Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

An Inquiry Concerning Al-Mahdi

The concept of the Mahdi, his long life, personality and role

Author(s): Ayatullah Sayyid Muhammad Baqir As-Sadr

Publisher(s): W.O.F.I.S. World Organization for Islamic Services

Contents

Foreword 3

Introduction 4

1) How Was This Long Life Granted To Al-Mahdi? 8

2) The Miracle And The Long Life 12

3) Why All This Desire To Prolong His Life? 14

4) How Was The Preparation of The Expected Leader Achieved 17

5) How Can We Believe In The Existence Of Al-Mahdi? 20

6) Why Has The Leader Not Appeared Yet? 24

7) Can An Individual Assume This Role? 27

8) How Will The Change On The Appointed Day Occur? 28

Foreword

We are pleased to present the English translation of the book Bahth hawl al-Mahdi ( An Enquiry Concerning al-Mahdi). The original in Arabic text written by Shahid as-Sadr in 1397 H., has been published separately (Beirut: Dar al Ta'aruf lil-Matbu'at, 3rd impression 1401 H. /1981) as well as within his collected works, al-Majjmu`ah al-kamilah li mu'allafat as-Sayyid Muhammad Baqir as-Sadr, vol. 11 (Beirut: Dar al Ta'aruflil-Matbu'at, 1410 H. /1990).

Praise be to Allah for the success we have had in our progress to this book. It is enough, by way of introduction to say that the author, as-Sayyid Muhammad Baqir as-Sadr is one of the great scholars of Islamic thought, and it is enough, by way of introduction to as-Sayyid as-Sadr, to let him introduce himself by his works and writings; the only thing we can do is to enable the worthy readers to become acquainted with his thought. The reader can see for himself the stature of the writer from studying his works, of which the present book is an example, albeit small, but containing great meaning.

This is the fourth book which we have so far published from the writings of as-Sayyid as-Sadr in the English language. And we pray to Allah, may He be praised that He guide our steps, and lead us in the right path. He is the best Guide, the best Helper.

World Organization For Islamic Services,

6/2/1400 26/12/1979

(Board of Writing, Translation & Publication).

Tehran - IRAN.

Introduction

Not only is al-Mahdi (the Guided One) a materialization of an Islamic belief of a spiritual nature, but a model to a particular goal which humanity has been striving to achieve, as well as a form to a natural inspiration, through which people came to realize - in spite of their different faith and means of access to the unseen - that there is an appointed day on earth, when the Divine messages will be fulfilled in all their great significance and final aim, when the exhausting march which humanity took in the course of history will lead to stability and security, after a long struggle.

However, the awareness of this expected future is not limited to those who believe in the unseen from a religious angle, but it has extended to others and has even been reflected in those ideologies which strongly denied the existence of the unseen and any of its aspects, such as dialectical materialism, that interpreted history in terms of contradictions, but at last admitted the fact that there was an appointed time in which these contradictions would be resolved when peace and harmony would prevail on earth.

Thus we find that the psychological experience of this awareness, which humanity has undertaken in the course of time, is one of the widest and most commonly held among people.

So, if religion strengthens this awareness by reaffirming that at the end of matter, the earth will be filled with justice after having been filled with injustice and tyranny, it is in reality providing it with its objective value and turning it into a decisive belief in human destiny, which is not only a source of consolation but of generosity and strength.

A source of generosity, since belief in al-Mahdi is in reality belie f in the protest against all forms of oppression and tyranny although they still prevail in the world.

It is also a source of strength and a refutation that cannot dwindle, since it is a ray of light that is continually struggling against despair within people and keeping the flame of hope ablaze within their hearts in spite of the gloomy conditions and the might of oppression under which they live, because the appointed day confirms the fact that justice can challenge a world filled with transgression and tyranny, that it can shake its foundations, and rebuild it anew; that oppression is only an unnatural condition, regardless of its power and extent in the different corners of the world. that it will eventually be defeated; that the ultimate defeat of oppression while on the summit of its glory, brings great hope before every persecuted individual and every oppressed nation, in tipping the balance and rebuilding the world.

If the idea of al-Mahdi is older and wider than Islam, the detailed outlines, which the latter has fixed for it, have proved more satisfactory to all those ambitions that have been seeking its realization since the dawn of history as well as a more generous gift and a stronger prediction for the feelings of those who have been persecuted and op pressed in the course of history. This is because Islam has turned the idea from the unseen into reality, and from an aspiration for a saviour the world would produce in the distant and unknown future into the conviction that he actually exists looking forward with other people to that day and the right circumstances that would make it possible for him to assume his great role.

Thus, al-Mahdi (peace be upon him) is no longer an idea waiting to be materialized nor a prophecy that needs to be substantiated, but a living reality and a particular person, living among us in flesh and blood, who is sharing our hopes, suffering, sorrows and joys, actually witnessing all the sufferings, sadness and transgression that exist on the surface of the earth, who is affected with all this from near or far, who is waiting for the appropriate moment when he can stretch his hands to every oppressed and needy person and eradicate the tyrants.

However, it has been decreed that this expected leader is not to reveal anything concerning his life or person to other people, although he is living amongst them, waiting for the appointed moment.

It is obvious that thinking in terms of these Islamic inductions narrows the gap of the unseen between the oppressed people and the expected saviour and reduces the psychological distance between him and them, no matter how long the expectation may last.

So, when we are supposed, as far as we are concerned, to consider the idea of al-Mahdi as actually designating a particular living person who is observing events like we are, it is to inspire us with the fact that the idea of the unconditional protest against all sorts of transgression and tyranny, which al-Mahdi stands for, has already materialized in the expected dissident leader who will emerge, paying no homage to the transgressors, as it has been mentioned in the hadith (tradition), and that by believing in him we are in reality believing in this unyielding and living protest and participating in it.

Indeed lots of ahadith ( traditions) are constantly urging those who believe in al-Mahdi to expect release from suffering and be prepared for his coming, which is a consolidation of that spiritual bond and emotional tie between them and the dissident leader and every value he stands for both of which could not have existed had he not actually materialized as a contemporary living person.

Thus we come to realize that this materialization has given a new impetus to the idea and made it a source of strength and generosity of a higher degree in terms of what any dissident individual finds of comfort consolation and relief from the pains that he has to suffer under tyranny and deprivation, when he comes to feel that his Imam and leader shares them with him, since the latter is a contemporary person and not an idea to be realized in the future.

However, the above mentioned materialization has led many people, who found it hard to believe or assume, to take negative attitudes even regarding the idea of al-Mahdi.

Since they all wonder if the idea of al-Mahdi actually designates a living person who has coexisted with all these consecutive generations for more than ten centuries, who will continue to do so until the time comes for him to emerge on the surface, how can such a human being live all this long and yet be immune from the laws of nature which compel any person to pass by the phase of old age and decrepitude and from there to his death. Is not such a matter impossible from an existential point of view?

Also, why should Allah show all this desire for this particular person - for whom the laws of nature would be obstructed - and endeavours to prolong his life and preserve him for the appointed day. has humanity become barren from yielding capable leaders? Why should not that day come when a leader will be born at its dawn and grow up like anyone else and gradually assume his role until the earth be filled with justice after having been filled with injustice and transgression?

