Section Three: Divine Theology
First Stage: Definition (of God) in Divine Theology
It was related that in the divine religions, mysticism to lordly essence has never been discussed in the form of one irresolute and uncertain matter, which requires philosophical proof. It was also said that its secret too, from the viewpoint of religious sources is the same ‘Ma’refat’(gnosis) which has been deposited in man’s heart, a ‘Ma’refat’ which is the outcome of action and creation of God and is the result of His definition.
In the numerous sources and references which we had presented, this point was clearly mentioned that it is Al-Mighty God who by His Grace and Mercy has made the light of His ‘Ma’refat’ (gnosis) to glimmer in the heart of His slave, has placed the sweet savor of Ma’refat in man’s chaste life and satiated him with His limpid Ma’refat. It is He who after bestowing the source of life to the creatures, once again gifted man with a dignity and made man’s heart and Fitrat (innate disposition) the area of descent of His Ma’refat (gnosis) and manifested Himself to the people with all His Beautiful and Majestic qualities. It is the same Ma’refat which at times of hardship and tribulation or in the state of intimate supplication and invocation or at times of observing true signs, returns back to the Fitrat of heart. In that condition a slave not only feels by reality of gnosis his Creator and object of worship in his conscience and sits lamenting and whispering before Him but finds Him as the One and Powerful and himself as the one overwhelmed by His Power, sees Him in perfection and greatness and himself as low and inferior, sees Him as All-Forgiving and himself as drowned in sins and finally finds Him as Merciful and Generous and himself as needful of His bounties.
This gifted Ma’refat and scintillating guidance is reckoned to be the foundation of divine religions and just like a center column of the tent of religion, the collection of Divine Sciences and ethical and practical injunctions are established on that (Ma’refat). If it was not for this divine gift, man would have been unable to perceive His Ma’refat and reality.
بك عرفتك و انت دللتني عليك و لولا انت لم ادر ما انت
Rather, without this definition (of God), even the Ma’refat of the position of Messengership and ‘vilayat’ (Mastership) would not have been possible for man
اللهم عرفني نفسك فانك ان لم تعرفني نفسك لم أعرف رسولك
This Innate Ma’refat is having such foundational and infrastructural aspect in the divine religions that even if among some of the worships it is reckoned to be the pillar of religion it is for this reason that this worship causes in man, the condition of returning back to his self, remembering that innate Ma’refat and paying attention to God. Prayers are the remembrance of God and ascension of a believer and if mysticism of the self or soul is the mysticism of God it is because the soul is the bearer of that divine remembrance. Returning back to the self and evading from every sham and deception and recovering that original simple and pure Fitrat (innate disposition) causes once again to return back to that same innate Ma’refat (gnosis).
The discussion, which has come in Quran and traditions (of God), can be divided into two main sections. The first section is the discussion, which shows in which place the innate Ma’refat was given to man and from what time man has been entrusted with this divine trust. In the second section, discussion will be about procurement and consequence of that definition (of God) and its reality and specifications.
Chapter One Birth-Place of Definition (of God)
What is evident from the divine proofs and testimonies is this that the soul of man, before coming into this world and getting attached to the corporal body has already passed through another world or rather worlds. It has witnessed events and scenes and in every stage has experienced some learning and realities such that all of these play a fundamental role in this world and the life hereafter.
In some of these places, like the world of spirits [Alam-e-Arwah] (world of shadow [‘Azlah’] and ghost [‘eshbah’] man was possessing only the soul while in some other places like the world of pre-existence (‘Alam-e-zar’) and substance (‘Alam-e-teenat’) the soul of man was given a special mould and body. It was in these very worlds (before the world of tillage and generation) that all the human beings without any exception were granted in a lustrous and holy sphere, the divine grace and dispensation and after receiving the most highest monotheistic knowledge they were made to confess and give a covenant.
ألستُ بربكم، قالوا : بَلي. . .
Of course, after coming into this world man tends to forget the specifications of these places and stages. However the essence of that innate knowledge is present near man and is always blended with his substance (i.e. clay) and accompanies his nature.
(نَسوا الموقف و ثَبَتَتْ المعرفة)
This firm and permanent Ma’refat has been so fixed like a strong pillar in the existence of man that till the present world, it has been made perseverant on the basis of ‘Upright (‘Haneef’) religion’ and it is a fortification whose strength is very much indebted to the irresistible pillar of Fitrat.
The verses and traditions, which speak about the priority of the previous worlds, are so reliable and numerous that counting all of them would not be an easy task.
Moreover, this matter is so much certain and confirmed that in the opinion of most of the Islamic thinkers, belief in the existence of previous worlds is counted to be one of the religious certainties and exigencies.
To such extent that the early theologian Shirazi who himself was the initiator of ‘Trans-Substantial Motion’ and believed in the theory of “Corporal contingency and spiritual permanence” when comes across such traditions he says:
“The soul of man was prior to body in existence, needless of bringing (the theory) of transmigration into picture. The traditions, which have been narrated from Shia sources regarding this matter, are so numerous that they cannot be counted. As such, the precedence of soul to the body is the religious exigencies of Imamia faith”.
Before going into the details of this matter it is necessary to point out that what this discussion intends to follow is explaining the monotheistic Fitrat (innate disposition) and proving the innate Ma’refat (gnosis) as the basis of theology (knowing God) and the foundation of divine guidance. As such, discussion about birth place of definition (i.e. introduction of God) and the specification of the previous creations has no direct interference in our purpose such that even if all the proofs and testimonies related to the previous worlds are doubted and denied or as is the practice of some, they are understood sarcastically and metaphorically and they reckon the birth place of definition (of God) to be this very world, yet there will not be any blot in the genuine claim of our discussion.
The past proofs and the coming proofs explicitly prove (correct) this claim that the basis of theology or rather the essence of all the divine knowledge towards innate Ma’refat returns back to the very former meaning (definition). However, considering the fact that the creation of the previous worlds and their true specifications are reckoned to be among the lofty Ma’aref (Gnostic knowledge) of Islam and having knowledge about them will help increase one's insight of divine Ma’aref and the entire existence and its commencement and end, we therefore intend to bring here, the proofs of the existence of the previous worlds.
However due to numerousness of such proofs we shall mention at first the reference and sources of 200 traditions
and then present some verses and traditions in the text.
These evidences are present in most of the authentic traditional books like Usul-e-Kafi, Furu-e-Kafi, Elal-ush-Sharaye and in exegesis (tafseers) pertaining to traditions. However on account of easy reference of the researchers, the evidences will be narrated from the book of Behar al-Anwar.
These traditions comprise the secrets such that when the treasure of divine secrets, Amir al-Mo’meneen Ali (A.S.) was teaching them to Haaris Hamedani he would address him as such:
« يا حارث اِنّ الحق اَحْسَنُ الحديث و الصادِعُ به مجاهد، و بالحق اُخْبِرك فأَرِعْني سَمْعَك ، ثم خَبِّر به من كانت له حصانةٌ من اصحابك، أَلا إنّي عبدالله و اخو رسوله و صديقه الْأَوّل، قد صدقته و آدم بين الروح و الجسد . . »
“O’ Haaris, surely truth is the best of all the speeches and the one who inclines towards it is a Mujahid (warrior). I will speak the truth; so turn your ears towards me and listen to my sayings. Thereafter you narrate them to your trusted companions. “Know that I am the slave of God and the brother of Messenger of God and the first one to acknowledge him. Indeed I have acknowledged him at that time when Adam was between soul and body.”
Yes, so that the pilgrims to Mecca during ‘Ehram’ (pilgrims garb) know that which of the trusts they will fulfill and to which of the covenants they will act upon and they take the Divine Essence and ‘Hajar a1-Aswad’ (black stone) as witness upon them. In front of this phrase of ‘Alasto’ they cry out:
« امانتي أديتها و ميثاقي تعاهدته، لتشهد لي بالموافات »
(Muhaqqiq Hilli- Sharaye Islam; Pg. 201 and wasail us Shia Beirut 5th print; vol. 9; chapter 12 & 13)
It is not ungraceful to mention this point also that the traditions concerning this chapter (the previous places of soul) can be seen in most of the discussions pertaining to beliefs like the various chapters of Monotheism, Prophet hood, Imamate, Resurrection, Haj, invocation, soul, creation, etc. and very few discussions can be seen wherein this matter has not been discussed in some way or the other.
For this reason it has been said: The proofs and traditions with regard to the discussion are reliable proofs in reliable chapters.
However on the other hand, these worlds have been subjected to analogical gradation by some of the Muslim thinkers and contemporary commentators and have been rejected by some others. It should be said with utmost regret that the doubts and difficulties which have been set forth in this regard are merely improbabilities in front of decisive proofs and which have been borrowed from the Mu’tazilites. Moreover, it is noteworthy to know that some of these problems had also been propounded during the time of holy Imams. The narrators of traditions have put forward these problems before the holy Imams and they too have given a proper reply in every case. Therefore it can be claimed that the reply to most of the objections on previous worlds can be derived from the traditions (which shall be mentioned in detail at the opportunist time).
Regarding the sources of traditions it is necessary to mention this point that a few of these traditions have been repeated due to chain of transmission and authorities of the traditions and or the connection of the traditions with some diversified sections. However, considering that the examination of chain of transmission of the traditions and their technical discussion is not possible at this opportunity, the above considered aspects and the chain of transmission of the traditions will be examined one by one in an independent book, although the people of skill are aware that in cases when the tradition are ‘one after another’, ‘helping’ and ‘certain’, there is no need to examine the chain of transmission of the tradition.
Now we draw the attention of the respected readers to some of the verses and traditions in this regard.
