Before Essence and Existence
Author: Peter Adamson
Publisher: www.muslimphilosophy.com
Category: Islamic Philosophy
Author: Peter Adamson
Publisher: www.muslimphilosophy.com
Category: Islamic Philosophy
Note:
It is worth mentioning that this content is published in Journal of the History of Philosophy 40.3 (2002) 297-312.
So, if you see some references like [End Page 297] or others, it means they have been published there.
Before Essence and Existence:
al-Kindi's Conception of Being
Peter Adamson
Table of Contents
Introduction. 3 1. Terminology. 4 2. Simple Being. 5 3. An Objection: Unlimited Being. 9 4. Complex Being. 11 5. Reconciling the Two Conceptions 13 6. Does Al-kindi Anticipate the Distinction Between Essence and Existence? 15 Endnotes 18In the person of al-Kindi (died ca. 870 A.D.), the Arabic tradition had its first self-consciously "philosophical" thinker. Those familiar with al-Kindi may know him chiefly because of his role in the transmission of Greek philosophy, though it is his transformation of the ideas he inherited that will interest us most here. While it is not clear whether al-Kindi himself could read Greek,1 it is well documented that he guided the efforts of several important early translators. These included Ustath, translator of Aristotle'sMetaphysics ; Yahya b. al-Bitriq, who paraphrased several Platonic dialogues as well as translated Aristotle'sDe Caelo ; and Ibn Na'ima al-Himsi. Al-Himsi translated logical works of Aristotle and parts of theEnneads of Plotinus, the latter in a paraphrase that has come down to us as a group of three texts dominated by the so-calledTheology of Aristotle .2 (I will refer below to these three texts collectively as the Arabic Plotinus.) Al-Kindi's circle of translators also produced a similar paraphrase of Proclus'sElements of Theology , which went first by the nameBook on the Pure Good in its Arabic version and later, in its Latin version, by the titleLiber de Causis . Translations in the Baghdad circle were made from both Greek and Syriac, and were supported by the 'Abbasid caliphs al-Ma'mun[End Page 297] (reigned 813-33) and al-Mu'tasim (reigned 833-42).3 In his own works, many of which are letters addressed to al-Mu'tasim's son Ahmad, al-Kindi repeated and developed ideas and terminology from the philosophical works he read in translation, often in answer to questions posed by the recipient.
It would appear that al-Kindi considered the study of metaphysics to be primary in his endeavor to reconstruct Greek thought. His most significant remaining work,On First Philosophy , assimilates metaphysics or "first philosophy" to theology, the study of "the First Truth Who is the Cause of every truth."4 His survey of the works of Aristotle likewise confirms that theMetaphysics studies God, His names and His status as the First Cause.5 A similar conception underlies the Prologue to theTheology of Aristotle , which claims to "complete the whole of [Aristotelian] philosophy," and promises a "discussion of the First Divinity . and that it is the Cause of causes."6 The Prologue also seems to portray this project as continuous with that of theMetaphysics . We might suspect, then, that al-Kindi took Aristotle's aim in theMetaphysics of studying "beingqua being" as central to his own undertaking, and indeed as central to an adequate philosophical understanding of God.
In this paper I shall try to confirm this suspicion through a study of al-Kindi's corpus, focusing specifically on his conception of being, or, rather, on hisconceptions of being; for as we shall see there are two competing treatments of being in al-Kindi. First, in common with the Arabic Plotinus and the Liber de Causis , he has a conception that emphasizes the simplicity of being, and opposes being to predication. Second, he has a complex conception of being indebted to Aristotle. These [End Page 298] two conceptions can be reconciled: simple being, I will argue, is prior to and underlies complex being. Finally, I will suggest that al-Kindi's simple conception of being anticipates Avicenna's distinction between existence and essence, but only to a limited extent.
Before embarking on this examination of being it may be helpful to provide a brief discussion of the terminology used for "being" by al-Kindi and his translators. I will be examining passages from three main sources: first, the aforementionedBook on the Pure Good orLiber de Causis ;7 second, the Arabic paraphrase of Plotinus produced in al-Kindi's circle;8 and third, al-Kindi's best-known work, entitledOn First Philosophy (hereafter FP). Part of the purpose of such texts was to establish technical terms for use in philosophy. Toward this end neologisms were invented, often for use in rendering Greek technical terms in Arabic. This is the case with three terms we find used to mean "being":anniyya ,huwiyya , andays .
Of these three, the one that has received the most attention isanniyya . Even in medieval times Arabic scholars speculated on the derivation of the word, offering sometimes fanciful etymologies.9 Though my argument does not turn on any particular etymology, the most likely derivation seems to be that suggested by Gerhard Endress: it is a substantification of the Arabicanna , which means "that" (as in "it is truethat al-Kindi is a philosopher").10 It makes its first appearance in Arabic literature at the time of al-Kindi's circle, and is prominent in the Arabic Plotinus and theLiber de Causis . The same goes for the wordhuwiyya , which later acquires a different, technical meaning in al-Farabi and Ibn Sina, but in our texts is treated as a synonym foranniyya . (The exception is a passage in the Arabic Plotinus wherehuwiyya is used to translate Plotinus'stautotes , "identity."11 This led the scholar Geoffrey Lewis mistakenly to renderhuwiyya as "identity" throughout his groundbreaking translation of the Arabic Plotinus.12 ) In the plural bothhuwiyyat andanniyyat are used as synonyms of the Greekonta , "beings."13 These terminological[End Page 299] features are carried over into al-Kindi's own works, so thathuwiyya andanniyya seem to be accepted technical terms for the Greekeinai andon in all the texts we will be considering.14
The termays is more unusual, and to my knowledge appears at this time only in al-Kindi's own writings and in the translations produced within his circle. 15 Al-Kindi seems to have coined the word by imaginatively splitting the Arabic laysa , "is not," into la ("not") and ays ("being"). He also uses lays as a noun meaning "not-being." Like anniyya and huwiyya , the neologism ays can refer to a particular existent, with lays meaning a non-being (this usage appears repeatedly in a long passage to be examined below, FP 123.3-124.16 [RJ 41.3-43.7]). But like anniyya and huwiyya , ays can also signify being abstractly considered; as we will see below, for al-Kindi a thing can go from lays , non-being, to ays , being. 16
With these terminological considerations in mind, we may now turn to a philosophical analysis of the texts. Let us begin with theLiber de Causis :
(A)Liber de Causis , Proposition 1: And we give as an example of this being (anniyya ), living, and man, because it must be that the thing is first being, then living, then man. Living is the proximate cause of the man, and being is its remote cause. Thus being is more a cause for the man than living, because it [sc. being] is the cause of living, which is the cause of the man. Likewise, when you posit rationality as cause of the man, being is more a cause for the man than rationality, because it is the cause of its cause. The proof of this is that, when you remove the rational power from the man, he does not remain man, but he remains living, ensouled, [and] sensitive. And when you remove living from him, he does not remain living, but he remains a being (anniyya ), because being was not removed from him, but rather living, for the cause is not removed through the removal of its effect. Thus, the man remains a being. So when the individual is not a man, it is a living thing, and [when] not a living thing, it is only a being (anniyya faqat ).17
The passage suggests a thought experiment, in which we strip away the features or attributes from man. Of particular interest to us is that when all the attributes have been removed, what remains isanniyya faqat , "only a being" or "being alone."
Compare this with the following passage, from the Arabic Plotinus:
(B)Sayings of the Greek Sage I.10-11: The intellect became all things because its Originator is not like anything. The First Originator does not resemble anything, because all things are from Him, and because He has no shape and no proper form attached to Him. For the[End Page 300] First Originator is one by Himself, I mean that He is only being (anniyya faqat ), having no attribute (sifa) suitable to Him, because all the attributes are scattered forth from Him.