They also wonder if al-Mahdi is the name of a particular person, who is the son of the eleventh Imam of the family of the Prophet (Ahlul Bayt - peace and blessing of Allah be upon them), born in the year 256 A.H. whose father died in the year 260 A.H. This means that he was very young when his father died, not exceeding the age of five, which is too early for him to have completed his religious and intellectual education at the hands of his father. Therefore how and by what means could he personally be prepared to assume that great role from religious, intellectual and scientific angles.

Moreover, if the leader is ready why should he wait all these hundreds of years? Is not what the world has witnessed of afflictions and social disasters enough to justify his appearance on its surface for the establishing of justice on earth?

They also wonder how can we believe in his existence even if we were to assume that this could be possible? Can anybody admit the validity of a hypothesis of this kind when it is not actually supported by any conclusive legal or scientific evidence? Should some narratives (ahadith) related to the Prophet ( blessing and peace of Allah be upon him and his progeny), of which we doubt the authenticity be enough for us to approve such a hypothesis?

As far as the role that this individual is going to play on the appointed day is concerned they wonder how a single person can assume this great decisive role in the world, while we know that however great an individual is, he cannot create history nor lead it into a new phase; whereas the seeds of any historical movement ripen under certain objective circumstances and their coming together. and the sublimity of the individual is the factor which selects him to shape these objective circumstances and provide the required solutions?

They also wonder how we can imagine what this individual would achieve of enormous change and decisive victory for justice and its message against the realities of injustice, oppression and tyranny in spite of what they have of power and influence and what they possess of means of destruction as well as what they have achieved of high standards in scientific, political, social and military capabilities.

Questions in this connection recur often in one form or another, however the true motives behind them are not only intellectual, since they have also a psychological source expressed in terms of the fear that dominates the world and the meagerness of all opportunity of change from the roots.

Therefore, doubts deepen and questions increase, the more one becomes aware of the harsh reality that has prevailed in the world in the course of time. Thus failure, meagerness and the weakness that the human being is subject to lead him to feel under a psychological pressure whenever he attempts to imagine the tremendous change of the world which would relieve it of its contradictions and historical oppression and would provide it with a new structure based on justice and truth. This pressure makes the individual doubt the whole concept of change and leads him to refuse it for one reason or another.

As far as we are concerned, we are going to deal with all these questions in sequence answering each one briefly due to the limits provided by these pages.

1) How Was This Long Life Granted To Al-Mahdi?

In other words, is it possible for a man to live for many centuries, as is the case with the Expected Leader, for the change of the world, whose age must be actually one thousand one hundred and forty years, or fourteen times the average age of an ordinary person who would pass through the phases of life from childhood to old age normally.

The word possibility here has one of the three following meanings, namely. Practical possibility, scientific possibility and philosophical or logical possibility.

I mean by practical possibility that a task is feasible in a manner that enables me, you or a third person to perform it, such as taking a journey across the ocean, reaching the depth of the sea or going to the moon , all of which are practically possible since they have actually been performed by people in one way or another.

By scientific possibility I mean that there are some tasks that neither I nor you nor a third person can practically perform with the means that are accessible to present civilization. However there is nothing in the alterable trends of science which can indicate a justification for the rejection of the possibility of these tasks and their occurrence conforming to certain special circumstances and means.

For example, there is nothing in science that could deny the possibility of travelling to Venus, because all its existing trends indicate the possibility of such a task, although that is still not possible for me or you Since the difference between going to the moon and travelling to Venus is only one of degree. The latter representing a stage of overcoming some relative difficulties stemming from the fact that the distance is longer. From this we deduce that it is scientifically possible to travel to Venus even if it is still not feasible from a practical angle.

Contrary to that is the idea of travelling to the sun in distant space since it is scientifically impossible, meaning that science would never entertain the possibility of this task, for one cannot assume scientifically or empirically the possibility of inventing that preventive armour that could protect the body against the heat of the sun which is like an enormous kiln constantly burning with a degree impossible to imagine.

By logical or philosophical possibility I mean that there is nothing in the intellect, conforming to what it knows of previous laws - (preceding the experiment) - that could justify the rejection of a task nor decide that it could not occur.

Say, for example, the grouping of three oranges into two equal parts, this is logically impossible, since the intellect knows - before carrying out such an experiment - that three is an odd number, thus it is impossible to divide it into two equal parts, first it would turn into an even number, which would be a contradiction, which is impossible in logic.

But if a man were to be exposed to fire, or if he were to go to the sun without burning, that would not be impossible from a logical point of view, since there is no contradiction in the assumption that heat does not penetrate into a body of lower temperature from one of higher temperature.

That would only run contrary to the experiment which proved that h eat actually penetrates into a body of lower temperature from one of higher temperature until both bodies get an equal temperature.

Therefore, we come to realize that logical possibility has a wider scope than scientific possibility and that the latter is wider than practical possibility.

There is no doubt about the logical possibility of the prolongation of human life for some thousands of years, because that is not impossible from an abstract intellectual point of view, also there is no contradiction in an assumption of this sort, since life as it is understood does not fathom sudden death and no one can dispute this fact.

Also, there is no doubt or controversy that this prolonged life is not possible from the practical aspect, as is the case in going down to the depths of the ocean or ascending to the moon. That is because science with what it owns of modern means and instruments, that were made available by concomitant human experiments, cannot prolong human life for hundreds of years, this is why we find that even those among people who are more eager about life and more able to utilize scientific possibilities can only live to the extent of what is usual.

As far as Scientific possibility is concerned, there is nothing in science, nowadays which could justify the denial of that fact from a theoretical point of view. This inquiry is in reality related to the nature of the physiological interpretation of the phenomenon of old -age and decrepitude among people.

Does this phenomenon indicate a natural law that compels the tissues of the human body and its cells to harden gradually and become less efficient in the performance of their task once they have reached the summit of their growth, until they die at a particular moment, even if we were to isolate them from the influence of some external failure?

Or is this hardening of the bodily tissues and cells and the lack of efficiency in the performance of their physiological tasks a result of their struggle against certain external factors, such as microbes or poison that penetrate the body from an excess in food or from the heavy work that the person might perform or any other factor.

Now this is the question that science has to find an answer to, y et many answers present themselves on a scientific level in this respect.

If we are to consider the scientific point of view that tends to interpret old-age and the weakness that goes with it, as a result of reactions against some external factors, it means that it is theoretically possible, once we have isolated the tissues that compose the body from these influences, to prolong life to the extent of surpassing the phenomenon of old-age and even overcoming it.

On the other hand, if we consider the other point of view which sees old-age as a natural process with regards to the living tissues and cells, it will mean that they hear within themselves the seed o f their own ultimate death, once the phase of old-age has been completed.

I say: If we take this point of view into consideration it should not mean that there is no flexibility in this natural law, rather the assumption of its existence shows that it is in fact flexible, Since we find in our everyday life, in addition to what has been found by scientists through the experiments that they carry out in their laboratories, that old - age as a physiological phenomenon has no fixed time, since a man can be very old and yet possess tender limbs, with no trace of old- age appearing on him as has been mentioned by some doctors. Moreover some scientists take advantage of this flexibility and prolong the life of some animals by a hundred times their natural age, by creating certain circumstances and factors that delay the process. of old-age.

