Teach Yourself Islamic Ideology

Teach Yourself Islamic Ideology75%

Teach Yourself Islamic Ideology Author:
Publisher: Foreign Department of Bethat Foundation
Category: Ideological Concepts

Teach Yourself Islamic Ideology
  • Start
  • Previous
  • 17 /
  • Next
  • End
  •  
  • Download HTML
  • Download Word
  • Download PDF
  • visits: 6428 / Download: 4409
Size Size Size
Teach Yourself Islamic Ideology

Teach Yourself Islamic Ideology

Author:
Publisher: Foreign Department of Bethat Foundation
English

This book is corrected and edited by Al-Hassanain (p) Institue for Islamic Heritage and Thought

Lesson 9: Revelation and Prophethood Part 2

We have said that human beings desire to reach well­being. The way of well-being must be taken to achieve it. In order to take that way, universal laws must be understood.

Limitations: The human being knows that the circle of his or her knowledge, no matter how extensive, is limited. From the point of view of quality, a person can never claim that he or she knows everything. However much knowledge increases, that which is not known becomes greater and clearer.

Time, whether in the past or in the future, is one of the thousands of boundaries which limit the consciousness of a human being. Thoughts can only go to a certain point. He or she cannot know about the far past nor the future. The human being has still not succeeded in understanding the self, what kind of a creature he or she is.

The greatest scholars today refer to mankind as 'the unknown creature'. It is clear that one must first come to know a phenomenon as the basic preliminary required to then discover the evolutionary laws and laws of completion of that phenomenon. When we still do not recognize a creature by the name of human being, when its actions are still paradoxes for us, how can we then come to know the highest completion and well-being of that person and then give weight to it and guidelines?

Acceptance of Error: The history of thought of humanity is full of errors. Many of these errors have then dominated the history of human thought for years, even centuries as the final principles. Is it not true that the idea that the earth was the center of the universe and that the sun revolved around it did not hold away in human thought for over 2000 years? Was it not a law which no one doubted? We know that there is no opinion given by any scholar which can be claimed to be 100% an expression of the truth and one that will hold forever. Thus any thought which comes from human beings is capable of being erroneous.

Acceptance of Influences: Another of the weaknesses of human thought is that no matter how pure a human being be, he or she will be influenced by other factors. A person cannot separate the self from all external effects because a human being is not just thought but contains feelings, emotions and sensations as well. Each plays an important role in the development of the human being.

An effect confronting another effect exists within the thoughts of a human being along with his or her other dimensions which causes an influence upon the power and strength of thought of that person and prevents one from reaching a unity of thought and practice. The decision making capacity of the human being in the final phase is always affected by the various dimensions which exist within that them.

In addition to the inner dimension, the social environment and economic conditions of the place of living and the growth of a person, the customs and traditions are all external factors which affect human thought. The judgments and opinions of the majority of people always contain clear veins like prejudice, individual desires, attention to individual and group interests, self-worship, sometimes worship of a group which then poison then prevents the individual from discriminating between truth and falsehood, truth and error, in particular in social issues and then causes the deviation of many people.

It must be noted that the effects of these factors usually take the form of unconscious absorptions, in particular when inner factors affect the thoughts of individuals. Most often the individual cannot determine what motives affected his or her judgment.

In addition to all of these weak points, there is no doubt that the evolution of human thought gradually takes place within humanity. Thus before intelligence is completed, one cannot rely upon an incomplete intellect which is capable of erring to answer the increasing needs which arise when the individual seeks well-being.

These limitations in the sense of recognition of human being negates the self-sufficient thoughts of the individual intellect in the guidance upon the way towards perfection and well-being. The limitations show the continual need for relations with another source which does not contain these limitations and insufficiencies.

As an example, the human being by accepting the limitations of consciousness, in particular, at the edge of metaphysics at the same time that a great sense of wonder and amazement has arisen within the mind, and looking towards it with great desire, knows that most of his or her questions will remain unanswered. Can the human being answer this question - does human life continue after death or is death the end of life? How can a person be an effective factor in his or her own eternal life which one considers to possibly exist and then arrange his or her present life accordingly?

It is here that one must pay special attention. The need of the human being for a conscious Source which is unlimited, does not err, is a guarantor and not affected by other influences become felt. If such a relation did not exist, all of humanity would have to use all of its strengths and energies to find this lost One and to never stop until It was found. From what has been said, can we say what this Source is?

Summary of the Lesson

In order for the human being to reach the stage of well-being, he or she must recognize certain guidelines and universal laws.

The source of the sense of recognition of humanity has certain deficiencies: It is limited, capable of erring and accepts outside influences.

In order to determine the needs of the human being in the area of recognition, a Source is necessary which is unlimited, incapable of erring and does not accept outside influences.

Questions to ask yourself

1. List the ways and means which brings consciousness to the human being.

2. Describe the deficiencies and insufficiencies of the source of human recognition.

3. Why is it that without complete understanding of the human being, we cannot make laws for them?

4. Can revelation and prophethood eliminate the deficiencies that human beings face in the area of recognition?

Lesson 10: Another Look at Prophethood based on Monotheism

In our discussion of the Divine Qualities, we came to know that God is the Absolute Aware, Wise and Compassionate. Now we ask, would this God Who has these qualities, leave humanity to itself? Is it possible that He not distinguish truth from falsehood for them? Is it possible that in this area He has withheld his Divine Grace?

It is clear that such a thing is not possible because such a thing disagrees with the Creator being Aware and Wise and also with His being Absolute.

Now this question arises, "Who is that leader?" Perhaps some people will say, "The leader or guide is that very intellect of the human being." Now without any erroneous orientation or prejudice we will answer this question.

There is no doubt about the fact that the intellect does play a role as a guide for human beings. The greatest distinction between animals and human beings is this very intellect. Cogitation and thought which bring consciousness are greatly emphasized and we discussed this to a certain extent in our lesson on humanology. That which must be studied is whether or not the intellect acting alone can guide us to the final stage of perfection. In other words, is the intellect self-sufficient?

All of our words relate to this issue. If it be proven that the intellect is self sufficient, the necessity for prophethood will naturally be negated and if self-sufficiency be negated and the intellect be proven to be imperfect, taking monotheism into consideration, the acceptance of prophethood will be necessary.

Is the intellect self-sufficient as a guide? Now it is vital that we explain what we mean by self-sufficiency.

What is meant by self-sufficiency as previously indicated is, whether or not the intellect alone is capable of guiding the human being towards the final stage of perfection and answer all of the issues which play a role in bringing the human being to well-being?

This is the point for otherwise it is very clear that the thought that the intellect is not self-sufficient in reaching conclusions about scientific evidence is not true. The evolutionary movement of the human being towards perfection begins with the intellect. Scholars accept the need for prophethood here and they clearly say that the way to reach monotheism, which is the infra-structure of prophethood, is possible through the intellect. Prophethood itself is proven by the intellect's ability to reach conclusions.

Now that the limits of the discussion have become clearer, we will tum to the main issue and that is whether or not the intellect is self-sufficient.

In order that this discussion not becomes too lengthy, we are obliged to state the following: The intellect can never be self-sufficient and this point has been proven in practice. It is sufficient if you look at the various views of the schools of thought and the contradictions which exist. If the intellect were self-sufficient, then why all these differences of opinion? What are they for?

One of the important issues in a group becoming Sophists is because of this very confusion which exists whereby every member of a school of thought claims, "My ideas relate to intellectual precepts."

It is here that the materialists come and say, "The human being is a creature who is lost," or, "The human being is a creature who has been left to itself," or, "The human being is a creature who is alone."

A book is required in order to discuss all of these. Thus we will end the discussion here and we will turn to that which the very nature of the human being (who has not deviated) cries out, "Oh human being! You have not repented. Your intellect is weaker than to be able to suffice you. Find faith in a prophet who has united his roots with the Source of existence."

What are prophets like? Here we turn to the word of Martyr Professor Mutahhari. "The prophets are like receivers who have been put to work in the form of human beings." The prophets are outstanding people who have the ability lo receive this kind of awareness from the unseen world. The Holy Quran says,

"God knows best where to place His Prophet." (6:125)

Even though revelation is beyond the areas of sense and experience of humanity but this power like many other powers which can be recognized from the traces which remain of them. Divine revelation leaves wonderous effects upon the person who has received the revelation, that is, the person of a prophet. It 'actualizes' him. That is, it takes his powers and creates a deep and great revolution within him. This revolution is oriented towards the betterment, growth and well-being of humanity and it acts in a realistic way. It gives him an unbelievable decisiveness. History has never recorded a decisiveness to equal the decisiveness of the prophets and those who arose from their side or by means of them.

Now that we have seen the philosophical necessity for a prophet and we have come to know what kind of persons prophets are, with a bit of care, we will come to know that the prophets must contain characteristics which can be described as the following;

Immunity from sin: That is to be free from sin and error. A prophet should not be under the domination or his own egotistical desires and then sin and, in his work, not err.

It is possible that God send a prophet to guide humanity whose words and deeds one cannot rely upon? It is clear that the answer is negative. What is necessary to be contained by a prophet in order for him to be trusted? Freedom from sin and error which then brings the highest form of trust and credibility and this is immunity or immaculateness.

Miracles: What are the real signs of the invitation of a prophet and proof that his words are from heaven? Is proof necessary? It Is clear that it is necessary and that tool is several deeds which are beyond the power of humanity (bringing miracles).

Leadership: Prophets bring the message of God to His creatures and he awakens their powers and brings order to them. He invites them to those qualities which are pleasing to God: Purity, reforming the self, freedom from everything that is other than God, truthfulness, kindness, justice and other qualities which a good morality contains. He frees humanity from the chains of obeying egotistical desires, obeying various idols and those who rebel against God's Commands.

Thus the leadership of humanity and bringing order to human powers and inspiring them to movement towards that which is pleasing to God and reformation of humanity requires the bringing of a prophet.

Sincerity of intention: As prophets rely solely upon God and never forget that God has given His message to them to deliver and that they do His work, they have the greatest amount of sincerity in themselves. That is, they have no goal other than to guide humanity which is the desire of God. This is why they seek no reward for what they do.

Constructiveness; It is not possible under any circumstances that a prophet move in a direction which will corrupt individuals or destroy human society. Rather, prophets give movement to powers or abilities and bring order. This is only in order to build human beings and society. In other words, moves towards the well-being of humanity. Thus if the effects of an invitation of a pretentious prophet are to corrupt human beings, turn aside their powers or bring destruction to them or their society and be a cause for the decline of humanity, these are the very decisive proof of his pretentiousness and lack of sincerity in his invitation.

Struggle: It is impossible that a real prophet bring something in his message which is doubtful or that he put his efforts towards helping an oppressor and confirming oppression and injustice or remain silent before multi-theism, ignorance, superstitions and oppression and not struggle against them.

Of course, struggle does not solely mean armed struggle. Rather, struggle takes many forms. A prophet, taking the conditions of the times in to consideration, struggled in appropriate ways.

Monotheism, decisively following the intellect and justice are among the principles of the invitation of all prophets. The invitation of individuals who invite in this way is in and of itself worthy of study. It is a miracle. Thus if persons in their message expressed ideas which oppose monotheism or something which opposed the clear and decisive rules of the intellect or justice and confirm oppression, their message is not worthy of study.

Finally, in conclusion, we should turn our attention to this fact that prophets, despite of all of the outstanding qualities which they contain like bringing miracles, immunity from sin and error, leadership, they are of the human species. That is they contain all the necessities of humanity.

A prophet never forgot his duties. More than any other person, they feared God and more than any other, they worshipped God.

The difference between a prophet and others is only in the area of revelation and the preparatory stages and necessity for revelation. Revelation does not remove prophets from humanity. Rather they are models for the perfect human being. This is why they become leaders for people.

The Continuation of the Message of the Prophets in Imamate

It is the belief of all Muslims that Muhammad, peace and the mercy of God be upon him and his descendants, is the Seal of Prophets. The kindness and generosity of the prophets with the perfection or his existence ends. With his death, the world of humanity ends its relationship with Divine revelation. After him no prophet will come.

Based upon this principle of faith, all of that which is necessary for humanity to receive through Divine revelation was revealed to him and the Holy Quran is the last of the heavenly books.

But as the Prophet, in addition to his expressing the revelation, he also held the position of leadership of human society and the interpretation of Divine revelation with the support of his immunity from sin and error which God gave him. After him, the need for an aware leader who does not sin or err, as Divine proof, remained because the thoughts of human beings err, are impressionable and imperfect.