Just as in passage (A), the phraseanniyya faqat is used here to refer to the pure being that remains when all determinate features, or "attributes" (sifat ), are removed. This is what I mean by saying that for both authors, being alone is "simple": it is free of attributes or predicates. The difference is that in the Arabic Plotinus, pure being is not the outcome of a thought experiment, but is God Himself, the First Originator who is equated with Plotinus's One and hence is also said to be the cause of Intellect. That the author of the Plotinian paraphrase should call God "being alone" has occasioned comment elsewhere.18 The historical and philosophical importance of the claim is heightened by the fact that it is contrary to Plotinus's statements that the One is, in the words of Plato'sRepublic ,epekeina tês ousias , "beyond being."19
Now, it is tempting to take the claim that God is being alone or "being itself" as tantamount to the claim that God is pure actuality, as Aristotle holds in theMetaphysics . Such later medieval writers as Ibn Sina and Thomas Aquinas explicitly take this over from Aristotle. Nor is such an understanding of God as actuality foreign to the Arabic Plotinus, since we find there a remarkable passage where the author writes that God "is the
thing existing truly in act. Nay rather, He is pure act" (huwa al-shay' al-ka'in bi-'l-fi'l haqqan, bal huwa al-fi'l al-mahd ).20 While this passage does most likely represent an Aristotelian influence on the Plotinus paraphrase, it is an isolated example of that influence. (The thought that God is actuality may also account for al-Kindi's frequent descriptions of God as an "Agent" or the "First Agent."21 ) It is much more frequent to find the paraphrase calling God "being alone" because of His lack of attributes.22 Thus when the author says in passage (B) and elsewhere that God isanniyya faqat , he seems above all to have in mind God's absolute simplicity, and His resulting lack of attributes. It is likely that this concern with simplicity and the exclusion of attributes is related to contemporaneous debates over divine attributes (sifat ), which already raged in the ninth century, when the Arabic Plotinus was composed.23
It is significant for our understanding of passage (A) that we find the same conception of God in theLiber de Causis . In Proposition 4, the author of that paraphrase writes that God is "the pure being, the One, the True, in whom there is no multiplicity in any way" ( al-anniyya mahda, al-wahid, al-haqq, alladhilaysa fihi [End Page 301] kathra min al-jihat al-ashkhas ). As in the Arabic Plotinus, God is nothing but being, because He is simple. Being is contrasted to attributes, because the being of a thing is distinct from the multiple features that are predicated of that thing. Of course it is essential to created things like humans that they have their predicated features, because something cannot be a human without being alive, rational, and so on. But being is not just another of these predicates, essential or accidental. Rather, it is prior to the predicates.
What sort of priority is this? An answer is suggested by a remark of al-Kindi's:
(C) FP 113.11-13 [RJ 27.17-19]: Corruption is only the changing of the predicate, not of the first bearer of predication. As for the first bearer of predication, which is being (ays ), it does not change, because for something corrupted, its corruption has nothing to do with the "making be" (ta'yis ) of its being (aysiyyatihi ).
This passage is not particularly clear, but it does explicitly make the point thatays , "being," is the "first bearer of predication" (al-hamil al-awwal ). The meaning of this assertion becomes clearer against the background of texts (A) and (B). Being is prior to the predicates of a thing, for example "living" and "rational" in the case of a human, because it is thesubject of predication .
If this is right, then "being" is treated as analogous to Aristotelian matter. The analogy is suggested by both passages (A) and (C).24 Passage (A) is reminiscent of Aristotle's discussion in theMetaphysics where, on one traditional interpretation, he describes matter as the ultimate subject of predication that underlies all the features of a thing.25 Also like Aristotelian matter, being subsists through change, as becomes clear in passage (C) when al-Kindi says that being "does not change." The point is an intelligible one: even in the case of substantial corruption (such as death in the case of a human), there is not an absolute destruction of being but merely of the way the thing is. This is why the corpse that remains when the human is no
longer alive is yet something thatexists . Finally, like Aristotelian matter, mere being must be simple, where "simple" again means without predicates. For, as the ultimate subject of predication, being itself cannot be further analyzed into a complex of subject and predicates. The analogy does break down insofar as matter is associated with potentiality, whereas being (according to the Arabic Plotinus, as we saw above) is more aptly associated with actuality.
As in the Neoplatonic translations, for al-Kindi this analysis of being in the case of complex, created things is linked to a conception of God. Al-Kindi follows the authors of the two paraphrases in saying that God is being. For example, he[End Page 302] says that God is "the true Being" (al-anniyya al-haqq ),26 and asserts that God creates "through His being" (bi-huwiyyatihi ).27 Moreover, he follows them in emphasizing that God is being because He is simple, or one:
(D) FP 161.10-14 [RJ 95.24-96.3]: The cause of unity in unified things is the True, First One, and everything that receives unity is caused. For every one that is not truly the One is one metaphorically, not in truth. And every one of the effects of unity goes from [God's] unity to what is other than [God's] being (huwiyya ), I mean that [God] is not multiple with respect to existing (min hayth yujadu ). [The effect] is multiple, not absolutely one, and by "absolutely one" I mean not multiple at all, so that His unity is nothing other than His being (wa-laysa wahdatuhu shay'an ghayr huwiyyatihi ).
It is clear from the end of this passage that for al-Kindi, unity is convertible with being in the case of God,28 and that unity is here to be understood as excluding multiplicity. Indeed text (D) is the culmination of al-Kindi's efforts in the final surviving chapter of FP to argue that God has no attributes. This fits well with text (C) and the opposition it makes between being and attributes. So it would seem that the notion of God in FP is the same as the one we discerned in the Neoplatonic paraphrases: God is being, which is to say that He has no multiplicity of attributes distinct from His being.29
We now need to make sense of the notion that this simple being is the subject of predication in complex things. We can do this by bearing in mind that complex things are created things. Hence the contrast in passage (D) is between God, a simple and ineffable First Cause who is identical with His own being, and the complex things that arenot identical with their own being. Yet the being of those created things is in itself simple, as we see in passages (A) and (C), for it is distinct from or prior to the predicates. Furthermore, the simple being of a created thing is the direct effect of God. Indeed this is what creation amounts to: the bestowal of the simple being upon which the created thing's complexity is founded. Thus the Liber de Causis asserts that "the first of originated things is being" and that created being then "receives multiplicity." 30 The Neoplatonic lineaments of the [End Page 303] theory are clear enough: createdness amounts to receiving simple being from a simple One that is the principle of being, or pure being. 31
It is in this sense that God's creating something is God's making that thing exist. Thus al-Kindi uses the same terminology of "being alone" in the following context:
FP 101.5-7: There are four scientific inquiries: [. .] "whether" (hal ), "what," "which" and "why" [. .] and "whether" is an investigation of being alone ('an anniyya faqat ).
Here al-Kindi is drawing on Aristotle, who differentiates questions regarding "whether" (to hoti ) from those regarding what a thing is ( to ti estin ) in Posterior Analytics II.1. Al-Kindi's explicit discussions of creation bear out the equivalence of being created and receiving being. In general, the generation of any given thing is a "coming-to-be of being ( ays ) from non-being ( 'an lays )" (FP 118.18 [RJ 33.25]). And in particular, "origination" ( al-ibda' ) or creation is "the manifestation ( izhar ) of the thing from non-being ( 'an lays )." 32 Such passages are further evidence that al-Kindi could use terms meaning "being" to refer to the sheer existence of something, the fact that it is: to hoti , in Aristotle's terminology. This act of existing will be distinct from the predicates true of the created thing; indeed, it will be ontologically prior to those predicates as their subject.