Thus it has been proved scientifically that this process can be postponed, by creating specific circumstances and factors, even if this experiment has not been carried out by science on a particular complicated creature such as the human being, owing to the difference in the difficulty of carrying it out on the human being and other organisms.

This means that, from a theoretical point of view, science, with all its alterable orientations, has never had any objection to the prolongation of human life, whether old-age has been interpreted as the product of a struggle and close contact with some external influences, or as a result of a natural process of the cells and tissues that leads them towards their death.

Thus we deduce that the prolongation of human life and its survival over many centuries is possible logically as well as scientifically but it is still impossible from a practical angle, and that nevertheless scientific progress has a long way to go before realizing this possibility.

In light of what has been discussed we shall deal with the age of al-Mahdi (peace be upon him) and what has been surrounding it of wonder and surprise.

Thus we notice that since the possibility of this prolonged life has been confirmed both logically and scientifically, science is in the process of gradually transforming the theoretical possibility into a practical one. There is no room left for wonder except the remoteness of the probability that al-Mahdi might have preceded science in this transformation, before that the latter could have, in its evolutionary course, reached the standard of actual capacity for such a transformation, which would make him equal to that person who had preceded science in discovering the cure for cancer.

The question now is - How could Islam which determined the age of the Expected Leader - have preceded science in the field of this transformation?

The answer is that this is not the only field in which Islam preceded science. Has the Islamic shari'ah (revealed law) as a whole not come before science and the evolution of human thought by many centuries? Did it not promulgate certain symbols that submitted plans to be put into practice, which man could achieve only after hundreds of years of his independent activity?

Did it not formulate certain regulations perfect in wisdom, the secrets of which were realized by man only after a certain length of time? Did the Divine message not reveal mysteries about the universe, that could never have occurred to people's minds, which science came later to confirm and support?

So, if we are convinced by these facts why then should we regard as too much that the sender of this message - the Exalted - anticipates science in determining the age of al- Mahdi?

Here I mentioned only those aspects of precedence that we can notice in a direct manner, we can also include the aspects of precedence mentioned in the Divine message, for example, when it informs us about the night journey which the Prophet undertook from al-Haram Mosque to al-Aqsa Mosque. If we are to understand this journey within the frame of natural laws, we will find that it shows that these laws were utilized in a way that science could achieve only after hundreds of years.

Therefore, the same Divine knowledge which enabled the Messenger (peace and blessing of Allah be upon him and his progeny) to undertake this fast motion before science could achieve it, has also enabled his designated successors to have a prolonged life before science could realize such a project.

Certainly, this prolonged age that Allah, the Exalted, has bestowed on the Expected Saviour may see m rather strange, if it is considered within the limits of the everyday in people's lives and what has been achieved by the experiments of scientists. But is the decisive and transformative role which has been prepared for this Saviour not strange within the limits of the ordinary in people's lives and what they have experienced of historical evolution?

Has he not been entrusted with the task of changing the world and rebuilding its civilization on the basis of justice and truth? Why should we disapprove if the preparation of this great role is characterized by strange and unusual aspects, such as the prolongation of the Expected Leader's age? For this remoteness of those aspects and their unusual aspects, however great they are, cannot surpass the remoteness of the great role that has to be achieved on the appointed day?

Therefore, if we approve the validity of that unique role from a historical angle in spite of the fact that there has never been in the history of humanity a role similar to it, why should not we also approve that prolonged age which is still unique in our ordinary life?

I wonder if it is a coincidence that only two individuals should carry out the task of emptying human civilization of its corrupt elements and rebuilding it, which means that they must have been of an excessive age many times superior to our ordinary lives. The first is Nuh (Noah) who had assumed his role in the humanity's past. The Qur'an mentioned that he had lived among his people for nine hundred and fifty years. His role was to reconstruct the world after the Great Flood.

The other one is al-Mahdi, who is to assume his role in the future, who has lived among his people until now for more than a thousand years. It has been ordained that he will reconstruct the world on the appointed day.

Why then should we accept Noah, who must have reached a thousand years at least, and yet reject al-Mahdi?

2) The Miracle And The Long Life

Up to now we have seen that the prolongation of life is scientifically possible. But let us suppose that it is not, that the process of old-age and decrepitude is quite rigid, that it cannot either now or in the long run overcome nor alter its conditions or circumstances - what will this mean? It will mean that the prolongation of human life - as is the case of Noah, or al-Mahdi - runs contrary to the natural laws which science confirmed thanks to modern instruments of experimentation. Thus this condition becomes a miracle that has hindered the applicability of a natural law under a certain circumstances, in order to preserve the life of a particular individual whose role is to cherish the Divine message.

Yet this is not the only miracle of its kind, nor is it remote from a Muslim's faith, which derives from the Qur'an and the sunnah. Moreover the process of old-age is no more rigid than is the process of the passage of heat from a body of higher temperature to another of lower temperature until both of them become equal. This had occurred in the case of Ibrahim (peace be upon him) when the only way to preserve his life was by hindering that process, when it was said to the fire in which he was thrown:

    قُلْنَا يَا نَارُ كُونِي بَرْدًا وَسَلَامًا عَلَىٰ إِبْرَاهِيمَ

We said, "O fire be cool on Ibrahim and keep him safe." (Qur'an, 21:69)

So, he emerged from it safe and unharmed. There are also other cases where natural laws were hindered to protect some of the prophets or Proofs of Allah on earth. When the sea was split for Musa (Moses), when the Romans were misled in thinking they had caught 'Isa (Jesus) or when Muhammad (peace and blessing of Allah be upon him and his progeny) left his house, while it was surrounded by the troops of Quraysh who were waiting for hours to attack him but Allah, the Exalted, hid him from their eyes while he was walking in their midst. All of these cases show a hindrance of the laws of nature to protect an individual, whom the Divine wisdom wished to preserve. Therefore, why not include here the process of old-age and decrepitude?

From this we can deduce a general notion, which is that whenever the preservation of the Prophet's life (the Proof of Allah on earth) depends on the hindrance of a natural law, and the prolongation of his life comes to be necessary for the performance of his task, Divine care then intervenes by delaying the process so that the task of that individual can be accomplished. On the other hand, once the Divine mission of that individual has been fulfilled he either dies naturally or as a martyr depending on what is determined by natural laws.

Thus we find ourselves confronted with the present question in connection with this general notion: How can the process be obstructed? How can the necessary correlation that exists between natural phenomena, be sundered? Does it not contradict science, which discovered the existence o f that natural law or process and defined that necessary correlation on experimental and deductive bases?

The answer is that science has already solved the problem by giving up the idea of necessity as far as natural laws are concerned. To clarify this we can say that science discovers natural laws through systematic observations and experiments. For example, when the occurrence of a natural phenomenon is followed another one, we deduce from this a natural law which is: that whenever the first phenomenon comes into existence it is automatically followed by another phenomenon.

However, science does not propose a necessary correlation between the two phenomena stemming from their nature, since necessity is an invisible condition that experimentation and the instruments of scientific and inductive inquiry cannot demonstrate. Therefore, the logic of modern science emphasizes that natural law - as it is defined by science - does not indicate a necessary correlation, but an uninterrupted connection, between two phenomena. But when the miracle occurs and separates one from the other, it does not mean that their correlation was sundered.

