zuhayr’s transformation as related by al-Tabari from Abu Mikhnaf.

Al-Tabari relates on the authority of Abu Mikhnaf, who said: "Al-Suddi told me, on the authority of a man from the tribe of Fazarah, who said: When it was the time of al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, we were hiding in the house of al-Harith ibn Abi Rabi'ah … I said to the Fazari man: Tell me about your situation when you returned (from Mecca) together with Husayn ibn Ali (as). He said: When we left Mecca we were with Zuhayr ibn al-Qayn al-Bajali moving alongside Husayn (as) Nothing was more hateful to us than moving near him so when Husayn moved on Zuhayr ibn al-Qayn lagged behind, and when Husayn (as) camped Zuhayr continued his journey until we halted one day at a station where there was no other way for us but to camp near him. Husayn (as) camped on one side [of the road] and we camped on the other. As we were having our meal Husayn's messenger approached, greeted us and entered.

Then he said: 'O, Zuhayr ibn al-Qayn! Abu Abdillah Husayn ibn Ali (as) has sent me to summon you to him.' He said: Every one of us threw away what was in his hands and lost his voice as though there where birds sitting on our heads. Then Dulham bint 'Amr, the wife of Zuhayr ibn al-Qayn informed me, saying: 'I said to him: 'Did the son of the daughter of the Messenger of God send for you and you refuse to meet him? Glory be to God! Why don't you meet him and listen to what he has to say, and then come back?' So Zuhayr ibn al-Qayn went and after a short while came back his face shining with joy. Then he ordered that his tent, luggage and provisions be taken to Husayn (as), and it was done. Then he said to his wife: 'You are divorced. Rejoin your family for I don't want anything to befall you on my account except good.’ Then he said to his companions: ‘He who wants to follow me [can do so] otherwise I bid you farewell!’ ”21

In this report we find four successive situations pertaining to Zuhayr.

Aversion And Inaction

First, a strong aversion and inaction with regard to meeting Husayn (as) to the extent that he did everything not to halt at the same watering place with Husayn (as).This aversion was caused by a great misunderstanding and wrong evaluation of things, and not by deviation tendencies.

Shock And Hesitation

Then followed a strong mental shock.When Husayn's (as) messenger brought Zuhayr the message that the Imam wished to see him, Zuhayr and his companions were at a loss till his brave and pious wife Dulham (may God have mercy on her) took the initiative and diffused his terrible

hesitation by asking him to respond to the summons of the son of the Messenger of God (S).

Willingness To Meet Husayn (As)

Thirdly, indecisiveness left Zuhayr and he went with the messenger to meet Husayn (as) and speak to him.

Response And Acceptance

And lastly, a quick receptiveness followed and Zuhayr firmly resolved to respond to Husayn(as)'s call fully, without further hesitation or difficulty.

We do not know what Husayn (as) told Zuhayr, we do not know what Zuhayr heard from Husayn (as). We do not know what Husayn (as) could have told Zuhayr in such a short time, for Zuhayr did not stay long with Husayn (as). The report says 'soon he came back rejoicing…' and this shows that the meeting of Zuhayr with Husayn (as) did not take long before the former transferred his Umayyad partisanship to the Alids. It was a swift response to Husayn(as)'s invitation. He did not hesitate at all nor drag his feet before responding to Husayn (as).

This response of Zuhayr has two elements:

(i) A strong resolve which Zuhayr would never give up at any cost. He even said to his wife to whom he was indebted for this transformation: 'You are divorced' and to his companions: ‘Pull down my tent and carry my luggage to Husayn’s (as) campside.’

(ii) The speed and ease in taking his decision, with no effort or reluctance ‘After a while he came back rejoicing’.

Analysis Of Al-Hurr's Unusual Stand

(i) Al-Hurr knew the Imam's position very well and prayed behind him. When the Imam gave him the option of praying behind him or leading his companions in prayer while the Imam prayed with his own, al-Hurr said: ‘You pray and we pray behind you'. When the Imam said to him, 'May your mother grieve over your death!' it was hard for him to bear, but he only answered: ‘I swear by God that if any other man from the Arabs mentioned my mother in this way I would have mentioned his mother the same way, whoever he might have been. But there is no way I can mention your mother except in the best possible terms.’