It might be objected that I am ascribing a remarkably impoverished view of God and being to al-Kindi. Why think, this objector might say, that simple being has to exclude attributes, instead of containing them all implicitly? We might suppose that, on the contrary, God is the fullness of Being, containing all things as a unity within Himself, so that in a sense He has all attributes rather than none. His proper effect would still be created being, which like God would virtually contain all predicates until it becamespecified as a certain sort of thing. Perhaps, then, we should talk of God as "unlimited" being rather than "simple" being: as the Principle and Cause of all things, God would in fact have all the attributes as a simultaneous unity, much in the manner of Plotiniannous .
Our imaginary objector would find support in the Neoplatonic paraphrases cited above. The Arabic Plotinus entertains the notion that God must possess the same attributes as His effects, but in a more eminent way, rather than excluding all attributes.33 In a discussion of God as cause of the virtues, the author also suggests that God's being isidentical with the divine attributes:[End Page 304]
ThA IX.71 [B 130.9-10]: The virtues are in the First Cause in the manner of a cause. Not that it is in the position of a receptacle for the virtues; rather its entirety is a being (anniyya ) that is all the virtues.
Here the emphasis on God's not being a "receptacle" (wi'a ') for the virtues is intended to stress that there is no distinction between God and the virtues. Even prior to al-Kindi's translation circle, a similar position was taken by the Kalam thinker Abu 'l-Hudhayl, who is said to have claimed that "[God] is knowing in an act of knowing that is He and is powerful in a power of efficient causality that is He and is living in a life that is He."34
We can illustrate the difference between "simple" and "unlimited" being by distinguishing two ways in which a subject can relate to its predicate. Take, for example, the statements "al-Kindi is rational" and "al-Kindi is the first Arabic philosopher." In the former, the subject and predicate are distinct, so that al-Kindi is not the same thing as his rationality, whereas in the latter the subject is being identified with the predicate.35 If we apply this to the case of God we have the difference between simple and unlimited being. A believer in simple being holds that a subject must be distinct from its predicate, as al-Kindi is distinct from his rationality. The insight behind the notion of being as unlimited is that if the subject isidentical with the predicate, then predication need not imply multiplicity. In the divine case, we may say that "God is just" and "God is wise," but He is not three things (justice, wisdom, and the subject of justice and wisdom). Rather, God, His justice, and His wisdom are all identical. God will still be simple, if "simple" means not multiple, but He will not be simple in the stricter sense of lacking all attributes.[End Page 305]
However, there are good reasons for supposing that al-Kindi, as well as the authors of the Neoplatonic translations we have considered, usually supposed that a subject must be distinct from its predicate, so that being must lack all predicates if it is to be simple. This comes out most obviously in the final surviving section of FP, where al-Kindi argues at length that
nothing can be predicated of God. After systematically showing that every kind of predicate is incompatible with the divine unity, he concludes: "therefore [God] is only and purely unity (wahda faqat mahd ), I mean nothing other than unity" (FP 160.16-17 [RJ 95.13-14]). Similarly, the most explicit statement on divine predication in the Arabic Neoplatonic texts is the thoroughly negative one in Liber de Causis , Proposition 5. Further consideration of passage (C) above yields the same result. Here al-Kindi not only says that being is the subject of predication, but also that the predicate can change while the subject remains. This makes clear that being, the subject, is not identical to the predicate. Rather, we saw that as "the first bearer of predication" being in itself lacks predicates, after the fashion of Aristotelian matter. Likewise, passage (A) from the Liber de Causis envisions "only being" as the result of removing predicates, not as a richer principle that implicitly contains or is identical to all predicates. Thus the passages considered so far presuppose that subject and predicate are distinct, and draw the conclusion that being (in the case of both God and created things) is simple in the sense of lacking attributes. Yet we will now see that al-Kindi does have a notion of being that includes complexity and attributes. This "complex" being is appropriate only to created things, and presupposes "simple" being.
Others, such as Marie-Thérèse d'Alverny,36 have noted a double meaning ofanniyya in the texts produced by al-Kindi's circle. One the one hand, as we have seen,anniyya can refer to mere existence. On the other hand, it can include the actual nature or essence of a thing: notthat it is, butwhat it is. In the case of a human, for example, being in this complex sense would mean "being a human." This equivocation on the meaning ofanniyya is already prominent in Ustath's translation of Aristotle'sMetaphysics , which usesanniyya to translate botheinai ("to be" or "being" in the broadest sense) andto ti en einai ("essence").37
The complex conception of being is illustrated in passages like the following:
FP 117.3-5 [RJ 31.22-24]: If time is limited, then the being (anniyya ) of the body [of the universe] is limited, since time is not an existent (bi-mawjud ), and there is no body without time, since time is the number of motion.
FP 120.3-4 [RJ 35.21-22]: Body is not prior to time, so it is not possible that the body of the universe have no limit, because of its being (li-anniyyatihi ). So the being (anniyya ) of the body of the universe is necessarily limited.
Such passages actually play on the double meaning ofanniyya . The simple conception is employed here insofar as al-Kindi is indeed talking about the sheer[End Page 306] existence of the world, and whether that existence is eternal. But the complex conception is also evident, because he says in the second passage that theanniyya of the body of the universe causes it to have a limited, temporal existence.38 Here it would be more natural to understandanniyya as "nature" or "essence." Indeed, at one point he makes a remark that equateshuwiyya , "being," withma huwa , "what a thing is" (FP 119.15-16 [RJ 35.14-15]).
The complex conception seems to underlie another frequent usage of the wordsanniyya andays , where they mean "a being." Thusanniyyat andaysat can mean "beings,"onta , as mentioned briefly above in our terminological survey. A typical instance in al-Kindi can be found in his treatiseOn the First True Agent , where he writes that God's creative act is a "bringing-to-be (ta'yis ) of beings (aysat ) from non-being (lays )" (FP 182.7 [RJ 169.6]). Herelays seems to be the opposite ofays in the simple sense, so that "non-being" means simple non-existence. Likewise the verbal nounta'yis seems to be based on simple being, much in the spirit of the definitions of creation cited above at the end of section 2. But the pluralaysat seems more likely to mean "beings" in the sense of fully constituted entities.39 These will be beings of a particular sort, complete with the predicated features that are excluded from simple being.
The same is true for a more extended meditation on being and essence at the beginning of the third section of FP, where al-Kindi gives a lengthy argument designed to show that a thing cannot be the cause of its own essence. In typical Kindian style, he proceeds with an exhaustive consideration of four possibilities. First, that neither the thing nor its essence (dhat ) are "a being" (ays ), that is, that they do not exist. Second, that the
thing is non-existent and its essence is existent; third, that the thing exists but its essence is non-existent; and fourth and finally, that both the thing and its essence exist. He shows that, on any of these assumptions, the thing could not cause its own essence. The key to the argument is the repeated insistence that the thing and its essence are not distinct. For example, on the second assumption, the thing's
essence would be distinct from it, because distinct things are those for which it is possible that something happen to one without happening to the other. Therefore, if it happens to it that it be a non-being, and it happens to its essence that it be a being, then its essence will not be it. But the essence of every thing is itself [wa-kull shay' fa-dhatuhu hiya huwa ]. (FP 123.18-124.3 [RJ 41.16-18])
At first glance this argument seems to be using exclusively the simple conception of being, since it considers merely whether a thing or its essence exists. But[End Page 307] the overall thrust of the argument is that the being of a thing is the same as the being of its essence. This seems explicitly to reject the simple conception of being. For the whole point of the simple conception is that we can think about the being of a thing in abstraction from thinking about the thing's attributes, some of which will constitute its essence. Instead, al-Kindi insists here that we cannot consider a thing to exist, to be "a being," without simultaneously considering it to be identical with its essence. His argument turns on the double meaning of dhat , which can signify "self" as well as "essence," so that al-shay' ghayr dhatihi means both "the thing is distinct from its essence" and "the thing is distinct from itself." 40 And the latter, of course, would be absurd. By insisting on this point, al-Kindi is insisting on the complex notion of being, on which we cannot distinguish being from having a certain essence.
