اندیشهفلسفهخردگفتگوحکمتمعناپرسشفرهنگ
Religion
Lecture Series on the Nahj al-Balagha by Mostafa Malekian
In his commentary on Nahj al-Balagha, Mostafa Malekian regards reflecting on the lives of others as a way of living twice; yet he warns that if this reflection is driven by material comparison or imitation, it leads to envy, deprivation, and distress.
In this term, as in the previous one, I will address topics from the Nahj al-Balagha that, despite the urgent need for them, have been consigned to oblivion. The final discussion last term was on the subject of "death."
.
.
In this term, as in the previous one, I will address topics from the Nahj al-Balagha that, despite the urgent need for them, have been consigned to oblivion. The final discussion last term was on the subject of "death."
Reflecting on the Circumstances of Others
Another of the statements of Imam Ali is that he used to say: you are in dire need of reflecting upon the circumstances of others. In a letter to his son, he says: study the circumstances of those who have passed in abundance, and always present them to yourself, and remember what befell those who came before; see what their end was. See how some companions and friends went to the land of exile and arrived at solitude.
When it is said to learn a lesson from someone, this means you share commonalities. In learning lessons, there must be an affinity between that which serves as a lesson and the one who is taking the lesson. The Imam says that if you reflect on the circumstances of others, it is as if you have lived two lives.
People of commerce have relieved you of the trouble of "seeking" and enriched you from having to experience things yourself. More importantly, sometimes those who have passed are in darkness, but this darkness becomes a source of illumination for those who come after. The Imam says:
"... You know that I have lived once, not twice. But I have reflected upon their affairs, and I have scrutinized their chronicles; I have wandered among the remnants of those who have passed, until I have become like them, as if I have lived with all of them up to this day, because of the lessons I have learned from others." There are points in this discussion that we will talk about.
Cases Where Reflecting on the Circumstances of Others is Harmful
First, we must see what kind of reflection upon the circumstances of others it is, and with what intention and purpose it should be done:
1- Reflecting with Material Aims
We reflect on the lives of others with various intentions – whether contemporaries or those who have passed. Some of these reflections are very beneficial, and some are harmful. Sometimes I look at others to see what they have, and the meaning here is not just wealth, but it could be popularity, fame, knowledge, etc. This type of reflection is harmful and has three major harms.
The first harm is that it causes one to compare one's own possessions with those of others, and the greatest source of "envy" is precisely this comparison.
Do not say, "I compare, but I try not to be envious." This is like someone saying, "I go to the bathhouse, but I try not to get 'wet'." Firstly, you will not succeed, and secondly, even if you do succeed, you have still created the preliminaries and preparations for envy within yourself. Trying to avoid laying the groundwork for envy is very important. It is possible that you may not fall into envy in one dimension, but you will fall into envy in another dimension.
The second harm of this comparison is that it compels us toward an effort that is usually accompanied by a failure to observe ethical rules. Every person has a customer, and one may, in presenting oneself, fall into lying, exaggeration, and the like, and this is a tremendous harm and also wastes our life. Because whatever we acquire is equal to a piece of our life. We give a piece of our life and buy a car, and give a piece and buy a house, and so on. This is a pity. Imam Ali says: when you give your life, what do you receive in return that is worth as much as your life? You give a piece of your life and get a car, and give a piece for...!
The third harm of looking in this way is distraction. Which is very difficult to remedy. When I see others’ houses, I feel that I am very lowly, and then I strive to acquire what others have, but I will still be distracted for two reasons: first, there are always others who have the best of what is better than what we have, and whatever another has, if it is not better than what is mine, is at any rate different from what is mine, and that alone is enough. Second, because we are “novelty-seeking,” we want more and more variety than what we have. One of the reasons they used to say to go to the marketplace less and that it is makruh (reprehensible) is this very thing. In the marketplace you see more varied goods. This distraction is very harmful to the soul’s wayfaring.
2-Looking in order to imitate others
Another kind of looking, which is also harmful, is to see what others do so that we may “imitate” them. That is, we look at the actions of others to see what they are seeking, so that we too may seek it. In this kind of looking, we do not pay attention to the fact that the initial endowments of us human beings differ. Because our powers are different, for that very reason we cannot all act in the same way. With different endowments, different things can be done. But we do not pay attention to these differences. It is for this reason that in imitation we suffer deprivation. I will address this in the next session.
.
.
We said that the Imam instructs us to look into the circumstances of others and take a lesson. But sometimes we look and only gaze upon material things. This material gaze has harms, which have been stated. Sometimes we look to see what goals others are pursuing, which results in imitating others. This too is not desirable. Because we run after something we will never attain, since our talents are not the same.
Comparing oneself with others
We should never compare ourselves with others and must tell ourselves that I must make the fullest use of God’s gifts. I must seek profit from all my endowment. But where I must reach and whom I must become like, and so on, is not clear. Yet we do not do this and act according to the demands of the atmosphere and the opinions of others, and this causes that others have worked according to their own talent and interest and reached their goal, and now I, who have acted according to their talent, do not reach the very goal they reached. This is where the first deprivation that an individual imposes upon himself is “deprivation,” and this is a necessary consequence of not paying attention to one’s initial endowment.
Moreover, imitating others does not bring peace of mind either. It is like eating according to the taste of others. Inner contentment comes about when, first, I pursue what I myself wanted, not what others wanted, and second, I pursue it with regard to my initial endowment. Without these two, inner contentment does not come about. For someone who has not come to terms with himself and has no contentment with himself, the bitterness of the times becomes more bitter and the joys of life become fainter. The path to inner contentment is to come to terms with yourself and not imitate. We make mistakes in two areas: one in the area of endowment (we consider ourselves more endowed than we are), and the second in the area of goal (we find ourselves less capable of reaching goals than we are).
Dr. Viktor Frankl has a beautiful saying: do not compete with anyone in your life. Whoever competes with others will end up nowhere. If a person competes with themselves, even if they do not reach anywhere, they will at least reach somewhere. And this competition with oneself means constantly telling oneself, 'Now that I am at this stage, I must reach a higher stage and my situation must improve.' We are constantly running to get ahead of others and do not pay attention to the fact that we have been created differently, and this is undeniable. Competing with oneself leads, firstly, to 'reaching the goal and not being deprived,' and secondly, to 'gaining satisfaction.' Thirdly, 'we do not forget our individuality' and do not dissolve into others.