1- « وَ إِذْ أَخَذَ رَبُّكَ مِنْ بَني آدمَ مِن ظُهُورِِهِمْ ذُرِّيَّتَهُمْ وَ أَشْهَدَهُمْ علي أَنْفُسِهِم أَلَسْتُ بِرَبِّكُمْ، قالوا بَلي شَهِدْنا »
“And when your Lord brought forth from the children of Adam, from their backs, their descendants, and made them bear witness against their own souls: Am I not your Lord? They said: Yes! We bear witness”
Most of the traditions concerning our discussion have come under this afore-mentioned verse and it is noteworthy that in the discussion about several worlds, this verse has been rationalized. This matter shows that the covenant had been taken in several worlds. In the first section a tradition regarding the world of pre-existence (alam-e-zar)was mentioned under this verse. Now we bring here a tradition about the world of spirits (alam-e-arwaah).
« عن أَبي عبدالله(عليه السلام) قال : ما تقول في الْأَرواح انها جنود مجنده، فما تعارف منها ائتلف و ما تناكر منها إِختلف؟ قال : أنا نقول ذلك، قال : فإِنه كذلك، إنَّ الله عزوجل أَخذ مِن العبادِ ميثاقَهم و هم أَظلة قبل الميلاد و هو قوله عزوجل : « وَ إِذ أَخذ ربك من بني آدم. . . »
Imam Sadiq (A.S.) said: “Surely God took promise from His slaves at the time when they were a shadow and they were not yet born in this present world and verse 172 of chapter A’raf is a witness to this same matter.”
2- « و إِذ أَخَذْنا مِن النَّبِييّن ميثاقَهُم و مِنك و مِن نوحٍ و إِبراهيم و موسي و عيسي بنِ مريمَ و أَخذنا منهم ميثاقاً غليظاً »
“And when we made a covenant with the prophet and with you, and with Nuh end Ibrahim and Musa and Isa, eon of Merium, end we made with them a strong covenant.”
« فقال الصادق(عليه السلام) كان الميثاق مأخوذاً عليهم لِلّه بالربوبية و لِرسوله بالنبوةِ و لِأَميرالمؤمنين و الأئمة(عليهم السلام) بالْأِمامة، فقال : أَلَستُ بربكم و محمد(صلي الله عليه و آله) نبيكم و علي(عليه السلام) إِمامكم و ائمة الهادين (عليهم السلام) ائمتكم؟ قالوا : بلي، فقال الله: شهدنا أَن تقولوا يوم القيامة أَي لئلا تقولوا يوم القيامة إنا كنا عن هذا غافلين فأول ما أَخذ الله الميثاق علي الانبياء له بالربوبية و هو قوله : و إِذ أَخذنا من النبيين ميثاقهم. . . . »
Under many verses of Quran, we find traditions like the above one and great emphasis has been laid on the conversation of God with the people and the taking of covenant in the form which has come in verse 172 of chapter A’raf. Therefore taking all these traditions in the allegorical and metaphorical sense is far from truth and in none of the proofs one can find emphasis on metaphorical meaning.
3- « و لَئِن سَأَلْتَهُم مَنْ خلق السمواوت و الارض لَيَقُولُنَّ الله. . . »
“And if you ask them who created the heavens and the earth, they will certainly say: Allah.”
« . . . قال ابو جعفر(عليه السلام) : أخرج من ظهر آدم ذريته إِلي يوم القيامة، فخرجوا كالذر فعرفهم و أَراهم نفسه و لولا ذلك لم يعرف أَحد ربه و قال : قال رسول الله(صلي الله عليه و آله) كل مولود يولد علي الفطرة، يعني المعرفة بأَن الله عزّوجلّ خاقه، كذلك قوله : « لئِن سألتهم مَن خلق السماوات و الارض ليقولن الله »
In this tradition and other traditions like the one which has been mentioned under verse no.5 ‘Fitrat’ (innate disposition) has been adapted to the Ma’refat (gnosis) of God and monotheism. Our discussion too is about this same Fitrat which is reckoned to be the fundamental of religion and the other meanings of Fitrat like creation are not within the scope of this discussion.
Similarly, it has been stipulated in this tradition that if Ma’refat was not innate it was not possible for man to recognize God. Compare this matter with the saying that: “That knowledge (i.e. Innate Ma’refat) which is vague and weak is subject to wrong interpretations. The conclusion is that a person says false and undue things about gods instead of worshipping the One God.”
Of course, the matter of lucidness of innate Ma’refat will come but the point which should be said in reply to the above saying is this that polytheism and blasphemy is not the result of weakness of innate Ma’refat. Rather it is the result of turning away from the innate Ma’refat and the reminding and turning towards non-innate paths. This matter was clearly seen in the previous section in the theology of Plato and Aristotle where Plato, with great hardship and difficulty succeeded in bringing a father and son for god and Aristotle believed with doubt in forty-seven gods.
4- « فاَقِم وَجْهَكَ للدّينِ حنيفاً فِطرة الله الّتي فَطَرَ النّاسَ عليها لا تَبديلَ لِخَلْقِ الله ذلك الدِينُ القَيِّم و لكنّ أَكثَرَ الناس لا يعلمون »
“Then set your face upright for religion in the right state - the nature made by Allah in which He has made men; there is no altering of Allah’s creation; that is the right religion, but most people do not know”
« عن أبي عبدالله (عليه السلام) : قال: سألته عن قول الله عزوجل: « فطرة الله التي فطر الناس عليها» ما تلك الفطرة؟ قال : هي الأسلام، فطرهم الله حين أَخذ ميثاقهم علي التوحيد، قال : « أَلَسْتُ بربكم » و فيه المؤمن و الكافر.
5- « أَفَغَيْرَ دين الله يَبْغُونَ و لَهُ أَسْلَمَ مَن في السموات و الارض طَوْعاً و كَرْهاً و إِليه يُرْجَعُون »
“Is it then other than Allah’s religion that they seek (to follow), and to Him submits whoever is in the heavens and the earth, willingly or unwillingly, and to Him shall they be returned.”
« ثم إِنّ الله تبارك و تعالي نادي في اصحاب اليمين و أَصحاب الشمال : أَلَست بربكم؟ فقال أَصحاب اليمين : بلي يا ربنا نحن بريتك و خلقك كارهين، و ذلك قول الله « و له أَسلم من في السموات و الارض طوعاً و كرهاً و إِليه تعرجعون » قال : توحيد هم لِلّه »
From these traditions it can be understood that the people have been put to test and examination in the previous worlds too and in all the stages of examination they were possessed a free will and by their own free will they have acted accordingly. For instance, in the beginning of the above tradition it has come that in the world of pre-existence God asked the people to enter the fire. Consequently, the people of the left (hand) objected while the people of the right (hand) obeyed.
6- « و نُقَلِّبُ أَفئِدَتَهُ و أَبصارَهم كما لَمْ يُؤْمِنوا به أَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ . . . »
“And we will turn their hearts and their sights, even as they did not believe in it the first time.”
« قال علي بن ابي طالب(عليه السلام) . « كما لم يؤمنوا به أَول مرة» يعني في الذر و الميثاق . »
With regard to the above verse, Ali (A.S.) said: “By ‘firsttime’ is meant the world of pre-existence (alam-e-zar)and the covenant (mesaaq).”
7- « فما كانوا لِيُوْمِنُوا بما كَذَّبُوا بِه مِن قَبْلُ كذلك نَطْبَعُ علي قلوب المُعْتَدِين »
“…But they would not believe in whet they had rejected before; thus it is that we set seals upon the hearts of those who exceed the limits.”
عن أبي جعفر (عليه السلام) و أبي عبدالله (عليه السلام) قالا : إِن الله خلق الخلق و هي أَظلة فأرسل رسوله محمداً (صلي الله عليه و آله) فمنهم من آمن به و منهم من كذبه، ثم بعثه في الخلق الآخر فآمن به من كان آمن به في الأَظله و جحده من جحد به يومئد فقال : « ما كانوا ليؤمنوا بما كذبوا به من قبل »
8- « تِلْكَ الْقُري نَقُصُّ عليك مِن أَنبائِها و لقد جاءَتْهُم رَسُلُهُم بالْبَيِّناتِ فما كانوا لِيُؤْمِنَُوا بما كَذَّبُوا من قبلْ كذلك يَطْبَعُ اللهُ علي القلوب الكافرين »
“These town: - We relate to you some of their stone:, and certainly their apostles came to them with clear arguments, but they would not believe in what they rejected at first; thus does Allah set a seal over the hearts of the unbelievers.”
« فما كانوا لِيؤمنوا بما كَذَّبوا من قبل » يعني في الذر الأَوّل قال قال : لا يؤمنون في الدنيا بما كذبوا في الذر و هو ردّ علي من أَنكر الميثاق في الذر الأَوّل »
From this tradition and the one, which will come under verse 9 it is apparent that the worlds of pre-existence have been many.
9- « هذا نذير من النذر الأُولي »
“This is a warner of the warners of old.”
سألت أبا عبدالله(عليه السلام) عن قول الله تبارك و تعالي : « هذا نذير من النذر الأولي » (قال ظ) : يعني محمداً (صلي الله عليه و آله) حيث دعاهم إِلي الإِقرار بِالله في الذر الأوِل »
10- « . . خلقناكم مِن ترابٍ ثُمّ مِن نُطْفَة ثم مِن عَلَقَةٍ ثم من مُضْغَةٍ مُخَلَّقَةٍ و غير مخلّقة . . »
“We created you from dust, then from a small seed, then from a clot, then from a lump of flesh, complete in make and incomplete…”
سألت أبا جعفر(عليه السلام) عن قول الله عزوجل : « مخلّقة و غير مخلّقة » فقال : المخلّقة هم الذر الذين خلقهم الله في صلب آدم (عليه السلام) أَخذ عليهم الميثاق ثم أَجراهم في أَصلاب الرجال و أَرحام النساء و هم الذين يخرجون إِلي الدنيا حتي يسألوا عن الميثاق، و أَمّا قوله : « و غير مخلّقة » فهم كل نَسِمَة لم يخلقهم الله في صلب آدم (عليه السلام) حين خلق الذر و أخذ عليهم الميثاق و هم النطف من العزل و القسط قبل أَن ينفخ فيه الروح و الحياة و البقاء »
From this tradition it becomes clear that the molecular bodies have been transferred to the embryo of man. Thus there remains no place for any doubt about ‘transmigration’ which is the most significant doubt with regards to pre-existing world. This is because the soul of man does not enter into two different moulds. Rather, in the world of pre-existence it enters the molecular body and in this world too it enters the same molecular body which by getting transferred into embryo is now capable of growth and development. Paying attention to this point will also be extremely beneficial in replying to the doubt of ‘Akelo wa Ma’kool’ in bodily resurrection.
