اندیشهفلسفهخردگفتگوحکمتمعناپرسشفرهنگ
Religion
Lectures on the Ethical System of the Quran by Mostafa Malekian
By setting aside traditions and presuppositions, Mostafa Malekian extracts the independent ethical system of the Quran. After critiquing the works of Izutsu and Darrāz, he establishes a research method that first understands human realities from the Quran's perspective before determining values.
The lectures on the Ethical System of the Quran, taught by Mostafa Malekian, were held over six sessions in 1991. The full text is available below, and a PDF file can be downloaded at the end of the page.
.
.
Session One: The Ethical System of the Quran
The Scope of the Present Discussion
We want to see, if we had only the Quran, what ethical system would emerge from this book?
In this discussion, we will not enter into two areas:
Firstly, we will not enter into the narrations (hadith).
Secondly, we will not enter into the body of pre-Quranic knowledge concerning ethics (from the theories of the Pythagoreans on ethics, to the views of Socrates ... to the Stoics, and up to the time of the Quran).
The Reason for Not Addressing the Narrations
Why do we not enter into the narrations? For several reasons:
1. The Vast Volume of Narrations
Regarding the narrations, the volume of work is very extensive, and this is beyond my capacity in this short time. If we were to address them, we would at least have to examine the entire Bihar al-Anwar, because ethics permeates all of it.
2. The Problem of Attribution to the Infallible (AS)
There has been widespread skepticism about whether the narrations truly originated from the mouth of the Infallible. The very fact that hadith are divided into sahih (sound), muwaththaq (reliable), hasan (good), da'if (weak), and so on, means that for the vast majority of narrations, one cannot say with absolute certainty that they are the utterance of the Infallible.
Once, if I am not mistaken, I saw in the writings of the late Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr (apparently in his Iqtisaduna) — who was a top-ranking jurist and a very strong scholar of legal theory — that he stated regarding jurisprudential hadith, or all hadith (the doubt is from myself; of course, whichever he said makes no difference. If he said it about jurisprudential hadith, it applies a fortiori to other hadith), that we have only 5% of hadith that are one hundred percent reliable. This is a very shocking statistic, if it is so.
But regarding the Quran, this problem does not exist. The definitiveness of the Quran, its being of definitive issuance and definitive chain of transmission, simply cannot be compared with the narrations. Without exaggeration, if there is one book in the entire world that was written/compiled before the invention of the printing press and has certainly not been subject to distortion, it is the Quran. I do not say this because I am a Muslim. One of the English thinkers, historians, and philosophers, Mr. H.B. Acton, says, "We are more certain that what is in the Quran is exactly what came from the mouth of the Prophet of Islam than we are that Napoleon was defeated at the Battle of Waterloo." This is a very important point, and it is something everyone acknowledges: that the Quran has been very well preserved.
3. In the Utterances of the Imams (AS), the Understanding of the Addressee Was Always Considered
The third problem is that our Imams constantly considered the level of understanding and comprehension (differences in understanding and differences in disposition) of their addressees. This is why, on a single subject — even if the subject is one in a very precise sense, — we see apparently differing opinions. This, of course, is no defect; one must consider the addressee, but this makes our task difficult, and on the other hand, we do not have access to the wisdom behind these different answers because they do not live in our time.
But this problem does not exist in the Quran. In the Quran, the understanding of human beings is considered, but the general understanding of humans, not the understanding of individuals, and for this reason, we see a single opinion.
4. Considering a Broader Audience
If we turn to the narrations (hadith), what we arrive at will only be of use to Shiites. That is, the audience becomes smaller. But if we extract something from the Quran, it has an audience of one billion; however, if we mix it with narrations, our audience will be much smaller.
Introduction to Some Useful Books on Ethics in the Quran
Before entering the discussion, one point is worth mentioning: books have been written on this subject, but if we want to introduce those that, firstly, I have seen myself and, secondly, have been useful, I know of no more than two books:
1- The Semantic Structure of Ethical-Religious Concepts in the Quran
1) "The Semantic Structure of Ethical-Religious Concepts in the Quran" – Professor Izutsu – Translated by: Fereydoun Badrei
Some Shortcomings of Izutsu's Book in Relation to the Present Discussion
Be sure to look at this book. Even without regard to this lesson, the book itself is a valuable one. It is a very strong book. But for our conception, it has three weaknesses:
1- The Predominance of Semantic Analysis and the Lack of Conceptual and Applied Examination
Firstly, he has approached the matter from a "semantic" perspective, and the requirement of this perspective is that he does not delve much into the concept. In other words, the connection of these things to reality is not much addressed. They only want to find the semantic network of the words. For example, he sees with how many things and in what way "gratitude" (shukr) is connected. All of Izutsu's books are like this, and he himself says at the beginning of his books that I examine the Quran from this perspective; it has no conceptual or applied treatment.
2- The Focus of the Discussion is on Comparison with the Prevalent Ethics Among the Arabs.
He has addressed ethical concepts in contrast to the prevalent ethics among the Arabs at the dawn of Islam. He wants to see what difference there is between the ethics the Quran presents and the ethics of the Arabs of that time. He limits the semantic scope to the pre-Islamic custom (Jahiliyyah). For instance, if he wants to speak about generosity or courage or..., he says let us see what difference there is between the Quran's image of generosity and the image of the pre-Islamic Arab. Generosity from the perspective of the pre-Islamic Arab and from the perspective of the Quran.
Of course, this type of examination is valuable in itself, but it is not useful for our purpose. Because there were ethical concepts that were not prevalent among the pre-Islamic Arabs and exist in the Quran, but naturally, they have not received his attention.
3- The Absence of Anthropological Discussions
Thirdly: The anthropological foundations of the Quran's ethical system are absent from it, whereas they are essential.
2- Al-Mafahim al-Akhlaqiyya fi al-Quran
Al-Mafahim al-Akhlaqiyya fi al-Quran – Abdullah Draz – Translated from French to Arabic by Dr. Abd al-Sabour Shahin.
Some Shortcomings of Draz's Book in Relation to the Present Discussion
In this book, what we said about the first book is absent, but it has two other weaknesses:
Firstly, Mr. Draz does not have the meticulousness of Mr. Izutsu, even though he is a strong thinker.
Secondly, he has addressed the anthropological foundations, but sometimes these foundations are confused with ethics itself.
Preliminaries to the Discussion of the Ethical System of the Quran
In order to understand the ethical system of the Quran, we must speak about two parts:
1) Facts related to the human being
(Human Facts)
2) Values related to the human being
(Human Values)
And certainly the former takes precedence over the latter. First, one must see how the Quran fundamentally views the human being. What spiritual characteristics does it attribute to humans? What strengths and weaknesses does it ascribe? If a human is left to their own devices, toward what direction do they have a greater or lesser inclination? What is the relationship between a human and their actions? What effect does the existence of other human beings have on the individual? What effect does the human’s stance toward God have on their life in this world? By how many beings or forces is the human deceived or guided?
Then, with the Quran’s view, it says: given these characteristics, what should the human do and what should they not do? What states should they have, and what states should they not have? And so on...
If we do not pay attention to the human realities from the Quran’s perspective, it seems that some of the values mentioned in the Quran regarding humans are indefensible. Quranic ethics are defensible only when the human, as conceived by the Quran, is accepted (wholly and in part). Of course, the compatibility of these two matters is a presupposition, and beyond that, the grounding of those values upon those realities. And this grounding goes far beyond mere compatibility.
Therefore, we must first list the characteristics that the Quran has stated for the human being.
And peace be upon you.
.
.
Second Session: The Ethical System of the Quran
Presuppositions or Anthropological Views of the Quran:
We must note, of course, that not all Quranic anthropological presuppositions are necessary for this discussion. For example, what is mentioned regarding the creation of Adam, that he was created from clay and so on, has no bearing on our treatment of Quranic ethics.
First Presupposition: The Human Being Does Not Possess Sufficient and Complete Knowledge
The first point is that the Quran believes that “the human being (the human race, humankind, not the individual human) does not possess sufficient and complete knowledge.” In other words, humans themselves do not possess the knowledge necessary for managing their lives to the required extent. This is a very important view, and many ethical commands and prohibitions originate from this very point.
The Quran says: “وَمَا أُوتِيتُم مِّن الْعِلْمِ إِلاَّ قَلِيلاً” (Of knowledge, you have been given but little). This address is a general address, meaning you humans have been given but a little knowledge. There are knowledges that are necessary for managing the affairs of your life, but they have not been given to you. This will have one consequence, which is that “with this little knowledge, in many cases, we deem what is in reality good to be bad, and what is in reality bad to be good.” This is the consequence of little knowledge.
The World Remains Neglected by Us, Quantitatively and Qualitatively
When we deem good as bad, or bad as good, we have knowledge that does not correspond to reality, and this means “ignorance,” “neglect and unawareness.” Because we are faced with a vast and at the same time deep collection, but our cognition does not do justice to that vastness and depth; the world remains neglected by us, quantitatively and qualitatively. Of course, except for a few verses such as: “عَسَى أَن تَكْرَهُواْ شَيْئًا وَهُوَ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ وَعَسَى أَن تُحِبُّواْ شَيْئًا وَهُوَ شَرٌّ لَّكُمْ وَاللّهُ يَعْلَمُ وَأَنتُمْ لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ” (It may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you; and God knows, while you do not know). This is the result of the first point.
There Is Always a Gap Between Human Desires and Their Best Interests
From this very result, which is derived from that premise, another result follows: “There is always a gap between human desires and their best interests.” That is, there is always a gap between what we want and what is in reality to our detriment, or what we do not want and what is in reality to our benefit.
If you want desire to correspond with best interest, two conditions must be met (Desire = Best Interest):
1) Know good and evil precisely. (Precisely: knowledge of good and evil that corresponds to reality)
2) Be a seeker of good and an avoider of evil.
Now, if someone knows good and evil precisely, yet despite this, their desire and their best interest do not exactly coincide, this indicates that it is possible that person may be psychologically constituted in such a way that they are always a seeker of good and an avoider of evil. In this case, their knowledge is knowledge that fully corresponds to reality, yet at the same time, they have no inclination toward good, nor do they flee from evil. In such cases, the assumption is that their desire and their best interest do not correspond. So the second condition is also necessary. If these two conditions are not met, or if one of the two is not met, then desire and best interest will no longer correspond.
Note that here, "good" means "that which is truly in our best interest." And "evil" means that which is truly to our detriment. So these two conditions are necessary for the correspondence of desire and best interest. The second condition is Socrates' theory. He said that psychologically, we are so constituted that it is impossible for us to know something as good and not incline toward it, or to know something as evil and not flee from it. If Socrates is objected to, "Then what about all these people who go toward evil?" he would say that they make a mistake in the first part (the precise discernment of good and evil); what they have deemed good and gone toward is not good, and what is not evil, they have deemed evil and turned away from it.
What is the Quran's view on this matter (the second condition)?
Since the Quran did not accept the first point, it is also unclear whether the Quran's view aligns with Socrates' view on this second point — which we will address.
Now, whether the Quran accepts this second condition or not, since it does not accept the first condition, the result is that our desire does not correspond to our best interest. Many times I want something that is, in reality, undesirable; I should not want it, and sometimes I do not want something, but in reality, it is desirable.
The Effects of the Non-Correspondence of Desires and Best Interests
The fact that best interest does not correspond to desire manifests its effect in two places:
1- In the activities I undertake in daily life (through these same natural causes and means). Many times I do not go toward good and do not flee from evil, because I do not know that this is good and that is evil.
2) In the matter of supplication. I ask God for something that is not in my best interest, or I ask for the removal of something whose removal is not in my best interest.
The first and second points are very different from each other. The first point is the natural course of our life. It is a course we pursue through natural channels. But the second point is reaching out for help to supernatural forces, meaning, for example, reaching out to cling to the skirt of God Almighty. In both places, it often desires and produces many effects.
Objection to the Results of the First Presupposition: The Possibility of Imperfect Knowledge Sufficing for This-Worldly Life
An objection might be raised here that, unless we address it, we cannot proceed to the second point. It is this: we accept from the Quran that our knowledge is little, but how do you say all knowledge is necessary? This amount we have might be sufficient. What we do not have, we might not need to have. That is, we have no need for what we do not know. The Quran's statement that "We have given you but little knowledge" is harmful to us only when we are in need of more than this little, but perhaps our affairs are settled and resolved with this very little. This little is sufficient for the continuation of life.
In response, it can be said:
First Response: From the Quran's perspective, knowledge itself is the goal.
The first answer—on which I do not insist very much—is that some may believe that the Quran considers human perfection to lie in knowledge, and on this assumption, meager knowledge will certainly cause a deficiency in one's character and personality. Because human perfection lies in ever greater knowledge. In other words, if knowledge were a means to action, we might perhaps say that a little knowledge suffices for managing the affairs of our lives. (We will address this in the second answer.) But if knowledge itself becomes the goal, this can no longer be said. For a deficiency in knowledge brings about a deficiency in our personality.
Second answer: In the integrated system of existence, insufficient knowledge is of no benefit whatsoever.
If the system of existence is an interwoven—intricately entangled (Complicated)—system, where no part is unaware of another part and no part is without effect or influence on any other part, then insufficient knowledge is of no benefit whatsoever and does not even avail in the realm of action.
Consider a vast machine. If in this machine there is no component that does not affect and is not affected by the rest of the components (a very intense and emphatic mutual action and reaction among the parts), then having incomplete information about this machine disrupts the entire task I wish to accomplish with it. Because ignorance of any part causes disruption in the work I do with the other parts. That is, incomplete knowledge of this interwoven whole is incomplete knowledge of every part. Unlike a non-interwoven whole, where having incomplete knowledge of the whole is compatible with having complete knowledge of one, two, or n number of its parts. Now, as it happens, the universe is an interwoven whole.
Quranic evidence supporting the integrated nature of the system of existence
Does this matter emerge from the Quran? Yes.
1- Verses indicating Divine Wisdom
One instance of this is what, in the expression of the theologians, the Quran has said regarding "Divine Wisdom." The Quran has not used the word hikmah (wisdom), but in those verses, the very meaning intended by the philosophers and theologians by Divine Wisdom is conveyed. The Quran says, "We did not create anything in vain," "We are not players," "And We did not create the heaven and the earth and that between them in play" (Q 21:16). There is no play or sport in Our work. God's work, God's act, which is nothing other than "the entire universe" or, in more precise terms, "mā siwā Allāh" (all that is other than God).
So, the universe = God + God's act. Therefore, when He says there is no play in Our work, it means everything that has been made is necessary for the purpose that We (God) have—which we will later discuss what that purpose is. You see, when the designer of a project says: "In this design of mine, nothing is a plaything," it means that for any particle you point to, I can show that this particle is necessary for that goal; it cannot be absent. Everything I have done is in service of that goal. There is no particle whose existence or non-existence has no effect on the goal.
When God envisions a goal for the creation of the entire system of existence and then says He has not engaged in play in this work, that nothing is futile or left to itself, that He deals with everything with providential care, it means everything is in service of that goal. Its existence is necessary for the goal, and its non-existence is detrimental. The reference of this matter is to "God's Wisdom" and "God not being frivolous." God does not do a frivolous act (an act whose existence and non-existence are equal).
