Glimpses of the Nahj al-Balaghah
- Part 6
Martyr Ayatullah Murtada Mutahhari
Translated from the Persian by 'Ali Quli Qara'i
The World and
Worldliness
Renunciation in the Nahj al-balaghah:
Of the frequent themes of the Nahj al-balaghah is strong warning against
the dangers of worldliness. Our preceding discussion about zuhd
(abstinence) and its aims also serves here to throw light on the meaning
of worldliness; because, the zuhd which is strongly enjoined is the very
opposite of the worldliness which is severely condemned. To define and
explain any one of them is to define and explain the other.
However, in view of the tremendous emphasis laid in 'Ali's moral sermons
upon the warning against the dangers of worldliness, we considered it
appropriate to devote a separate chapter to this topic with a view to
further explaining this concept so that all ambiguities are removed in
this matter. The first point to be investigated is why so much attention
has been given to the concept of zuhd in the sayings and sermons of Amir
al-Mu'minin, to the extent that no other issue has been so much
emphasized by him, and neither the Holy Prophet (S) nor any of the other
Imams (A) have spoken as recurringly about the deceptions of worldly
life, its ephemeral and unenduring nature, the disloyalty of its
slippery comforts, and the dangers of wealth, affluence, and immersion
in and complete surrender to worldly pleasures and comforts.
The Danger Created by War Booty:
This was not a matter of accident, rather it was something related to
the conditions that came into existence during 'Ali's times, that is,
during the days of the past caliphs and especially during the caliphate
of 'Uthman. A series of serious dangers visited the world of Islam in
the wake of the influx of huge quantities of wealth and riches.
'Ali (A) sensed its dangerous consequences and struggled against them.
This struggle is reflected in his practices and policies during the
period of his caliphate, in the course of which he ultimately gave up
his life. This struggle, at the ideological level, is also reflected in
his sermons, letters, and sayings. The Muslims were blessed with great
victories in battles that diverted huge amounts of property and wealth
into the Muslim world.
However, instead of being utilized for public benefit or being
distributed justly among the people, the wealth fell into the hands of a
few individuals and an elite. Especially during the days of 'Uthman,
this imbalance became greatly pronounced. Persons who possessed nothing
only a few years ago appropriated for their personal use fabulous
amounts of wealth.
This was the time when worldly tendencies gained strength in the Muslim
society and the Muslim Ummah started on a course of moral decline and
degeneration. It was following the awareness of this great danger to
society that 'Ali raised his cry of protest to warn the Ummah of Islam.
Al-Mas'udi, writing about the days of 'Uthman, says: 'Uthman was a man
of extraordinary generosity (of course, it was exercised at the cost of
the public treasury). The government officials and the people followed
his example. He was the first among the Caliphs to build a house made of
stone and mortar with wooden doors made of teak and juniper, and amassed
other properties, such as gardens, orchards, and springs, in al-Madinah.
When he died, there were 150,000 Dinars and a million Dirhams in cash
with his treasurer and his property in Wadi al-Qura, Hunayn, and
elsewhere was valued above 100,000 Dinars. His legacy consisted of a
large number of horses and camels. Then he writes: During his reign, a
group of his associates also hoarded similar amounts of wealth. Al-Zubayr
ibn al-'Awwam built a house in Basrah which still stands intact in the
year 332 H. [al-Mas'udi's own time]. It is also well known that he built
similar houses in Egypt, Kufah, and Alexandria. When al-Zubayr died he
left 50,000 Dinars in cash, a thousand horses and thousands of other
things. The house which Talhah ibn 'Abd Allah built of brick, mortar and
teak in Kufah still exists and is known as 'Dar al-Talhatayn.' Talhah's
daily income from his properties in Iraq was one thousand Dinars.
He had one thousand horses in his stables. A one-thirty-second (1/32)
part of the wealth that he left at his death was estimated at 84,000
Dinars ... Al-Mas'udi mentions similar amounts of wealth in the
possession of Zayd ibn Thabit, Ya'la ibn 'Umayyah and others. Evidently,
such huge amounts of wealth do not emerge from under the ground nor fall
from the sky. Such immense riches are never amassed except by the side
of extreme and horrifying poverty. That is why 'Ali (A), in sermon 129,
after warning the people of the dangers of worldliness, says: You live
in a period when virtues recede and evils advance step by step, and the
Satan becomes greedier in his eagerness to ruin human beings.
Today his equipment has been reinforced, his traps are set in every
place, and his prey comes easily. Look around; you will see either a
poor man hardly able to breathe in extreme poverty and penury, or a rich
man who has transformed God's blessings into his own infidelity, or you
will see a miser who makes stinginess in discharging the obligations
imposed by God a means of increasing his own wealth, or you will find
the rebellious whose unruly hearts are deaf to moral admonition. Where
are the virtuous, the righteous amongst you? Where are the free men and
the magnanimous? Where are those who avoid every trace of deceit in
their dealings and pursue piety and honesty in their ways?
The Intoxication of Affluence:
Amir al-Mu'minin (A), in his utterances, has used the phrase sakarat al-ni'mah,
meaning 'intoxication induced by comfort and affluence', which is
inevitably followed by a vengeful disaster. In sermon 151 he warns them:
You, O people of Arabia, would be victims of calamities which are
drawing near. Beware of the intoxication induced by affluence and fear
the vengeful disaster which will follow it. Then he describes the
misfortunes caused by such immoderations. In sermon 187 he foretells the
calamities that were to befall the Muslim society in future.
He says: This would happen when you would be intoxicated, not by
drinking wine, but with wealth and affluence. Yes, the flow of immense
amounts of wealth into the domain of Islam and the unjust distribution
of this wealth together with nepotism and partiality, infected the
Islamic society with the disease of worldliness and the race for
affluence. 'Ali (A) struggled to save the Islamic world from this grave
danger, and was severely critical of those who were responsible for the
infection to set in. He set an example of an altogether different life
style in his own personal living, and, on attaining caliphate, he gave
the top priority to the campaign against these dangers in his
revolutionary programme.
The General Aspect of 'Ali's Warnings:
This prologue was intended to throw light upon the particular aspect of
the warnings of Amir al-Mu'minin (A) about worldliness as a specific
reaction to a particular social phenomenon of his times. Yet, aside from
this particular feature, there is a general aspect to 'Ali's words that
is not confined to his own time and applies to all times and all people
as an essential part of Islamic teaching.
This specific logic emanates from the teaching of the Holy Quran which
is followed up in the sayings of the Holy Prophet (S), Amir al-Mu'minin
(A) and the rest of Imams (A), as well as in the writings of great
Muslim sages. However, it is a logic which needs a detailed analysis. In
the present discussion, our concern will be more with the general aspect
of the discourses of Amir al-Mu'minin (A) in the sense that in them 'Ali
(A) addresses himself to all human beings of all times.
The Terminology of Every School:
Every school of thought has a terminology which is specific to it. In
order to understand the concepts and issues of a certain school, it is
essential to be familiar with its terms. On the other hand, in order to
understand its particular terminology, it is necessary, in the first
place, to understand its general view of the universe, life and man:
that is its weltanschauung. Islam has a clear view of being and
creation, and has a particular way of looking at man and human life.