Chapter Two: Outcome of Definition (of God)
1-Characteristics of Innate Disposition ‘Fitrat’)
Just as it was seen in the first section the outcome of definition of God is a Ma’refat (gnosis) very sublime and recognition conscientious with regard to Divine Essence. The result of definition (of God) is neither belief in God nor inclination nor ability and capability in recognizing God, nor empirical knowledge and not (even) intuitive knowledge in the common sense. Rather, Ma’refat and recognition is much higher and exalted than the common human sciences and therefore it cannot be inserted into the usual divisions of human sciences.
Nevertheless, some of the above matters are certain and correct in its own place. However the whole truth is that none of these interpretations can be a true exposition of the foundation of monotheistic Fitrat in the divine religions.
In the entire reasoning of Fitrat (innate disposition) the talk is about Ma’refat, witnessing with clearness and heartly observation and examination. It is obvious to what extent an appreciable and fundamental difference exists between these two bases, which is often overlooked.
For clarifying the matter, we shall briefly make a comparative examination of these views:
A) Fitrat (Innate Disposition) is Not a Belief
As per our past sayings, what is meant by monotheistic Fitrat is Ma’refat and recognition, not belief in God. Although after the recognition of God man oftenly submits himself before God just as God has taken this belief, confirmation and confession from all the human-beings in the previous worlds, yet considering the fact that this present world is the place of test and affliction and man’s misgivings and carnal desires are no less and on the other hand man is the possessor of will-power and authority it therefore cannot be said that every human-being necessarily believes in God. Even though the lofty Ma’refat is from the Blessed and Supreme God its bearer gets reminded by the reminding of the exhorters and by propaganda of the evangelists and often he finds belief and faith too in God.
With this explanation of Fitrat there will no longer remain a place for asking this question that why some of the people deny God. This is because Fitrat is Ma’refat (gnosis) and the authority of admission and rejection is entrusted to man. Thus it is endowed with good and evil and reward or punishment pertains to them.
In addition, when the same Fitrat becomes shy due to the external factors, the light of reality remains hidden from man.
( صم بكم عمي فهم لا يرجعون)
In the discussion of ‘submission and faith’ this matter will be examined in a more detailed form.
B) Fitrat is Not Inclination towards God
In spite of this, inasmuch as man by his divine Fitrat finds the Compassionate and Merciful, Generous and Gracious, Graceful and Intimate God with all his existence, he therefore inclines towards Him and loves Him. Thus inclination is newly from Fitrat.
As such, the one who observes his God in the light of Fitrat with the qualities of Beauty and Magnificence will pay close attention to Him and will not submit his heart to anyone other than Him. Basically true love can be found in the true Beloved and whatever is other than Him is wish carnal desires and egotism even though it may be expressed in beautiful words and the one who reckons the metaphor to be the castle of reality is far from reality:
« أيكون لِغيرك من الظهور ما ليس لك . . عميت عين لا تراك . . »
Yes, the one whose existence has been filled with desires, arrogance, pride, obstinacy and darkness has not left any place for light in his heart and will not have any inclination too towards God. As such, the question that why Pharaoh, Niraun, Abu Jahl, Abu Lahab, Chenghiz and Timur did not have any attraction and inclination towards God will stand no credit. The description of this matter will come in the section of ‘Submission’.
C) ‘Fitrat’ is Not Ability to Know God
Basically the power to know God is given to man when he has not recognized God. Thus at that time the power and ability of this recognition will be given to him so that by this means he recognizes God. However, just as we had seen previously, the Ma’refat (gnosis) of God has been granted to man in a very clear and expounded manner. Thus there remains no place for power and ability because the outcome of ability will be the acquisition of some affair whereas the Ma’refat is (already) obtained and present near man in the most highest form even though it may be concealed.
Yes, if we say that man is capable of remembering the Ma’refat of God and becomes reminded after the reminding of the exhorters and or man is having the ability to do reasoning and argumentation for proving the same innate Ma’refat then such a saying is absolutely correct and man is possessed such abilities. However these are having no relation with the ‘Fitrat’ (innate disposition) which is the fundamental of religion and they should not be used in explaining and justifying that Fitrat.
2-Innate ‘Ma’refat’ is a Comprehensive and Clear
‘Ma’refat’ not Abstract and Ambiguous
Quran and traditions have interpreted innate Ma’refat to be a heartly vision and a self-evident examination and observation.
These wordings of Quran and traditions, in the most audible expression indicate the clearness of the Ma’refat (gnosis) of God and the intensity of its lucidity in the heart and mind of man. As such, this saying that due to the weakness and ambiguity of innate Ma’refat and its vagueness in the field of recognition one should embark upon intellectual and conceptual recognition and or this saying that innate Ma’refat is abstract and within one’s power and one should in this world expound it through reasoning and proofs, will in reality amount to comparison (equation) of Quranic innate Ma’refat with the innate Ma’aref of ‘Dakaart’ and ‘Laibnites’ and reminds one of the beliefs of recent ‘Rationalism’ as against ‘Amperism’
The luminousness and holiness of the past innate Ma’refat (gnosis) is so intense that the firmness of the foundations of religion in the nature of man is indebted to the firmness of this Ma’refat. The expression of vision and examination is so expressive in the lucidity and authenticity of this recognition that it has also perplexed the traditionalists and so they were putting forth this question that whether God can be seen with the physical eyes or not? The Holy Imams too would reply that by such expression is meant heartily vision and not vision with the physical eyes or perceptions with mental and heartily illusions. (Some of these proofs will come under point no. 5)
Paying attention to the following point can to a large degree be a reply to the existing doubts about innate Ma’refat. Just as it was seen in some of the traditions in Section One, this examination has been forgotten by man and the one who has made to forget is God.
كان ذلك معاينة الله فأنساهم المعاينة
] ابو عبدالله (عليه السلام) [
As such, man forgets the Ma’refat at the time of birth and it is after the gradual passage of some time and especially after the reminding of the exhorters and warnings of the warners that he once again remembers the same Ma’refat.
« أَوَلَمْ نُعَمِّركم ما يتذكر فيه من تذكر و جائكم النذير . . »
“Did we not preserve you alive long enough, so that he who would be mindful in it should mind? And there came to you the warner…”
In some of the traditions the maximum age for getting reminded has been mentioned to be eighteen.
Based on the above explanation, reasoning out this verse
« و الله أَخرجكم من بطون أُمهاتكم لا تعلمون شيئاً »
“And Allah has brought you forth from the wombs of your mothers - you did not know anything…”
For denying, ‘Fitrat’ will not have the kind of granted and esteem ‘Ma’refat’. It has been said that the above verse rejects any kind of past Ma’refat whereas just as it can be precisely perceived, this holy verse negates knowledge and awareness at the time of birth and does not say anything in connection with the past awareness which is made to be forgotten at the time of birth and is remembered by man after a lapse of some period. These past Ma’refats have been mentioned and emphasized in other verses and traditions and it is even specifically mentioned that this Ma’refat is made to be forgotten at the time of birth. Therefore there exists no contradiction between those verses which prove the past Ma’refat and the above verse. Rather the verses explain and clarify each other.
Another matter, which becomes clear from the above description, is that theology (i.e. recognition of God) being innate is not a reason of being independent from ‘reminding’. Rather the vice-versa is also true. We shall once more refer to this matter in the chapter of ‘reminding’.
Another conclusion which we can derive from the above discussion is that ‘Fitrat’ and ‘reminding’ as a means of guidance for man are alone counted to be a strong reason and an independent channel. Rather it can be claimed that a superior and genuine Ma’refat of God is the same Ma’refat which is acquired from Him and the other ways and means of recognizing God should eventually lead to and terminate in this very innate Ma’refat. On the other hand acquiring the strange ways instead of Fitrat (innate disposition) will be a strange Ma’refat different from the innate and genuine Ma’refat.
« . . فكيف يوحدّه من زعم أَنّه عرفه بغيره و إِنّما عرف الله مَن عرفه بالله، فمن لم يعرفه به فليس يعرفه، إِنما يعرف غيره . . »
How is it that the one who imagines he has recognized God through a means other than His means is a monotheist! Surely, only the one who has recognized God by (means of) God has truly recognized Him and anything besides this will be recognition of someone else and not God.
This matter was already mentioned in the first section and it will again be discussed in the chapter of ‘reminding’.
3-Before Becoming Reminded, Innate
Ma’refat is Simple not Absolute.
By simple, we mean that man is heedless and takes no notice of his innate Ma’refat and by absolute we mean being heedful of Ma’refat.
This too is one of the mysteries of God where man, because of being busy in his daily life, often tends to neglect God and does not pay attention to Him. If it was not such then the wheel of man’s material life would not have rotated and people would not have adequately paid attention to their physical and material dimensions.
Moreover the aspect of test and affliction of this present world too would have been weakened. If deception and the matter of negligence of this world were not existed, then the worship of God would not have had that importance which could lead man to the position of nearness to God and His representative.
Nevertheless, the argumentation will be finished upon man and by being reminded he will thereafter select his path: Either the route of submission and arranging the material life on that basis or the route of whims and desires and arranging all the affairs on that pivot.
4-‘Fitrat’ is the Make of God
Just as it was said in the first section, definitions of God are the act and make of God and man plays no role in it. Even the power of egotism by way of ‘definition’ is taken away from man. Therefore there exists no responsibility for acquiring this Ma’refat and man is only duty-bound to follow it and submit himself before his Lord.