The belief of the Shi'ites in the system of imamate stems from this very necessity. They believe in the clear words of the Holy Prophet who said that the continuation of the way of the prophets to be through the 12 leaders, immune from sin and error, based upon God's Command, who are determined and introduced as those who continue the way of the Prophet.

This is that very ideal plan of the Shi'ites who believe the leadership of human society should be through the most aware and purest of human beings who God, through the direct words of the Prophet, guaranteed will be free from accepting impressions and committing error.

Of course, during the time when the immune Imam is in occultation, a leader or leaders of Islamic society will chosen from among those who best contain the criteria of the determined framework of knowledge, guarding the self (against evil), justice, etc. This is the principle of 'leadership of the religious jurisprudent' which is the best and closest form of leadership to the above system during the time when the immune imam is in occultation. It is the only way which will prevent deviation and the domination of an individual and individual rule within a society.

Summary of the Lesson

1. As God is the Aware, Wise and Absolute Grace, it is impossible that He not give a leader to humanity.

2. The intellect is a guide but is never sufficient to act alone.

3. The clearest reason for the non self-sufficiency of the intellect is the existence of various schools of thought, philosophies, politics and religions who the followers of each believe to be the right one.

4. The prophets are like receivers who have been put to work in the form of humanity.

5. The particularities of the prophets are the following: immunity from sin, miracles, leadership, and sincerity of intention, constructiveness and struggle.

6. Prophets by having all of these qualities are, at the same time, human beings who have, in the shadow of revelation, become the perfect model for humanity. This is why they become the leader of others.

7. With attention to the imperfection of humanity like erring and being impressionable, the best way to guide society is to give the leadership to an aware person who is immune from sin and this is the system of the imamate.

Questions to ask yourself

1. Why have you accepted the principle of leadership?

2. What do we mean when we say the intellect is self­sufficient?

3. Describe the characteristics of the prophets and explain each one.

4. How is the system of imamate the continuation of prophethood?

5. What is the leadership of the religious jurisprudent?

Lesson 11: Resurrection Part 1

One day we will leave this home. That which we have to think about is what will happen after death. This is important otherwise we will not have determined anything about the sunset for death is a reality which reaches everyone, whether or not they so desire.

Is death the end of life? Is death non-being, destruction, annihilation and the end or is death a change and a connection from one world to another? Do you recall that in our discussion of world view we said: One of the three questions which naturally arises from an individual is: Is the life of every individual human being limited to these few years of life in this world and is death the end of human life or is it that real human life which is eternal and forever begins at the time of death and this short life in this world is an introductory phase for structuring one's eternal fate with one's deeds?

"What is the life of this world but amusement and play? But verify the home in the hereafter, that is life indeed, if they but knew."(29:64)

In reality that which is destroyed and torn asunder at death is the material form of a human being but the truth of a human being which is one's very spirit and non-material dimension. This is never destroyed. Rather, according to the Holy Quran,

"And they say, 'What! When we lie hidden and lost in the earth shall we indeed be in a creation renewed?' Nay, they deny the meeting with their Lord. Say, ‘The Angel of Death, put In charge of you, will take the souls then you shall be brought back to your Lord.' " (32:10-11)

In order to attain the most correct and real answer to this question, we will study three issues which are the principle bases of it: First, the human being eternal; second, the possibility for the resurrection; and, third, proof of the resurrection.

The Human Being Is Eternal

As proving the existence of a world after death without the concept of the subsistence and eternality of the human being makes no sense, in this section, the two-dimensionality of the human being will be discussed. We ask the question: Is there anything other than the material frame within the existence of the human being which we call spirit which is capable of subsisting or is the human being solely determined by this very material dimension?

The Human Being is a Two Dimensional Being

The two-dimensionality of the human being is accepted by all of the various contemporary schools of thought. There is no doubt among them that in addition to the material dimension of the human being, it also has another dimension which separates it from other creatures. That which the various opinions held differ upon is whether or not the spiritual dimension of the human being follows its material dimension or not. Does it originate from there or is it independent? In other words, does its authenticity belong solely to the material dimension or does the spiritual dimension also have authenticity?

The material schools of thought generally believe that the spirit and spiritual dimension of the human being stems from the material. They believe it to be the reflection of the material dimension. Opposed to this, other schools of thought believe that the spirit has authenticity and independence.

The Spirit in Material Schools

Material schools of thought accept that the world is the monopoly of the material and in general they deny the existence of the metaphysical. They justify the existence of non-material phenomena by showing them to be the effects of the material. As to the spirit (and spiritual phenomena), these schools of thought busy themselves with justifications and vain fantasies. Materialists say: The true spirit is not separate from the material and physical dimension of the human being. They claim that the incorrect knowledge of former scholars who said, "The spirit is independent and after death will be reborn," is clear.

Dr. Arani says about this, "In the past ages the belief was held that the spirit is independent. Descartes assumed the spirit to be a fluid. Gnostics believed that the spirit is in love with the body. The new science has drawn a red line around these fantasies which prove that the spirit does not exist as an independent entity but rather stems from the material."

Materialists accept the fact that the spirit and spiritual phenomena are material and are among the particularities of the material because they believe that everything which exists is either material or has the particularities of materiality and that no particularities can be found which do not relate to the material.

Dr. Arani says, "From that which has been said, the following must be accepted as the definition of the spirit and life: 'The spirit and life consist of particularities determined by a special material facility. What we mean by special facility is those very cells or nerve cells. Thus the spirit has no external existence. Rather they are particular to a living form."

In describing the above, he says, “If material organs find the special time-place relationship to each other, they will possess the spirit and the spirit consists of these very relationships of the material organs which have a spirit.

Originality and Independence

In the previous discussions, this point has been intimated that experimental sciences are not able to prove or disprove the existence of non-material creatures like the spirit. Now let us see if there are other ways to prove the independence of the spirit and to be able to recognize it or not?

The best method of bringing consciousness to humanity from among the phenomena of the world is to move from cause to effect. Each one of us in our daily lives have been able to make correct judgments about the existence of a phenomenon or about its particularities and how it works without having had any direct contact with it. That is, we have only seen its effects and based upon that we have expressed an opinion. In the area of independence or non-independence of the spirit we can apply this same method and then, in this way, come to know the particularities of spiritual phenomena and their originality and independence.

Once we study the particularities of the spirit and its effects, we see that these particularities do not coincide with the spirit being material. There are clear proofs and living examples of its non-materiality. We will briefly study this in the following:

Unity and Stability of the Personality

Even though we may have doubts about many things, there is no doubt about the fact that we exist. This is the lowest common denominator of the level of knowledge and awareness of each and every human being. Every human being knows that he or she exists. There is no doubt about this. We discover ourselves and we are certain about our existence. Our awareness of ourselves which is explained by the word 'I', is the clearest bit of knowledge we have and it requires no proof or reasoning.

On the other hand, we also know that the 'I' or 'self’ from the time of birth until the end of life was, is and will always be, one unit. Neither is change seen in it, nor can any multiplicity be assumed nor may it be divided up. It has no parts and essentially such a thing is not conceivable. And also even though we, throughout our lifetime, lose many of our characteristics or gain some, that which is described by the word 'I' has remained stable.

Now let us see what that stable unit which does not contain any change or multiplicity is. Is it a stable unit, unchangeable, without parts and indivisible or multiple cells in our body which every seven years totally changes? Is this ‘I’ or ‘self’ in every individual those very brain cells which according to Dr. Arani (who popularized Marxism 30 years ago in Iran), have a relationship among themselves which relates to both numbers and multiplicity and one which is destroyed when the cell dies and is re-established with the birth of new cells or is another creature involved?

If the 'I' of each individual consists of cells and their time-place relationship, a 70 year old human being will at least 10 times during his lifetime become other than that 'l' and his 'I' will have changed. Each person, then, would contain innumerable parts.

It is sometimes said that physiology has proven that the brain cells are stable and that these cells every so often are enlarged and then reduced in size but they do not change in number. The spirit has the same characteristics as the brain. As the cells of the brain are stable, and never decrease or increase, it would appear that the spirit is also a stable form.

But attention must be paid to the fact that that which has been proven by physiology is the following: The numbers of the cells of the brain do not increase or decrease, not that the atoms which formed them do not change. Thus the brain cells are also not stable and like the other cells or the body, every seven years give their place to new cells. In addition to this, these explanations can never describe the unity of the personality of the human being.

This particularity (the unity and stability of the self) makes us turn our attention to the non-materiality of the spirit. This indication alone is sufficient so that it becomes clear that the claims of Mr. Arani that "science has drawn a circle of destruction upon the existence of the spirit as an independent entity," Is nothing other than an absurd slogan. Science in this area has no right to give either a negative or positive answer because science has greater humility than to negate something which is beyond its domain.

Greater still, experimental sciences are not able to negate or affirm any phenomena whether it be material or non-material. They can never bring proof to negate the existence of something. The only conclusion that science and experience can bring is that in such and such an area of experiment, such and such was not found. It is clear that the non-finding and lack of awareness of the existence or non-existence of a phenomenon in no way proves its existence. From what has been said it becomes clear how absurd the words, "until the time does not come that we can cut the spirit with a knife, we will not believe in it," are.

The Substance of Perception

One of the spiritual phenomena is perception. The particularities of perception make the subtraction of the spirit and spiritual phenomena manifest. In order to make this clear, we will do a quick study of the substance of perception.

Every material creature has three characteristics: place, change and being capable of division. Now it must be seen whether or not any of these three characteristics can be found in the sense of perfection or not. If these three characteristics exist in the sense of perception, it is a material thing and if the sense of perception does not contain these three characteristics, it is clear that the proof of the non-materiality of perception has been proven. Now we will turn to each of these three and weigh them carefully with perception.

Place

Many times thousands and even millions of people have participated in demonstrations. Perhaps you have stood aside and watched the people. As far as the eye can see you are surrounded by people who are in motion, shouting slogans, fists clenched, they put the responsibilities or their school of thought on display. Look carefully. Do you perceive the multitude of people who have participated in the demonstrations? Have you ever thought about the place of all these people? Is it possible that these great forms which require hundreds of kilometers of space will fit into the small space of brain cells? Without doubt, these forms of ours exist and non-material organs of outs can hold them because it is not possible to have such large forms fit into the small cells of the brain.

Is it possible that the concept of external creatures be minutely reflected in our eyes through our nerve cells and our mind conceive of its size and we think that we have seen something in the size that it really is.

But we must recognize the fact that these words can in no way prove that the form of our perceptions has a place because, assuming this, we ask: Where is the great form which our mind itself has enlarged? If this great form which we perceive be material, it needs a place whereas our brain and our nerve cells do not have the capacity to give a place to it. Thus perceptions do not have such a place.

Change

With a bit of care and attention, we arrive at the conclusion that perceptions are not capable of change and cannot be because if perceptions were capable of change, they must, like other creatures, change and be destroyed. With the passing of time, color changes and takes on another form. This does not make sense that no perceivable stable form remain in the mind of the human being.

It is clear that our mental form, after the passing of many years, remains the same as it was to begin with and we can once again recall it. For instance years ago we learned that Aristotle was the student of Plato. If perceptions were capable of change, this fact must later take a different form. Even the suggestion of something like this makes us laugh. Thus perceptions do not change.

The Acceptance of Division

Conceive of a two meter long piece of wood. Now divide that into two parts. Look carefully. You can never cut that piece of wood which you conceived of. Why? If you were to really divide that wood into two parts, the perception of your mind would still contain the two meter long, piece of wood and you have only conceived of two pieces of wood, each one meter long.

The best proof is when you are asked, "What did you divide up?" You answer, "I divided up the two meter piece of wood into two one meter pieces." The very indication of yours to the two meter piece of wood which you first conceived of, still remains in your mind. Thus, it has not been divided. Look at other perceptions. They are the same. Thus perceptions do not accept division.

Now that we know that none of the three conditions of materiality exist in perceptions, we can consciously make the judgment that perceptions are not material. Thus now that it is clear that perceptions are non-material phenomena, we can conclude that other than the human body which contains the characteristics of materiality, there must be another dimension so that the person observing these non-material phenomena (perceptions) exist within the human being. That is that very thing which we call the incorporeal spirit.