One of the fundamental principles of the Islamic world-outlook is the
notion that there is no duality of any kind whatsoever in being; that
is, the world of creation is not divisible into two domains of 'good'
and 'evil'. That is, it is not true that some existents are good and
beautiful and should have been created, whereas some are evil and ugly
and should not have been created but nevertheless exist. Such a view is
regarded as kufr in the Islamic world-outlook, and is considered
contrary to the principle of tawhid. In the view of Islam, the creation
of all things is based on goodness, wisdom, and beauty: Thou seest not
in the creation of the All-merciful any imperfection ...(67:3) He is the
Knower of the unseen and the visible, the All-mighty, the
All-compassionate, Who made good everything He created; ... (32:6-7)
Accordingly, Islam's condemnation of 'the world' does not apply to the
world of creation. The Islamic world-outlook rests on the foundation of
pure tawhid and lays great emphasis on the Unity of the Acting
Principle; it does not admit the existence of any partner who would
share God's sovereignty. Such a world-outlook can never be pessimistic.
The idea of an evil world abounding in crookedness and wickedness is not
an Islamic notion. Then why does it denounce 'the world'?
The 'World ' that is Condemned:
Commonly it is said that attachment to the 'world' is condemned and
disapproved by Islam. This is both true and false. If what is implied is
an emotional attachment, it cannot be true; because, man, in relation to
the total system of creation, has been created with a series of
congenital emotional attachments and inclinations. In addition, he does
not acquire these inclinations, nor are they superfluous or incongruous.
Even as in the human body there is no superfluous organ-not even a
single nerve ending-so also there are no redundant congenital tendencies
of attachment in his nature. All innate human tendencies, and aptitudes
have a purpose which is wise and sagacious. The Holy Quran regards such
tendencies as the 'signs' of Divine Wisdom and the Creator's consummate
design: And of His signs is that He created for you, of yourselves,
spouses, that you might repose in them, and He has set between you love
and mercy ... (30:21)
These attachments and sentiments form a series of channels of
communication between man and his world. Without them man would not be
able to pursue the course of his development. Consequently, it should be
said that the Islamic world-outlook, even as it does not permit us to
denounce and reject the world, it also does not allow us to regard the
natural attachments and the channels of communication as superfluous,
useless, and breakable, because such sentiments and tendencies are a
part of the general pattern of creation. In fact, the prophets (A) and
the awliya' were endowed with these sentiments and emotions to a high
degree of exuberance
The truth is that what is implied by 'attachment to the world' are not
these natural and innate inclinations; instead, what is meant is bondage
to material and worldly affairs and total surrender to them, which leads
to spiritual stagnation and inertia, deprives the human spirit of its
freedom of movement and buoyancy, and makes it immobile and dead. That
is what Islam calls 'worldliness' and has severely campaigned against it
as something contrary to the evolutionary system of creation. Not only
this, Islam considers this struggle as being in tune with the laws of
the evolutionary processes of creation. The expressions employed by the
Quran in this regard are miraculous, as we shall explain in the
following sections.
The Relation Between Man and the World:
As made explicit in the last chapter, that which is regarded as
disapprovable by the Quran and the Nahj al-balaighah is neither the
world-in-itself, nor the natural and innate human urges and attachments.
In the view of Islam, neither has the world been created without a
purpose, nor has man strayed into it aimlessly.
There have been, and are, some schools of thought which view the world
with pessimism. In their view, the existing order of the universe is far
from being perfect. There have existed other schools which considered
man's entry into the world of existence to be the result of some cosmic
error, as if man had strayed into it. According to them, man is a total
stranger in this world with which he has no ties of consanguinity, and
is a prisoner of existence. Like Joseph, he has been thrown into the
black-hole of being by his evil brethren where he is confined and his
every endeavour should be aimed at finding an exit from this abyss.
Obviously, when the relation of man to the world and nature is regarded
as the one between a prison and its prisoner, and an abyss and one
eptrapped in it, his ultimate aim cannot be anything but seeking
'deliverance'.
The Logic of Islam:
But from the viewpoint of Islam, the relation of man to the world is not
that of a prisoner with his prison; or that of one entrapped in a well
with the well; rather it is the kind of relation that exists between a
peasant and his farm [1] , or a horse and the racecourse [2] , or a
merchant and the marketplace [3] , or a devotee and his temple [4]. The
world, from the Islamic point of view, is a school for man, his training
ground, and the place where he can acquire perfection.
There is an anecdote related in the Nahj al-balaghah of a man who
condemned the world in Amir al-Mu'minin's presence. 'Ali (A) rebuked him
for his confusing 'the world' which is condemned by Islam with the
actual physical world and informed him about his error [5]. Shaykh Farid
al-Din 'Attar has rendered this incident into verse in his
Musibat nameh: In the presence of the Tiger of Providence, A man
denounced the world with vehemence. "The world ", exclaimed Hayder, "is
not to be blamed ". Wretched are you, being far from wisdom. The world,
son, is a farm To be attended to day and night. Whatsoever is of the
honour and riches of faith, An in all it is to be acquired from this
world. Tomorrow's fruit is the blooming of today's seed; And one who is
idle here, shall taste the bitter fruit of regret.
The world is the best place for you, Where in you can prepare provision
for the Hereafter. Go into the world, but don 't get immersed in the
ego. And prepare yourself for the other world. If you act thus, the
world will suit you, Hence befriend the world just for this aim.
Nasir Khusrow 'Alawi, justifiably considered a philosopher among the
poets (Hakim al-shu'ara'), is one of the most profound and truly
religious amongst Persian poets. He has composed a eulogy about the
world, simultaneously highlighting both the good and evil qualities of
it, which is as much in conformity with the Islamic outlook as it is
extraordinarily beautiful from artistic viewpoint. This eulogy appears
in his collected poetical works (diwan), and is included in his book
Jami' al-hitmatayn.
He says: O world, how apt and essential you are, Even though you haven't
been loyal to any. Sick and wretched you appear to the afflicted eye,
Yet fine and healthy if one looks at your inside. If sometimes you have
broken a robust man or two, Many a broken one you have joined and
restored. You are filthy to the unclean, To the pure unstained. If any
one should blame you, say, "You know me not. " You have grown out of me.
If you are wise, Why blame the tree of which you are a branch? The Lord
made me a path for your ascending journey, And you have settled down on
this lowly road. God planted a tree from whose trunk you have grown; If
you grow out straight, you will be saved, And if crooked, confined to
the flames. Yes, everyone burns crooked branches, And asks not "Is it
teak or walnut?" You are the arrow of God aimed at His enemy, Why have
you hurt yourself with this weapon?
Now it is evident that man's relation to the world is similar to the one
that exists between the farmer and his field of cultivation, between the
merchant and the marketplace, between the devotee and the temple. It is
not possible for man to alienate himself from the world or sever his
ties with it or to develop a kind of relationship which is wholly
negative. There exists a design and intelligent planning behind every
natural urge. Man has neither come to this world by cheating or fraud,
nor should he go from here as an accused. There is a general force of
attraction and gravitation that encompasses the whole universe.
All the particles in it attract each other according to a set pattern.
This pattern of mutual attraction and absorption is determined by a
judicious design. Moreover, the force of attraction and love is not
confined to man alone. No particle in the universe is devoid of this
power. The difference, however, is that man, contrary to other things,
is aware of his own leanings and inclinations.
Wahshi Kirmani says: Every dancing particle is permeated with the same
force of attraction That draws it towards a certain specific goal. It
carries one Rower to the side of another, And urges one spark to pursue
the company of its likes, From fire to wind, from water to dust, From
underneath the moon to the top of the heavens, From flock to flock and
from horde to horde, You will observe this attraction in every moving
thing From heavenly spheres to the terrestrial bodies.
Accordingly, from the viewpoint of Islam the world is neither without a
purpose nor is human being created by any error, nor are man's innate
tendencies undesirable and evil. Then what is meant by "the world" that
the Quran and the Nahj al-balaghah regard as undesirable and
condemnable? Before embarking on the issue, a few preliminary principles
need to be clarified. It is characteristic of man that he is inherently
an idealist and a lover of perfection. He is in the search of something
with which he wants to develop a relationship closer than an ordinary
attachment. In other words, he is by nature a devotee and a worshipper
in search of something which is the ultimate object of his desire and
the end of his entire being.
