The Hidden Truth about Karbala

Chapter 3: The Antagonists

Before the advent of Islam, Mecca was an international trade center populated by Jews, Christians, Idol worshippers, atheists, and a motley crowd professing several other philosophies and religions. When the Prophet (S) propagated the concept and ideology of Islam, the immediate opposition was to the concept of One Unique God. Barring atheists, most Meccans were willing to accept Muhammad (S) as the Messenger or Representative of God or even as an incarnation of God, for they had inherited such beliefs from their ancestors. What they were unable to digest were the concepts of One Unique God, a life after death, and accountability for one’s deeds in an eternal afterlife.1

Until the advent of Islam, most of the Arabs were idolaters, having a pantheon of three hundred and sixty deities. They could not comprehend the Islamic philosophy of One Unique God. They assumed that by teaching a new philosophy the Prophet (S) was obliquely hankering after worldly power and glory. They offered to make him their leader with as much wealth as he wished in addition to proposals of arranging his marriage with the most beautiful girl of his choice, provided he gave up his Mission. The Prophet (S) refused, saying, “Even if you put the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left hand, I will not give up the Mission to which I am commanded.”2 Then the Meccans enforced a social boycott and later put him to mental and physical torture.

Justice Murtaza Hussain in the footnote to his English translation of Ali Naqi’s book, ‘The History of Islam’ writes, “The Prophet’s message is Islam - submission to the Will of God. Its distinctive features are two:[1] A harmonious equilibrium between the temporal and spiritual [the body and soul], permitting a full enjoyment of all the good that God has created [Qur’an 7:32], enjoining at the same time on everybody duties towards God, such as worship, fasting, charity… etc. Islam was to be the religion of the masses and not merely of the elite. [2] A universality of the call - all the believers becoming brothers and equals without any distinction of class or race or language. ‘The only superiority which Islam recognizes is a personal one, based on greater fear of God and greater piety’ [Qur’an 49:13].”3

Among the Meccans, it was the Banu4 Umayya (the Umayyads) who bore utmost personal enmity against the Prophet (S), followed by the Banu al-Mughira, and the Banu Makhzum.5 Maulana Shibli, a Sunni scholar writes, “The Prophethood of Muhammad (S) was considered by the family of Bani Umayya as the victory of its opponents, Bani Hashim, and on that account they opposed the Prophet (S) to the maximum.”6

Since the Prophet (S) first preached Islam to the Arabs, they were the first to take a leading part in opposing him and his Message - Islam. Quraish, the Prophet’s own tribesmen, took active part in his persecution as they found that Islam was contrary not only to their pagan beliefs but also that it put restrictions upon their vagrant ways of life.

Migration

The Prophet (S) had, during the course of about forty years of his life in Mecca, earned the reputation, in the entire community of the Meccans without exception, of being truthful (Sadiq), honest and trustworthy (Amin). In spite of their opposition to his Message, the Prophet (S) was considered the most trustworthy. As a result, they entrusted not only their valuables but also their affairs to the Prophet (S). The fact that the Meccans offered to give unlimited resources and offered to get him married to the wealthiest and most beautiful girl of his choice7 shows that, for the Meccans, the Prophet (S) was a noble and venerable person. However, what the Meccans abhorred was not the Messengership of Prophet Muhammad (S), but the Message he propagated.

The Prophet (S) along with those who had accepted Islam endured severe torture, for over ten years, at the hands of the infidels of Mecca. During this period, the persecution and hardened attitude of the Meccans, made it difficult to peacefully spread Islam. The Prophet (S) then received the Divine Commandment directing that the oppressed Muslims should migrate to safer places.8 Thereupon, some Muslims migrated to Abyssinia. According to Baqir al Majlisi, the number of those who migrated at that time, was either seventy-two or eighty-two men besides women and children.9 The pious and peaceful way of Islamic life practiced by the Migrants not only endeared them to the Abyssinians but also brought quite a few converts. This was the first migration in Islam. A group of infidels from Mecca met the Abyssinian King and tried to persuade him to hand over the migrants. However, Ja'far, the Prophet’s cousin, put forth a convincing argument against deportation, which earned the appreciation of the King.10 Negus (the king of Abyssinia) refused to hand over the Muslims to the Meccans. The infidels returned disappointed. However, since Abyssinia was far away, the migration did not cause much concern to the infidels of Mecca.

When one is faced with oppression, the Qur’an makes migration obligatory upon man. The Qur’an reveals, “Unto those whom the angels cause to die, having been unjust to themselves, the angels will ask:‘In what state were you (on earth) ?’ They will reply, ‘We were oppressed in our land’. The angels will say, ‘Was not the earth of Allah spacious enough for you to find refuge [from oppression] ?’ Hell shall be their home; an evil refuge. Excepted are those such as infirm men, helpless women, and children who have neither the strength nor the means to escape. [Such are] Those [whom] Allah may pardon; He is Ever Pardoning, Forgiving.”11

Another verse assures, “Those that have embraced the faith and migrated from their homes and fought for the cause of Allah with their wealth and their persons are held in high esteem by Allah. They are the triumphant ones. Their Lord has promised them joy and mercy, and gardens of eternal bliss where they shall dwell forever.”12

Regarding the Muhajireen (migrants) and the Ansar (helpers), the Qur’an reveals, “Those that have embraced the faith and migrated from their homes and fought for the cause of Allah and those that have sheltered them and helped them – they are the true believers. They shall receive Mercy and a generous provision.”13

About those who die during migration the Qur’an reveals:“He who migrates from his homeland for the sake of Allah and His Prophet (S), and then encounters death, has his assured reward with Allah. Allah is most Forgiving and Merciful.”14

In yet another place the Qur’an reveals:“To those who migrated after they had been persecuted and were patient in their strife, your Lord is surely Forgiving and Merciful.”15

Thus, as a first step to protect humankind against oppression, migration is made obligatory, with a Divine promise of safety and abundance in this life and an assured reward in the life to come.

The people of Medina were literate and had already heard from their Jewish and Christian friends about the awaited Redeemer /Savior/Comforter. When news about the Holy Prophet’s unique Message reached them, they sought and met the Prophet (S) and were convinced that he was the awaited Redeemer. Not only did they accept Islam, but they also pledged their support to any Muslim who wished to migrate to Medina. The Muslims from Mecca who migrated to Medina are called the Muhajireen and the Muslims of Medina who pledged their support to the migrants are called the Ansar. The Prophet (S) directed the suffering Muslims to migrate to Medina. Soon, only a few Muslims were left in Mecca.

