Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Question 44: Existence of spirits within animals and its differnce from that of the Human Being

Question: Do animals possess souls and if so how does the animal soul differ from the human soul?

This question will be considered in the light of Sadrian philosophy, i.e., Transcendent Theosophy. In the numerous works by Mulla Sadra and the subsequent philosophers who espoused his philosophy, there are numerous allusions and in some cases detailed expositions of the question in hand in the chapters dealing with the topics of soul, Resurrection, knowledge, and comprehension. The material prepared for this question will be presented under two main headings and five shorter sections. The essay will then end with the topic of the difference between the human soul and the animal soul.

Brief Answer

Before embarking on the answer to this question, it must be noted that the answer provided below is based on the school of Transcendent Theosophy, i.e., Sadrian philosophy. In this light, the answer will be expounded under two main headings and several subtopics.

Under the first heading, “The Existence of Spirit in Animals”, the following topics will be examined:

1. In all philosophical discussions pertaining to the question of the spirit, animal spirit is always enumerated as an indubitable instance of spirit. However, obviously the various forms of spirit possess their own peculiarities which distinguish them from one another.

2. What comprises the essence of an animal is its animal spirit, and to imagine the animal without an animal spirit would be to downgrade it to the lower degree of existence-i.e., vegetable existence.

3. In several animals, such as the honey bee, the spider, etc., the signs of an indwelling spirit are clearly noticeable.

4. Scholars provide various sorts of evidence for the existence of animal spirit-among them: the presential knowledge of animals of their own essences, the role that will plays in animal behaviour, the resurrection of animal spirits in the Hereafter.

5. The fact that animals can comprehend imaginal and immaterial forms and the performance by them of varying dissimilar actions.

The topics covered in the second heading, “The Difference between the Animal and the Human Spirit”, are as follows:

1. Human nature is different from animal nature. The material components of the human body are relatively finer and more perfect.

2. Human spirit also differs from animal spirit in many respects; including the human capacity to communicate by employing letters, words, thoughts, etc., and the human psychological variations-such as laughter, weeping, etc.-in response to different external phenomena.

3. The existence of art, industry, and human innovation display clearly the superiority of the human soul as they have no place in the realm of animals.

4. The essential difference of the human soul from the animal soul is that the former is intellectual while the latter is imaginal.

5. In addition, the sole pursuit of the animal soul is the gratification of the corporeal needs while the scope of human soul, in terms of its conceptual and practical aspects, stretches to the farthest reaches of existence.

Detailed Answer

The Existence of Spirit in Animals

The Animal Soul as One of the Instances of Spirit in Existence

In philosophical inquiries into the topic of the soul, where the soul is defined, it is commonly divided into three classes: vegetable soul, animal soul, and human soul. Despite the fact that each one of these classes possesses its own peculiarities which distinguish it from its counterparts, they all share a common reality and essence. The soul is a spiritual and immaterial existent which incorporates spiritual faculties, whether it be the intellectual soul, the imaginal soul1 , or the vegetable soul.

The Creation of the Animal Spirit as One of the Phases of the Origination of the Realm of Materiality

Mulla Sadra is among those thinkers who hold that the origination of material existents was carried out in stages, starting from the simplest and advancing to the stage of the most perfect elements. In some of these stages, the mere combination of material ingredients was not enough and thus the addition of an immaterial element to the composition was called for, so as to satisfy the requirements of that particular order of creation. One such stage was the creation of the animal. The spirit that was infused in the composition to bring about the animal existence is termed the “animal spirit”.

Hence, not only does the animal possess a soul, furthermore it owes its essence to that soul. The addition of the soul to the material ingredients is a requirement of the order of the realm of materiality. And the same case applies to the realms of the human being and the vegetable. The immaterial spirit or soul is what distinguishes some material entities from others. In the inanimate, the lack of such a spirit is what makes their nature, while in others the possession thereof makes them what they are. And among the animate, it is the variation in the degrees of the spirit that sets them apart in differing levels of existence. The vegetable soul lies at the bottom while the human spirit enjoys the apex and the animal spirit the median seat.