However, if he is not rightly guided, or not on his guard, his relation
with things and inclination towards them is transformed into a relation
of reliance and attachment, changing means into end and an association
into bondage. As a result his spirit of mobility, freedom and capacity
to quest are transformed into inertia, complacence and captivity. This
is what is undesirable and contrary to the perfection-seeking order of
the world. It is a defect and a kind of non-being, not a merit or a
positive mode of being. It is a dangerous malady and a disaster for man,
and this is against which the Quran and the Nahj al-balaghah warn.
Without any doubt, Islam does not regard the material world and life in
it-even if it involves the greatest material achievements-as a fitting
goal of man's highest aspirations. This is because, firstly, in the
Islamic world-outlook, this world is followed by the eternal and
everlasting world of the Hereafter where conditions of life would be
determined by the deeds, good or evil, of a person in this world.
Secondly, the worth of a human being is too great to warrant his
surrender to the slavery of and servitude to the material aspects of
life.
That is why 'Ali (A) so often points out that the world is a good place,
but only for him who knows that it is not a permanent abode, but only a
road or a caravanserai. What a good abode it is for him who would not
want to make it a home. [6] This world indeed is a transit camp, whereas
the Hereafter is a place of permanent abode. So take from the transit
what you need for your destination. [7] From the viewpoint of humanistic
philosophies there is no doubt that everything which binds man to itself
and immerses him completely within itself violates his human identity by
making it inert and frozen. The process of human perfection knows no
limit or end, and every halt, delay and bondage is injurious to it.
As we find no reason to controvert this view, we accept it without any
argument. However, there are two other points that need to be discussed
here. Firstly, does the Quran and following it the Nahj al-balaghah
confirm such a relation between man and his world? Is it true that what
the Quran condemns is attachment and bondage to the world when taken as
the ultimate end of life, an attitude which retards man's movement
towards perfection and represents inertness, stagnation, and non-being?
Does the Quran abstain from absolutely condemning worldly ties and
sentiments so long as they do not become man's ultimate goal of life and
stall his progress? Secondly, if it is admitted that human attachment to
beings other than himself causes bondage and servitude, and retards the
development of human personality, does it make any difference if that
being is God or something else? The Quran negates every form of bondage
and servitude and calls man to welcome every kind of spiritual and human
freedom. It does not, however, condemn servitude to God; it does not
invite man to liberate himself from God in order to acquire absolute
freedom.
Instead, the invitation of the Quran is based on liberation from
everything besides God and complete surrender to Him. It is based on the
rejection of obedience to anything except Him and the acceptance of
submission to Him. The expression 'La ilaha illa Allah' (There is no god
except Allah) is the foundation of the Islamic faith. It implies
simultaneously a negation and an affirmation, a rejection and an
acceptance, and kufr and iman. It signifies the negation, the rejection,
the renunciation, and the kufr in relation to the non-God, and the
affirmation, the acceptance, the submission, and the iman in relation to
God.
The essential testimony required by Islam is neither just a 'Yes' nor
merely a 'No'; it is a combination of both a 'Yes' and a 'No'. If the
needs of the growth of the human personality demand that man should
liberate himself from every kind of bondage, servitude, and
submissiveness to anything whatsoever, that he should revolt against
everything that compromises his absolute freedom, that he ought to say
'No' to everything-as the Existentialists say-what difference does it
make whether that thing is God or something else? And if it is to be
decided that man should renounce his freedom and adopt slavery,
servitude and submission to something, what difference does it make,
after all, whether it is God or something else?
Is there a difference between accepting God as the supreme ideal and
accepting some other thing as the Summum Bonum? Does it mean that only
God is such that servitude to Him is freedom in itself, and that losing
oneself in Him is identical with the realization of one's self and the
recovery of one's true identity and personality? And if this is true,
what is the basis of this claim? How can it be justified? In our
opinion, here we arrive at one of the subtlest, most profound, and
progressive teachings of Islam and one of the most glorious of human
ideas. It is here that the sublimity of the logic of Islam and the
insignificance and pettiness of other ideologies becomes evident. We
shall answer these queries in the following sections.
'The World' in the Quran and the Nahj al-balaghah:
In the last chapter we said that that which is execrable from the
viewpoint of Islam in regard to man's relation with the world is that it
should grow to the extent of becoming a malady and an affliction of the
human soul. It is the bondage and the enslaving attachment to the world
against which Islam has waged an unrelenting struggle considering it as
undesirable, not the mere relation and attachment with it. It is the
life of captivity that is condemnable, not the life of freedom.
The world is rejected as a goal and objective and not as a way or a
means. If the relation of man to the world develops into his servitude
and subjugation, it leads to the negation and obliteration of all higher
human values; man's worth lies in the greatness of his pursued ends and
objectives. Obviously, if, for instance, his ultimate objectives do not
go beyond filling his belly to satisfaction, and if all his efforts and
aspirations were to revolve around his stomach, his worth will not
surpass that of his stomach. That is why 'Ali (A) says: "The worth of a
man whose only aim is to stuff his belly is equal to that which is
excreted from it."
The question is what kind of relation is appropriate between the human
being and the world and what form should it have. In one kind of
relation, his personality is effaced and sacrificed to things, and since
the worth of anyone in pursuit of an objective is lower than the
objective itself, he is, to use a Quranic expression, bound to sink to
the level of 'the lowest of the low' (asfal al-safilin), becoming
thereby the most abject, degenerate and the most contemptible creature
in the world.
He, then, loses not only his higher values but also his human identity.
In the other kind of relation the world and worldly things are
sacrificed at the altar of his humanity and are used to serve man while
he reclaims his higher ideals. That is why it has been said in a hadith-e
qudsi: O son of Adam! I have created everything for thy sake, but I have
created thee for My Own Self. We have already cited two passages from
the Nahj al-balaghah indicating its position in denouncing the
degenerate and distorted kind of relationship between man and the world
of nature that leads to man's servitude and bondage. Here we shall quote
a few verses from the Quran to endorse this viewpoint, and return to the
Nahj al-balaghah for further relevant references.
The Quranic verses relating to man and the world are of two kinds: the
first group of verses is of an introductory nature; that is, it lays the
ground for the second group of verses. In truth, the first group can be
regarded as representing the major and the minor premises of a syllogism
of which the second group constitutes the conclusion. The first set of
verses consists of those which emphasize the changeability, the
inconstancy and the ephemeral nature of this world. In these verses the
reality of material objects is depicted as being changeable, fleeting,
and transitory. For instance, the world is compared to the vegetation
that sprouts from the ground. In the beginning it is green and
flourishing but little by little turns yellow, shrivels, and ultimately
dries up.
Then the elements break it into bits and scatter it into the wind. Such
is life in the present world. Obviously, whether man should like it or
not his physical life is not much more durable than that of the reed,
and is subject to a similar fate. If man must base his outlook on
reality and not on fancy and if it is only through the discovery of
truth and not by flight of imagination and hallucinations that he can
hope to attain felicity and true happiness, then he should not forget
this truth. This set of verses constitutes a kind of a background
argument for denying the importance of material things as ultimate
ideals worthy of man's adoration. These verses are followed immediately
by the reminder that man should know that there exists another world
which is eternal and everlasting.