The truth of the matter is that the miracle, in its religious sense, has become, in the light of modern scientific logic, more understandable than before, under the classical view of causal correlation. This old view assumed that every two phenomena, in which one is followed automatically by the other must have a necessary correlation, which means that it is impossible to separate one from the other. However, this correlation has been transformed thanks to modern scientific logic into a law of correlation or of consecutive succession between two phenomena without the hypothesis of invisible necessity.

Thereby the miracle becomes an exceptional condition with regard to this connective succession without running against a necessity or leading to an impossibility.

So, in the light of the logical foundation of induction we agree with the modern point of view which says that induction does not demonstrate the existence of a necessary correlation between two phenomena. We find that it shows that there is a common interpretation for the consecutive connection between the two. Since this common interpretation can be formed on the basis of the assumption of subjective necessity, it can also be formed on the assumption of a wisdom that made the Creator of the universe to continuously combine some particular phenomena with others. The same wisdom sometimes calls for exception; thus a miracle occurs.

3) Why All This Desire To Prolong His Life?

Now we should deal with the second question which is: Why should Allah, the Exalted, show all. this desire for this person in particular? Why should the natural laws be hindered just to prolong his life? Why should the leadership of the appointed day not be left to a person born in the future, who will appear then and assume his expected role?

In other words: What is the use of this long absence and what is the motive behind it? Indeed many people ask these questions, yet at the same time none of them is prepared to accept the Divine answer for them. However we believe that the twelve Imams form a unique group of individuals, none of whom could be substituted. But these people require a social interpretation of the situation, in the light of tangible realities, for the great operation of change and the understandable requirements for the appointed day.

On these bases, we will temporarily disregard the characteristics that we believe should be fulfilled in the infallible Imams and ask the following questions:

As far as the expected operation of change, of the appointed day, is concerned and as far as it is understandable in the light o f the norms and the experiences of life, can we consider the prolonged age of its preserved leader as one of the factors for its success? And of his ability to lead it in a better way?

We can give an affirmative answer to this question because of many reasons among which are the following:

First, that the great operation of change requires from its leader a unique psychological attitude, filled with a sense of success and a sense of the insignificance of the mighty existence which he has been prepared to struggle against and transform into a new civilized world.

Thus the more the leader's heart is filled with the triviality of the civilization he is fighting, and the clearer is his sense that it is no more than a speck of dust on the long path of human civilization, the more he is ready from a psychological angle, to oppose, resist and persevere in his efforts against it until victory is achieved.

It is clear, therefore, that the scope required from this psychological attitude ought to be proportionate to the size of change to be brought about and what needs to be rooted out of civilization and existence. So, whenever the opposition is to a mightier existence and a loftier and deeply rooted civilization, the greater is the thrust required from this psychological attitude.

Since the message of the appointed day is to change, in a comprehensive way, a world filled with injustice and tyranny, it is therefore natural that it is looking for an individual whose psycho logical attitude is superior to that whole world; a person whose age exceeds those who were born in that world and who were brought up in the shade of its civilization which he is to destroy and replace with one based on justice and truth.

For whoever is brought up in a deeply-rooted civilization, that dominates the world with its values and modes of thinking, would be overwhelmed by it, since he would have been born while it had been in existence, and opened his eyes just to see its different aspects, and would have been brought up under its power and influence. Unlike that is a person who has deeply penetrated history, who has come to life long before that civilization which completes the cycle of the story of humanity before the appointed day saw the light.

He sees it as little seeds, hardly visible, then gradually growing and taking roots within human societies, waiting for the right moment to blossom and appear. Then he witnesses it, as it starts to grow and advance, sometimes relapsing, sometimes meeting with success, then when it begins to prosper and become gigantic, gradually dominating the destinies of the world, such a man who has lived through all these stages with sagacity and caution, watching this giant - (against which he has to struggle) under that long historical perspective which he has lived in reality, and not just read about in books of history, such an individual would consider it as a definite destiny, unlike Jean Jacques Rousseau's consideration of the monarchy in France, when he was terrified at the mere imagining of France without a king, in spite of the fact that he was one of the heralds, both intellectually and philosophically, of the evolution of the political situation that existed in those times. That was because Rousseau lived in the shade and under the influence of the monarchy.

On the other hand this individual who has thoroughly penetrated history, would have the dignity and strength of history and a powerful sense that all that surrounds him of civilization and existence was born at a certain time in history, when the way was paved for its existence, that it would disappear to the extent that nothing of it would remain as when there was nothing of it before it came into existence in the distant or near past, that the historical life spans of any civilization, however long they may be, are only limited days in the long era of history.

Have you not read the chapter of the cave in the Qur'an (surah al-Kahf, n. 18)? Have you not read of those youths who believed in their Lord, whom Allah increased in guidance, who opposed a ruling pagan existence that was ruthless and did not hesitate to suppress every single seed of at- tawhid (Unity of Allah), so that it might not rise above the level of idolatry.

So these youths became depressed to the point of despair, once the windows of hope had been closed before their eyes; so they sought refuge in the cave, where they begged Allah for a solution to their problem after having exhausted all the possibilities. For they could not tolerate the fact that falsehood was ruling, transgressing and subjugating the truth and suppressing anyone whose heart showed an inclination towards the truth.

Do you know what Allah did to them? He made them sleep for three hundred and nine years in that cave and caused them to rise up from their long sleep and sent them to the outside world, after that the existence which had bewildered them with its power and transgression had collapsed and became a chapter in history that could frighten no one nor activate anything. They were brought out so that they could see all this with their own eyes and learn that falsehood is insignificant.

Indeed if this clear vision had been true in the case of the people of the cave, with all that it bore of psychological loftiness and thrust out of that unique event which prolonged their age by three hundred years, then the same event could occur in the case of al- Mahdi, the Expected Leader, whose extended age would make him see the giant as a dwarf, the tall tree as a seed and the hurricane as a breeze.

Add to this that the experience that is granted by the concomitants of those consecutive civilizations and the direct confrontation with all their movements and changes, has a great influence on the intellectual preparation and the deepening of experience of the Expected Leader, since it puts him face to face with the many various practices of others, with all they contain of weakness and strength, and the different aspects of their errors and accuracy. And this enables him to classify the social symptoms with a complete awareness of their causes and their historical circumstances.

Moreover the preserved operation of change, which is the task of the Expected Leader, is founded on a particular message, namely the message of Islam. Therefore, it is natural that in this case, the required leadership should be more proximate with the original sources of Islam, that his personality be fully shaped in an independent way, free from the influence of that civilization which is subject to his struggle on the appointed day, unlike that individual who would have been born and brought up in its atmosphere, whose intellect and feelings would have blossomed within its frame. Quite often such a person cannot free himself from the effects and residues of that civilization, even if he were to lead a movement of change against it.

Thus, in order that the preserved leader be not influenced by the civilization he has been prepared to transform, it is necessary that his personality should be fully shaped during a previous stage of civilization, as near as possible to the universal spirit, and in terms of the principles of that civilized condition, which the appointed day is aiming at realizing under his leadership.