Encountering the Conceptual Self
Existentialists say that we encounter the 'conceptual self.' In Kierkegaard's terms, within the family we say, I am the 'child' of the family, the 'mother' of the family, etc., and I must act like children, mothers, and so on. When I am a guest, I must behave like a guest, and when I am a host, I must behave like a host. In every situation, I must attach a label to myself and behave accordingly (buyer, seller, student, child, father and mother, employee and boss, etc.). We usually consider our status and then try to act according to the instances of that concept. Have you ever seen a buyer point out the merits of a product, or a seller point out its flaws? We never say that I must be like myself; we do not understand the concept of ourselves at all. We have forgotten our individuality. We have taken on the color and scent of others. Like several types of food kept in a closed space, initially each had its own distinct color and scent, but now we perceive only an average of the food's aromas. We, too, have so often considered ourselves in relation to others that we have forgotten our own color and scent and taken on the color and scent of the whole. In the view of religions and creeds, this is the greatest metamorphosis: that a human forgets who they are and always feels like a 'member.' We are constantly changing roles. That is why the 'me at home' is very different from the 'me in society.' But the one who is authentic is exactly who they are and acts according to their own nature, never imposing a concept upon themselves. Now, some have thought that to maintain social relations, everyone must give up being themselves. In my opinion, the exact opposite is true. If each of us were ourselves, the state of society would be far better than it is.
When a person is in a society where no one is themselves, but rather considers themselves a member of society, it is not a problem if this individual wants to be themselves, as the harmony of society would be disrupted. But one cannot conclude from this that if everyone in a society were themselves, the society would fall into turmoil. If everyone were truly themselves, concerned with themselves and their own self-realization, society would not become corrupt.
The reason many people are dissatisfied with their jobs is that they have tasted according to others' palates and eaten with others' appetites, and now must spend a lifetime doing work they are unhappy with. But if in society everyone pursued work they were truly interested in, would that not be a desirable society? When individuality is lost, the metamorphosis of the human occurs, bringing these consequences: feelings of dissatisfaction, deprivation, depression, and lack of perseverance. If we decide to be ourselves, many problems will be solved[1].
Imam Ali (AS) says, even if the Arabs stand back to back against me, I will not retreat from my position. But when we see unpleasant matters, we doubt ourselves, because from the very beginning we have sought the approval of others. Yet the Imam says, from the people turning their backs on me, I understand that I am on the truth. The point here is that the Quran speaks ill of the majority of people: 'Most of them do not use reason,' 'Most of them do not act,' 'do not know,' 'Most of them are polytheists,' and so on. And these disparagements were not specific to that time but pertain to all times.
Our cardinal sin is that we have forgotten ourselves. The Quran says: "And be not like those who forgot Allah, so He made them forget themselves" (59:19). Do not be among those who forgot God, and God caused them to forget themselves. We are afflicted with this self-forgetfulness. We pray and we fast, but as Imam Sajjad (peace be upon him) put it, "O God, there are those who have embraced faith to preserve their lives." We have embraced Islam so that we are treated as Muslims. But when we have forgotten ourselves, we have also forgotten God. And when we have forgotten God, what then is the meaning of Islam? The necessary condition of Islam is not forgetting God, and we have lost this condition.
.
.
3- Looking at Others for Criticism
The next point we must mention: "Looking at others for criticism" is also harmful. We have been forbidden from prying into the affairs of others. Looking does not mean finding the weaknesses of others. Now, I do not want to look into your life and find your weakness and then exploit it, but I want to know your circumstances so that you are subjugated to me; this too is undesirable. Sometimes we pry into the lives of others to make them subservient to us. When I know when a certain person becomes happy, when sad, when angry, and to what extent threats, enticements, and so on affect them, then that person is subjugated to us. The more of a person's history is at our disposal, the more they can be under our control.
You should not depict your past for others, nor ask others to do this for you. Because you may create a change in your conduct and character. Others' knowledge of your aspirations, desires, and past prevents this change in your state. For this reason, the mystics said the seeker must be a pilgrim; if you wish to embark on a spiritual journey or repent, distance yourself from your city. Because social connections hinder these changes. Others will either resist your change or show hostility, and both of these are shattering for you.
Now, if distancing oneself from the city is not possible, another thing can be done, and that is not to reveal yourself to others[2]. Be like an iceberg, of which only one-tenth is above water and nine-tenths below. Do not transition from this matter to the discussion of "hypocrisy" (riya), because hypocrisy means presenting myself as contrary to what I truly am. Hypocrisy is among the most destructive spiritual afflictions. We are saying: be silent about your past and your future aspirations and desires. The kind of looking intended by the Imam (peace be upon him) is looking for the sake of taking a lesson. That is, we look at the actions of others and see if they are good, we do them, and if they are bad, we do not.
Imam Ali says, "How much people look, and how little they see." That is, they look and only see the action. They do not see the type of action and the type of reaction, and do not discern them. We are like a flock of birds sitting on its branches; when the hunter shoots and one of us falls to the ground, we say, "Surely they only intended to hunt that one." Then they shoot another, and it falls to the ground, and we say, "They must have only intended to shoot that one," and so on... We do not say to ourselves that this type and category of action means hunting birds, and I should not sit on the branch. That is, we do not engage in typology.
Taking a Lesson
Taking a lesson (ibrah) means considering a specific thing as an instance of a general case. When the Quran uses "fa'tabiru" (so take heed) in certain instances, it draws attention to this: see the type of action. The point here is that taking a lesson from history is meaningful only when we consider history to be governed by laws.
If we look with this perspective, it will bring us five benefits:
1) Whenever someone makes a claim, a set of circumstances arises through which its correspondence or non-correspondence with reality becomes clear. We are confronted with our own assertions. "Learn not to make claims." This claim is not only before others, but also within yourself; do not assume any merit for yourself.
Wassalam
.
.