The Outward Manifestations of the Soul in the Animal

The appearance of certain traits in various animals-such as the building of the hexagonal hive by the honeybee, the weaving of the delicate web by the spider, the monkey’s and the parrot’s mimicking the human being, the cleverness of the horse, the authority of the lion, the faithfulness of the dog, the deceptiveness of the crow, etc.-are, in the view of Mulla Sadra, evidence of the existence of a limited intelligence which indicates the presence of a soul in the animal. The character traits of some of these animals are so complex as to render them very close to the level of the human being.

Scientific Indications Corroborating the Existence of an Animal Spirit

All animals possess an imaginal soul that is similar to the human imaginal soul. The animal spirit is at the level of imaginal immateriality, which is the intermediate level between the realm of the sensible and the realm of Intellection. The zenith of animal existence is the imaginal existence, hence accommodating the imaginal soul. It is due to this degree of immateriality and spiritual potency that it possesses presential self-knowledge, for no inanimate object can ever have self-knowledge.

According to Mulla Sadra, all actions in the cosmos derive from will. This is so even in the case of the vegetable and the inanimate, with the difference that in their case the will in question is that of the higher intellects and spirits. That is, the inanimate and the vegetable are involuntarily the means of the realization of the higher wills.

But in the case of the animal and the human being, the prerequisites for the actualization of an action that falls in the scope of their volition must be realized by themselves, and it is for this reason that the actions of animals and human beings are unpredictable while those attributed to the inanimate and the vegetable are monotonous. The source where animal action originates is the imaginal and the conjectural faculty while in the human being it is the practical intellect. Imagination, speculation, intellection, will, etc., are all manifestations of a soul and as such are the traits that distinguish the creature possessed of a spirit from that which lacks it.

In addition to the worldly effects of the soul, one can also point to the issues of eschatology and the Resurrection of the body and soul of all animate creatures possessed of a soul. For this reason, all the philosophers who have dealt with the question of eschatology have designated a part to the subject of the resurrection of animal souls, its conditions, and other relevant details.

Proofs for the Existence of Spirit in the Animal

The animal is undoubtedly endowed with a spirit, i.e., an immaterial aspect, for it possesses the imaginal faculty which is capable of comprehending ghosts and imaginal forms. These things are not sensorially tangible and hence are not inhabitants of the material world.

Therefore, the imaginal faculty, which is the receptacle for the comprehension of these immaterial existents, is also not sensorially tangible and as such is not corporeal. For, every material existent occupies a certain material location. This also holds true of the dependents of that material existent.

This is while the imaginal forms and ghosts comprehended by the imaginal faculty do not occupy a certain material location, and so it follows that the imaginal faculty, which is the receptacle for their impressions, also lacks material location and hence is not corporeal.

Moreover, the variety of the actions performed by the animals does not only corroborate the existence of a soul in them but can also stand as a cogent argument for substantiating this claim. For the effects derived from material existents and inanimate objects are immutably monotonous and repetitious. Thus, when the state of an existent is so unpredictable as to make it difficult to even catch two identical actions from the same agent due to it altering its reactions based on varying external and internal

circumstances- in such a case, reason rules that there must be some other immaterial factor involved.

The Difference between the Animal Soul and the Human Soul

It was pointed out that from the perspective of philosophy, the existentiation of the material realm was a progressive process carried out in various stages, each more complex than the preceding stage. In this light, although the material constitution of the animal was a finer composition in comparison to that of the vegetable, which qualified it for receiving the animal soul, yet it still needed to be perfected further in order to accommodate the human spirit so as to bring about the human being, the being which had been selected as the dominant creature capable of utilizing all other creatures in his service, as he was the goal and end of creation.