The infidels of Mecca soon realized that, not yielding to their pressures, the Prophet (S) was already in the process of establishing a center away from Mecca, conducive to the successful propagation of his Mission. They also noticed that several Muslims had already migrated to Medina. Since the Holy Prophet’s Mission was anathema to them, the infidels of Mecca collectively hatched a conspiracy to physically eliminate him and thus bring an end to his Mission. They were further emboldened by the sad demise of the Prophet’s guardian, guide, and paternal uncle Abu Talib (a.s.), who was the only obstacle in their way of harming the Prophet (S). Within three days of Abu Talib’s demise, the Prophet (S) suffered another serious blow in the sad demise of his wife Khadija (a.s.).16 The Prophet (S) declared the year as ‘The Year of Mourning’. The Prophet (S) received the revelation about the plot hatched by the infidels17 and the Divine Command to migrate. He appointed Imam Ali (a.s.) as his vicegerent and deputy, handed over all the articles entrusted to him by the Meccans, and instructed him to sleep in his place and in the morning to discharge his trust. The infidels surrounded the Prophet’s house during night and assumed that it was the Prophet (S) who was sleeping. In the morning, they were surprised to find Imam Ali (a.s.) in the bed instead of the Prophet (S).18

One of the bodily miracles of the Prophet (S) was that when he walked on soft soil, no footprints were left, while on hard stones his footprints appeared prominently. On his way, the Prophet (S) did not leave any footprints. Thus, the infidels could not have traced the route taken by the Prophet (S). However, Abu Bakr who accompanied the Prophet (S) left his footprints. The Arabs, who were expert trackers, traced the single track of Abu Bakr’s footprints to the mouth of a deserted cave. The attempts of the infidels to apprehend the Prophet (S) would have succeeded, but for Divine intervention in which, miraculously, the cave came to be covered with thick cobwebs and a pair of doves sat hatching their eggs in their nest.

There is a general misconception that the plot to kill Muhammad (S) was the cause for his migration. This implies that the Prophet (S) was more concerned with his personal safety than that of his congregation, which is a slur on the Prophet (S). As a result of this misconception, western writers term the Holy Prophet’s migration as ‘Muhammad’s flight to Medina’. Some writers use the words ‘Muhammad’s escape to Medina’.

The term ‘hijra’, which is used in the Qur’an, is mistranslated as ‘flight’ or ‘escape’. The Arabic word for ‘flight’ or ‘escape’ is ‘firar’ and not ‘hijra’. The misinterpretation is wanton and mischievous. The implication in the mistranslation is that, fearing for his life the Prophet (S) fled to Medina. If the Prophet (S) were to leave Mecca for his personal safety, he should have been the first to migrate. On the other hand, the Prophet (S) was one of the last persons to leave Mecca, leaving behind Imam Ali (a.s.) and the members of his (the Prophet) family to follow him. By that time, on the instructions of the Prophet (S), all Muslims had already migrated to Medina or at least had left Mecca on their way to Medina.

Every prophet (S) faced with persecution migrated. In fact, the whole community along with Moses (a.s.) migrated. The large-scale migration is called exodus. Historical evidence regarding the Prophet’s Hijra (migration), completely disproves the notion that it was an impulsive act to save his life. The migration, as noted earlier, was planned long before the Prophet (S) himself migrated to Medina. In fact, it was Imam Ali (a.s.) and the family members of the Prophet (S) who were the last to migrate. From this, it is obvious that the Prophet (S) did not migrate for fear of his life, but it was a planned migration under Divine Command that was carried out systematically over a long period of time.19 Therefore, it is not an impulsive action on the part of the Prophet (S), for the Prophet (S), of his own accord, does not even speak, let alone act out of his personal desire [Qur’an 53:3 ].

Under the Divine Command, the Prophet (S) was among the last to migrate to Medina. Therefore, it is evident that the plot of the infidels to assassinate the Prophet (S) was the result of their realization that most Muslims had already migrated and the Prophet (S) himself was about to do so. To say that the Prophet (S) migrated because of the plot of the infidels of Mecca to kill him, is absolutely fallacious and a historical subversion of facts, introduced by later historians under the rule of Banu Umayya, Banu Abbas, and Banu Fatima. The falsehood is carried on till date, due to ignorance and slavish following of earlier misguided historians.

During that time, the Jewish tribes of Bani Quraydhah, Bani an-Nadheer, and Bani Qaynuqa’ in addition to some smaller ones, formed part of the population of Medina. They were aware that their sacred scriptures foretold the coming of the Comforter-Prophet. However, as they feared that their power would be lost or at least minimized, they chose not to openly accept Muhammad (S) as the awaited Prophet. Their skills at astrology warned them that the new religion would soon reach great heights. Therefore, the Jewish tribes of Medina preferred to enter into a peace treaty with the Prophet (S). The terms of the treaty were reduced into writing and many copies of the document were distributed between the parties.

According to the early Shia historian Ali bin Ibrahim bin Hashim, under the treaty it was mutually agreed that firstly, in the event of an attack by people from outside Medina, the Jews would not support the outsiders and secondly within Medina the Jews and Muslim would not interfere with the affairs of each other. Other historians state that there were as many as thirty-five covenants in the treaty. The infidels of Mecca learnt of the treaty and considered it a defeat for them and a great victory for Muslims. At Medina, Islam spread quickly. The Prophet (S) proclaimed a bond of brotherhood between Muslims, who formed a well-knit fraternity, pursuing a peaceful and God-fearing life.

The peace-treaty between Muslims and the Jews of Medina created an impotent rage among the infidels of Mecca. Historians unanimously record that Yazid’s grandfather Abu Sufyan, who was the chief among Banu Umayya, not being content with torturing Muslims at Mecca, consistently incited the people of Mecca to wage war against the Prophet (S). He was at the head of every skirmish and battle that the Prophet (S) had to face repeatedly. As an antagonist of Islam, Abu Sufyan commanded the infidels in the battle of Badr, Uhud, al-Khandaq, and other smaller confrontations like the one at Hudaibiya…etc., at regular intervals.

Abu Sufyan incited the Jews of Medina into flouting the peace treaty. He incited the Jews to attack Muslims from within Medina, while Abu Sufyan himself with his army planned to attack the Muslims from outside Medina. The Prophet (S) through Divine Revelations learnt about the conspiracy and warned the Jews, a majority of whom voluntarily left Medina and went to their ancestral forts cumulatively known as Khaibar. Those Jews who chose to remain in Medina initially desisted from helping Abu Sufyan, but later attacked the Muslims on the incitement of Abu Sufyan.

In subsequent wars, the womenfolk of the infidels of Mecca were barbaric and equally inimical towards the Prophet (S) and the philosophy of Islam. The animosity and barbarism of Abu Sufyan and his family is recorded in History when Abu Sufiyan’s wife and Mu’awiya’s mother Hind, plucked out and chewed the raw liver of the Prophet’s uncle, the martyr Hamza in the battlefield of Uhud.20 Abu Sufyan’s incitement of the Jews had its effect and led to the famous battle of Khaibar. In all the battles, Imam Ali (a.s.) stood as the sole protector, shielding against the onslaught of the enemy and defending Islam and on the person of the Prophet (S).

Having tasted defeat and unable to stop the steady progress of Islam, the infidels of Mecca tried to prevent the Muslims from performing their annual pilgrimage at Mecca. Even from ancient times, bloodshed at the precinct of Mecca was prohibited. The Muslims proceeded towards Mecca to perform the Haj. They did not carry any weapons, but had about seven hundred camels for sacrifice. The Muslims were purely motivated by religious zeal and had no thought whatsoever of any war.

Seeing the Muslims coming from Medina in large numbers, Abu Sufyan misled the infidels of Mecca to assume that war was imminent. They sent Khalid bin al-Waleed with a huge army, to intercept the Muslims. When al-Waleed’s army appeared, Muslims felt offended and being fresh from various victories and impelled by religious fervor, they wanted to fight al-Waleed’s army. The Prophet (S) restrained them and wanted a peaceful settlement. Several people, like Umar, owing to their shortsightedness and lack of wisdom, doubted the Prophet’s wisdom in agreeing to a peaceful settlement in the Treaty of Hudaibiya.