From the above description we draw this conclusion that innate Ma’refat is not one of the branches of human sciences. This is because Fitrat (innate disposition) is the act of God and it should not be compared with the empirical knowledge, primary axioms, and secondary axioms, views close to axioms and similarly intuitive knowledge which are in common use. (We shall refer to these sciences under point no. 5).
5-The Focal Point of Innate Ma’refat is the Heart not Mind
« عن أبي عبدالله (عليه السلام) قال : قلت له : اَخبرني عن الله عزوجل، هل يراه المؤمنون يوم القيامة؟ قال : حين قال لهم : « ألست بربكم قالوا بلي » ثم سكت ساعة ثم قال : و إِنّ المؤمنين ليرونه في الدنيا قبل يوم القيامة ، ألست تراها في وقتك هذا؟ (دقت شود) . . و ليست الرؤية بالقلب كالرؤية بالعين . . »
It was asked from Imam Sadiq whether the believers would see God on the Day of Judgment. Imam replied: Yes and they have witnessed God even before the Day of Judgment. It was asked when it was so and Imam replied: When it was said to them:
« الست بربكم، قالوا بلي »
Thereafter, he kept silent and then said: Verily the believers witness God in this world and before the Day of Judgment too. Do you not just now witness God? …..Witnessing by heart is not similar to witnessing by the eyes.
Therefore observation of God is one Universal matter and is not specifically meant for a particular group, although the grades of observation are varied.
« . . فقال : يا أَمير المؤمنين هل رأَيْتَ ربك حين عبدته؟ فقال : ويلك، ما كنت أَعبد رباً لم أَره، قال : و كيف رأَيته؟ قال ويلك لا تدركه العيون في مشاهدة الأَبصار ولكن رأته القلوب بحقائق الايمان »
« . . فقال له : يا أَبا جعفر أَيّ شي تعبد؟ قال : الله، قال : رأيته؟ قال : لم تره العيون بمشاهدة العيان ولكن رأَتْه القلوب بحقائق الايمان . . »
« . . (الله) الظاهر لقلوبهم بحجته . . »
« . . ( الله) قد إِحتج عليكم بما قد عرفكم من نفسه »
« الأيمان، معرفة بالقلب و إِقرار باللسان و عمل بالأركان »
From these traditions and its like it becomes clear that the base and foundation of divine belief is heartly ‘Ma’refat’ (gnosis) which is the same innate Ma’refat. In none of the reasoning of Fitrat it can be seen that innate Ma’refat is of the kind of conceptual and imaginative Ma’refat. Thus interpreting Fitrat as empirical sciences, primary and secondary axioms, views close to axioms, etc is not correct.
Fitrat (Innate Disposition) and Imagination of God
Basically, in the divine reasoning it is not observed that mental and imaginary Ma’refat have been mentioned to be one of the basis or stages of divine faith. Rather the possibility of imagining the essence of God and even describing Him by means of understandings and imaginations has been rejected.
« و قَدْ ضَلْتْ في إِدراك كنهه هو اجس الأَحلام لانه أَجلّ من أَن يحده الباب البشر بالتفكير »
« . . لأَنه الله الذي لم يتناه في العقول . . »
« محرم . . علي غوائض سلبحات الفطر تصويره . . ممتنع . عن الأَذهان أَن تمثله . قل ضلت العقول في أَمواج تيار إِدراكه »
Depiction of God by the ‘Ghawa’es’(those who think deeply and deliberate in the imagination of God) is forbidden it is impossible to depict Him in our mind. The intellects, in the stormy waves of His perception have gone astray.
« . فلا تدرك العقول و أَوهامها لا الفكر خطراتها و لا الالباب و أَذهانها صفته . . »
« إِنّ الله تبارك و تعالي أَجل و أَعظم من أَن . . تبلغه الأوهام أَو تحيط به صفة العقول »
« لا تقدره العقول و لا تقع عليه الأوهام . . سبحانه و نعالي عن الصفات »
It is necessary to mention this point that in the last two traditions and the like of them, (‘Sefat’) quality and (‘Sefaat’)qualities means description and descriptions i.e. (‘Sefat’) pertains to its infinitive and not the outcome of infinitive. Apart from the fact that the contents of the traditions itself bear testimony to this meaning the lexicographical lexicons too emphasis on this meaning.
وصف : وصف الشيء له و عليه و صفاً وصفه : حلاه، و الهاء عوض من الواو »
الصفة من الوصف مثل العدة من الوعد والجمع صفات »
« وصفه وصفاً وصفة »
This too is one of the mistakes which has been committed by some and they have interpreted ‘Sefat’ and ‘sefaat’ everywhere as outcome of infinitive. Thereafter they have encountered problems in the meanings of traditions and for finding a solution they have resorted to esoteric interpretation. Examining these esoteric interpretations is not within the scope of our discussion.
« أَصف إلهي بما وصف به نفسه و أعرفه بما عرف به نفسه »
« سبحانك ما عرفوك و لا وحدوك، فمن أَجل ذلك وصفوك ، سبحانك لو صفوك بما وصفت به نفسك. . إِلهي لا أَصف إِلّا بما وصفت به نفسك »
O’ God, Thou are free from defects. They have not recognized thee and have not attained monotheism and so they have described (Thee). If they would have recognized Thee, they would have described Thee in the same manner which Thou Thyself have mentioned… O’ God, I will not describe Thee except by the very descriptions which Thou have mentioned.
« أصفة بما وصف به نفسه من غير صورة »
I shall depict God the very descriptions, which He Himself has related, without presenting any depiction of God.
From such traditions it becomes clear that the description of God is accomplished through Him only, without the means of understandings webbed by the mind. Rather He is Greater than that which can be shown by the human mind and thus in the interpretation of ‘Allaho Akbar’ it has been said:
« الله اكبر من أن يوصف »
“Allah is much Greater than what one can describe”
From the above tradition which was narrated as an example, we conclude the following two points:
1-It is impossible to imagine the Essence of God through the minds, intellects and meditations and therefore verses and traditions have forbidden contemplation in the Essence of God.
2-Description of God is not possible through rational understandings. In the chapter of Tauheed (Monotheism) and recognition of God, all verses and traditions negate depiction of God through rational understandings. With regard to the matter of Names and Attributes it is commended to follow the Quran and this very reason has caused the theologians to set forth right from the beginning the attachment of Names and Attributes as one principle in the theologian discussions.
The question which is set forth over here and has become the cause of esoteric interpretation of the above tradition is this that basically man’s recognition is not possible except through mental understandings and every confirmation is fulfilled on the basis of some imaginations and man is capable of only perceiving the meanings and proving its external existences. In the discussion of recognition of God too, it is concluded that: “We should imagine God with one Universal concept.” Other than this situation, the prayers and invocation towards God get transformed to a loose tongue and will finally lead to nullification.
The basis and foundation of such thought and its real planning goes back to the period 600 years before the appearance of Christianity in Greece just as we had seen in the first discourse.
As against this interpretation of recognition of God and such contemplative disposition, the divine religions presented a new and novel path in theology and recognition of the Name and Attributes which is the path of innate Ma’refat (gnosis) of God and His Names and Attributes.
In this path, the people witness God along with His Names and Attributes in the light of innate Ma’refat (gnosis) and this heartily witnessing is accomplished without any means of imagination and understanding. On this basis, the Names and Attributes will not become absolute upon the essential concepts and even the general concepts. Rather the Names and Attributes of the Exalted God are used in the form of ‘Ta’beer’ (interpretation).
The measure of the Names and Attributes in innate theology means referring to the Holy Essence of God - which from before has been witnessed in the light of ‘Fitrat’. In the school of ‘Ta’beer’ (interpretation), the Name and Attribute is absolutely applied to the Holy Essence without the means of mental understanding and the corrector of this absoluteness is the innate Ma’refat.
The famous sermon of Imam Reza (A.S.) which is the Universal principle of monotheistic Ma’aref (Gnostic knowledge) and is very much similar to the first sermon of Nahjul Balagha, begins with such sentences:
« اول عبادة الله تعالي، معرفتهة واصل معرفة الله توحيده و نظام توحيد الله تعالي، نفي الصفات عنه . . »
Thereafter he says:
« فاسمائه تعبير»
« . . و من زعم أَنه يعبد المعني بالصفة لا بالإِدراك فقد أَحال علي غائب . قيل له : قكيف سبيل التوحيد ؟ قال : باب البحث ممكن و طلب المخرج موجود،إِنّ معرفة عين الشاهد قبل صفته و معرفة صفة الغائب قبل عينه . »
In this tradition, the difference between the two doctrines of ‘Tauseef’ (description) and ‘Ta’beer’ (interpretation) is expressed. In the method of ‘Tauseef’ God is introduced through the channel of understandings and imaginations and the Ma’refat of God comes after His description. However in the method of innate Ma’refat and ‘Ta’beer’, God has been perceived before description, through His own channel and in the light of innate Ma’refat and the level of measure of Names comes after the level of Ma’refat of the Divine Essence. Considering the fact that God is a ‘witness’ and He is not ‘hidden’, therefore, before the measure of Names and Attributes, it has been well known among the mystics and the general application of Names and Attributes is merely an interpretation and reference to the Holy Essence which has been already recognized from before.
In the method of ‘Ta’beer’ (interpretation) the Names and Attributes signify the external Essence and the implication of Names and Attributes has been the Holy Essence of God which by His own introduction becomes the well-known ‘Fitrat’ and not the mental implications and concepts.
« والأسماأ والصفات، مخلوقات و المعني بها هو الله »
« سألت أَبالحسن الرضا(عليه السلام) عن الاسم ما هو؟ فقال(عليه السلام) « فهو» صفة لموصوف »
Basically, in the Quranic and traditional Ma’aref (gnostic knowledge), Names and Words are not assigned for understandings Rather words are corresponding to the external realities and Name (noun) is for the real subject of qualification and not the form and understandings of subject of qualification. In the next tradition the manner of significance of Name upon the external Essence is explained.