Don't imagine that the present life is everything that there is; and
since it is not worthy of man, do not conclude that life is futile and
meaningless, they remind. The second set of verses illuminates the
solution to the problem of man's relation to the world. It can be
clearly seen from these verses that the execrable form of relation is
one that grows to the extent of becoming a bondage, requiring man's
submission, willing surrender and servitude to the transitory things of
the world. It is in these verses that the crux of the Quran's logic
comes to light: Wealth and sons are the adornment of the worldly life;
but the abiding things, the deeds of righteousness (which survive one's
death and continue to benefit other people), are better with God in
reward and better in hope. (18:46)
This verse, as can be seen, speaks of the ultimate aspiration of man.
His ultimate aspiration is the thing for which he lives and without
which life has no meaning in his eyes. Surely those who look not to
encounter Us and are well-pleased with the present life and are at rest
in it, and those who are heedless of Our signs, those-their refuge is
the Fire, for that they have been earning. (10:7-8) In this verse, that
which is considered execrable is the absence of hope in the next life
and the satisfaction and contentment with material things. So turn thou
from him who turns away from Our remembrance, and desires only the
present life. That is their attainment of knowledge ... (53:29-30) And
they rejoice in this world's life; and this world's life is nothing
compared with the Hereafter but a temporary enjoyment. (13:26) They know
an outward part of the present life, but of the Hereafter they are
heedless. (30:7)
There are many other verses which have a similar meaning. In all of them
the same theme recurs, that is the negation of the world as the goal and
ideal of man's highest aspirations and the ultimate object of his
desire, and the only source of his happiness and delight. It is held
that this form of relation between man and the world, instead of putting
the world at man's disposal, sacrifices man to it and dispossesses him
of his humanity. In the Nahj al-balaghah as in the Quran we encounter a
similar twofold argument. In the first set of statements the transitory
nature of the world is depicted in profound, forceful metaphors,
allegories and parables put in precise and elegant phrases which follow
one another in an absorbing rhythm. In the second category, conclusions
are drawn which are exactly the same as those derived by the Quran.
In Khutbah 32, people are at first divided into two categories: the
worldly and the otherworldly. The worldly people are again divided into
four groups. In the first group are put those who are meek and tractable
like sheep. They are the most innocuous of creatures, never seen to
commit any overt injustice or aggression, or covert deceit or
subversion. Not that they detest such things but because they lack the
power and daring to carry them out. To the second category belong those
who possess both the power and the daring to carry out such ambitions.
They muster their will to amass money and wealth, to acquire power and
authority, or to occupy important posts and offices and do not stop
short of any degree of perverseness.
Those belonging to the third group are wolves in the skins of sheep.
They are slaves of the world in the garb of the otherworldly and the
pious. They, sanctimoniously, hang their heads in affected humility,
walk with the slow steps of a sage and dress like the devout. Through
their hypocrisy they win the confidence of the people and become their
most confident trustees. To the fourth group belong those whose hearts
burn regretfully with the fire of ambition but their feeling of
inferiority has forced them to retire to seclusion. They put on the
dress of piety and zuhd in order to conceal their deep sense of
inferiority and dejection.
All the four kinds of people, regardless of the diverse degrees of their
success and failure, are regarded by 'Ali ( A) to constitute,
spiritually, a single class on account of their commonly shared
attitude: worldliness. Why? Because all of them have one common
characteristic: they are like the unfortunate birds whom the world has
made its prey one way or another. Captured, they enjoy no longer the
freedom of flight. They are slaves and prisoners of the world. In the
same sermon, 'Ali (A) describes the qualities of the other-worldly, the
opposite group, and says: Evil is the barter of those who purchase this
world at the cost of their souls. In the eyes of 'Ali (A) the whole
world with everything in it is too inferior to be the price of a man's
humanity; hence it ends in the great loss of one who exchanges it for
his human identity.
Nasir Khusrow has the same theme in mind, when he says: Never shall I
fall an easy prey to the world, For no more do its woes burden my heart.
In fact, I am the hunter and the world my prey, Though once it did
pursue me on its hunt. Though many a man has fallen pierced by its
arrows, The world could not make me a target. My soul flies over the
world's tides, And no more do I worry about its waves and tides.
This theme that one should never sacrifice one's humanity for anything
in the world is a theme that recurs a lot in the sayings of the leaders
of the Islamic faith. Amir al-Mu'minin 'Ali (A) in his famous will to
al-'Imam al-Hasan (A) which is included in the section of Kutub
(letters) in the Nahj al-balaghah, says: Keep your self above every
contemptible thing, because, whatever it should be, it is not worth the
compromise of your self. In the account of his life given in the Bihar
al-'anwar, al-'Imam Ja'far al Sadiq (A) is reported to have said: The
price of my soul is (the good-pleasure of) its Lord The whole of
creation doesn 't equal its worth. In the Tuhaf al-'uqul, the following
tradition is recorded: Al-'Imam al-Sajjad (A) was asked, 'Who is the
most important among people?'
He replied, 'The one who does not regard the whole world to be equal to
his worth.' There are many traditions which deal with a similar theme,
but we shall abstain from quoting more for the sake of brevity. A close
study of the Quran, the Nahj al-balaghah, and the sayings of other
religious leaders, will reveal that Islam has not depreciated the world;
rather it has elevated the station and worth of the human being as
compared to it. For Islam, the world is for the sake of man and not the
other way round. It aims to revive human values, not to disparage the
world.
Freedom and Bondage:
Our discussion about the meaning of 'worldliness' in the Nahj al-balaghah
has become somewhat drawn out. However, one issue, which cannot be
omitted, remains unanswered. We raised it earlier in the form of a
question which we had promised to answer later. The question was this:
If attachment and bondage to anything is a kind of unhealthy condition
that leads to abandonment of human values and cause stagnation,
inertness, and inertia of the human personality, what difference does it
make whether that thing is something material or spiritual, this worldly
or otherworldly, or, as goes the saying, 'the Lord or the apple'?
It may be said that if the aim of Islam by prohibiting attachment and
warning against bondage to temporal things is to safeguard the human
being's identity and to rescue him from servitude and to protect him
from stagnating and vegetating in life, it should have encouraged man to
acquire absolute freedom and to consider every thing that compromises
and confines it as kufr; for such is the standpoint of some modern
schools of philosophy which consider freedom to be the essence of man's
human identity. These schools of thought equate man's human identity
with his capacity to rebel and disobey every form of servitude and to
assert his absolute freedom.
Accordingly, every manner of bondage, confinement, and submission is,
according to them, inconsistent with man's real identity and leads to
self alienation. They say that man realizes his true humanity only by
refusing to submit and surrender. It is characteristic of attachment
that the object of love absorbs man's attention and compromises his
self-awareness. This results in his forgetting his own self and,
subsequently, this aware and free being called man, whose identity is
summarized in his awareness and freedom, becomes a slavish creature
devoid of freedom and self-awareness.
In forgetting his own identity, man also becomes oblivious of his human
values. In this state of bondage and servitude he ceases to progress and
edify his self and becomes stagnant and frozen at some point. If Islam's
philosophy of struggle against worldliness aims at the resurrection of
human identity and personality, it should oppose every form of servitude
and liberate man from every form of bondage.
This, however, is not the case, for Islam, undeniably, advocates
liberation from material for the sake of spiritual servitude. Freedom
from the world is acquired for the sake of the fetters of the Hereafter
and the apple is renounced for the sake of the Lord. The 'urafa' who
advise absolute freedom from attachments, however, do allow an
exception. Hafiz says:
I am the slave of the magnanimity of him Who is free of the taint of
attachment to anything under the blue sky Except the love of the
moon-cheeked one, The joy of whose love redeems all sorrows and woes.
Openly do I declare, and am delighted to proclaim, I am the slave of
Love and free from both the worlds. Except for the Beloved 's Name
inscribed on the slate of my heart, The teacher did not teach me another
word.