Based on what we have said, the meaning of learning lessons is to accept that what happens is not exclusive or singular. That is, one can say that a certain type of behavior will lead to a specific reaction—regardless of who performs the act. Only in this case is learning possible. The reason there is so much emphasis on taking lessons from the experiences of others is to extract a typology of behavior from these destinies. What His Holiness has in mind is a typology of behaviors within a typology of reactions. The reason we are told to reflect upon the behavior of others is that behaviors and reactions are generalizable.
In considering the circumstances of others, two matters must be kept in mind:
1) When we see the reaction to something in an individual's life, if this reaction is undesirable, we should not rejoice. The source of rejoicing is that we seem to see ourselves as separate from them and consider ourselves exempt. Yet we are exempt neither in the realm of behavior nor in the realm of reactions.
O friend, when you pass by the corpse of an enemy... do not rejoice, for this fate shall befall you too.
2) The Imam pays attention to this point and says in his letter to Uthman ibn Hunayf: "Do not think that you are only observers. Pay attention also to the fact that you are observed as well. Just as you observe others, others observe you." The point the Imam emphasizes is to behave in such a way that you do not become a lesson for others. This is a tremendous point, and we imagine that others do not observe us, which is why we become a lesson for others. Be such that you take lessons from the behavior of others, and do not behave in a way that makes you a lesson for others. A good example of this is in repeating the mistakes of others.
The Golden Rule
Note: What is referred to in the West as the Golden Rule has a good connection to our discussion. This rule states: treat others as you would like others to treat you. We are not concerned with the debates raised on this matter; figures like Henry Sidgwick believed that this rule could govern the entirety of human life. For this reason, they considered it the only rule a person must observe in their life. Kant expressed a similar idea, saying: Act in such a way that you would wish your action to become a universal law. These two statements are very different, but they are close to each other.
The Golden Rule in Narrations
Among our Imams, Imam Ali insisted upon this rule more than anyone else.
In one place, he says: "Make yourself a scale in what is between you and the people" (addressing his son). Always make yourself a scale in your relations with others. Measure their behavior against yourself and see whether this behavior is something you should do or should not do. What is the meaning of making myself a scale? He says: "Love for others what you love for yourself, and dislike for them what you dislike for yourself."
Elsewhere he says: “لاتظلِم كما لاتُحبُّ اَن تُظلَم” — Do not oppress, just as you do not love to be oppressed. In another place he says: “اَحسِن كما تُحِبُّ ان یحسَن الیك” — Be good to others just as you love others to be good to you. Elsewhere he says: “اِستَقبِح مِن نفسِك ما تستقبِحُ مِن غیرِك” — Deem ugly for yourself what you deem ugly for others. In another place he says: “وَ اَرِض مِنَ الناس ما ترضی لهُم مِن نفسك” — Whatever you love to receive from others, bestow that upon others. Elsewhere he says: “لاتَقُل لِغَیرِكَ ما لا تُحِبُّ اَن یقال لَكَ” — Do not say to others what you do not love to be said to you, and so on.
All of this means: have the capacity to put yourself in the place of others.
It is usually difficult for a person to put themselves in another’s skin. Incidentally, this is very important for that Golden Rule. When I am a teacher, I must put myself in the skin of the student and see, if I were a student, what method and disposition I would love the teacher to adopt, and vice versa… In his letter to his son, the Imam points to several matters, three of which, in my view, form the axis of his emphasis. One of them is to put yourself in the place of others. He says that every person’s happiness depends upon this matter.
Obstacles to Putting Oneself in the Place of Others
1) Egoism
It is as though the person imagines that only they exist in the world and that the world must move in accordance with their pleasure. They do not notice that others also exist and that their behavior provokes a reaction in them. The egoistic person pays attention to the reaction of others’ behavior within themselves, but does not pay attention to the reaction of their own behavior in others; it is as if they imagine that no others exist. Kant said that our weakness as human beings is that we consider others as instruments for ourselves. It is as if others have come to be tools and means for my comfort and ease. He said we should only hold this view toward non-humans, and we must not consider others as means for ourselves, but rather must know that others are ends in themselves.
If we suffer from this view that Kant speaks of, it is because we do not regard others as human beings. We want to have the same instrumental mode of behavior with other human beings that we have with inanimate objects and animals. In a more precise expression, we are created in such a way that we love others to be in our service. (This is the very thing some of our sages, like Allameh Tabatabai, said: that the human being is a servant by nature.) Up to this point, no problem arises; rather, the problem emerges when we see that we, too, must be in the service of others. Here we make a mistake, seeing that in exchange for the service of inanimate objects and animals, we give them nothing, and we imagine that we can behave in this same way with other human beings. That is, we treat human beings with the transaction of non-humans.
In the precise expression Kant used, we say: we take both humans and non-humans into service, but unlike non-humans, in the case of humans, in exchange for taking them into service, I myself must also be their servant. That is, in the case of humans, I am both servant and served. (Mutual service) This is the first obstacle, and it is an emotional matter.
2- The Epistemic Obstacle
When a person becomes accustomed to a particular environment, they lose their knowledge of other environments. If you have been a teacher for 30 years, you can no longer feel the feeling of being a student — not that you do not want to, but you cannot. By entering a stage of life and remaining in it, the previous stage is no longer feelable or perceivable. It is for this reason that living in a palace brings with it the mentality of palace-dwelling. Because after a while, one cannot understand how other people live. This is an epistemic deficiency. In English literature, they told a wealthy student to write an essay about the life of the poor. He wrote: There was a poor family whose chauffeur was also poor, their gardener was also poor, and their cook and so on… were all poor.
One of the reasons why, in the religion of Islam, they say the wealthy should associate with the poor is so that they do not become entirely estranged from that environment. Or when they say visit the sick, it is because a person who has not been ill for some time cannot understand what a sick person is going through and develops an epistemic deficiency. Or when they say go to cemeteries, it is so that you do not forget death. Essentially, remaining in a fixed state is a good thing, but to understand the condition of the sick and so on, it is better to associate with them.
The saying that power corrupts is because, little by little, a distance grows between the powerful and the poor, and they can no longer understand their condition. Imam Ali, in various places throughout the Nahj al-Balagha, advises and recommends associating with different groups of people so that you do not fall into this epistemic deficiency. This deficiency is also an obstacle to applying that golden rule.