Summary of the Lesson

1. A discussion of the resurrection can be divided into three sections: The eternality of human beings, the possibility of the resurrection and proving resurrection.

2. The two-dimensionality of human beings is accepted by all schools of thought whether they be material or non­material ones and they only differ as to the authenticity of the spiritual dimension.

3. The spirit or self of the human being which is contained with the word 'I' has unity and stability and this is the greatest reason for its being an incorporeal entity.

4. Experimental sciences for two reasons cannot deny the incorporeality of the spirit. First, the spirit and spiritual phenomena are non-material and experimental facilities are only material places to study the effect of material things. Second, the only thing which science can prove is that it has not discovered the spirit and incorporeal things and this does not prove their non-existence.

5. Perceptions or our mental images neither have place, accept change nor are they divisible. Thus they arc not material and they tell of the existence or an incorporeal thing called spirit.

Questions to ask yourself

1. What is the opinion of materialists about the spirit and spiritual phenomena?

2. Can experimental sciences make judgments about things like the spirit? Why?

3. Which one of the characteristics of the spirit does not fit into its being a material thing?

4.Why are perceptions incorporeal substances?

Section One: The Necessity of Prophethood

General objectives

After studying this discourse, the students are expected:

1. To realize the rational necessity of prophethood;

2. To be acquainted with the views of philosophers and scholastic theologians about revelation; and

3. To understand the perspective of the Qur’an and theSunnah regarding revelation.

Introduction

The issue of prophethood [nubuwwah ] or apostleship [risālah ] is the subject of many pages of voluminous history books-the accounts of men who spent their lives conveying the message of God to His servants and experienced different afflictions along this way.

Here, we do not need to scan the pages of history to ascertain their existence because the signs of their existence are so obvious for us that there is no room for doubt. When our eyes are attracted to the architectural magnificence of churches or mosques, when our ears are drawn to the melodious recitation of the Qur’an or the call to prayer [adhān ], and when we observe faithful men and women sincerely and earnestly treading the path shown by the apostles of God (‘a ),1 we can see within ourselves the luminous visage of the prophets (‘a ).

By hearing the sound of the invitation of the prophets (‘a , seeing their celestial countenances and observing their saintly conduct, so many men and women were attracted to and believed in them. This faith [īmān ] is based on the testimony of human nature [fiṭrah ] which smells the familiar scent of the celestial world in the persons of the prophets (‘a ) and acknowledges their truthfulness or rightfulness without the need for rational investigation. However, this faith does not close the door for reflection [ta’ammul ] and thinking. In fact, it opens it wide. For those who have not yet embraced the faith, thinking can be a fertile ground for the growth of the seeds of faith while for those who have faith, it serves as a means of defending the faith and nurturing and cultivating the bud of belief [‘aqīdah ].

This point shows that the rational study or examination of prophethood is not an indispensable condition of faith in the prophets (‘a ) but only substantiates or supplements this faith.

As the door for thinking about prophethood is now open, questions must be given answers which the intellect or reason [‘aql ] can grasp well. This is exactly the concern of this chapter, and the following questions will be addressed:

1. Why must there be prophets in the lives of humankind? (The necessity of prophethood)

2. What services and benefits have the prophets rendered to mankind? (The blessings of the prophets (‘a ))

3. How did the prophets communicate with God and receive His message? (Revelation)

4. How can we be certain about the truthfulness of their claims to prophethood? (Miracles)

5. Assuming that their presence is necessary, why has the caravan of prophethood ceased to move? (Finality of the prophethood)

In the history of Islamic thought, the debate on thenecessity of prophethood has delved more into answering the following question: Why must God have sent prophets to mankind? Muslim scholars have tried to explain the philosophy behind the sending down of the prophets (‘a ) which is related to the ‘action of God’.

However, there is another question here and that is: Why should we humans pay heed and take seriously the message and invitation of the apostles (‘a )?

Could we not bother to take their invitation into account and just go along our way and pass by without paying attention to them? This question (regarding the human need to follow the prophets (‘a )) is of immense importance nowadays. In Islamic philosophy and theology books, the following question is also addressed: Why should man conduct research and investigation about the prophets (‘a )?

However, this question has not been dealt with at great length. Perhaps, the reason for this is that it is believed that if the philosophy behind the sending down of prophets (‘a ) is established, the philosophy behind the human need to follow the prophets (‘a ) will also be proven.

Muslim scholars have answered these questions by first dealing with God and His Action, and concluding with man and his need to follow the prophets (‘a ). Nowadays, however, there are some transcendent theosophers [muta’allihīn ] who start by studying man and his need to follow the prophets (‘a ), and concluding with God and His Action (sending down of the prophets (‘a )). This approach is widely adopted in the Christian world but is also to some extent observed in the works of Muslim scholars.

In this book, we shall follow the dominant approach in the books of Islamic philosophy and theology. By explaining the ‘Action of God’ (the necessity of sending down of the prophets (‘a )), we shall also establish the human need to follow the prophets (‘a ).

The necessity of prophethood from the Islamic theological perspective

Scholastic theology or theology [‘ilm al-kalām orkalām ], which is one of the important branches of Islamic sciences, has a long precedence. Scholastic theologians or theologians [mutakallimīn ] are those who expound religious beliefs and defend them against the misgivings and doubts expressed by others. Sometimes, these misgivings and doubts originate from outside the Islamic world. For example, whenever the principle of the existence of God or monotheism [tawḥīd ] was under attack, all Muslim theologians would come forward to defend it. However, there have also been times when doubts or misgivings were expressed by Muslims against the beliefs of fellow Muslims, and this has led to the emergence of different groups of theologians.

In addition, theologians have also differed about the methods of defending their religious beliefs. Some of them such as the Mu‘tazilites [Mu‘tazilah ] preferred the rational method while others such as the

Ash‘arites [Ashā‘irah ] did not much incline to rational theorization. In terms of method, the Shī‘ah2 theology has many similarities to that of the Mu‘tazilites but has fundamental differences with it with regard to the beliefs being defended.3

In this section, we shall use the arguments advanced by a great Shī‘ah theologian, Sayyid Murtaḍā.4

Through use of their intellect, human beings know that some things are good while others are bad, and to know this, they are in no need of revelation [wahī ]. Without citing any basis from revelation, we know that justice, honesty and trustworthiness are good and that injustice and violation of the rights of others are bad.5

Human beings not only understand the goodness of justice and gratitude for the kindness and benevolence of others but also consider themselves bound to observe justice and express gratitude towards others. In other words, the intellect is not only aware that justice is good but also knows that one must behave according to justice and not oppose it. Perception of the necessity and expediency of doing an action does not necessarily mean perception of its goodness and wholesomeness. Theologians have discussed at length the rational perception of duties (rational obligation).

The emphasis on the importance of intellect in perceiving what is good or bad and identifying responsibility shows the high station of the intellect in the life of humankind. In the Islamic traditions, the intellect is described as the “inner apostle” [rasūl-e bāṭin ]. Nevertheless, such an expression should not make us negligent of its definitional scope and limitations.

Attention to the scope and limitation of the intellect and its function is the basis of the theological proof [burhān-e kalāmī ] for the necessity of prophethood. Some of its limitations are as follows:

1. It is true that the intellect is capable of identifying the general principles underlying good and bad actions, but it is incapable of identifying particular cases in which a person is more involved in his practical life. Whenever the rational intellect [‘aql-e istidlālī ] intends to identify the ruling on specific cases, it often makes mistakes. The human intellect perceives that expressing gratitude to God is both good and obligatory, but it does not know which actions express such gratitude. The intellect is conscious of the necessity of respecting the rights of others, but it does not know exactly how to respect those rights nor does it know precisely what those rights are.

2. No doubt, the purpose of identifying good and bad actions is for people to train themselves to do good deeds and refrain from evil deeds. The truth of the matter, however, is that just to identify the goodness of actions and to sense the rational duty to do them does not automatically turn into action. In the same manner, mere identification of wicked acts does not translate into abandonment of the same. In addition to perception of an act’s goodness and the feeling of having a sense of duty, the performance of a voluntary action depends on the decision and will of a person. The nature of human will and the manner of decision-making are also completely intertwined with a person’s feelings, inclinations and desires.

Many people know that it is detestable to misappropriate the property of others, but the pressure of hunger can lead them away from this natural

sense of responsibility and urge them to sacrifice their will at the altar of needs and inclinations.

It is of immense importance to pay attention to the crucial role of feelings and emotions and it bespeaks of the fact that the guidance or direction of man toward perfection and deliverance does not depend solely on his intellect and reason. In fact, training or upbringing must also be given importance in such a way that feelings and emotions also assist man and not hinder him along the path of doing wholesome and righteous deeds.

The ethicists or moral teachers who reflect much on the elements of moral or righteous deeds inform us that the intellect is sometimes subdued by the desire [hawā ] and delegates the guidance or stewardship of the ship of humanity’s existence to feelings and emotions. Worse still, apart from delegating the captainship of the ship of existence to the feelings and emotions, at times it even makes itself their slave. Ethicists call such intellect the “satanic intellect” [‘aql-e shayṭānī ] which indulges in trickery to satiate bestial instincts and desires. As such, if man is supposed to attain salvation by doing righteous deeds and following the dictates of his reason, his feelings and emotions must be disciplined so as to abide by the intellect, and not the other way around.

Yea, it is a reality that God has made the intellect a light to show the way leading to man’s salvation, but it is also a fact that this beam does not shed light on every perspective of this way. Its brightness is not so strong that a breeze emitting from the carnal desires cannot blow it out.

Now, the following question can be raised: Does God truly intend to guide us or not? If not, why has He created the light of reason in human beings? If He does intend to guide humankind toward salvation and felicity-as He must be based on His infinite mercy-then He who knows everything, including the limitations of the “inner apostle”, would certainly send assistance so as to enhance the brightness of the light as well as to make it safe from the whirlwind of whims and caprice.

If God does not want to invite people to do righteous deeds, why has He bestowed them with an intellect which urges them towards righteousness? If He wants to guide humanity towards felicity through righteous deeds, why would He not supplement or complement the intellect’s invitation through revelation? If one is serious in inviting a friend and knows that by just reading an invitation the friend will not come, would he not send a representative to accompany the friend so that he would be assured of him coming?

The same is true in the case of God’s invitation to do righteous deeds and worship Him [‘ubūdiyyah ]. Out of His grace, He bestowed man with the intellect. In the same manner, out of His grace, He sent His chosen ones to affirm the intellect’s invitation and assist humanity by clearly showing the different dimensions of the way to salvation. In addition, by linking righteous deeds to everlasting bliss in the hereafter and evil deeds to eternal damnation in the afterlife, humanity’s feelings and emotions were resolutely set at the service of their intellects.

If a person were to truly understand that by doing righteous deeds he would attain divine proximity [qurb-e ilāhī ], and that divine pleasure or

satisfaction, which manifests in various forms, is the most pleasant of all things, would he not desire to perform more and more righteous deeds? Theologians call these acts of God “grace” [luṭf ] and consider them incumbent upon Him, for He does not withhold any grace that does not result in some type of harm or corruption among creation.

Therefore, the theologian’s approach is essentially based on the fact that God has invited man in accordance with the invitation of the intellect to good, but that without the sending down of apostles (‘a ) this invitation is less productive and imperfect. Similarly, without the sending down of revelation the light of the intellect will not be sufficiently bright. He who, out of His grace, endows humanity with the intellect also grants the religion and revelation so as to make the light of reason brilliant enough to assist the intellect against whims and caprice by linking everlasting felicity to righteous deeds.The necessity of prophethood from the Islamic philosophical perspective.