« . و مَن عبد المعني دون الإسم فذاك التوحيد . الله، معني يدل بهذه الاسماء و كلّها غيره، يا هشام، الخبز إِسم للمأكول والماء إِسم للمشروب . . »
« عن أبي عبدالله (عليه السلام) قال : مَن عبدالله بالتوهم فقد كفر . و من عبدالمعني بايقاع الاسماء عليه بصفاته التي وصف لها نفسه فعقد عليه قلبه و نطق به لسانه في سرائره و علانيته فاولئك أَصحاب أَميرالمؤمنين(عليه السلام) . »
It is obvious that the mental implications are not subject to worship. Rather the external Essence is worshipped and Name too is applied in the same sense. In traditions, on the basis of this principle, the entire concepts which are used with regard to the creatures, is negated for God and the verbal commonness is interpreted in the most highest and precise form.
« فمعني الخلق عنه منفيه »
« و إِنّما سمي الله عالماً لِأَنه لا يجهل شيئاً=،فقد جمع الخالق و المخلوق إِسم العلم و إِختلف المعني . فقد جمعنا الإِسم بالسميع و اختلف المعني و هكذا البصير »
God is named as ‘A’lam’(All-Knowing) because He is not ignorant of anything. Then surely the Creator and the creature are common in the noun of ‘A’lam’but the meaning or implication of ‘A’lam’ is different in the Creator and creature. The same is true with the words of ‘Samee’
(All-Hearing) and ‘Baseer’(All-Seeing)
« . (الله) و لا شيئاً يقع عله إِسم شيء من الأَشياء غيره »
Here, it is necessary to mention this point that the above matters are only a flash from the flashes of Quran and the teachings of the Household of the Holy Imams. Since this matter is not directly related to our discussion we have refrained from discussing it in length until perhaps at an opportunate time, we clarify the natural disposition of Fitrat in Names and Attributes and the manner of application and measurement in the Names of Creator and creatures by means of interpretation and precise implication of verbal commonness.
On the basis of the aforesaid matters we can have one system of arrangement in theology:
1- Confirmative or Positive Theology (conceptual)
2- Negative Theology (transcendence [of God])
3- Innate Theology (heartily)
1-Positive Theology (Conceptual):
This kind of Theology which can also be named as the human theology was, for the first time discussed and clarified in Greece and Aristotle succeeded in discovering and compiling its logic. In this method, only the mental and reflective powers are relied upon as the source and basis of recognition and in reality it is this mind and intellect of man which alone forms his power of Ma’refat (gnosis). From the other side, the intellect is only capable of perceiving the mental concepts and intellectual Universals.
In this method, recognition and judgment of every thing is fulfilled with the tools of understandings and the proof of God too is no exception to this universal rule. As such, for recognizing God and His Attributes we first deliberate over the mental understandings and imaginations and then we place these understandings as an intermediary in the recognition of God and in this way God and His attributes are imagined. In the later stages, it is these very mental perceptions and imaginations, which along with philosophical proofs are employed in proving and confirming.
The fulfiller of such kind of attitude is a series of Universal imaginations with regard to God. We have named this mental disposition as positive and conceptual theology for this reason that in this method, the Universal understandings which are achieved through mental mystic journey is attributed to God and is proven in respect of God. This type of theology was discussed in detail in the previous chapters.
2-Negative Theology (Transcendence [of God])
In this method, all the concepts, which in the first method are attributed to God, are negated. This is because God the most Exalted is construed as holy and free from every exposition and convention. The limited human intellect does not have the capability of finding the route to His Holy position and the human understandings are inaccessible to the sanctuary of His Essence and Attributes. For this reason, His sacred Essence is purified and sanctified from such type of understandings.
This method was discussed in clear terms by ‘Platinos’ (Platonism) in the conclusion of Greek culture and thereafter in the middle century it was examined and discussed by Duanuzyus.
Plato negated from God all the concepts and qualities, which were mentioned prior to him through the philosophers especially Aristotle and he set, free God from such attributions.
“God is absolutely sublime; He is one (Unique); beyond every thought and every existence; indescribable and unperceivable which there is no talk about Him (unutterable) and which there no knowledge about Him (unknowing) is. That which is spoken is about essence and neither essential substance nor existence and nor life can be related to God. Of course, it is not that He is less than all of such things but for the fact that He is higher than all these things.”
Let it not remain unsaid that some of the Muslim theologians too have discussed theology (knowing God) and recognition of Attributes in the form of its negation and privation. They believe that we possess only negative Ma’refat (gnosis) with regard to God and His attributes and they even reduce the positive Attributes to negative Attributes.
With regards to the discussion of Names and Attributes, the indisputable verses and especially the traditions of the holy Imams (A.S.) mention this very negative (attributes) and inclines towards the aspect of negativeness of Attributes.
What we come across in the entire verses and traditions is the description of the negative Attributes of God.
However, it should be known that this is only a part of the reality and this opinion cannot, in any manner be attributed to the divine Ma’aref (gnosis). Relying on this aspect and not paying attention to what is discussed in the Book and traditions with regards to the conscientious and innate Ma’refat (gnosis) of God, can exhibit an incorrect outlook from the viewpoint of religion which will be miles away from the reality.
3-Innate Theology (Heartily)
This matter is one of the special characteristics of the divine religions and is from the scientific miracles of the school of revelation and messenger ship. In none of the past and coming human schools any of the signs of this wonderful method and this lofty reality can be found. In this method, God has bestowed His Grace commonly to all the people and granted His Ma’refat along with His Attributes to the people and has established various ways for reminding the people of this divine Ma’refat. Therefore the people are possessed a non-conceptual and heartily Ma’refat (gnosis) with respect to God and His Attributes and the path of theology are remembering this Ma’aref and its intensification through worship.
One of the fundamental differences between this inclination and the method of positive theology is that in the latter, the basis and criterion for recognizing God is the mental faculty and power of framing concepts of a person, such that anyone whose wresting and abstractional powers are more, the better will be his recognition of God. However, in this method, (i.e. innate theology) inasmuch as the source of Ma’refat and its reminding and intensification are from God’s side, anyone who achieves more the satisfaction of God and engages in worship and devotion the greater and more powerful will be the glimmer of light of innate Ma’refat upon his heart and his Ma’refat (gnosis) towards God, His Names and Attributes will multiply.
This innate Ma’refat is a positive and heartily reality. However, considering the fact that it does not fit the vessel of words and verbal utterances and cannot endure the mould of letters to this understanding and on the other side the mind is looking forward to find a way in understanding this reality and concept, the only way for explaining the innate Ma’refat with the intellectual tongue is mentioning the positive ness of Names and Attributes. In this way, in the level of intellectual explanation of innate Ma’refat and explaining its difference with mental understandings, the positive theology is having a fundamental role to play and it is set forth as complementary to the innate Ma’refat. As such, it finds a special place in the overall divine Ma’aref.
With this explanation, the secret of utilizing positive expressions by the Holy Imams (A.S.) in describing the Names and Attributes of God becomes clear.
The traditions which support the description of such matter are manifold and from the viewpoint of exposition are diverse.
Some of these traditions have divulged this lofty understanding in the form of “coming out of the two boundaries” (boundary of negative theology and boundary of simile).
The boundary of negative theology and boundary of simile is a comprehensive concept which should be negated from God, the Exalted and in reality if we wish to express that heartly Ma’refat in the form of words, we cannot find better expression than interpreting it as “coming out of the two boundaries.”
The essential matter and the key to the solution of this complication (pertaining to beliefs) lies hidden in this fundamental point that, from the viewpoint of Ma’aref of Quran and Ahle bait (A.S.) the matter of “coming out from the two boundaries” and the positive Ma’refat has been propounded only in the level of intellect and discursive recognition. This is due to the severe emphasizes and insistences of the Divine Prophets upon referring to the Fitrat (innate disposition) and conscience as a positive and genuine Ma’refat. Man in his conscience and reference to his Fitrat (innate disposition) discovers and calls out the real God with His beautiful Names and Attributes. He converses with Him and whispers the secrets of his heart and his agonies to Him.
Of course this is not with regards to an unknown and equivocal God and not with an imagined and conceptual God. Rather he discovers a God who is nearer to him than his jugular vein and is more acquainted to him than he himself. He discovers a God who is a companion and a congenial mate.
An Associate and a Comrade, Merciful and Benevolent. It is not that he imagines these qualities where he finds Him Beloved and Curer. When he finds such a God in his conscience with the severest Ma’refat and highest stage (of course with different degree of capability) he does not have from his Ma’refat any kind of imagination and confirmation in mind. He becomes perplexed and befuddled. He does not resemble anything and does not conceive any fantasy, illusion and syllogism. He prostrates, glorifies (‘Sobboohun Quddoos’)elevates his Holy Essence (negating similarity). The human mind allures that if there is no illusion and understanding then in what manner He is (existing), Fitrat comes into the scene and without paying attention to the manner it shows that He (i.e. God) is existing and is more evident than all the evident things.
Fitrat (innate disposition) warns the mind (intellect) that if the outlook of understanding is narrow, it is not having the right of refusing. The intellect too, by following the conscience confirms His existence (negation of negative theology). With this abstract and general description it becomes clear that those who remember the positive and transcendence Ma’refat by the above meaning as “negative theology” are to what extent far from reality. Yes, those who have only paid attention to the positive aspect of the mind and have neglected the supreme innate Ma’refat can be related to negative theology.
From the view-point of Ma’aref of Quran and traditions going out from the two boundaries and going out from positive Ma’refat is a path which the intellect, by announcing its helplessness towards the most sublime realities, expands the way for the heartly journey and prepares the Fitrat (Innate Disposition) for the position of Divine Grace.