Reaching Hudaibiya, the Prophet (S) sent his emissary to impress upon the infidels that he and his companions only wished to perform the Hajj and did not intend to fight. Thereupon, the Meccans sent Suhail bin Amr as their representative. Though he could have easily captured Mecca at that time, the Prophet (S) preferred a peaceful solution and gave several concessions in the well-known terms of the treaty of Hudaibiya, between the Muslims and the Meccans, which was written down.

In the treaty, it was agreed that the Muslims should return back to Medina without performing the Hajj that year, and that from the next year onwards the infidels would vacate Mecca for three days and allow Muslims to perform the Hajj peacefully. Another term of the treaty was that those Muslims, who wished, should be allowed to live peacefully in Mecca, without any interference from the non-Muslims.

In Mecca, there were two tribes; the Bani Khuza’ah and the Bani Bakr, who were always at loggerheads with each other. The tribe of Khuza’ah chose to support the Prophet (S) and the tribe of Bani Bakr supported the infidels of Mecca. The Prophet (S) arranged for a ‘no war’ pact between the Bani Khuza’ah and Bani Bakr. In view of this, the Bani Khuza’ah disarmed themselves. On the other hand, Abu Sufyan incited and provided arms and men to the tribe of Bani Bakr and incited them to take advantage, attack, and kill the unarmed men of Bani Khuza’ah. This was against the ancient pre-Islamic tradition that there should be no bloodshed within the precinct of the Ka’aba.

Under Abu Sufyan’s evil advice and active support, the Bani Bakr attacked and killed some unarmed men belonging to the tribe of the Bani Khuza’ah when they were performing their religious act of circumambulating, within the precincts of the sacred Kaaba. The infidels of Mecca, in helping Bani Bakr, committed a flagrant violation of an important covenant of the treaty of Hudaibiya.

Amr bin Salim of the Bani Khuzza, escaped the massacre and reported the incident to the Prophet (S). The Prophet (S) did not rush to declare war, though he had a large following of men anxious to avenge the sacrilege. Instead, in order to find an amicable solution, he wrote to the infidels of Mecca offering two alternatives, namely, [1] to pay compensation for those who were killed by Bani Bakr, and stop helping Bani Bakr, or [2] to proclaim that the Meccans themselves have chosen to rescind and abandon the truce of Hudaibiya and thus declare a state of war.

It is said that, later, Abu Sufyan and Khalid bin al-Waleed and some others regretted their act of helping the Bani Bakr with arms and men. Such regrets are akin to the regret expressed by the drowning Pharaoh who said, “Now I believe in the God of Aaron and Moses.” He received the reply:“What now, at this hour?”21 However, having committed the act, the Meccans were loath to acknowledge their shameful deed. They chose the second alternative and proclaimed that they had rescinded the terms of the treaty of Hudaibiya.

However, Abu Sufyan secretly sought to get the treaty renewed by going to Medina, where his daughter Umm Habiba, married to the Prophet (S) was living. He went with the great expectation that his daughter, out of love for her father, will not only accommodate him but also recommend him favorably to the Prophet (S). Reaching the Prophet’s house, he was about to sit on the rug of the Prophet (S), when Umm Habiba, quickly snatched away the rug, telling her father, contemptuously, that being an infidel, Abu Sufyan was unclean22 and therefore unfit to sit on the Prophet’s rug. Disheartened, Abu Sufyan returned to Mecca and informed its inhabitants that a military conflict with the Muslims was then inevitable and that they should immediately prepare to wage war against the Muslims.

Since the infidels of Mecca had rescinded the truce of Hudaybia and committed acts of aggression in killing the innocent Bani Khuza’ah, there was no option for the Muslims except to face the aggressors. Any inaction on the part of the Prophet (S) would have been construed as an infirmity.

When the Muslims reached and camped outside Mecca, Abu Sufyan with some of his companions went to reconnoiter the Muslim army. It was at that time, according to the Sunni source Sahih of al-Bukari, that Abu Sufyan and his companions were arrested by the Muslim troops and produced before the Prophet (S). Abu Sufyan, mortally scared for his life, offered to accept Islam by testifying that there is no God but Allah. He did not acknowledge Muhammad (S) as the Prophet (S) of God. Abbas, the Prophet’s uncle, told Abu Sufyan that unless he also acknowledged the Prophethood of Muhammad (S), the acceptance of the faith will be incomplete and that the Muslims will surely kill Abu Sufyan.23 Very reluctantly and only outwardly to save his skin, Abu Sufyan acknowledged Muhammad (S) as the prophet of God.

Abu Sufyan requested Abbas to show him the strength of the Muslim army. The words uttered by Abu Sufyan, on seeing the army, spoke eloquently about the quality of his Islam. The sight of such a large and devoted gathering, brought visions of presiding over a vast kingdom. Abu Sufyan exclaimed, “Indeed, my cousin has built up enormous military power!” To this, Abbas replied, “What you see is not a king’s army, for Muhammad (S) is not a king but the Messenger of God. It is the Message and Prophethood of Muhammad (S) which has attracted such huge numbers of sincere followers.” Abu Sufyan murmured, “I do not care by what name you call it -Kingship or Prophethood. The sight of such a grand army is indeed very pleasing.”24 He was indeed impressed by the military strength and craved for the chance of usurping power, if not by himself immediately, at least later by his progeny.

However, his subsequent conduct, throughout his life, is proof that Abu Sufyan continued to be the infidel and trouble-shooter that he really was, and that he never cared for Islamic tenets of a peaceful and pious life. Long after he ‘embraced Islam’, Abu Sufyan on seeing the Muslims defeated and running helter skelter, gleefully cried, “At last the spell of magic cast by Muhammad has waned. The fleeing Muslims will not stop till they reach the sea.”

Much is said and written about Abu Sufyan and his ilk of accepting Islam. The actual word used by the Prophet (S) while referring to them, is recorded in history. The Prophet (S) used the Arabic word ‘Tulaqa’ which means ‘emancipated’ or ‘freed from bondage’ and is used exclusively to refer to the enemy who has capitulated and begged to be spared in life.

Imam Ali (a.s.), an eminent and truthful eyewitness to the character of such people, said:“They did not accept Islam. They had simply capitulated [istaslama] before Islam, keeping their infidelity in their hearts.”25 ‘Islam’ is defined as surrender of one’s self before God.26 ‘Istislam’ means capitulation in defeat, before men. The Prophet (S), faced with the ostensible declaration of faith by Abu Sufyan, did not immediately brand him a hypocrite, because the Prophet’s companions were incapable of understanding the real but hidden intent of Abu Sufyan.27 The Qur’an also commands that such people should be left free to do their own deeds.28

When his companions prevailed upon him to reveal the names of the hypocrites, so that they may be killed, the Prophet (S) said:“Don’t they claim to have accepted Islam? How can you kill them as long as they claim to be Muslims? Will not posterity blame us saying that they invited people towards Islam and when they accepted Islam, he got them killed!” The Prophet (S) left Abu Sufyan to justify the truthfulness of his declaration of faith by his deeds. Abu Sufyan himself, by his conduct proved that though ostensibly a Muslim, he was indeed a hypocrite.