We have, then, found traces of two conflicting notions of being in al-Kindi's writings. When he speaks of "being alone," he means the mere act of existing that is prior to, and the subject of, the existent's essence and other predicates. But he also speaks of "a being," by which he means a fully constituted being that is already considered to have an essence. On this latter notion, the being of each thing will be distinct from the being of anything else; on the former notion, being is mere existence and belongs to anything that God has seen fit to create. I think we can, however, discern a coherent philosophical position that would bring the two conceptions together.
Consider first what al-Kindi has to say about the Aristotelian notion of substance. In his treatise on definitions, al-Kindi defines substance as follows:
On the Definitions and Descriptions of Things 166.7: "Substance" (jawhar ) is what subsists through itself (bi-nafsihi ). It is the bearer (hamil) for accidents, and its essence (dhat ) does not undergo alteration.
Notice how similar the role of substance here is to that of "being" (ays ) in text (C), which first introduced us to the simple notion of being in al-Kindi. We have the same terminology, hamil, this time used to express the fact that substance underlies accidents in the way thatays was in passage (C) said to underlie any predicate (mahmul ). Notice also the emphasis on the fact that it can be the bearer of predication because it remains unchanged in itself, just as the "being" of passage (C) was said to subsist through a corruption.
But note too the difference between "substance" in this definition andays in passage (C). For one thing, al-Kindi says not that substance underlies all predication, but only accidental predication. In another treatise, al-Kindi makes the same[End Page 308] point more emphatically in a very similar definition: "[one must] know the adjuncts of the substance that distinguish it from everything else, namely that it is subsisting through its essence (bi-dhatihi ). ., [that it is] the bearer (al-hamil ) for diversity, and is . unchanging."41 Here the phrase "subsisting through its essence" shows that the being of a substance is complex being, where "to be" is to have an essence of a certain kind. Another difference is that, though both of these definitions make the point that substance cannot change, we know that a substance can in fact corrupt (e.g., when a man dies). So substance will not be unchanging in the strongest sense; rather, the point must be that substance remains unchanged in itself throughaccidental change. The being of passage (C), on the other hand, remains unaltered even through "corruption" (fasad ), which I take to refer even (perhaps especially) to substantial corruption.42
With these contrasts in mind, we can see that the superficial similarity between substance and (simple) being is due to the fact that the two are analogous. The being appropriate to substance is complex; it involves reference to what is essential to the substance. Thus, as we have just seen, substance is even said to "subsist through its essence." This complex, essential, or substantial being is then the subject of accidental predication. Being in the sense employed in passage (C), on the other hand, is simple; it is the subject of all predication, and thus can be called the "first bearer of
predication." Al-Kindi obscures the difference between the two by referring to both simple being and substance asanniyya orays . But the equivocation does not lead to any incoherency in al-Kindi's thought, for the two conceptions operate at different levels. Simple being, or "being alone," underlies all, and perhaps especially essential,43 predicates. Complex being, or substance, results when an essence is predicated of simple being, and it underlies accidents.
The complex notion of being accurately, if roughly, represents the sort of being expounded in Aristotle'sMetaphysics . Aristotle stresses that to be is to be a certain sort or kind of thing, and says that of the many ways "being" is said, the primary sense is that associated with a substance of a specific kind. 44 As we saw, the [End Page 309] simple notion of being also derives partly from Aristotle, whose Posterior Analytics distinguishes between what a thing is and that it is. But the fact that al-Kindi's treatment of simple being is ontological, as well as epistemic, seems more at home in a Neoplatonic framework. For example, as suggested above, the account is Neoplatonic insofar as it portrays createdness as a sort of participation in being, and insofar as it recognizes a principle that is absolute Being.
.015: Two despised characteristics: Eating too much and looking at others
Text of the Hadith:
قال رسول الله (صلي الله عليه و آله و سلم):إياكم و فضول المطعم فانه يسم القلب بالقسوة، و يبطيء بالجوارح عن الطاعة، و يصم الهمم عن سماع الموعظة، و إياكم و فضول النظر، فإن يبدر الهوي، و يولد الغفلة
Translation of Hadith:
The Messenger of Allah (blessings of Allah be upon him and his family) has said, I warn you in relation to eating too much since surely this act poisons the heart by making it hard (no emotional feelings) and makes your body parts lazy and lethargic in relation to obedience (of Allah through worship) and deafens the ears from hearing advice and good counsel. And I also warn you in relation to looking around with inquisitiveness since surely this act excites your desires and passions and gives birth to negligence.(1)
Commentary of Hadith:
In the above Hadith, we have been prohibited from eating too much (filling our stomach) and looking at others and other things with inquisitiveness.
1. Eating too much
The issue of observing moderation in our food is something whose importance we do not know or realize as we do not know what important benefits both from the point of view of our physical body and health, and also in relation to our spirit and ruh - this action has upon us. Thus, eating too much can be looked at from two different angles: the physical aspect and the spiritual aspect.
A) The Physical Aspect: It has been confirmed that a majority of the diseases that people are afflicted with are due to eating too much food. There are some doctors that have even brought proof to back up this claim and state that, Microbes can and do enter the body from four different ways: from the air, food, water and sometimes even through our skin and there is no way to prevent these from coming into our system.
When this skin of ours which is a thick barrier that should prevent the microbes from entering into us has a scratch or wound on it, it is possible that through this injury, microbes enter into the body and thus break through the barrier of protection. Therefore, we always try to defend ourselves from various types of attacks from microbes and various types of illnesses. In addition, our body develops the means of protection and the defense mechanism needed so that it does not become a source of infections.
Also, it has been said that the extra fat that is covering over the tissues in the body is a place were various types of microbes can form and grow just like a garbage can which is full and which if kept in a place for a long time could lead to sicknesses and the spreading of various diseases.
Some of the things which can protect us from such diseases is to burn off all of this excess body fat - and one of the ways that the fat can be burnt off is through fasting. This is proof that all people can understand since everyone can discern that when there is excess food in his or her body which is not absorbed into itself, then the body stores this excess, and in the end, the job of the heart then increases.
In summary, we state that when a person becomes heavier, it has a negative affect on all parts of his body and thus the heart and other organs also get sick faster, and naturally the life of the person is then cut short. Therefore, if a person is sincerely trying to attain goodness for his self, he must abstain from eating too much food and must habituate himself to eating less especially those people who do not exercise much.
One of the doctors once said, It is now twenty years that I have been trying to cure sick people and my answer to all of the experiences (over these years) that I have seen can be summed up in two phrases:
moderation in food and exercise.
B) The Spiritual Aspect: The Hadith we started with points to three very important spiritual aspects that a person who eats too much will face:
1) The first is that a person who eats too much will develop spiritual hardness in his heart.
2) The second point is that eating too much will lead the person to become lazy and lethargic in is worship. This second point has been witnessed such that when a person eats very heavy food, he is not able to for example - easily perform his Salat al-Fajr and if he is able to wake up for the Salat, he would resemble a person who is giddy or drunk. However, when a person eats light and simple food, then when the time of the Adhan comes or even before the time of the prayer, he wakes up and is full of joy. He would be in a mental condition to study or to perform worship of Allah (Glory and Greatness be to Him).
3) The third point is that a person who eats too much will have his ears sealed to listening to and taking heed of advice and good council. When a person is fasting, we see that his heart has pity and sympathy for others in it and his level of spirituality increases. However when the person’s stomach is full, his mind does not work properly and thus, he sees himself as being far away from Allah (Glory and Greatness be to Him).