Chapter 14: The Mutual Relationship between the People and the Government (Part 5)

The People Government Relationship Subjection and Domination or what?

The subject of our discussion is the relationship between the people and the government in Islam. In this session, we shall examine the issue from a different angle and then spend the remaining time by entertaining questions.

In principle, the relationship between the people and the government can be conceived in different forms. Of course, these various forms are not mere mental conceptions; rather, something which existed in the annals of history and does exist more or less. One type of relationship is that the government is the master while the people are the subjects.

Throughout history, most of the governments we know became dominant by force and have forced themselves on the people. Their expectation from the people was to obey them unconditionally and unreservedly. If in some cases they used to act contrary to this expectation, it was because they wanted to win the people’s hearts and stabilize the condition of their respective countries so as to rule easily.

Otherwise, their expectation has been for them to give order and the people to act upon them, and the relationship between them and the people is that of sovereign and subject. The expression sovereign, which, in our Persian literature, is used for the government, is not inappropriate for this way of thinking. Of course, I was not able to obtain a statistical record and examine the different governments in the various parts of the world, and to see what percent of them are like that. At any rate, what we know in history is that almost all governments have been like so.

Contrary to that type of government, other inclinations can be found at the margin of history in which the case has been the opposite; that is, the people have defined their own duties, dictating their wills to the government. In other words, instead of the government imposing its orders upon the people, in this type of government it is the people that dictate the rules and regulations to the government and the government is the implementer and agent of their demands. Of course, I am not a historian and in studying historical documents I do not know to what extent the authenticity of a certain subject is. Nevertheless, it is narrated that it has been like that during the ancient periods in China, India, and more or less, Greece. In Greece, the people’s inclination toward government existed centuries before the birth of Christ (‘a) and for some decades that the government existed in Athens it had been like that. It is said that democracy originated and came into being there.

So, these are two opposite tendencies; one is that the state1 is the master while the people are the subjects, and the other one is the opposite.

The third type of relationship that can be assumed is the people-government relationship that is beyond master-subject relationship. For example, it can be assumed that a kind of mutual contract between the people and the government is in force and in reality a sort of division of labor in which a set of tasks is performed by the government while another set is shouldered by the people. As to which specific form for this model of government can be imagined which performs this division of labor between the people and the government and in which none is the master can be imagined in different forms.

In any case, there is no phase in history which shows that this third type of government-people relationship has even existed. The first two types have different sub-classifications. There have been despotic and dictatorial rulers who do not abide by any rules and the law is that which is according to monarchial approval. There have also been organized systems in which a set of moral and social principles were observed and finally, the order was with the ruler and the people were the subjects.

The salient feature of this type of government is that if it is supposed that the ruler is the master and the people’s only role is to obey, in this case if the ruler gives an order or enacts decrees, rules and laws which are inconsistent with the will of the people, they are forced to obey them even if all people oppose them because they are just“people” after all and not government, and to order is the prerogative of the government. Here, the government gives order and the people have to obey. Whether the people agree or not, whether those who oppose are in majority or minority, in any case the position of the people is to obey while that of the government is to order.

Meanwhile, in the second type in which the people are supposed to be the masters and enact the laws, and in summary, the will of the people is supposed to reign supreme in society, in this case the government has no right to enact laws and rules contrary to the will of the people. On the contrary, the people have the right to abolish the government anytime they want. In this administrative model, the government is the people’s agent, and in other words, their proxy. So long as the people like, it can serve as their proxy and whenever they do not like anymore, it shall be removed. In such a system, the will of the people, whatever it is, is what is credible even if it is against moral and divine values. The government has no right to say that since your will or vote is contrary to such-and-such moral principle or divine law, I shall not abide by it. The government has to act in accordance with the will of the people and if it would not like to do so, it has to resign.

Of course, the first principle is that the will of all people is the criterion of credibility, yet since it is impossible to arrive at an identical will of all people, they set the basis of the majority will instead of general will of the people. In other words, since particularly in the extended and complex societies of today, direct democracy in which the people directly get involved in their destiny and express their opinions is either impossible or difficult, they resort to the idea of indirect democracy. In the indirect democracy, the elected representatives of the people make decisions in lieu of them.

In the democratic system, the government is actually the implementer of the wills and orders of the people who pay its salary as their employee. Here, the people enact the law, determine the agent and administrative institutions, and provide the government’s budget so that it can serve them. It is like an employer hiring an employee with the only difference that instead of a person, an institution is hired.

The general notion is that the administrative model must be one of the two types; either the people are the rulers while the government is the worker, servant and, in a simpler term, the slave, or on the contrary, the government is the master, sovereign and commander, and the people are the slaves. The heart of the discussions made in the philosophy of politics as well as in the different schools of thought and academic forums can be traced to the same two types of government, but they have weaknesses and strengths, flaws and strong points.

It should not remain unsaid that the model of mastership and commandership of the government has had many diverse forms. Among its forms has been the theocratic government in which the popes used to regard themselves as the masters of the people while the people are their servants in a sense. Of course, they claim that they had this right from God and it is God Who has given to them the right to rule over the people and these servants of God are their servants by the will of God.

The Status of the People and the Ruler in Islamic Political Thought

In interpreting the Islamic government, many people who imagine that the government is confined to one of the two mentioned types are questioning which model this government is. Does the Islamic government belong to the category of democratic governments in which the people are the masters of their own destiny and have the right to enact any law they like? In other words, are the Prophet (S) and the Infallible Imam (‘a) or the jurist-guardian who in our opinion is the deputy of the Imam of the Time (‘a) the agents, proxies and servants of the people in such a manner that the people have the prerogative to enact the law by themselves and determine its implementer? If that is not the case, it follows that it has another form; that is, if the Islamic government is not democratic, it follows that the people are servants of the government and the government has the authority over the people who have to obey it unconditionally.

Some people argue that the government has only two types, and the Islamic government as acknowledged by its designers and theoreticians is not democratic. So, it must be a dictatorial government! Since the adopters of the jurist’s guardianship say that the jurist-guardian is authorized by God to rule and the people do not designate him to that position, it follows then that in the government based on the theory of wilayah al-faqih, democracy does not exist. Once it is not democratic, it must be dictatorial, and it will imply that like a dictator, the jurist-guardian has the right to enact laws and give orders, while the people are his servants and they are under his command. For the sake of respect to them or considering some expediencies, he may not explicitly say to them,“I am your master while you are my servants,” but that is really the truth of the matter.

Yet, is it true that there are only two types of relationship between the people and the government, and the truth of every type of government is mastership and servitude and the only difference is who the master or servant is?! The fact is that the government is not confined to these types and our claim is that the Islamic government is none of these two mentioned types. According to the theory of Islamic government, the people and the government are not two classes, meaning one is high and the other low, or one is the master while the other the servant; rather, all including the ruler and the subject are one and equal before the law.

At the time of birth, the title“ruler” ,“jurist-guardian” ,“king” , or“president” is not written on anyone’s forehead, and the officials of the government are from the same people and are not different from others. In the Islamic government, the government-people relationship is not that the government is the master while the people are the servants nor the contrary. Instead, all are equal. Here, what is actually done is a sort of division of labor and the one who gives order is higher than all of us. As such, neither the state and government nor the people are the sovereigns. Instead, the real commander is God, the Lord of the people.