3- Human beings are not aware of all the reactions to their behavior
A human being is only aware of some of their actions and reactions because not all of them are conscious. This neglect of the rest of the reactions is precisely what makes me think that I am aware of them. But I pay no attention to the unconscious effects of my own actions. Most of the friendly and hostile reactions of others toward us are due to the unconscious reactions of our actions. If we ask our friends and enemies to honestly recount the reasons for their friendship and enmity toward us, they will point to things that are astonishing to us.
This third factor is a barrier that cannot be removed (unlike the previous two factors). In this respect, there is always a distance between us and others. This is why existentialists say that there is an unbridgeable distance between two human beings. I am a stranger to you, and you are a stranger to me. Because I cannot put myself in your place, I commit injustice, since I cannot exactly put myself in their place. What does it even mean to put oneself in another's place?
.
.
Instances of applying the Golden Rule
We said that according to the teachings of Imam Ali (AS), we must put ourselves in the place of others in three instances. In the language of ethics, this is called the Golden Rule. Those three instances are:
The first instance: judging others, in terms of strength and weakness, and moral behavior toward others. We usually neglect this rule; for example, sometimes when we face criticism from others, we say, "I had good intentions and I am well-wishing." In such cases of judgment, we want our good intentions to be taken into consideration, but we do not do this ourselves regarding others. We only look at the outward appearance of others and pay no attention to their inner state. We do not treat others the way we would like them to treat us. This is one of the causes of our conflicts with others. We consider our own intentions when it comes to ourselves, but when it is others' turn, we only look at their outward appearance. This is not fair. Others can also have good intentions, but the execution of their action might not be good. Because a good deed, besides good intentions, requires two other factors: one is "having sufficient and adequate information," and the second is "a conducive environment." For example, someone senses that you are thirsty and goes to get water, but goes and breaks the glass. I only see the breaking of the glass and am unaware of their intention. Just as you expect others to consider your intention when judging you, you yourself must also consider their intention when you want to judge the actions of others.
The second instance: we should keep in mind that others are like me and have strengths and weaknesses. Imam Ali says, do not burden others with what is heavy upon you.
The third point: From the Imam's words, this also comes to mind: just as you do not like others to slander you, for instance, then do not slander others. If you do not like others to lie to you, overcharge you, and so on... then do not lie or overcharge...
Two points regarding not oppressing others:
One) Among the injustices I may commit against others is not acting in accordance with the social status and dignity that society has conferred upon me, and failing to fulfill the duties pertaining to that status. Simply put, not doing my job well. This is a great injustice that, unfortunately, we neglect. Everyone is careful to see whether others are fulfilling their duties, but they do not exercise the same care regarding themselves. This is a kind of stepping out of one's own station and looking at the stations of others. Any society afflicted with this ailment will neutralize its own strengths. Instead of asking oneself what one should do, everyone concerns themselves with whether others have done their jobs well.
I am not at all in the position of a social critic, but I say that if someone steps out of their own skin and only concerns themselves with others, it is detrimental to us ourselves. The Imams, including Imam Ali, greatly emphasized this point. For example, when one of the companions had died and another companion was digging a grave for him, he had dug the wall of the grave unevenly. The Prophet himself took the pickaxe and smoothed that part. When they objected to the Prophet that this grave would soon be filled in and what need was there for its wall to be smooth, and that the unevenness of the wall did not matter, the Prophet said, "May God have mercy on the one who, when doing a task, does it with proficiency." That is, it does not matter that the grave will soon be filled; what matters is that when you do a task, you do it completely and perfectly.
Woe to the one who has only taken a magnifying glass in hand and placed only others under the magnifying glass. This is one of the injustices we commit, and we do not put ourselves in the place of others.
2- Another injustice we commit against others is that we wish to withhold their rights from them and we are stingy. In the words of Imam Ali (AS), oppression has a property whereby it first burns the root of the individual himself. Then its effects reach others. Though perhaps they may not. According to Imam Ali, justice is very easy when described, but it appears difficult in practice. Here, it seems the Imam has preempted an unspoken question, and all those who speak about justice feel that it is a repetition of platitudes. The Imam was aware of this point and said that speaking about justice is very easy, but acting upon it is very difficult. God also considers action the closest path to reaching Him.
We have two types of action:
a) Ethical action in no religion is contrary to another religion. For example, no religion considers oppression good, and so on.
b) Ritual and ceremonial action which differs from one religion to another.
In religious teachings, we prioritize ritual actions, but the Quran itself considers the means of drawing near to God to be ethical action. Ritual actions are also for the sake of ethical actions. Even regarding prayer, it says: Indeed, prayer prohibits immorality and wrongdoing. Usually, people pay attention to how their children pronounce words in prayer, but they do not pay attention to the fact that their child lies easily, cheats readily, and so on. Whereas lying causes spiritual decline, but we do not see this degree of spiritual decline in pronouncing one letter instead of another. Now, oppression is one of the most important acts contrary to ethics, which causes the spiritual and moral decline of the individual and leads to the fall of the human being.
One of the criticisms leveled against religions and denominations is that they do not state that ritual actions are for ethical actions, and are meant so that human beings behave more ethically. Without this ultimate goal, life becomes more worthless.
A final point:
If you want to apply this golden rule, you will encounter difficulties at first. That is to say, it is very hard and cannot be underestimated. But what cannot be wholly attained should not be wholly abandoned either. In the words of Imam Ali, “Truth is hard.” Do not suppose that truth is easily obtained; if you obtain it easily, then go ahead and take it. Truth has two characteristics: first, it is hard, and second, it is bitter. Yet for these reasons one must not give it up. Even those who hold a secular ethics attest to this and know that through this path they can reach abundance[3]. In my view, even if we forget the ultimate spiritual ends, it is still better for ultimate material and worldly ends to observe ethics.
.
.