Some people may argue that the use of the word ‘Tulaqa’ was used by the Prophet (S) only after he entered Mecca and that Abu Sufyan had become a Muslim shortly before that time and therefore the word does not apply to him. This will be a fallacious argument because, firstly, all Meccans who were inimical to the Prophet (S), including Abu Sofia, were known as the Tulaqa; Secondly Imam Ali (S) wrote to Mu’awiya, who was in fact a second generation Muslim, being the son of Abu Sufyan:“How can one who is a ‘Taleeq’ and the offspring of another ‘Taleeq’ claim superiority over a Muhajir?”

The Immaculate Fatima (a.s.) used the same epithet ‘Taleeq’ in her arguments with Abu Bakr over Fadak. The Immaculate Fatima’s daughter Zainab (a.s.) addressed Yazid in the same words when Yazid was sitting on his throne in his palace at Damascus.29 Neither Abu Sufyan and his progeny nor anyone in the annals of history ever dared to challenge the assertion that Abu Sufyan was a Taleeq, Mu’awiya was the son of a Taleeq, and Yazid was the grandson of a Taleeq. Later historians favorable to the Banu Umayya never made any effort to contest or altogether remove the appendage ‘Tulaqa’ while referring to Abu Sufyan and his progeny. That no such effort was ever made proves the meaning and authenticity of Abu Sufyan and his children being the Tulaqa. When, on the death of Uthman, Mu’awiya sent Abu Huraira and Abu ad-Darda to convey the message that Imam Ali (a.s.) should withdraw from the Caliphate, they met Abdurrahman bin Ghanam on the way. On hearing about their mission, Abdurrahman bin Ghanam told Abu Huraira and Abu ad-Darda:“What does Mu’awiya have to do with giving advice in the matter [of Caliphate] ? Mu’awiya is one among the Tulaqa who have no right to become the caliph. Secondly, Mu’awiya and his father were the chiefs of the infidels who fought in the battle of Ahzab against the Prophet (S).”

We shall see, later, that when Abu Bakr became caliph, Abu Sufyan hypocritically suggested that Imam Ali (a.s.) should stake his claim to the Caliphate. Abu Sufyan disclosed his hidden desire when he told the third caliph:“Now, that the Caliphate has fallen into our [the Umayyads] hands, you should play around with it, toss it around like a ball and perpetuate it in the hands of the Umayyads.”30

Regarding Mu’awiya, an authentic Sunni source, Musnad of Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal records the following incident related by Obeidillah Bin Buraida:“My father and myself went to Mu’awiya. We sat on a carpet. The table was laid. We shared a meal. Then intoxicants were brought in. Mu’awiya quaffed a cup and presented another to my father who refused saying, ‘Ever since the time the Prophet (S) prohibited the use of liquor, I have never tasted it.’ Upon this, Mu’awiya replied, ‘Nothing pleases me more than wine, milk and boisterous company of revelers.”

Another reputed Sunni author, Jalaluddin as-Suyooti writes, “It was Mu’awiya who was the first to ride on his steed between Safa and Marwa [which is prohibited in Islam] ; who drank Nabeez [liquor] ; ate soil and made others eat it. When he sat on the Holy Prophet’s pulpit and demanded fealty for his son Yazid, Aa’isha put out her head from her room and cried, ‘Stop Mu’awiya! Stop. Did the first two Caliphs appoint their sons as successors?’ ‘No’ replied Mu’awiya. Aa’isha asked, ‘Then whom do you follow in this audacious step’.”

Regarding Abu Sufyan, Mu’awiya, and his son Yazid, their oft-repeated couplet, recorded by both Sunni and Shia authentic sources, declares, “No Archangel ever appeared before Muhammad (S) nor was anything revealed. It is all a power-game played by the Banu Hashim.”

Yazid used to play with and make fun of Qur’anic verses. Once he quoted the first part of the verse beginning with ‘So, woe unto worshippers’, without completing it by reciting the remaining part–‘who are heedless of their prayer’. Then he added ‘Look! Allah curses the worshippers and not the drunkards’. We have cited these examples to show the nature and faith of Abu Sufyan and his progeny who grabbed the reins of power to create a violently aggressive empire in place of Islam–the religion of universal peace.

Notes

1. Qur’an, 6:29, 8:31…

2. Abul Fida’s Qasasul Ambiya, p. 391.

3. History of Islam, by S. Ali Naqi Naqvi, Printed by Imamia Mission, [Hind] Aligarh, Translator’s Footnote No. 5 at p. 79.

4. Banu or Bani means ‘the family or the tribe of’.

5. As-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqa, p. 144, quoted in History of Islam.

6. Seeratun Nabi, Vol. I p. 158 quoted in History of Islam, p. 81.

7. Al-Majlisi’s Hayatul Quloob, 186.

8. Qur’an, 2:218, 3:195, 4:97-100, 8:74, 9:20-22.

9. Hayatul Quloob, Eng. Tr. By Rev. James L. Merrick; Ch. 11 P. 208.

10. Abul Fida’s Qasasul Ambiya, p. 393.

11. Qur’an, 4:97-99.

12. Qur’an, 4:100.

13. Qur’an, 8:74.

14. Qur’an, 9:20-22.

15. Qur’an, 16:110.

16. Tarikhul A’immah, P. 106.

17. Qur’an, 8:30, Abdullah al-Khunayzi’s ‘Abu Talib, Mo’min Quraish’, p. 170.

18. Al-Majlisi’s Hayatul Quloob, 225-226.

19. Qur’an, 2:218, 3:195, 4:97-100, 8:74, 9:20-22.

20. Tarikh at-Tabari, vol. 3, p. 22-23, Seeratun Nabi, vol. 1 p. 273, al-Istee’ab, vol. 2, p. 286.

21. Qur’an, Yunus 10:90- 92.

22. Qur’an, 9:95-96, Abul Fida’s Qasasul Ambiya, p. 410, Majlisi’s Hayatul Quloob, 289.

23. Al-Majlisi’s Hayatul Quloob, 290.

24. Al-Majlisi’s Hayatul Quloob, 291.

25. Nahjul Balagha

26. Qur’an, 2:208, ‘Al Islam Huwa Taslim’ Imam Ali in Nahjul Balagha.

27. Qur’an, 2:204.

28. Qur’an, 9:95-96.

29. Seerat Fatimat az-Zehra, by Justice Sultan Mirza, p. 281.

30. Nuqooshe Ismat.

Society and Tradition

If society has real existence, it should naturally possess laws peculiar to it. If we accept the first theory about the nature of society (which we have already discussed) and reject the existence of society as a real entity, naturally we have to admit that society lacks laws which may govern it. And if we accept the second theory and believe in artificial and mechanical composition of society, then we would have to admit that society is governed by laws but that its laws are confined to a series of mechanical and causal relationships between its various parts, without the distinguishing features and particular characteristics of life and living organisms.

And if we accept the third point of view, we shall have to accept, firstly, that society itself has a comparatively more permanent existence independent of the existence of individuals although this collective life has no separate existence, and is distributed and dispersed among its individual members, and incarnates itself in their existence. It has discoverable laws and traditions more permanent and stable than those of the individuals, who are its components.

Secondly, we shall have to accept also that the components of society, which are human individuals, contrary to the mechanistic point of view, lose their independent identity-although in a relative fashion to produce an organically composite structure. But at the same time the relative independence of the individual is preserved because individual life, individual nature, and individual achievements are not dissolved totally in the collective existence.