« العلم نور يقذفه الله في قلب من يشاء »
Second Stage: Reminding and Argumentation in Religious Theology
On basis of the points which were discussed in the first stage, (definition) the people are carriers of supreme and manifest Ma’refat (gnosis) of the exalted God. Moreover they have acquired this Ma’refat from the Essence of the Exalted Creator which is the only correct and acceptable Ma’refat before the One (God). However, considering the fact that man tends to neglect and forget this innate Ma’refat when he steps into this material world, God delegates the Prophets and the Holy Imams for reminding the same divine Fitrat (innate disposition) in order that the argumentation is finished upon him and the path of perfection and guidance is opened before him.
The Divine Holy Essence has shown different ways for reminding the people and has vested various proofs and reasoning to the Prophets for this purpose. We can perhaps conclude and show these ways in three important pivots: ‘Severance’, ‘Signs’ and ‘Worship’.
Chapter One: Severance
This matter takes place in different ways. Sometimes it is accomplished without the free will of man and sometimes it is exposed to view by free will, endeavour and struggle. On the basis of levels of severance, the granted Ma’refat (gnosis) too is different.
The reason that severance from material attachments becomes the cause of remembrance is this that such kinds of attachments are the most important channel for man’s neglectfulness from the innate Ma’refat. By eliminating such attachments, the obstacles and veils are removed from the Fitrat (innate disposition) and the light of innate Ma’refat begins to glow (once again) and this glowing is the same granted Ma’refat which is mentioned in Quran by the word ‘Atainaahum’ (Nahl: 52 & 53). One of the instances of severance which is accomplished without man’s authority and which has been emphasized a lot in verses and a tradition is the state of helplessness and losing of hope in this world. (Which is mentioned in Quran and traditions by the words ‘Ba’san we Zarraa’.
Under these circumstances too, the introducer to God and His qualities is God Himself and the real reminder, in the position of proof is the Benevolent God. However, in the position of proving and explaining, whenever the Holy Imams (A.S.) were faced with the real seekers of guidance and Ma’refat then, for reminding the Ma’refat, they would recall the same conditions and manifestations of the Ma’refat of God in the hearts and the people too, by recalling those same conditions, remember the Ma’aref which they had acquired at those moments.
Acquiring and accomplishing such kind of reminding, by way of proof and confirmation, is known as the general guidance (‘Aamah’).
General Guidance and Special Guidance
The first level of guidance which we name it as general guidance is a level which the Ma’refat of God is given to all the people in such manner that they cannot deny that by heart. In case of aversion and rejection (Bani Israel: 67) man comes to a halt on the path of guidance and it is possible that he even becomes deprived from remembering the initial Ma’refat. However in case of submitting himself before God, and in accordance with the degree of his submission and struggle, a greater manifestation of the past and innate Ma’refat glows in his heart and the Ma’refat of God becomes much more severe and scintillating.
This severe ness which possesses greater levels is set forth as special guidance (‘Khaseh’) because it does not occur for all the common people but specially occurs for the faithful believers.
Paying attention to this matter can be a reply to some of the questions pertaining to beliefs, which are propounded in connection with some verses of Quran.
Another instance of severance consists of “voluntary severance” from the worldly manifestations which is accompanied with untiring struggle and endeavor. However its result will be a higher Ma’aref and a reminder more severe than the divine and innate Ma’aref and will lead to a much higher stage than the special guidance
« إِلهي هب لي كمال الانقطاع إِليك و أَنِرْ أَبصار قلوبنا بضياء نظرها اليك حتي تخرق أَبصار القلوب حجب النور فتصل إِلي معدن العظمة و تصير أَرواحنامعلقة بعزّ قدسك »
It is here that the obligation of ethics and its importance becomes clear and the narrow relation of true ethics and mystics with the most fundamental matter pertaining to beliefs in the school of revelation becomes manifest. From this viewpoint, ethics smoothens the way for ascending to the peak of bondage and perfection of course not as a collection of practical precepts but as a path which acquaints man with the source of Ma’refat and basis of guidance.
While discussing the stage of ‘submission’ we shall once again refer to this matter even though going into its details is not within the scope of our discussion.
Chapter Two: Signs (‘Ayata’)
One of the ways, which God introduces Himself, is through His creatures which in the terminology of Quran are known as Ayats, signs and reminders.
The reason that these creatures are called as Ayats is that they are all the signs of God’s existence and His attributes and the motive of remembering them is that contemplating and reflecting over them will cause one to remember the innate Ma’refat of God.
It is necessary to mention a few points with regards to this chapter:
First Point: As said before, in many verses of Quran God mentions guidance to be one of His Actions confined to Himself and in the traditions too, the Ma’refat of God is reckoned to be the make of God where no one plays any role in it.
By paying attention to this matter it can be said that not only has God created the creatures of the world but has originated them in the form of Ayat and sign of His existence and Attributes. Therefore, the existence of the creatures and their being a sign are both from God and He introduces Himself and His Attributes through them (i.e. creatures). Thus in some of the verses of Quran, God introduces Himself as the Demonstrator of Ayats (signs):
« سنريهم آياتنا في الآفاق و في أَنفسهم حتي يتبين لهم أَنّه الْحَق »
“We will soon show them our signs in the Universe and in their own souls, until it will become quite clear to them that it is the truth”
In another place, after mentioning the wonders of creation it says:
« و يُريكم آياته فأيّ آياتِ الله تُنكرون »
“And He shows you His signs: which then of Allah’s signs will you deny?”
« اَلَمْ تَرَ أَنَّ الفلك تجري في البحر بنعمت الله ليريكم من آياته اِنَّ في ذلك لآيات لكلّ صبِار شكور »
“Do you not see that the ships run on in the sea by Allah’s favor that He may show you of His signs? Most surely there are signs in this for every patient endurer, grateful one.”
Basically, in the logic of religion, man does not find God through his own imagination and confirmation. Rather God has manifested Himself either directly or through the signs of creation and man only perceives this manifestation and remembers God and thereafter he uses this same manifestation in the form of words and expresses them and occasionally uses them in reasoning and argumentation. On this basis, the Ma’refat (gnosis) of God which is achieved through journey of the horizons and the self also is the donation of God,
not the creation of man. Therefore, man is helpless in explaining the essence of that Ma’aref too and only confesses that the Wise and All-Knowing, Mighty and Powerful, Compassionate and Merciful God is outside the two boundaries (boundary of negative theology and simile) and that He is not in any way similar to the creatures in Essence and Attributes.
Second Point: Many Quranic verses and traditions reckon the true Ma’refat (gnosis) of God to be the same Ma’refat which was given to man in the past worlds and which the people have evidentially succeeded in witnessing God and His Attributes by heartly vision and are (still) capable enough to remember that Ma’aref in this present world.
From this point we draw this conclusion that the outcome of true ways of theology cannot be against the innate Ma’refat. Rather it should terminate in the same Ma’refat. As such, the Ayats and signs all lead to the remembrance of innate Ma’refat and for this reason the verses of Quran, after mentioning the wonders of creation, reckon the result of observation and contemplation to be reminding and remembrance:
« و مِن كُلِّ شَيءٍ خَلَقْنا زَوْجَيْن لَعَلَّكُم تَذَكَّرُون »
“And of everything we have created pairs that you may be mindful.”
« و ما ذَرَأَ لَكُم في الأَرض مختلفاً أَلْوانه إِنّ في ذلك لَآيةً لِقومٍِ يذكرون »
“And what He has created in the earth of varied hues; most surely there is a sign in this for a people who are mindful.”
« . نحن جعلناها تذكرة »
“We have made it a reminder...”
Third Point: An important matter, which exists with regards to reminding of the creatures, is that the remembrance of God in this way is possible through contemplation, reflection and intellection. This matter shows a fundamental difference between the first method of ‘Tazakkur’ (reminding) i.e. ‘Severance’ and the second method of ‘Tazakkur’ i.e. ‘creatures’
To explain more, in the first method, by attaining severance, the innate Ma’refat is revealed upon man’s heart and without any contemplation and partly without free-will and despite the inner desire, man pays attention to God and His attributes. However, in the second method, a person becomes reminded after pondering and contemplating in the created beings and their regularity and not in the Essence of God.
This matter shows the important position of contemplation and intellection in theology and one of the reasons as to why contemplation and intellection have been emphasized in divine religions is this very matter. Of course the intellect is having other significant roles which cannot be discussed over here.
A point which is necessary to be discussed over here is that the way of contemplation and intellection in this method is different from the way which is propounded in the Greek philosophy because:
Firstly, intellection in Greece is done for discovering an unknown mental affair but over here, inasmuch as man is the bearer of innate Ma’refat and God too has made the creatures as His signs and (as) the path for paying attention and remembering the innate Ma’refat contemplation and intellection are therefore for the elimination of neglectfulness and (for) paying attention to the known and forgotten affairs, not for discovering the unknown.
Secondly, just as it was said in the first section, the manner of rationalization in Greek philosophy is only focused at the mental (rational) Universals and considering that the intellect is only capable of perceiving the rational Universals, it can therefore build for itself the Universals and or do abstraction and engage in their combination until the unknown matter is solved. In the matter of theology too, the manner of Greek rationalization first imagines God by paying attention to the philosophical system planned from before and later, with imaginations and confirmations, it makes clear the notion of God and engages in proving the same notion. However in the manner of divine rationalization the matter of imagination of God is not propounded at all and by pondering over the creatures, man becomes reminded and focuses itself to the heartly Ma’refat which is the outcome of the Action of God.
Of course, there exists other important and precise differences between the manner of philosophical rationalization in Greece and the manner of divine rationalization which itself requires a separate discussion.
Fourth Point: Another difference that exists between the first method (severance) and the second method (signs) is that in the former, the addressee is much more prepared in receiving guidance and in the words of Quran:
« يَكادُ زيتها يَضيءُ و لَوْ لَمْ تَمْسَسْها نارٌ، نورٌ علي نور »
“…The oil whereof almost gives light through fire touch it not - light upon light.”