Although the human being in a strictly logical categorization is from the same material as that which constitutes the animal, the thing that makes it unique is so profound that if, by way of analogy, all the rest of the animals were set on one side of a scale and the human being on the opposite, he would definitely weigh heavier.

The human being is capable of speech and as such is able to communicate his thoughts and intentions with fellow human beings in the form of letters and words, which can be formed into innumerable permutations and combinations. But the capacity of animals like the parrot in manipulating words is limited and confined to mimicking and is devoid of any thought.

Also the communication of certain animals in the form of sounds and signals-like the honey bee, the ant, etc.-which has been scientifically observed, is a fixed method not capable of change during the course of their lives. But in the case of the human being, although initially learning many of his language skills by way of imitation, eventually every individual comes to possess a distinct method of communication.

The psychological impressions that the human being receives from the environment and the physiological and psychological states that result thereof-such as amazement and laughter in response to rare but pleasing events, grief and weeping in response to adverse circumstances, shamefulness following unbecoming conduct, and anxiety and hope vis-à-vis the past, the present, and the future-and the planning and decisions that the human being makes based on these states are unique qualities.

And although the ant’s performance in storing food can be considered as a sort of forethought, it is nevertheless an instinctual and involuntary behaviour, for it is always done in the same manner and in the same timeframe. This is in contrast to the human being whose seemingly passive psychological states-such as laughter, weeping, etc.-are absolutely voluntary and thus are manageable in special circumstances and through prudence.

Craftsmanship, art, industry, innovation, and, in the words of Mulla Sadra, “the amazing practical innovations” that have flourished in the course of human history, and the fact that man has single-handedly changed the face of the world and has either manipulated all the elements of this world or is on the verge thereof is proof of the inimitable spiritual superiority of the human being, for not even a slight fraction of this sort of activity has

appeared in the animal realm. The entire lifespan of an animal is occupied merely by roaming about in pursuit of the dictates of its imaginal and conjectural faculties.

The animal’s imaginal and conjectural planning revolve around its personal or specific benefit. In keeping itself safe from various dangers and securing water and food and satisfying its sexual appetite, it is, on the one hand, safeguarding its individual interests and, on the other hand, contributing to the survival of its species. It is for this reason that the animal soul is referred to as “the imaginal soul”.

The summit of the imaginal soul is the beginning point for the human soul. The animal can advance only up to the point where the human domain begins. In other words the final reaches of the realm of the imaginal soul is just the beginning of the domain of the intellect; it is the threshold through which one enters into the human realm, to which there is no conceivable end. It is the intellect that defines the human being. Hence, those who do not take advantage of their intellects remain at the level of the beast.

Through the theoretical intellect, the human being is able to comprehend immaterial concepts and thereby to transform his ignorance to knowledge. The human being draws a mental image of all that he encounters by the senses. It then uses these concepts to form another set of concepts which are more universal and abstract.

The latter concepts enhance the mind’s innovative capabilities. The human mind uses the latter concepts to arrive at various sorts of rules, judgments, and arguments and by juxtaposing them in a systematized fashion produces systematic thought, philosophy, and the sciences. If the human being persists in this endeavour, every new day will expand the horizon of his cognition until he passes from the human domain-which is the admixture of body and soul, of corporeal needs and intellectual faculties-to the domain of pure intellection, where he is united with the Madonna Intelligenza at which stage he finds the whole world realized within the scope of his knowledge.

The genuine human being makes his practical intellect-which derives its directives from the knowledge acquired by the theoretical intellect-the guide of his conduct. The theoretical and practical intellects have limitless power in both the material and the spiritual directions. The human being has succeeded in obtaining knowledge previously not even imaginable, thereby reshaping his surrounding world.