The Method of Confronting the Injustice of Others
And let not the wrongdoing of one who wrongs you weigh heavily upon you, for he strives to his own detriment and your benefit, and the recompense of one who benefits you is not that you harm him. The wrongdoing of wrongdoers should not weigh heavily upon you, for whoever wrongs you does evil to himself, and the recompense of one who brings you a benefit is not that you bring him harm. This is one of the most important ethical discussions raised concerning the individual’s relationship with other human beings. The question that arises for a person in social relations is: what approach should I adopt in the face of injustice that comes to me from others?
Islam: A Religion of Justice or Love?!
Many have said that the religion of Islam is a justice-seeking religion, while Christianity and Buddhism are religions of loving-kindness, and they cite this verse: “So transgress against him with the like of what he transgressed against you, and the initiator is the more unjust.” If someone transgresses against you, transgress against him to the same extent. Of course, the initiator is the wrongdoer. Or, “Return the stone whence it came.” They have said this is Islam’s answer according to the dictates of justice-seeking. But Christianity and Buddhism are not justice-seeking religions; they are religions of loving-kindness, and for this reason they say, respond to evil with good. Contrary to what has become widespread, the religion of Islam has not said to respond to evil with evil. It is true that the religion of Islam is a justice-seeking religion, but this does not follow from Islam’s justice-seeking. In this respect, there is no difference between the religion of Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism. Islam, in this sense, is also a religion of love. To explain this, we will mention the words of Socrates:
*Anyone who does evil to you inflicts material and bodily harm upon you; therefore, this is the utmost he can do to you, meaning he only inflicts bodily harm upon you. In response, you can do one of two things: first, retaliate in kind, and second, respond to evil with good. Socrates says that if you do the first, you have inflicted a harm upon yourself that the enemy did not inflict upon you, because when you respond to evil with evil, you inflict a spiritual harm upon yourself. Spiritual harm is far worse than material harm. Socrates considers the soul to be the principle.
*When you respond to evil with evil, does that person become better or worse? By doing evil, you cannot make him better. He is not reformed by evil. When you respond to evil with evil, it is neither to your own benefit nor to his. But if you choose the second path, both purposes are achieved. First, the other party is reformed, and second, even supposing he is not reformed, at least the enemy’s harm, which was bodily harm, is halted at its material and bodily stage.
On this basis, Socrates said that people are of three kinds:
First: those who do good to their friends and evil to their enemies (the most numerous people).
Second: those who do good to good friends and evil to bad enemies (they divide friends and enemies into two categories and remain silent regarding bad friends and good enemies; in Socrates’ view, these are on the same level).
Third: those who do good to all friends and all enemies (goodness to all).
This argument of Socrates is not flawless. But in my opinion, this flaw has been resolved in the religion of Islam. Islam has commanded that you do good to everyone, but the flaw that existed in Socrates' argument has been resolved in Islam. To clarify the matter, pay attention to the story of the Imam being struck. During the time he was alive after being struck, the Imam showed the utmost kindness to Ibn Muljam, to the extent that when food was brought for the Imam, he would ask whether it had also been taken to Ibn Muljam; if the answer was negative, he would say, 'Take this food to him.' Imam Ali's counsels to his children regarding Ibn Muljam are recorded in both Shia and Sunni books. In his will, the Imam states: The matter is one of two states: either I will die from the blow, or I will remain alive. If I die, he has struck me one blow, so you strike him one blow in return; wherever this blow lands, it lands. Let it not be that the Banu Hashim attack his tribe. But if I remain alive, I will forgive him. Well, in your opinion, what difference is there between dying and remaining alive?
If the matter were one of retaliation, whether he lived or died, retaliation would be carried out. Why did the Imam make this distinction?
If the Imam had remained alive, Ibn Muljam's injustice was directed solely at the Imam himself, and the Imam does not respond to evil with evil. But when the Imam passes away, Ibn Muljam's injustice would take on a social dimension, because the Islamic community and the Imam's family would be deprived of the Imam's presence. Islam's pursuit of justice lies in this second aspect; whenever a social injustice occurs, Islam is a religion of justice-seeking. Because the right of the community is violated, Islam commands retaliation: a tooth for a tooth, a wound for a wound, and so on.
But if an injustice does not take on a social dimension, you have the right to retaliate and you have the right to forgive, and Islam also recommends that you forgive.
Imam Ali, in one place, has a valuable saying where he states that governments are of two kinds: either injustice in this government is unavoidable, or a government without injustice is also possible. If a government without injustice is unavoidable, I ask God for that; but if there must inevitably be injustice in a government, I ask God that the injustice be inflicted only upon me (an yuzlama 'alayya khāṣṣatan). It is for this reason that he would say, 'I will not rebel against this government' (because the injustice had a personal aspect). But I will not tolerate injustice against others (social injustice). The modified form of Socrates' view in the Islamic world is as follows: One who commits injustice a) either commits it only against you, in which case the ruling of Islam is forgiveness (the individual dimension), or b) commits it against others as well, and the ruling of Islam is that forgiveness belongs to others (justice-seeking lies in this social dimension). For this reason, the Imam says: Let not the injustice done to you weigh heavily upon you, for through his injustice he does two things: first, injustice to himself, and second, benefit to you; and the recompense for the benefit he brings you is not evil.
This saying of the Imam can be reduced to a dichotomy: One who does evil to you either 1) causes an emotional change in you, and you have become his enemy, or 2) causes no change in you, and you are still his friend. In the first case, why would you do evil to him? For he has brought you benefit and has performed an act to his own detriment. Both of these are to your advantage. If you are in the second state, he is your friend, so why would you do evil to him?
I must only point out one thing, and that is how the Imam says that one who has harmed you brings loss upon himself and benefit to you?