2- The Quran itself explicitly states that there is no member in the universe that is not in service of the whole
The Quran itself explicitly states that there is no member in the universe that is not in service of the whole, that has been created out of place. Since our discussion is directed towards ethics, we will demonstrate this in the Quran's discussion regarding human actions. This is where the Quran says, "So whoever does an atom's weight of good will see it, and whoever does an atom's weight of evil will see it" (Q 99:7-8). If someone performs a good deed the weight of a speck of dust—a mote suspended in the air—they will see it, and if they perform an evil deed the weight of a speck of dust, they will see it.
Or elsewhere, it uses the expression "mustard seed," meaning that if something, even the size of a mustard seed, exists somewhere, it is never lost. This appears in two places in the Quran; one is in the counsels of Luqman, which is a very sweet expression. He says to his son: "يَا بُنَيَّ إِنَّهَا إِن تَكُ مِثْقَالَ حَبَّةٍ مِّنْ خَرْدَلٍ فَتَكُن فِي صَخْرَةٍ أَوْ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ أَوْ فِي الْأَرْضِ يَأْتِ بِهَا اللَّهُ" (If there exists something the weight of a mustard seed, and it falls upon a rock, or is cast somewhere in the heavens or the earth: God Almighty will summon that thing; it is present before Him, for He is Latif (subtle, minute things are not hidden from His sight) and Khabir (All-Aware). This verse does not pertain to the Resurrection, nor even to human action. But the next verse does pertain to the Resurrection.
"وَنَضَعُ الْمَوَازِينَ الْقِسْطَ لِيَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ فَلَا تُظْلَمُ نَفْسٌ شَيْئًا وَإِن كَانَ مِثْقَالَ حَبَّةٍ مِّنْ خَرْدَلٍ أَتَيْنَا بِهَا وَكَفَى بِنَا حَاسِبِينَ" (We shall set up the scales of justice for the Day of Resurrection, and these scales are all scales of equity, so no soul shall be wronged in the least. If there exists something the weight of a mustard seed, We shall bring it forth. Sufficient are We as reckoners.)
What concerns us in this discussion is the deeds of human beings. The Quran wants to say that in this world, nothing is losable.
The Westerners' Expression for the Second Quranic Support
Westerners usually express this with two terms. One is that nothing in the world is lost. In an expression, everything has come to stay. Nothing has come to go. However, the fact that everything remains does not contradict the fact that everything except God Almighty is perishing. That everything remains is one statement; that everything remains in a certain world is another statement. Everything remains, but this remaining may be through a transition from one world to another. But in relation to the present world, it is perishing. The other, more common term is that "the world is not deaf and blind," meaning, in your encounter with the world, consider yourself faced with a being that is entirely All-Hearing and All-Seeing. Whatever issues from me remains; it does not depart from me.
This is only compatible with an interwoven system of the world. If it is interwoven, no part can be destroyed, for if it were destroyed, the whole would be destroyed. The whole is not lost because the part is not lost. (We will address this matter in detail.)
Let us return to the main thread of the discussion: The fact that our knowledge is scant; no one can say that our knowledge, while scant, is sufficient. No, in relation to such a whole, any scant knowledge is insufficient. (I will return to this thread.)
The Second Presupposition: The benefit and harm of a person's actions only return to themselves.
2) The second point that the Quran believes about the human being is this: "No one does a deed whose harm or benefit affects another being; all benefits and harms return to the doer themselves" – "لَها ما كَسَبَت و عَلَيها مااكتَسَبَت" or "لايَضُرُّكُم كَيْدهُم شَيئاً»
You cannot bring benefit or harm to anyone. Whatever deed you wish to do. (There are numerous verses in the Quran on this matter.)
If this is so, yet we see that through an action, we bring benefit or harm to others. When I wound someone, I have brought harm upon them. When I render a service, I have brought benefit upon them. Indeed, our lives fully demonstrate that we can bring benefit and harm to others. How does the Quran state this? It is here that the third anthropological theory of the Quran is expressed:
The Third Presupposition: From the Quran's perspective, nothing is to your benefit or harm unless it issues from you by choice.
3) "From the Quran's perspective, nothing is to your benefit or harm unless it issues from you by choice."
In other words, the conception of benefit and harm in the Quran differs greatly from the one we employ. The Quran does not consider much of what we regard as benefit or harm to be benefit or harm. Only that which results from my own voluntary act is benefit or harm. Apart from this, whatever befalls us is neither to our benefit nor to our detriment. In a sense, we must not take apparent afflictions and the absence of afflictions as the criterion for good and evil.
That which is not my voluntary act is neither good nor evil for me. Illness is neither good nor evil. Of course, these things that are not my voluntary act can acquire goodness or evilness in two other senses, both of which relate to voluntary action. In the case of illness, for example, two kinds of goodness and two kinds of evilness are conceivable, both connected to voluntary action:
a) It is possible that I have performed a voluntary act that has subjected me to this illness. Here, an evilness exists that again traces back to the voluntary act, not to the illness itself.
b) The other kind is: what reaction do I now show in the face of this illness? This voluntary reaction can be a good reaction or an evil one.
The Semantic Difference Between Good and Evil in Common Parlance and Quranic Literature
Note that when we say illness is evil, or health or wealth is good, this good and evil is in ordinary language. But here we are discussing the sense in which the Quran uses good and evil. We are fully aware that good and evil take on two meanings.
The Quran holds, firstly, that good and bad are attributes only of the voluntary, willful acts of human beings. Secondly, regarding matters that do not fall into this category, good and evil can be conceived in two other senses, both of which trace back to the good and evil of a voluntary, willful act:
1) What did you do that caused you to be afflicted with illness?
2) What is your reaction in the face of illness?
This is why the Quran says that others cannot do anything to you; whatever you do, you do to yourselves. That is, if I wound you, because a voluntary, willful act issued from me, harm and evil have befallen me, but no harm has befallen you, because it was not your voluntary act. Of course, your stance in the face of being wounded is a voluntary, willful act that can be good or evil, and its good or evil pertains to yourself. Thus, you see that the Quran does not consider the physical harm that has befallen you as harm. Certainly, a deficiency has come upon you, but this is not what the Quran meant when it said whatever you do, you do to yourselves.
Question: Does the constriction or expansion of the sphere of volition not cause evil or good? When the sphere of my volition is reduced, the possibility of performing an act beneficial to me is taken away. Does this not cause harm to me?
Professor's Answer: No, harm occurs when the ground exists but you perform a bad act; benefit is likewise.
I will say this later, in several sections following this discussion, that human perfection-seeking is not at all about reaching a specific point. Perfection-seeking is about doing what one can do, where one can do it. That is all. You say that when you constrict the scope of my volition, you prevent me from reaching a point. But, in modern terms, reaching a point is not the goal; being on the path is the goal.
A Note on the Method of Studying Certain Words in the Quran
In addition to the numerous issues that exist, such as:
1- Homonymy,
2- The difference between the meanings of Quranic words at the time of revelation and the meanings of these same words throughout the history of the Arabic language,
3- The difference between the meanings of words in the Quran and the meanings those words have in the Persian language,
4- The difference between technical terms and ordinary words,
5- The difference between meaning and aspect in the Quran, (we sometimes confuse these two)
6. The Chapter on Synonymy (sometimes we think two words are synonymous, but they are not; and of course, synonymy in the strict sense does not exist in any language, including Arabic, and including in the Quran)
7. The Chapter on Literal and Figurative Meaning, which is another barrier to understanding the Quran. (Sometimes we take everything in its literal sense),
8. The semantic evolution of words within the Quran itself (since the Quran was revealed over 23 years). For example, the words "īmān" (faith) and "islām" (submission). Setting these aside—these being barriers to understanding the Quran—another point is that sometimes the Quran uses a word in the sense understood by the people of that time, and sometimes it itself imparts a meaning to that word. These two should not be confused. It frequently happens that the Quran uses a word just as the Arabs of the early Islamic period would have understood it, and at other times it imparts its own meaning. When the Quran says: "O you who have believed (āmanū), believe (āminū)," the first "āmanū" is in the very sense that the Arabs understood. The second "āminū" is in the sense of faith that the Quran intends. When it says, "O you who have believed, believe," it means you consider faith to be the two testimonies of faith (shahādatayn); the Quran tells those who consider faith to be the shahādatayn to believe. This second faith does not mean the shahādatayn—for if it did, it would be a tautology—but rather means "prior direct engagement."
Applying the Point Made in the Present Discussion
One of the instances is in our very discussion here:
The Quran says, "No affliction befalls you except by what your own hands have earned" (وَمَا أَصَابَكُم مِّن مُّصِيبَةٍ فَبِمَا كَسَبَتْ أَيْدِيكُمْ...). What is meant by "affliction" (muṣībah) is that which the people themselves consider an affliction. The Quran's statements that not an atom's weight of good or evil exists but that you will see it, or that the benefit and harm of everything returns to you, and that you can neither harm nor benefit anyone—all of this goes back to the fact that the Quranic conception of good and evil differs from the ordinary conception. From the Quran's perspective, there is only one good and one evil, and that is the good and evil we bring upon ourselves through our own voluntary and willful actions. Good and evil exist nowhere else. Therefore, good and evil arise from within the human being. It is as if, in the real world, neither good nor evil exists. It is I who, by virtue of the dispositional stance that arises from within me, can make things good—that is, do something that benefits me—and make things evil—that is, do something that harms me. In other words, there is no natural good and evil. All goods and evils are moral goods and evils.
From the Quran's perspective, all goods and evils are moral goods and evils.
Good and evil are usually considered to be of three types:
1) Natural good and evil: earthquakes, volcanoes, illness, drought, wealth, health, etc.
2) Social good and evil: war, security
3) Moral good and evil: in religious terms, sin and reward
Regarding the second type of good and evil, there is debate as to whether social good and evil should be subsumed under moral or natural good and evil, or not. Some have said it should be subsumed under the first type, some have said under the third type, and others have said it cannot be subsumed under either and is an independent type.
Based on this division, if we say that goods and evils (in the ordinary sense) are either:
1) From the realm of voluntary, willful action: Moral
2) From any source other than voluntary, willful action: Natural
And therefore, social goods and evils are either part of the moral ones or part of the natural ones—that is, some of their instances belong to the former and some to the latter (I myself adhere to this division)—we would say that, speaking on the basis of the Quran, only moral good and evil exist. There is fundamentally no natural good and evil, nor any such thing as good and evil, for us to deem them good or evil.
Now, if we see in the Quran that in several places "wealth" is called good (khayr); for instance, "But if good fortune comes to him, he is content with it" or "and when good touches him, he is withholding"—in these instances, good is taken in its ordinary sense. However, in the Quran's view, only moral good and evil exist. That which the Quran calls "reward" (thawāb) and "sin" (dhanb). Apart from these, there is no good or evil, and these, too, are only applicable in the context of a voluntary, free act. On this basis, all evils are existential evils.
Fourth Presupposition: No transformation occurs unless that transformation has occurred within our psyche
4) "No transformation occurs unless that transformation has occurred within our psyche": "Indeed, Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves" (Quran 13:11). Here, as you know, because the exception (ḥattā) comes after a negation, it conveys exclusivity. This means the path to changing our condition is only one path, and that is changing ourselves. This, of course, states a reality and therefore contains no command or prohibition, but I emphasize this point above all else.
Elsewhere, the Quran has another expression: "and the earth, vast as it is, became narrow for you" (Quran 9:25). The earth has not changed; their own stance made the earth narrow for them.
Or it says: "And whoever turns away from My remembrance – indeed, he will have a depressed life" (Quran 20:124).
If you conduct an inductive survey throughout the entire Quran, you will see that no deed, no calamity befalls anyone unless the Quran shows its root in a voluntary, free act.
You have done something whose result is this. Even in the stories of the prophets, no hardship is depicted for a prophet unless it is shown that his own action caused that hardship. Of course, in the Quran, three types of calamity are depicted, and regarding the prophets, the strongest possibility is that it falls under the category of "trial" (one of those types), but the subtle point is that nowhere in the Quran is it shown that hardship befell any prophet except through the action of that prophet himself.
- The Quran says: If the people of the communities had believed and practiced piety, We would have opened upon them blessings from the heaven and the earth (Quran 7:96). This means, for example, rain would fall or... This is a non-voluntary, involuntary act, but it is the product of the voluntary, free acts of human beings. Whatever befalls us, whatever it may be, originates from a voluntary act.
Religious Causality
This is what, in the terminology of Western thinkers, is called "religious causality." That is, a religious person believes in a series of causalities and effects where those causal and spiritual connections are neither precise philosophical connections nor empirical causal and spiritual connections. This is not comprehensible to the ordinary mind: what connection exists between climatic changes and the voluntary acts of human beings. Only a religious person understands this causality. The verse "Indeed, Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves" says exactly this: if you want a transformation to occur in the external world, first create a desirable and corresponding transformation within yourself.
In other words, even if you fall ill, if you can conduct a psychological analysis of yourself, you will see that the illness, too, originates from a deficiency that stems from your own self. In the Quran's expression, every illness is a psychological illness. The Quran says: Whatever calamity befalls you is from your own self, and calamity means the unpleasant.
If you want to escape unpleasant things, you must create a change within yourself.
The Difference Between Good and Evil, and the Pleasant and Unpleasant, from the Quran's Perspective
Here, you must pay attention to the difference between "good and evil" and "pleasant and unpleasant." The Quran itself says that illness is not evil, but it is, of course, unpleasant. And escape from this unpleasant thing and other unpleasant things depends entirely on the voluntary, free act of the human being.
voluntary, free act of the human being.
This is the Quran's theory: every unpleasant thing, every illness (which is among the major unpleasant things in our life) is a psychological illness. (I will read its verses) And psychological illness is solely due to "sin" (a voluntary, deliberate, evil act). What is meant by psychological illness is not what a psychologist considers a mental illness, which may be involuntary (what matters in this illness is rebellion against God's commands and prohibitions). However, one must pay attention to a certain distinction.
Types of Calamities from the Quran's Perspective
The Quran itself makes this distinction and divides calamities into three types:
1) Calamities that are a requirement of worldly life.
2) Calamities that are by way of trial.
3) Calamities that are the reaction to our own voluntary, deliberate act. (Voluntary act, whether material or spiritual)
When the Quran says, "Whatever misfortune befalls you is because of what your own hands have earned," although this has an absolute sense, considering other verses of the Quran, it applies only to the third type, and calamity is not synonymous with evil; it is synonymous with the unpleasant, that which we do not like.
If this is the case, then attending to the self becomes necessary for any change in outward life. If you go beyond the Quran, this meaning is found abundantly in the narrations.
Question: Does the person himself know which wrongdoing the calamity that befell him stems from?
Professor's Answer: Yes, the Quran says the agent himself knows which wrongdoing it stems from; he fully realizes what caused it. But from the perspective of an external observer, the observer does not understand. Sometimes something would happen to a prophet, and he himself would fully understand what category it fell under, but the people would not understand that it was, for example, by way of trial.