(ii) Ibn Ziyad ordered him to bring the Imam (as) to Kufa under escort but the latter strongly refused. So Hurr tried to free himself of the responsibility he was charged with and not be involved in Husayn (as)'s affair. Hurr hoped that God would save him from getting involved in anything to do with that. He said to the Imam 'Take the road between me and you, one that will neither take you to Kufa nor back to Medina.'

(iii) However, throughout these events Hurr was trying to keep his position in the Ummayad army. He did not want to give up the command of the army that was assigned to him by Ibn Ziyad. His clinging to the world and its positions did not rob him of treating the Imam with courtesy, nor did his courtesy stamp out his love for the world.

(iv)Despite all efforts to avoid the point of separation where he would have to pick one of the two things: this world or the next, where he could

not have both, it was the will of God to take Hurr to the destined point. That was on the tenth day of Muharram when he went to Umar ibn Sa'ad in Karbala and said to him: Are you [really] fighting this man?' Yes, I swear by God. [I will engage him in] a fight, the least part of which will send heads and hands flying’, he replied.

(v) At that point Hurr realized that he had no choice but to choose either this world or the next, and he could never have both. He would either prefer this world over the next or vice versa.

(vi)It became hard for him to decide and it was then that he began trembling. This is a condition above that of anxiety and confusion. Hurr found himself in a position in which he had to resolve relinquishing all his worldly acquisitions, a fact he had tried hard to avoid. Hitherto he had held on to those acquisitions as much as possible. We do not know of a fiercer contest inside the human mind. Hurr had experienced, at the zero hour of his life, a struggle between the world and the hereafter right inside himself which he had been running away throughout that period. He had been trying to reconcile the two but the will of God was above that of Hurr. He came face to face with the point of separation!

(vii) So Hurr took the inevitable decision and galloped his horse towards Husayn (as) to the utter surprise of his companions and the whole army. The commander of the army Umar ibn Sa'ad could not believe it when he saw al-Hurr going over to Husayn's side at this critical moment.

He now came to Husayn (as) with his head bowed in shame on account of how he had treated the Imam some days before on the way to Karbala. He approached saying: ‘Is there a chance to repent?’ 'If you return to God He will accept you', the Imam replied.

Hurr galloped his horse towards Husayn (as) as if he was running away from something that pursued him, something he feared. But Hurr was a brave man undaunted by anything. Why did he speed his horse towards Husayn? Who was pursuing him?

Hurr was afraid of himself, lest his base self-prevented him from going over to Husayn’s side by enticing him with the world. He wanted to put himself into a new reality from which he could not go back again. So he galloped quickly to join Husayn and put himself in a new reality, i.e. before Husayn (as), ashamed and apologizing, seeking his pardon so that God might accept his repentance.

May God have mercy on you O Hurr! You were a free man (hur) as your mother named you; you would not incline towards the allurements of the world.

May God have mercy on you, O Hurr! Your companions testified to your bravery on the battlefield and we testify that you were more valiant and strong in the battle with your self. We bear witness that the tough decision you took on that day which perplexed the army and its general was a feat that could hardly be accomplished by a joint effort of courageous men.

Surely God loved and preferred you in the company of Husayn (as), to fight and attain martyrdom by his side, while defending him. Congratulations on this great divine gift!

Conclusion

Before we close this discussion, I would like to take a final glance at the comparison between the second and third classes.

At the end, al-Hurr and Zuhayr (may God have mercy on them) met ‘in the abode of truthfulness with an omnipotent King;’22 they supported Husayn; they fought, were killed and attained martyrdom together; and they gained nearness to the Messenger of God (S) in paradise. The bitter troubles suffered by al-Hurr might not be less in value than the swift accepteance by Zuhayr. So what is the need of comparison and analysis?

It is true that in the final analysis both men attained their goal and there is no doubt about that, but many a man has fallen while taking the leap from the world to the hereafter and from ‘I’ to God, as the world overpowered him while he was trying to extricate himself from its clutches. A great number of people have lost the battle with the self. God Almighty declared the truth when He said:"Indeed man is at a loss, except those who have faith and do righteous deeds, and enjoin one another to [follow] the truth, and enjoin one another to patience.” 23

Surely, most people are at a loss and those who prosper are only a small group. Those are the people who enjoin one another to follow the truth and enjoin one another to patience, barring exceptional cases.