This becomes clear from other statements of the Imam. The loss that one who does evil to me brings upon himself is obvious; the Quran itself says, 'It will have [the consequence of] what it has earned, and it will bear [the consequence of] what it has acquired' (lahā mā kasabat wa 'alayhā mā iktasabat). Whatever good or evil you do, you do to yourselves. 'O you who have believed, upon you is [responsibility for] yourselves. Those who have gone astray will not harm you when you have been guided' ('alaykum anfusakum lā yaḍurrukum man ḍalla idhā ihtadaytum). Find yourselves, otherwise those who have gone astray—if you are guided—will not harm you. The person who does evil to me, in this respect, does evil to himself, because his loss goes into his own pocket. This is completely clear. But why does he say he brings you benefit? Understanding this is somewhat difficult. Here, several points are worth mentioning:
The first benefit is that it reveals your loneliness to you. Understanding that we are very much alone is extremely important. The people who revolve around us take away the feeling of loneliness; they do not allow our actual, real loneliness to become apparent to us. I do not mean that through the benefit they bring us, they prevent us from being alone—we know that our loneliness cannot be eliminated—rather, I mean that they take away the feeling of loneliness. Otherwise, no human being can take away the feeling of loneliness from us. Every human being in the world is utterly alone. “And you have certainly come to Us alone, just as We created you the first time” (Qur’an 6:94). God says you are always alone, and We created you alone. I am alone, but I do not pay attention, and the illusion of not being alone befalls me. Pay attention: when you are in your own city, among friends and acquaintances, and a problem arises for you, you say, ‘My brother, my sister, and my relatives are here and will help me…’ All of this gives me the illusion of not being alone. But when you enter another city or another land where you are a stranger, it is there that you become aware of your loneliness.
The enmity that others show us makes us understand that we are alone, and understanding this point is one of the most fundamental inclinations toward religion, and in religion, too, good answers are given to this loneliness. When a harm befalls you, you can say, “O companion of the one who has no companion, and O intimate friend of the one who has no intimate friend.” In friendships, we gradually forget this lack of companionship and lack of an intimate friend.
.
.
Session Seven 8/ 7/ 71
The benefits that enemies provide for us are as follows:
1- Revealing Our Real Loneliness
They reveal our real loneliness to us, and awareness of this loneliness causes us to take a step toward self-improvement. Nothing is as constructive as this. Fakhr al-Din al-Razi has a precise saying: he states that if the entire Qur’an were to burn and only this verse remained—“And you have certainly come to Us alone, just as We created you the first time”—it would be sufficient for humanity. That is, not paying attention to the fact that we are alone is the mother of all troubles. Many acts of oppression, turning one’s back on laws, and deviating from rights are for the sake of helpers and supporters and to please them. If we know that we are alone, we will neither commit oppression nor deviate from the truth.
You know what the Imam said in response to his brother Aqil’s request. Aqil came to ask for a larger share from the public treasury because he was in extreme poverty. The Imam says, ‘He came to me in such a state and condition that I could not resist.’ The Imam says something to Aqil that shows he is completely aware of his own loneliness. He says, ‘How can I, relying on you—who flee from a heated piece of metal—cast myself into the fire of Hell?’
In two places, the Qur’an describes the Day of Resurrection, saying: “A Day when a man will flee from his brother, and his mother and his father, and his companion…” (Qur’an 80:34-36). On the Day of Resurrection, you will flee from your brother, sister, father, mother, and friend… because each of you will be so preoccupied that you cannot be concerned for others. Combine this statement with another statement from the Qur’an, which says: “They know what is apparent of the worldly life, but they, of the Hereafter, are heedless” (Qur’an 30:7). The Hereafter is the inner reality of this world. What is the result? The result is that even now, you are so preoccupied that you must only attend to yourself, and unfortunately, we do not pay attention to this matter. Relying on others, we do things whose consequences we cannot later accept. If we pay attention to the fact that everyone who approaches me wants to take something from me—and of course, I myself am the same—we realize that we are alone, and this becomes clearer to me in the enmity of others toward me.
Of course, let us not forget one point: we should not conclude from these words that we must not pay attention to the fate of others. On the contrary, we must look very carefully at the fate of others, in order to take a lesson. When it is incumbent upon me to attend to others, if I do not attend to them, it is due to neglect of the self. What does "neglecting the self" mean? A person who is not sensitive to the condition of others has forgotten himself. As the Prophet said, our likeness is that of the passengers on a ship: if an individual says, "I only want to make a hole in my own part," what do you say to him? By making a hole in the ship, he causes harm to the other passengers. Now, if someone does not pay attention to the condition of others, he is essentially not paying attention to himself. Self-forgetfulness means forgetting one's own true interests. We must understand well that we are truly alone; for this reason, when approaching others, look upon their circumstances and draw an analogy with the condition of others when they are approaching you. In approaching others, you seek either material benefit or spiritual benefit. Others are the same. Everyone who approaches you does so for this reason and wants to take something from you, not to give. In the words of the Quran, we are all like a piece of meat that has fallen from the sky to the bottom of a valley; in this interval as we fall from the sky to the earth, birds approach us and take pieces of us to the extent that their beaks have the power, and perhaps by the time we reach the bottom of the valley, nothing remains of us. Precisely, all of us are like this.
Ernest Hemingway, in the story "The Old Man and the Sea", describes our condition. An old man, with great effort, catches a huge fish and with immense toil ties it to his boat and heads toward the shore, but when he reaches the shore, he sees that along the way, other fish and sharks have eaten the entire fish and nothing remains. All of us human beings are in motion throughout our lives, and something is constantly being torn away from us. Everyone who approaches us wants to take something from us and carry it away. This, of course, has no ugliness to it; it is part of our nature. We have been created with self-love. The prophets are the same. They too want to attain nearness to God and to perform their duty well. Everyone thinks of themselves, but what is meant by the self is the "higher self," not the "lower self." What is ugly is to look only and exclusively at the material aspect.
Whoever thinks more of their true self knows that they must help people more. Self-forgetfulness is the worst decline that an individual can be afflicted with. We must not mistake the false self for the real self. In Rumi's beautiful expression, he says we are like someone who buys a plot of land and spends all his capital and life on developing it, and after a lifetime, when it is time to move, he is informed that the land he developed belonged to his neighbor, not to him, and his own land remains barren and useless. We too have two lands: one is the "land of the body" and the other is the "land of the soul." These two lands are so close to each other that they are mistaken for one another. We mistakenly think that our primary land is the land of our body, whereas it is not, and we spend a lifetime striving to develop it, but at the time of moving (death), we just realize we had taken the wrong land. Rumi said:
Do not build a house on the land of others / Do not do the work of a stranger, do your own work,
Who is the stranger? Your earthly body / for which you are full of sorrow
As long as you make the body greasy and sweet / you will not find the gem of the soul fattened
Therefore, what is bad is not thinking of oneself, but mistaking the self is what is bad. The prophets did not forget themselves, and whatever they did was for the fattening of their souls, and they knew that one of the best ways to fatten their souls is service to the people.