From the viewpoint of 'irfan, one must be free of both the worlds but
should surrender totally to love. As Hafiz says, the tablet of the heart
must be clean of every name except that of the Beloved. The heart should
be cleansed of every attachment except the love of 'the moon-cheeked
one', that is God, whose love brings redemption from all sorrows and
woes. However, from the viewpoint of the so-called humanistic philosophy
freedom of the 'arif, being only relative, does not take us anywhere,
because it is freedom from everything for total surrender and servitude
to one being, whatever that may be.
Servitude is after all servitude and bondage is bondage, regardless of
the agent towards which it is directed. This is the objection raised by
the followers of modern humanistic philosophies. In order that the
issues involved may be further illuminated, we are compelled to refer to
certain philosophical issues. First of all, one may point out that to
assume that there exists a kind of human selfhood and identity and to
insist that this identity should be safeguarded, in itself amounts to
the negation of movement, progress and development of this selfhood,
because, motion and change necessarily result in alienation from this
selfhood.
This is because movement means becoming: that is, becoming something one
is not; it implies continuous transcendence of selfhood and embracing of
otherness. Obviously, if we accept this view, it is only by the means of
immobility and stagnation that one can preserve his identity; for
development necessitates self-alienation. For this reason, some ancient
philosophers defined motion in terms of otherness and self-estrangement.
Accordingly, to assume that there exists a certain kind of human 'self'
and to insist that this self should be safeguarded and protected from
becoming 'non-self', and to speak of movement, progress, and evolution
in the same breath, involves an unresolvable contradiction Some, in
order to free themselves from this contradiction, have said that man's
identity lies in being devoid of any kind of 'self' whatsoever.
Man, they say, is a creature absolutely undefined in his essence and
free from any kind of limit, form, or essence. His essence lies in his
being without any defined essence. Man is a creature devoid of a fixed
nature and essential necessity. Any attempt to define, limit and confine
him amounts to depriving him of his real self and identity. Such a view
may be aptly considered poetry and flight of imagination rather than a
philosophy. The absolute absence of a fixed form and essence is possible
in one of the two cases: Firstly, such a being should possess infinite
perfection and pure and unlimited actuality; that is, it should be a
being unlimited and unconfined, encompassing all times and places and
predominant over all existents, such as the Being of the Creator.
For such a being, movement and growth are impossible; because motion and
development involve overcoming of defects and imperfections, whereas
such a being cannot possibly be supposed to possess any imperfection.
Secondly, it may apply to a being devoid of every kind of actuality and
merit. That is, it should be pure possibility and sheer potentiality, a
neighbour of nothingness, existing only on the remotest frontiers of
existence. It should be devoid of any innate reality and essence though
capable of assuming any form or essence Such a being, which itself
absolutely undefined, is always associated with a definite being; though
shapeless and colourless in itself, it exists in the protective shadow
of a being possessing form, shape and colour.
Such a being is what the philosophers call 'the primal matter'. It
occupies the lowest status in the hierarchy of existence and stands on
the extremity of being, even as the Divine Essence, being absolute
perfection, stands on the other extremity of existence-with the
difference that the extremity occupied by the Divine Essence
circumscribes all the contents of being. Man, like all other creatures,
is situated somewhere between these two extremes and so cannot possibly
lack any defined essence. Admittedly, he is different from other
creatures, but, unlike them, there is no limit to his movement towards
perfection. Whereas other creatures remain confined to certain definite
limits which they cannot transcend, there is no end to the possibilities
of human development.
Man possesses a special kind of being. But contrary to the view of the
philosophers who believe in the precedence of essence and reduce the
being of every thing to its quiddity, and who deny the possibility of
transcendence and essential change as being self-contradictory, and
consider all changes to occur at the level of accidents, the existential
nature of man, like that of any other material thing, is fluid, with the
difference that its movement and fluidity know no final limits. Some
commentators of the Quran, in their explanations of the verse: "O people
of Yathrib, there is no abiding here for you" (33:13), have generalized
it to cover all humanity. They hold that man is a creature which does
not move to a certain and definite stage or halt; the further he moves
the greater are the possibilities open to him.
Here we do not wish to indulge in discussing the legitimacy of imposing
such interpretations on Quranic verses; we only intend to show that
Muslim scholars have thought about man in such terms. In the hadith
about the Prophet's Ascension (al-mi'raj), Gabriel who accompanies the
Prophet (S), at a certain point, gives up his journey declaring: "I will
get burnt if I move an inch further", while the Prophet (S) leaves him
behind and moves further. This is an allusion to the truth mentioned
above. Also, as we know, there is a debate among Muslim scholars about
the salawat (Benedictions) upon the Holy Prophet (S) and the Ahl
al-Bayt, which we make as a prayer to God to shower greater blessings
upon them.
Now the debate is whether the salawat is of any benefit to the Holy
Prophet (S), who is the most perfect man. In other words, is there any
possibility of ascension in the Prophet's station? Or does the salawat
benefit only the person who pronounces it and beseeches God to bless the
Prophet (S), a favour that has already been granted? The late Sayyid
'Ali Khan opened this debate in his commentary on al-Sahifat al-kamilah.
A group of theologians believe that the Holy Prophet (S) is always
ascending and climbing higher in his station, and this movement is never
halted. Yes, such is the station of man. That which makes man such is
not the absolute absence of a defined essence but a certain kind of
essence which is ordinarily referred to as 'human nature' and other
similar expressions.
Man does not have any ultimate limits but he has a path. The Quran lays
great emphasis on what it calls the Straight Path, which is an
unambiguous path before man. Man is not constrained by stages so as to
be forced to stop at every stage in his journey. Instead there is an
orbit in which he should move. This is the orbit of human perfection
which is different from those of the animals. This means the movement in
a specified orbit, a movement which is orderly not haphazard.
The Existentialist Viewpoint:
Existentialism has been rightly criticized for its refusal to
acknowledge any kind of determination or definition of the human nature,
for its considering every determination (even in the form of path or
orbit) as contrary to his humanity, and for its emphasis on his absolute
freedom and capacity for rebellion; for this philosophy necessarily
leads to the breakdown of social morality and the negation of the
individual's commitments and responsibilities.
Does Evolution Involve Self-Alienation?
Now returning to what we said earlier, does movement and evolution
necessitate alienation from one's self? Should every being, in order to
remain itself, abstain from change and evolution? Does it mean that
either man should retain his human identity or, if he chooses an
evolutionary course, become something alien to his essence? The answer
is that the true evolution of anything is a movement towards the perfect
state which conforms to its nature.
In other words, the transformations during movement on the straight path
of nature by no means necessitate any loss of specific identity. That
which constitutes the real self of a being is its existence, not its
essence. Accordingly, any change in essence does not imply mutation of
the 'self' into a 'non-self'. Mulla Sadra, who is the champion of this
philosophy, holds that man does not have any definite essence; rather
every developing being passing through the stages of its evolution is
not a single species but a plurality of species
The relation of an imperfect being with its ultimate stage of perfection
is not a relation of otherness; rather it is a relation of the thing to
itself. It is the relation of an imperfect self to the perfect self. A
thing while evolving toward its perfect state is in movement from its
self to its self. In a sense, it can be said to be in movement from the
non-self towards its true self. A seed that breaks the ground and
sprouts leaves, and sends out branches and flowers, does not move from
the self to the non-self. If it were aware of itself and aware of its
ultimate evolution, it would not feel self alienated.