As such, the one who engages in purification of his soul and keeps aloof from moral vices, his heart will be more ready in accepting the light and submitting before God. Therefore by reminding and remembering the conditions of “hardship and adversity” and severance, it pays attention to the innate Ma’refat and submits in front of this heartly proof and innate reasoning and expresses that it has seen God with all his existence.
However, the addressee in the second method enjoys less preparedness as compared to the addressee in the first method. Therefore the one who reminds should, through the channel of contemplation and intellection in the created signs and their regularity and through rational reasoning, prepare a person for reminding. Of course, those who possess hindrances for guidance and or are not at all wishing guidance belong to the group of addressee’s of the second type. However reasoning in the verses of Quran are not propounded as reminding for them but as good dispute and argumentation.
Fifth Point: From the previous point another conclusion can be derived and that is: In addition to being a path for reminding and remembering God and innate Ma’refat, the creatures and the signs of creation are also a channel for reasoning together and disputing with the opposition and the obstinate (people) and with those who are faced with obstacles and difficulties in the path of guidance and or wish to seek reasoning and rational explanation about God.
In other words, the results and consequences of the signs of creation and reasoning in them are different because of the differences in the capability and preparedness of the people and the addressees. If in case the addressee wishes to seek guidance and is prepared to accept the reality then by pondering and contemplating in the signs of creation he will be reminded of the innate Ma’refat (gnosis) of God and in fact, contemplating in the creatures is instrumental in eliminating the veil and becoming heedful of the innate Ma’refat of God. If the addressee wishes rational proof for the existence of God, then by means of reasoning in the creatures and their regularity, he will confess in the existence of God and if there exists any intellectual obstacles in the path of guidance then by such reasoning, one can eliminate these obstacles. However, if the addressee is obstinate and has some other aim in mind, then by such kind of argumentation one can condemn him and impel him to surrender before the truth. Of course, rationalization in the Ayats (sings) is propounded as argumentation for the afore-said three persons.
Here it is necessary to say something about disputation and argumentation.
Chapter Three: Argumentation
‘Ehtejaj’ (Argumentation) means establishing an argument for proving the sought matter and by argument is meant proof and reasoning.
In the Mu’jam (Lexicon) of ‘Maqayes Lughat’ it has come that: The actual meaning of Haj is ‘to intend’ and proof is called as ‘Hujjat’ (argument) for this reason that through the channel of proof, the desired reality is intended. It then gives argumentation the meaning of predominance by means of proof.
Therefore, argumentation is the same literal reasoning i.e. establishing absolute proof for proving a claim which is finally accompanied with the acceptance and submission of the opposite person and or leading to the triumph and victory of one side and the silence of the opposite person.
Considering the fact that the opposite persons engaging in argumentation are different, therefore the kinds of argumentation too are different. By way of general classification it can be said that the opposite person is either possessing rational, spiritual and moral problems where discussion in this case will be propounded as “special argumentation” or is possessing one of the aforesaid problems where in this case discussion will be called as ‘dispute’ which itself is of two types.
A) Special Argumentation
In this kind of argumentation the opposite person is not having complete readiness for getting reminded and finding the path of true and innate Ma’refat. On the other hand, he himself seeks rational proofs with regards to God. In this case, the existence of God is rationalized through the means of created beings. In reality, it is God who has placed these created signs as a means for rationalizing His own existence and a person explains that in the form of rational reasoning and the opposite person by pondering over that, confesses to the existence of a Creator.
Although this type of argumentation the achievement of which is a rational resolution and faith has been emphasized in the course of religions and in the life of the divine Prophets, yet it should be noted that this rationalization differs from what is discussed in the Greek philosophical and rational disposition. It is necessary to mention these differences:
1-Just as it was mentioned in the previous discussions, argumentation by this meaning cannot by any means be a true haven for religion in the guidance of the people. Rather a recognition which is acquired from this path cannot be compared with the innate and real Ma’refat.
The innate Ma’refat is a hearlty and conscientious vision of Exalted God, His Names and Attributes. This same Ma’refat whose base has been placed in the nature of everyone, is the fundamental of divine theology and knowledge and Ma’refat in reality is applied to this same class of recognition and it also is the true argument between the Creator and creatures.
Basically, contemplation and concentration in the created signs too is a bridge for the seekers of truth for transition to the real Ma’refat. However, in the Greek philosophical school, mental (rational) recognition is the only way for receiving the fact and without the philosophical journey; a person will remain in ignorance and perplexity. The pinnacle of Ma’refat and the object of this journey too is nothing but a mental (rational) resolution and faith. It is obvious to what extent this difference and its effects separates these two dispositions and draws them to two diverse directions.
The method of Greek philosophy right from the outset, keeps the way of philosophical and rational journey before the seekers of truth and does not recognize any other way (other than this) for attaining the reality. However the divine religions open the door of rational reasoning and argumentation only at the time when the person is either suffering from mental (rational) doubts and or due to the deviation of Fitrat, he is not having the requisite readiness for true guidance and seeks rational explanation about God.
It is for this reason that the divine Messengers, for eliminating the mental doubts and establishing rational proofs, were resorting to rationalization in proving God.
In the famous tradition of ‘Ahlijeh’ it has come that:
Mufazzal narrates in a letter to Imam Sadiq (A.S.) that groups of people are denying God and that they have resorted to debate and discussion in this regard. He asks Imam (A.S.) to write to him some points about argumentation and its disapproval. Imam (A.S.) in the beginning of his reply sets forth the matter of innate Ma’refat and ‘Meesaaq’ (covenant) as a major argument for all and then teaches Mufazzal the rationalization of created signs.
« و نحن نحمدالله علي النِّعَمخِ السابغةِ والحخسجَجِ ابالغةِ و البلاء المحمود عنه الخاصّة و العامّة فكان مِن نِعَمِه العظام و آلائِه الجسام التي أَنعم بها تقريره قلوبهم بربوبيته، و أَخذه ميثاقهم بمعرفته . . »
2-Argumentation in the Ayats(signs) is easily perceivable and understandable and a slight deliberation in them will result in confirming the existence of a Creator. In other words the innate and conventional intellect is easily able to follow the causer from the effect and the Creator from the created beings. Of course the more the deliberation in the effects and the created beings, the clearer will be the reasoning for a Creator. This point is apparent in all the related Ayats (verses) and tradition. Basically the usage of such words like Ayatsand signs in the Holy Quran with regards to the created beings and especially its emphasis on their being an evident and manifest proof, relates the same matter.
« سنريهم آياتنا في الافاق و في انفسهم حتي يتبين لهم انه الحق »
“We will soon show them our signs in the Universe and in their own souls, until it will become quite clear to them that it is the truth.”
In many famous and diverse traditions too, this implication has been clearly expressed:
« هل يكون بناءٌ مِن غير بانٍ أَوْ جناية مِن غير جان؟ »
“Is there a house without a ‘maker’ or a crime without a criminal?”
البَعْرَة تدلّ علي البعير، والرّوثة تدلّ علي الحمير و آثار القدم تدلّ علي المسير فهيكلٌ علويٌّ بهذه اللطافة و مركزٌ سفليٌ بهذه الكثافة كيف لا يدلّان علي اللطيف الخبير
3-this kind of argumentation is not in need of any preliminary and complicated sciences and is free from the shackles of every form of philosophical system and its preliminaries. In other words, it has not been formed by paying attention to one special philosophical school and method and hence it is capable of being perceived and understood by all.
4-In this type of rationalization there is no way for intellection in the Essence of God and the Creator. On the contrary, intellection in the creatures is the basis for confessing and confirming the Creator and thus in the traditions, contemplation and intellection in the Essence of God has been prohibited and condemned. However, contemplation in the creatures has been praised and in many verses and traditions such contemplation has been called for which we will mention two of the traditions as examples:
« قال أَبوعبدالله (عليه السلام) قال : إِيّاكُم و التفكر في الله »
“Be on guard against contemplation in God.”
« عن أَبي عبدالله (عليه السلام) قال : إِذا انتهي الكلام إِلي الله فامْسكوا، و تكلّموا فيما دون العرش و لا تكلموا فيما فوق العرش »
“When the talk reaches to God, then pause and talk about what is below the ‘Arsh’(Throne) and not what is above the ‘Arsh’.
This method, by making use of concept and combination of meanings does not terminate in the imagination of God and His Attributes. Rather, by paying attention to the creatures and the effects it achieves the Causer and the Creator and this is having a fundamental difference with what was seen in the Greek philosophical school which was the imagination of the Attributes of God and His existence.
Basically, with deliberation in the created beings, the intellect finally terminates in a recognition which admits a Creator This rational recognition is not worthy of comparison with the innate Ma’refat of God because in the latter, the personal and external God is perceived in the conscience and this conscience in reality is the grant of Ma’refat from God in the heart of the human beings. The same is true with regards to the Attributes of God.
Various traditions explain this matter very explicitly:
« إِنّ العقل يعرف الخالقَ من جهة توجب عليه الإِقرار و لا يعرفه بما يوجب له الْإِحاطة بصفته »
“Surely intellect (reason) recognizes God for this reason that it becomes the cause of confessing to the existence of God and not because of being conversant in His Attributes.”
(After mentioning the four kinds of rational recognition he says)
من هذه الوجوه شَيْءٌ يمكن المخلوق إأَنْ يعرفه من الخالق حق معرفته غير أَنه موجود فقط
“The real recognition of God is not possible by the aforesaid ways except to the extent that He is existed.”
« و هو خلاف ما يُعْقَلُ »
“God is not he who can be rationalized.”
In a tradition it has come that “one can confess to the Attributes of God but he cannot be conversant in it. Thus we know Him to be Wise but the Essence of His Wisdom is unknown to us.”
In other words, just as it has repeatedly come in the exposition of Ahle Bait (A.S.) this reasoning only provides us with recognition confined to the two limits of nullification and simile.