Question: This attending to the self only removes the calamities of the third type, but not the others.
Professor's Answer: Yes, that is precisely why I said that although that verse has an absolute sense, it is restricted to the third type.
The conceptual difference between the integrity of the universe and the order of the universe
Question: What you mentioned regarding divine wisdom in justifying the interconnectedness of the system of existence, is that the same as the argument from design?
Professor's Answer: The order of the whole universe is different from the order of each individual phenomenon in the universe. Your question has two presuppositions:
1- Order means the whole's orientation toward a goal – which is one of the definitions of order – 2- The order of the whole universe is intended, not each individual phenomenon.
What we said shows that the whole is completely oriented and directed toward its ultimate end and goal. It shows nothing more than this. But in the argument from design, we ourselves posit partial goals for each individual phenomenon. We say the eye is for seeing, and because the vast majority of eyes see, this indicates order.
But we cannot determine these goals ourselves, and indeed, one of the objections that, in my view, exists to the argument from design is that in the argument from design, we want to prove something that, in a sense, the Quran itself says cannot be proven.
When the Quran itself says you do not have sufficient and complete knowledge, it means you yourselves cannot determine a goal for each individual phenomenon and then, based on that, discern whether the whole has succeeded in serving that goal and is therefore orderly. When we determine these partial goals, we face the problem of: what is the scorpion for? What are volcanoes and earthquakes for, and so on?
The a posteriori argument for order is flawed. But the reality is that we have accepted this theory as a presupposition from the Quran, but we cannot prove it a posteriori. Because a posteriori means relying solely on the human mind, and this contradicts the Quran's statement that you do not know this whole as it ought to be known. And when we know it, we cannot ascertain the goal; we cannot ascertain its being orderly.
When I accept a priori, first, that God Almighty created the soul for purpose x, and second, that He has declared He is not one to play, and that every single phenomenon in the universe is employed in the service of that purpose. If you show me something and ask what it does, and I cannot answer, I do not abandon that belief, because my reason was a priori from the start; and since this is the case, the fact that I cannot demonstrate a posteriori what the purpose of this part is will not refute my statement. But if the reasoning is a posteriori—that is, deriving the purpose of each individual phenomenon through reason + deriving that each individual phenomenon is employed in the service of that purpose through reason, or sense and experience, or both—all phenomena are orderly. In this case, if you show me something that has no purpose and I cannot answer, I must abandon my belief.
Therefore, the a posteriori argument from design is flawed, not the a priori argument. Of course, all of this is contingent upon you considering order as the orientation and attention of a whole toward its purpose.
.
.
Third Session on the Ethical System of the Quran
Regarding the pleasant and unpleasant in life, it was stated that from the Quran's perspective, two points must be noted:
Firstly, "pleasant things" and "unpleasant things" should not be taken as synonymous with "good" and "evil."
Secondly, unpleasant things arise for human beings for three reasons:
a) Tests
b) Misdeeds
c) The natural consequence of this-worldly life
Testing in Pleasant Things from the Quran's Perspective
Of course, testing is not only in unpleasant things; sometimes we are tested in pleasant things—though our focus here is on unpleasant things, or in the Quran's terms, "calamities." We are tested so that our mettle and essence may be forged and nurtured, so that my essence becomes known to myself.
Examining the Test and Its Nature According to the Quran
Numerous verses emphasize the point that calamities are sometimes for the purpose of testing:
A/ 1- "And We will surely test you with something of fear and hunger and a loss of wealth and lives and fruits, but give good tidings to the patient. Who, when disaster strikes them, say, 'Indeed we belong to Allah, and indeed to Him we will return.'" (Al-Baqarah, 155-156)
"We will certainly[1] test you. Sometimes with fear (meaning We create something frightening to see what you will do), sometimes with hunger, and sometimes by inflicting loss upon wealth or upon life (We take your child, your mother or father... from you), and sometimes We inflict loss upon fruits (We cause your work to yield no income. 'Thamarat' here means 'income.' We cause you to have no income.)
We do these things to test you.
The Quran's Lexicon in Discussing Testing
In the Arabic language generally, and in the Quranic language specifically, two words are used for testing:
1) Balā' and
2) Fitnah. But with two different considerations.
If a test is called "balā'," it is because a test is not without hardship and tribulation.
In the word itself, which is derived from the letters bā', lām, and wāw, there is a kind of hardship.
From another perspective, a trial has been called a fitnah. The word fitnah itself means "deception." When it is said that someone is a fannān fattān, it means they are a deceitful artist. In a trial, this element of deceptiveness exists, because in the matter of a trial, one side naturally draws a person toward itself. The successful subject of the trial is the one who does not incline toward that side. One side of the trial—which, as the one being tested, one should not gravitate toward—has an allure, and if this allure did not exist, the trial would not arise in the first place. A trial arises at a fork in the road where one path is very deceptive, and the successful person is the one who takes the opposite path. This exists in every trial; one is never tested by being placed at a fork in the road where one is averse to both paths.
Being at a Crossroads, the Core Element of Every Trial
In every trial, these two elements—balāʾ (affliction) and fitnah (deception)—exist, and the affliction of a trial is to some extent a consequence of the trial being a fitnah. If there were no deceptiveness on one side of the trial, there would never be any hardship in being tested. The subject of the trial sees that they are inclined toward one of the two paths, one of the two actions, but of course, performing that action is tantamount to failing the trial. And they are—naturally—averse to one of the two paths, yet victory in the trial requires stepping onto that path. Therefore, affliction does not arise merely from the imposition of hardship. Some, in their interpretations, have derived from the word balāʾ that because the Quran uses this term, it means we are necessarily tested with calamity; no, sometimes we are tested with ease. The fact that there is an element of hardship in balāʾ does not mean we are tested only with calamity. But whether you are tested with adversity or with ease, the subject of the trial undergoes a hardship. Contrary to what some have said, this state of balāʾ is never in the means and causes of the trial; balāʾ pertains to the subject of the trial, meaning that whether the means of the trial are ease or adversity, in both cases the subject of the trial falls into hardship.
Sometimes we are tested with hunger, sometimes with the fear of hunger. Being tested with hunger is specific to someone who is poor, who lacks their daily bread. But a wealthy person can also be tested with the fear of hunger, and indeed, all the wealthy are tested in this way. That is, inwardly, they fear that if they do not do a certain thing, their situation might worsen. If I do not take bribes, commit embezzlement, overcharge, and so on, my situation might worsen. This fear casts them into peril. Therefore, do not let your mind jump from "fear" to a place where, for example, a terrifying sound arises, an earthquake or explosion occurs, and so on. No. Sometimes we are tested by the taking away of the thing itself, sometimes by the fear of that thing being taken away. This is why, in this verse, fear is mentioned before everything else. You are sometimes tested with hunger itself, with the very loss of wealth and lives, with the very loss of fruits, and sometimes with the fear of hunger and so on. The precedence of fear over these things is because there is a kind of generality here. Then the Quran says, after these trials, give glad tidings to the patient! Patience at the time of trial is mentioned abundantly in the Quran. The Quran says that among human beings, those who do not suffer loss in life are those who act upon truth, act upon patience, have faith, and perform righteous deeds. Since patience is greatly emphasized, I must make a point about patience; (of course, we will address patience in detail in the ethics section of the Quran).
A Note on Patience in the Verse:
The Semantic Difference Between "Patience" (Ṣabr), Forbearance (Ḥilm), and Deliberateness (Anāh)
Definition of Forbearance (Ḥilm) and Deliberateness (Anāh)
Never confuse "صبر" (patience/steadfastness) with حلم (forbearance) and اناة (deliberateness). In the Persian language, we confuse صبر with حلم. حلم and اناة, notwithstanding the slight difference between them, share this commonality: an immediate and hasty reaction to a situation or another's action is incompatible with حلم and اناة. حلم and اناة mean a non-hasty reaction. A person who, as soon as a hurtful word is spoken to them, immediately responds with another hurtful word without weighing the other's words and intent, is not, in the technical sense, حليم (forbearing). In the Arabic language, someone who lacks حلم and اناة is called "جاهل" (ignorant). (Of course, later on, جهل came to be used in opposition to علم, meaning ignorance, but this is not the case in the original Arabic language or in the Quranic language. In Arabic, the word in opposition to علم is "غفلت" (heedlessness), meaning unawareness.)
"صبر" means "not losing sight of the goal despite all obstacles." This goal can be any goal. When an individual sets a goal for themselves, obstacles arise within them and outside them. Internal and external obstacles suggest to them to abandon their goal! If someone disregards these suggestions, they are technically called "صابر" (steadfast/patient). In this sense, a صابر is someone who does not throw down their shield in the face of any obstacle. Now, sometimes حلم itself becomes one of the instances of صبر, and it frequently happens in life that what is an instance of حلم is also an instance of صبر.
Description of the صابرين in the Quran
The Quran says: The triumphant in the trial are the صابرين, because they did not forget the goal, and the attractions of the opposing side, which served as an obstacle, did not beguile them. The Quran itself introduces the صابرين:
"Those who, when any adversity befalls them, say, 'We belong to God (إِنَّا لِلّهِ وَإِنَّـا إِلَيْهِ رَاجِعونَ) and to Him we return.' They do not forget the goal. Similar to this, regarding the calamity that befell Pharaoh's sorcerers, the Quran shows an example: When Pharaoh's sorcerers believed in Moses and Pharaoh threatened them, they said: 'قَالُوا لَا ضَيْرَ إِنَّا إِلَى رَبِّنَا مُنقَلِبُونَ'[2] (Shu'ara/ 50) 'No harm! For we are returning to our Lord.' This meaning is also abundant in the hadiths. If it is established that we return to God, none of these difficulties can hinder us... We will not turn back from our goal.
A/ 2- "وَلَنَبْلُوَنَّكُمْ حَتَّى نَعْلَمَ الْمُجَاهِدِينَ مِنكُمْ وَالصَّابِرِينَ وَنَبْلُوَ أَخْبَارَكُمْ" (Muhammad/31)
We will surely test you until We make known those among you who strive (المجاهدين), the strivers, and likewise the patient/steadfast (الصابرين). (When they strive, they attain صبر. In truth, striving becomes the cause for being صابر. Being صابر is the result of being a striver.)
This verse itself does not say whether We test you with hardship or with ease. Unlike the previous verse...
A/ 3- "وَمَا جَعَلْنَا لِبَشَرٍ مِّن قَبْلِكَ الْخُلْدَ أَفَإِن مِّتَّ فَهُمُ الْخَالِدُونَ. كُلُّ نَفْسٍ ذَائِقَةُ الْمَوْتِ وَنَبْلُوكُم بِالشَّرِّ وَالْخَيْرِ فِتْنَةً وَإِلَيْنَا تُرْجَعُونَ (Anbiya/ 35-34)
We did not ordain immortality (خلد, used in Arabic with two meanings: "eternity" and "a very long lifespan," and it can be taken in either sense) for any human being before you... If you die, will they then live forever? (This alludes to the fact that whenever the Prophet fell ill, the opponents would rejoice that the Prophet was departing.) The Quran says: Since We did not ordain immortality for any human being, you will certainly die too, but if you die, they will not remain; they too will die. Indeed, every soul shall taste death. But before death, We test you with evil and good as a trial (فتنة), and you will not die untested. In this verse, both "بلاء" (test) and "فتنة" (trial) appear. However, فتنة is used as an infinitive of emphasis, and بلاء is used as a verb.
We try you with hardships and also with comforts. But note that the goal must not be forgotten. Your return is to Us.
A/4- "إِنَّا جَعَلْنَا مَا عَلَى الْأَرْضِ زِينَةً لَّهَا لِنَبْلُوَکُمْ[3] أَيُّهُمْ أَحْسَنُ عَمَلًا" (Kahf/7)
Before this verse, the Quran says: "فَلَعَلَّكَ بَاخِعٌ نَّفْسَكَ عَلَى آثَارِهِمْ إِن لَّمْ يُؤْمِنُوا بِهَذَا الْحَدِيثِ أَسَفًا" (Kahf/6) You have surely exhausted yourself because of what We have asked of you; you are destroying yourself (bakhūʿ: destruction), constantly running after them and losing yourself so that they might believe. Because you see that they do not believe in the Quran (this discourse), you are destroying yourself out of grief, sorrow, and regret. Then He instructs the Prophet thus: it is not possible for all those exposed to your teachings to believe immediately, as you would like. No, through these very teachings of yours, We test them. And certainly, some will fail this test, and this means their lack of belief. The very delivery of your verses and teachings is a test in which some succeed and some remain unsuccessful. He says: Whatever is on the earth (this worldly life), We have adorned it for people and made it appear beautiful in their eyes. (And this provides the ground for testing, because they take pleasure in wealth, fame, power, etc.) In order to test people as to which of them is best in conduct. If these beauties did not exist, the ground for testing would not be provided.
The Quality of Action, the Criterion of Assessment According to the Quran
All commentators have rightly noted here and in similar instances that the Quran never says: 'more in deed' (aktharu ʿamalan); it says 'best in conduct' (aḥsanu ʿamalan). The quantity of work is absolutely irrelevant to human perfection; the quality of the work is what matters.
This is beneficial for those who have fallen into the trap of servile action and perhaps even recommend it to others. (Pay attention to this point.)
To indicate that We test everyone, God Almighty says after this verse: "أَمْ حَسِبْتَ أَنَّ أَصْحَابَ الْكَهْفِ وَالرَّقِيمِ كَانُوا مِنْ آيَاتِنَا عَجَبًا" (Kahf/9) Do you suppose that the Companions of the Cave and the Inscription were exceptional and wondrous cases among Our signs? No, everyone is subjected to testing.
A/5- "أَحَسِبَ النَّاسُ أَن يُتْرَكُوا أَن يَقُولُوا آمَنَّا وَهُمْ لَا يُفْتَنُونَ" (Ankabut/2)
"Do people suppose that they will be left alone just because they say, 'We believe,' and that they will not be tested?"
The difference between this verse and the previous ones is that here, testing is accompanied by a claim.
This verse draws our attention to the point that tests are of two kinds:
1) Tests without a claim
2) Tests with a claim
The majority of trials in the Quran, in terms of wording, allude to trials of the first kind. Without having laid claim to anything, you are subjected to a trial so that it may be shown to you what essence you possess, how far your soul has progressed, and to what extent it remains unperfected. Suddenly, an individual has claimed success in some direction; then, in order to make them understand that they have not made a true claim, they are tested. From an experiential standpoint, the more a person claims, the more they are subjected to trial and tribulation (in the very direction of that claim). This is not solely the experience of the religious; many anthropologists have expressed this point in their books. In whatever you claim (for instance, if you claim that wealth or fame is important to you, or...), you have placed yourself in the path of trial regarding that claim. For this reason, scholars of ethics have recommended that you not speak of your successes. For speaking of them is one thing, and trial is another. Now, those who believe in God attribute this to God, and those who do not attribute it to the system of the world: that no claim is left without a trial. (If you are not too extroverted and are given to reflection upon your own states, you will discover this through experience.) These verses we read concerning trial (the first category of calamities) are a sample of the many verses that indicate this point. But of course, the indication of these verses to this point is clearer.