According to this point of view, man actually lives with two separate existences, two souls, and two “selves.” On the one hand, there are the life, soul, and self of the human being, which are the products of the processes of his essential nature; on the other, there are the collective life, soul, and self which are the products of social life, and pervade the individual self. On this basis, biological laws, psychological laws, and sociological laws, together, govern human beings. But according to the fourth theory, only a single type of laws governs man, and these are the social laws alone.

Among the Muslim scholars `Abd al-Rahman ibn Khaldun of Tunisia was the first and the foremost Islamic thinker to discuss clearly and explicitly the laws governing the society in independence from the laws governing the individual. Consequently he asserted that the society itself had a special character, individuality, and reality. In his famous introduction to history, he has discussed this theory in detail. Among the modern scholars and thinkers Montesquieu (the French philosopher of the eighteenth century A.D.) is the first to discuss the laws which control and govern human groups and societies. Raymond Aron says about Montesquieu.

His purpose was to make history intelligible. He sought to understand historical truth. But historical truth appeared to him in the form of an almost limitless diversity of morals, customs, ideas, laws, and institutions. His inquiry's point of departure was precisely this seemingly incoherent diversity. The goal of the inquiry should have been the replacement of this incoherent diversity by a conceptual order. One might say that Montesquieu, exactly like Max Weber, wanted to proceed from the meaningless fact to an intelligible order. This attitude is precisely the one peculiar to the sociologist. 1

It means that a sociologist has to reach beyond the apparently diverse social forms and phenomena, which seem to be alien to one another, to reveal the unity in diversity in order to prove that all the diverse manifestations refer to the one and the same reality. In the same way, all the similar social events and phenomena have their origin in a similar sequence of analogous causes. Here is a passage from the observations on the causes of the rise and fall of the Romans.

It is not fortune that rules the world. We can ask the Romans, who had a constant series of success when they followed a certain plan, and an uninterrupted sequence of disasters when they followed another. There are general causes, whether moral or physical ....which operate in every monarchy, to bring about its rise, its duration and its fall. All accidents are subject to these causes, and if the outcome of a single battle, i.e. a particular cause, was the ruin of a state, there was a general cause which decreed that that state was destined to perish through a single battle. In short, the main impulse carries all the particular accidents along with it. 2

The Holy Qur’an explains that nations and societies qua nations and societies (not just individuals living in societies) have common laws and principles that govern their rise and fall in accordance with certain historical process. The concept of a common fate and collective destiny implies the existence of certain definite laws governing the society. About the tribe of Bani Israel, the Qur’an says:

وَقَضَيْنَا إِلَىٰ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ فِي الْكِتَابِ لَتُفْسِدُنَّ فِي الْأَرْضِ مَرَّتَيْنِ وَلَتَعْلُنَّ عُلُوًّا كَبِيرًا فَإِذَا جَاءَ وَعْدُ أُولَاهُمَا بَعَثْنَا عَلَيْكُمْ عِبَادًا لَّنَا أُولِي بَأْسٍ شَدِيدٍ فَجَاسُوا خِلَالَ الدِّيَارِ وَكَانَ وَعْدًا مَّفْعُولًا ثُمَّ رَدَدْنَا لَكُمُ الْكَرَّةَ عَلَيْهِمْ وَأَمْدَدْنَاكُم بِأَمْوَالٍ وَبَنِينَ وَجَعَلْنَاكُمْ أَكْثَرَ نَفِيرًا إِنْ أَحْسَنتُمْ أَحْسَنتُمْ لِأَنفُسِكُمْ وَإِنْ أَسَأْتُمْ فَلَهَا فَإِذَا جَاءَ وَعْدُ الْآخِرَةِ لِيَسُوءُوا وُجُوهَكُمْ وَلِيَدْخُلُوا الْمَسْجِدَ كَمَا دَخَلُوهُ أَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ وَلِيُتَبِّرُوا مَا عَلَوْا تَتْبِيرًا عَسَىٰ رَبُّكُمْ أَن يَرْحَمَكُمْ وَإِنْ عُدتُّمْ عُدْنَا وَجَعَلْنَا جَهَنَّمَ لِلْكَافِرِينَ حَصِيرًا

And we decreed for the Children of Israel in the scriptures: You verily will work corruption in the earth twice, and you will become great tyrants. So when the time for the first of the two came We roused against you slaves of Ours of great might who ravaged [your] country, and it was a threat performed.' [After you had regretted your sins and became pious again] Then we gave once again your turn against them, and we aided you with wealth and children and mode you more in soldiery.

[Saying] If ye dogood , ye do good for your own souls, and if ye do evil, it is for them. (I.e. Our laws and customs are fixed and constant, it is by this covenant that people are bestowed with power, might, honour and constancy or subjected to humiliation and abjectness). So when the time for the second [of the judgements] came, because of your acts of tyranny and despotism, we aroused against you others [of our slaves] to ravage you, and to enter the temple even as they entered it the first time, and tolay waste all that they conquered with an utter wasting. It may be that your Lord will have mercy on you [if ye mend your ways], but if you repeat [the crime] we shall repeat [the punishment], and we have appointed hell a dungeon for the disbelievers. (17:4- 8)

The last sentence, i.e. “But if you repeat [the crime] we shall repeat [the punishment]” shows that the Qur’an is addressing all the people of the tribe and not an individual.

It also implies that all the societies are governed by a universal law.

Determinism or Freedom

One of the fundamental problems discussed by philosophers, particularly in the last century, is the problem of determinism and freedom of individual as against society, or, in other words, determinism and freedom of the individual spirit vis-à-vis the social spirit. If we accept the first theory regarding the nature of society, and consider social structure to be merely a hypostatized notion, and believe in the absolute independence of the individual, then there will be no place for the idea of social determinism.

Because, there will be no power or force except that of the individuals, and no social force that may rule over the individual. Hence, in this theory, there is no room for the idea of social determinism. If there is any compulsion or determinism it is of the individual and operates through the individuals. The society has no role in this matter. Hence, there can be no social determinism as emphasized by the advocates of social determinism.

In the same way, if we accept the fourth theory, and consider the individual and individual's personality as a raw material or an empty pot, then the entire human personality of the individual, his intellect, and his free will would be reduced to nothing but an expression of the collective intelligence and the collective will, which manifest themselves, as an illusion, in the form of an individual to realize their own social ends. Accordingly, if we accept the idea of the absolute essentiality and primariness of the society, there will be no place left for the idea of the freedom and choice of the individual.

Emile Durkheim, the famous French sociologist, emphasizes the importance of society to the extent of saying that social matters (in fact all the human matters, as against the biological and animal urges and needs, like eating and sleeping) are the products of society, not the products of individual thought and will, and have three characteristics they are external, compulsive, and general.

They are considered to be external, because they are alien to individual existence and are imposed from without upon the individual by society. They existed before the individual came into existence and the individual accepted them under the-influence of society. Acceptance of the moral, social, and religious traditions, customs, and values by the individual comes under this category. They are compulsive, because they impose themselves upon the individual and mould the individual's conscience, feelings, thoughts, and preferences according to their own standards.

Because of being compulsive, they are necessarily general and universal. However, if we accept the third theory and consider both the individual and the society as fundamental entities-although admitting the power of the society as dominating that of the individual-it does not necessitate any compulsion or determinism for the individual either in human or social affairs.