The innermost reality of the world is just as much accessible to him, this being demonstrated by those who have attained to human perfection. By the light of their esoteric knowledge-which can best be referred to as ‘irfan-they have traversed the path to Divine proximity. That is, they have conquered the visible realm, the Realm of Intellection, the Supreme Dominion, and the Domain of Invincibility, thereby ascending to the zenith of human perfection.

The interesting point is that these two paths of infinite possibilities, i.e., the paths of exoteric and esoteric knowledge, are in no way at odds. To the contrary, the more one studies the worldly phenomena, given that he be fair and unbiased, the better he acknowledges the profundity of this world and

the greatness of its creator. Likewise, he who has traversed the path of ‘Irfan understands all the more acutely the necessity of studying the worldly phenomena so as to better admire the majesty of the Creator.

Note

1. This term will be explained further in the text.

Question 45: Limiting the Ahlul Bayt to a few individuals

Question: Why do you limit the Ahlul Bayt (ع) to a few people?

To prove that the Ahlul Bayt (ع) in the Verse of Purification are limited to the five “people of the cloak” (ahl al-kisa’: the Prophet, ‘Ali, Fatimah, Hasan, and Husayn, upon whom be peace), various textual and traditional proofs that are accepted by Sunnis and Shi’as can be forwarded. We will look at each of these proofs separately.

Brief Answer

The limiting of the Ahlul Bayt (ع) to the fourteen infallibles is not a human decision; it is an exclusivity understood from the Divine words in the Verse of Purification and the traditions of the noble Prophet (ص).

There are numerous discursive and traditional proofs than can be relied on to prove this claim.

Discursive and textual proofs

a. The Qur`an consists of the words of Allah (awj) that He revealed to His Prophet in the Arabic language. And Allah’s (awj) words, like His actions, are free of any sort of defect; it is not possible for them to contain any type of grammatical mistake.

Now, if the term Ahlul Bayt in the Verse of Purification were to refer to all relatives of the Prophet (ص), it would be in violation of the rules of Arabic grammar and detrimental to the eloquence and perfection of the Divine word. This is because the Prophet (ص) had more than fifteen wives and for a masculine pronoun to be used in the Verse of Purification to refer to a group, the majority of which were women, would be contrary to proper ‘Arabic speech. Thus, the pronouns in the verse refer to the descendents and trustees of the Prophet (ص) in the house of Fatima (ع).

b. To determine the meaning of a word, it is necessary to look at the context in which it originated in order to understand its true exact sense. In the Verse of Purification, the word ahl (family or people) is under discussion. This word must always be in a possessive phrase, at least in meaning if not in words. That is, its meaning is incomplete unless it is attributed or related to something else.

In this verse as well it has been attributed to al-bayt, or the house of prophecy; and we know that this can apply to no house aside from that of Fatima (ع). If al-bayt referred to an inhabited house, for the other wives of the Prophet (ص) to be included in this phrase, Umm Salamah-in whose house the verse was revealed-should be the first person to be included in the

phrase. But the opposite is true, since the Prophet (ص)-with Umm Salamah’s agreement-did not consider her to be among the Ahlul Bayt.

Traditional proofs

a. There are a group of traditions in which the Prophet (ص) aimed to clarify and delimit the Ahlul Bayt (ع) in the Verse of Purification. Thus, the Prophet (ص) said that this verse was revealed about five people: himself, ‘Ali, Fatima, Hasan, and Husayn (ع).

b. Another group of traditions that mention the Prophet’s actions in this regard, since practical teachings are more lasting than oral teachings. Thus, it has been narrated that for six months the Prophet (ص) would come to the door of Fatima’s (ع) house at prayer times and say, “Prayers, O People of the House!” and he would recite the Verse of Purification.

c. A third group are the accounts that indicate that it was well-known to the people that the Ahlul Bayt are limited to these people, the details of which have been mentioned in books of Qur`anic exegesis.

Detailed Answer

Discursive or Textual Proofs

a. The Qur`an is the word of Allah (awj) and is a miracle from more than just a single aspect. The most accessible and easily grasped of those aspects is the Qur`an’s eloquence.