In our opinion, the divine government is a third type of government. It is neither the democratic model nor the dictatorial or monarchial; it is rather designed by God. Here, the sovereignty belongs to the Creator-God Who has authority over all people. Before His decree, all people are equal, whether the Prophet, Imam and jurist-guardian, or the masses. Even if a slave has a dispute over a legal matter with the Prophet, Imam or jurist-guardian as the leader of Muslims, once they refer to a judge, they have to sit together and the judge has to speak to them equally. The judge has no right to practice discrimination in issuing a judgment and, for example, to address the former with the title“His Holiness the Prophet” and the latter with“O wretched servant.” In fact, he has to look at them equally.2 If he wants to address them with a title of honor, he has to address both of them with their respective titles, and if it is with epithet, he has to address them with their respective epithets and to listen to them impartially. The fact that this one is the Prophet and that one is a slave does not make any difference in this case.

The Prophet (S) has no right to dictate whatever he likes to the people such that one day it would be said that since the people have not elected him and the government is inconsistent with the will of the people, it follows that the government is a dictatorship while the ruler is a dictator! Neither the Prophet nor anybody else has any right at all to issue a single word of decree against the decree of God. He and all Muslim rulers are the implementers of the law, yet not the law of the people, but of God. He is a subject but of God. He has no will of his own:

وَلَوْ تَقَوَّلَ عَلَيْنَا بَعْضَ الْأَقَاوِيلِ, لَأَخَذْنَا مِنْهُ بِالْيَمِينِثُمَّ لَقَطَعْنَا مِنْهُ الْوَتِينَ

Had he faked any sayings in Our name, We would have surely seized him by the right hand and then cut off his aorta. (69:44-46)

That is,“If the Prophet attributes a lie to Us regarding a law which We have not enacted, saying, ‘It is the law of God,’ We shall deal with him severely: “We would have surely seized him by the right hand.” The right hand denotes power and the meaning of the above verse is that“We shall deal with him with utmost severity. “And then cut off his aorta.” That is,“We shall cut off the aorta of his life.” He who is a prophet of God has no right to speak of himself, let alone the Imam or jurist-guardian. If he wants to enact in some cases of specific administrative rules (administrative decrees), he has to do so with the approval of God the Exalted.

Thus, in relation to God, all are His servants, obedient to and equal before Him. Responsibility and mission are given to the Islamic ruler to implement the divine laws on earth. Even this is because of the fact that in view of the necessity of the existence of government in the society, the existence of a set of rules and regulations is indispensable and in implementing the laws and solving disputes to happen in understanding and acting upon the law, every society is in need of an implementer who can say the final word in practice and the law that solves disputes.

If every person is supposed to say,“In my opinion, the law is what I say and this is my interpretation of the law,” disputes will not be solved. The one whose word is the law and has the final say does not speak out of his own will and carnal desire; rather, his word is either a direct revelation of God (if he is a prophet), or a divine inspiration (if he is an infallible Imam), or an authoritative and credible understanding of the content of the revelation and word of the Infallible (when there is no access to the Prophet or an infallible Imam). Anyway, it is because of this that all are equal before the law and there is distinction among them.

Islamic Political Thought: The people and the Ruler as Responsible before God

Now, given this explanation, is the Islamic ruler a dictator? The answer is negative. He cannot dictate something out of his own desire. Is the Islamic ruler the servant and slave of the people and their agent? Again, the answer is negative. The people have dominance over him in saying,“We do not like you and thus remove you from this position,” because God has made him ruler over the rest of people. Is he a servant and mercenary of the people? No.

God has determined the salary of the ruler from the public treasury. God the Exalted has made it incumbent upon the people to place a portion of their wealth at the disposal of the Islamic ruler. In addition, He has placed at the discretion of the Islamic ruler the spoils, assets and incomes belonging to the society in general. In any case, the determiner and endower is God, and the Islamic ruler does not stoop to the people’s favor nor live under their expense.

Such a person can implement the laws promulgated by God the Exalted even if it is not pleasing to the people. If the ruler is only a servant or proxy of the people, he has no right to impose on them what they do not like, nor order things which all people or the majority of them do not accept. Meanwhile, does the Islamic ruler have the right to give such an order? Yes, because it is the order and ordinance of God.

Therefore, in the Islamic government the divine law must be implemented. Even if one day most of the people do not like it, the Islamic government has the right to and must implement the law of Islam including the hudud3 which is not acceptable to the world today. The people may desire to make some things permissible and free which God the Exalted has not sanctioned. In this case, the Islamic ruler has to forbid it and put restraint on its practice and not allow the people to practice it even if most of them want to do so. The reason behind this is that the Islamic ruler is not the people’s agent; rather, he is a functionary from God to implement the divine laws.

Of course, all people are obliged to implement the ordinances of God but the ruler is particularly commissioned to make the law of God incumbent upon them and to punish the violators. To punish the violators is a divine decree. Thus, the Islamic ruler is not a dictator who decides by himself and orders whatever he wishes and makes it incumbent upon the people to implement. He is not a servant and proxy of the people to abide by whatever they dictate to him.

In the Islamic government, all are equal before the law, and as such, the governors and the governed are not different from each other, and we have no higher and lower classes.4 Here, there is no room for“first-class” and“second-class” citizens. The“first-class” and“second-class” citizens are meant to compare the original citizens of the Islamic state with those who live under its protection whose life, property and honor are basically protected. Examples of such citizens are the People of the Book [ahl al-kitab] and the non-Muslims who live under the protection of the Islamic government.

Since these people are not Muslims, the main decrees of Islam shall not be implemented to them and the main taxes of Islam (khums and zakat) shall not be levied to them. They pay jizyah instead. In return for this insignificant amount of taxes, their life, property and honor are legally protected under the auspices of the Islamic government. Because of some legal distinctions that Islam has set for them, these people can be called as“second-class citizens” but beside these distinctions, in most of the rights, the ruler and this non-Muslim citizen do not have the least difference with each other.

For this reason, both of them can be regarded as“first-class citizens.” The ruler has no right to say that he is higher in rank compared to the common citizen on the ground that he is the president, prime minister, or jurist-guardian, as the case may be. He is a servant just like the other servants of God. At most, he has a special responsibility.5 This is a characteristic of every system which the head or administrator has, and finally owing to his superiority, skill and merit, one person has to administer that group and organization while the rest have to pay attention to his orders. Yet, this does not mean that here we have“first and second-class citizens.”

A Summary of the Discussion

In Islam, neither the ruler is the master and the people subjects, nor the people are the masters and the ruler a subject, servant and worker, or in a more polite expression, proxy or any other appellation.

The rights and duties of both parties are determined by God, Who has set two proportional rights for the people and the government-a right for the people over the government and another for the government over the people. The determiner of right is He Who has created both parties. The people have no right to set rights for themselves, because they are not the owners of their selves and their existence does not belong to them. For the same reason, they have no right to decide a set of rights for others. Similarly, the government has no right to set a right for itself or others. The ruler is one of the servants of God, and his existence, like that of everybody and everything else, is from God and belongs to Him. However, since God the Exalted is All-wise, He has set balanced rights for both the government and the people. Due to the service it renders to the people, the government has rights over them while they have rights over it.