That is why the love of true perfection is the love of a higher self,
and a praiseworthy love is in itself a desirable and praiseworthy
egotism or self-love. Shaykh al-'Ishraq Shihab al-Din al-Suhrawardi has
an elegant ruba'i on this subject: Beware lest you lose the wisdom 's
thread, And lose your self for the sake of water and bread. You are the
traveller, the way, the destination, Beware lest you lose the path from
the self to the self.
On the basis of what has been said it can be surmised that there is a
great difference between desiring God, the movement towards God, the
love of God, the attachment and the servitude to God and submission to
Him, and the love, the submission, and the servitude to other things.
The servitude to God is freedom itself. It is the only relation and tie
which does not stagnate the human personality or make it inert and
immobile. It is the only kind of worship which does not imply
self-forgetfulness and self-alienation. Why? Because He is the Absolute
Perfection and the Ultimate Goal and the Destination of all existents:
'And unto thy Lord will be the end of all things' (53:42). Now we have
reached a point from where we can proceed to explain the position of the
Quran that forgetting God is forgetting one's own self and the
separation from God is absolute annihilation
Forgetting and Losing the Self:
I remember that about eighteen years ago while discussing the exegesis
of certain verses of the Holy Quran in a private gathering, for the
first time the point struck me that the Quran very often employs typical
expressions about a certain group of human beings, such as those who
'lose', 'forget', or 'sell' their selves. For instance, it says: They
have indeed lost their selves, and that which they were forging has gone
astray from them. (7:53) Say: 'Surely the losers are they who lose their
selves and their families on the Day of Resurrection' (39:15) Be not as
those who forgot God, and so He caused them to forget their selves;
those-they are the ungodly. (59:19)
The question might occur to a mind with a philosophic bent. Is it
possible for a man to lose his self? The loss of anything necessitates
two things: the loser and the thing lost. Now how is it possible for a
human being to lose its self? Is it not self-contradictory?
Likewise, is it possible for a man to forget himself? A living human
being is always immersed in itself and perceives everything as something
other and additional to its own self; its attention is, before
everything else, focussed on itself. Then what is meant by forgetting
one's self? Later I realized that this matter occupies a significant
place in Islamic teachings, especially in the prayers and some
traditions as well as in the writings of Muslim 'urafa'. It shows that
often man mistakes 'non-self' as his self, regards that non-self as his
real self. Then imagining the non-self to be his self, he treats the
non-self and takes care of it as he would have treated and cared for his
true self.
The true self, as a result, falls into neglect and oblivion, and
occasionally under goes a metamorphosis. For instance, when man imagines
his body to represent his total entity, all his endeavour revolves about
his body, it means that he has forgotten his self conceiving the
non-self to be his real self. Such a man, in the words of Rumi, is like
the one who owns a piece of land somewhere; he carries building
materials and hires masons and workers to build a house for him; after
much toil, the house is made ready for living; the doors and windows are
painted, the floor is carpeted, curtains are hung and the house is
furnished beautifully in every way; however, one day when he prepares to
move into the new house, all of a sudden he realizes his mistake; to his
dismay, he notes that instead of erecting the house on his own land, he
has constructed it on a land that belongs to somebody else, while his
own plot lies abandoned elsewhere:
Don 't build your house on the land of another, Work for your own self
and toil not for the stranger. Who is the stranger except your own
earthen frame? On whose account are all your sorrows and woes? So long
as you nurse and pamper your body, The soul would not prosper, nor would
it become sturdy.
At another place Rumi says: You, who have lost your self in a losing
encounter, Distinguishing not the other from your own true self; At
every shadow you are quick to exclaim, "Ah! This is me!" By God it is
not you! Isolate yourself for a while from the crowd, And immerse
yourself to the neck in thought. Indeed you shall find that you are one
with the One, Beautiful, serene, and blessed is your self.
Amir al-Mu'minin 'Ali (A) has a saying in this regard which is as
profound as it is elegant: I wonder at the man who searches for his lost
things but doesn't care to recover his lost self. [8] Losing oneself and
forgetting oneself is not confined to man's error in recognizing his
true identity and essence-such as the ordinary man's self-identification
with the body, or the 'arif's occasional identification of himself with
his barzakhi body.
We have said in the last chapter that actually every being in the
natural course of its development moves from the self to the self; that
is, it moves from a lower, weaker self to a self which is powerful and
higher. Accordingly, the deviation of every existent from the path of
its perfection and development is deviation from the self towards the
non-self. Man, more than any other creature, being endowed with a free
will and freedom of choice, is subject to this deviation. By choosing a
deviant objective as ultimate for himself, in reality he replaces his
true self with the non-self, mistaking the non-self to be the self.
It is on this basis that the human being's total immersion in material
aspects of life has been regarded as condemnable. Therefore, the
adoption of devious goals and ends is one of the factors of
self-alienation that leads man to forget his true self and finally to
lose it. Devious goals and objectives not only result in the disease of
self loss; they lead ultimately to the metamorphosis of man's human
essence, a metamorphosis that is determined by that particular devious
goal.
A significant part of Islamic teachings is devoted to drive home the
point that on the Day of Resurrection every human being shall be raised
with the object of his love. Our traditions declare unequivocally:
Everyone, on the Day of Judgement shall be raised in the company of his
object of love, whatever that should be, even if it is a stone. [9]
With attention to the indubitable and unequivocal Islamic teaching that
on the Day of Judgement man would be raised in the form of what he
acquired in this world, it becomes clear that the reason for a person's
resurrection together with the objects of his love is that the love and
attachment for that object make it the ultimate goal of the path of his
becoming. However devious that objective may be, it causes the soul and
the inner reality of a person to transform into that object. This
subject has been given great attention by Muslim sages and philosophers,
who have made great many interesting observations in this regard. For
brevity's sake, we shall quote only one ruba'i on this topic: The seeker
of a mine of diamonds is himself a mine; The seeker of the spirit is
himself the spirit; I will divulge the secret of this matter: You are
whatever you seek, you are the object of your quest.
The Discovery of the Self and of God:
The rediscovery of the self, in addition to the above two, requires to
fulfil one more condition, and that is the realization and knowledge of
the Cause of one's creation and existence. That is, it is impossible for
man to recognize himself and know himself by viewing himself in
separation from the Cause of his creation. The real Cause of every
existent is prior to it and nearer to it than it is to itself: And We
are nearer to him than his jugular vein. (50:16) And know that God
stands between a man and his heart. (8:24)
The Muslim mystics have laid great emphasis on the point that the
knowledge of the self (ma'rifat al-nafs) and the knowledge of God
(ma'rifat Allah) are not separate from one another. To experience the
spirit, which according to the Quran is God's 'breath', is, to
experience the Divine Essence. The Muslim mystics have raised severe
objections against the statements of Muslim philosophers regarding the
problem of self-knowledge and consider them to be inadequate.
Shaykh Mahmud al-Shabistari was sent a series of versified questions by
someone from Khurasan. His poem Gulshan-e raz is the reply he gave to
the questions. In one of the questions, the enquirer asks: Who am I?
Inform me about my self. What is meant by "Journey within thy self"? The
Shaykh's reply is elaborate. There he says: Forms and spirits, from the
same light are derived, Reflected of mirror or beaming from the lamp. I'
the word is everywhere in all your speech. It refers to the soul, the
spirit. 'I' and 'You ', are greater than the body and the spirit, Which
are together parts of the self. Go then, my good man, first know well
your self, And remember: edema is different from robustness. [10] Leave
one of them to soar over the undulations of space and time, Abandon the
world to become a world in yourself.