Durkheimian determinism arises due to the failure to recognize the essential nature of the human being. Man's nature gives him a kind of freedom and liberty that empower him to revolt against social compulsions. On this basis, we may say that there is an intermediary relationship between the individual and the society that lies between the extremes of absolute freedom and absolute compulsion (amr bayn al-'amrayn).

Although the Holy Qur’an attributes character, personality, reality, power, life, death, consciousness, obedience, and disobedience to society, it also explicitly recognizes the possibility of violation of social law by an individual. The Qur’an in this matter relies on what is termed as the (Fitrat Allah) ‘Divine nature’.

In Surat al Nisa, The verse 97 refers to a group of people who called themselves “mustad'afun” (the oppressed and the weak) in the society of Mecca, and took shelter in their `weakness and being oppressed' as an excuse for shirking their natural responsibilities. In fact, they considered themselves helpless as against the social compulsion and pressures. The Qur’an says that their excuse cannot be condoned on any ground, because at least they were free to migrate from the Meccan society to another one better suited for the fulfillment of their aspirations. Elsewhere it states:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا عَلَيْكُمْ أَنفُسَكُمْ

لَا يَضُرُّكُم مَّن ضَلَّ إِذَا اهْتَدَيْتُمْ

“O believers! You have charge of your own souls. He who goes astray cannot injure you if you are rightly guided.”(5:105)

The famous verse (7:172) regarding human nature states that man is bound by the Divine covenant to believe in monotheism (tawhid), and it has been made inherent in human nature. The Qur’an says further that it is ordained in this way so that people should not say on the Day of Judgement that “our fathers were idolaters and we did not have any other alternative except helplessly adhering to the faith of our forefathers.” (7:173) 3

With such a nature gifted to man by God, there is no compulsion to accept any faith contrary to the Divine will and to human nature itself.

The teachings of the Qur’an are entirely based upon the notion of human responsibility man is responsible for himself and for society. The dictum al-'amr bil ma`rufwa al-nahy `an al-munkar (commanding others to do what is commanded by God and forbidding them from that which is prohibited by Him), is a command to the individual to revolt against social corruption and destructiveness.

This is the Qur’anic code of conduct prescribed for the individual to save society from chaos, disorder, and destruction. Tales and stories embodied in the text of the Qur’an deal mostly with the theme of the individual's revolt against a corrupt social order.The stories of Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Prophet Muhammad, the Companions of the Cave (Ashab al-Kahf), the believer of the tribe of the Pharaoh, etc. deal with the same theme.

The notion of social determinism is rooted in the misconception that society in its real composition needs complete merger of its constituent parts into one another and dissolution of their plurality into the unity of the `whole'. This process is considered to be responsible for the emergence of a new reality.

Either one has to accept that the personality, freedom, and independence of the individual are real, and so negate the reality of society and social structure (as in the case of the first and the second theories regarding the nature of society and the individual), or the reality of society is to be affirmed at the cost of the individual and his freedom and independence (as in the case of Durkheim's theory). Reconciliation between these two opposite viewpoints is impossible. As all the conjectures and arguments of sociology support the supremacy of society, the opposite view is necessarily rejected.

In fact, from a philosophical point of view, all forms of syntheses cannot be regarded similar. On the lower levels of nature, i.e. minerals and inorganic substances, which in philosophical terms are governed by a `simple force,' and as interpreted by the philosophers, act according to one and the same law, are synthesized in a way that they completely merge into one another and lose their individuality in the whole.

For example, in the composition of water, two atoms of Hydrogen and one atom of Oxygen are merged together, and both lose their individual properties. But at the higher level of synthesis, the parts usually retain a relative independence with respect to the whole. A kind of plurality in unity and unity in plurality manifests itself at higher levels of existence. As we see in man, despite his unity, a unique plurality is manifested.

Not only his lower faculties and powers preserve their plurality to some extent, but, at the same time, there is also a kind of continuous inherent opposition and conflict between his internal powers. Society is the strangest natural phenomenon in which all its constituent parts retain their individual independence to a maximum possible degree.

Hence, from this point of view, we have to accept that human beings, who are the constituent parts of a society in intellectual and volitional activity, retain their individual freedom, and, therefore, their individual existence precedes their social existence. In addition to this fact, in the synthesis at the higher levels of nature, the generic character of the parts is preserved. The individual human being or the individual spirit is not determined by the social spirit; it rather preserves its right to think and act freely.

Notes

1. Raymond Aron, Main Currents in Sociological Thought, vol. I, p. 14.

2. Ibid.

3. Following verses are referredto :

وَإِذْ أَخَذَ رَبُّكَ مِنْ بَنِي آدَمَ مِنْ ظُهُورِهِمْ ذُرِّيَّتَهُمْ وَأَشْهَدَهُمْ عَلَىٰ أَنْفُسِهِمْ أَلَسْتُ بِرَبِّكُمْ ۖ قَالُوا بَلَىٰ ۛ شَهِدْنَا ۛ أَنْ تَقُولُوا يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ إِنَّا كُنَّا عَنْ هَٰذَا غَافِلِينَ أَوْ تَقُولُوا إِنَّمَا أَشْرَكَ آبَاؤُنَا مِنْ قَبْلُ وَكُنَّا ذُرِّيَّةً مِنْ بَعْدِهِمْ ۖ أَفَتُهْلِكُنَا بِمَا فَعَلَ الْمُبْطِلُونَ

And whenyour Lord brought forth from the children of Adam, from their backs, their descendants, and made them bear witness against their own souls: Am I not your Lord? They said: Yes!we bear witness. Lest you should say on the day of resurrection: Surely we were heedless of this. [Or you should say: Only our fathers associated others (with Allah) before, and we were an offspring after them: Wilt Thou thendestroy us for what the vain doers did? (7:172-173)

Social Divisions and Polarization

Although society has a kind of unity, it is divided from within into different groups, strata and classes, which are occasionally opposite to one another. If not all, some of societies are divided into different and occasionally conflicting poles despite their apparent unity. Thus, in the words of Muslim philosophers, a specific type of `unity in plurality and plurality in unity' governs societies. In earlier chapters, while discussing the nature of the unity of society, we have elaborated what type of unity it is. Now we shall discuss the nature of its inherent plurality.

There are two well-known theories with regard to this problem. The first is the philosophy of historical materialism and dialectical contradictions. This theory, which would be discussed in detail later, is based upon the origin of private property. The societies in which the conception of private property does not exist are basically unipolar, such as the primitive communist societies or those communist societies which are likely to be formed in the future.

A society in which the right to private property. Exists is, of necessity, bipolar. Hence, society is either unipolar or bipolar. There is no third alternative possible. In bipolar societies, human beings are divided into two groups, viz. the exploiters and the exploited. Except these two opposite camps, i.e. the group of the rulers and the group of the ruled, any third group does not exist. All the social modes, such as philosophy, morality, religion, and art, may also be divided according to the class character of the two groups.

There are, therefore, two types of philosophy, morality, religion, etc., each of which bears the specific economic class character of each group. Hypothetically, if there were only one philosophy, one religion, and one morality prevalent in a society, it too represents the character of any one of these two classes and is imposed on the other. But it is impossible to imagine the existence of a philosophy, art, religion or morality without having a character independent of the economic structure of society.