Although Islamic philosophy [falsafah orḥikmah ]6 is rooted in Qur’anic wisdom and Islamic traditions, especially the sayings of Imam7 ‘Alī (‘a ), there is no doubt that its organization or systematization into an organized body of knowledge is the result of the acquaintance of Muslim scholars with Greek thoughts with the translation [into Arabic] of their works during the second and third century AH. The Islamic civilization has produced great philosophers the most prominent of whom are Fārābī,8 Ibn Sīnā,9 Shaykh al-Ishrāq,10 and Ṣadr ad-Dīn Shīrāzī, well known as Mullā Ṣadrā.11 Islamic philosophy deals not only with the common and prevailing subjects in Greek philosophy but also with subjects that are not covered by Greek philosophers. The most important of these are the issues of Resurrection [ma‘ād ] and prophethood [nubuwwah ]. The philosophical discussion on prophethood focuses more on divine revelation, but there is also an examination of the necessity of sending prophets as the conveyers of the divine revelation. The approach which is labeled “proof of general guidance” [burhān-e hidāyat-e ‘āmmeh ] is a legacy of Muslim philosophers in this field.12

In this section of the book, we shall present the following arguments:

1. Wherever you look at the infinite creation of God, in addition to the order of existence you can also observe a sort of open and hidden guidance and direction everywhere. The order of a being shows the organization and coordination of its different components and the absence of contradiction and conflict. However, its guidance means that God has directed it towards a certain destination. God has not created contingent beings [mawjūdāt-e imkānī ] just to be abandoned later. Rather, apart from designing an order or system of creation, He has provided a sort of guidance according to the natural constitution of each being:

﴿ رَبُّنَا الَّذِي أَعْطَى كُلَّ شَيْءٍ خَلْقَهُ ثُمَّ هَدَى ﴾

“Our Lord is He who gave everything its creation and then guided it.” 13

God created the honeybee and then taught it a wonderful system of livelihood and attainment of perfection. If we try to liken the honeybee’s system of life to a strong and organized ship, the instincts which are actually

God’s inspirations [ilhām ] serve as the captain who will direct it toward its predefined destination:

وَأَوْحَى رَبُّكَ إِلَى النَّحْلِ أَنِ اتَّخِذِي مِنَ الْجِبَالِ بُيُوتًا وَمِنَ الشَّجَرِ وَمِمَّا يَعْرِشُونَ﴾

“And your Lord inspired the bee [saying]: ‘Make your home in the mountains, and on the trees and the trellises that they erect’.”14

One plants a delicate seed and after sometime it grows, becomes a tree and bears sweet and nutritious fruit. Certainly, inside the small seed are wonderful elements that remain there until it becomes a full grown tree. In every living thing, there is a sort of program that guides its life through the rocky roads of the material or natural world-which is the arena of struggle and conflict-to a certain destination. Muslim philosophers have called this “the principle of general guidance” [aṣl-e hidāyat-e ‘āmmeh ].

It is said that the credibility of the above mentioned principle is not anchored in a defective inductive reasoning or limited observation, but rather on a proof that bespeaks of the existence of a motive and purpose in the creation of every creature or thing. The reason behind this is that God is All-wise and He does not do anything futile or useless:

﴿ وَمَا خَلَقْنَا السَّمَاء وَالْأَرْضَ وَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا بَاطِلًا ذَلِكَ ظَنُّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا فَوَيْلٌ لِّلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنَ النَّارِ ﴾

“We did not create the sky and the earth and whatever is between them in vain. That is a conjecture of the faithless. So woe to the faithless on account of the Fire!”15

If God did not guide living things to their ideal destinations according to their natural constitutions, their lives would consist of aimlessness and lack of purpose, whereas futility and vainness is unbecoming of Allah.

Like other creatures, human beings are enveloped in God’s mercy and guidance for there is surely a purpose in his creation:

﴿ أَفَحَسِبْتُمْ أَنَّمَا خَلَقْنَاكُمْ عَبَثًا وَأَنَّكُمْ إِلَيْنَا لاَ تُرْجَعُونَ ﴾

“Did you suppose that We created you aimlessly, and that you will not be brought back to Us?”16

Yes, anyone who acknowledges [the existence of] God and believes in His power and wisdom has no doubt about the soundness of theproof of general guidance . Is there any doubt about a principle which the Qur’an explicitly affirms?

﴿ وَمَا قَدَرُواْ اللّهَ حَقَّ قَدْرِهِ إِذْ قَالُواْ مَا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ عَلَى بَشَرٍ مِّن شَيْءٍ ﴾

“They did not regard Allah with the regard due to Him when they said, ‘Allah has not sent down anything to any human’.”17

This verse bears witness to the fact that due recognition of God necessitates acknowledgment and recognition of His general guidance and direction especially His intervention in the lives of humankind.

2. Guidance is commensurate to the faculties and potentials of every being. Stones and other inanimate objects are guided according to certain mechanical laws. Having a more complex structure, the plants also have a more perfect sort of guidance, while the animals are guided by their instincts.

Among all creatures, humans occupy the highest station. Like the shell, the human being is an animal that has a precious gem within. In appearance, the human being resembles other animals, but in addition he has a divine spirit that bears a heavy burden of trust:

﴿ وَإِذْ قَالَ رَبُّكَ لِلْمَلاَئِكَةِ إِنِّي خَالِقٌ بَشَرًا مِّن صَلْصَالٍ مِّنْ حَمَإٍ مَّسْنُونٍ ٭ فَإِذَا سَوَّيْتُهُ وَنَفَخْتُ فِيهِ مِن رُّوحِي فَقَعُواْ لَهُ سَاجِدِينَ ﴾

“When your Lord said to the angels, ‘Indeed I am going to create a human out of dry clay [drawn] from an aging mud. So when I have proportioned him and breathed into him of My spirit, then fall down in prostration before him’.” 18

Like other animals, man has instinctive guidance for his physical growth and perfection and lives and develops by following that instinctive guidance.

Yet, the divine spirit on which rational human life depends has endowed man with an important advantage and that is the element of freewill or volition [ikhtīyār ]. Unlike other animals, man is not an innate prisoner of his instincts for he can overcome their influence. He can even regulate his instincts and desires to be at the service of his intellect or reason.

Of course, such a creature requires access to a sort of guidance which is consistent with his freewill.

Aristotle says:

“We must not follow those who tell us that since we are humans, we must think of things human, and since we are mortals, we must engage in transient affairs. Rather, as far as possible, we must make ourselves immortal and we must try our best to live consistent with the best thing (intellect) within us.”19

Yet, how is it that we can make ourselves immortal and think of eternity? Is it possible except by way of divine revelation? In the absence of divine revelation, it is not possible to attain eternal happiness.

Of course God, who has not spared creating eyebrow and eyelash-which have lower albeit vital functions in the lives of human beings-does not also spare sending prophets in which lie the survival of the human race and the eternal happiness of every person.20

3. It is true that the “principle of general guidance ” emphasizes the guidance of humanity toward eternal salvation in the hereafter; however, since worldly life is the preliminary stage of this guidance, leadership and direction in the affairs related to life in the world are among the tasks of the prophets (‘a ). In this connection, it is usually emphasized that social life, which is the foundation of human civilization, is only possible under the auspices of revealed teachings. If there had been no historical record of the existence of prophets, there would also have been no trace of human civilization. Collective life is only possible with the existence of just laws and moral upbringing which in turn emanate from revealed teachings.

If legislative authority had been delegated solely to humans, they would not have taken true justice into consideration and would have enacted laws according to material and personal interests. Moreover, in the absence of superior morality, which is only possible through faith in God and the

hereafter, the existence of just laws cannot contribute to the perpetuity of society and serve as the groundwork for material welfare in this world as well as perfection and happiness in the next world. Given the urgent need of mankind for divine guidance and theprinciple of general guidance , the necessity of the mission [bi‘that ] of the prophets (‘a ) and their presence in human society is so evident that it cannot be denied.

Those who assert that the interests of humanity in this world do not need prophetic teachings because we presently witness civilizations devoid of revealed teachings and founded on atheism have ignored the following points:

Firstly, notwithstanding a verbal denial in terms of beliefs and moral principles, humankind of today is in fact deeply indebted to the prophets (‘a ). There are many religious virtues that hold various societies intact which are actually products of the prophets’ (‘a ) efforts. When looking at history it is clear that humanity has benefited much from the teachings of the prophets (‘a ). Without the teachings of the prophets would humankind have a stable collective life or would people lead a more bestial life in which right and value would be the slaves of power and might.21

Secondly, Muslim philosophers do not claim that without the existence of the prophets (‘a ) and their teachings, no society could be founded whatsoever. They are rather referring to a society which serves as the grounds for human perfection and eternal bliss in the hereafter.22 What rational person can claim that without the guidance of God he can enact a code of law which is not only just and guarantees the perpetuity of human race in this world but is also codified in such a manner that it ensures eternal happiness and felicity in the next world? Only the prophets (‘a ) can teach the members of society and train them such that they would observe the rights of others completely. Only the prophets (‘a ) can reform man, send him back to his original nature which is God’s spirit, and make him immortal by the grace and mercy of God:

﴿ هُوَ الَّذِي بَعَثَ فِي الْأُمِّيِّينَ رَسُولًا مِّنْهُمْ يَتْلُو عَلَيْهِمْ آيَاتِهِ وَيُزَكِّيهِمْ وَيُعَلِّمُهُمُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَإِن كَانُوا مِن قَبْلُ لَفِي ضَلَالٍ مُّبِينٍ ٭ وَآخَرِينَ مِنْهُمْ لَمَّا يَلْحَقُوا بِهِمْ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الْحَكِيمُ ﴾

“It is He who sent to the unlettered [people] an apostle from among themselves, to recite to them His signs, to purify them, and to teach them the Book and wisdom, and earlier they had indeed been in manifest error. And to others from among them [as well] who have not yet joined them.”23

Some notes

1. In addition to their holy scripture (the Qur’an), the Muslims have access to a great literary corpus calledSunnah . In general,Sunnah refers to the recorded narrations [riwāyāt ] of the Holy Prophet ( )24 and infallible Imāms (‘a ). A considerable section of these narrations explains practical laws on the individual and collective life but many narrations also expound ideological tenets and even deal with the natural world and humanity.

The issue of the necessity of prophethood and the blessings of the prophets has been also reflected in numerous narrations. Here, it suffices to mention two narrations. From the following two narrations, it can be discerned to what extent the writings of philosophers and theologians in this regard are indebted to theSunnah .

a. In reply to someone who asked for a proof of prophethood, Imām aṣ-Ṣādiq (‘a ) said:

“As we have proven that God, the All-wise, is our Creator who is Most Sublime and Exalted to be comprehended and communicated by anyone, we know that there must be prophets among the people to speak on His behalf, express His will and guide the people about what is good and bad on which depend their fate. So, there must be bidders and forbidders who are none other than the prophets (‘a ).”25

b. In Sermon 1 ofNahj al-Balāghah ,26 Imām ‘Alī (‘a ) said:

فَبَعَثَ فِيهمْ رُسُلَهُ، وَوَاتَرَ إِلَيْهِمْ أَنْبِياءَهُ، لِيَسْتَأْدُوهُمْ مِيثَاقَ فِطْرَتِهِ، وَيُذَكِّرُوهُمْ مَنْسِيَّ نِعْمَتِهِ، وَيَحْتَجُّوا عَلَيْهِمْ بَالتَّبْلِيغِ، وَيُثِيرُوا لَهُمْ دَفَائِنَ الْعُقُولِ، وَيُرُوهُمْ آيَاتِ الْمَقْدِرَةِ: مِنْ سَقْف فَوْقَهُمْ مَرْفُوع، وَمِهَاد تَحْتَهُمْ مَوْضُوع، وَمَعَايِشَ تُحْيِيهِمْ، وَآجَال تُفْنِيهمْ، وَأَوْصَاب تُهْرِمُهُمْ، وَأَحْدَاث تَتَابَعُ عَلَيْهِمْ.

“Then Allah sent His Messengers and a series of His prophets towards them to get them to fulfill the pledges of His creation, to recall to them His bounties, to exhort them by preaching, to unveil before them the hidden virtues of wisdom and show them the signs of His Omnipotence namely the sky which is raised over them, the earth that is placed beneath them, means of living that sustain them, death which brings an end to everything, ailments that turn them old and incidents that successively betake them!”27

2. Both philosophical and theological arguments show the intellect’s limitations in identifying the rational and humane way of life which raises man above the bestial form of living. These limitations are more evident with respect to the otherworldly life which is beyond comprehension of the intellect.