A further elaboration of this theme will take us outside the scope of
our present discussion. To be brief, it should be said that the gnosis
of the self is inseparable from that of God. This is exactly the meaning
of the famous saying of the Prophet (S), and the same theme recurs in
the recorded statements of Imam 'Ali (A): He who knows his self knows
his Lord. In the Nahj al-balaghah it is reported that Imam 'Ali (A) was
asked by somebody: 'Have you seen your God?' Ali (A) replied: 'Would I
worship what I have not seen?' Then he elaborated his answer thus: He is
not visible to the eyes but the hearts perceive Him through (the factual
experience of) faith (iman). [11]
An interesting point that is implicit in the statements of the Quran is
that man is in possession of himself as long as he 'possesses' God. Only
through the remembrance of God does he remember his self and become
fully aware of it, and to forget God is to neglect one's own self.
Forgetting God is accompanied by self-forgetfulness: Be not as those who
forgot God, and so He caused them to forget their selves. (59:19) Rumi,
following his verses quoted above, says: Even if the body should lie
amidst fragrance and musk, On death it will petrify and give out its
stink. So scent not the body, but perfume the soul with musk, What is
that musk except the Name of the Glorious Lord ? Hafiz says: Hafiz, if
you desire presence, do not be absent from Him. If you desire His
rendezuous, abandon the world and forget it.
This shows why the remembrance of God is essential for the life of the
heart; it awakens and illumines the heart and gives peace to the soul;
it revives, purifies, refines, and humbles the human conscience and
fills it with delight. How profound and beautiful are 'Ali's words in
the Nahj al-balaghah where he says:
Certainly God Almighty has made His remembrance a means for cleaning and
polishing the hearts. It makes them hear after deafness, see after
blindness, and makes them submissive to guidance after being stubborn
and resisting. In all periods and times when there were no prophets,
there were individuals to whom He whispered through their thoughts and
spoke to them through their intellects. As a result they were
enlightened with a light awakening their hearts, their vision and their
hearing. [12]
Worship and the Rediscovery of the Self:
There is so much that can be said about worship that if we were to be
elaborate we would have to devote scores of chapters to this subject.
Here we shall make a brief reference to the value of worship in the
rediscovery of the self. As much as the bondage to material matters and
immersion in them severs man from his true self and induces
self-alienation, worship helps him in recovering his own self. Worship
awakens and arouses man from his spiritual slumber. It rescues him from
drowning in the sea of self-neglect and forgetfulness and saves his
identity from being lapsed in the world of material things. It is in the
mirror of worship and God's remembrance that man can observe himself as
he really is and become aware of his failings and faults.
It is in worship that he acquires the true perspective of being, life,
space and time, like watching a city from a high mountain, and perceives
the insignificance, pettiness and abjectness of his materialistic hopes,
desires, and ambitions. It is in worship that a yearning is awakened in
his heart to attain to the very core of being. I have always marvelled
at the following words of the famous scientist of our age, Albert
Einstein. What adds to my amazement is that he was a physicist and a
mathematician, not a psychologist, theologian or philosopher.
After dividing religion into three stages, he calls the third stage of
religious experience as the one arising from 'cosmic religious feeling.'
He describes this religious experience in these words: The individual
feels the futility of human desires and aims, and the sublimity and
marvellous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world
of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and
he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole.[13]
William James, writing about prayer, says: The impulse to pray is a
necessary consequence of the fact that whilst the innermost of the
empirical selves of a man is a self of the social sort it yet can find
its only adequate socius (its "great companion") in an ideal world. Most
men, either continually or occasionally, carry a reference to it in
their breasts. The humblest outcast on this earth can feel himself to be
real and valid by means of this higher recognition. [14] Iqbal also has
something profound to say about worship and prayer and their value for
the rediscovery of the self. He writes: Prayer as a means of spiritual
illumination is a normal vital act by which the island of our
personality suddenly discovers its situation in a larger whole of life.
[15] We conclude our discussion of this extensive subject right here.
Some Relevant Issues:
Now that our discussion about the concept of the world in the Nahj
al-balaghah is nearing its conclusion, I want to clarify some issues
with attention to the principles discussed above.
The World Versus the Hereafter
Some Islamic traditions seem to imply that there exists a kind of
conflict between the world and the Hereafter. For instance, it is stated
that they are like 'two rival wives' who can never be reconciled, or it
is said that they are like the East and the West: one cannot approach
any one of them without moving farther from the other. How should one
interpret these statements in order to reconcile them with what has been
said above?
The answer is that, firstly, as has been expressly stated in most
Islamic traditions, a reconciliation between winning the world and the
Hereafter is not only possible but is a necessity of the Islamic creed.
That which is impossible is their reconciliation as ultimate ends and
goals. The enjoyment of the good things of the world does not
necessarily require deprivation from the blessings of the next world.
That which deprives one of the rewards of the next life is a series of
mortal sins, not the enjoyment of a wholesome, comfortable life and the
availing of pure and lawful bounties provided by God. Similarly, that
which leads to deprivation in the world is not taqwa or righteous deeds
or the endeavour for the Hereafter; a number of other factors are
responsible for it.
Many prophets, Imams, and pious believers, whose virtuousness and piety
are indubitable, have been among those who benefited greatly from the
legitimate bounties of the world. Accordingly, even if it be assumed
that the religious texts do imply irreconcilability between the
enjoyment of the world and that of the Hereafter, they would not be
acceptable because of the incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.
Secondly, if we scrutinize such traditions closely, an interesting point
comes to the surface in whose light we observe no contradiction between
them and the incontrovertible principles of Islam. But before that this
point may be explained, we should examine three possible relationships
between the world and the Hereafter: The relation between enjoyment of
the good things of the world and enjoyment of the rewards of the
Hereafter. The relation between the world as the ultimate goal and the
Hereafter as such.
The relation between adoption of one of these as the ultimate goal with
the enjoyment of the other. There is no conflict whatsoever involved in
the first case. Accordingly a reconciliation between the two is quite
possible. The second case, however, involves a contradiction; for there
is no possibility of reconciling these two opposite goals. As to the
third, it involves in turn two cases: first, the adoption of the world
as the ultimate end and the enjoyment of the Hereafter; second, the
adoption of the Hereafter as the ultimate goal and the enjoyment of the
world. The first case involves a contradiction, whereas the second
doesn't.
The Primary and the Secondary:
The conflict between the adoption of either the world or the Hereafter
as ultimate ends and the enjoyment of the other is the kind that exists
between a perfect and an imperfect end. If the imperfect is made the
ultimate goal, the perfect is necessarily missed; whereas if the perfect
were one's end and goal, it would not necessarily preclude the
imperfect. The same is true of anything primary in relation to its
secondaries.
If something secondary were made the aim, it would result in deprivation
from the primary. But if the primary is made the aim and goal, the
secondary, being a corollary of the primary, is automatically included.
This is most eloquently explained in Hikmah 269 of the Nahj al-balaghah:
There are two types of workers among the people of the world: (One type
is represented by) the man who works in this world for this world and
his involvement in the world makes him forget the Hereafter. He is
worried about those whom he shall leave behind (on death) lest poverty
should strike them as if he were himself secure of it (in the
Hereafter).
So he spends his life for the (worldly) benefit of others. The other
type of man works in the world for the sake of the Hereafter and secures
his share of the world effortlessly. Thus he derives benefit from the
both and comes to possess both the worlds. As a result he acquires
honour before God, Who grants him whatever he asks of Him. Rumi offers
an interesting allegory.
He compares the Hereafter and the world to a train of camels and the
trail of dung that it leaves behind. If one's aim were to own the train
of camels he would also have the camels' dung and wool. But if one wants
only the dung and the wool, he will never come to acquire the train of
camels and will always be collecting dung and wool of camels which
belong to others.