Maybe you yourselves have noticed that during the Month of Ramadhan, the peoples hearts are more apt and ready to hear advice and exhortation since through staying hungry and fasting in the day time, their hearts have developed a sense of purity.
2. Looking at Others
What is the meaning of the wordنظر in this Hadith? First off, we can say that it is in the meaning of looking at a non-Mahram which would lead a person to take his lower desires as his Lord, however it is not improbable that this word has a much wider and deeper meaning that just this. By this we mean that any sort of look with the eyes which would lead a person’s lower desires to get excited. For example: a person passes by a store or shop and staring with astonishment at the things he sees in the window, he wishes and longs and says to himself, Oh! If only I had those things! Or a person sees the newest model of car that has come out and has the desire that he had that car. This sort of looking at something and having that longing and desire and wish (that he had such a thing) would lead to negligence and forgetfulness (of Allah, Glory and Greatness be to Him) since these sorts of wishes would make a person attracted and attached to the temporal world.
However the look which is done to take lessons and learn and which is a purely religious look or that look which is for example done to help and reach out to a poor, destitute person and the person who is sick so as to help and cure him is a look that is very highly recommend and has been emphatically emphasized (in our religion).
Point: Many types of wealth and levels of status in this material world just as it has been mentioned in the ahadith and Nahj al-Balagha can be described as such:
كل شيء من الدنيا سماعه اعظم من عيانه
Everything that is in the world which is heard about (that people speak about) is greater than what can be seen of it.2
As it is commonly stated, The sound of the kettledrum is pleasing to hear from afar. From a great distance, the sound of such a drum is nice and pleasing however when a person gets closer and closer to it, he would then realize that it is a flimsy, empty thing that hurts his ears to listen to!
The late Hadhrat Aytullah al-`Uzma Burujerdi (may Allah be pleased with him) once gave the following piece of advice to us in one of his lessons, If a student (of the Hawza) studies Islam with the intention that he wants to reach to the level or status that I (Aytullah al-`Uzma Brujerdi) have reached to, then do not have any doubt about his foolishness and simplicity. You are inking from afar (not in this position that I am in) and you see that I am at this position of Marja`iyyat (of course we must keep in mind that he was the Highest Marja` ever and there has never been anyone at his level) however I see myself at a station where I am not the master of my own life and how it passes by. I do not have the ability to even control when I take a rest and relax.
Almost all gifts of this world are just like this.
1 Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 73, Page 182
2 Khutbah 114
SECTION TWO
* CHARACTERISTICS OF A TRUE BELIEVER
* NOURISHMENT OF SOUL
* THE MATERIALISTIC & THE NEXT WORLD
* CERTAINITY & DOUBTS
* DEATH: AN UNACCEPTABLE TRUTH
SECTION TWO
CHARACTERISTICS OF A TRUE BELIEVER
.016: Silence
In our weekly ethical discussions, we have been narrating Hadith from the Noble Prophet (blessings of Allah be upon him and his family) that he spoke to Amir al-Mominin Ali ibn Abi Talib (prayers be upon him) in which a total of one hundred and three characteristics of the true, complete believer were explained. In our previous gatherings, we discussed forty-five characteristics and today, we cover two more.
Text of the Hadith:
قلیل الكلام، صدوق اللسان
Translation:
The Prophet (blessings of Allah be upon him and his family) has said, (The true believer) speaks less and is truthful in his speech (1)
Commentary of Hadith:
The forty-sixth characteristic of the true believer is that of "قلیل الکلام "or that the true believer speaks less. In relation to the true believer speaking less, we have numerous ahadith which show the importance of this trait since it is through the tongue that numerous sins are committed and through which everyone is made know of these acts (of transgression). This instrument of sinning is available everywhere, at all times and is very easy to make use of. However as for other sins, there are (other) ways through which they are done and they have a specific time and place in which they can be performed, however the sins of the tongue are the most dangerous of sins.
In addition, the tongue is that instrument through which (at least) thirty of the major sins can be committed and thus, we are able to commit many sins through this medium. However for sins such as drinking alcohol or gambling, there is only one instrument of the body at use when performing that sin and therefore in order to counter the dangers of the tongue, we have been commanded to speak very less -rather-we must observe silence.
In relation to the importance of maintaining silence and speaking less, we have many ahadith of which, we narrate five short Hadith from the book Mizan al-Hikmah. Contained within each of these ahadith is one point in relation to the benefit of not speaking much.
1- Silence: The First Step in the Worship of Allah (Glory and Greatness be to Him)
The Messenger of Allah (blessings of Allah be upon him and his family) has said, Silence is the first form of worship (of Allah)(2)
The first thing that the scholars of Sair wa Suluk (attaining spiritual proximity to Allah (Glory and Greatness be to Him) have advised their students to observe is silence and to speak less.
From the point of view of the general(Muslim) population, the person who drinks as much as one drop of alcohol while inside the Masjid is a very despicable person -however these same people (who think that this is act is despicable) will spend the whole day˛ from morning to night-in that same sacred place indulging in backbiting, lying, and leveling false accusations against other people and they will not even tire out in the least! This is because the detestability of the sins of the tongue are very less in the eyes of the people and they do not see such things as being bad to perform and this is one of the most dangerous things since as a sin gets more and more despicable, the more and more people will try to stay away from that sin.
2- Silence Keeps Shaitan Far Away
The Messenger of Allah (blessings of Allah be upon him and his family) has said, I advise you to prolong keeping quiet since this act repels Shaitan(3)
A t the time w hen a person is speaking a lot, Shaitan is around him, busy listening to what he is saying and at any moment, it is possible that the person’s tongue may begin to swerve this and that way and he m ay start to speak bad things. Sometimes, the bad feelings, feuds and enmities that take place within the family are due to the useless talk which Shaitan enters into.
3- Silence: The Best Protector
Ali (peace be upon him) has said, There is no protector better at protecting (a person), than silence.(4)
We see that sometimes the tongue is the reason why a person is even killed. In the face of jealousy, enmity and the Shaitan, remaining quiet is the best protector for a person.
4- Silence: The Source of Dignity
Ali (peace be upon him) has said, Silence clothes a person with the robes of dignity and reduces the need to always ask for forgiveness(5)
Those people who always speak too much in gatherings are much more undignified that others. Thus, it is through maintaining silence that the dignity of a person is increased.
In addition to this, the person does not need to always ask for forgiveness since w hen a person speaks too much, he will fall into the trap of saying things which may necessitate him to ask forgives and apologize which would take away from his spiritual worth, and if he does not ask for forgiveness, then his worth would be lessened. Thus, if he always has to ask others for forgiveness, then the worth of his dignity is lowered and similarly, his worth is also lowered in the eyes of the people since he is always forced to ask others for forgiveness for his errors.
5- Silence: The Garden of Contemplation and Reflection
Ali (peace be upon him) has said, Silence is the garden of contemplation(6)
The person who speaks too much does not have the time to think nor does he have time to study and do research. However when he is quiet, new thoughts and views are able to come into his head which get him to start thinking and contemplating on other issues. Thus, when a person’s tongue starts working (and he speaks too much), then there is no opportunity left for him to reflect and ponder. For this reason it has been said that you should associate yourself with those people who speak less since they will inspire you with wisdom.
This is just a small section on the ahadith in relation to silence.
The forty-seventh characteristic of the true believer is that of"صدوق اللسان " or the true believer is truthful in his speech.
Another sign of the true believer is that if he does speak, his words are carefully thought out and truthful. It has been mentioned in the ahadith that truthfulness in speech is one sign of true faith and it has been stated, "Do not examine people through the Salat they perform or the fasts that they keep, rather, examine and test them through the truthfulness of their speech. If their tongue is under control, then they have some worth to them and if their tongue is not under their control, then they have no worth to themselves and even if they perform worship of Allah, this worship has no worth or merit to it.