The Second Category of Calamities:
Calamities that are not for trial but are the result of evil deeds.
The second category of calamities befalls us so that the result of our evil deeds may be made known to us. For what purpose? The Quran says the benefit of this matter is that it is not unlikely that you might return. Of course, it is not necessary, but the ground is prepared for return.
Verses Pertaining to the Second Category of Calamities
B/1- "As for 'Aad, they were arrogant upon the earth without right and said, 'Who is mightier than us in strength?' Did they not see that Allah who created them is mightier than them in strength? But they were wont to deny Our signs. So We sent upon them a screaming wind in days of misfortune to make them taste the punishment of disgrace in the worldly life. But the punishment of the Hereafter is more disgracing, and they will not be helped." (Fussilat/ 15-16)
But the people of 'Aad were arrogant upon the earth without right. Their arrogance took this form: they said[4] "Who is mightier than us?" Did they not know that the God who created them is mightier than them? They knew, but they walked the path of denial. We sent upon them a severe wind[5] in days of misfortune. [Why did We bring this calamity upon them?] In order to make them taste the punishment of disgrace[6]. To make them taste abasement. (Because they wanted to say they were mighty, We showed them how abased and contemptible they were, and that they could not stand against a wind.) To show that there is One mightier than them. But of course, the punishment of the Hereafter is even more degrading and disgracing than this."
This point, which was stated concerning the people of 'Aad, has also been stated[7] concerning the people of Thamud.
B/2- "And We will surely make them taste the nearer punishment, short of the greater punishment, that perhaps they might return." (As-Sajdah/ 21)
Here, the Quran states a general rule concerning all those who continually walk the path of transgression and are in a constant state of rebellion and disobedience toward God. The Quran says there are two types of punishment for the deeds of such people:
Types of Punishment According to the Quran
1) The Greater Punishment: the punishments of the Hereafter
2) The Nearer Punishment: the punishments of this world
The Quran consistently refers to the punishment of the Hereafter as the Greatest Punishment (ʿadhāb al-akbar). The Lesser Punishment (ʿadhāb al-adnā) consists of the afflictions that befall us in this very world.
"We will make them taste the Lesser Punishment before the Greater Punishment, that they might return; We make them taste it, that perhaps they might return." Nowhere in the Quran is any purpose stated for worldly punishments other than this purpose. In all worldly afflictions, the goal is "return." The Quranic evidence for this point is very abundant.
The Third Category of Afflictions:
Afflictions that are a requirement of this-worldly life.
The third category of afflictions is the result of living in this world. It is a requirement of this-worldly life. Whether one is a prophet of God, a saint, an unbeliever, and so on, one suffers these. Whoever lives in this world, just as they are subject to thousands of natural laws, is also subject to this law.
Like what? Like old age and the like.
Verses Pertaining to the Third Category of Afflictions
1- "And he to whom We grant long life, We reverse him in creation" (Yā Sīn/68)
(This verse is emphasized by exegetes more than other verses.) It has no exception. The Quran says: "We grant you life, but We deal with you in reverse.[8]" Gradually, what We give, We take back. The course of life is such that for a time God constantly gives to us: strength, power, memory, intelligence, the attention of others, and so on... but after a time, the gifts are taken back one after another. Elsewhere, the expression "the most abject stage of life" (ardhal al-ʿumur) appears:
2- "And God created you; then He causes you to die. And among you is he who is returned to the most abject stage of life, so that after having knowledge, he knows nothing. Indeed, God is All-Knowing, All-Powerful." (Al-Naḥl/70)
"God created you, then He causes you to die, and among you is he who is brought to old age, so that he forgets whatever he has learned. For God is All-Knowing and All-Powerful."[9]
According to the Quran's statement, no affliction has ever descended upon any individual or people unless its philosophy was one of these three. Of course, do not suppose that the restriction of afflictions to these three is a rational exclusivity; no, it is inductive. But the Quran, which is the basis of our work here, has, inductively, stated only these three. It has no rational exclusivity; of course, we have not yet found our way to anything besides these three. No one has mentioned anything other than these three, but if something is stated, we will not deny it.
The Epistemology of the Types of Afflictions According to the Quran
* Now, how do we know which of these three types an affliction that befalls us belongs to?
The reality is that the way to distinguish these three is very difficult. There are only circumstantial indications and signs.
Regarding the afflictions of the third category, a statistical study could show that these afflictions are of the third type, and that is: if an affliction is universal and no individual or society is exempt from it, we can say it is an affliction that is a natural requirement of this life. Of course, this statistical study has not been carried out so far, but Protestant thinkers have worked extensively in this area to understand which problems are inescapable; they want this so that religious missionaries do not make recommendations to people in these cases.
Statement of Human Characteristics According to the Quran
"Man is never weary of supplicating for good, but if evil touches him, then he is despairing and hopeless." (Fuṣṣilat/49)
Man never tires of excessiveness[10]. [In this respect, no weariness befalls man.] Man never tires of excessiveness in wealth[11], but if a loss befalls him, despair and hopelessness[12] overcome him. If an evil touches him, an intense fear seizes him, and he falls into disarray. "And when We bestow favor upon man, he turns away and distances himself; but when evil touches him, then he is full of extensive supplication" (Fussilat/51). When We bestow a blessing upon man, he turns away from Us and goes about his business[13] (he does not look back to see that it was God who gave him this blessing), but when an evil touches him, he writes a lengthy letter (broad = extensive) to Us, asking for many things. This characteristic of excessiveness is also mentioned in other verses.
More important than excessiveness is "hastiness" (being 'ajul). Why more important? Because excessiveness can be channeled in a good direction, but hastiness cannot. Excessiveness can be directed towards spiritual matters through education and training. The Quran has done this, saying: "So race to [all that is] good" (compete in good deeds[14]), apply your excessiveness there. Therefore, it is reformable and redirectable. But being hasty is justifiable neither in spiritual nor in material matters.
Being impatient (halu') and hasty ('ajul) are close to each other. Why? Sometimes you are excessive but deliberate, but sometimes you both want more (more than what you have) and want it quickly. This wanting quickly plunges man into a thousand moral perils. (In the Quranic ethics section, I will discuss the reprehensible traits that result from being hasty.)
The Quran says: "Man was created of haste. I will show you My signs, so do not impatiently urge Me" (Al-Anbiya/37).
Man was created hasty. We will show you Our signs, so do not be impatient.
Effects of Hastiness and Impatience
This hastiness causes us to suddenly expect the results of our actions (whether actions with material or spiritual goals) sooner than they should reach us. This very expectation (of an early arrival) drags us into a series of undesirable reactions. One of these reactions is that when they are told, "If you do not listen to the message of the prophets, you will be afflicted with such-and-such a calamity," they immediately say, "No, we have denied you, but we have not fallen into hardship." This itself caused them not to deeply understand the message of the prophets. There are instances in the Quran where the denier of a prophet would say: "What you say is contingent upon our denial. It has not descended upon us, and since this is so, you have made a false claim." Thus, the first effect of man's hastiness is the denial of the prophets' call.
.
.
Session Four: The Ethical System of the Quran
*Continuation of the Discussion on Anthropological Characteristics in the Quran
Man's Stance in the Face of Pleasures and Hardships
The Quran holds that man adopts a series of stances when pleasures come his way, a series of stances in the face of hardships, and a series of common stances both in times of ease and in times of hardship.
6) The specific characteristic of man in times of hardship—from the Quran's perspective—is "despair" (ya's). (We will discuss the Quran's value judgment regarding this hopelessness in the Quranic ethics section.)
7) The distinctive characteristic of human beings in times of ease is:
1) Forgetting hardships and the positions taken during times of hardship
2) Self-conceit and considering everything to be the result of one's own work and effort
3) Rebellion against God.
General characteristic during ease and hardship
8) The general characteristic of human beings during ease and hardship is:
1) Kufr (ingratitude/disbelief),
2) Thinking habitually and out of custom. That is, we only see the ordinary courses of affairs. We do not consider extraordinary courses for affairs. A kind of ordinary-mindedness, conventional-mindedness. (All these cases have been severely censured, and from an ethical perspective, our degeneration is generally due to these very characteristics).
* Examination of the characteristics of the states mentioned in the Quran:
1- "وَإِذَا مَسَّ الإِنسَانَ الضُّرُّ دَعَانَا لِجَنبِهِ أَوْ قَاعِدًا أَوْ قَآئِمًا فَلَمَّا كَشَفْنَا عَنْهُ ضُرَّهُ مَرَّ كَأَن لَّمْ يَدْعُنَا إِلَى ضُرٍّ مَّسَّهُ كَذَلِكَ زُيِّنَ لِلْمُسْرِفِينَ مَا كَانُواْ يَعْمَلُونَ" (Yunus/ 12)
"When hardship touches a human being, in whatever state he may be, lying down, on his side, or sitting, or standing—he calls upon Us intensely. But when We remove the hardship from him, he goes on his way as if he had never called upon Us concerning a hardship that touched him."
This fact that a human being calls upon God during hardship and then forgets God when the hardship is removed is referred to as "kufr" in other verses of the Quran.
This is a supplication that, due to the intensity of its consequence, is the very essence of ingratitude and kufr (this state of kufr is the same common state that also exists during ease.)
This point concerns hardship. But the point that arises during ease is the state of "forgetfulness." ??
- Even apart from the Quran's stance - it is a very degenerate and wrongful matter. One of the causes of the fruit of our spiritual degeneration is precisely this. This is why our mystical schools say: in times of ease, remember the state of hardship.
2- " وَلَئِنْ أَذَقْنَاهُ نَعْمَاء بَعْدَ ضَرَّاء مَسَّتْهُ لَيَقُولَنَّ ذَهَبَ السَّيِّئَاتُ عَنِّي إِنَّهُ لَفَرِحٌ فَخُورٌ (10) أَذَقْنَا الإِنْسَانَ مِنَّا رَحْمَةً ثُمَّ نَزَعْنَاهَا مِنْهُ إِنَّهُ لَيَئُوسٌ كَفُورٌ (9) وَلَئِنْ أَذَقْنَاهُ نَعْمَاء بَعْدَ ضَرَّاء... (Hud 10 and 9)
When We create an opening in a human being's life (the expression "adhaqna" is a subtle expression; it intends to draw attention to the point that whatever ease you are given, there is a higher ease in the treasury of Divine Mercy; do not suppose that this is all the ease there is, ask for more), We let him taste a mercy from among Our mercies, then We withdraw this ease from him, and he falls into a state of despair (ya's) and kufr.
In the withdrawal of ease, meaning hardship, God Almighty attributes two qualities to the human being when hardship approaches: despair (ya's) and kufr.
Kufr is among the common attributes in states of ease and hardship. Throughout the Quran, whenever the attribute of despair (ya's) appears, its object is "Divine Mercy." That is, the individual thinks that after hardship, no further ease will ever be attainable. He despairs of God's mercy. But if, contrary to his expectation (since he was despairing), We bring about a state of ease after hardship, if We give him a blessing after hardship, he says: "All evils have been removed from me."
The important point here is that one error is for a person to suppose that all evils have now been removed from him, and another error is to suppose that the evils have vanished of their own accord, not that God has taken them away. (He does not say, “Remove the evils from me,” but rather says, “The evils have departed from me.”) And this second error is an instance of unbelief. The first error causes a person to fall into exultation, because he thinks that this happiness will now endure and says that evils have vanished from my being. He is beguiled by this happiness and does not suppose that just as the previous state of distress has been transformed into this present happiness, the present state of happiness can also be followed by a state of distress. For this reason, “he is indeed exultant and boastful”; the state of “exultation and joy” overtakes him because he thinks that these hardships have gone for good, that their return is no longer possible. But the state of “boastfulness” that overtakes a person is because he does not see God’s hand at work. He does not know that God took this hardship away; he attributes it to himself and falls into a state of self-praise. (Self-praise is a distinctive characteristic in times of happiness.)
The Third Verse: Condemning Conventional Thinking
3- “Your Lord is He who drives for you the ship upon the sea, that you may seek of His bounty. Indeed, He is ever Merciful to you. And when distress touches you at sea, lost are those you invoke except Him. But when He delivers you to the land, you turn away. And man is ever ungrateful. Do you then feel secure that He will not cause a side of the land to swallow you, or send against you a storm of stones? Then you would not find for yourselves a guardian. Or do you feel secure that He will not return you into it another time and send against you a hurricane of the wind and drown you because of your ingratitude? Then you would not find for yourselves against Us therein an avenger.” (Al-Isra’/ 66-69)
The trajectory of this verse appears elsewhere in the Quran, but firstly it is not as striking as this verse, and secondly it does not emphasize conventional thinking. In Surah Al-‘Ankabut, verse 65, God says:
“And when they board a ship, they supplicate God, sincere to Him in religion. But when He delivers them to the land, at once they associate others with Him.” (Al-‘Ankabut/ 65)
“When you board a ship, they seek God with complete sincerity, but when We deliver them to the land, they go their own way,” as if they had not experienced that state of supplication just a short while ago. They forget the lamentation and sighs. This verse shows the state of ingratitude toward God, that we seek recourse to Him in times of distress and forget Him in times of happiness. Of course, it is the same in the life of this world. If we treat a person who was our helper in times of distress in this way, this is considered a kind of ingratitude for the blessings of this world, and this is severely condemned by the Quran.
Verses 66-69 of Surah Al-Isra’ also condemn conventional thinking:
"Your Lord is He who drives the ships for you across the seas, that you may seek of His bounty. Indeed, He is ever, to you, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful[15]. And when adversity touches you at sea, lost are those you invoke except Him. But when He delivers you to the land, you turn away. And ever is man ungrateful. (Forgetfulness after supplication is disbelief and an instance of disbelief.) Thus far, the verse conveys disbelief and forgetfulness after hardship is removed. But another characteristic these verses reveal is the trait of 'conventional thinking.' Why, when we reach land, do we feel at ease? Is the sea any different from the land? Conventional thinking tells us that danger at sea is greater than on land. We feel more at risk in a car, an airplane, and so on, than when we are on the ground. This is conventional thinking: taking as fundamental those things that habitually occur. The Quran says this is one of your afflictions. Yes, it may be statistically understood that the dangers facing a person at sea are greater than on land—and of course, this is not necessarily so; it stems from our naivety.) But even if this were the case, it is the ordinary course of life, and this should not mislead us into thinking that these are the essence of life. The Quran alludes to this point in these verses.
Can God not split open a difficulty and plunge you into it; is sinking only at sea? Can God not produce an effect contrary to the conventional? Have you become secure from this: that when you have fully reached the land[17], God might cause it to swallow you?
Are you secure from the danger of storms of land[18] raining down upon you? And then would you find for yourselves any guardian? Is this impossible? That we deem it impossible and improbable is due to its being unconventional! Are you secure (that God would again commit your affair to the very sea from which you were previously saved, and send upon you a storm that shatters ships[19], and drown you because of the disbelief you commit? The Quran indicates that the supplication which is followed by forgetfulness in times of ease is disbelief.) If I did so, none could call Me to account. You would not find for yourselves, on account of this deed, any avenger against Me.