According to the other theory, the unipolar or multipolar characteristic of society has nothing to do with the principle of private ownership. The social, ideological, cultural, and racial factors, too, are responsible for giving rise to multipolar societies. The cultural and ideological factors, in particular, play the basic role; they are not only capable of producing bipolar or multipolar societies with occasionally contradictory poles but can also create a unipolar society without necessarily abolishing the institution of private ownership.

Now we have to discuss the view of the Qur’an regarding the plurality of society. Does the Qur’an affirm or negate social plurality? And if it affirms, what is its point of view about the polarization of society? Does the Qur’an affirm the bipol4rization of society on the basis of ownership and exploitation, or does it forward some other view? The best or at least a good method for determining the Qur’anic point of view seems to be that we should first of all extract the social terminology used in the Qur’an. In the light of the nature and meaning of the Qur’anic idiom we can infer the position of the Qur’an concerning this matter.

The social terminology used in the Qur’an is of two types: some of the words are related with a particular social phenomenon such as, millah (community),shari `ah (Divine Law), shir`ah (custom), minhaj (method), sunnah (tradition), and the like. These terms are not relevant to the present discussion. But a number of terms which refer to all or some human groups may be taken into account for discovering the Qur’anic viewpoint.

These words can reveal the point of view of the Qur’an. Such terms as qawm (folk), ummah (community), nas (mankind), shu`ub (peoples), qaba'il (tribes), rasul (messenger, apostle), nabi (prophet), imam (leader), wali (guardian), mu'min (believer), kafir (unbeliever), munafiq (dissenter or hypocrite), mushrik (polytheist), mudhabdhab (hesitant), muhajir (emigrant), mujahid (warrior), sadiq (truthful), shahid (witness), muttaqi (pious), salih (righteous), muslih (reformer), mufsid (corrupter).

Aamir bil ma'ruf (one who orders to obey God's command), nahi `an al-munkar (one who forbids indecent or illegitimate deeds), `alim (learned), nasih (admonishes), zalim (cruel, oppressive, unjust), khalifah (deputy), rabbani (Divine), rabbi (rabbi), kahin (priest), ruhban (monks), ahbar (Jewish scribes), jabbar (tyrant), `ali (sublime), mustali (superior), mustakbir (tyrant, proud), mustad`af (tyrannized, oppressed), musrif (lavish, prodigal), mutraf (affluent), taghut (idols), mala ` (chieftains), muluk (kings), ghani (rich), faqir (poor, needy), mamluk (the ruled), malik (owner, master), hurr (free, liberated), `abd (slave, servant), rabb (master, lord), etc.

Furthermore, there are other words which are apparently similar to these words, such as: musalli (one who prays), mukhlis (sincere, devoted), sadiq (loyal, true), munfiq (charitable), mustaghfir (one who asks for God's forgiveness), ta'ib (penitent), abid (adorer), hamid (one who praises), etc.

But these words have been used only for the purpose of describing kinds of behaviour and not to refer to certain social groups, poles, or classes.

It is essential to study the connotation and meaning of the verses in which the terms referred to earlier are used, in particular the words related to social orientations. It is also to be seen whether the above mentioned terms can be divided into two distinct groups. And supposing that these terms refer to two distinct groups, it should be determined who are their referents.

For example, can all of them be classified in two groups of believers and unbelievers, according to a classification based on religious belief, or into two groups of the rich and the poor according to their economic position? In other words, it is to be analyzed whether these divisions are ultimately based on any one primary classification, and whether or not all the other sub-divisions are essentially secondary and relative. If there is only one principle of division, it has to be determined.

Some people claim that the Qur’anic view suggests a bipolar society. They say according to the Qur’an, society is divided into two classes: one is the ruling, dominating, and exploiting class, and the other consists of the ruled, exploited, and subjugated people. The ruling class consists of those whom the Qur’an calls `mustakbirun', i.e. the arrogant oppressors and exploiters. The subjugated class is of those who are called by the Qur’an `mustad'afun' (the weakened).

All other divisions, such as mu'min (believer) and kafir (unbeliever), muwahhid (monotheist) and mushrik (polytheist), salih (righteous) and fasid (corrupt) are secondary in nature. It means that it is tyranny and exploitation that leads to infidelity, idolatry, hypocrisy and other such evils, whereas, on the other hand, subjugation to oppression and exploitation leads towards iman (faith), hijrah (migration), jihad (struggle), salih (righteousness), islah (reform) and other such qualities.

In other words, all such things which are regarded by the Qur’an as deviation and aberration in religion, morality, and deeds are rooted in the practice of exploitation and the economic privileges of a class. Similarly, the source and root of the attitudes and acts morally, religiously, and practically approved and emphasized by the Qur’an, lie in the condition of being exploited. Human consciousness is naturally determined by the material conditions of life. Without changing the material life of a people, it is not possible to bring about any change in their spiritual, moral and psychic life.

According to this viewpoint, the Qur’an perceives social conflicts as basically class conflicts. It means that the Qur’an gives essential priority to social and economic struggle over moral struggle. According to this interpretation, in the Qur’an, infidels, hypocrites, idolaters, the morally corrupt and the tyrants arise from among the groups whom the Qur’an names as mutraf (the affluent), musrif (extravagant and wasteful), mala' (ruling clique), muluk (kings), mustakbir (arrogant) and so on. It is not possible for these groups to arise from among the opposite class.

In the same way, they say, the prophets (anbiya'), messengers (mursalun), leaders (a'immah), upholders of truth (siddiqun), martyrs (shuhada'), warriors (mujahidun), emigrants (muhajirun) and believers (muminun) emerge from among the class of the oppressed and the weak. It is not possible that they may arise from the opposite class. So it is mainly istihbar (tyranny and arrogance) or istid`af (weakness, or condition of being oppressed) that mould and direct the social consciousness of the people. All the other social modes are products and manifestations of the struggle between the exploiters and the exploited, and the oppressors and the oppressed.

According to this viewpoint, the Qur’an not only considers the two above mentioned groups of people as manifestation and expression of the division of society into two classes of the mustakbirun and the mustad'afun, but it also divides human attributes and dispositions into two sets.

Truthfulness, forgiveness, sincerity, service, insight, vision, compassion, mercy, pity, generosity, humility, sympathy, nobility, sacrifice, fear of God, etc. constitute one set of positive values on the other hand, falsehood, treachery, debauchery, hypocrisy, sensuality, cruelty, callousness, stupidity, avarice and pride etc. constitute another set of values, which are negative. The first sets of attributes are ascribed to the oppressed class and the second set is considered to characterize the oppressors.

Hence, they say, oppression and subjugation not only give rise to opposite groups, but they are also the fountainheads of conflicting moral qualities and habits. The position of a class either as oppressor or oppressed is the basis and foundation not only of all human attitudes, loyalties, and preferences, but also of all cultural and social phenomena and manifestations.

The morality, philosophy, art, literature, and religion originating in the class of oppressors always manifest and represent its character and social attitude. All of them support and justify the status quo, and cause stagnation and decadence by arresting social progress. On the other hand, the philosophy, art, literature, and religion originating from the class of the oppressed are dynamic and revolutionary, and generate new awareness.