To be saved from the hazards of this road, which are many and dangerous, one should not give himself up to the world. This is the first necessary condition. The second is that one should not appropriate much from the world but only take from it as much as one needs. He who takes from the world will surely be taken by it unless he limits himself to his needs with modesty, in which case worldly enticements will not overpower him.

In his sermon describing the God-fearing, the Commander of the Faithful said “You will see him (the God-fearing person) modest in hopes, contented in mind; his food inelaborate, his affairs simple, his greed dead…”24

This doesn’t mean that one should prohibit himself the good things of life, rather one should be contented with the amount he needs so that the world will not overwhelm him and strip him of his will-power.

The Commander of the Faithful is teaching us how to treat our ‘selves’ if they prove obstinate with regard to obligations we dislike, and piety. We should punish them through the pleasures of this world, which they love. This is an excellent remedy for it trains the soul to accept cumbersome and arduous tasks of obligations and piety.

“If his soul is recalcitrant in matters it dislikes he will not give it what it wants.”25

Notes

1. - In Surah Al 'Imran, Verse 166, God most High says, concerning the day of Badr: "What befell you on the day when the two hosts met…"

2. - Qur'an Ch:8 vs: 6.

3. - Qur'an Ch: 30, Vs: 69.

4. - Wasa'il al-Shi'ah 2:141.

5. - Majma' al-Bayan 2: 385.

6. - Mishkat al-Anwar 155.

7. - In those days, this place was said to lie between Hamedan and Rayy, but we could not locate it on present-day maps.

8. - Tarikh al-Tabari 6: 232.

9. - Al-Muqarram's Maqtal al-Al-Husayn (a.s) pg. 214.

10. - Ibid, pg. 214 – 215.

11. - A hill where al-Nu'man ibn al-Mundhir used to go hunting.

12. - Sayyid Abd al-Razzaq-al-Muqarram's Maqtal al-Al-Husayn (a.s) 196.

13. - Sheikh Mufid's Al-Irshad pg: 235.

14. - Abu Mikhnaf said: "Uqbah ibn Sam'an said: When we left the castle of Banu Muqatil and moved on for some time al-Al-Husayn dozed off for a moment and then woke up saying 'We are from God and to him we are returning. Praise be to God, Lord of the worlds." He repeated this twice or thrice. Then Ali ibn al-Al-Husayn approached him riding his horse and said: 'We are from God and to him we are returning. Praise be to God, Lord of the worlds! Father! May I be your ransom. Why did you praise God and recited the return formula?

Al-Husayn (as) said: My son! I dozed off for a moment and saw a rider who was saying: "The people are moving along and death is moving towards them." So I realized that we are being given the news of our death.

He said to him: Father! May God never let you see evil – are we not in the right?

Al-Husayn (as) replied: "Surely, I swear by the One to whom the bondsmen return.

He said: Father! in that case we wouldn't mind to die as those in the right.

Then al-Al-Husayn said to him: May God reward you with the best of what he rewards a son for his obedience to his father!"

Tarikh al-Tabari 7: 307, the events of the year 61 (A.H.) (European edition).

15. - Qur'an Ch: 26, Vs: 88-89.

16. - Qur'an Ch: 2, Vs. 172.

17. - Qur'an Ch: 4, Vs. 78.

18. - Qur'an Ch: 46, Vs. 20.

19. - Nur al-Thaqalan 5: 15.

20. - This is found in Nahj al-Balaghah vo.2, pg.48 speech no 156. "I said: O Messenger of God! When some of the Muslims are martyred on the day of Uhud and I was deprived of martyrdom and I felt it seriously, didn't you tell me: Rejoice, for martyrdom is waiting for you?

He said to me: This is so. Then how is your perseverance? I said: O Messenger of God! This is not a situation [that requires] perseverance but one of rejoicing and gratitude."

21. - Tarikh al-Tabari 7: 290-291 Events of 61 A.H (European edition).

22. - Qur’an Ch: 54, Vs: 55.

23. - Qur’an Ch: 103, Vs: 2-3.

24. - Nahj al-Balaghah 2: 163 sermon 193 (Muhammad Abduh’s edition)

25. - Al-Fatal al-Nisaburi’s Rawdah al-Wa’izin, pg: 439; Al-Tabarasi’s Makarim al-Akhlaq, pg 447