However, the limitations of the intellect do not negate its value and credibility. It is only in comparison with the extensive needs of humanity that we talk about the limitations of the intellect. Similarly, whenever we talk about the insufficiency of the senses, this does not mean we deny their exceptional cognitive functions. Everyone knows that in the absence of the senses, the intellect or reason cannot function properly. Conversely, without the intellect the senses cannot function at all. The same is true in the case of reason [‘aql ] and revelation [waḥī ]. Reason is kindled under the auspices of revelation. Without the latter, the former will wander in the valley of the unknown. Meanwhile, it is also by the hint of reason that revelation is welcomed, and it is in the hearts of those who apply reason that the tree of revelation bears fruit:

﴿ إِنَّمَا يَخْشَى اللَّهَ مِنْ عِبَادِهِ الْعُلَمَاء ﴾

“Only those of Allah’s servants having knowledge fear Him.” 28

“Reason [‘aql ] and religious law [shar‘ ]have no option [but to acknowledge] that reason is the basis or foundation while religious law is the structure. A structure without foundation is baseless while a foundation without any structure is useless.”29

In the words of a Christian theologian, Ian Barbour, “Revelation does not negate reason but rather develops it. Reflection and research could be compatible with religious commitment.”30

3. It is sometimes assumed that the concept of “the necessity of doing an action” cannot be applied to God on the grounds that accepting such necessity implies setting a duty for Him to discharge and it does not behoove Him to beobligated by others. Therefore, what do we really mean by saying that-it is ‘incumbent upon ’ or ‘necessary ’ for God to send down prophets? Do we want to setdos anddon’ts for God?! For this reason, the Ash‘arites [Ashā‘irah ] have entirely avoided discussing the necessity of prophethood.

4. What is meant by the necessity for God todo an action is that the human intellect or reason understands the continuity of this action within the context of the will of God and perceives God as the Doer of the action. For example, when we say that God is the Necessary Being [wājib al-wujūd ] it means that the Being cannot be separated or detached from the Divine Essence [dhāt-e ilāhī ]. When we say that it is necessary for God to send down prophets, it means nothing except that God is All-wise and so benevolent to humanity that it is impossible for Him not to send prophets.31

References

1. - The abbreviation, “‘a” stands for the Arabic invocative phrase, ‘alayhi’s-salām, ‘alayhim’us-salām, or ‘alayhā’s-salām [may peace be upon him/them/her], which is mentioned after the names of the prophets, angels, Imāms from the Prophet’s progeny, and saints (‘a). [Trans.]

2. - In this volume, I have maintained the word “Shī‘ah” to refer to both the group (single collective unit) and the individuals constituting the group (plural). [Trans.]

3. - See Murtaḍā Muṭahharī, Understanding Islamic Sciences (London: ICAS Press, 2002), p. 57-84. [Trans.]

4. - See ash-Sharīf al-Murtaḍā, Adh-dhakhīrah fī ‘Ilm al-Kalām, p. 323.

Sayyid Murtaḍā ‘Alam al-Hudā (355-436 AH): a man of versatility with a keen taste and talent for literature, jurisprudence and theology whose verdicts and opinions are taken into account even today. Both he and his brother Sayyid ar-Raḍī, the compiler of Nahj al-Balāghah, studied from Shaykh al-Mufīd. [Trans.]

5. - Some theologians point out the origin of the difference between good and bad actions, believing that its criterion is the effects they bring about in the lives of human beings. Accordingly, good deeds are the source of felicity while evil deeds lead to perdition.

6. - Regarding its literal and semantic definitions, see Muṭahharī, Understanding Islamic Sciences, pp. 11-19. [Trans.]

7. - Hadrat: The Arabic word Hadrat is used as a respectful form of address. [Trans.]

8. - One of Islam’s leading philosophers, al-Fārābī was born at Fārāb, situated on the Jaxartes (Syr Darya), the modern Otrar. Coming to Baghdad, he studied under the Christian doctor Johanna, son of Hilan. Another of his teachers was Abū Bishr Matta, known as a translator of Greek works. He next proceeded to Aleppo, to the court of Sayf ad-Dawlah, son of Hamdān, and led a somewhat retired life under his protection, assuming the garb of a Sufi. When this prince captured Damascus, he took the philosopher with him, and there Fārābī died in 339 AH/950. Fārābī’s literary production was considerable, but a great number of his works were lost very early. They were chiefly commentaries or explanations of the Greek philosophers, especially Aristotle. In the sphere of moral philosophy he wrote a commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics; in that of political philosophy, he made a summary of Plato’s Laws, and composed a short treatise on the Ideal City. To psychology and metaphysics he contributed numerous works, with such titles as Intelligence and the Intelligible, The Soul, The Faculties of the Soul, The One and Unity, Substance, Time, The Void, and Space and Measure. He also commented on Alexander of Aphrodisias’ book, de Anima. Believing that Greek philosophy was a unity, he labored to reconcile Plato and Aristotle, and with this idea wrote treatises on The Aims of Plato and Aristotle and The Agreement between Plato and Aristotle. He also discussed certain interpretations of Aristotle proposed by Galen and John Philoponus, and composed An Intervention between Aristotle and Galen. [Trans.]

9. - Abū ‘Alī al-Husayn ibn ‘Abdullāh ibn Sīnā, or Avicenna, entitled al-Shaykh al-Ra’īs, or Hujjat al-Haqq by his compatriots, simply Shaykh by his disciples, and the Prince of Physicians in the occidental world, was born near Bukhārā in the year 370 AH/980. When Ibn Sīnā was five years old he and his family moved to the city of Bukhārā, where the young boy had a greater opportunity to study. At the age of ten he already knew grammar, literature, and theology as well as the whole of the Qur’an. When the famous mathematician, Abū ‘Abdullāh al-Natīlī, came to Bukhārā, he was invited to stay at the house of Ibn Sīnā in order to teach him mathematics. Under his tutelage Ibn Sīnā mastered the Almagest, the Elements of Euclid and some logic, all of which he soon knew better than his teacher. Having mastered mathematics, he then turned his attention to physics, metaphysics, and medicine. By the time he was sixteen, Ibn Sīnā had mastered all the sciences of his day and was well known as a physician. In another two years, thanks to the commentary of al-Fārābī, he was also to complete his understanding of Aristotle’s metaphysics which at first had presented considerable difficulty for him. Despite the loss in part or in toto of several of his major works, such as the twenty-volume Kitāb al-Insāf on the arbitration of Eastern and Western philosophy and the Lisān al-‘Arab in ten volumes, over two-hundred and fifty books, treatises, and letters of Ibn Sīnā have survived. They range from the voluminous Kitāb ash-Shifā and Al-Qānūn fi’t-Tibb to treatises of only a

few pages like Risālat al-Fi‘l wal-Infi‘āl and Risālah fi’s-Sirr al-Qadar. His books can be roughly divided into four separate groups: the philosophical, religious, cosmological and physical, and finally the symbolical and metaphysical narratives. Kitāb ash-Shifā, a vast philosophical and scientific encyclopedia, is probably the largest work of its kind ever written by one man. His dominating influence in medicine, philosophy and theology has lasted over the ages and is still alive within the circles of Islamic thought. [Trans.]

10. - A towering figure of the Illuminationist School of Islamic Philosophy [ishrāqī], Shahāb ad-Dīn Yahyā Suhrawardī (known as Shaykh al-Ishrāq), was born in Suhraward, near Zanjān, Iran in 1155. After studying in Isfahān, a leading center of Islamic scholarship, Suhrawardī traveled through Iran, Anatolia and Syria. Influenced by mystical teachings, he spent much time in meditation and seclusion, and in Halab (modern Aleppo) he favorably impressed its ruler, Malik az-Zāhir. His teachings, however, aroused the opposition of established and learned religious men [‘ulamā], who persuaded Malik to have him put to death. The appellation al-Maqtūl [the killed one] meant that he was not to be considered a shahīd [martyr]. Suhrawardī wrote voluminously. The more than 50 works that were attributed to him were classified into two categories: doctrinal and philosophical accounts containing commentaries on the works of Aristotle and Plato, as well as his contribution to the Illuminationist School; and shorter treatises, generally written in Persian and of an esoteric nature, meant to illustrate the paths and journeys of a mystic before he could achieve ma‘rifah (gnosis or esoteric knowledge). [Trans.]

11. - Mullā Sadrā (d. 1050 AH/1640), also called Sadruddīn Shīrāzī and Sadr al-Muta’allihīn, was a philosopher who led the Iranian cultural renaissance in the 17th century. The foremost representative of Ishrāqī [Illuminationist] School of philosopher-mystics, he is commonly regarded by Iranians as the greatest philosopher of Iran. A scion of a notable Shīrāzī family, Mullā Sadrā completed his education in Isfahān, then the leading cultural and intellectual center of Iran. After his studies with scholars there, he produced several works, the most famous of which was his Asfār (Journeys). Asfār contains the bulk of his philosophy, which was influenced by a personal mysticism bordering on asceticism that he experienced during a 15-year retreat at Kahak, a village near Qum in Iran. Toward the end of his life, Mullā Sadrā returned to Shīrāz to teach. His teachings, however, were considered heretical by the orthodox Shī‘ah theologians, who persecuted him, though his powerful family connections permitted him to continue to write. He died on a pilgrimage to Mecca. [Trans.]

12. - See Sayyid Muḥammad Ḥusayn Ṭabāṭabā’ī, Al-Mīzān fī Tafsīr al-Qur’ān, vol. 2, under the commentary of Sūrah al-Baqarah 2:213. See also Murtaḍā Muṭahharī, Nubuwwat [Prophethood] in Majmū‘eh-ye Āthār [Anthology of Muṭahharī’s Works], vol. 4, p. 398.

13. - Sūrah Ṭā Ḥā 20:50. In this volume, the translation of Qur’anic passages is adapted from Sayyid ‘Alī Qulī Qarā’ī, The Qur’an with a Phrase-by-Phrase English Translation (London: Islamic College for Advanced Studies Press, 2004). [Trans.]

14. - Sūrah Naḥl 16:68.

15. - Sūrah Ṣād 38:27.

16. - Sūrah Mu’minūn 23:115.

17. - Sūrah An‘ām 6:91.

18. - Sūrah Hijr 15:28-29.

19. - Quoted in Marta Nusham (?), Aristotle, trans. ‘Izzat Allāh Fūlādvand, p. 99. It can be said that Aristotle alludes to those who say that man is flesh, skin and blood and nothing else, and the perfection of human life must be sought in the same animalistic life.

20. - Ibn Sīnā, Ash-Shifā, Theology Section, p. 44.

21. - For more information see Muṭahharī, Nubuwwat in Majmū‘eh-ye Āthār, vol. 4, pp. 351, 364.

22. - ‘Abd ar-Razzāq Lāhījī, Guzīdeh-ye Gūhar-e Murād, ed. Ṣamad Muwaḥḥid, p. 252.

23. - Sūrah Jum‘ah 62:2-3.

24. - The abbreviation, “s”, stands for the Arabic invocative phrase, sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa ālihi wa sallam [may God’s blessings and peace be upon him and his progeny], which is mentioned after the name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (s). [Trans.]

25. - Uṣūl al-Kāfī, vol. 1, p. 168 (with slight modification).

26. - Nahj al-Balāghah (The Peak of Eloquence) is a collection of speeches, sayings and letters of the Commander of the Faithful, Imām ‘Alī ibn Abī ālib (‘a) compiled by Sharīf ar

Radī Muhammad ibn al-Husayn (d. 406&T AH/1016). The contents of the book concern the three essential topics of God, man and the universe, and include comments on scientific, literary, social, ethical, and political issues. With the exception of the words of the Glorious Qur’an and of the Holy Prophet (s), no words of man can equal it in eloquence. So far, more than 101 exegeses have been written on the Nahj al-Balāghah, indicating the importance of this treatise to scholars and learned men of research and investigation. For more information, visit: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul. [Trans.]

27. - Syed ‘Ali Raza, Nahj al-Balāghah: The Peak of Eloquence (Qum: Foundation of Islamic Cultural Propagation in the World, 1995), Sermon 1. [Trans.]

28. - Sūrah Fāṭir (or al-Malā’ikah) 35:28.

29. - Risālah Hidāyah aṭ-Ṭālibiyyīn in the anthology of treatises of the great philosopher Ḥājj Mullā Hādī Sabziwārī, introduced and edited by Sayyid Jalāl Ashtiyānī, p. 10.

30. - Ian Barbour, ‘Ilm va Dīn [Science and Religion], trans. Bahā’uddīn Khurramshāhī, p. 305.

Ian G. Barbour (1923- ) is an American scholar of the relationship between science and religion whose 1989-91 Gifford Lectures yielded the widely recognized texts, Religion in an Age of Science (1990) and Ethics in an Age of Technology (1993). His earlier Issues in Science and Religion (1965), widely acclaimed as a groundbreaking volume, discussed the relationship of religious thought to the history, methods, and theories of science. As a physicist and theologian, Barbour was awarded the Templeton Prize in 1999 for Progress in Religion in recognition of his efforts to create a dialogue between the worlds of science and religion. [Trans.]