What these verses (verses 68 and 69) emphasize is precisely what they introduce: 'Conventional thinking is one of the perils of humanity.' That is, taking ordinary occurrences as fundamental, becoming accustomed to them, and deriving a sense of security from them.
As they used to say: 'Seek fulfillment from what runs counter to habit / For I gathered composure from that disheveled lock of hair'; meaning, your habits leave you unfulfilled. This 'running counter to habit,' that is, not becoming intimate with, not finding security in, and not taking ordinary matters as fundamental, is harmful, according to the mystics, because it makes us forget God. But if we say that God Himself can bring about the opposite of these ordinary matters, then in that state, a person relies entirely upon God. When all appearances indicate that I am in hardship, I say that in an instant God can remove all of it; and when I am in a state of ease, I know that at any moment this ease may be taken back from me, and this is contrary to habit. Because appearances suggest the ease is complete. But if you become accustomed to ordinary matters, in times of hardship you do not remember God, because appearances suggest there is no possibility of relief—despair; and in times of ease, you also do not remember God, because appearances testify that this ease is unending. Self-regard (this, too, is a severance from God)
God ordinarily acts according to custom, but these customs do not bind God's hands.
But if you go out to meet what is contrary to habit, you will neither fall into despair nor into self-conceit. Of course, God ordinarily acts according to custom, but these customs do not bind God's hands.
When God says concerning the Jewish people: "And the Jews said, 'The hand of God is chained.' Chained are their hands, and they are cursed for what they said. Rather, both His hands are outstretched"[20]
It is for this very reason. If you are familiar with Jewish theology, you know that they considered God subject to the laws He Himself had established and set in motion, and they saw God's hand as if it were in chains. The Quran says, "May their own hands be chained; God's hands are entirely outstretched."
This is a point to which the mystics and some scholars of ethics (like Muhammad al-Ghazali) paid great attention: it is, in fact, also a very important theological point, and our theologians have drawn attention to it. But our mystics, such as Rumi, Ayn al-Quzat, Ahmad al-Ghazali, and others, emphasize this point ever more strongly. This not becoming accustomed to customary affairs, because it directs us to one place (God), is entirely a source of serenity. For the Quran says, "Verily, in the remembrance of God do hearts find rest." Anxiety and worry depart from the world only when we attach our hearts to a single being, and therefore, in any other state, we remain restless. And becoming accustomed to customary affairs robs us of our composure and serenity. (This discussion will come later in the section on Quranic ethics.)
4- "And when We bestow favor upon man, he turns away and distances himself; but when evil touches him, he is ever despairing." (Al-Isra/ 83)
When We bestow a blessing upon man, he turns his back and goes about his own business, and when an evil touches him, he becomes despairing.
We read this verse previously in the chapter on man being haluʿ (anxious and impatient). We have brought it up now because of the topic under discussion that day.
5- "And when affliction touches man, he calls upon his Lord, turning penitently to Him. Then, when He bestows upon him a favor from Himself, he forgets that for which he was calling upon Him before and sets up rivals to God, to lead astray from His path..." (Az-Zumar/ 8)
When a hardship befalls man, he calls upon his God, turning back to Him,[21] but when God bestows a blessing upon him, he forgets that he had previously called upon God. (He forgot what he used to call upon Him for before = he forgot his supplication from before.) He forgets his own prayer.
6- "So when affliction touches man, he calls upon Us; then, when We bestow upon him a favor from Us, he says, 'I have only been given it because of knowledge.' Rather, it is a trial, but most of them do not know." (Az-Zumar/ 49)
When a hardship befalls man, he calls upon Us, but when We bestow upon him a blessing from Ourselves, he says, "I have obtained this through my own knowledge." (A characteristic of self-conceit.) This is also mentioned regarding Qarun (Korah), who, when a believer asked him for the tithe of his wealth, said, "God gave these to me, so why should I now give a tithe of it to God?" But both of these (hardship and ease) are trials (a trial in both joy and adversity), but most people do not know.
7- "And indeed, when We let man taste mercy from Us, he rejoices in it; but if an evil befalls them because of what their hands have sent forth, then indeed, man is ungrateful." (Ash-Shura/ 48) When We let man taste a mercy from among Our mercies, a state of joy comes over him, but when a hardship befalls him—which is the result of their own deeds, and the calamities that are the result of man's own actions—a state of ingratitude comes over him.
8- "أَن رَّآهُ اسْتَغْنَى - إِنَّ إِلَى رَبِّكَ الرُّجْعَى" (Al-Alaq/ 7 and 8)
It states that when man becomes wealthy, he transgresses. This is because "ghani" means self-sufficient, and "istighna" means feeling self-sufficient or finding oneself without need. From the Quran's perspective, no human being is an instance of "ghani"; the sole instance of "ghani" is God. When the delusion of self-sufficiency befalls someone, they transgress.
9- "إِنَّ الْإِنسَانَ لِرَبِّهِ لَكَنُودٌ[22]و[23]- وَإِنَّهُ عَلَى ذَلِكَ لَشَهِيدٌ- وَإِنَّهُ لِحُبِّ الْخَيْرِ لَشَدِيدٌ" (Al-Adiyat/ 6-8)
Man has an ungrateful disposition before God; he is exceedingly ungrateful to God. And he himself bears witness to this matter. Yet he intensely loves pleasures. (Here, "khayr" does not carry a moral or ethical meaning; it signifies material enjoyment, the prime example of which is wealth.) Man is intensely fond of wealth and pleasure.
These three verses have been much discussed by exegetes, mystics, and ethicists, and they are very profound verses.
The Quran's Characteristics Regarding Man Are Statistical.
* Point: The characteristics that God Almighty enumerates for man are all human characteristics, but they are not inseparable necessities. None of the characteristics are like this. All the characteristics are statistical characteristics of man. Just like everything stated in the sciences. The laws expressed in the sciences are like this. (According to the law of nutritional science, every human must provide their body with a certain amount of calories, otherwise they will suffer a complication. Yet that ascetic who eats only one almond a week suffers no complication at all.) That is, it says regarding this subject, the vast majority of people are like this, which I have expressed in this law. (A statistical law)
Everything the Quran has stated about human characteristics has this statistical nature. The reason for this is that it offers a solution for deliverance from this state. We will address the meaning that the Quran sees the path of deliverance from this state in faith and righteous deeds. For example, after stating these characteristics, it says: "إِلاَّ الَّذِينَ صَبَرُواْ وَعَمِلُواْ الصَّالِحَاتِ" or "... الاّ المصلین" or "إِنَّ الْإِنسَانَ لَفِي خُسْرٍ إِلَّا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ."
So, these characteristics are not inseparable necessities of man, yet at the same time, struggling against them is not without difficulty.
Human Free Will Despite Societal Determinism from the Quran's Perspective
Q: Can it be said that the system of creation is a system in which the existence of sinners (based on human free will) is necessary?
Professor: An interesting point here is that if you consider the social system, the manager of society sees that if society lacks doctors, engineers, workers, and so on, education will not be organized. On this basis, they provide the grounds for selection towards each of these professions so that the balance of society is maintained and, for example, not everyone becomes a doctor, and so on. So, ultimately, that manager wants this, but they create these motivations and leave society to its own devices. Consequently, society reaches a state of equilibrium. But this equilibrium does not impose compulsion on each and every individual, although a determinism governs society. (If everyone becomes a doctor, the need for them decreases, doctors' incomes decrease, the inclination towards medicine decreases, and on the other hand, the need for teaching increases sharply, the value of a teacher's work increases, the desire for teaching increases... social equilibrium.) There is no problem with this because it does not govern the individual. Therefore, it does not deprive man of free will.
A similar situation exists in the system of creation: if everyone were like Abu Dharr, the social order would undoubtedly be disrupted, just as it would if everyone were like Mu'awiya. Therefore, God has decreed that society should have a balance so that its stability is maintained. But this is not determinism. For while it is true that the existence of both groups is necessary, which group I belong to depends on myself. I determine it myself. (Society is entirely compelled, but individuals are not.)
For this reason, theologians also say regarding divine decree and predestination that the existence of sinners and the righteous is divinely decreed and predestined, but which faction I enter is not decreed by divine absolute necessity; it is not determinism.
The Transcendent Society from the Quran's Perspective
Q: What is the first characteristic of a transcendent society?
The ideal society has two characteristics:
1) For anyone who wishes to pursue the path of perfection, the way is smooth and easy / they encounter minimal obstacles. 2) Anyone who does not wish to pursue the path of perfection meets with the punishment for their deeds, / the oppressor is punished.
Therefore, the ideal society is not one in which all individuals are infallible; such a society would not have a single instance of balance. Even the society of Imam al-Mahdi (aj) is not like this (as long as humans have free will, there will be both sinners and the righteous). However, in the ideal society, the social legal system is infallible, but this does not mean the infallibility of each and every individual.
Wassalam
.
.
Session Five
The attributes mentioned in the Quran for human beings are not necessarily the attributes of all human beings without exception.
Point: The attributes mentioned in the Quran for human beings are not necessarily the attributes of all human beings without exception. However, the generality of most human beings are like this. Sometimes, when an attribute is cited, it is clear from the attribute itself that it does not refer to every human being, and sometimes this point is explicitly stated (with "except" or something similar), such as when it says: ... except those who are patient, or ... except those who believe and do righteous deeds. In any case, the attributes of the generality of most human beings are such, and the generality of most means (99%) of human beings are like this.
Continuation of the discussion on the characteristics of human beings from the Quran's perspective
Ninth Characteristic: Weakness
Another characteristic of the human being is the characteristic of "weakness."
We previously said that from the Quran's perspective, the human being suffers from deficiency in the attribute of knowledge. But in addition to this, in the area of power, the human being also suffers from deficiency and imperfection:
The Quran says: "... Man was created weak" (An-Nisa/28). Human weakness is something palpable throughout life, but a portion of it becomes tangible and perceptible in specific situations. That is, a person is aware of some of their weaknesses and discovers others in specific situations. So it is not the case that we have knowledge by presence of our weakness, based on the reasoning that it is our weakness and therefore can never be neglected. But this is not so. We are not cognizant of all our weaknesses. Circumstances and conditions such as hardships and calamities, or the approach of death, or confronting someone stronger than oneself, or affliction with incurable or untreatable diseases, and so on, must arise for our weaknesses to be brought to our attention.
Examining human moral weakness in the first verse
Some intellectual writers have sought to infer human moral weakness from this verse as well (in addition to physical and psychological weaknesses). The subtle definition of moral weakness, in the words of "Socrates," is that "a state arises in a person wherein, despite knowing that 'A' is good, they do not do it, and despite knowing that 'B' is bad, they do it."
The discussion of human moral weakness in ethics and the philosophy of ethics
In ethics lessons, a precise discussion is also raised regarding moral weakness and its relation to the will.
Socrates believed that human beings do not suffer from moral weakness. That is, it is impossible for a person, knowing something to be good, not to do it, and knowing something to be bad, to do it. In other words, whenever one does something, one has deemed it good, and whenever one refrains from doing something, one has deemed it bad.
Among thinkers, Aristotle was the first who strongly insisted on human moral weakness and said we are so constituted that we truly possess this weakness. That is, we know an act is good but do not do it, and we know an act is bad but do it.
You know that moral weakness is closely related to the will. How can one deem something good and not will it? And how can one deem an act bad and will it? What occurs within the human being?
Rejecting the attribution of the meaning of moral weakness to the verse in question
Now, does the Quran, when it says "Man was created weak" (khuliqa al-insānu ḍaʿīfā), state the same thing as Aristotle? Or has Aristotle's statement been made or not? Whether Aristotle's statement is correct or incorrect, this matter does not arise from the Quranic verse. Why? Because the term moral weakness was not understood from the word "ḍaʿf" (weakness) in early Islam. Later, when Muslims became acquainted with this difference of opinion between Socrates and Aristotle, they rendered this term as "al-ḍaʿf al-khuluqī" (moral weakness). But at the time of the revelation of the verse, "ḍaʿf" was not understood to mean moral weakness. This is why we do not attribute ?? to the verse—of course, we are not in a position to judge whether or not the human being experiences this state; we say it does not arise from this verse.
Moral weakness from the Quran's perspective
This state of moral weakness appears in the Quran with the word "kufr" (disbelief/ingratitude). And we will address the fact that kufr is of two kinds: theoretical kufr and practical kufr. And practical kufr means precisely this: that one knows an act is good but does not do it, or knows it is bad and does it.
The tenth characteristic: "Kufr" and "Ẓulm"
10- Another characteristic attributed to the human being is "kufr" and "ẓulm" (wrongdoing/injustice).
"Indeed, We offered the Trust to the heavens and the earth and the mountains, and they declined to bear it and feared it; but man undertook it. Indeed, he was ever unjust and ignorant." (Al-Aḥzāb/ 72)
In this verse, which is entirely allegorical (mutashābih), being unjust (ẓalūm) and ignorant (jahūl) is attributed to the human being.
Some ambiguous points in the Verse of the Trust
Several points: In this verse, it is said that "We offered the Trust to the heavens and the earth and the mountains,"
1) Can a trust be attributed to inanimate objects as well?
2) What is this Trust? (A trust is anything given to an entrusted being, and therefore knowledge and will are presupposed beforehand.)
3) Why is there talk of "bearing" (ḥaml) the Trust, and it is said they "declined to bear it"? Is a trust something to be borne or accepted? Should one speak of bearing and not bearing the trust, or of rejecting and accepting it?
4) How did they decline?
5) It says "and they feared it" (wa ashfaqna minhā). It would require that it be said they first feared, then declined, but it says "they declined and feared."
6) It says "but man undertook it, man bore it."
Was it offered to the human being? How did he accept something that was not offered? Is this bearing conscious or unconscious?
According to the philosophers, the bearing is unconscious, but exoterically they have said it was conscious. (If it was conscious, now that it is forgotten, there should be no reckoning.)
7) Is the fact that man is unjust and ignorant the cause of accepting this Trust? Or the effect of accepting this Trust? Or does it have no relation to these two?
Examining the Meaning of Trust in the Stated Verse
A trust is a possession in which three points are considered:
1) It is temporary; it must be returned.
2) You agree to receive it.
3) You agree not to use it up.
Now, what is this trust?
Some have said: The trust is freedom (free will), some have said it is reason, and a group has considered it the guardianship of the Pure Imams, and so on. But the reality is that one cannot understand from the verses what that trust is.
There is another possibility, which is that this trust is the human soul. This is the only possibility in which the problem of unawareness does not arise, because having a soul is equivalent to awareness and freedom, and since there was no awareness before the soul was given, naturally it would not remember, and therefore, the issue that we were unaware is resolved. Yes, we were unaware; when they gave the soul, we became aware, and being unjust and ignorant is a requirement of the soul, not the body.
In any case, in this verse it is said that we are very unjust (ẓalūm).