This is another model of government and mutual relationship of the people and the government which is not so known and comprehensible to the minds accustomed with the Western culture. As such, whenever the term,“divine government,” “Islamic government” or“religious government” is mentioned, many people imagine that it is the same democracy of the popes which is a type of dictatorship whereas it has no connection with it.

Let us forget that as far as we know, an example of democratic government does not exist in the world at all. There has been either the government of the bullies, tyrants, swordsmen, feudal lords, and the like, or as today’s government of the capitalists. When they outwardly say,“So-and-so is elect” or“He is not elected,” behind its curtain is the disputes between two groups of capitalists; for example, between the owners of firearms manufacturing companies and that of oil and petrochemical industries. They are ostentatiously parties. At times, one party comes to power while at another time, the other party does.

In reality, money and assets of the capitalists is the actual determinant and ruler. Those who decide behind curtains and give campaign funds so as for a party to win are the owners of capital. The natural and usual trend is that whoever campaigns more will win in the election. Yet, the masses are in difficulty providing for their daily life expenditure, let alone spending for election campaign huge expenses with spiraling figures which are spent in the European and American countries for election campaigns. Perhaps, you might have heard or read that, for example, the deposed Shah of Iran was among those who assisted in the Republican Party in the elections of America. The helpers who are more known in the world and whose assistance is the determinant are the Zionists and their capitalists. The actual determinants of the American governments and similar to them in some other countries are the same Zionist capitalists.

The common people are not very familiar with a leading candidate in an election. They only witness the profound magnitude and wide scope of his propaganda. Usually, their participation in the elections is very weak such that in most cases, below fifty percent of the eligible voters participate in the elections and even that is through the force of propaganda generated with the money of the capitalists. This shows that the government in reality belongs to the capitalists. Also, this subject is not a claim which is advanced by me only. In fact, Western writers and researchers have acknowledged it and written numerous books and articles in this regard.

Theoretically speaking, what is customary in the world is that either the people are subdued by and are subjects of the governments, or the government and the ruler are under the domination of the will and demand of the people. We explained that in Islam, the government is something else. The third alternative is that both the people and the ruler have the same Master; namely, God. Both are servants before God, but before each other, both are masters and each has rights over the other.

Examples of the Mutual Rights Between the People and the Government in the words of the Commander of the Faithful

Considering that this year is the Year of the Commander of the Faithful (‘a) and His Conduct, for this occasion I shall read to you a part of Nahj al-Balaghah. It is a lengthy sermon of the Commander of the Faithful (‘a) in which he says:

So now, Allah the Glorified, by placing me over your affairs, has created my right over you, and you too have a right over me like mine over you.6

Examine closely the expression of the Imam (‘a). He does not say,“You have granted a right to me.” He rather says,“God has granted it. He has right to me as well as to you.” It is not the case that the right has been given exclusively to the ruler while the people are subjects and condemned before him, nor is it the opposite. Thus, the determinant of right and duty is God the Exalted, for, as we explained at the beginning of this series of discussions, once a right is set for a person over another person, automatically a duty for the second person will come into being. Once the ruler has right to give order, the people are duty-bound to behave in accordance with the order. In cases where the people have rights, the government is obliged to observe their right because right and duty are proportional and correlative.

The continuation of the sermon is a very interesting and detailed passage. I wish we can divide the sermon into different parts, and in every meeting, I can deal with each part of this blessed speech. This radiant speech contains very lofty and instructive subjects. It also consists of knowledge that is considered the solution to many issues on the philosophy of ethics, law, politics, and all practical philosophies. At this moment we shall deal with some other lines of this sermon:

Then, from His rights, He, the Glorified, created certain rights for certain people against others.

As He has rights over His servants, God the Exalted has set rights for some people over others based on His right, which essentially belongs to Him and no one is supposed to grant it to Him; namely, right of Lordship. Since He is God and the Creator and Master of all things and people, and the existence of the entire universe emanates from him, He has such rights over His servants. Based on that Essential right God has over His servants, He has set rights for some of His servants over others.

He made them so as to equate with one another.

The rights He has set for some people over others are balanced. Balance and proportionality mean that once He sets a right for party A, He also sets a right for party B so as for these rights to become proportional to each other. It is not the case that this side is heavy while that side is light. The Arabic word tatakafa' means equal and alike, and these rights are also equals.

Some of these rights produce other rights. Some rights are such that they do not accrue except with others.

The existence of some of these rights requires a right for others. This right cannot be obliged unless a right is proved for others. These rights are balanced and of the same weight. So, right should be determined by God and this emanates from the rights of Lordship and Godhood He has.

The greatest of these rights that Allah the Glorified has made obligatory is the right of the ruler over the ruled and the right of the ruled over the ruler.

Yet, the highest and greatest right that God has set for a servant over another is the right that the government has over the people and that of the people over the government. There are also other rights such as the right of parents over their child and the right of the child over his/her parents, the right of the spouses over each other, as well as other rights which God has fixed for the people. However, among the greatest rights that God has set for organizing the relationship among people is the right of the ruler over the people and that of the people over the ruler.

He has made it the basis of their (mutual) affection, and an honor for their religion.

These rights that God has divided among people and made balanced have secrets. It is not the case that He has just given these rights without any reason, justification and philosophy behind them. There is a secret behind His granting specific rights to the ruler and certain other rights to the people. One wisdom behind the creation of these proportional rights between the people and the government is to make firm and steadfast the unity and solidarity between the two. Once this party has right over that party and that party over this party, a kind of mutual attachment between them is established and each becomes dependent on the other. If this right were only unilateral and one-sided, one’s detachment from the other would become easily possible. But the bilateralness of the rights fortifies the intimacy, unanimity, affection, sincerity, and unity among the members of society.

The higher philosophy and wisdom behind the creation of these rights is“honor for their religion.” That is to say,“These rights are set and divided between the people and the government so that their religion earns honor.”

It is not only meant to make their worldly life prosperous and well-organized as the effect of this solidarity; rather, the more important effect of this affair is for their religion to earn honor, and under the auspices of religion, the earned honor will lead them to eternal bliss.

In the rights set for the ruler and the subjects, their merits are not only the provision of life comfort, security and prevention of chaos and anarchy. This is one side of the story. Their more important aspect and higher secret is under the aegis of these rights set by God for the people and the government, the religion acquires honor. In other words, in this explanation and division of the rights and duties, two points are mentioned; one is the worldly and material welfare, while the other is the otherworldly and spiritual welfare.

Yet, this is contrary to what is considered in all political philosophies in the world. The ultimate thing they observe is security, peace, health, life comfort, and the like, but no political philosophy has ever treated the issue of spiritual advancement and proximity to God as the main goal. This point has been mentioned only in the philosophical views of the earlier thinkers. In the philosophies of Aristotle and Plato, this subject has been touched on the ultimate felicity of man must be sought in his spiritual perfection; all his power, both spiritual and material, must attain perfection; the orientation of the government must be such that all these powers and talents would grow.