31. - Muṭahharī, Nubuwwat in Majmū‘eh-ye Āthār, vol. 4, p. 365. For in-depth discussion on the meaning of “necessity” with respect to God, see Sayyid Muḥammad Ḥusayn Ṭabāṭabā’ī, Al-Mīzān fī Tafsīr al-Qur’ān, vol. 14, p. 94.

Section One: The Necessity of Prophethood

General objectives

After studying this discourse, the students are expected:

1. To realize the rational necessity of prophethood;

2. To be acquainted with the views of philosophers and scholastic theologians about revelation; and

3. To understand the perspective of the Qur’an and theSunnah regarding revelation.

Introduction

The issue of prophethood [nubuwwah ] or apostleship [risālah ] is the subject of many pages of voluminous history books-the accounts of men who spent their lives conveying the message of God to His servants and experienced different afflictions along this way.

Here, we do not need to scan the pages of history to ascertain their existence because the signs of their existence are so obvious for us that there is no room for doubt. When our eyes are attracted to the architectural magnificence of churches or mosques, when our ears are drawn to the melodious recitation of the Qur’an or the call to prayer [adhān ], and when we observe faithful men and women sincerely and earnestly treading the path shown by the apostles of God (‘a ),1 we can see within ourselves the luminous visage of the prophets (‘a ).

By hearing the sound of the invitation of the prophets (‘a , seeing their celestial countenances and observing their saintly conduct, so many men and women were attracted to and believed in them. This faith [īmān ] is based on the testimony of human nature [fiṭrah ] which smells the familiar scent of the celestial world in the persons of the prophets (‘a ) and acknowledges their truthfulness or rightfulness without the need for rational investigation. However, this faith does not close the door for reflection [ta’ammul ] and thinking. In fact, it opens it wide. For those who have not yet embraced the faith, thinking can be a fertile ground for the growth of the seeds of faith while for those who have faith, it serves as a means of defending the faith and nurturing and cultivating the bud of belief [‘aqīdah ].

This point shows that the rational study or examination of prophethood is not an indispensable condition of faith in the prophets (‘a ) but only substantiates or supplements this faith.

As the door for thinking about prophethood is now open, questions must be given answers which the intellect or reason [‘aql ] can grasp well. This is exactly the concern of this chapter, and the following questions will be addressed:

1. Why must there be prophets in the lives of humankind? (The necessity of prophethood)

2. What services and benefits have the prophets rendered to mankind? (The blessings of the prophets (‘a ))

3. How did the prophets communicate with God and receive His message? (Revelation)

4. How can we be certain about the truthfulness of their claims to prophethood? (Miracles)

5. Assuming that their presence is necessary, why has the caravan of prophethood ceased to move? (Finality of the prophethood)

In the history of Islamic thought, the debate on thenecessity of prophethood has delved more into answering the following question: Why must God have sent prophets to mankind? Muslim scholars have tried to explain the philosophy behind the sending down of the prophets (‘a ) which is related to the ‘action of God’.

However, there is another question here and that is: Why should we humans pay heed and take seriously the message and invitation of the apostles (‘a )?

Could we not bother to take their invitation into account and just go along our way and pass by without paying attention to them? This question (regarding the human need to follow the prophets (‘a )) is of immense importance nowadays. In Islamic philosophy and theology books, the following question is also addressed: Why should man conduct research and investigation about the prophets (‘a )?

However, this question has not been dealt with at great length. Perhaps, the reason for this is that it is believed that if the philosophy behind the sending down of prophets (‘a ) is established, the philosophy behind the human need to follow the prophets (‘a ) will also be proven.

Muslim scholars have answered these questions by first dealing with God and His Action, and concluding with man and his need to follow the prophets (‘a ). Nowadays, however, there are some transcendent theosophers [muta’allihīn ] who start by studying man and his need to follow the prophets (‘a ), and concluding with God and His Action (sending down of the prophets (‘a )). This approach is widely adopted in the Christian world but is also to some extent observed in the works of Muslim scholars.

In this book, we shall follow the dominant approach in the books of Islamic philosophy and theology. By explaining the ‘Action of God’ (the necessity of sending down of the prophets (‘a )), we shall also establish the human need to follow the prophets (‘a ).

The necessity of prophethood from the Islamic theological perspective

Scholastic theology or theology [‘ilm al-kalām orkalām ], which is one of the important branches of Islamic sciences, has a long precedence. Scholastic theologians or theologians [mutakallimīn ] are those who expound religious beliefs and defend them against the misgivings and doubts expressed by others. Sometimes, these misgivings and doubts originate from outside the Islamic world. For example, whenever the principle of the existence of God or monotheism [tawḥīd ] was under attack, all Muslim theologians would come forward to defend it. However, there have also been times when doubts or misgivings were expressed by Muslims against the beliefs of fellow Muslims, and this has led to the emergence of different groups of theologians.

In addition, theologians have also differed about the methods of defending their religious beliefs. Some of them such as the Mu‘tazilites [Mu‘tazilah ] preferred the rational method while others such as the

Ash‘arites [Ashā‘irah ] did not much incline to rational theorization. In terms of method, the Shī‘ah2 theology has many similarities to that of the Mu‘tazilites but has fundamental differences with it with regard to the beliefs being defended.3

In this section, we shall use the arguments advanced by a great Shī‘ah theologian, Sayyid Murtaḍā.4

Through use of their intellect, human beings know that some things are good while others are bad, and to know this, they are in no need of revelation [wahī ]. Without citing any basis from revelation, we know that justice, honesty and trustworthiness are good and that injustice and violation of the rights of others are bad.5

Human beings not only understand the goodness of justice and gratitude for the kindness and benevolence of others but also consider themselves bound to observe justice and express gratitude towards others. In other words, the intellect is not only aware that justice is good but also knows that one must behave according to justice and not oppose it. Perception of the necessity and expediency of doing an action does not necessarily mean perception of its goodness and wholesomeness. Theologians have discussed at length the rational perception of duties (rational obligation).

The emphasis on the importance of intellect in perceiving what is good or bad and identifying responsibility shows the high station of the intellect in the life of humankind. In the Islamic traditions, the intellect is described as the “inner apostle” [rasūl-e bāṭin ]. Nevertheless, such an expression should not make us negligent of its definitional scope and limitations.

Attention to the scope and limitation of the intellect and its function is the basis of the theological proof [burhān-e kalāmī ] for the necessity of prophethood. Some of its limitations are as follows:

1. It is true that the intellect is capable of identifying the general principles underlying good and bad actions, but it is incapable of identifying particular cases in which a person is more involved in his practical life. Whenever the rational intellect [‘aql-e istidlālī ] intends to identify the ruling on specific cases, it often makes mistakes. The human intellect perceives that expressing gratitude to God is both good and obligatory, but it does not know which actions express such gratitude. The intellect is conscious of the necessity of respecting the rights of others, but it does not know exactly how to respect those rights nor does it know precisely what those rights are.

2. No doubt, the purpose of identifying good and bad actions is for people to train themselves to do good deeds and refrain from evil deeds. The truth of the matter, however, is that just to identify the goodness of actions and to sense the rational duty to do them does not automatically turn into action. In the same manner, mere identification of wicked acts does not translate into abandonment of the same. In addition to perception of an act’s goodness and the feeling of having a sense of duty, the performance of a voluntary action depends on the decision and will of a person. The nature of human will and the manner of decision-making are also completely intertwined with a person’s feelings, inclinations and desires.

Many people know that it is detestable to misappropriate the property of others, but the pressure of hunger can lead them away from this natural

sense of responsibility and urge them to sacrifice their will at the altar of needs and inclinations.

It is of immense importance to pay attention to the crucial role of feelings and emotions and it bespeaks of the fact that the guidance or direction of man toward perfection and deliverance does not depend solely on his intellect and reason. In fact, training or upbringing must also be given importance in such a way that feelings and emotions also assist man and not hinder him along the path of doing wholesome and righteous deeds.

The ethicists or moral teachers who reflect much on the elements of moral or righteous deeds inform us that the intellect is sometimes subdued by the desire [hawā ] and delegates the guidance or stewardship of the ship of humanity’s existence to feelings and emotions. Worse still, apart from delegating the captainship of the ship of existence to the feelings and emotions, at times it even makes itself their slave. Ethicists call such intellect the “satanic intellect” [‘aql-e shayṭānī ] which indulges in trickery to satiate bestial instincts and desires. As such, if man is supposed to attain salvation by doing righteous deeds and following the dictates of his reason, his feelings and emotions must be disciplined so as to abide by the intellect, and not the other way around.

Yea, it is a reality that God has made the intellect a light to show the way leading to man’s salvation, but it is also a fact that this beam does not shed light on every perspective of this way. Its brightness is not so strong that a breeze emitting from the carnal desires cannot blow it out.

Now, the following question can be raised: Does God truly intend to guide us or not? If not, why has He created the light of reason in human beings? If He does intend to guide humankind toward salvation and felicity-as He must be based on His infinite mercy-then He who knows everything, including the limitations of the “inner apostle”, would certainly send assistance so as to enhance the brightness of the light as well as to make it safe from the whirlwind of whims and caprice.

If God does not want to invite people to do righteous deeds, why has He bestowed them with an intellect which urges them towards righteousness? If He wants to guide humanity towards felicity through righteous deeds, why would He not supplement or complement the intellect’s invitation through revelation? If one is serious in inviting a friend and knows that by just reading an invitation the friend will not come, would he not send a representative to accompany the friend so that he would be assured of him coming?

The same is true in the case of God’s invitation to do righteous deeds and worship Him [‘ubūdiyyah ]. Out of His grace, He bestowed man with the intellect. In the same manner, out of His grace, He sent His chosen ones to affirm the intellect’s invitation and assist humanity by clearly showing the different dimensions of the way to salvation. In addition, by linking righteous deeds to everlasting bliss in the hereafter and evil deeds to eternal damnation in the afterlife, humanity’s feelings and emotions were resolutely set at the service of their intellects.

If a person were to truly understand that by doing righteous deeds he would attain divine proximity [qurb-e ilāhī ], and that divine pleasure or

satisfaction, which manifests in various forms, is the most pleasant of all things, would he not desire to perform more and more righteous deeds? Theologians call these acts of God “grace” [luṭf ] and consider them incumbent upon Him, for He does not withhold any grace that does not result in some type of harm or corruption among creation.

Therefore, the theologian’s approach is essentially based on the fact that God has invited man in accordance with the invitation of the intellect to good, but that without the sending down of apostles (‘a ) this invitation is less productive and imperfect. Similarly, without the sending down of revelation the light of the intellect will not be sufficiently bright. He who, out of His grace, endows humanity with the intellect also grants the religion and revelation so as to make the light of reason brilliant enough to assist the intellect against whims and caprice by linking everlasting felicity to righteous deeds.The necessity of prophethood from the Islamic philosophical perspective.