Some Other Verses About Injustice
In the Quran, "injustice" is attributed to humans in many instances, but it seems that in each case, a specific kind of injustice is intended.
- "And He has given you from all you asked of Him. And if you should count the favor of Allah, you could not enumerate them. Indeed, mankind is [generally] most unjust and ungrateful." (Ibrahim / 34)
And He gave you whatever you asked of Him, which if you try to count, you cannot. Indeed, man is very unjust, and given to ingratitude.
* In the Persian language, we call every good thing a "blessing" (nemat), but in Arabic, a blessing is any good thing that another has given to me.
- "And He is the one who gave you life; then He causes you to die; then He will give you life. Indeed, mankind is ungrateful." (Hajj / 66)
- "And they have made for Him from His servants a part. Indeed, mankind is clearly ungrateful." (Zukhruf / 15)
The Semantic Difference Between "Kufr" and "Kufrān"
* In the Arabic language, "kufr" and "kufrān" are from the same root but differ from each other: Kufr = covering; for this reason, in the language of the Quran and the Arabs, a "farmer" is called a "kāfir," because he covers the seed with earth (the farmers marvel at its growth). Kufrān = being ungrateful. Ingratitude means "not showing an action befitting the blessing towards the giver of the blessing." This is, in fact, covering the blessing, concealing the blessing. In the Quran and narrations, "kufrān" in the sense of "ingratitude" is used frequently. But "kufr" in the sense of "covering" is not used; rather, it is used in a technical sense, and this technical meaning is covering the truth, which has two dimensions:
1) The theoretical dimension: That is, to know "A is B" is correct, but to deny it, and vice versa.
2) The practical dimension: To know an action is good and not do it, and vice versa. (This is the same as moral weakness)
(Both dimensions are used in the Quran and narrations)
Now, for this reason (the difference between the two words kufr and kufrān), the meaning of verses in which derivatives of «k-f-r» are used is problematic. For example, in verse 34 of Surah Ibrahim which was quoted, we do not know whether «kaffār» is an intensive form of kufr or of kufrān. Of course, if we pay attention to the context of the verse, since it speaks of blessings, one can say kufrān is more appropriate.
The Difference Between the Term Kāfir in Jurisprudence and the Quran
** Point: We take kāfir to mean outside the religion of Islam (in the jurisprudential sense, of course), but from a theological perspective, not everyone outside the religion of Islam is a kāfir. Because those outside the religion of Islam are of two groups:
1) Those who know that the propositions of the Islamic religion are true and right, but deny them—these have covered up the truth: Kāfir (unbeliever).
2) Those who are outside the Islamic religion but seriously and truly do not know that the propositions of the Islamic religion correspond to reality; they have no knowledge at all. These are not kāfirs, because they have not covered anything up. They do not accept the propositions of the Islamic religion, but they are not kāfirs, because they have not covered up the truth.
In other words, if "kufr" means covering up the truth, it is contingent upon knowledge of the truth. If I have no knowledge at all that it is the truth, so that I do not accept it, I am not a kāfir. Of course, from a jurisprudential (fiqh) perspective, such a person is also a kāfir, but "fiqh" is a science that emerged after Islam, and therefore it cannot be said that the jurisprudential term kāfir is used in the Quran. So, despite the fact that what fiqh says about those outside the Islamic religion is entirely true and the jurisprudential rulings apply to them, do not think that everyone who is a kāfir in the jurisprudential sense is also a kāfir in the theological sense—that is, because the Quran has promised Hell to the kuffār, they will go to Hell. (Of course, the jurisprudential rulings apply to both groups.)
Distinction between two categories of kuffār
The term kāfir (one outside the Islamic religion) in fiqh is a jurisprudentially transferred term, and a set of rulings have been stated for them (impurity, prohibition of marriage with them, etc.). These are correct, but the promises made to the kuffār in the Quran do not apply to every person outside the Islamic religion. Why? Because in the Quran, kāfir does not have the jurisprudentially transferred meaning. Kāfir in the Quran means one who covers up the truth (discerns the truth and denies it), and such a person will, of course, go to Hell. But this does not mean that every person outside the Islamic religion will go to Hell.
For this reason, the vast majority of non-Muslims in our world belong to the category that has not discerned the truth at all. That is, their denial is not based on knowledge. (If the acceptance of the propositions of the Islamic religion by Muslims were based on knowledge and investigation, etc., then the denial by non-Muslims would also be based on knowledge and investigation, but this is not the case.) From this perspective, those punishments do not pertain to this category of kuffār (in the jurisprudential sense); they pertain to the category that has discerned the truth and denied it.
Q: Theologically, meaning in terms of their fate in the Hereafter?
Professor: Yes, because the fate in the Hereafter is not related to fiqh. Fiqh does not speak of what is and what is not, and the fate of every person in the Hereafter belongs to the realm of what is and what is not.
On the other hand, those who are within the Islamic religion (that is, are Muslims by identity papers) are also of two categories:
1) One who discerns the truth and denies it: they are hell-bound.
2) One who does not discern the truth and denies it: they are not hell-bound.
Now, the result of this inquiry is that the only thing that matters is that a person recognizes the truth and denies it, whoever they may be—Muslim or non-Muslim. So, outward, identity-card Islam is not important. (Mystics and poets, wanting to express this matter without being explicit, would say that they are Muslims in name but not submissive to the truth; they are "kāfir at heart.")
The reality is also that those who have no knowledge at all bear no sin. That is why the Quran constantly says that in the Hereafter it will be said, "Seize the 'chieftains' (akābir, the great ones among its criminals)" of the people; this is because these are the ones who have discerned the truth and deny it. Otherwise, the rest are followers of these people; they are not people of discernment. As we said, even the Muslims who have accepted Islam have not accepted it with knowledge. Have Muslims examined all religions and investigated their propositions, and then done the same regarding Islam, and then accepted Islam? No one has done this; it is simply not within any human being's capacity. Why do we demand this of the followers of other religions? Is it correct to say that only the followers of the Islamic religion are exempt from this investigation (regarding other religions) and the rest are obligated to it?
Q: Then why are they reproached in the Quran?
Professor: What is reproached is misplaced imitation (taqlīd).
Q: Perhaps the reason for their obligation to investigate is that Islam is the final religion:
Professor: If that is the case, then all those who claim to have come after Islam (such as the Baháʼí Faith) must be investigated by Muslims. Temporal posteriority does not make a religion more complete; one might say that the earlier religion is more complete than the later one. There is no necessary connection between the two (or between any given time and perfection).
- Fundamentally, no indubitable rational proof can be brought for any religious proposition, and no one becomes religiously devout by this path.
Truth-Seeking While Remaining Religious
In my view, the duty of every human being—Muslim or non-Muslim—is to strive for the truth as far as their capacity allows, and wherever the outcome of this quest leads, they are correct and rewarded. However, two points must be noted:
1) One must strive, as far as their capacity allows, to have what the Qur'an calls "their utmost striving" (ḥaqqa jihādihā). They must truly be earnest and diligent in seeking the truth.
2) Whenever they discern the truth, regardless of any considerations, they must both accept it and declare it.
The result of their investigation may be erroneous, but human capacity extends no further than this. Now, consider a person who, apart from a few hours of sleep, rest, and earning a livelihood, must constantly work; for such a person, this investigation is also beyond their capacity. So do not take an overly broad meaning of "capacity" to say, well, this person should also forgo those few hours of sleep—that is not within their capacity. Even those whose entire work is research on religion can only do so much, let alone such a person. However, even this person knows in their heart that truthfulness is better than lying. Here, no investigation is needed, and no excuse is accepted, because these moral issues—like the goodness of truthfulness and the evil of lying, the badness of bribery, and so on—do not belong to any specific religion for one to say, for instance, I was unable to investigate Islam. The heart bears witness to these things.
Q: If, in God's view, a truly pure Muslim is no different from a truly pure Christian or a truly pure Buddhist, then what is the purpose of the differences in the precepts of these religions?
The Essence of Religion Is Inner Acts, Not Outer Acts
Professor: The presupposition of this question seems to be that, for example, performing the ritual prayer in the specific way it exists in Islam brings a person to the goal, but doing it in another way does not. However, the essence of religion is inner acts, not outer acts, and in inner acts, there is no difference between religions.
It is not these outer acts—prayer, fasting, and so on—that bring us to God. In the words of Imam Ali (peace be upon him): "Many are those who fast, but gain nothing from their fast except hunger and thirst, and many are those who keep vigil at night, but gain nothing from their vigil except weariness and weakness."
In all these outer acts, what matters is the inner dimension; otherwise, the physical performance of a hypocrite is no different from that of a true Muslim. What differs among religions is the outward form of acts; the inner dimension of acts does not differ. That is, the inner essence of prayer, which is the presentation of one's secrets and supplications, does not differ among religions. Now, if the outward form of my prayer is highly adorned but devoid of this inner essence, I have arrived nowhere.
Alexis Carrel says: "A priest recounted that one day we performed a very magnificent ceremony in the church. After the ceremony, I saw a ragged villager still sitting at the back of the church. We said, 'Father, the ceremony is over.' He replied: 'No, God is still standing here.'" This is what has been asked of us:
"The purpose of prayer was that, in secret,
I might confide the tale of separation's pain with You."
The Semantic Identity of Moral Weakness and Weakness of Will
Q: If we consider moral weakness to be caused by weakness of will, perhaps this can be inferred from the verse "Man was created weak" (khuliqa al-insānu ḍaʿīfā), based on what we have said from Aristotle.
Professor: Weakness of will is precisely the same thing we have referred to as moral weakness—that is, doing what we know to be bad and not doing what we know to be good. Therefore, weakness of will is moral weakness itself, not that moral weakness arises from it.
The difference between weakness of will and a differing viewpoint
The issue of moral weakness relates to the will. That is, how is it that we know something to be good, yet do not will it? Does not the will attend to what we know to be good?
The answer to this is that sometimes a person knows an act to be good, but from a higher perspective sees it (though they may be mistaken in this discernment) as bad; or they know an act to be bad, but from a higher perspective see it as good. The observer, however, does not grasp this point. That is, they do not see that higher badness or that higher goodness, and for this reason the agent and the observer do not agree on this matter, nor can they, for the inner worlds of two individuals are never identical. This correspondence cannot be achieved through reasoning either, and therefore this disagreement is ineradicable.
Now, when the agent performs that bad act (from the observer's perspective), they believe themselves to be doing a good act. That is, they see a bad act as an instance of a greater good (like someone who stays awake at night. If an observer tells them this is harmful to the body, they agree that it is harmful, but they have a reason within themselves according to which this act, despite its harm, is an instance of a higher good.) The observer only sees an act that is an instance of
Socrates, who does not believe in moral weakness, also does not have this problem of how the will fails to attach itself to an action one knows to be good, or attaches itself to an action one knows to be bad; but Aristotle faces this problem.
Socrates said, "Virtue is teachable." For if we consider his premise that "whoever does a bad deed does not know it is bad, and whoever does not do a good deed does not know it is good"—by making human beings knowledgeable about good and bad things, virtue can be taught to them. But Aristotle said it is not teachable. Because becoming knowledgeable is only one dimension of the matter; sometimes I know an action is good and do not do it, and sometimes I know it is bad and do it. Virtue is not entirely teachable.
Socrates, on the one hand, believed that "moral weakness does not exist" (because if one knows something to be good, one does it, and if one knows it to be bad, one does not do it), and on the other hand, in explaining regret, he said, "The cause of human regret is choosing a temporary good instead of a permanent good, or a greater temporary good instead of a lesser temporary good." But according to his own view, it is impossible for a human being to choose a temporary good. When a temporary good is compared with a permanent good, and the person is "Socratic," they will naturally choose the permanent good; yet he says regret occurs when a person chooses the temporary good, and we say that if they choose the temporary good, they are necessarily afflicted with moral weakness. This explanation of regret is inconsistent with his premise.
Q: But it is consistent with your premise.
Prof.: Yes, but for us there is a better explanation, which is the one already mentioned.
Q: Perhaps Socrates' view is that at the time of the action, one thought one was choosing the permanent good, but later saw that this was not the case, and therefore regrets it.
Prof.: Regret occurs only in two situations:
1) One knows an action to be good and does not do it, or knows it to be bad and does it (that very moral weakness or weakness of will).
2) One knows an action to be good and does it, but later realizes one was mistaken and it was a bad action, and vice versa.
This second type of regret relates to the consequences of the act, not to the act itself. The first type of regret relates to the act itself, to the deed.
For instance, when a father gives medicine to his sick child and later—upon seeing signs of the illness worsening—it turns out the medicine was wrong, regret occurs here, but this regret is not related to the act itself—because at the time of performing the act, the father genuinely thought he was giving the medicine appropriate for the illness to his child, and therefore did it with a completely clear conscience—rather, it relates to the consequences of the act. This state, of course, appears to be regret, but in reality, it is a state of "sorrow" that has ensued from the effects of the action. For this reason, some say this second type of regret is not regret at all, because regret pertains to the act itself (it is an attribute of the act); the effects and consequences of the act bring about "fear" or "sorrow," but they do not bring about regret. The object of regret is the act, not the effects and consequences of the act.
In the example I gave, that father does not regret the act he performed, because at the time of the action, he had a completely clear conscience. Yes, if at the time of the action he had the slightest suspicion of a mistake, regret would arise for him, but if this is not the case, fear or sorrow arises (on account of the consequences of the act), but not regret...
Salvation from the Perspective of Ethics
Q: If, in the vast majority of actions a human being performs, they are not afflicted with moral weakness, then human beings should attain salvation.
Prof.: Salvation is not merely about doing good deeds. Besides that, two other things are important in salvation: 1) intention, 2) doing the best deed. Intention is a very important discussion and is not raised at all in the discussions of Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates. This discussion is a later one in moral philosophy. From the perspective of religion, merely doing a good deed does not save me. Salvation is entirely dependent on intention, and in addition to intention, on doing the best deed (not just a good deed).
From the perspective of a moral philosopher, if you perform the right act, that suffices. But from the perspective of religion, one must perform the best of acts. Moreover, from the perspective of a moral philosopher, the role of intention is not a matter of consensus; some moral philosophers, such as Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle, did not believe in intention at all, and no one at all believed in the second matter (the best).
If salvation in religion were equivalent to what is spoken of in ethics, then truly, according to this theory, the majority of human beings would have to be saved, but this is not the case.
The ultimate concepts spoken of in ethics are right and wrong, and "right" means "the best among conflicts," and this is different from performing the best possible act. The better or best among conflicts means that if two acts are good and we have no choice but to perform one, we must perform the better one. Or if two acts are bad and we have no choice but to perform one, we must choose the bad one. "Bad" in the latter case and "better" in the former case constitute what is "right."
But in religion, conflict is not the only thing that matters; even in cases where there is no conflict, you must perform the best act. Whatever the case may be, whether there is conflict or not, even when we are not compelled to perform an act, we must still perform the best one.
The Meaning of Will in Moral Philosophy
Q: What does will mean?
Professor: What is called "will" in philosophy and moral philosophy refers to two things:
1) That which I want and which also leads to action.