For every single Prophet that Allah (Glory and Greatness be to Him) raised up, He commanded them to follow two principles in their mission:
اداء الامانه و صدق الحدیث
Maintain and return trusts given to them and truthfulness in their speech.
Every morning, the tongue speaks to all other parts of the body and asks how the rest of the body parts are doing. The rest of the body parts reply to the tongue that, if you were to leave us, then we would all be ok!
Insha-Allah, all of us will take this issue as something serious and will speak less and more thought out and w ill also consider whatever we speak to be a part of the actions that we do (that we will have to be accountable for) and we will not take part in those gatherings in which vain and useless talk is going on.
It is our hope that Allah (Glory and Greatness be to Him) gives us all the ability to act according to these commandments.
In relation to some of the events taking place (around the world) we must mention that these days are very dangerous days in which the enemies have shed their outer-skin and have shown their true colors and thus, we make Dua for the people of Iraq and other countries that they are able to show their strength in the face of this war. The enemies have come with full strength to the arena and the Muslim s too must be united and of course, we must also not forget the prayers and supplications.
The first point: We have two issues that we must discuss and it is important that these two are not mixed up with one another. The first is in relation to peace while the other is in relation to a peaceful coexistence and amity with other people.
True peace is in the meaning of letting each person believe in and follow his or her own religion and to accept all religions -However peaceful coexistence and amity is another topic which it can be explained as the saying: I do not follow or accept your beliefs, however since we much live together in one society, thus, we must follow certain rules. For example, those minorities who live within our society must have their wealth and life protected and we must learn to put up with them -However this does not mean that we accept their theological beliefs. Even others such as idol worshippers or Communists who do not believe in any Supreme Deity, they too can live amongst us in peaceful coexistence and we can have political, economic and other forms of relations with them.
There are some people who bring up this concern that, You (the Maraja) recognize their marriages as being correct, thus, you have also accepted their beliefs. Rather, we go a step further and state that we accept all transactions with them and they are all correct (from the Islamic point of view). Just because we accept and permit transactions with them does not mean we accept Pluralism ˛ rather, it means that we accept peaceful coexistence and amity with them since Pluralism (complete peace) in thoughts and ideologies and peaceful coexistence are two things that have no relation to one another.
The second point: Naskh or abrogation takes place in the practical laws, not in the theological beliefs. With this said, w hen we have a verse of the Quran which reads:
ان الدين الاسلام
Surely the only din (code of life) acceptable to Allah is Al-Islam.
There is no other verse of the Quran that can com e forth and abrogate this verse since as we just said, abrogation only takes place in the practical laws (Ahkam),and not in the theological beliefs. Thus, the belief in Allah (Glory and Greatness be to Him), religion (that He has sent down) and the Prophets (that He has commissioned) are all theological beliefs and are not practical laws that they can be abrogated!
This point has also been noted in Majma al-Bayan as well that: issues of theological belief can not be abrogated.
In addition, naskh or abrogation does not mean that the entire set of practical laws is replaced, rather, when we look at it, the principals of the laws are the same amongst the various Heavenly Religions and in order for this issue to make more sense, we can state that: The Shariah of Nuh can be compared to preschool, the Shariah of Ibrahim could be compared to kindergarten, the Shariah of Musa would be equivalent to elementary school, the Shariah of Isa would be equivalent to university, and the Shariah of Rasullullah (blessings of Allah be upon him and his family) is at the highest level and we can not accept that a person lives in this day and age that we are in and is still following one of the previous nations and their teachings. Rather, each and every person must strive to achieve perfection and must not look back at the past (teachings).
Notes
1- Bihar al-Anwar, volume 64, page 311
2- Mizan al-Hikmah, under the word Sumt, Hadith 10805
3- Mizan al-Hikmah, under the word Sumt, Hadith 10809
4- Mizan al-Hikmah, under the word Sumt, Hadith 10816
5- Mizan al-Hikmah, under the word Sumt, Hadith 10822
6- Mizan al-Hikmah, under the word Sumt, Hadith 10823
.017: The True Shia of Ameer-al-Mumineen (a.s.)
Text of Hadith:
قال(عليه السلام) ولما جعل المأمون الى على بن موسى الرضا(عليهما السلام) ولاية العهد دخل عليه آذنه و قال اِن قوماً بالباب يستأذنون عليك يقولون نحن شيعة على(عليه السلام) . . (1 )
Translation of the Hadith:
When Imam `Ali ibne Musa Al-Rida (a s) was requested to make his way to the city of Tus (present day Mashad) and was ordered to be the heir-apparent of Maumn Rashid, a group of the Shi`a came to see him and requested permission to enter into his presence. The Imam (a s) asked his servant who the people at the door were, to which the servant replied that, They claim that they are the Shi`a of `Ali (a s).The Imam (a.s.) did not give them permission to enter into his presence. This event continued on the second day, third day and continued on for a period of two months every day they would come, ask for permission to see the Imam (a s) to which he would not give them the permission. on the final day this group of people told the servant that, Tell the Imam that if we are to return back to our home town after being in the city of us for two months and the people ask us if we had a chance to visit the Imam or not and we tell them that he did not give us the permission to meet him then none shall respect us. The servant went to the Imam (a s) and told him what these people said and at this point, the Imam (a s) permitted them to meet him. After they entered into the presence of the Imam (a s) and wanted to sit, the Imam (a s) did not give them the permission to sit down. These people protested and said, O Son of the Messenger of Allah! What have we done to you that you are acting in this way towards us? The Imam (a s) replied to them, You claim that you are the Shi`a of `Ali (a s) whereas the true Shi`a of `Ali are people like Imam Hasan (a s) Imam Husain (a s) Abu Dharr, Salman, Miqdad and Muhammad ibne Abu Bakr. These people replied, We ask forgiveness, what else can we say? The Imam replied to them, Say that you are the lovers of `Ali (a s) When the people said this, then the Imam (a.s.) ordered his servant to show these people kindness.(1)
Explanation of the Hadith:
Truly this hadith is one which (spiritually) moves us. We normally state that we (Iran) are the country of the true followers (Shi`a) of `Ali ibne Abi Talib (a s) where as those people who had met and had contact with the Imam (a s) are much better than we are.
Thus, it is clear that this claim to be a Shi`a is something very enormous. In this hadith we see that Imam as-Sadiq (a s) has stated (in relation to the characteristics of the Shi`a) that:
انما اصحابي من له اشد الورع و خاف من عقاب الله و رجا ثواب الله هولاء اصحابي
Truly my companions are those people who are the strongest in Wara` and who fear the punishment of Allah and who are hopeful of the reward of Allah these are my companions.
As we know, Taqwa is a lower level of Wara` since Taqwa means that we keep away from sins whereas Wara` means that we keep away from doubtful things and as we see Imam as-Sadiq (a s) has told us that, My companions are those who are the strongest in Wara` and who are fearful of Allah and who are also hopeful of the reward of Allah and surround themselves with the commandments of Allah.
We have consider the various issues that come up around us as trivial things such that with the performance of the Tawassul, Ziyarat and Du`a, we consider ourselves as Shi`a. We do not wish to lower the worth and value of Tawassul and Ziyarat however there are many other things which must be performed and this is what it means to be a Shi`a.
To be a Shi`a means to be self-sacrificing, to show altruism, to possess cognizance of Allah, to be a person of Taqwa, etc and our entire life, our house, our market place, our religious programs, our travels, our entire presence must all take on the aroma of Wilayah (of the Ahlul Bait).
In these regards we must first start with ourselves and our families and we must implement the Wilayat which Imam Rida (a.s.) has stated and thus, those who make this claim (that they are Shi`a) must first ask repentance for lying! Thus, we must first start with ourselves and must realize that to be a Shi`a of `Ali (a s) does not only mean the performance of these mere acts (of Tawassul, Ziyarat, Du`a).