That is, there exists no literary mistake in the matter, style, or choice of wording of the Noble Book. We know that in ‘Arabic there are separate feminine pronouns used in the second and third persons. In using a pronoun, numerous aspects are taken into account. For example, when there are significantly more women in a group than men, a feminine pronoun is used.

Now, if a masculine pronoun were to be used in addressing a group consisting primarily of women, it would be considered a grammatical mistake. If a person uses masculine pronouns in place of feminine ones or vice versa, it would be an amusing mistake. Far be it from the Qur`an, the Word of Allah and the Prophet’s (ص) eternal miracle, to make such a mistake.

The Verse of Purification has the words ‘ankum and yutahhirakum, in which the pronouns are masculine, though Allah (awj) is well aware that there were more women in the Prophet’s household than men. So if we were to hold that this verse refers to all of his household and family, we would have to say that we have found a grammatical mistake in the Qur`an, that is, the use of two masculine pronouns in place of feminine ones-a mistake that is clear and undeniable.

It is obvious that this is inconsistent with the Muslim belief in the Qur`an’s miraculousness and Allah’s (awj) Knowledge and Wisdom, and is thus unacceptable. Thus, the two pronouns must refer to a group that would

permit masculine pronouns to be used. And this is only the case if we take the pronouns in the verse to refer to the Prophet’s household in the house of Fatimah, that is, the Prophet, Fatimah, ‘Ali, Hasan, and Husayn (ع).

b. The word ahl (family) in Arabic must always be part of a possessive phrase in meaning. That is, it must be related or attributed to something else for its own meaning to become clear, as in ahl al-kitab (people of the book), ahl al-iman (people of faith, or believers), and ahl al-nifaq (people of hypocrisy, or hypocrites).

Thus part of the meaning of the word ahl is denoted by the word to which it is attributed. So, if we wish to know what ahl means in the Verse of Purification we must first determine the meaning of the word bayt (house).

The word bayt means “house” or “abode” and denotes a place. Now what is meant by this word in different usages is something that is explained by contextual clues, both internal (verbal) and external (nonverbal).

The same holds true for the topic under discussion, that is, the expression “Ahlul Bayt.” So if there are no contextual clues to limit, expand, or clarify what Allah intended with this expression, if we were to ignore the literary objection that would result, it would be possible to take “Ahlul Bayt” to refer to everyone related to the Prophet (ص) in his houses. In this case, the word bayt would mean “home” or “residence”.

But with a little attention to some external contextual clues, such as the situation in which the verse was revealed, we will realize that such a meaning is untrue, because although the verse was revealed in the very house of Umm Salamah, the Prophet (ص) clearly said she was not one of the Ahlul Bayt (ع). If bayt were to refer to a residence, Umm Salamah-in whose home the verse was revealed-should be its first addressee and more worthy of this title than anyone else.

But it has already been shown that this is contrary to reality. In this regard, it would be good to refer to a tradition that Wahidi Nishapuri has narrated:

“Umm Salamah relates that the Prophet (ص) was in [my] house and food was before him when Fatimah (ع) entered. The Prophet (ص) said, ‘[Fatimah,] call your husband and sons to come to me.’ ‘Ali, Hasan, and Husayn (ع) came and sat down. While they were eating, the Prophet (ص) fell asleep.

“There was a Khaybari cloak under the Prophet (ص) during this time, and I was in the [adjoining] room praying. Then Allah revealed the Verse of Purification.

“After this, the Prophet (ص) covered them [‘Ali, Fatimah, Hasan, and Husayn] with his cloak as well. Then he took out his hands and, facing the sky, said: ‘O Allah! These are my Ahlul Bayt and the closest ones to me. Remove from them all uncleanliness and purify them.’