In this sense, altruism (īthār) is also a form of self-seeking (istinthār). When I materially prioritize another over myself, for example, I give away my own food and my clothes and so on... in reality, I want to elevate myself spiritually. The matter, for instance, revolves around whether I eat the food myself and descend spiritually, or give the food to a deprived person and ascend spiritually. If you choose the second path, you have still prioritized yourself over the other. At the root of every altruism (other-preference), there is self-seeking, meaning self-preference, and this in no way tarnishes the value of that other-preference. The only pitfall here is mistaking the self.
So we learned that everyone thinks of themselves, everyone pursues their own self, and whoever comes to me wants to gain some benefit—material or spiritual—for themselves, and in the midst of this, we must find the true self. One of the best ways to reach the true self and pay attention to the self is to help others. The sign that a person is thinking of their true self is that they help others. In the verses of Surah al-Insan, which are about Ali (AS) and his noble family, they gave away their food for three days and remained hungry, seeking neither thanks nor gratitude nor anything else; they were only thinking of nearness to God. Imam Ali also thought of himself, but of a very transcendent self.
Now, is there any being in the world who is an exception to this rule? Yes, God Himself. God is absolutely and completely Self-Sufficient, and beyond complete. When we believe in God, loneliness vanishes. It is for this reason that Imam Sajjad constantly said, "O companion of the one who has no companion, and O intimate friend of the one who has no intimate friend." Meaning, when we are alone, You are my intimate friend and companion.
A point: While we are existentially alone, we must behave with others in such a way that they understand that, insofar as one human being can rely on another human being, they can rely on us. While there is no doubt that ultimately our windows are closed to one another, they are not closed toward God. This behavior is very important: to convey to others that "insofar as one human being can rely on another human being, you can rely on me." This is greatly emphasized in Islamic and Christian ethics. The fact that Imam Ali, when he helped, did not identify himself was not only to avoid fame, but there was another point here: if the recipient realized it was Ali, they would say to themselves, "Ali might have many preoccupations and may no longer be able to help me." But when he introduced himself as a servant of God, the recipient became more hopeful of his future help. Ali (AS) removed this distance and made others more hopeful.
In Christian ethics, it is also heavily emphasized that when you meet someone, do not tell them about your preoccupations, because the other person will say, "You, like me, have many things to do and will not have time for me, and my turn may never come." Behave with everyone as if in your life, you only have them and they only have you. In this way, they become encouraged by you.
In dealing with others, we must take them into our sanctuary so that they think we are only this intimate with them. Because this brings a sense of reassurance to that individual. This giving of moral support receives God's special favor. The fact that God says the most beloved people to Me are the most beloved among other people, means God does not forget this kindness toward others.
2- Becoming Aware of One's Own Weaknesses
The second benefit of enemies is that I become aware of my own weaknesses. We usually hear about our faults from the tongues of our enemies. This is no small service. We are usually not criticized by our friends—due to the prevalence of a spirit of flattery. Within the circle of our friends, we seem to be perfect human beings because they do not mention our flaws.
.
.
Eighth Session 15/ 10/ 71
We said that enemies bring us benefits and reveal our weaknesses to us, while our friends do not expose these weaknesses. In the circle of friends and admirers, we do not become aware of our faults. This is why the ancients said, “Throw dust in the faces of flatterers,” or “Only fools grow fat on the praise of praisers.” Flatterers truly do us an injustice. They expose us to a danger, and that is not seeing our own faults.
If, therefore, we are to bring a sound spirit and heart before God, there is nothing like self-reform, which is only achieved by removing faults, and enemies show me my faults. A French thinker said, “There is no good situation that a fool does not turn to his own detriment, and no bad situation that a sage does not bring to a favorable end,” meaning everything is in my hands.
3-Realizing the Limitations of Our Existence
The third benefit that enemies reveal to us is that they show us the limitations of our existence. That is, they show us our limitations. This is useful for stripping away our “egotism.” We humans sometimes forget that we are limited and imagine that we are dominant, triumphant, and so on. The blows of an enemy show us that we are limited and vulnerable. Our friends do not allow this dimension of our existence to become apparent and remove our illusion of self-aggrandizement.
Within ourselves, we have three types of limitations:
First) Limitation in the area of knowledge: Our unknowns are far more numerous than our knowns.
Second) Limitation in the area of power: Only God is the doer of what He wills.
Third) We cannot go beyond ourselves. We cannot become another being. We can make changes within ourselves, but we cannot transform into another being.
The enemy shows us the following limitations:
1-Limitation in the realm of theory: The enemy shows me a hostility that I do not know how to confront. That is, I become aware of my ignorance.
2-Limitation in the realm of practice: I know how to confront it, but I cannot confront it.
3-Existential limitation, which is the deepest of all. The enemy tells me that you are such that you cannot bring yourself to like me. Your existence is incompatible with my existence. We truly do not pay attention to the fact that we have an existence that cannot love certain people and also cannot hold enmity for certain others. Many times we want to fight the enemy but cannot, and for this reason we want not to hold enmity for our enemy, yet we see that we cannot bring ourselves to like our enemy.
The mystics realized this limitation very early on and tried to reduce it. That is, they wanted to attain such an expansiveness of being that even the enemy could find a place within them. Unlike us, for whom sometimes even some friends do not find a place within. In confronting the enemy, we first seek the knowledge of confrontation, and then seek the power to apply it; when we are frustrated by these two paths, we seek peace.
We must know that we lack the power to love others. This, too, is a form of incapacity for us. There are individuals who can love everyone. Why do we not envy this power? If someone says, “I disagree with what you say, but I would give my life so that you can speak your words,” if this is said from the bottom of their heart, they possess a tremendous power. The enemy, through their enmity, shows us these things.