We hope that Allah gives us the ability to truly be the lovers of Allah in place of just claiming this station such that when we claim that We are the Shi`a of `Ali we are in that form of a Shi`a that would be pleasing to Imam as-Sadiq (a.s.) and to Imam al-Rida (a s).
Note
1 Biharul Anwar, Volume 65, Page 157
.018: The characteristics of a righteous servant of Allah
Text of the Hadith:
عن ابن عمر قال: خطبنا رسول الله (صلي الله عليه و آله و سلم) خطبة ذرفت منها العيون و وجلت منها القلوب فكان مما ضبطت منها: أيها الناس، إن أفضل الناس عبداَ من تواضع عن رفعه، و زهد عن رغبه، و انصف عن قوة، و حلم عن قدرة
Translation of Hadith:
It has been narrated from Ibn `Umar that he said, The Messenger of Allah (blessings of Allah be upon him and his family) once gave us such a speech that made our eyes flow with tears and made our hearts tremble and some of that which we wrote down (of his speech was that): O Mankind! Surely the greatest servant (of Allah) is the one who shows humility even though he may be of high rank or status and who renounces the world even though he has a desire for it (its pleasures) and who is equitable and just even though he has the strength (to oppress others) and who shows forbearance even though has the ability (to get his rights by force)(1)
Commentary on the Hadith:
The important issue (which we wish to elucidate upon) that has been mentioned in this section of the Hadith is that sometimes a person refrains from committing a sin due to not having the ability to commit that sin. Sometimes it is due to not having an attraction to commit that sin - for example, the person who does not like the taste of alcohol (and thus does not drink) or he likes the taste of it however he does not have the ability (to drink alcohol) or the introductory steps in order to do this sin are not present (for example he does not have money to purchase the alcohol) or he does not drink alcohol due to the negative effects that it has on him.
Such a form of refraining from committing a sin for a person who does not have the ability to commit the sin is not important rather, what is important is when a person has the ability but he still refrains from committing a sin. Thus, according to the words of the Prophet (blessings of Allah be upon him and his family) the greatest person is the one who even though has status, rank and position in the community, however he is still humble and modest with others.2
In relation to refraining from sins, we see that people are of various types. There is one group of people who do not commit certain sins since deep down in their heart, those are detested acts. Thus, every person must look deep within himself and see what prohibited things he has a desire to perform so that he can refrain from those things. However this point should also be kept in mind that it is difficult for a person to recognize these things by himself as sometimes there are characteristics within a person that he would not realize he has and maybe after sixty years of his life pass by, then he would then realize he has these defects. Why is this so? Because a person never looks at his own self trying to pick out his own faults and defects.
If a person would like to advance in the spiritual areas of his life and to reach to the higher levels of spirituality, then he must look at his own self with a very critical eye so that he is able to pick out his weak points. It is for this reason that it has been said that when one wants to recognize one’s own weak points and defects then he should rely on his enemies or his own friends who would sincerely criticize him (not those who would hide his defects). However, better than all of this is when a person learns to criticize himself. If a person knows what haram acts he loves to perform and he knows where his defects and slips are and through what channels Shaitan tries to get to him and make use of him, then he will never be held captive by his lower desires and the Shaitan.
It is for this reason that the Prophet (blessings of Allah be upon him and his family) has said, The best of people is that one who even though has the liking (to commit a sin) and even though he has the power and ability (to oppress others) is just, and even though he has greatness, he is still humble.
This advice is addressed to all people, especially the Scholars (`Ulama) - why? Because the Scholars are the leaders of the people and before going to teach others, the leaders must first train themselves.
The more a person’s status (within the society) increases, the more his (small) errors and slips become greater (in the eyes of the people). Similarly, when his duties increase and become more sensitive and critical (to perform in the proper way), there is a greater danger that they may not be fulfilled how they should be.
المخلصون في خطر عظيم
The sincere people (Al-Mukhlsoin) are in the greatest danger.
While a person is young, he may commit sins and then say, When I get older I will repent for this sin.
This act of delaying and postponing one’s asking for forgiveness is an act of trickery and deceit on the part of Shaitan and an act of one’s own soul.
There is also the person who makes a promise to himself that when the Month of Ramadhan comes along, then he will ask for forgiveness. However, if a person wishes to be a guest and take part in a banquet, he must first purify himself and put on clean clothing and then go forth to be the guest of another person not that he takes part in the banquet while wearing dirty, filthy clothes!3
Notes
1 Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 74, Page 179
2 The Noble Quran considers humility and modesty and refraining from any form of pride and arrogance as being one of the characteristics of a true believer (Momin). This is so because pride and arrogance are the first steps on the ladder of disbelief (Kufr) and when a person exercises humility and modesty in the face of truth, he has actually traversed the first steps towards true faith (Iman). Those who tread the path of pride and self-conceit and who not only do not submit and prostrate to Allah (Glory and Greatness be to Him) or busy themselves in His praise and glorification will eventually reach to a stage in their life that where they will not accept the truth that comes to them from the (righteous) servants of Allah and thus, the biggest idol (of worship) turns out to be their own souls. (Tafsir-e-Namuna, Volume 17, Page 146)
3 The great scholar, Shaikh Bahai has narrated the following incident, There was a man named Tawbah who was continuously busy in taking account of his soul and the acts that he used to perform. When he reached to the age of sixty, he sat down to review his life and the acts that he had done and realized that 21,500 days of his life had gone by. At this point, he said to himself, Woe on me! If each day of my life I had not committed more than one sin, then in the minimum, I would have committed at least 21,000 sins! Do I wish to wish to meet Allah while I have 21,000 sins on my record? At this point, he let out a loud shout and fell to the ground and passed away on the spot. (Tafsir-e-Namuna, Volume 24, Page 465)
.019: The signs of a Muslim
Text of the Hadith:
قال رسول الله (صلي الله عليه و آله وسلم)يقول في خطبته:أيها الناس،إن العبد لا يكتب من المسلمين حتي يسلم الناس من يده و لسانه،و لا ينال درجة المؤمنين حتي يأمن أخوه بوائقه و جاره بوادره،ولا يعد من المتقين حتي يدع ما لا يأس به حذرا عما به البأس .إنه من خاف البيات ادلج
English translation:
The Messenger of Allah (blessings of Allah be upon him and his family) said in his speech: O People! Surely a servant will not be counted as one of the Muslims until other people are protected from his hand and his tongue; and he will never reach to the stage of a true believer until his brother (in faith) is safe from his evil and his annoyance, and his neighbor is protected and safe from his harshness and anger; and he will never reach to the stage of being of the Allah-Conscious (one with Taqwa) until he keeps away from those erroneous actions which cause him to spiritually pollute himself. Surely the person who fears that he will remain asleep, moves at night(1)
Commentary of Hadith:
In reality, in this Hadith the three words: Muslim, Momin and Muttaqi have been explained, and for each of these words, there is a special level and limit set which one must pass through.
The Prophet (blessings of Allah be upon him and his family) has stated that, A person cannot be considered as a Muslim until other people are safe from his hand and tongue and if this is not the case, then such a person is not a Muslim. In addition a person is not considered as a Momin until his Muslim brother and his neighbors are safe from him annoying and aggravating them.
The Prophet (blessings of Allah be upon him and his family) has used two forms of the words سلم and أمن in this Hadith since the reality of Islam is complete submission (تسليم ) and also making sure that others are safe or protected from the person (سالم ) and both of these concepts are contained within the understanding of the word Islam. Thus, a person must be safe from both the physical (hand) of another Muslim and his tongue.