Although Islamic philosophy [falsafah orḥikmah ]6 is rooted in Qur’anic wisdom and Islamic traditions, especially the sayings of Imam7 ‘Alī (‘a ), there is no doubt that its organization or systematization into an organized body of knowledge is the result of the acquaintance of Muslim scholars with Greek thoughts with the translation [into Arabic] of their works during the second and third century AH. The Islamic civilization has produced great philosophers the most prominent of whom are Fārābī,8 Ibn Sīnā,9 Shaykh al-Ishrāq,10 and Ṣadr ad-Dīn Shīrāzī, well known as Mullā Ṣadrā.11 Islamic philosophy deals not only with the common and prevailing subjects in Greek philosophy but also with subjects that are not covered by Greek philosophers. The most important of these are the issues of Resurrection [ma‘ād ] and prophethood [nubuwwah ]. The philosophical discussion on prophethood focuses more on divine revelation, but there is also an examination of the necessity of sending prophets as the conveyers of the divine revelation. The approach which is labeled “proof of general guidance” [burhān-e hidāyat-e ‘āmmeh ] is a legacy of Muslim philosophers in this field.12

In this section of the book, we shall present the following arguments:

1. Wherever you look at the infinite creation of God, in addition to the order of existence you can also observe a sort of open and hidden guidance and direction everywhere. The order of a being shows the organization and coordination of its different components and the absence of contradiction and conflict. However, its guidance means that God has directed it towards a certain destination. God has not created contingent beings [mawjūdāt-e imkānī ] just to be abandoned later. Rather, apart from designing an order or system of creation, He has provided a sort of guidance according to the natural constitution of each being:

﴿ رَبُّنَا الَّذِي أَعْطَى كُلَّ شَيْءٍ خَلْقَهُ ثُمَّ هَدَى ﴾

“Our Lord is He who gave everything its creation and then guided it.” 13

God created the honeybee and then taught it a wonderful system of livelihood and attainment of perfection. If we try to liken the honeybee’s system of life to a strong and organized ship, the instincts which are actually

God’s inspirations [ilhām ] serve as the captain who will direct it toward its predefined destination:

وَأَوْحَى رَبُّكَ إِلَى النَّحْلِ أَنِ اتَّخِذِي مِنَ الْجِبَالِ بُيُوتًا وَمِنَ الشَّجَرِ وَمِمَّا يَعْرِشُونَ﴾

“And your Lord inspired the bee [saying]: ‘Make your home in the mountains, and on the trees and the trellises that they erect’.”14

One plants a delicate seed and after sometime it grows, becomes a tree and bears sweet and nutritious fruit. Certainly, inside the small seed are wonderful elements that remain there until it becomes a full grown tree. In every living thing, there is a sort of program that guides its life through the rocky roads of the material or natural world-which is the arena of struggle and conflict-to a certain destination. Muslim philosophers have called this “the principle of general guidance” [aṣl-e hidāyat-e ‘āmmeh ].

It is said that the credibility of the above mentioned principle is not anchored in a defective inductive reasoning or limited observation, but rather on a proof that bespeaks of the existence of a motive and purpose in the creation of every creature or thing. The reason behind this is that God is All-wise and He does not do anything futile or useless:

﴿ وَمَا خَلَقْنَا السَّمَاء وَالْأَرْضَ وَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا بَاطِلًا ذَلِكَ ظَنُّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا فَوَيْلٌ لِّلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنَ النَّارِ ﴾

“We did not create the sky and the earth and whatever is between them in vain. That is a conjecture of the faithless. So woe to the faithless on account of the Fire!”15

If God did not guide living things to their ideal destinations according to their natural constitutions, their lives would consist of aimlessness and lack of purpose, whereas futility and vainness is unbecoming of Allah.

Like other creatures, human beings are enveloped in God’s mercy and guidance for there is surely a purpose in his creation:

﴿ أَفَحَسِبْتُمْ أَنَّمَا خَلَقْنَاكُمْ عَبَثًا وَأَنَّكُمْ إِلَيْنَا لاَ تُرْجَعُونَ ﴾

“Did you suppose that We created you aimlessly, and that you will not be brought back to Us?”16

Yes, anyone who acknowledges [the existence of] God and believes in His power and wisdom has no doubt about the soundness of theproof of general guidance . Is there any doubt about a principle which the Qur’an explicitly affirms?

﴿ وَمَا قَدَرُواْ اللّهَ حَقَّ قَدْرِهِ إِذْ قَالُواْ مَا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ عَلَى بَشَرٍ مِّن شَيْءٍ ﴾

“They did not regard Allah with the regard due to Him when they said, ‘Allah has not sent down anything to any human’.”17

This verse bears witness to the fact that due recognition of God necessitates acknowledgment and recognition of His general guidance and direction especially His intervention in the lives of humankind.

2. Guidance is commensurate to the faculties and potentials of every being. Stones and other inanimate objects are guided according to certain mechanical laws. Having a more complex structure, the plants also have a more perfect sort of guidance, while the animals are guided by their instincts.

Among all creatures, humans occupy the highest station. Like the shell, the human being is an animal that has a precious gem within. In appearance, the human being resembles other animals, but in addition he has a divine spirit that bears a heavy burden of trust:

﴿ وَإِذْ قَالَ رَبُّكَ لِلْمَلاَئِكَةِ إِنِّي خَالِقٌ بَشَرًا مِّن صَلْصَالٍ مِّنْ حَمَإٍ مَّسْنُونٍ ٭ فَإِذَا سَوَّيْتُهُ وَنَفَخْتُ فِيهِ مِن رُّوحِي فَقَعُواْ لَهُ سَاجِدِينَ ﴾

“When your Lord said to the angels, ‘Indeed I am going to create a human out of dry clay [drawn] from an aging mud. So when I have proportioned him and breathed into him of My spirit, then fall down in prostration before him’.” 18

Like other animals, man has instinctive guidance for his physical growth and perfection and lives and develops by following that instinctive guidance.

Yet, the divine spirit on which rational human life depends has endowed man with an important advantage and that is the element of freewill or volition [ikhtīyār ]. Unlike other animals, man is not an innate prisoner of his instincts for he can overcome their influence. He can even regulate his instincts and desires to be at the service of his intellect or reason.

Of course, such a creature requires access to a sort of guidance which is consistent with his freewill.

Aristotle says:

“We must not follow those who tell us that since we are humans, we must think of things human, and since we are mortals, we must engage in transient affairs. Rather, as far as possible, we must make ourselves immortal and we must try our best to live consistent with the best thing (intellect) within us.”19

Yet, how is it that we can make ourselves immortal and think of eternity? Is it possible except by way of divine revelation? In the absence of divine revelation, it is not possible to attain eternal happiness.

Of course God, who has not spared creating eyebrow and eyelash-which have lower albeit vital functions in the lives of human beings-does not also spare sending prophets in which lie the survival of the human race and the eternal happiness of every person.20

3. It is true that the “principle of general guidance ” emphasizes the guidance of humanity toward eternal salvation in the hereafter; however, since worldly life is the preliminary stage of this guidance, leadership and direction in the affairs related to life in the world are among the tasks of the prophets (‘a ). In this connection, it is usually emphasized that social life, which is the foundation of human civilization, is only possible under the auspices of revealed teachings. If there had been no historical record of the existence of prophets, there would also have been no trace of human civilization. Collective life is only possible with the existence of just laws and moral upbringing which in turn emanate from revealed teachings.

If legislative authority had been delegated solely to humans, they would not have taken true justice into consideration and would have enacted laws according to material and personal interests. Moreover, in the absence of superior morality, which is only possible through faith in God and the

hereafter, the existence of just laws cannot contribute to the perpetuity of society and serve as the groundwork for material welfare in this world as well as perfection and happiness in the next world. Given the urgent need of mankind for divine guidance and theprinciple of general guidance , the necessity of the mission [bi‘that ] of the prophets (‘a ) and their presence in human society is so evident that it cannot be denied.

Those who assert that the interests of humanity in this world do not need prophetic teachings because we presently witness civilizations devoid of revealed teachings and founded on atheism have ignored the following points:

Firstly, notwithstanding a verbal denial in terms of beliefs and moral principles, humankind of today is in fact deeply indebted to the prophets (‘a ). There are many religious virtues that hold various societies intact which are actually products of the prophets’ (‘a ) efforts. When looking at history it is clear that humanity has benefited much from the teachings of the prophets (‘a ). Without the teachings of the prophets would humankind have a stable collective life or would people lead a more bestial life in which right and value would be the slaves of power and might.21

Secondly, Muslim philosophers do not claim that without the existence of the prophets (‘a ) and their teachings, no society could be founded whatsoever. They are rather referring to a society which serves as the grounds for human perfection and eternal bliss in the hereafter.22 What rational person can claim that without the guidance of God he can enact a code of law which is not only just and guarantees the perpetuity of human race in this world but is also codified in such a manner that it ensures eternal happiness and felicity in the next world? Only the prophets (‘a ) can teach the members of society and train them such that they would observe the rights of others completely. Only the prophets (‘a ) can reform man, send him back to his original nature which is God’s spirit, and make him immortal by the grace and mercy of God:

﴿ هُوَ الَّذِي بَعَثَ فِي الْأُمِّيِّينَ رَسُولًا مِّنْهُمْ يَتْلُو عَلَيْهِمْ آيَاتِهِ وَيُزَكِّيهِمْ وَيُعَلِّمُهُمُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَإِن كَانُوا مِن قَبْلُ لَفِي ضَلَالٍ مُّبِينٍ ٭ وَآخَرِينَ مِنْهُمْ لَمَّا يَلْحَقُوا بِهِمْ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الْحَكِيمُ ﴾

“It is He who sent to the unlettered [people] an apostle from among themselves, to recite to them His signs, to purify them, and to teach them the Book and wisdom, and earlier they had indeed been in manifest error. And to others from among them [as well] who have not yet joined them.”23

Some notes

1. In addition to their holy scripture (the Qur’an), the Muslims have access to a great literary corpus calledSunnah . In general,Sunnah refers to the recorded narrations [riwāyāt ] of the Holy Prophet ( )24 and infallible Imāms (‘a ). A considerable section of these narrations explains practical laws on the individual and collective life but many narrations also expound ideological tenets and even deal with the natural world and humanity.

The issue of the necessity of prophethood and the blessings of the prophets has been also reflected in numerous narrations. Here, it suffices to mention two narrations. From the following two narrations, it can be discerned to what extent the writings of philosophers and theologians in this regard are indebted to theSunnah .

a. In reply to someone who asked for a proof of prophethood, Imām aṣ-Ṣādiq (‘a ) said:

“As we have proven that God, the All-wise, is our Creator who is Most Sublime and Exalted to be comprehended and communicated by anyone, we know that there must be prophets among the people to speak on His behalf, express His will and guide the people about what is good and bad on which depend their fate. So, there must be bidders and forbidders who are none other than the prophets (‘a ).”25

b. In Sermon 1 ofNahj al-Balāghah ,26 Imām ‘Alī (‘a ) said:

فَبَعَثَ فِيهمْ رُسُلَهُ، وَوَاتَرَ إِلَيْهِمْ أَنْبِياءَهُ، لِيَسْتَأْدُوهُمْ مِيثَاقَ فِطْرَتِهِ، وَيُذَكِّرُوهُمْ مَنْسِيَّ نِعْمَتِهِ، وَيَحْتَجُّوا عَلَيْهِمْ بَالتَّبْلِيغِ، وَيُثِيرُوا لَهُمْ دَفَائِنَ الْعُقُولِ، وَيُرُوهُمْ آيَاتِ الْمَقْدِرَةِ: مِنْ سَقْف فَوْقَهُمْ مَرْفُوع، وَمِهَاد تَحْتَهُمْ مَوْضُوع، وَمَعَايِشَ تُحْيِيهِمْ، وَآجَال تُفْنِيهمْ، وَأَوْصَاب تُهْرِمُهُمْ، وَأَحْدَاث تَتَابَعُ عَلَيْهِمْ.

“Then Allah sent His Messengers and a series of His prophets towards them to get them to fulfill the pledges of His creation, to recall to them His bounties, to exhort them by preaching, to unveil before them the hidden virtues of wisdom and show them the signs of His Omnipotence namely the sky which is raised over them, the earth that is placed beneath them, means of living that sustain them, death which brings an end to everything, ailments that turn them old and incidents that successively betake them!”27

2. Both philosophical and theological arguments show the intellect’s limitations in identifying the rational and humane way of life which raises man above the bestial form of living. These limitations are more evident with respect to the otherworldly life which is beyond comprehension of the intellect.

However, the limitations of the intellect do not negate its value and credibility. It is only in comparison with the extensive needs of humanity that we talk about the limitations of the intellect. Similarly, whenever we talk about the insufficiency of the senses, this does not mean we deny their exceptional cognitive functions. Everyone knows that in the absence of the senses, the intellect or reason cannot function properly. Conversely, without the intellect the senses cannot function at all. The same is true in the case of reason [‘aql ] and revelation [waḥī ]. Reason is kindled under the auspices of revelation. Without the latter, the former will wander in the valley of the unknown. Meanwhile, it is also by the hint of reason that revelation is welcomed, and it is in the hearts of those who apply reason that the tree of revelation bears fruit:

﴿ إِنَّمَا يَخْشَى اللَّهَ مِنْ عِبَادِهِ الْعُلَمَاء ﴾

“Only those of Allah’s servants having knowledge fear Him.” 28

“Reason [‘aql ] and religious law [shar‘ ]have no option [but to acknowledge] that reason is the basis or foundation while religious law is the structure. A structure without foundation is baseless while a foundation without any structure is useless.”29

In the words of a Christian theologian, Ian Barbour, “Revelation does not negate reason but rather develops it. Reflection and research could be compatible with religious commitment.”30

3. It is sometimes assumed that the concept of “the necessity of doing an action” cannot be applied to God on the grounds that accepting such necessity implies setting a duty for Him to discharge and it does not behoove Him to beobligated by others. Therefore, what do we really mean by saying that-it is ‘incumbent upon ’ or ‘necessary ’ for God to send down prophets? Do we want to setdos anddon’ts for God?! For this reason, the Ash‘arites [Ashā‘irah ] have entirely avoided discussing the necessity of prophethood.