The class of the oppressors, i.e. the mustakabirun, because of its hegemony over social privileges, is obscurantist, traditionalist, and seeks shelter under the shadow of conservatism; whereas the class of the oppressed is endowed with vision, and is anti-traditionalist, progressive, zealous, active, and is always in the vanguard of revolution.

In brief, according to the advocates of this theory, the Qur’an affirms the view that it is actually the economic structure of a society which makes a man, determines his group-identity and his attitudes, and lays down the foundation of his thinking, morality, religion, and ideology. They quote a number of verses from the Qur’an to show that what they teach is, on the whole, based upon the Qur’an.

According to this view, commitment to a particular class is the measure and test of all things. All the beliefs are to be evaluated by this standard. The claims and assertions of a believer, a reformer, and even a prophet or a spiritual leader, can be confirmed or rejected only through this test.

This theory is in fact a materialistic interpretation of both man and society. No doubt the Qur’an gives a special importance to the social allegiances of individuals, but does it mean that the Qur’an interprets all distinctions and classifications on the basis of social classes? In my view such an interpretation of society, man, and the world is not consistent with the Islamic world view.

It is a conclusion drawn from a superficial study of the problems discussed in the Qur’an. However, since we shall discuss this matter fully in a later chapter dealing with history under the title “Is History Materialistic in Nature?” I shall abstain from further elaboration at this point.

Nature of Society: Homogeneity or Heterogeneity?

An answer to this problem, too, as indicated earlier, is essential for every school of thought because only a discussion of this problem can throw light on an important issue whether all human societies can follow one and the same ideology, or if there must be a multiplicity of ideologies based upon various types of societies i.e. should each nation, community, civilization, and culture necessarily possess a particular ideology?

Ideology means the sum total of the general schemes and means which can lead a society towards the attainment of perfection and its summum bonum (the highest good). We also know that every species calls for specific qualities, conditions, and capacities; that which represents the `highest good' in the case of a horse is not identical with that of a sheep or a man.

Hence, if all societies assuming their objective existence--should share the same essence and nature, they could also, possibly, share a single ideology. Their mutual differences being like those among members of the same species, any living ideology can be applied to them, allowing within its framework adjustments for individual difference according to the varying aptitudes of its members. But if societies have different natures and essences, they naturally call for different programmes, plans, ideals, and varying summum bonum particular to each. In this case, one single ideology cannot be applied to all of them.

A similar problem applies to the changes and mutations of societies over long periods of time. Do societies change their nature and essence in the course of changes and mutations, in the same way as species are transformed in the process of evolution? Does such a process of transformation occur on the level of societies? Or if the social changes are like changes in the circumstance of an individual of a certain species, whose nature and generic characteristics are preserved in the midst of all changes and transitions?

The first issue is related to sociology, whereas the second one is connected with history. We shall discuss the first problem at present and postpone the discussion of the second until we take into account the nature of history.

Can sociological studies reveal whether or not there are some common characteristics among various societies? Are the differences among them only secondary and superficial, resulting from factors extraneous to the essence and nature of society, which itself remains unchanged? Or is it true that human societies are basically different in essence and nature, and even if supposedly similar from the point of view of external conditions, they function in intrinsically different ways? These alternative views are suggested by philosophy in its effort to disentangle obscurities surrounding the formal unity or plurality of things.

There is a shorter route also, and that is man himself. It is an established fact about man that Homo sapiens are the only species that has not shown any biological mutation from the very beginning of its emergence. Some thinkers say that as the process of evolution of living organisms culminated in the emergence of human being, nature altered its course and diverted the movement of evolution from the biological to the social course, and from the process of physiological evolution to that of spiritual and intellectual development.

In an earlier chapter, while discussing the question “Is man gregarious?” we came to the conclusion that man who is a single species is ordained by nature itself to be gregarious and sociable. That is man's intrinsic and inherent gregariousness that manifests itself in the form of society and the collective spirit, is derived from the essential nature of the human species. Man has social inclinations because through them he can attain the kind of perfection of which he is capable.

His gregarious propensity secures for him the ground for the collective spirit, which is itself a means to attain the end self perfection. Accordingly, it is human nature itself that determines the course taken by the collective spirit. In other words, the collective spirit serves human nature. As long as man exists, human nature would carry on its activity, supporting and encouraging his social spirit. The collective spirit is derived, therefore, from the individual spirit, which in turn is effused from human nature. Man is a single species, so human societies, also, have the same nature, substance, and essence.

However, as in case of individual, who can deviate from the course of nature and is occasionally even dehumanized, a society may also be diverted from its natural course and be dehumanized. The variety in societies is quite similar to diversity in individual morals, which are, in any case, not outside the sphere of human nature. Thus, societies, civilizations, cultures, and, finally, social spirits that govern societies, in spite of the differences in characters and forms, have ultimately a human character and not a non-human nature.

If we agree? With the fourth theory about the synthesis of society, and consider individual as only passive, receptive matter, an empty container without any content, it would be tantamount to a negation of the human nature. We may propound a hypothesis concerning diversity of nature and essence among societies, but this point of view in the form of Durkheimian theory is not at all acceptable; because it leaves the very fundamental question unanswered.

If the origin of the collective or social spirit does not lie inside individuals, and if it does not spring from the natural and biological aspect of human beings, then where does it come from? Does the social spirit come from absolute nothingness? Is it sufficient for the explanation of the social spirit to say that society has existed as long as man has existed?

In addition to this, Durkheim believes that social phenomena such as religion, morality, crafts, art etc. are the products of its social spirit, which have been, are and would remain the expressions of the social spirit, and thus have `temporal durability' and `spatial extensibility.' Thisitself is a proof that Durkheim implicitly believes that all societies have a singular essence and nature, which manifests itself in the social spirit.

The teachings of Islam emphasize absolute unity of religion, and consider difference in religious codes and traditions as secondary, and not essential and primary. We also know that religion is nothing except a programme for perfection of the individual and society. It also reveals that foundation of these teachings have been laid upon an assumption of the unity of societies. If there were various `species' of societies, then the ends of perfection and their respective means would have been also diverse, necessitating a diversity and plurality of religions.

The Qur’an repeatedly stresses that there is not more than one single faith throughout the world. There has been one religion in all regions, in all societies and at all times. According to the Qur’an, religions-in the plural form-have had no existence; only “Religion” (in its singular form) has existed. All prophets preached and taught the same faith, the same path, and the same purpose:

شَرَعَ لَكُمْ مِنَ الدِّينِ مَا وَصَّىٰ بِهِ نُوحًا وَالَّذِي أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ وَمَا وَصَّيْنَا بِهِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَمُوسَىٰ وَعِيسَىٰ ۖ أَنْ أَقِيمُوا الدِّينَ وَلَا تَتَفَرَّقُوا فِيهِ ۚ

“He has ordained for you the religion that He charged Noah with, and that we have revealed to thee, and that we charged Abraham with, Moses and Jesus, (saying), establish the religion and be not divided therein…..” (42:13)

The verses of the Qur’an which prove that the faith remains the same at all times, in all regions, and in the scriptures of all true prophets of God, are numerous. The difference lies only in certain rules and ordinances, according to the relative stages of development or backwardness of societies. The logic that there is essentially no more than one religion is based on the outlook about man and society that mankind is one and a single species and those men are not different in their human essence. In the same way, human society, as an objective entity, represents a single species, not a plurality of kinds.