The Momin or true believer is the person whose friends and neighbors are safe from his hands, while the Muttaqi or one who possess consciousness of Allah (Glory and Greatness be to Him) is the one who refrains from all doubtful things. If a person pollutes his soul with the doubtful acts, then surely he is not a true Muttaqi.
Any person whose tongue acts like that of a snake or scorpion and is busy hurting others through his speech, involved in backbiting, levelling false accusations against others, making fun of other people and humiliating them, destroying their character, cursing them, etc and injures other people, is not considered as a Muslim!
There are many people who are tricked and misled by Shaitan (Satan) and thus, when they are involved in a serious conversation, they protect their tongue (from speaking bad things). However when they are busy joking with others, then they perform these things (which were just listed above) which they would not do while engaged in a serious discussion. For example, while a person is busy joking with others, he may humiliate or make fun of his Muslim brother and would keep busy in bugging and teasing him and then he would say, that (I) was only joking with you and I did not mean what I said.
Sometimes, such joking is even much worse than speaking the truth since when a person is speaking the truth, he is limited and maintains restrictions and boundaries in what he is saying. However when he begins to joke around, then he transgresses these limits and boundaries.2
If we carefully look through history, we see that court jesters and clowns used to speak truthful things to those in their presence, however they covered such speech in jokes and amusements. The function of these court jesters was not just to keep the King busy, rather, one of the philosophies of these clowns and jesters was that whenever those who were around the King were not able to tell something very important to the King directly, they would pass the information on to the clown or jester and he would convey this information to the King in a way of joking and amusement and thus, the jokes and playing of the jester was actually more serious than the truth!
The true believer is one who is very respected in Islam and we are not permitted to even joke with a true believer in this meaning of this as was just mentioned and it is not permitted to destroy his character or personality. May we seek refuge with Allah (Glory and Greatness be to Him) if one of us under the pretence of making a joke destroys the character of another believer!3
At this point, we look at the topic of refraining from doubtful things.
In the Science of Jurisprudence (`Ilmul Fiqh), actions which are Makruh (reprehensible) fall into the category of being permissible to perform and it has been mentioned that in all areas where there is a doubt whether the act is obligatory or forbidden the principal is that it is permissible. However at the same time, they are many instances in which those same doubtful things act as the bridge towards the forbidden acts. It is for this reason that a person must not make his way to the ultimate level of the permissible acts. Why? This is said because the final level of the permissible acts is the edge where the forbidden acts begin and there is a possibility that at any moment, the person could trip and fall into the forbidden deeds.
In the commentary of Nahjul Balagha if Ibn Abi al-Hadid it is written that:
ألا و إن حمي الله محارمه
Be advised that the protected limits of Allah (which we must not transgress) are those things which He has made impermissible.4
There is an area which a person is prohibited from entering into and if he does move close to it, we see that sometimes through transgressing the boundaries, he would be overcome by the evil whisperings such that he would proceed to move forward (towards the haram acts) due to the excuse that:
كل مشكوك جايز كل مظنون جايز
All doubtful acts are permissible, and all acts which are acts which one is uncertain about are (also) permissible.
Thus, such a person would then begin to perform those actions which it is possible, would cause him to enter into sin and would be classified as forbidden (haram) acts. All of these acts are permissible to perform, however at the same time, we must not approach to the boundaries of the forbidden acts since this boundary is one full of danger.
Of course we are not saying that we must refrain from all Makruh (reprehensible) acts, however there is a difference here and in certain instances, we must be extremely careful. If a person wishes to stay away from the danger boundary, then he must also distance himself from the uncertain and doubtful acts.
The final sentence in his Hadith is that if a person succeeds in destroying the mystique behind sins and no longer feels frightened at performing forbidden acts, then he will easily contaminate his pure essence. When some people who sin speak to others about their life and the actions that they had performed in the past, they say, The very first time that I performed such and such sin, I felt my entire body tremble. However after continuously performing that sin, it became common place and second nature for me.
Thus in summary, that which protects a person is him being frightened of performing a sin, however when committing sins becomes common place, then he resorts to trying to justify his sinning and he would try to make every uncertain and doubtful act something permissible.5
قال رسول الله (صلي الله عليه وآله و سلم):إن الرجل ليتكلم بكلمه فيضحك بها جلساؤه ؛يهوي بها أبعد من ألثريا
The Messenger of Allah (blessings of Allah be upon him and his family) has said, Surely a person sometimes speaks something at which those present in the gathering begin to laugh and thus he becomes further away (from Allah) than the Pleiades (a star constellation.)
قال رسول الله (صلي الله عليه و آله و سلم):كثرة المزاح،تذهب بماء الوجه
The Messenger of Allah (blessings of Allah be upon him and his family) has said, Making many jokes results in one’s honour being removed.
عن ابي محمد (عليه السلام)قال:لا تمار فيذهب بهاؤك و لا تمازح فيجترأ عليك
It has been narrated that Abi Muhammad Imam Hasan ibn `Ali al-`Askari (peace be upon him) has said, Do not disagree with others or else your respect will be removed and do not make too many jokes, so that you are not treated with immodesty.
1. The effect on the soul of the person.: The sin has an effect on the heart and soul of the person who commits a sin and if the sin had no other effect than to cover the heart with spiritual darkness, then this itself would be enough to keep away from sins.
When an oppressor raises his hand to hit the oppressed person, the first detriment is that the oppressors heart is darkened.
In the Islamic narrations it has been mentioned that for every sin that a person performs, a black dot is placed on his heart and through the repetition of sins, these black dots become more and more until the time that they take over his entire heart, and as the Noble Quran has stated:
و أحاطت به خطيئته
and who are surrounded by their evil deeds and sins.
(Surah al-Baqarah (2), Verse 81)
By this we mean that when a person’s entire presence is polluted with sin, then it is very hard for him to return back to the straight path. At the time when the black dots on the heart are few and the rest of the heart is still bright (with the Divine Light), one must work hard to remove those few black specks, however when the sins become many, then even those few bright spots are covered over.
2. Effects of Sinning in one’s Life: The person is by nature societal and one of the most important merits that a person possesses is his interdependence upon others within his life. Thus, if people were to lie to one another, then everyone would lose confidence and trust in one another such that no one else would ever be able to have trust in each other and everyone would be careful to make sure that others do not try to fool them. It is because of this that lying and performing sins, slowly transform a societal life of people into a life of individualism and the spirit of help and assistance to others is removed from the society.
3. The Effects of Sinning in the Next World: We must fully accept that sins are never destroyed and they are always with the person. For example, the lie that was told many years ago even in the next world will follow the person step by step and be with him continuously just as the Noble Quran tell us that:
يوم ينظر المرء ما قدمت يداه
On that day shall humanity see all that their hands had sent forth.(5)
And thus on that day, all of the actions of the person will be physically manifested in front of him.
Notes
1 Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 74, Page 177
2 Of the sins which result in tearing of the curtains (between a person and Allah) are: Rejecting and changing the talk that one is hearing when it is vain, futile, joking discussions which only make others laugh. In order to better understand this issue, pay attention to the following ahadith:
3 Hakam ibn Abil As (the father of Marwan who later on attained the Khilafat) was one of the strongest enemies of the Messenger of Allah (blessings of Allah be upon him and his family) who annoyed the Prophet (blessings of Allah be upon him and his family) quite a lot. Of some of the ways that he bugged the Prophet (blessings of Allah be upon him and his family) was that whenever the Messenger of Allah (blessings of Allah be upon him and his family) would walk through the streets of Makkah, he would follow the Prophet (blessings of Allah be upon him).
4 Volume 4, Page 232
5 As for the punishment and effects of performing sins, some of the Scholars of Akhlaq have mentioned many punishments and effects that performing sins has on a person of which, we suffice which just mentioning three effects.