4. What is meant by the necessity for God todo an action is that the human intellect or reason understands the continuity of this action within the context of the will of God and perceives God as the Doer of the action. For example, when we say that God is the Necessary Being [wājib al-wujūd ] it means that the Being cannot be separated or detached from the Divine Essence [dhāt-e ilāhī ]. When we say that it is necessary for God to send down prophets, it means nothing except that God is All-wise and so benevolent to humanity that it is impossible for Him not to send prophets.31

References

1. - The abbreviation, “‘a” stands for the Arabic invocative phrase, ‘alayhi’s-salām, ‘alayhim’us-salām, or ‘alayhā’s-salām [may peace be upon him/them/her], which is mentioned after the names of the prophets, angels, Imāms from the Prophet’s progeny, and saints (‘a). [Trans.]

2. - In this volume, I have maintained the word “Shī‘ah” to refer to both the group (single collective unit) and the individuals constituting the group (plural). [Trans.]

3. - See Murtaḍā Muṭahharī, Understanding Islamic Sciences (London: ICAS Press, 2002), p. 57-84. [Trans.]

4. - See ash-Sharīf al-Murtaḍā, Adh-dhakhīrah fī ‘Ilm al-Kalām, p. 323.

Sayyid Murtaḍā ‘Alam al-Hudā (355-436 AH): a man of versatility with a keen taste and talent for literature, jurisprudence and theology whose verdicts and opinions are taken into account even today. Both he and his brother Sayyid ar-Raḍī, the compiler of Nahj al-Balāghah, studied from Shaykh al-Mufīd. [Trans.]

5. - Some theologians point out the origin of the difference between good and bad actions, believing that its criterion is the effects they bring about in the lives of human beings. Accordingly, good deeds are the source of felicity while evil deeds lead to perdition.

6. - Regarding its literal and semantic definitions, see Muṭahharī, Understanding Islamic Sciences, pp. 11-19. [Trans.]

7. - Hadrat: The Arabic word Hadrat is used as a respectful form of address. [Trans.]

8. - One of Islam’s leading philosophers, al-Fārābī was born at Fārāb, situated on the Jaxartes (Syr Darya), the modern Otrar. Coming to Baghdad, he studied under the Christian doctor Johanna, son of Hilan. Another of his teachers was Abū Bishr Matta, known as a translator of Greek works. He next proceeded to Aleppo, to the court of Sayf ad-Dawlah, son of Hamdān, and led a somewhat retired life under his protection, assuming the garb of a Sufi. When this prince captured Damascus, he took the philosopher with him, and there Fārābī died in 339 AH/950. Fārābī’s literary production was considerable, but a great number of his works were lost very early. They were chiefly commentaries or explanations of the Greek philosophers, especially Aristotle. In the sphere of moral philosophy he wrote a commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics; in that of political philosophy, he made a summary of Plato’s Laws, and composed a short treatise on the Ideal City. To psychology and metaphysics he contributed numerous works, with such titles as Intelligence and the Intelligible, The Soul, The Faculties of the Soul, The One and Unity, Substance, Time, The Void, and Space and Measure. He also commented on Alexander of Aphrodisias’ book, de Anima. Believing that Greek philosophy was a unity, he labored to reconcile Plato and Aristotle, and with this idea wrote treatises on The Aims of Plato and Aristotle and The Agreement between Plato and Aristotle. He also discussed certain interpretations of Aristotle proposed by Galen and John Philoponus, and composed An Intervention between Aristotle and Galen. [Trans.]

9. - Abū ‘Alī al-Husayn ibn ‘Abdullāh ibn Sīnā, or Avicenna, entitled al-Shaykh al-Ra’īs, or Hujjat al-Haqq by his compatriots, simply Shaykh by his disciples, and the Prince of Physicians in the occidental world, was born near Bukhārā in the year 370 AH/980. When Ibn Sīnā was five years old he and his family moved to the city of Bukhārā, where the young boy had a greater opportunity to study. At the age of ten he already knew grammar, literature, and theology as well as the whole of the Qur’an. When the famous mathematician, Abū ‘Abdullāh al-Natīlī, came to Bukhārā, he was invited to stay at the house of Ibn Sīnā in order to teach him mathematics. Under his tutelage Ibn Sīnā mastered the Almagest, the Elements of Euclid and some logic, all of which he soon knew better than his teacher. Having mastered mathematics, he then turned his attention to physics, metaphysics, and medicine. By the time he was sixteen, Ibn Sīnā had mastered all the sciences of his day and was well known as a physician. In another two years, thanks to the commentary of al-Fārābī, he was also to complete his understanding of Aristotle’s metaphysics which at first had presented considerable difficulty for him. Despite the loss in part or in toto of several of his major works, such as the twenty-volume Kitāb al-Insāf on the arbitration of Eastern and Western philosophy and the Lisān al-‘Arab in ten volumes, over two-hundred and fifty books, treatises, and letters of Ibn Sīnā have survived. They range from the voluminous Kitāb ash-Shifā and Al-Qānūn fi’t-Tibb to treatises of only a

few pages like Risālat al-Fi‘l wal-Infi‘āl and Risālah fi’s-Sirr al-Qadar. His books can be roughly divided into four separate groups: the philosophical, religious, cosmological and physical, and finally the symbolical and metaphysical narratives. Kitāb ash-Shifā, a vast philosophical and scientific encyclopedia, is probably the largest work of its kind ever written by one man. His dominating influence in medicine, philosophy and theology has lasted over the ages and is still alive within the circles of Islamic thought. [Trans.]

10. - A towering figure of the Illuminationist School of Islamic Philosophy [ishrāqī], Shahāb ad-Dīn Yahyā Suhrawardī (known as Shaykh al-Ishrāq), was born in Suhraward, near Zanjān, Iran in 1155. After studying in Isfahān, a leading center of Islamic scholarship, Suhrawardī traveled through Iran, Anatolia and Syria. Influenced by mystical teachings, he spent much time in meditation and seclusion, and in Halab (modern Aleppo) he favorably impressed its ruler, Malik az-Zāhir. His teachings, however, aroused the opposition of established and learned religious men [‘ulamā], who persuaded Malik to have him put to death. The appellation al-Maqtūl [the killed one] meant that he was not to be considered a shahīd [martyr]. Suhrawardī wrote voluminously. The more than 50 works that were attributed to him were classified into two categories: doctrinal and philosophical accounts containing commentaries on the works of Aristotle and Plato, as well as his contribution to the Illuminationist School; and shorter treatises, generally written in Persian and of an esoteric nature, meant to illustrate the paths and journeys of a mystic before he could achieve ma‘rifah (gnosis or esoteric knowledge). [Trans.]

11. - Mullā Sadrā (d. 1050 AH/1640), also called Sadruddīn Shīrāzī and Sadr al-Muta’allihīn, was a philosopher who led the Iranian cultural renaissance in the 17th century. The foremost representative of Ishrāqī [Illuminationist] School of philosopher-mystics, he is commonly regarded by Iranians as the greatest philosopher of Iran. A scion of a notable Shīrāzī family, Mullā Sadrā completed his education in Isfahān, then the leading cultural and intellectual center of Iran. After his studies with scholars there, he produced several works, the most famous of which was his Asfār (Journeys). Asfār contains the bulk of his philosophy, which was influenced by a personal mysticism bordering on asceticism that he experienced during a 15-year retreat at Kahak, a village near Qum in Iran. Toward the end of his life, Mullā Sadrā returned to Shīrāz to teach. His teachings, however, were considered heretical by the orthodox Shī‘ah theologians, who persecuted him, though his powerful family connections permitted him to continue to write. He died on a pilgrimage to Mecca. [Trans.]

12. - See Sayyid Muḥammad Ḥusayn Ṭabāṭabā’ī, Al-Mīzān fī Tafsīr al-Qur’ān, vol. 2, under the commentary of Sūrah al-Baqarah 2:213. See also Murtaḍā Muṭahharī, Nubuwwat [Prophethood] in Majmū‘eh-ye Āthār [Anthology of Muṭahharī’s Works], vol. 4, p. 398.

13. - Sūrah Ṭā Ḥā 20:50. In this volume, the translation of Qur’anic passages is adapted from Sayyid ‘Alī Qulī Qarā’ī, The Qur’an with a Phrase-by-Phrase English Translation (London: Islamic College for Advanced Studies Press, 2004). [Trans.]

14. - Sūrah Naḥl 16:68.

15. - Sūrah Ṣād 38:27.

16. - Sūrah Mu’minūn 23:115.

17. - Sūrah An‘ām 6:91.

18. - Sūrah Hijr 15:28-29.

19. - Quoted in Marta Nusham (?), Aristotle, trans. ‘Izzat Allāh Fūlādvand, p. 99. It can be said that Aristotle alludes to those who say that man is flesh, skin and blood and nothing else, and the perfection of human life must be sought in the same animalistic life.

20. - Ibn Sīnā, Ash-Shifā, Theology Section, p. 44.

21. - For more information see Muṭahharī, Nubuwwat in Majmū‘eh-ye Āthār, vol. 4, pp. 351, 364.

22. - ‘Abd ar-Razzāq Lāhījī, Guzīdeh-ye Gūhar-e Murād, ed. Ṣamad Muwaḥḥid, p. 252.

23. - Sūrah Jum‘ah 62:2-3.

24. - The abbreviation, “s”, stands for the Arabic invocative phrase, sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa ālihi wa sallam [may God’s blessings and peace be upon him and his progeny], which is mentioned after the name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (s). [Trans.]

25. - Uṣūl al-Kāfī, vol. 1, p. 168 (with slight modification).

26. - Nahj al-Balāghah (The Peak of Eloquence) is a collection of speeches, sayings and letters of the Commander of the Faithful, Imām ‘Alī ibn Abī ālib (‘a) compiled by Sharīf ar

Radī Muhammad ibn al-Husayn (d. 406&T AH/1016). The contents of the book concern the three essential topics of God, man and the universe, and include comments on scientific, literary, social, ethical, and political issues. With the exception of the words of the Glorious Qur’an and of the Holy Prophet (s), no words of man can equal it in eloquence. So far, more than 101 exegeses have been written on the Nahj al-Balāghah, indicating the importance of this treatise to scholars and learned men of research and investigation. For more information, visit: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul. [Trans.]

27. - Syed ‘Ali Raza, Nahj al-Balāghah: The Peak of Eloquence (Qum: Foundation of Islamic Cultural Propagation in the World, 1995), Sermon 1. [Trans.]

28. - Sūrah Fāṭir (or al-Malā’ikah) 35:28.

29. - Risālah Hidāyah aṭ-Ṭālibiyyīn in the anthology of treatises of the great philosopher Ḥājj Mullā Hādī Sabziwārī, introduced and edited by Sayyid Jalāl Ashtiyānī, p. 10.

30. - Ian Barbour, ‘Ilm va Dīn [Science and Religion], trans. Bahā’uddīn Khurramshāhī, p. 305.

Ian G. Barbour (1923- ) is an American scholar of the relationship between science and religion whose 1989-91 Gifford Lectures yielded the widely recognized texts, Religion in an Age of Science (1990) and Ethics in an Age of Technology (1993). His earlier Issues in Science and Religion (1965), widely acclaimed as a groundbreaking volume, discussed the relationship of religious thought to the history, methods, and theories of science. As a physicist and theologian, Barbour was awarded the Templeton Prize in 1999 for Progress in Religion in recognition of his efforts to create a dialogue between the worlds of science and religion. [Trans.]

31. - Muṭahharī, Nubuwwat in Majmū‘eh-ye Āthār, vol. 4, p. 365. For in-depth discussion on the meaning of “necessity” with respect to God, see Sayyid Muḥammad Ḥusayn Ṭabāṭabā’ī, Al-Mīzān fī Tafsīr al-Qur’ān, vol. 14, p. 94.


4