“At that time I came to their room and asked, ‘Am I too with you O Messenger of Allah?’ He replied, ‘You are on the right [path]. You are on the right [path].’” 1

In this way, the Prophet (ص) praised Umm Salamah without considering her to be one of the Ahlul Bayt.

There are numerous traditions with the above purport in Sunni hadith collections2 . This is the same tradition that is well-known among Shi’as as the tradition of the cloak (hadith al-Kisa) and which is found in most books of hadith and supplications.

Traditional Proofs

There are numerous traditions that clarify what Allah (awj) meant by Ahlul Bayt in the verse of Purification. In view of the various details and aspects explained in these traditions, we have divided them into three groups and will mention one example from each group. It is worthy of mentioning that only Sunni sources have been used for the following traditions, though comparable traditions are abundant in Shi’a sources as well.

a. The first group consists of traditions that explain the Prophet’s (ص) words regarding the purport of the expression Ahlul Bayt in the verse of Purification.

Muhammad ibn al-Muthanna, with a chain reaching Abu Sa’id al-Khidri, narrates that the Prophet (ص) said, “This verse was revealed regarding five people-me, ‘Ali, Fatimah, Hasan, and Husayn:

‘Verily, Allah only wishes to remove all uncleanliness from you, O people of the house, and purify you thoroughly.’” 3

b. The second group consists of traditions that came after the meaning of Ahlul Bayt had been explained verbally and that clarify its meaning in actions through the conduct of the Prophet (ص).

Ibn Waki`, in a chain leading to Anas, relates that he would say, “For six months after the Verse of Purification was revealed, whenever the Prophet (ص) would go for prayers, he would stand outside the door of Fatimah’s house and say, ‘[It is time for] the prayers, O people of the house!’ and then he would recite this verse.”4

Does this prophetic action, which continued for 180 days, five times a day, in explaining the meaning of Ahlul Bayt leave any room for doubt?

c. The third group consists of traditions that are historical in nature and explain the thoughts and actions of the people of that era with respect to the Verse of Purification and who it addresses. In view of these traditions, it can be said that this issue-the limitation of the Verse of Purification to the five people of the cloak (ع)-was so well-known among the Muslims that whenever they would see one of them, they would say, “I saw so-and-so, who is of the Ahlul Bayt.” Or they would indicate them and say, “So-and-so is of the ahl al-bayt.” As an example, one can refer to the story of Abu

Mijlaz, the details of which have been mentioned in Sunni books of tafsir5 (Qur`anic commentary).

Notes

1. Al-Kafi, vol. 1, pg. 287

2. Sunan Tirmizhi, vol.5, pg. 30 is only one example

3. Jami’ al-Bayan, vol. 22, pg. 9

4. Jami’ al-Bayan, vol. 22, pg. 9

5. Jami’ al-Bayan, vol. 25, pg. 70

Question 46: Compatibility of Religion and Politics

Question: Is religion compatible with politics?

Brief Answer

A religion that has come in order to explain the path to felicity from now until the end of time cannot remain indifferent to a matter that all societies need, that is, government. In other words, the rules and regulations of Islam are such that they depend on a government and without which Islam cannot remain alive.

Detailed Answer

Imam ‘Ali b. Musa al-Rida (ع) has said the following in one of his statements regarding the necessity of an Islamic government: “We have not found any nation that has survived without a leader. This is because the regulation and management of their religious and worldly needs depends upon a responsible leader. It is far from the wisdom of Allah to leave His servants without a leader while He well knows that they need a ruler who would give the society structure and stability. A leader that would lead the people in war against the enemies, distribute the wealth amongst them, lead the Friday prayers, and protect the oppressed against the tyrants.”1

From another point of view the rules and regulations of Islam are such that they depend on a government and without which, Islam cannot remain alive. Because of this Imam ‘Ali b. Musa al-Rida (ع) has referred to the Friday and congregational prayers being conducted by the leader.