Hanker you after faith for its pursuit yields Beauty, wealth, honour,
and good fortune. Consider the Hereafter as a camel train; The world is
a trail of wool and dung in its rear. If you want only the wool, you
will never the camels own; Yet if you own a camel train, isn 't its wool
your own ?
That the relation of the world to the Hereafter is like that of a
secondary thing to its primary; that worldliness, being a pursuit of the
secondary, leads to deprivation from the benefits of the Hereafter; and
that other worldliness by itself ensures the benefits of the world, is a
teaching that originates in the Quran. Verses 145-148 of the Surat Al
'Imran expressly, and verses 18 and 19 of the Surat al-'Isra' together
with verse 20 of the Surat al-Shura implicitly present this view.
A Tradition
There is a well-known tradition found in the texts of hadith as well as
other books and is also mentioned in the last will of al-'Imam al-Hasan
al-Mujtaba (A). This is the text of the tradition: In regard to the
world be as if you were going to live for ever. With respect to the
Hereafter be as if you were going to die tomorrow. [16] This tradition
has been highly controversial in that it has led to contradictory
interpretations.
Some interpret it as implying that one should deal with worldly matters
with relaxed inattention and without hurry. Whenever one is faced with
an affair of worldly life, one should say to himself "There is still a
lot of time, why hurry?" But when performing good deeds for the
Hereafter, one should imagine as if he were not going to be alive after
tomorrow and say to himself: "There isn't much time left; it is already
too late."
Others with the conviction that Islam would never recommend negligence
and carelessness, which certainly has not been the practice of the
leaders of the faith, have said that what is implied is that one should
always approach the worldly affairs as if he were immortal, attend to
them with attention and care, and not perform them in a perfunctory
manner with the pretext that life is fleeting. Rather, they say, the
works of the world should be done with firmness and great foresight and
attention, as if one were going to live till the end of the world. The
rationale for this is that if one were to die, others will derive
benefit from one's works.
The affairs of the Hereafter, however, are in God's hand; so think of
them as if you were going to die tomorrow and there is not much time
left for anything . As can be noticed, the first one of these two
interpretations recommends negligence and lack of commitment towards the
affairs of the world, whereas the second one advises a similar attitude
towards the Hereafter. Obviously, none of these two interpretations can
be regarded as acceptable. In our opinion, this, one of the most subtle
of traditions, consists of an invitation to action, care, and attention
and avoidance of negligence and indifference, whether with respect to
the worldly activities or those which relate to the Hereafter.
Suppose a person living in a house knows that sooner or later he will
have to move to another house where he will stay permanently. However,
he does not know the day, the month or the year when he shall have to
make the shift. Such a man is in a state of dilemma with regard to
matters relating to his present home and his plans about his future
house. If he knows that he will move tomorrow, he would not pay any
attention to the repairs and upkeep of his present house, and attend
only to matters concerning the planned Shift. But if he knows that he
would not be shifting his residence for several years, he will act in an
opposite manner; presently he will devote all his attention to the
present house, knowing that there is much time left to deal with those
relating to his future residence.
Now this person, in a state of doubt about the exact date of the shift,
not knowing whether he will have to shift in near future or remain in
his present house for years, meets a friend who wisely advises him to
attend to the affairs of his present house as if he were to continue
living there for a long time and not to neglect its upkeep. As to the
other house, the wise friend advises him to get it ready as if he were
going to move tomorrow and have it furnished as soon as possible. This
advice will have the consequence that it will make him adopt a serious
and active attitude towards both his houses.
Suppose someone wants to start a work, like writing a book or founding
an institution or taking up a project which requires years of pursuit.
If such a person thinks that he will not live long enough to finish his
work, he might desist from starting it. That is why it is said that one
must think that he will live for long. But the same person, from the
point of view of repenting for his sins and compensating for the past
excesses with regard to religious duties or the rights of the people he
has transgressed-all of which require little time for their
accomplishment given the will to do so-may keep on postponing them every
day so that the promised tomorrow may never come.In such cases, contrary
to the first kind of attitude, to assume that one has still enough time
and there is no reason to hasten, would result in negligence and delay
in fulfilment of one's duties.
Therefore, here one should assume that there isn't much time left.
Therefore, we see that in one case to assume that one has enough time
encourages action and endeavour and the assumption that there is no time
left would lead one to abstain from action and endeavour. In the other
case, the result is quite the opposite. Here, the assumption that one
has still a lot of time leads to negligence and procastination, and the
assumption that there isn't much time left leads to quick accomplishment
of duties. In the light of this, the hadith means to say that in regard
to one kind of duties one should assume that he is going to live on and
with respect to another kind suppose that not much remains of his life.
This interpretation is not baseless. There are several traditions which
confirm the above interpretation.
The reason that this tradition gave rise to controversy is that
attention was not paid to such traditions. Safinat al-bihar, under rifq,
relates a tradition of the Holy Prophet (S) addressed to Jabir: Indeed
this (i.e. Islam) is a firm religion. So (do not make it hard on
yourself but) act in it with mildness ... Cultivate like him who thinks
he will never die and work (for the hereafter) like him who is afraid he
will die tomorrow
In volume XV of Bihar al-'anwar (the section on akhlaq, Bab 29), it is
related from al-Kafi that the Holy Prophet (S) addressed 'Ali (A),
saying: This (Islam) is a firm religion ... So work like him who hopes
to live for long and be cautious like him who is afraid that he would
die tomorrow. That is, when commencing a useful project that requires a
long time for its completion, assume that you will live long enough to
complete it. However, in regard to matters which you might postpone
thinking that you have enough time to handle them, assume that you shall
die tomorrow, so that time is not wasted and delay is avoided.
In Nahj al-balaghah, it is related from the Holy Prophet (S) that he
said: Attend to the affairs of the world; but with respect to the
Hereafter be such as if you were going to die tomorrow. In the same
book, the Prophet (S) is related as saying: Work like the man who
imagines that he will never die; and be cautious like him who knows he
is going to die tomorrow. In another tradition the Prophet (S) is
reported to have said: The mu'min is the most vexed of men, for he must
attend to the affairs of the world as well as those of the Hereafter.
In Safinat al-bihar, under nafs, a hadith of al-'Imam Musa al-Kazim (A)
is related from Tuhaf al-'uqul to the effect that: He who abandons the
world for his Hereafter or abandons his Hereafter for his world is not
from us. The above discussion on the whole confirms our interpretation
of the hadith and also shows that this approach finds recurring echo in
the teachings of the leaders of the Islamic faith.
Concluded; wal-hamdu lilla-h
Notes:
[1] This is a tradition of the Prophet (S).
[2] This is in reference to a sentence from Nahj al-balaghah, Khutab,
No. 28
[3] This is in reference to a sentence from Nahj al-balaghah, Hikam, No.
131
[4] This is in reference to a sentence from Nahj al-balaghah, Hikam, No.
131
[5] Nahj al-balaghah, Hikam, No.
[6] Ibid., Khutab, No. 223
[7] Ibid, Khutab, No. 203
[8] al Amudi, al Shurar wa al durar, vol. 4 p. 340
[9] Safinat ul Bihar, under hubb
[10] This reference to the famous words of Ibn al Arabi about one who
imagines to have known the mysteries of the self through the statement
of the philosophers.
[11] Nahj al-balaghah, Khutab, No. 179
[12] Ibid, Khutab, No. 222
[13] A. Einstein, Ideas and Opinions (London 1973) based on Mein
Weltbild; ed by Carl Seeling, p. 38
[14] Muhammad Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam,
Lahore 1971, p. 89
[15] Ibid., p. 90
[16] Wasail al Shiah, vol. 2 p. 535 (Bab No. 82, hadith No. 2) |