This proof obligates us to confess to the existence of a Creator and the bestower of Life but does not present any kind of His notion and description. The rational Ma’refat of God is set forth in the form of exit from the two boundaries i.e. God exists but not like other creatures, God is an entity but not like other entities, God is Wise but not like other wise beings…
These differences guides us to one Universal principle and it is this that the kind of rationalization and its categories in the school of divine Prophets can have differences with what we see in the human school of thought. Argumentation should be such that it should possess all the aforesaid specialties and more important than all it should not lead to any kind of notion and description of the Divine Essence, His Names and Attributes. The reasoning which finally terminates in some kind of notion and description of God cannot by any means, be approved by Shariat (Divine Law). Therefore it should be noted that putting into operation the concepts and categories in rationalization is accepted to the extent that it does not draw the mind towards mental and even heartly illusion and does not lead to an alien path far from the divine Fitrat (innate disposition).
6-Considering that this kind of argumentation can easily be perceived and understood, if a person does not, by this method confess to the existence of God then it is either due to the non-reflection and non-deliberation with regards to reasoning and or due to commitment of sins and sickness of the heart.
« ولعمري ما أتي الجهال من قِبَل ربهم و أنهم ليرون الدلالات الواضحات و العلامات البينات في خلقهم. . و لكنهم قوم فتحوا علي أَنفسهم أَبواب المعاصي و سهلوا لها سبيل الشهوات، فغلب الاهواء علي قلوبهم »
« عن أَمير المؤمنين(عليه السلام) : و لو فكّروا في عظيم القدرة و جسيم النعمة لرجعوا إِلي الطريق و خافوا عذاب الحريق و لكنّ القلوب عليلة و الأَبصار مدخولة . . »
This matter will be explained more in the discussion of “Obstacles of guidance and submission.”
B) Disputation (‘Jedal’)
Disputation (‘Jedal’) on the measure of ‘Fe’aal’ is one of the infinitives of ‘Bab-e-Mufa’eleh’ and in meaning it has been described as dispute and discussion between two parties where normally one is on the truth and the other on falsehood.
Therefore, the addressee of the dispute is not empty-minded and has something to say and does not merely intend to learn (only). As such, the one who engages in disputation and debate with the believers possesses such thoughts which become an obstacle for him to accept guidance. This mental obstacle is either in the form of contravention, which enter the religious beliefs and or is in the form of false delusions, which he believes and becomes an obstacle from accepting the truth.
In the first case, the rightful disputer should reply to his contravention and in reality should erase his contravention and finally show the true matter devoid of any blot and difficulty. In the second case he should remove the false thoughts of the opposite person and render them futile. In both the cases the obstacles in the path of guidance get destroyed and the ways for finding guidance (which were previously mentioned) are opened.
In all of the disputations which the Holy Imams have had with the opposition, one can see reasoning in the created signs and their irrefutable regularity and preciseness. Therefore, in some of these debates while the matter of the opposite person(s) would be contravened eventually they would also be reminded of God through these much created signs.
The above matter applies to that person who intends to seek the truth. However, if he is obstinate and even after the finalization of argument he denies the truth and conducts the discussion for other reasons like enfeeblement of religious beliefs of the Muslims then in such a case, disputation with him is performed for defending the beliefs of the Muslims and showing the power of divine Ma’aref, without having any consideration for the opposite person.
Ibn Abil Auja says; “He (i.e. Imam Sadiq [A.S.]) counted so many signs of God’s power to me that I thought this very moment God will appear between him and me.”
Even though his companions brought faith in God and became Muslims, he himself was not prepared to submit before God because he was not clear-sighted. This is a sentence which was said about him by Imam Sadiq (A.S.) and which can also be seen in Holy Quran
and other heavenly books.
Good Disputation and Its Conditions
In many verses of Quran and traditions disputation and debate with regards to religious beliefs has been prohibited and rebuked. On the other hand, in some of the verses and traditions disputation has been reckoned to be permissible and even ordered for in some instances and a few disputations has been admired by the Holy Imams (A.S.). However deliberating with regard to these reasons will clarify this point that the instances of command and prohibition were different and disputation is of various kinds where some others are accepted and considered good and even obligatory. Just as it can be derived from verse 124 of Chapter Nahl in Holy Quran, disputation is of two types: Good disputation and bad disputation. A good disputation possesses certain conditions and instances, which shall be mentioned in brief.
First Condition:
Before disputation, the disputer should find the true matters and Ma’aref and through disputation and discussion, he should seek to prove and clarify those matters and reject the contravention which has entered the true matters. Therefore, the only dispute which has been emphasized in the traditions is that which is based on the teachings of Quran and the Holy Imams (A.S.) and not (used) as a means for discovering the unknowns pertaining to the mind.
This point is one of the important differences, which exists between the disputation and dialectic of Socrates and Plato and the disputation in divine religions.
Just as it was mentioned in the theology of Socrates and Plato, the former reckoned dialectic and dialogue to be a means for achieving the truth and the Universal definition. The latter (Plato) thought that rational intuition, notion and categories were possible through rational disputation and debate. However in divine religions, disputation is utilized only as a means for defending the truth and not for discovering the divine Ma’aref. Therefore the haven for divine Ma’aref is not disputation but on the contrary relying on disputation is counted to be a deviated channel.
« ماضَلَّ قومٌ إِلّا أَو ثقوا الْجَدَل »
“No tribe got deviated except when that tribe relied on disputation” (took it as a means for discovering the truth).
Kulaini in his noble book ‘Kafi’ narrates: One of the natives of Syria who thought himself to be the master of discourse went to Imam Sadiq (A.S.) for debate. Imam (A.S.) asked: “Is your words the saying of Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) or is it from yourself.” The man replied:
‘From both’. Imam (A.S.) rebuked him and intimated to him that a speaker should have acquired his words from Holy Prophet (S.A.W.). Then he told Yunus bin Yaqoob who was present in the gathering as such: “If you were good in debate, you would have spoken to this man.” Yunus said: “You have prohibited conversation in religious matters.” Imam replied: "Woe upon the speakers who forsake our matters and utilize their own points in debate…”
From this tradition and the next one we come to know that a speaker, before entering into discussion and debate in any matter should be well acquainted with the Ma’aref and beliefs of the Holy Imams (A.S.) in that subject and then enter into disputation on their basis and for the purpose of showing the reality.
Imam Sadiq (A.S.) told some of his companions as such:
« قال أَبو عبدالله (عليه السلام) لبعض أَصحابنا ' حاجّوا الناس بكلامي فإِن حجوكم فأَنا المحجوج »
“Enter into argumentation with the people by my sayings for in such a case, if they engage in discussion with you they have in fact engaged in discussion with me”
« قال أَبو عبدالله (عليه السلام) لِطائفةِ من أَصحابه : بيِّنُوا لِلناس الهُدي الذي أَنتم عليه . . »
“Make clear to the people, the guidance which is upon you”
« قال أَبو الحسن موسي بن جعفر (عليه السلام) لمحمد بن حكيم : كلّم الناس و بيّن لهم الحق الذي أنت عليه . . »
From the last two traditions, we realize this fact that conversation and disputation is for the purpose of explaining and not discovering guidance and reality.
Imam Sadiq (A.S.) said: “Forsake those who enter into disputation (with you) while they possess no knowledge of the matter of discussion.”
Second Condition:
Apart from the fact that the bases and aim of a disputer should be on the basis of divine Ma’aref, his method in proving the true matter or contravening the false matter too should be a divine method and he should utilize the correct points in proving his claim.
The above condition along with its logic has been explained in detail in one tradition. In the end of the tradition a point also exists which approves the first condition.
A question which may arise over here is that if in the method of disputation also, one should collect true matters then why Prophet Abraham in his disputation said ‘Hadha Rabbi’ with regard to the moon, stars and sun.
This question was asked by Ma’moon from Imam Reza (A.S.) and Imam in reply said: This saying of Prophet Abraham was by way of negation and inquiry and not in the form of confession and information.
That is to say Prophet Abraham at first set forth the saying of the un-believers and then proceeded in contravening it and at the time of expressing the sayings of the un-believers, he had not accepted those sayings. Rather it was like asking the un-believers: “Is this my God? This interrogation was in the form of negatory interrogation and not in the form of giving information of his beliefs.
Third Condition:
The disputer should possess the power and ability of debate and should be aware and rather dominant in the manner of entering into the discussion as well as coming out of it. For this reason the Holy Imams have prohibited disputation in most of the instances and have permitted only a limited people to engage in discussion and debate with the opposition. Moreover in certain cases, they have taught the method of good disputation to these people and have trained them and pointed out their weak points. This matter has been explained in continuation of the tradition of Yunus bin Yaqoob, which was mentioned in the first condition. Another tradition has been narrated in this regard.
Fourth Condition:
Disputation should first of all be beneficial and secondly the temporal and spatial conditions and the situation of disputation and the opposite person should suitable for the debater.
Fifth Condition:
There should exist a necessity for disputation. In numerous traditions, disputation and argumentation id hostility in religious discussion has been prohibited and one of the signs of piety, temperance and perfection of religion has been mentioned to be abandonment of dispute and argument. Even the truthful disputation has been prohibited in the traditions and as against the abandonment of arguments; a lot of reward has been narrated for it.
Moreover, in these traditions doubt, hypocrisy and corruption of the heart has been mentioned to be the effects of disputation and argumentation. Due to the large number of traditions about disputation and argumentation and the condition of brevity of this discussion, we shall only narrate the references of such traditions.
In verses of Quran too, disputation in religious matters has been rebuked.
From the verses of Quran, traditions and historical evidences we come to know that disputation has not been discussed in the divine religions as a primal principle. From historical view-point also, disputation entered the Islamic gatherings at that time when due to the influence of alien thoughts and expansion of false reflections the necessity of confrontation was felt by the Muslims.
The reason for such an affair too is clear from the previous discussion.
0%
Author: Reza Berenjkar