In another statement he says: “If Allah had not placed a reliable and trustworthy leader amongst the people, the religion of Allah would surely have finished, the laws of Allah would have changed, innovations would have arisen in religion, irreligious people would have changed the faith of Allah and added and subtracted things from it, and doubts would have arisen about Islam amongst the Muslims.”

For this very reason it was well known amongst the Muslims, and even amongst the non-Muslims, that Islam has a specific system of government and that the government of the Noble Prophet (ص) in Medina was a clear example of such a system.

In the year 1343 ah, ‘Ali ‘Abd al-Razzaq, in his book Islam and the Principles of Government, denied the Prophetic government and claimed that the Prophet Muhammad (ص) was simply a prophet sent by Allah (awj) to the scholars of the world and that he in no way took steps towards the formation of a government. He did this at a time when Kamal Ataturk rejected the government of the Ottomans and laid the foundations of his secular government.

At the same time in Egypt, the followers of the caliphate chose Sultan Fuad as the leader of the Muslims and placed him in the seat of power. The fact that these events occurred concurrently shows that ‘Abd al-Razzaq was influenced by the secular thoughts of the West and wrote these matters by

taking inspiration from the writings of secular philosophers and political scientists.

‘Abd al-Razzaq claimed two things:

1. What the Noble Prophet (ص) established in Medina was not a government.

2. What was set up in Medina was not religious.

In order to prove the first point he places emphasis on the fact that what the Noble Prophet (ص) created in Medina did not have any of the qualities of a government.

In order to prove the second point he says that the degree and stature of Prophethood spurns politics and government.

In order to answer the first point we must pay attention to the fact that the consequence of holding that a specific form of government should be the standard by which we judge if something is a government or not would be that none of the nations of the past have ever had any governments.

Therefore a more general definition of government must be given so that it can be true for various forms of government. Such a definition can be put in the following way: Government is a collection of organized powers that has as its duty the management of the affairs of society. In this definition, government is comprised of various governmental structures like the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government.

According to this definition of government then, that which the Noble Prophet (ص) created in Medina was a government in the real sense of the word since he created an organized power structure that had as its responsibility the management of the affairs of society. From the time of the Prophet until now, many books have been written regarding the management system of his government.

Now when we pay attention to the following points, the religious nature of the Prophet’s government will become clear:

1. The rules and regulations of Islam are such that without a government, they cannot be implemented; for example rulings pertaining to the executive, judicial, or monetary systems of Islam.

2. We have proofs to show that the rule and running of the affairs of society are the prerogative of the Noble Prophet (ص).

3. If Prophethood were really at odds with government then why would the Noble Prophet (ص) take steps towards the creation of a government? Why would he waste his time and energy in this regard? If it were asked that does this “misappropriation” of effort not show irresponsibility, it would be answered that the Noble Prophet (ص) started this work for the propagation of religion and in order to fulfil his apostleship.

This answer shows the interrelationship of religion and politics from one point of view. Of course it does not answer the question as to why he himself took the establishment of religion into his own hands, while he

could easily have placed the responsibility in the hands of some other reliable friend like Imam ‘Ali b. Abi Talib (ع).

In any case, we can really only understand and criticize what ‘Abd al-Razzaq wrote over 70 years ago-something existing in its various forms in the Muslim world today-when we examine the context and culture in which this thought took shape, viz. the West. In order to understand the philosophy and culture of the West, we must have a look-though cursory-at the history of Christian thought that forms the cultural matrix of the Western world.