2) That which I want, but an external obstacle (outside of myself) prevents it from leading to action.
However, in cases where we want to do something but do not do it (meaning the obstacle is internal), this is not called will; it is called "desire."
Q: What is intention?
Professor: Regarding the nature of intention, three views have been stated:
1) It belongs to the category of "action."
2) It belongs to the category of "passion," but a passion that is also a motive (it is not pure passion), and for this reason, intention is counted among motives.
3) A psychological state that arises in the clash of incompatible motives.
The discussion of intention is truly a difficult one. From the perspective of philosophical psychology, the best research in this field has been done by "William James." After him, this discussion entered the realm of experimental psychology.
A point that exists is that if someone believes theologically that intention is given full weight in religion, they must consider intention to be from the category of action, and specifically a voluntary psychological action, and it seems this matter is correct from a theological standpoint. In religion, great weight has been given to intention, and this weighting of intention differs from a theological perspective compared to a jurisprudential one. From the perspective of jurisprudence, intention is seeking nearness to God, and this is only stated regarding acts of worship. But from the perspective of theology, the intention spoken of applies both to acts of worship and to non-worship matters.
From the perspective of jurisprudence, if you perform the prayer with any purpose other than seeking nearness to God, it is not correct, but in returning a trust, for example, this intention is not obligatory. Of course, if you have this intention, you also attain spiritual perfection, but even if you do not, you have nonetheless returned the trust. But from the theological perspective, the value of every act lies in its intention, and it must not be neglected.
.
.
Sixth Session on the Ethical System of the Quran
Continuation of the Discussion on the Attributes of Human Beings According to the Quran
Another attribute ascribed to human beings:
Eleventh Characteristic: The Painful Nature of Human Life
11- "Man cannot live without suffering." (The suffering-laden nature of human life in this world)
On this subject, we have a very explicit verse in the Quran, and its mode of expression is also highly emphatic.
"We have certainly created man into toil." (Surah Al-Balad / 4)
As commentators have noted, it does not say that We created man as a sufferer, or created him with suffering; rather, it says, "We created man into suffering." That is, as if he is encompassed by sufferings. Sufferings have surrounded him, and he has no escape from them.
There is another verse in the Quran, but there is debate regarding its indication of this meaning. Many have cited this verse for this claim: "O mankind, indeed you are laboring toward your Lord with [great] exertion and you will meet it." (Al-Inshiqaq / 6)
If we were to translate it according to our purpose, we would have to say: "O man, until you reach your Lord, you are in suffering." Here, "kadh" has been interpreted as suffering, but this very point is subject to doubt, as to whether in the original Arabic language, kadh means suffering.
When we translate according to our purpose, the meaning of the verse is that, O man, this suffering continues until you meet your Lord.
According to this meaning, the pronoun "hi" in "mulaqihi" must refer back to "God." (So you will meet your Lord)
This interpretation aligns with the discussion, but what does it mean that it says, "until you reach your Lord"?
Two interpretations can be made here:
1) That is, until you die. Reaching the Lord = death, the time of death: Based on this meaning, it means that as long as you are in this world, you are not free from suffering unless you die.
2) Meeting God means witnessing God, perceiving God through presential knowledge. Based on this meaning, unveiling can also occur in this world. As long as you are in this world and have not attained the spiritual presence of God, you are in suffering.
An Objection Regarding the Verse's Indication of the Present Discussion
All of this discussion is contingent upon kadh actually meaning suffering. However, most lexicographers do not accept this. They say kadh means effort and striving. "O man, you are in effort and striving, and a day will come when you will hasten to see your deeds." (That is, the pronoun "hi" in "mulaqihi" does not refer back to God, but refers back to "kadh" (so you will meet your striving)). In this interpretation, there is no longer any mention of meeting God; rather, it says, see what deeds you are doing, be mindful of your behavior and actions, because you will encounter them later. See what entity you will meet in the future.
Which of these two interpretations and construals is more correct? Should kadh be taken to mean suffering or effort? If we want it to be consistent with the Arabic language (which we apparently have no choice but to do), we must take it in the second meaning. In the Arabic language, until these recent centuries, kadh was not used to mean suffering. At the time of the verse's revelation, kadh did not mean suffering; therefore, this verse is not useful for our purpose (proving suffering for man).
The Meaning of Human Life Accompanied by Suffering
Now, even if we set this matter aside and take kadh to mean suffering, is the first meaning even defensible—that man is in suffering as long as he is in this world? According to some religious scholars who have researched Judaism and Islam (since this matter is common to Judaism and Islam), the true meaning of Adam and Eve's expulsion from Paradise is this (the suffering-generating nature of worldly life).
Expulsion from Paradise = being placed in a location where suffering is your companion.
In their view, the expulsion from paradise is entirely a figurative expression; the Fall means falling from a land without suffering, becoming accompanied by suffering. That life in this world is accompanied by suffering is not explicitly stated in this verse, but something else is explicitly stated, and that is "enmity." The Quran says: "Some of you are enemies to others"—it considers this enmity as concomitant with the Fall; friendship no longer prevails. (Of course, when the Quran says: "We said, 'Go down from it, all of you. And when guidance comes to you from Me, whoever follows My guidance—there will be no fear concerning them, nor will they grieve,'" it means that amidst these enmities, there sometimes appear people who are your friends and invite you to guidance, and whoever heeds their call will suffer no loss. That is another matter.) With this interpretation—that the expulsion from paradise has a figurative meaning—this verse can also be considered for that same purpose (suffering in the world). But if we take kadh to mean striving, it is confirmed by many other verses of the Quran that we will one day meet our deeds (and even the recompense for our deeds). In the words of the philosophers, we will see the malakūt of our deeds.
The Meaning of Kadh as Striving
Now, what does "kadh toward your Lord" mean in this sense of kadh (striving)? It means that all the strivings of all human beings are directed toward reaching God. This is a claim that the mystics have made. Imam Khomeini, in his lessons and poetry, frequently emphasized this meaning: that human beings, whether they know it or not, are moving toward God. The picture of this meaning is as follows: human beings seek absolute knowledge, absolute power, absolute infallibility, absolute belovedness, and so on, and if they seek these things in an absolute manner, it in fact means they are seeking God. If you look closely, you will see that whatever human beings seek, they constantly want to attain higher degrees of it; they never want to stop. This means wanting things in an absolute manner, and if this is the case, the absolute instantiation of these things is realized only in God. This state of being unquenched by desires in the human being is a serious psychological reality. I accept this, and anyone who examines their own inner states will discover it.
Thus, the meaning of the verse becomes: O human being, you are striving toward your Lord.
Well, does this striving reach a result? The Quran says yes: in "then you will meet Him," both the destination is stated and it is said that the human being reaches this destination.
In this second meaning, the majority of exegetes consider the referent of the pronoun "hi" in "fa-mulāqīhi" to be kadh. Now, which is preferable?
Summary of the Discussion on the Signification of the Second Verse
It seems that in this case as well, it is better to refer it back to "your Lord." Of course, if we want to observe the principles of Arabic grammar, we must refer the pronoun to the nearest referent—that is, kadh. But if someone says that kadh here is an absolute verbal noun, then it makes no sense to refer the pronoun to it (meaning that kadh here is not the object of an implied kādih for the pronoun to refer back to it; rather, it is an emphatic absolute object: "O human being, you strive, a striving," and therefore the pronoun does not refer back to it).
Well, it seems that this verse cannot be used for our purpose; we are left with that first verse alone.
The Twelfth Characteristic: "The Human Being's Quarrelsomeness"
"... and man is the most quarrelsome of things" (Al-Kahf/ 54)
The human being is most given to disputation.
The Meaning of Jadal and Jidāl
"Jadal" among the people of the Arabic language means enmity in the way of falsehood, hostility from the side of falsehood. (Whereas, with truth, there is no enmity.)
But at the time of the Quran's revelation, jidāl also had a milder meaning, which is quarrelsomeness.
A point: What does this verse itself mean? From a literary perspective, it bears two possible meanings:
1) The human being disputes more than any other thing.
2) The human being disputes more than they do any other deed.
In the first meaning, it seems you have accepted that there are beings other than humans who engage in disputation, but that human contentiousness exceeds theirs. Disputation has also been affirmed for other beings. (From a literary standpoint, there is no flaw in this understanding of the verse.)
In the second meaning, it is said that man engages in disputation more than any other activity—other beings do not engage in disputation—no human activity is as frequent as disputation.
In this sense, the first meaning is broader than the second. Because in the first meaning, we have affirmed disputatiousness for non-human beings as well, but not in the second. However, in another sense, the second meaning is broader, because in this meaning you have affirmed other activities for man. But in the first meaning, you have not affirmed any other activity for man.
There is no literary impediment to either of these two meanings. However, it seems the second meaning is more in accord with the intended sense (not from a literary perspective). The first meaning is somewhat far-fetched. Its presupposition is considering those other beings as possessing knowledge and will. (For instance, an angel or jinn must be intended, but there is no necessity to incline toward this meaning.)
The Meaning of Human Contentiousness
* Now, what does it mean that humans engage in disputation more than any other activity? Can a general characteristic for humans be deduced from this verse? Can it be said that the vast majority of humans engage in hostility over falsehood?
The only point that has been made, and can be made, is that "truth has a bitterness, both practical truth and theoretical truth, and since humans usually flee from these bitternesses, in practice, not in theory, they do not confront themselves with the truth." They engage in hostility over falsehood.
(We will address this topic in the section on Quranic ethics.)
It seems that affirming contentiousness as a characteristic of man cannot be derived from this verse: we would be falling into contrivance. For two reasons: first, sometimes a statement is general in appearance but specific in reality. Like when the Quran says: "Cursed is man! How ungrateful he is!" Here, most commentators have said a specific person is intended. Perhaps this is also one of those cases where the title is general but the content is specific. It may well be that a particular human is intended.
Secondly, if we take the title and content as general, understanding the verse becomes difficult. How can it be said that man, in life, engages in hostility more than any other activity?
Thirteenth Characteristic: The Trait of "Grasping" in Man
"Say: 'If you possessed the treasuries of my Lord's mercy, then you would surely withhold for fear of spending.' And man is ever stingy." (Al-Isra/ 100)
This characteristic is general. "O Prophet, [say to all people] if you possessed the treasuries of your Lord's mercy, you would withhold (it has come with the emphatic 'la'—la-amsaktum), for man is fundamentally fearful of spending. Man is intensely miserly and grasping."
This characteristic is emphasized in other places in the Quran. And from a psychological perspective, it is entirely justifiable. In truth, human self-love necessitates withholding. Of course, self-love does not conflict with refraining from exchange, because one feels that what one gives is less than what one receives. From this perspective, this exchange is also a kind of withholding.
In other instances in the Quran, examples of this general rule are shown (for instance, regarding Korah), but I have not found another verse that states a general ruling.
Man only engages in spending (not just financial spending, but in any matter) when, at least in the realm of conception, he believes he is giving something for which he receives more in return. Otherwise, spending does not proceed from man.
Fourteenth Characteristic: The Unhindered Seeker
Examining the possibility of proving the fourteenth characteristic from the Quran's perspective
There is a verse in the Quran that is very important in terms of how we interpret its meaning. Whether this verse can be used in this discussion is a matter of doubt and uncertainty.
The verse cited for the fourteenth characteristic
That verse is one in which, in response to those who asked the Prophet, "Ayyāna yawm al-qiyāmah?" (When is the Day of Resurrection?), instead of answering, it addresses the motive behind their question and says: "Bal yurīdu al-insānu li-yafjura amāmah" (Surah al-Qiyamah / 5)
The fact that they ask you about the time of the Resurrection is not because they want to know when the Resurrection is; they want to consider the Resurrection itself a remote matter. What benefit do they derive from this? The Quran says: "yurīdu al-insānu li-yafjura amāmah" – man wants to commit fajr amāmah. What does this mean? The entire discussion revolves around "fajr" and "amām."
The meaning of fajr and amām in the stated verse
a) One meaning that some commentators – including Ostad Motahhari – have derived from this verse is that:
"Man wants to cleave what is before him." "Fajr" is taken to mean cleaving, and "amām" is apparently taken as the direct object of "fajr." Fajr in the sense of cleaving has also appeared in other places in the Quran ("fa-infajarat minhu ithnatā ʿashrata ʿaynan qad ʿalima kullu unāsin mashrabahum"). Man wants to cleave what is before him = man wants there to be no obstacle or barrier in his path.
With this meaning, a spiritual characteristic can be deduced for man. That is, man is a seeker of unobstructedness. This meaning is also consistent with the context of the verse, which is about the resurrection on the Day of Judgment. The Quran says they want to consider the Resurrection remote. Why? Because man dislikes obstacles, and the Resurrection is an obstacle to man's freedom of action. He can no longer do whatever he wants because he will face it on the Day of Resurrection.
Mr. Tabatabai, in Tafsir al-Mizan, did not emphasize this meaning.
b) "Fajr" = denial; "amām" = that which is to come, whatever comes in the future. This is a general term for the specific content, which is the Resurrection. So "yurīdu al-insānu li-yafjura amāmah" = "Man wants to deny the Resurrection." (It is a general statement). This meaning is much more appropriate to the context of the verses than the previous meaning. There is only one problem, which is that while it is true that "fajr" in Arabic can mean denial, this is a rarely used meaning. However, cleaving is the frequently used meaning of the word "fajr," and in the science of usul al-fiqh, it is said that if a word has two meanings, the more frequently used meaning should be adopted.
Summary of the discussion on the fourteenth characteristic
From this perspective, perhaps one cannot insist too much on this second meaning. Moreover, this description is not an ethical description for man either – and the discussion is about ethical descriptions – the idea that man is a seeker of unobstructedness can be a general ethical description for man, and this is when we consider the first meaning for the verse, but it is not certain that the meaning of the verse is the first meaning.
Now, which of these two meanings is preferable?
If we are to judge which one is more appropriate to the apparent meaning of the verse, it seems to me that there is one aspect of preference on this side and one aspect of preference on that side. The aspect of preference for the first view is that it takes "fajr" in its frequently used meaning, which is not the case in the second meaning. However, in the first view, "amām," which is a noun of place, is taken as the object of "fajr," and this occurs somewhat rarely in the Arabic language. This is the weak point of the first view. But in any case, perhaps a competitive characteristic cannot be derived for man, because both meanings are possible.
The fifteenth characteristic: Being discerning (basir)
Another verse that is highly subject to doubt and uncertainty is where the Quran says: "
Verses Cited for the Fifteenth Characteristic
بَلِ الْإِنسَانُ عَلَى نَفْسِهِ بَصِيرَةٌ - وَلَوْ أَلْقَى مَعَاذِيرَهُ (قيامه/ 15-14)
"Man is a witness against himself, even though he puts forth his excuses."