It may be said that this view is not Islamic. But I draw your attention to the point that our Prophet is "a mercy to all the worlds." And if he is our model, does that not mean that we too, in following the Prophet, must be a mercy to all the worlds? Do not ask, then, what were the battles of early Islam? Because even as they loved them, they fought them. Unfortunately, we imagine that when we enjoin good and forbid evil to someone, it is because we do not love them. But enjoining good and forbidding evil is a sign of my deepest affection for them. The Prophet loved all human beings, but not to the same degree. The Prophet loved everyone because God loves everyone. We have also been asked to "assume the character traits of God." Just as God loves everyone, we too must strive to love everyone. In the words of Jesus, "The greatest power is the power to love."
4- The enmity of enemies embitters our lives. They make life accompanied by suffering. If we accept that sufferings polish the soul, we understand that we are served by our enemies. Suffering is beneficial, and one must learn the way to remedy that suffering. We imagine that we must avoid suffering by any means possible, oblivious to the fact that suffering burnishes the soul. In Sohrab Sepehri's beautiful expression, "The difference between a foot with a shoe and a bare foot is that the bare foot feels all the unevenness, feels the ups and downs, but it also suffers. The foot that is in a shoe does not suffer, but it is dull." Truly, those who do not suffer are dull, and those who suffer gain a kind of sagacity and sharp-wittedness. One who is in suffering learns:
1- What one is.
2- What one can be.
3- How one can reach what one can be.
How suffering helps us is a discussion that must be elaborated on another occasion. Our discussion is about the benefit that enemies bring us.
Conclusion of this discussion:
With these analyses, we understand that nothing is harmful to us, provided, of course, that I adopt the right stance. If I adopt the wrong stance, nothing will be beneficial. The thread of all things is in our hands. All that we consider harmful, such as estrangement, loneliness, suffering, obscurity, and so on, can be beneficial. It depends on my stance. Our mode of approach to issues is decisive. If I want it, everything is beneficial for me, and if I do not want it, everything is harmful. This is a matter of conscience for all of us.
And peace be upon you.
Question: Does this universal love you speak of not cause us to lack repulsion, and is that not a weakness?
Answer: The repulsion that is spoken of and recommended is outward repulsion. When it is said that Imam Ali possessed attraction and repulsion, it means that in the outward aspect of his life, he intensely attracted one group and intensely repelled another. But inwardly, he bestowed kindness upon all. In your opinion, if the Imam's repulsion toward someone caused a real harm, would the Imam (AS) truly have consented to that repulsion? Repulsion is outward repulsion, like a father who twists his child's ear or scolds him. This is the outward act, but the Imam himself would say, "I love you, but it seems you do not love yourselves."
.
.
[1] . Question: Does this not lead to a kind of unruliness?
Answer: Two points must be noted: There is an incorrect presupposition here. Many assume that if human beings are left to their own devices, they will tear each other apart, so since they are not tearing each other apart, there must be an obstacle. I am surprised by those who say that seeking God and worshipping God is in the innate nature of human beings, and at the same time say that human beings must be severely restrained. If it is the case that if you leave people to themselves, they will tear each other apart, then this is their innate state. To be so pessimistic about humanity that if we leave them alone, they will tear each other to pieces—this is a presupposition that requires much reflection. Especially considering that even those with self-serving goals pay more attention to the long term, and if long-term material goals are taken into account, that state does not necessitate such behavior.
The second point is that when we say everyone must be themselves, it means: why have you confined yourself even further within the limits of the law? That is, a prison within a prison. We say, at least roam within the bounds the law has permitted.
Question: If a student does not do their work as befits being a student, and a teacher as befits being a teacher, and so on, everything falls apart.
The Professor's Answer: That is true, but my point is not that a person should be in a situation and not act according to its requirements. That is, to use the possibilities of that situation but not submit to its limitations. "Being oneself" means that if I dislike the limitations of being a student, I should not become a student at all. You might say that if you do not become a student, you will not have social respect. If you say that, you have stepped outside of "being oneself" and acted according to the approval of others. If we were ourselves, these disorders would not arise. If I am "myself" in the true sense of the word, I will not submit to a situation I do not like. Of course, I have also not acted according to the approval of others. At the same time, I have not endured the limitations of that situation either. This is why we say that law is an evil from which there is no escape. Law is not the natural state of us humans. But there is no avoiding it. Law is a kind of necessity, and if it is a necessity, then "necessities are estimated by their extents," meaning one must suffice with the extent of that necessity. Besides the law, we are also subject to public opinion, the ruling system of society, the praise and blame of others, popularity, fame, and so on. This is what consumes us. We humans have become beings who act according to the approval of others.
[2] . Question: Sometimes we are compelled to make ourselves better known in order to have healthy relationships with others.
Answer: You should not take my words in an absolute sense. All my words apply only insofar as we should not exhibit ourselves. Wherever necessity dictates, we must make ourselves known only to that extent. But we often go beyond these limits and bounds. It is as if we always have a lust for speaking about ourselves. And we imagine that this is to our benefit. Whenever you have not said something, you can say it later, but once you have said something, you cannot take it back.
If you are familiar with Native American mysticism, such as the mysticism of Don Juan and others, you will see that this is considered one of the pillars of the spiritual path: to keep yourself as unknown to others as much as you can. However, I never emphasize it to the extent that Native American mysticism does. Those teachings go to extremes in such matters, and what I say is "sufficing to the extent of necessity." As Imam Ali said, the one who speaks more of himself sinks deeper into solitude. We imagine that the more we make ourselves known, the more we emerge from estrangement, but this is not so. The one who is more unknown is freer. And the one who is freer, their estrangement is less.
[3] . See, for example, the book Japan, written by André Ocán, translated by Soroush Habibi, Kharazmi Publications.
.
.
Commentary on the Nahj al-Balagha of Imam Ali, peace be upon him
Mostafa Malekian - Year 1371
Number of pages: 37
Download PDF file from Server One | Server Two
.
.
Related Content:
An Existential Approach to the Nahj al-Balagha Date: 1990
Commentary on the Nahj al-Balagha Date: 1992
Lessons from the Nahj al-Balagha (Supplications of the Nahj al-Balagha) Date: 1993
Spirituality in the Nahj al-Balagha Date: 2000
.
.
Discussion0 comments
No comments yet; let yours be the first voice.