Note

1. Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 6, pp. 60-61

فَإِنْ قَالَ فَلِمَ جَعَلَ أُولِي الْأَمْرِ وَ أَمَرَ بِطَاعَتِهِمْ قِيلَ لِعِلَلٍ كَثِيرَةٍ مِنْهَا أَنَّ الْخَلْقَ لَمَّا وَقَعُوا عَلَى حَدٍّ مَحْدُودٍ وَ أُمِرُوا أَنْ لاَ يَتَعَدَّوْا ذَلِكَ الْحَدَّ (تِلْكَ الْحُدُودَ) لِمَا فِيهِ مِنْ فَسَادِهِمْ لَمْ يَكُنْ يَثْبُتُ ذَلِكَ وَ لاَ يَقُومُ إِلاَّ بِأَنْ يَجْعَلَ عَلَيْهِمْ فِيهِ أَمِيناً يَمْنَعُهُمْ مِنَ التَّعَدِّي وَ الدُّخُولِ فِيمَا حُظِرَ عَلَيْهِمْ لِأَنَّهُ لَوْ لَمْ يَكُنْ ذَلِكَ كَذَلِكَ لَكَانَ أَحَدٌ لاَ يَتْرُكُ لَذَّتَهُ وَ مَنْفَعَتَهُ لِفَسَادِ غَيْرِهِ فَجَعَلَ عَلَيْهِمْ قَيِّماً يَمْنَعُهُمْ مِنَ الْفَسَادِ وَ يُقِيمُ فِيهِمُ الْحُدُودَ وَ الْأَحْكَامَ وَ مِنْهَا أَنَّا لاَ نَجِدُ فِرْقَةً مِنَ الْفِرَقِ وَ لاَ مِلَّةً مِنَ الْمِلَلِ بَقُوا وَ عَاشُوا إِلاَ بِقَيِّمٍ وَ رَئِيسٍ لِمَا لاَ بُدَّ لَهُمْ مِنْهُ فِي أَمْرِ الدِّينِ وَ الدُّنْيَا فَلَمْ يَجُزْ فِي حِكْمَةِ الْحَكِيمِ أَنْ يَتْرُكَ الْخَلْقَ مِمَّا يَعْلَمُ أَنَّهُ لاَ بُدَّ لَهُمْ مِنْهُ وَ لاَ قِوَامَ لَهُمْ إِلاَّ بِهِ فَيُقَاتِلُونَ بِهِ عَدُوَّهُمْ وَ يَقْسِمُونَ بِهِ فَيْئَهُمْ وَ يُقِيمُ لَهُمْ جُمُعَتَهُمْ وَ جَمَاعَتَهُمْ وَ يَمْنَعُ ظَالِمَهُمْ مِنْ مَظْلُومِهِمْ وَ مِنْهَا أَنَّهُ لَوْ لَمْ يَجْعَلْ لَهُمْ إِمَاماً قَيِّماً أَمِيناً حَافِظاً مُسْتَوْدَعاً لَدَرَسَتِ الْمِلَّةُ وَ ذَهَبَ الدِّينُ وَ غُيِّرَتِ السُّنَّةُ وَ الْأَحْكَامُ وَ لَزَادَ فِيهِ الْمُبْتَدِعُونَ وَ نَقَصَ مِنْهُ الْمُلْحِدُونَ وَ شَبَّهُوا ذَلِكَ عَلَى الْمُسْلِمِينَ لِأَنَّا قَدْ وَجَدْنَا الْخَلْقَ مَنْقُوصِينَ مُحْتَاجِينَ غَيْرَ كَامِلِينَ مَعَ اخْتِلاَفِهِمْ وَ اخْتِلاَفِ أَهْوَائِهِمْ وَ تَشَتُّتِ أَنْحَائِهِمْ فَلَوْ لَمْ يَجْعَلْ لَهُمْ قَيِّماً حَافِظاً لِمَا جَاءَ بِهِ الرَّسُولُ ص لَفَسَدُوا عَلَى نَحْوِ مَا بَيَّنَّا وَ غُيِّرَتِ الشَّرَائِعُ وَ السُّنَنُ وَ الْأَحْكَامُ وَ الْإِيمَانُ وَ كَانَ فِي ذَلِكَ فَسَادُ الْخَلْقِ أَجْمَعِين