What does this mean? To understand the context of the verse, let us review the Surah from the beginning:
"In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
لَا أُقْسِمُ بِيَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ (1) وَلَا أُقْسِمُ بِالنَّفْسِ اللَّوَّامَةِ (2) أَيَحْسَبُ الْإِنسَانُ أَلَّن نَجْمَعَ عِظَامَهُ (3) بَلَى قَادِرِينَ عَلَى أَن نُّسَوِّيَ بَنَانَهُ (4) بَلْ يُرِيدُ الْإِنسَانُ لِيَفْجُرَ أَمَامَهُ (5) يَسْأَلُ أَيَّانَ يَوْمُ الْقِيَامَةِ (6) (From here on, it appears to describe the attributes of the Resurrection) فَإِذَا بَرِقَ الْبَصَرُ (7) وَخَسَفَ الْقَمَرُ (8) وَجُمِعَ الشَّمْسُ وَالْقَمَرُ (9) When the eyes are dazzled, and the moon is eclipsed, and the sun and moon are brought together.
(These are the natural features of the Resurrection; from here on, it enumerates the human features of the Resurrection)
يَقُولُ الْإِنسَانُ يَوْمَئِذٍ أَيْنَ الْمَفَرُّ (10) كَلَّا لَا وَزَرَ (11) إِلَى رَبِّكَ يَوْمَئِذٍ الْمُسْتَقَرُّ (12) يُنَبَّأُ الْإِنسَانُ يَوْمَئِذٍ بِمَا قَدَّمَ وَأَخَّرَ (13) بَلِ الْإِنسَانُ عَلَى نَفْسِهِ بَصِيرَةٌ (14) وَلَوْ أَلْقَى مَعَاذِيرَهُ(15) Man will ask: Where is the escape? There is no refuge. There is only one place of settlement, and that is with God. On that Day, man will be informed of what he sent ahead and what he left behind. Man is a witness against himself, even though he puts forth his excuses.
You can see that the context of the verse indicates it pertains specifically to the Day of Resurrection. The Quran says We will inform him, then says he does not need to be informed, he is himself aware. That man is fully aware of himself is a worldly characteristic that can be inferred from this verse. Of course, this verse does not negate self-awareness in this world; it is silent on that matter. It speaks of the Hereafter.
Objections to Citing Quranic Verses
Some wish to infer this as a worldly characteristic of man, but in my opinion, this cannot be derived from this verse—whether the Quran believes we are also witnesses against our own souls in this world or not—this verse only depicts our otherworldly attribute. Furthermore, the word "علی" (against) is used in this verse (بَلِ الْإِنسَانُ عَلَى نَفْسِهِ بَصِيرَةٌ). This wording conveys a kind of opposition; it does not say "لنفسه بصيرة" (a witness for himself), meaning man judges against himself (because the verb بَصَرَ is made transitive with عَلی).
Rational Examination of the Fifteenth Characteristic
Now, setting aside the Quranic and transmitted discussion, do we have insight into ourselves or not? If what is meant is insight against oneself, this exists: blame and remorse. Regret is a form of issuing judgment against oneself (giving a negative verdict on oneself). If what is meant is insight into oneself, meaning being aware of what passes within us, the mystics say we have insight into our own souls, but at each stage of the spiritual journey, we have insight only at that level; at whatever rank we are, we have insight at that rank.
For instance, it sometimes happens that a person feels sad. They feel the sadness but do not know the cause of its emergence, because the cause lies in a layer deeper than the layer in which they feel the sadness. This is why, for example, an individual goes to a psychologist or psychotherapist to understand the causes of their sadness. They understand the sadness because it occurs in a realm where their soul currently resides, but the cause of the sadness is in a deeper realm, to which the individual, while in this realm, has no access.
In this sense, it must be said that we do not have insight into all the realms of our soul. We only have insight into the realm in which we currently reside. Mystics say that, of course, one can traverse these realms one after another. In an expression, mystics say that a human being can be their own psychologist—in the precise sense of the word—meaning they can continually discover greater depths. From the mystic's perspective, self-knowledge is possible and within human capacity (albeit in the order mentioned). Judging this matter is the responsibility of the mystics themselves. We cannot pass judgment, but, in summary, the point is acceptable that we can increase the degree of our self-knowledge.
Several factors, in my view, can lead to an increase in this knowledge: (Everyone has mentioned a few of these factors, but in my opinion, all of them are effective.)
1) "Reflection on the motives of one's own actions"
In daily life, we dwell on the surface level of our existence. We are constantly acting and have absolutely no opportunity to reflect on why I spoke? Why did I remain silent? Why did I become upset? and so on. The fact that life can continue in this way is achieved at the cost of self-neglect. If we wanted to constantly reflect on ourselves, life would become constricted. It is like someone who wants to repair the car's engine while driving. It is impossible. One must either drive and leave the engine to its own devices, or repair the engine and stop driving. We are usually in the state of driving; on rare occasions, we attend to repairing the engine. This is how life can continue. If we want life to have its natural movement, we must be heedless. As Rumi says:
"The pillar of this world, O soul, is heedlessness;
Wakefulness is a calamity for this world."
But for self-knowledge, one must occasionally delve into oneself. By reflecting on the motives of one's actions, one can gradually come to know oneself. This is what mystics call "vigilance over the self" (muraqabah-ye nafs). In the state of self-vigilance, we exit the state of being an "agent" and enter the state of being an "observer." In non-vigilant states, we are agents; we are in the state of action. Sometimes one must enter the state of the observer. These two states cannot be combined.
* Point: Being an observer frequently and seriously causes your motives to become correct, and this affects our capacity as an agent. The human agent becomes different.
2) "The judgment of others about a person."
Of course, this judgment does not always correspond to reality, but at the same time, through the judgment of others—whether correct or incorrect—we come to know ourselves. Correct judgment is clear, as it is made from the observer's standpoint. For me, who am an agent, it is useful. Hearing the words of observers complements the words I speak about myself. There is no event in which the information of the agent alone or the observer alone is sufficient for interpretation. (Some argue that if a judgment is correct, it is of no benefit to me because I have knowledge by presence of it myself, and if it is incorrect, it is obviously of no benefit either, but in reality, this is not the case.)
What lesson do we learn from incorrect judgment? An incorrect judgment is incorrect, but it is not without reason that it is incorrect. This incorrectness itself has a cause, and that cause acquaints me with myself. It makes me understand that your outward behaviors (which have been judged by others) do not correspond to your inner self. (Of course, I do not deny judgments made out of malice, but those are not judgments at all. They are pseudo-judgments, because a judgment is that mental assertion, and the mental assertion of this individual is not identical with what they utter.)
In the expression of the Existentialists, "boundary situations," or in our own terms, those situations where ordinary life is lost and an extraordinary state emerges—in these situations, we come to know ourselves. If an earthquake were to occur now, we would know ourselves. This is a boundary situation. Confronting death is a serious boundary situation. Likewise, war, or confronting love, confronting the unkindness of others, and so on, is a serious boundary situation. In very simple terms, these situations, which are not the conventional state of life, are the ups and downs of life; they acquaint us with ourselves.
This has a dual property: the property of action and the property of insight.
In the beautiful expression of one Western thinker: "Refraining from sin makes the soul sound, and it also makes one's view of the soul sound." Firstly, it makes the soul sound because when one sins, one's soul becomes tarnished. When one refrains from sin, it becomes healthy — the practical effect of refraining from sin.
Secondly, it makes our view of our own soul correspond to reality — the theoretical effect of refraining from sin. We come to correctly recognize the health and sicknesses of our soul. Refraining from sin is very effective in helping us know ourselves. And this influence is twofold: we refrain from sin → the soul itself becomes healthy → our view of the soul becomes sound → we better recognize the flaws of the soul → we avoid them. But in any case, we must come to know the soul rank by rank. But as for whether a time comes when we know it as it truly deserves? The mystics say, yes. We are not concerned with that, but this is a path that can be traversed to gradually come to know our own soul.
And peace be upon you.
Some Concluding Questions
Q:...
Teacher: We can certainly attain knowledge of the unconscious self; the doubt is whether what is meant by 'self' is both the conscious self and the unconscious self.
Q: ...
Teacher: Sin stirs up a dust that makes seeing the dimension impossible. The soul loses its clarity to itself (since the soul is both the knower and the known here). The settling of the dust is achieved at the price of refraining from sin (sinning less).
- The sinful human being flees from confronting the self. The human being fears no terrifying enemy more than this. Confronting the self is a very difficult task. Because in confronting any other enemy, firstly, we have the possibility of escaping from it, and secondly, in that enmity, we do not consider ourselves at fault. But in confronting the self, firstly, we have no escape from ourselves, and secondly, in all such enmities, we are again at fault ourselves.
Q: If sinlessness leads to self-conceit, does it again become an obstacle to knowledge?
Teacher: Here, sinlessness is not the obstacle; the self-conceit arising from sinlessness — which is itself a sin — is the obstacle. But how one can be sinless without falling into self-conceit is a very important question, and its answer is also difficult.
Q: In 'li-yafjura amanahu,' could 'fajr' not mean a scientific splitting (meaning he wants to know everything)?
Teacher: 'Fajr' in the sense of penetration and infiltration into realities has been used in the Arabic language. This is a new interpretation.
Q: Is absolute knowledge a requisite for infallibility?
Teacher: It depends on the meaning we give to sin. If sin is doing what I know I should not do, and not doing what I know I should do, then absolute infallibility does not require absolute knowledge. But if sin means doing what should not be done and not doing what should be done, then absolute infallibility does require absolute knowledge.
.
.
[1]- In 'la-nabluwannakum,' there are two emphases.
[2]- 'Inqilab' in the Arabic language only means 'return.' There is no sense of overturning, as we understand it today, in the original meaning of the word in Arabic.
[3]- The 'lam' in 'la-nabluwannakum' is the 'lam' of purpose.
[4]- In the Quran, the word 'qala' is used both for the time of speaking and for the language of disposition. And in fact, in most cases, it refers to the language of disposition. In Persian too, when we say someone 'qā'il' (believes in) something, it means they hold that belief, not that they necessarily say it.
[5]- Rīḥ ṣarṣar: a severe wind that causes major harm, twisting things together.
[6]- Khizy = equivalent to abasement in Persian
[7]- Fussilat / 17
[8]- "Tankīs" in Arabic means "turning upside down," "inverting" – rajulun mankūs = an inverted man, an inverted human being
[9]- Likewise, in Surah Al-Hajj, verse 5, this matter is expressed in another way.
[10]- "Duʿāʾ" originally means "asking" or "requesting."
[11]- "Khayr" here means "wealth" or "property."
[12]- Qunūṭ: intensity of despair; qanūṭ: despairing (qunūt: humility and submission)
[13]- "Naʾa bi-jānibihi" has a literal meaning and is an idiom. Someone stays with a person as long as he needs him, but as soon as his need is met, he goes his own way; here, the Arabs say: "naʾa bi-jānibihi."
[14]- Surah Al-Baqarah / 148, likewise in Āl ʿImrān / 114, Al-Māʾidah / 48, Al-Anbiyāʾ / 40, Al-Muʾminūn / 56 and 61, and Fāṭir / 32.
[15]- Maḥabbah (love) differs from raḥmah (mercy). Maḥabbah is general and includes the love of a superior for an inferior, the love of an inferior for a superior, and the mutual love of equals; but raḥmah is that love which only encompasses the love of a superior for an inferior. This love is the most important and the most unalloyed of loves. The other kinds can be tainted. But if a superior has love for an inferior, it is untainted because the superior has no need of the inferior. And God's love is of this kind.
[16]- The word "ḍalāl" in Arabic means "getting lost." But it has three referents in the Quran; in three cases, the Quran uses the expression of getting lost. 1) Getting lost in the ordinary sense, i.e., not finding the way. 2) Those from whom one expects help scatter from around a person and do not rush to his aid; especially regarding the polytheists, this theme appears frequently, that they expect help from the "idol" but are left alone in distress. This expression is used both for their worldly state and their otherworldly state; when they are not around a person in times of hardship, it is as if they are lost. In the Hereafter, too, the polytheists and those who followed Satan are asked, "Where are your companions?" The Quranic expression is that they say: ḍalla ʿannā, they do not help us, they are lost.
3) When an entity departs from the realm of human consciousness. If you have taken shelter in a corner during an enemy bombardment, many people you would normally think of vanish from the scene of your mind. You think only of yourself, your spouse, children, parents, and siblings. If the danger intensifies, siblings also vanish from the scene of our consciousness; if the danger increases further, parents, too, flee from the page of your awareness. And if this hardship reaches its ultimate limit, a person finds only himself on the page of his consciousness. This psychological expression appears very subtly in the Quran: if hardship becomes extremely severe, only two beings remain on the page of human consciousness: God and myself. And I have kept God there to help myself.
[17]- Jānib al-barr: the expanse of dry land.
[18]- Ḥāṣib in Arabic: storms accompanied by sand, pebbles, etc.
[19]- Qāʿidat ibn al-rīḥ = (qaṣf: pulverizing) winds that shatter the ship to pieces
[20]- Surah Al-Māʾidah, verse 64.
[21]- ينبأ اليه. Inābah: return. Pay attention to this point in the Quran. The Quran does not say mutawajjihan ilayh (it does not use the word tawajjuh), except in one instance; in the remaining cases, it uses the term "inābah." Inābah means the principle is that you should be facing Him, but you have turned your back on Him, so you must return. Tawajjuh means turning towards, and this implies He is in front of us. But the state of inābah means you have departed from the normal state (of having your face towards you), and therefore, if you wish to see Him again, you must turn back. If you are in a normal state, even if you are inattentive, if you wish to emerge from the state of inattention, you take a step towards Him; but if God is behind me (an abnormal state) and I wish to attend to Him.
I must turn back, and this turning back indicates two sins: 1) inattention, 2) walking in the opposite direction. For this reason, the Quran does not use the word "tawajjuh" regarding God Almighty, but instead uses the terms "tawbah and inābah," or "rujū‘" and "ṣayrūrah."
In other words, a human being who is on the path may become weak, but at least they are on the path. However, one who has fallen off the path has both been weak and is walking in the opposite direction of the path.
* Point: In the Quran, two types of terms are used for return: 1) rujū‘ and ṣayrūrah (ilayhi yarji‘u al-umūr - ... ila Allāh al-maṣīr...) 2) tawbah and inābah.
Both mean return, but the difference is that rujū‘ and ṣayrūrah are existential, philosophical, and ontological return. All human beings, whether disbeliever, polytheist, or monotheist, will return to Him. It is a compulsory and inevitable matter. But tawbah and inābah are psychological, moral, and emotional return. It is a volitional matter. Some human beings repent, and some do not.
[22]- Nakūd: ingratitude, kanūd: ungrateful
[23]- Here, three emphases appear: 1) inna at the beginning of the verse, 2) the lām of lakanūd, 3) the precedence of li-rabbihi over lakanūd, which is a sign of emphasis in the Arabic language (and in Persian as well). Whenever what should come first is delayed, and what should be delayed comes first, it is a sign of emphasis. Normally, it should have been said "lakanūdun li-rabbihi," but it was said this way. In verse two, the same emphasis exists.
.
.
The Ethical System of the Quran:
Date: Year 1370
Number of Pages: 69
Download PDF file from Server One | Server Two
.
.
Discussion0 comments
No comments yet; let yours be the first voice.