Of course, it must be noted that spirituality in the culture of Aristotle and Plato and their followers has its own meaning. As stated in history, they were not like us, monotheists and believing in the One and Only God and the heavenly religions. They rather believed in different deities and were afflicted with a kind of polytheism. Of course, in this regard I do not have a decisive claim. There is still room for more research.

In continuation of the sermon, Imam ‘Ali (‘a) says:

Consequently, the ruled cannot prosper unless the rulers are sound, while the rulers cannot be sound unless the ruled are steadfast.7

If the ruler is the commander and he is responsible for the welfare of the society while the rest are subjects, it follows that the responsibility for the society’s welfare lies on the shoulder of the ruler. Wherever there is corruption, it can be seen from the eyes of the ruler because it is the orders of the ruler and the government which are implemented while the wills of the people have no role in the administrative laws and orders.

Wherever there is corruption, this is because the ruler fails to enact good rules and regulations, or fails to implement them well. In democracy, wherever there is corruption, it originates from the people themselves and the ruler has no fault at all because in this type of government whatever the people say and like shall prevail. So, wherever there is corruption, it is related to the people themselves. In the theory of Islamic government in which the responsibilities are shared, the ruler shoulders only a part of the responsibilities, and the people who have will, common sense and awareness have responsibility and duty as well.

If both the people and the government faithfully fulfill their duties, welfares will be ensured and the society will prosper. But if one fulfills its duty while the other does not, there is no guarantee for the prosperity of that society because the one responsible for the whole affairs of society is neither the people minus the government nor the government minus the people; rather, both are responsible. So, the prosperity of one depends on the prosperity of the other. They are like two bricks that lean against each other. Once we remove one of them, the other will fall. These two (government and people) should reform the society by leaning on and helping each other. If one of them is destroyed, weakens and breaks, the other one will also fall.“The ruled cannot prosper unless the rulers are sound.” Its opposite is also correct:“The rulers cannot be sound unless the ruled are steadfast.” The government apparatus will not remain good unless the people remain good and are steadfast in their responsibilities and duties.

In these two expressions of Imam ‘Ali (‘a), there is a subtle difference which is worthy to note. In the first case, he said,“The ruled cannot prosper unless the rulers are sound.” That is, the society will not be reformed unless the rulers and the government apparatus are righteous. In contrast to it, he says,“The rulers cannot be sound unless the ruled are steadfast.” In this case, he does not say that the goodness of the rulers depends on the goodness of the ruled; rather, he says that it depends on their steadfastness.

The expression“steadfastness” is used here to denote that in addition to the initial reform, there must be continuity. As such, the issue of steadfastness is more difficult than the initial reform. Perhaps, the secret behind the difficultness of steadfastness is that for the people to be merely righteous in the beginning and act upon their duty toward the government is not enough. Instead, this righteousness and virtuousness should be continuous.

The people are more exposed to transformation than the ruler. In the Islamic government, the person to be chosen as the ruler usually takes trouble for thirty or forty years, is well nurtured and has cultivated the spirit of piety and justice in himself. And naturally anyone who has nurtured his self for forty years and is God-wary will not change suddenly overnight. How probable is it that people like the Imam (r) will one day stray away from the path of piety?

The possibility for a person who lives for seventy years in asceticism, piety, devotion, and self-sacrifice and has purified his soul during his youthful years to become a worldly and sensual person is very insignificant. But this issue is different with respect to the people. The people have different classes and diverse levels of faith, piety and attachment to values. And the possibility of transformation in the people is high compared to the ruler. Therefore, regarding the people more than the initial probity has a role, and the perpetuity of this probity and its steadfastness acquires importance. But anyway these two virtues (probity of the government and the people) support each other. The society will prosper and be reformed provided that the government is righteous while the people are steadfast and persistent along the right path.

Now, if the people and the government perform their respective duties and observe each other’s rights, what will be the outcome?

If the ruled fulfill the rights of the ruler and the ruler fulfils their rights, then right attains the position of honor among them, the ways of religion become established, signs of justice become fixed and the sunnah gains currency. In this way time will improve.

If the people perform their duties, there are benefits: Its first benefit is that truth will be held in high esteem in the society and in turn, falsehood will be weakened. The people and the government’s fulfillment of the rights and duties will strengthen this spirit among individuals and gradually it will become a general culture of the society.

The other benefit is that in such a society, if a person wants to move along the path of falsehood, the society will not permit him to make such a move because it is against the current and accepted culture of the society.

Its third benefit is the implementation of justice:“signs of justice become fixed.” That is, the signs of justice will appear throughout the society because justice and right are linked together, and in reality, justice is to give right to its owner.

Another benefit of it is:“the sunnah gains currency.” That is, in light of fulfilling the duties, the divine traditions will prevail in the different segments of society.

And its final outcome is:

In this way time will improve, the continuance of government will be expected, and the aims of the enemies will be frustrated.

Thus, in order to set up the government, the rights of the people and the ruler must be observed proportionately and according to the principles laid down by God the Exalted. If both cooperate with each other and fulfill the divine duties with each other’s help and support, the society will be reformed and the enemies will no longer be interested in it. The opposite is also true. As the Imam (‘a) says in the continuation of this sermon, if each of them does not discharge its own duties, this society will be humiliated; the enemies will cast an evil eye on it; the honor of religion will be destroyed; and finally, it will lead to the society’s adversity.

We hope that God the Exalted will grant opportunity to all our statesmen and people to discharge properly their divine duties and observe each other’s rights so that, God willing, our society will be reformed more and more every day and the enemies be hopeless [in their evil plots].

Notes

1. What we mean by state [dawlah], government [hukūmah], or ruler [hakim] is the ruling body or apparatus existing in a country and in charge of managing the affairs of society regardless of whether it is a despotic king and figure, establishment, or court, or a group in different other forms.

2. Based on reported traditions and teachings of the Infallible and pure Ahl al-Bayt (‘a), the judge has to observe justice even in his outward glance. For example, in the letter of Imam ‘Ali (‘a) to Muhammad ibn Abi-Bakr the governor of Egypt, it is thus stated:“And be impartial in staring and glancing at them.” Nahj al-Balaghah (Faydh al-Islam), Letter 27.

3. Hudūd (literally means boundaries or limits) in the Islamic law is generally applied to penal law for punishments prescribed for particular crimes whose extent is determined by law. [Trans.]

4. In this regard, see Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Tabataba’i, Al-Mizan fi Tafsir al-Qur’an, 4th edition (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah, 1362 AH), vol. 4, pp. 129-132 (chap. 12, under Sūrah al ‘Imran 3:200).

5. This is a well-known expression in the letters of the Master of the Monotheists and Commander of the Faithful; namely, Imam `Ali (‘a), addressed to the people under his rule, governors, officials and workers of the State, military commanders, and even the heads of his sworn enemies (Mu‘awiyah). His expression is as follows:“To a servant of Allah, ‘Ali the Commander of the Faithful to…” See Nahj al-Balaghah (Faydh al-Islam), Letters 1, 50-51, 53, 60, 63, and 75.

6. Nahj al-Balaghah (Faydh al-Islam), Sermon 207.

7. That is, the people under a government will not become good and their works will not be set right except through the prosperity and goodness of the government while the government will not attain goodness and prosperity except through the steadfastness of the people (in action and supporting the truth).